Author Topic: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible (Read 18741 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #255 on:** August 31, 2018, 11:13:38 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 10:34:03 AM

In the final analysis, if the Church can pronounce:

and be mistaken, then you turn the Church into a joke.

I earlier stated that the formula explicitly meets all the notes of infallibility and does everything but use the word "infallibly". I now amend that. Benedict the XVI added an explicit reference to the error-free Magisterium. He thereby EXPLICITLY invoked infallibility. "... that Christ the Lord may not permit his Church to err in a matter of such importance". Case closed, Johnson and Pax.

Both popes received the Last Rites, John XXIII “The Holy Father had received the last sacraments of the Church on Saturday morning (June 1) at his own request. And Pope John Paul II "Thursday night, as his health deteriorated, the pontiff was given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican source told CNN."

All anyone has to do now who wants to continue arguing there is no way these popes made it to heaven, is admit they have no faith whatsoever in the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

And your statement earlier is still ridiculous. The only time the pope is infallible is when he speaks ex cathedra - and that means when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. - THAT is the doctrine of papal infallibility - you add whatever you want to the doctrine, but that won't make it so, and doing so will never cure you of your dogmatic doubtism, only feed it.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #256 on:** August 31, 2018, 11:54:01 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 31, 2018, 11:13:38 AM

Both popes received the Last Rites, John XXIII “The Holy Father had received the last sacraments of the Church on Saturday morning (June 1) at his own request. And Pope John Paul II "Thursday night, as his health deteriorated, the pontiff was given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican source told CNN."

All anyone has to do now who wants to continue arguing there is no way these popes made it to heaven, is admit they have no faith whatsoever in the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

And your statement earlier is still ridiculous. The only time the pope is infallible is when he speaks ex cathedra - and that means when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. - THAT is the doctrine of papal infallibility - you add whatever you want to the doctrine, but that won't make it so, and doing so will never cure you of your dogmatic doubtism, only feed it.

The "last rites" of JPII's time was not the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but the healing of the sick. (p.s.- do you believe JXXIII and JPII are Saints?)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #257 on:** August 31, 2018, 11:54:04 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 31, 2018, 11:13:38 AM

All anyone has to do now who wants to continue arguing there is no way these popes made it to heaven, is admit they have no faith whatsoever in the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

That's logically irrelevant to the point under discussion. Whether Extreme Unction was received or not (besides, these men received "Anointing of the Sick" and not traditional Extreme Unction), no one can rule out the possibility that they are in fact in heaven. What's at issue here is the opposite, whether it's OK to entertain doubts about whether they are in heaven.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #258 on:** August 31, 2018, 12:16:00 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 31, 2018, 11:13:38 AM

And your statement earlier is still ridiculous. The only time the pope is infallible is when he speaks ex cathedra - and that means when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.

Ah, yes, Stubbornian ecclesiology, whereby the Church's Magisterium could become 99.9% corrupt and the Universal Discipline of the Church can fail. So much or the "Holy" part of Holy Catholic Church, eh? Your understanding of the Church is at once grotesque and blasphemous.

Vatican I defined dogmatically only this type of papal infallibility (and that of the OUM) ... but it is widely believed and taught that canonizations and the Church's Universal Discipline are also infallible. Vatican I just never got around to defining these.

MMagdala · « **Reply #259 on:** August 31, 2018, 12:22:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 11:54:04 AM

What's at issue here is the opposite, whether it's OK to entertain doubts about whether they are in heaven.

True, but I think there's a third way, which is to suspend belief (be neutral, given that in reality, even infallible declarations of any kind are not "as infallible" as the truth within the Divine Mind).

Imho there is a difference between doctrine and commanded practice. I am not persuaded that JP2 is an intercessor for me; that's the bottom line, and the Church has not commanded me as an individual to invoke his name in prayer. Or, to put it another way, just because I happen to have a devotion to Therese of Lisieux does not mean that Ladislaus or Stubborn "need" have that same devotion, or that if they do not, they are challenging the Church.

I guess a possible thought experiment would be for me to pray at separate times for her intercession, and then for his "intercession," and to see whether his "intercession" is as effective as hers. The problem is, God reads my heart and would know before I uttered a silent prayer "to" JP2 that my intention was false and hypocritical, thus empty and not answerable. God will not be mocked.
:)

(The discussion is important; I'm just looking at it from the area of spirituality and the Church's view of private spirituality.)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #260 on:** August 31, 2018, 12:27:50 PM »

Based on all the different articles and excerpts posted, here is my conclusion:

Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven? Yes, per the Church.
Do I believe they are "saints" (which used to be defined as one who is worthy of emulation due to their heroic sanctity)? No.
Must one believe they are in heaven, due to the canonization? Yes.
Must one honor them for saving their souls and making it to heaven? Yes.
Must one honor them for every detail of their life, and condone this or that decision and emulate their quasi-heresy and shortcomings? Absolutely not.

Whether canonizations are infallible or not, is irrelevant. They are definitive decisions which we aren't allowed to question. But it is important to remember that the PURPOSE for canonizations is different and more limited in our post-V2 era. Saying that JPII is of the same "spiritual caliber" as Pius X is comparing apples to oranges.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #261 on:** August 31, 2018, 01:00:34 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 12:27:50 PM

Based on all the different articles and excerpts posted, here is my conclusion:

Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven? Yes, per the Church.
Do I believe they are "saints" (which used to be defined as one who is worthy of emulation due to their heroic sanctity)? No.
Must one believe they are in heaven, due to the canonization? Yes.
Must one honor them for saving their souls and making it to heaven? Yes.
Must one honor them for every detail of their life, and condone this or that decision and emulate their quasi-heresy and shortcomings? Absolutely not.

Whether canonizations are infallible or not, is irrelevant. They are definitive decisions which we aren't allowed to question. But it is important to remember that the PURPOSE for canonizations is different and more limited in our post-V2 era. Saying that JPII is of the same "spiritual caliber" as Pius X is comparing apples to oranges.

In which case BXIV erred in his day by acknowledging “many great named theologians hold canonizations are not infallible,” suggesting that opposite opinion was permissible (as the lack of any condemnation of those same theologians clearly shows to be the case);

Van Noort erred in his day by acknowledging the subject was open for debate with the (correct) theological note he attached to canonizations (as were the ecclesiastical superiors who approved the imprimatur and nihil obstat);

Matters having nothing to do with the faith -being judgments, not doctrines- neither implicitly, nor as secondary objects, nor as dogmatic facts, are nonetheless binding;

Vatican I had no bearing or relavence, even though it clearly limits infallible definitions to matters of faith (and a canonization is neither part of the faith, nor is it a doctrinal definition).

No way.

Here is how I answer your questions:

1) Possibly. Who knows?
2) No.
3) According to all the foregoing, no.
4) No (Because nobody can prove they are in heaven).
5) No.

Ps: Can you point me to the part where BXIV denounces the “many great named theologians who deny the infallibility of canonizations” to back your contention that we may not question them?

Or, maybe you can supply me with the Church’s condemnation of Cajetan (or even an example of another theologian suggesting Cajetan was not allowed to reject the infallibility of canonizations), as would surely be available were it really true that we are not allowed to question them?

It seems after 15 pages, you have just done an about-face.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #262 on:** August 31, 2018, 01:23:53 PM »

I still hold they are not infallible, in the sense that they are not "de fide" (One could still argue they are infallible/certainty of faith...but that's still questionable). They are not infallible, in the sense that V1 describes. This is a fact.

Based on the articles posted, I think that they are a declaratory and final decision of the Church, AT LEAST from a jurisdictional perspective. The Church has spoken, so the decision is final. The distinction to be made is that in the future, it could happen that the Church REMOVE one or more V2 "saints" from the calendar, because they did not live up the "heroic sanctity" standards that have been the norm for 2,000 years. In other words, the Church does not canonize every Tom, Dick and Harry that makes it to heaven; so they could issue a "correction" to exclude those whom should not be venerated, when the idea of "veneration" had an orthodox interpretation and purpose.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #263 on:** August 31, 2018, 01:47:34 PM »

I agree they are not infallible.

I am no longer even sure whether they possess the finality the post-Tridentine writers suggested, from a juridical perspective:

As the Gherardini article points out, Some saints of questionable historicity have been canonized (equipolently), then later removed, while other times saints who never existed have been canonized.

If someone can explain to me the infallibility of a canonization of a saint who never existed, I will start believing 2+2=5.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #264 on:** August 31, 2018, 01:55:15 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 12:27:50 PM

Based on all the different articles and excerpts posted, here is my conclusion:

Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven? Yes, per the Church.
Do I believe they are "saints" (which used to be defined as one who is worthy of emulation due to their heroic sanctity)? No.
Must one believe they are in heaven, due to the canonization? Yes.
Must one honor them for saving their souls and making it to heaven? Yes.
Must one honor them for every detail of their life, and condone this or that decision and emulate their quasi-heresy and shortcomings? Absolutely not.

This is correct. Infallibility doesn't pertain to whether they are worthy examples to emulate but only with regard to their being in heaven.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #265 on:** August 31, 2018, 02:37:15 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 31, 2018, 01:47:34 PM

As the Gherardini article points out, Some saints of questionable historicity have been canonized (equipolently), then later removed, while other times saints who never existed have been canonized.

I do not believe what Gherardini wrote , if he did say that. His ilk removed St. Philomena, why would any traditionalist rely on the word of someone like that?

Like I said : "Mons. Bruno Gherardini is just another Vatican II priest, like B-16, or JPII. The OP article writer is also a Vatican II "theologian". If the writer SJ wants to convince traditionalists, I would advise that he quote direct sources from times past...."

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #266 on:** August 31, 2018, 03:42:32 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 12:27:50 PM

Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven? Yes, per the Church.

Every time someone says to me that JPII is in Heaven, I remember this quote below by St. John Chrysostom, for not only did JPII fail to do his duty, but he also acted in the destruction of the Catholic faith. How can a priest like that be in Heaven? Maybe if he converted on his deathbed (highly unlikely), he would be in Purgatory till the end of time, but even then, never Heaven during man's existance in the Sea of Time.

St. John Chrysostom, sometime Patriarch of Constantinople:

“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think, I do not think that many priests are saved but that those that perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side. Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be apt to teach; patient towards the wicked, firm and faithful in teaching the Word? How many difficulties therein.

Moreover the loss of others is imputed to him. I need say no more. If but one dies without baptism, does it not entirely endanger his salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil as no man can understand. If the salvation of one soul is of such importance that, for its sake, the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of the penalty the loss of one soul will entail”. (Third Homily, Acts of the Apostles)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #267 on:** August 31, 2018, 03:54:46 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 02:37:15 PM

I do not believe what Gherardini wrote , if he did say that. His ilk removed St. Philomena, why would any traditionalist rely on the word of someone like that?

Like I said : "Mons. Bruno Gherardini is just another Vatican II priest, like B-16, or JPII. The OP article writer is also a Vatican II "theologian". If the writer SJ wants to convince traditionalists, I would advise that he quote direct sources from times past...."

But at the same time, you have chosen to ignore those same traditional writers, such as Pope Benedict XIV (who acknowledged and acquiesced in the fact that "many great named theologians deny the infallibility of canonizations") and Cajetan who rejected even the possibility of infallibility flatly.

Moreover, since one aspect of this conversation/debate is the impact Vatican had on canonizations (with the contention of one author asserting that its precise and limiting criteria had the effect of curtailing some things formerly thought to have been infallible), the only way to address this aspect of the issue if to provide the writings of post-Vatican I but pre-VaticanII authors, of whom not many measure up to the greats. Nevertheless, I have provided one such author (Van Noort - 1958 ) as attaching the lowest possible theological note to the thesis of infallible canonizations (and he was not censured for doing so, not did his manual fail to receive the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat).

So far as introducing moderns into the equation, I do not believe they are disqualified simply because they are moderns: Men like Dr. Roberto de Mattei or Monsignor Piolanti, and Monsignor Gherardini (this latter being a consultor to the causes of saints until his death last year) will have valuable and relevant contributions to make in the matter, and when they all say Vatican I is relevant, and canonizations do not meet its requirements for the reasons they adduce, it is those arguments I analyse and appraise (while always being wary of the modernism of Gherardini).

2Vermont · « **Reply #268 on:** August 31, 2018, 03:58:14 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 12:27:50 PM

Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven? Yes, per the Church.

Doesn't the Church also teach that those who commit grave public sins must also make it manifest that they have repented of them before death?

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #269 on:** August 31, 2018, 06:56:14 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 03:42:32 PM

Every time someone says to me that JPII is in Heaven, I remember this quote below by St. John Chrysostom, for not only did JPII fail to do his duty, but he also acted in the destruction of the Catholic faith. How can a priest like that be in Heaven? Maybe if he converted on his deathbed (highly unlikely), he would be in Purgatory till the end of time, but even then, never Heaven during man's existance in the Sea of Time.

St. John Chrysostom, sometime Patriarch of Constantinople:

“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think, I do not think that many priests are saved but that those that perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side. Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be apt to teach; patient towards the wicked, firm and faithful in teaching the Word? How many difficulties therein.

Moreover the loss of others is imputed to him. I need say no more. If but one dies without baptism, does it not entirely endanger his salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil as no man can understand. If the salvation of one soul is of such importance that, for its sake, the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of the penalty the loss of one soul will entail”. (Third Homily, Acts of the Apostles)

According to Mary of Agreda, our Lady revealed to her that Judas was sent to the worst tortures in Hell, that he was the first in the history of the world to be cast into it, that it was reserved for bad Catholics. Judas was there with Our Lord and he betrayed him. The Vatican II popes are the same, they received the same graces as St. Peter (the graces received by popes), and yet they betrayed Him.

Here's some more that apply:

"They who are enlightened to walk in the way of perfection, and through lukewarmness wish to tread the ordinary paths, shall be abandoned". (Bl. Angela of Foligno)

"They who are to be saved as Saints, and wish to be saved as imperfect souls, shall not be saved". (Pope St. Gregory the Great)

"St. Teresa.... had she not risen from the state of lukewarmness in which she lived, she would in the end have lost the grace of God and been damned". ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)

Author Topic: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible (Read 18741 times)

Stubborn

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Last Tradhican

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Ladislaus

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Ladislaus

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

MMagdala

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Pax Vobis

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

SeanJohnson

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Pax Vobis

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

SeanJohnson

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Ladislaus

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Last Tradhican

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Last Tradhican

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

SeanJohnson

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

2Vermont

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible

Last Tradhican

Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible