http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2012/02/mons-brunero-gherardini-su.html

[decent Google translation from Italian]

For some time he has been talking about it again. There is no doubt that the topic is very interesting. Nothing, however, made us think, until recently, that the position definitively acquired with Benedict XIV [1] would be discussed again. Actually, the last interventions have proposed very little new; they only called attention to the relationship between papal infallibility and canonization. Not the new position was the doubtful or even negative, not that new affirmative. On both sides there are repeated arguments of the past and irrelevant was, perhaps with the sole exception of D. Ols [2], their contribution to a deeper knowledge of the problem and a critical foundation of the proposed solution.

Since I too have been touched by the "demon" of curiosity and rethinking, I gather the essential points here in an almost provocative form. Who knows, I told myself, that someone does not help me to understand better!

It seems superfluous to declare that my reconsideration starts from the concrete situation of a dogmatically undefined "truth", with a consequent margin of freedom that some "theological notes" limit, yes, but do not completely stifle. And it is implied that my "provocation" remains within these limits.

1 - THE COMMON DOCTRINE

Neither the Denzinger [3], nor the CJC of 1983 [4], nor the Catechism of the Catholic Church [5] expose it: an evident sign that it is foreign to what the Church declares and promulgates "definitive way". Therefore, the common doctrine of canonization must be sought elsewhere, and precisely in the ecclesiastical magisterium not "ex cathedra", in the same canonization bulls, in other non-dogmatic ecclesiastical interventions and in the theological debate. I'll talk about it later.

1.1 - Their analysis allows us to define the canonization: "An act by which the Supreme Pontiff, with an unquestionable judgment and final sentence, formally and solemnly inscribes a Servant of God, previously beatified, in the register (or canon) of the saints ». This definition is completed, ordinarily, with the clarification that the Pope intends to declare with it the presence of the canonized in the bosom of the Father, that is in eternal glory, as well as his exemplarity for the whole Church and the duty to honor him everywhere with the cult due to the Saints.

It should also be kept in mind, in order to determine more precisely the nature, that the canonization is specified in formal and equipoIlente: it is formal, when all the usual procedures have been completed; equivalent when a Servant of God is declared a saint by virtue of a secular veneration ("ab immemorabili") [6].

Therefore, a Blessed canonize, generally and formally speaking. The discriminating element between beatification and canonization is recognizable in the fact that one prepares the other and this - from the formal point of view - does not prescind from that. But while canonization extends the cult of the new Saint to the whole Church, beatification permits it only in the local area - a diocese, a province, a nation, a religious order or a congregation -. In fact, it appears from the usual formulas [7] that, by canonizing a Blessed, the Pope's intention is to extend the cult on a universal level. In this regard, the verbs of pragmatism are unequivocal: "to declare, to declare, to send, to constituire, velle", from which we can clearly distinguish those relating to simple beats: "indulge, licentiam concede".

1.2 - Not only from the extension of worship to the whole Church with the consequent involvement of all the faithful, but also from the declared exemplariness of the new canonized and the implicit assurance that he is in the glory of heaven, the common doctrine has deduced infallibility of the canonizing.

It should be immediately noted that the proponents of this infallibility induce it with a reasoning - I would say - absurd: "It would be intolerable if the Pope, in such a declaration that implies the whole Church, was not infallible" [9]. It is therefore infallible because it would be intolerable that it was not! Obviously, there is no lack of theological reasons that to "intolerable" replace "not possible": the promise of divine assistance to the magisterium of the Church, hence the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the connection of canonizations with the truths of faith and of Costume, that is with the specific object of papal infallibility [10]. On this connection, however, there is more than one reason to discuss.

All this opens up a range of historical-theological reflections on the thesis under examination; in particular, on the true notion of ecclesiastical magisterium and papal infallibility, as well as on the ecclesiological implications of the substantial distinction between beatification and canonization. These are just such reflections that either are lacking, or are of no specific relevance, both in the favorable authors and in those opposed. The monotonous repetition of insufficiently reasoned motives, but also of those connected with concrete facts - the Nepomuceno, p. ex., and Goretti, in the past, others in the present - which would seem to question, or even exclude the infallibility of canonization, will not give wings, yes or no, to fly very high.

2 - THE ECCLESIASTIC MAGISTERIUM

"It is the power conferred by Christ to his Church, supported by the charism of infallibility, by virtue of which the teaching Church is constituted as the sole depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation, to be offered authoritatively to men as objects of faith for eternal life" [11].

Do not ask me the theological proof of the assumption; this is not the place to do it.

It is also well known to every scholar of theology that this magisterium rests on unequivocal new-testamentary assertions (Mt 16,16-20; 28,18), from which it emerges that Christ made it the living tool for the diffusion and protection of his message, concentrating it above all in Peter (Mt 16: 18-20, Lk 22.32, Jn 21: 15-18). In him he predicted, of course, the unbroken chain of legitimate successors, thus characterizing the magisterium itself with the notes of universality, perpetuity and infallibility (Mt 16,18-20; 18,18.20).

The Tradition of the Church, explicitly or not, has always considered in Peter and its legitimate successors, as well as in the college of the Apostles and in the bishops that they take over in the government of the Church in communion with the Pope and never against, or without, or above of the Pope, the owners of this magisterium. Therefore, it stands before the conscience of the individual and of the Church as the whole "regula fidei proxima". On the contrary, Vatican I, followed by Vatican II, seemed to identify primacy and magisterium, even if formally one belongs more to the sphere of inter-ecclesiastical relations and the other to the sphere of faith: "Ipso autem Apostolico primatu, quem Romanus Pontifex tamquam Petri principis Apostolorum successor in universam Ecclesiam obtinet, supremam quoque magisterii potestatem comprehendi, haec Sancta Sedes semper tenuit, perpetuus Ecclesiae usus comprobat, ipsaque, oecuмenica Concilia, and imprimis in quibus Oriens cuм Occident in fidei caritatisque unionem conveniebat, declaraverunt "[12]. The internal logic of faith, firmly fixed on the rock of divine revelation, can therefore look to the ecclesiastical magisterium as the perennial and infallible charism of Christian truth.

2.1 - The magisterium is not expressed unequivocally; it is no coincidence that we speak - not always, unfortunately, correctly - of solemn, extraordinary, ordinary and authentic magisterium.

The solemnity of the magisterium concerns its form and the maximum of solemnity is reached by the ecuмenical Council. Even the Pope can solemnly re-attempt an error and proclaim a doctrine or canonization; but although no Council is called, if not convened, directed - "per se vel per alios" - and confirmed by the Pope, the solemnity of the papal act does not reach that of the Council; this is given by the authoritarian synergy of the bishops who, in communion with the Pope, are also "subiectum". supremae ac plenae potestatis in universam Ecclesiam "(LG 22b), which authentically represent and for which collegially they operate. The fullness of the magisterial power, in fact, in addition to the Pope, resides in the "corpus episcoporum" in communion with him. the solemnity of the magisterial act is personally implemented in the Pope and collegially in the ecuмenical council; in both cases it is the Church's response to exceptional circuмstances.

The extraordinary or ordinary character of the ecclesiastical magisterium depends on the manner in which it is expressed, and on the circuмstances in which it is expressed; not by its effectiveness and extension. An ordinary magisterium of the Pope and one of the bishops is given, both individually and collegially considered, as successors of the Apostles and qualified witnesses of the faith. While the extraordinary magisterium is extrinsic through the forms of the ecuмenical council and the "locutio ex cathedra", the ordinary magisterium is by far the most frequent through intervention modalities neither conciliar nor pededratic. The Pope exercises it through a range of interventions lacking in solemn and extraordinary form, in response to important but not extraordinary circuмstances; bishops practice it, in communion of faith and teaching with the Pope, in the Episcopal Conferences, in the individual dioceses, with written and oral teaching, with the diocesan Synods, with the composition and approval of the catechisms, with the development of a careful life liturgical. But, in the case of the bishops, none of them can harbor claims of infallibility. Their infallibility is only collegial, in context, p. eg, of an ecuмenical council.

It is also customary to speak of an authentic magisterium, recognizable in papal or episcopal interventions of which one wishes to certify or undoubted belonging and legitimacy, or doctrinal and disciplinary validity. The LG of Vatican II speaks three times: in 25 / a, about the bishops, which are called "doctores authentici seu auctoritate Christi praediti"; still in 25 / a, with reference to the Pope, to recommend "religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium singular ratione praestandum ... Romani Pontificis authentico magisterio, etiam cuм non ex cathedra loquitur"; and in 51 / a, to affirm "authenticuм Sanctorum cultum non tam in actuum exteriorum multiplicitate quam potius in intensitate amoris our actuosi consistere". From this it follows that:

• authentic is certainly the ecclesiastical magisterium by virtue of who pronounces it or of the pronounced truth;
• such it is always in each of its forms: solemn, extraordinary and ordinary;
• this can also be outside of them, in less specific papal and episcopal interventions, provided they are connected with the divine Revelation and the doctrine of the faith.

3 - THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM

I am not referring directly to the authentic magisterium which, for what I have indicated above, may or may not be covered by the charism of infallibility. I wonder if, because and under what conditions the magisterium, either solemn, or extraordinary, or ordinary, is infallible. In fact, given the already mentioned promise of divine assistance, the infallibility of the magisterial interventions, within the limits of the promise itself, is among the prerogatives of the magisterium itself.

3.1 - Divine assistance is the inescapable premise of any discourse on the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope. It is the profound reason for the unreformability of any authentic magisterial intervention "in rebus fidei et morum". A profound reason, therefore, also of papal infallibility: with such assistance, God himself is compromised - so to speak - with the papal assertion as a guarantee of his unalterable truth. For this reason, «Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles sunt» [13].

That in this the Lord has truly been compromised is witnessed by his own words: from his prayer for the indefectibility of Peter and his mission as a universal teacher (Lk 22, 32); from the assurance of his coexistence to the Church from the end of the world (Mt 28, 20); from sending the Spirit of truth to the Church of yesterday, today and tomorrow, so that it may introduce it into all truth (Jn 16, 13) and safeguard it from all error.

It is a divine assistance which, according to the supportive neo-testamentary steps, can not be defined merely as "mere negative". It is a pity that one still insists on this limitation, perhaps to avoid the danger of a misunderstanding between the assistance of the Holy Spirit and illumination or private revelation. That the infallibility of the Pope should not be connected with some personal illumination from above, nor with an equally personal revelation, there is no doubt: it is also "ad aedificationem fidei" (Eph 4, 29). Indeed, if the function of the Spirit of the Father and of the Son is to lead the faith of the Church and the Christian conscience "to the possession of the whole truth",

3.2 - The previous combination between papal infallibility and infallibility of the Church is just. Right, because it conforms to Tradition and to the confirmation it had from Vatican I: "Definimus Romanum Pontificem ... and infallibilitate pollere, here divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam ... instructam esse voluit" [14]. Two infallibility are not at stake that are added together, or they elect each other; but one and the same charism, which the legitimate owners have in the Church, in the Pope and in the bishops who are considered collegially and in communion with the Pope. This charism is expressed in a positive form, first and perhaps more than negative. And when the magisterium, announcing the Christian truth or resolving any controversies, remains faithful to the "depositum fidei" (1Tim 6, 20, 2Tim. 1, 4) or discovers new and previously unexplored implications . And it's also at work,

The reference to "negative mere" also emphasizes a function of infallibility, which, far from being identified with a private prerogative, due to exceptional intelligence or extraordinary illumination from above, is in so far from the already mentioned divine assistance, to which both the negative moment (preserves from the error) and the positive moment (introduces in all the truth) is owed.

3.3 - Of the same infallibility, in its two negative and positive aspects, the Pope is also the owner since the beginning of the Christian era. "Indicated" is not the same as "defined", even if, in the last analysis, the thing counts, not as it is proposed. San Clemente introduced himself authoritatively into matters of faith that had arisen in Corinth; St. Ignatius is taken by admiration for the Church in Rome; Sant'Ireneo seeks communion; San Cipriano recognizes in it the root of unity; St. Ambrose is the first to found on Mt. 16, 18 the discernment of the true Church and St. Augustine does not hesitate to declare that, in the Roman Church, "semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus" [16], for the reason that the Lord Jesus "in cathedra unitatis doctrinam posuit veritatis" [17].

The fact that the Popes, after Clement Romanus, always exercised universal and unquestionable magisterial power over the centuries is part of this historical-traditional testimony. The great Scholasticism added nothing, with Thomas, Bonaventure and Scotus, to the almost universally acquired doctrine of papal infallibility, if not a major theological foundation. Finally, Vatican I made it a dogma of faith, without deifying a man thereby or canceling in it the prerogatives and even less the essence of the Church.

3.4 - In this regard, the careful consideration of the words of the dogma seems very opportune: «Definimus Romanum pontificem, cuм ex cathedra loquitur, id est, cuм omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens pro his supreme apostolic auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, for assistentiam divinam ipsi in blessed Petro promissam, and infallibilitate pollere, here divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque huiusmodi Romani pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse ». Words weighed with extreme rigor. Not only do they not deify a human being, but, in the very act of recognizing a charism of which no one else is in possession, they set clear limits and rigid conditions for the exercise of it. The Pope, in fact, "is not for the fact of being Pope (simpliciter ex auctoritate papatus) [18], is absolutely infallible". It is perhaps time to repeat with frankness and firmness what was already repeated in the recent and distant past about the need to free the papacy from that kind of "papolatry", which certainly does not contribute to honor the Pope and the Church. Not all papal declarations are infallible, not all being at the same dogmatic level. In fact, most of the speeches and papal docuмents, even when it touches the doctrinal sphere, contains common teachings, pastoral orientations, exhortations and councils, which formally and contentistically are far from the dogmatic definition. Nor is this if not in the presence of the conditions established by Vatican I.

- « Ex cathedra » [19]: the expression derives its meaning from the exemplary and moderating function that, from the beginning, made the Bishop of Rome the master of the universal Church and of Rome itself the " locus magisterii ". In use since the second century as a symbol of the magisterial function of the bishop, the chair later became the symbol of the magisterial function of the Pope [20]. Talking "ex cathedra" means, therefore, speaking with the authority and responsibility of those who enjoy supreme, ordinary, immediate and full jurisdiction over the whole Church and on each of its faithful, including pastors, in matters of faith and of costumes, but not without reflexes and even disciplinary effects.

- « Omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens»: The sentence makes explicit the content of" ex cathedra ". New Testament biblical sources and docuмents of Tradition converge in the definition of Vatican I to affirm that the infallibility of the papal magisterium arises only when the Pope teaches all the divine Revelation and makes his teaching obligatory to all.

- « Pro supreme his Apostolic auctoritate»: Is the formal reason for his infallible and universal teaching. This reason is due to the apostolic succession of the Pope to Peter, who was therefore the first, but not the only one, bishop of Rome and Pope as bishop of Rome. To all his successors on the "Roman cathedra" competes, therefore, all that Christ had given to Peter, "ratione officii, non personae". It is therefore less correct to say "personal infallibility of the Pope" rather than "papal infallibility". But even if one wants to insist, as some do, on "personal infallibility", one should always distinguish the "public person" from the "private person" in the Pope, remembering that the "public person" is determined by his office.

- " Doctrinam de fide vel moribus»: It must be treated, that is, of truth to be believed and qualifying the Christian existence, directly or not contained in the divine Revelation. A different object of the papal teaching can not claim to be covered by the charism of infallibility, which extends as much as the Revelation itself.

- " Per assistentiam, divinam ": not any intervention by the Pope, not his simple warning, not his every teaching, is guaranteed by the assistance of the "Spirit of truth" (Jn 14, 17; 15, 26), but the only one that, in harmony with the revealed truths, manifests what the Christian must, as such, believe and implement [21].

Only in full and absolute respect for these conditions, the Pope is guaranteed by infallibility; it can therefore appeal to it when it intends to oblige the Christian in the area of faith and morality. It should also be added that, from the whole of the papal intervention and the words that express it, it must result, together with the respect of the indicated conditions, the Pope's will to define a truth as directly or indirectly revealed, or to settle a question "de fide vel moribus", with which the whole Church must then conform its teaching and coordinate its practice.

3.5 - It is evident here that we are dealing not with generic and plurisignificant notions of infallibility, but with the strictly theological notion of it. And even within this boundary, infallibility is understood only if one avoids lexical ambiguity, p. es. of a Karl Barth [22] who confuses infallibility with indefectibility. On the other hand, the concept is not clarified, from the theological point of view, ignoring it [23], nor even relegating it transversally to other contexts [24] or considering it under incomplete formal aspects; think of the negative "Irrtumlosigkeit" [25] certainly not wrong, but learn to testify, of the infallibility, the positive meaning, the underlying value, the grace, the charism that, by the will of Christ, enriches the Church and the Pope .

Indeed, the positive meaning is primary and as such should be emphasized; on the one hand it gives the maximum guarantee ("fide divina vel divino- ecclesiastica") of the truth, for another it safeguards the truth itself from any counterfeit or erroneous or heretical. Infallibility thus comes to be infinitely more than absence of error and impossibility of it; it is the presence of truth, it is superior certainty of it, intimately and inextricably linked with the being of the Church. His error, in order to the truths to be believed or the morality to live, would be resolved against the Church itself, destroying it [26]. In short and for these reasons, theological infallibility has a conceptual framework strongly conditioned by Revelation and therefore has very little in common with philosophical, scientific and legal infallibility.

4 - INFALLIBILITY AND ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM.

Before asking whether the canonization of a Blessed presents the full and absolute respect of the conditions indicated above, and therefore enjoys infallibility, it is necessary to resume the discourse on the ordinary magisterium of the Pope and verify whether or not it is infallible. Those who judge the adjective "ordinary" as synonymous with "less important and less valid" would be wrong. Its meaning can be derived from the papal office and its reference to a certainly authentic form of it, even if not solemn or extraordinary.

Now, not being obliged to always treat " de fide vel moribus ", neither only in moments and for extraordinary reasons, nor even in treating them always in the solemn form of the " locutio ex cathedra"- in fact this happens rarely! - the Pope most often deals with it in the ordinary form, particularly in the Encyclical Letter, the Bull, the Constitution and so on. In the most recent history of the Church, encyclicals are certainly known to be cathedratic, from the " Ineffabilis Deus " of Pius IX [27] to the " Miserentissimus Deus " of Pius XII [28], dedicated respectively to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and to that of the Assumption. ; someone [29] includes among them the "Humanae vitae" of Paul VI [30] on the safeguarding of life. The Dublanchy [31], not without some excess of zeal, recognizes the dogmatic character also to some encyclicals of Leo XIII on the strength of their doctrinal content: the doctrine concerning the Christian marriage, in the "Arcanum "of 10.2.1880; the divine origin of civil power, in the " Diuturnum " of 20.6.1881; the sovereign and native independence of the Church, in the " Immortal Dei " of 1.11.1885; the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, in the " Providentissimus Deus " of 18.11.1893; the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and the nature of the Church, of the " Satis cognitum " of 29.6.1896.

The fact is that the charism of infallibility can also connote the ordinary magisterium of the Pope, even if he does not respond to all the conditions of the cathedratic definition. If the Pope really wanted to proclaim a truth as a dogma of faith, or to determine its exact meaning and belonging to the Catholic faith, "Locutio ex cathedra "would be the most suitable form for this purpose; in this case, the Pope is also obliged to express his will and awareness explicitly to speak as "pastor and doctor of the whole Church" and to declare his "definitive" intention. However, it does not always proclaim a "definitory way" truth, that is " ex cathedra ". If a truth has already been defined; or whether it is truth deduced from those revealed, or with those revealed and defined as closely related; or, if the content of the papal intervention is, by circuмstances and content, of an ordinary nature, then the intervention itself does not exceed the limit of the " definitive tenendum". In both cases, due to the onset of evident dogmatic conditioning, the charism of papal infallibility is still underway. In the "definitive way", it is directly and immediately for the occurrence in it of all the conditions to which it is linked; in the " definitive tenendum ", indirectly and almost reflexively. The emerging datum is, however, the presence of such infallibility.

How, in fact, to deny it to a magisterium that, albeit in an ordinary form, reproposes the truths contained in the Creed and in the various professions of faith, in the anti-modernist oath (of the first and second draft), in the sacred liturgy which is the dogma prayed , and in the sacramental life of the Church?

The question, then, on the background of the foregoing, is whether a canonization, formal or equivalent, re-enters the dogmatic framework of papal infallibility and therefore enjoys it.

5 - THE DOGMATIC FACT

Note: I say "fact", not truth or doctrine. That it is called dogmatic, does not in itself imply that it is also a supernatural fact. The Incarnation of the Word, his passion and redeeming death, his resurrection and ascension into heaven - just to give some examples - are without doubt facts. But their emergence on the supernatural level excludes that they can be classified as dogmatic in the sense understood by the post-Tridentine theology: they are themselves real dogmas, divinely revealed truths and the Church inserted into his Creed.

According to postridentine theology, dogmatic facts are related to the concreteness of things, to their factual reality and natural knowledge, while maintaining their relationship with the world of faith. By analogy, they can relate to natural truths, that is, known only by the forces of human reason, such as the existence of God, spirituality and immortality of the soul, natural morality: natural truths which are then confirmed in Christian Revelation and they also become the object of supernatural knowledge. In fact, even the so-called dogmatic facts maintain a connection between their natural and supernatural realms. They are not any facts; their very factuality pertains to revealed truths. So they get to know each other with dogma. Hence their status as dogmatic facts.

It is also a duty to recognize that, in theology, dogmatic facts do not give univocality of judgments. One can only say that the reference to concrete emergencies appears to be prominent in the authors - the presence, p. eg, of Peter as bishop of Rome, the history of an ecuмenical council, the impact of its currents and the dialectic of its doctrines - in which it is also present, with all evidence, a dogmatic meaning by virtue of their logical and necessary connection with truths contained in the Revelation and dogmatically defined.

The question of dogmatic facts exploded when - on May 31, 1653 - Innocent X condemned five propositions extracted from the Augustus of Giansenio. Distinguishing the doctrine of the five propositions from the fact of their affiliation with Augustinus, some did not object to the infallibility of the condemnation, but denied that the condemned doctrine was actually found in the offending work. The controversy is known and therefore there is no reason to insist on it: I only say that both the magisterium of the Church and the theological reflection demonstrated the groundlessness of the said distinction. In particular, the great Bossuet, later followed by Fenelon, pointed out, as many as 24 cases in which the ecclesiastical magisterium had been authoritatively and definitively pronounced, although it was a matter of facts, before or more than of doctrines [32]. The subsequent development of theological reflection linked the dogmatic facts with certain truths of definite faith, thanks to the presence in them of a bond, either intrinsic or extrinsic, between facts and truths. Intrinsic was said to be the bond of those facts which are integrated into the dogma: p. es. original sin. Extrinsic, on the other hand, is the link which only connects facts and dogma from the outside: p. es. the defense of a definite truth, the legitimacy of the election of a Pope, the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34]. either intrinsic or extrinsic, between facts and truths. Intrinsic was said to be the bond of those facts which are integrated into the dogma: p. es. original sin. Extrinsic, on the other hand, is the link which only connects facts and dogma from the outside: p. es. the defense of a definite truth, the legitimacy of the election of a Pope, the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34]. either intrinsic or extrinsic, between facts and truths. Intrinsic was said to be the bond of those facts which are integrated into the dogma: p. es. original sin. Extrinsic, on the other hand, is the link which only connects facts and dogma from the outside: p. es. the defense of a definite truth, the legitimacy of the election of a Pope, the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34]. the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34]. the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34].

The attention to these facts is justified, therefore, not on the basis of a purely historical interest for them, but on their involvement in the dogma. And since "canonization is universally recognized among the dogmatic facts" [35] the consequence of its infallibility must be said from the formal point of view. But is the formal point of view enough?

It was above all Fenelon [36] the assertor of the infallibility of the magisterium judgments on the dogmatic facts; but he too gave an absurd justification: if he were not infallible, the magistery would deceive himself and, with him, the whole Church.

In this way he continued the constant teaching of the Church, at least from St. Bernard onwards, and in particular from St. Thomas Aquinas, on the words of which I will shortly discuss. This teaching still insists on the need to recognize the dogmatic facts as their intrinsic or extrinsic infallibility, so that the Church can be able to respond with confidence to her universal mission. An error in this matter - and thus reaffirms the reasoning by absurdity - would have detrimental repercussions on the Christian life. As much as he would have the approval or disapproval of a religious order, of a congregation or of an institute, if the Pope could, in such matters, fall into error. Religious life, p. eg.,

The possibility of such an error, targeted by Melchior Cano [37], had already been decidedly rejected in its time. Both in the field of the aforementioned approvals / reprobations, and in that of canonizations - and therefore in relation to any dogmatic fact - the Pope's ordinary magisterium, even in the absence of formal definitions, claimed that infallibility which is usually recognized in the exercise of the extraordinary and solemn magisterium. Even in disciplining the universal Church, as well as the Diocese of Rome, and in educating it as its pastor and doctor, the Pope enjoys, in fact, the same infallibility that Christ endowed his Church with. However, in order for it to appeal to such infallibility, it is necessary that its interventions be always traceable, directly or not, to Christian Revelation.

But is a canonization? Here is the problem.

6 - THEOLOGICAL ELABORATION

The overwhelming majority of theologians answer affirmatively; those who favor a negative, or even only doubting, answer are very few. The question, as I said at the beginning, is back today on the carpet.

6.1 - The press agency of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X [38] has questioned the infallibility of the canonizations only for contingent reasons: the canonization of this or that candidate. Others, with reasons of undoubted theological weight and for fundamental reasons, had preceded it. Among them, p. for example, there is also FA Sullivan [39], to whom "it is not clear why a canonization should enjoy papal infallibility" and allows the "magisterium ... to guard and explain the deposit of Revelation". On the level of historical verification and theological critique, Fr. De Vooght [40] took a negative position with a powerful essay in which he complained, among other things, "that the infallibility of the Church and the Pope has not prevented, has even authorized and encouraged for many centuries the Christian people to venerate some saints, of which today we know that they have never existed ". In that same period of time, with an eye to concrete facts, even A. Delooz [41] came to similar conclusions. The De Vooght [42] expresses them, however, with unprecedented peremptory: «The papal infaillibilité the faut proclamer trés haut pour l'honneur de l'eglise - est cells of a homme here, aussi en tant que pape, peut if tromper et s'est fréquemment trompé ».

More recently, the aforementioned D. Ols, a Dominican, spoke on the subject; his conclusion is quite clear: "Since not the canonization ... necessary for the custody and defense of the faith, it does not seem that ... it is such that it can be subjected to infallibility" [43]. On the other hand, in recent times F. Ricossa [44] and E. Piacentini [45] have pronounced themselves, in line with the position of the aforementioned majority which, in the pre-conciliar period and in the years immediately following Vatican II, I will include in his womb E J. Kieda [46], E Spedalieri [47], U. Betti [48], in addition to the aforementioned Frutaz, Veraja, Lów, and many others: an imposing array, in support of the more traditional doctrine . For it, no doubt exists on the correlation, at least indirect, between the infallibility of canonization and Christian revelation. However, the municipality does not convince itself of the reasons given, nor the absence of a true critical analysis or personal elaboration. But the same is also true for opponents.

6.2 - As proof of the link between canonization and Revelation, it is usual to distinguish between primary and secondary object of infallibility. In the impossibility, made evident by the thing in itself, to include the canonization among the primary objects of the inability to - it is not, in fact, a direct and explicit content of the Revelation - it is included in the secondary one of the so-called " connected truths "and a" theological conclusion "[49] is enough to legitimize this inclusion. In this way, canonization also finds itself covered by the charism of papal infallibility - in the manner of dogmatic facts and of ecclesiastical legislation itself - because "connected" with Revelation by two truths of faith: the cult and the communion of saints. Thus connected to Revelation, it consequently assumes a universal value,

Such a universality, which co-ordinates the canonization to the whole Church in space-time dimension, is one of the elements on which it is routinely used to support and defend the infallibility of canonization. The Pope, it is said, can not err in what concerns the Church of today and tomorrow, here and everywhere: it can not lead it to the brink of the abyss and not even feed it with poison. Therefore, if he makes a gesture concerning the whole Church, he shoots with it and in it the charisma of his "personal" infallibility. Moreover, together with the universality, other reasons would also be in favor, as listed by Piacentini [50]:

6.3 - It does not seem to me that such reasons must be rejected as a whole and a priori; I also feel a certain value, albeit minimal and equivocal. But I also feel the weight of those contrary and particularly those arising from cases of non-existent Saints or Saints not at all holy. It is useless and not very honest to hide behind the screen of the declared enemies of the Church, whose denigration and that would only depend on the historical nonexistence of this or that saint or his moral unworthiness. Such cases exist and the Church, teacher of truth, has nothing to fear in recognizing and disavowing them. The most recent example, confirming this, was the post-conciliar suppression of some festivals of Saints, on which historical research had not been able to shed light. I must therefore argue that not all the aforementioned reasons present an identical incontrovertible value. Indeed, even those of greater weight offer the side to some discussion.

So this debate is welcome. Not only for the benefit of the "subiecta materia", but also to protect against the monotony of the unconvinced and even less convincing repetitions.

7 - OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATIONS

The title of this paragraph does not allude to an anti-infallible position, to use a term of frequent deployment in the diatribe on papal infallibility before and after Vatican I. It refers only to one aspect of this discussion - the one concerning the infallibility of canonizations - and not to say no, tout-court, to such infallibility, but to detect, according to my personal judgment, the questionable nature of the reasons that support it. I know well to be together with a minority [27] and I do not ignore the very serious judgment of the acknowledged Master on the subject [28] against those who dared to oppose this type - it would be better to say: object - of infallibility. He would not escape the note of "reckless and scandalous", insulting of the saints and favorable to heretics; God escape me and free! I think, however,

- Beginning with the nature of canonization: all are in agreement in judging it "non immediate de fide". To be so, it should coincide with what Vatican I calls a "locutio ex cathedra" and does not evade any of its conditions. But it is evident that the canonization does not define any revealed truth; and as for his "moral and necessary connection" with some of these truths, by virtue of which - and therefore "mediated" - the canonization would at least implicitly "de fide" I wonder if the reasons deduced by Saint Thomas are correctly interpreted and suasive .

The Angelico says - and they all monotonously repeat -: «Quia honor quem Sanctís exhibemus, quaedam professio fidei est, here Sanctorum gloriam credimus, pie credendum est quod nec etiam in hiis iudicium ecclesiae errare possit». Shortly above he had declared: "Si considetur divina providentia quae Ecclesiam suam Spiritu Sancto dirigit ut non erret, ... certum est quod iudicium Ecclesiae universalis errare in hiis quae ad fidem pertinent, impossible est ... In aliis vero sententiis, quae ad particularia facta (the bold is mine) pertinent, ut cuм agitur de possessionibus vel de criminibus vel de huiusmodi, possible est iudicium ecclesiae errare propter falsos testes "[29].

The foresight of St. Thomas - and p. Ols [30] - is such as to induce him to distinguish between certainty and certainty: the dogmatic one, which is expressed in the context of faith and that is not directly dogmatic, which is expressed in areas not directly connected with faith. One excludes peremptorily the possibility of error ("certum est quod impossible est"), the other admits it ("possible east"). And the reason for this admission is not only human fallibility, but also human malice ("propter falsos testes"), and it had already stated: "iudicium eorum qui praesunt Ecclesiae errare in quibuslibet, si personae eorum tantum respicetur, possible est") . Notwithstanding that the Angelic also includes canonization in the framework of the things to which the promise of divine assistance extends, and for this reason he recognizes its infallibility, it must be pointed out that for him the canonization is not part of "hiis quae ad fidem pertinent" and that, therefore, considered outside the divine assistance, that is in the judgment "eorum qui praesunt Ecclesiae", it could also be subject to error. It is not by chance that I have underlined the words "particularia facta": to say that even the so-called dogmatic fact which is usually assimilated canonization, in what concerns its singular concreteness and contingency could be erroneously judged, with serious prejudice because of its connection with the dogma. If the Angelico saves the canonization from error, it is not because we do not remember that "here praesunt Ecclesiae errare possunt"; or because it does not take into account the fact that the canonization is extraneous to Revelation, convinced as it is that infallible teaching of the Church is not given in the matter of revealed truths and of things necessary for eternal salvation. He confines himself to saying that papal infallibility in canonizing someone is the object of "pious credence - pie creditur", since the canonization itself "quaedam professio fidei est ... ad gloriam Sanctorum".

Nothing to complain about the Tomasian connection between canonization and the profession of faith and the glorification of the saints. But it is certainly not a connection of this kind to transform a papal sentence on the uncommon, indeed heroic quality of a Christian witness, in a divinely truth, even if implicitly and indirectly revealed. If the revealed object is then missing, it would be very little respectful of the dogma and its requirements to assimilate the canonization to the said object, only:

These two points, however, should be verified in the light of the limits and conditions to which each dogmatic pronouncement is subject.

- A second point concerns the eternal salvation of the canonized. I state that if the infallibility of canonization is not strictly "de fide", neither the "declaratio" and the "praesumptio" of the state of "comprehensor" in relation to a canonized are not. The problem, therefore, lies entirely in that "strictly of faith". If this were the case, the canonization would be grafted onto the whole (the "Symbol") of the truths to be believed. Since the evidence excludes such a graft, one insists on the "non immediate de fide", that is, on a faith of reflection, indirect, implicit. If not that, as a whole, the divine Revelation does not offer a single engagement of the canonization to any of its truths; and we can not see then how to base on canonization the direct and necessary deduction of a theological conclusion that connects it to the faith, even "not immediate". The only link could be found in the texts (Mt 16, 18-19 and 18, 18) that promise the divine endorsement of the Pope and the Church. The "de fide divina" does not derive from it, but rather the "ecclesiastical de fide", founded on a magisterial deduction and application of a divine promise to the exercise of the magisterium. The certainty of divine endorsement is here outside of every discussion; it has from it the reality of the divine promise and the continued "witness of the Church and of her visible Head, to whom God promised infallibility" [31]. But God promised it to a well-defined exercise of magisterial power, as is clear from a good exegesis of the texts indicated above and by the Vatican Decree itself. This delimitation excludes that dogmatization and dogmatic definition are equivalent.

- The decisive role of the papal will in beatification and in canonizing someone is well known; it delimits the beatification to the particular Churches or to well-defined portions of the people of God, and gives to the canonization a universal value, declaring it valid if not also obligatory for the whole Church. It is a role that no Catholic criticizes: it recognizes it firmly linked to the "potestas clavium". Not for this reason, however, the charism of infallibility derives from it. This, as we have seen, is always legitimized by absurd reasoning: otherwise the Church would teach the error; otherwise the Church would not be "Mater et magistra"; otherwise the faithful would be deceived.

It seems to me, however, that the charism of infallibility linked to reasoning by absurdity loses much of its value and remains difficult to understand. In fact, it does not explain how and why it arises in the event of canonization and not of beatification. No one, be it clear, intends to limit the freedom of the Pope more than what the sacred texts and dogma require; and no one, therefore, is able to prevent the Pope and the freedom of his primatial power from extending the efficacy of one of his acts to the universal Church, or to a particular Church. But neither this freedom nor the extension of its exercise imply or demand the coverage of infallibility as necessary. Indeed, excluding this cover is an ecclesiological reason. Indeed, the Church is not a sum of particular churches: «Ecclesiam suam Iesus Christus non talem finxit formavitque, quae communitates plures complecteretur genus similes, sed distinctas neque iis vinculis alligatas, quae Ecclesiam individuam atque unicam efficerent, eo plane way quo 'Credo unam ... Ecclesiam' in Symbol fidei profitemur» [33 ]. This being the nature of the Church, rightly LG 26 / a draws the following conclusion: "Haec Christi Ecclesia vere adest in omnibus legitimis fidelium congregationíbus localibus". This means that even the most remote Christian community, as long as it is legitimate, is Church: in it is the Catholic Church. Therefore, every ecclesiastical decision "in rebus fidei et morum" addressed to "a legitimate particular aggregation of the faithful", regards it as Church because it is the Church. And it has, at least implicitly, a universal extension, as well as a particular one. In fact, from the universal Church, the particular one derives its legitimacy as Church. Therefore, this unitary unity of the Church means that every universal magisterial decision touches the individual Churches; and vice versa, how much it is addressed to them is not alien to the universal Church. What is the meaning of distinguishing canonization - infallible because universal - by beatification - not infallible because local? - If one is supported by the charism of infallibility, why should not the other? And if the beatification is not, why is it or should it be canonization? how much it is addressed to them is not extraneous to the universal Church. What is the meaning of distinguishing canonization - infallible because universal - by beatification - not infallible because local? - If one is supported by the charism of infallibility, why should not the other? And if the beatification is not, why is it or should it be canonization? how much it is addressed to them is not extraneous to the universal Church. What is the meaning of distinguishing canonization - infallible because universal - by beatification - not infallible because local? - If one is supported by the charism of infallibility, why should not the other? And if the beatification is not, why is it or should it be canonization?

- In the history of the Church, even recent, there are questionable saints, who lent, that is, and lend their side to not really positive reliefs. Others, as I have already noted, did not even exist. It is not my intention to go down to details, subjecting both to a "super virtutibus" investigation and a historical verification: I do not write to make controversy. On the other hand, those who did have had unconvincing answers, especially 'if built at the expense of history. Nobody is authorized, not even the Pope nor the Church, to place as saint in the reality of history, who as a saint did not live in it, let alone who did not live at all because he was never born. The critical question is then unavoidable: even the canonization of questionable or even non-existent Saints, or even the only tolerance of their official cult, happened in the name of infallibility? Closely related to the charism of infallibility, and perhaps even more than the canonization itself, the proclamation of a new Doctor of the Church can be considered. Not so long ago there was one that had previously been clearly rejected by another Pope. It is true that the no had been delivered not to a formal act but to an informal decision. But it was an authentic decision that could be linked, by virtue of its object, to the ordinary magisterium. And here again the critical question: who of the two Popes was infallible, the one of no or that of the yes? had been clearly rejected by another Pope. It is true that the no had been delivered not to a formal act but to an informal decision. But it was an authentic decision that could be linked, by virtue of its object, to the ordinary magisterium. And here again the critical question: who of the two Popes was infallible, the one of no or that of the yes? had been clearly rejected by another Pope. It is true that the no had been delivered not to a formal act but to an informal decision. But it was an authentic decision that could be linked, by virtue of its object, to the ordinary magisterium. And here again the critical question: who of the two Popes was infallible, the one of no or that of the yes?

This being the case, questions, perplexities and reservations coagulate, making it very difficult to join infallibility with canonization. Difficult, because the reasons of the yes, to the scrutiny of the criticism, lose not little of their value.

- The tridentine approval of the cult of the saints is historically undeniable, as well as theologically flawless and dogmatically indisputable. That this approval reveals the potestas sanctificandi can also be granted. But that the Council of Trento considers infallible this potestas is at least to be proved. Between the power of proclaiming new saints and the infallibility of proclamation there is such a diversity of formal respects, that one thing is not, nor does it demand the other. And whoever claims otherwise, would behave in a theologically and logically incorrect manner.

- As for the communion of Saints, anyone who knows the exact theological notion, can not but refrain from making a foundation of papal infallibility to guarantee the canonization: above all the "Saints" of the formula does not allude, either exclusively or principally, to canonised.

- That the formulas in use and above all the appeal of some Popes to their infallibility in the very act of canonization, as well as the use of the "bubbles" of canonization to expressions typical of the "definitory" language, lay for the "praesumptio infallibilitatis ", Seems at first glance an undoubted fact. But precisely this fact, in the light of the questions and reservations that I am exposing, gives the critical question a stronger incidence and a greater emphasis: how and why was this possible? How and why is it still today? On what bases of indisputable theological validity?

- That today as well as yesterday, and tomorrow as well, man has a vital need for models to be imitated, it is evident. But from here to the infallible qualification of the proposal of the single model, there is the abyss of gratuitousness.

- That the canonization is equated with a dogmatic fact, it is true. But precisely because it is dogmatic, it raises some questions about its connection with Christian Revelation and with truth from the Church defined as revealed. It is in fact to be demonstrated whether, concretely, a dogmatic fact is linked to dogma thanks to its intrinsic or extrinsic link. The link is by definition and is not denied; therefore, at least indirectly and implicitly, a dogmatic fact could be, in some way, not extraneous to the charism of infallibility. However, it does not exist because the canonization must be assimilated to a dogmatic fact. That this is said and repeated is not a reason; the ancients, no coincidence, warn: " quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatu r".

The following reasoning is therefore gratuitous and therefore rejected: every canonization is infallible because it is a dogmatic fact as "it proposes to the whole Church a model of holiness to be imitated, to be venerated and invoked" [34]. It seems clear that here we do not reason, he says. Almost infallibility right here and in itself "liquid pateat".

8 - CONCLUSION

It is superfluous to repeat that the present writing is neither a formal denial of papal infallibility in the "subiecta materia" nor the symptom of my adherence to contested ventions. I know, by the grace of God and for my long academic teaching on the chair of ecclesiology, that the Church is always Mother and Teacher and that, even as such, it is the only anchor of salvation. I have no certainty that she herself does not communicate to me and does not guarantee me; nor do I have doubts, doubts and reservations about the eternal salvation that she is unable to silence and resolve. The present writing, therefore, is confident and reverent before it with the meaning of "methodical doubt": it is not an end in itself, it does not hide surreptitiously and boldly the hand that throws the stone into the vespaio, he does not let the things that dare not declare openly emerge in the mists of the indirect discourse. It is doubt that, not opposing the magisterial assert, it simply means being a means to reach a higher degree of certainty. And all within that margin of freedom that the absence of the theological note "immediate de fide" opens to the Christian conscience in order to the link between papal infallibility and canonization. It is desirable - it seems to me, due to the seriousness of Catholic theology - that on this same link renewal is not the sterile polemic, nor the pedestrian repetition of the reasons for or against, but a deeper and more original discussion. It could already be a step forward, p. eg, the observation that the "non immediate de fide" is confirmed in the very act of canonization, that does not require us to "believe" the new Saint, but declares that he is such, that is, Holy. And even outside the aforementioned link, it would not be trivial if it were established that the meaning of "Saint", understood by the Bubbles of canonization, is that of "worthy of worship", and not of "blessed comprehensor": a field this will be better left to the free and unquestionable judgment of God. Equally important would be not to get behind the distinction between formal and equivalent canonization: for one and the other in question is the infallibility of those who canonize, not the way with which he canonizes. Finally, it would also seem appropriate to give an authentic interpretation of the complaints with which the Bubbles often accompany the individual canonizations: they are not an excommunication, not being consequent to a dogmatic definition; are then a mere moral or juridical censorship about the behavior of the faithful before the individual new canonized? As you can see, the road to critical analysis is wide and open. The essential thing is not to stay around the corner.

NOTES

1 See Benedictus XIV, De "Servorum Dei beatification and de Beatorum canonizatione", 7 vols. Prato 1839-42: I, n. 28, p.336B: "Si non haereticuм, temerarium tamen, scandalum toti Ecclesiae afferentem, in Sanctos iniuriosum, faventem haereticis negantibus auctoritatem Ecclesiae in Canonizatione Sanctorum, sapientem haeresim, utpote viam sternentem infidelibus ad irridendum Fideles, assertorem erroneae propositionis et gravissimis poenis obnoxium dicemus esse qui auderet asserere, Pontificem in hac aut illa Canonizatione errasse ... et de fide non esse, Papam they infallibilem in Canonizatione Sanctorum ... ».

2 See Ols D., "Theological Foundations of the Saints' Cure", in AA. VV. Of the "Studium Congreg. De Causis Sanct. ", Pars theologica, Rome 2002, p. 1-54.

3 See a small exception is DS 675, which concerns the canonization of Ulderico, bishop of Augsburg, in the Lateran Synod of January 31, 993; in DS 2726-27bis it is only the approval of the writings of the candidates to the honor of the altars.

4 See a single mention in c. 1403/1: «Causae canonizationis Servorum Dei reguntur peculiar pontifical legality».

5 See also here only one mention to n. 828 to indicate for what purpose the Church canonize some of his best sons.

6 Cf. Ortolan T., "Canonization dans l'Eglise romaine", in DThC II, Paris 1932, c. 1636-39.

7 Cf. Here are a few: "Inter sanctos et electos ab Ecclesia universali honorari praecipimus"; "Apostolicae Sedis auctoritate catalog sanctorum scribi mandavimus"; «... anniversarium ipsius (sancti) sollemniter celebrari constituimus»; «Statuentes ab Ecclesia universali illius memoriam quolibet pious year devotione recoli debere».

8 See in this regard Ortolan T., "Canonization", cit., C. 1634-35; Veraja F., "The beatification: history, problems, perspectives", Rome 1983; Stano G., "The rite of beatification from Alexander VII to our days", in AA. VV., "Miscellany on the occasion of the IV Centenary of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (1588-1988)", Vatican City 1988, p. 367-422. 9Cfr. Löw G., "Canonization", in EC III Rome, p. 604; Federico Dell'Addolorata, "Infallibility", VI, p. 1920-24; Ortolan T., "Canonization", cit., C. 1640. It is the application, I do not know to what correct point, of an unexceptionable general principle of St. Thomas, Quodl, IX, 16: "It is true consideretur divina providentia quae Ecclesiam suam Spirit