This quote (which makes sense to me) is attributed to a Fr. Hunwicke here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10172.0


"I have some queries which are genuinely queries. My mind really is not made up regarding the Infallibility of an act whereby the Roman Pontiff 'canonises'; and the probably but certainly related question of whether a de fide assent is required. I shall be entirely capricious in binning comments which just rant, especially if they are preoccupied with the canonisations due next April. I assume that everybody with an interest in this subject knows exactly what the Vatican I text of Pastor aeternus said and did not say about Papal infallibility. It is useful to have read parts of Benedict XIV's De Beatificatione et Canonizatione, and Liber1 Caput LXV really is required reading; it can be found by googling Benedicti papae XIV Doctrina de Servorum Dei beatificatione et ..., and then scrolling down to pages 55-56 (42-43 in the printed book which Google copied). It was written before the election of Prospero Lambertini to the See of Rome.

Theologians of distinction can be listed who have taught that Canonisation is an infallible act of the Papal Magisterium. But, with regard to those who wrote before 1870, is there not a prior question that has to be asked? The Church had then not defined (i.e. put limits, 'fines', to) the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The terms of Pastor aeternus are (to the chagrin of Manning and the palpable relief of Newman) extremely limited. Therefore, can we be sure that those earlier theologians really were categorising canonisation as infallible in the sense of the word infallible as defined with all the limitations of the 1870 decrees? Or, because of the limits imposed by that definition, might they have used a different term had they needed to develop their arguments within the confines of what Pastor aeternus lays down? Is this why Benedict XIV accepts the possibility of arguing that what a Roman Pontiff decrees may be infallible, but still not be de fide? After 1870, I surmise, that possibility may not be open to us: because the scope and function of the term infallibilis have changed to imply that a proposition is of faith. Am I right?

In assessing the arguments of such pre-1870 writers, should we pay attention to the general extent which they assert when talking about the authority of the Roman Pontiff? That is: if a writer is generous in his estimate of the fields to which papal infallibility extends, should we be less willing to assume that he is writing in terms of something like the limited 1870 definition, than we would be when considering a writer who is very much more sparing and circuмspect in associating infallibility with papal interventions?

Pope Benedict XIV teaches that the Holy Ghost prevents the Pope from erring in Canonizations, in that very chapter.

Condemned:

44. Augustine, Benedict, and Bernard have been damned, unless they repented about this, that they had possessions and instituted and entered religious communities; and thus from the pope to the last religious, all are heretics

Yes..before the judgement of the Apostolic See...like during the process leading to the canonization. (Even beatifications)

But once the Decree of Canonization is promulgated, the Apostolic See has already judged. It has already officially decreed that the person is enjoying Eternal Bliss at the time of the canonization.

Pope Benedict XIV teaches that the Holy Ghost prevents the Pope from erring in Canonizations, in that very chapter.

Noone is forced to follow this or that or no group of theologians. Even if all theologians held all the exact same opionon. We're forced to follow the pope and the bishops. We believe what they extraordinarily or ordinarily teach.

Its ironic that the writer SJ believes that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, ...

Here’s my only point in all of this. To say, generally speaking, without any qualification, that “canonizations are infallible” is untrue.

The denial of such truths without reason is considered “temerarious” or “reckless” but the in light of the canonization process changes post-V2 and the unprecedented situation in the Church, such a decision to withhold full assent is not reckless but prudent, (especially in light of the ongoing child-abuse scandals and it’s affect and tainting of JPII’s legacy...and the rumors of John XXIII’s freemasonic ties).