Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2014, 01:47:08 PM
-
Greetings Your Excellency-
I read your letter discussing the forthcoming canonization of Pope John Paul II, and share your dismay that such a man should be held as a model to immitate.
But it was not clear to me whether you were saying that his canonization would be invalid, or merely unfortunate (but regrettably valid).
Could you please let me know whether the SSPX shall consider the canonization as valid?
Sincerely,
Sean Johnson
USA
-
Dear Mr. Johnson,Please excuse my delayed answer on behalf of His Excellency Bishop Fellay. You are asking whether the SSPX is considering the future canonization of Pope John Paul II as valid or invalid.
The word "valid" is properly used when we speak of the sacraments. We make a distinction between the valid and the licit administration of a sacrament: the validity concerns the physical integrity of a sacrament and the liceity its morality in so far as it depends on circuмstances.
The canonization can be seen
1° in what must define it as such, that is to say in its object: the canonization declares the beatitude and gives as an example the heroic sanctity of a departed faithful; if this object is not existing or doubtful, the canonization is deprived of its integrity; in this case, it can be said defective or bad (not in the moral sense but in the sense of a privation of physical integrity or of lack of object) or even invalid (but this term only refers to a lack of object).
2° in the circuмstances which must surround it: if the canonization is not prudent because it constitutes a bad example, we can say that it is bad (in the moral sense of a lack of conformity to the rule of faith or of reason) or even illicit (but this term only refers to a disorder in relation to common good).
In short, we can say that the canonization of John Paul II is defective, bad, wrong, atypical, contrary to the other canonizations, scandalous, harming the faith and the Church and therefore dangerous for the faithful…
You can find the motives of such a statement for instance in these excellent articles of Fr. Gleize, professor of ecclesiology at the Seminary of Ecône:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonization-doubts-john-xxiii-john-paul-ii-2637
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-1
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-2
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-3.
Now, we cannot say that this canonization is invalid on the point of view of the efficient cause, as if Pope Francis had not the power of canonizing. We (the SSPX and even its General Superior) do not have the sufficient authority to make such a judgment and we do not need to make it. The Church will judge it later on. For now, the elements that we have are sufficient for us to protest vehemently against it and this is what we do.
As you see, it is important to make all the necessary distinctions and to be precise in our judgments and statements. Unfortunately, this is today too often lacking and, for this reason, many people are misguided in their understanding of the reality, which is everything but univocal.
Hopefully this will help you to understand better where we stand.
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Granges
-
CI-
Based on this response from Menzingen, I retract all my arguments which advocated the fallibility and doubts concerning the recent canonizations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.
Since I accept that Francis is the Pope, I likewise accept the scandalous canonizations as infallible.
I apologize to all who at any time may have been swayed by any of my rhetoric to the contrary.
While it is not clear to me how the SSPX can publish articles raising doubts about the canonizations, yet simultaneously admit they have no authority to question them (if I have understood this response correctly), seems to be an issue beyond my pay grade.
Shocked and discouraged that I appear to have made such a blunder, I will no longer be posting on controverted issues, fearing to lead others astray, despite my good intentions.
Sincerely,
Sean Johnson
-
Sean, while I respect you for doing this I'm confused. Does the response you got ever admit that canonizations are infallible? And if not, what about that response made you change your mind?
-
I also admire a man that has the courage to publicly admit he was wrong, but what surprises me is that it took an SSPX priest to convince him, while the teaching of a Pope (Benedict XIV), Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians were unable to convince him.
-
I also admire a man that has the courage to publicly admit he was wrong, but what surprises me is that it took an SSPX priest to convince him, while the teaching of a Pope (Benedict XIV), Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians were unable to convince him.
That's why Rome wants this so-called good guys on their team. They will be the ones to explain away their horrific behavior and place it in the light of tradition.
Just recently during Lent a friend of mine who is still in the SSPX chapel told me that it was confirmed both at her chapel and at headquarters that since SSPX is not sedevacantist, they accept the pope as true pope and therefore accept the new code of canon law as true law.
But then, she is an older lady and could have very well been confused. Perhaps others can ask their own SSPX pastors and call headquarters themselves and see what response they get over the phone. It would be very interesting to see what they say.
-
And I expect the very same reaction when the Vatican start ordaining women.
-
And I expect the very same reaction when the Vatican start ordaining women.
There's no reason to expect anything different. Things will be getting much worse.
-
Sean, while I respect you for doing this I'm confused. Does the response you got ever admit that canonizations are infallible? And if not, what about that response made you change your mind?
Agreed.
Nowhere does it say in this reply that canonizations themselves are infallible. The question was if they are invalid, or merely unfortunate. The response seemed to be that they are defective, erroneous, and unfortunate. As for the validity, only the Church Herself has the power to declared them as invalid, not the SSPX.
-
No, this statement was standard SSPX double-talk.
If you read it closely, however, it does say that the canonizations are not legitimate due to the improper object of the canonization (aka because JP2 was not a saint) but not because of its efficient cause. In other words, they're saying that Francis has the power to canonize but just canonized a non-saint.
As if the proper exercise from the efficient cause does not GUARANTEE a priori the object of the canonization (aka the very definition of infallibility).
-
In short, we can say that the canonization of John Paul II is defective, bad, wrong, atypical, contrary to the other canonizations, scandalous, harming the faith and the Church and therefore dangerous for the faithful...
No, it's this statement that's "defective, bad, wrong, ... scandalous, harming the faith and the Church and therefore dangerous for the faithful."
If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.
-
No, this statement was standard SSPX double-talk.
If you read it closely, however, it does say that the canonizations are not legitimate due to the improper object of the canonization (aka because JP2 was not a saint) but not because of its efficient cause. In other words, they're saying that Francis has the power to canonize but just canonized a non-saint.
As if the proper exercise from the efficient cause does not GUARANTEE a priori the object of the canonization (aka the very definition of infallibility).
they are pretty lost, aren't they?
-
Based on this response from Menzingen, I retract all my arguments which advocated the fallibility and doubts concerning the recent canonizations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.
Since I accept that Francis is the Pope, I likewise accept the scandalous canonizations as infallible.
:facepalm:
-
Based on this response from Menzingen, I retract all my arguments which advocated the fallibility and doubts concerning the recent canonizations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.
Since I accept that Francis is the Pope, I likewise accept the scandalous canonizations as infallible.
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:laugh1:
-
CI-
Based on this response from Menzingen, I retract all my arguments which advocated the fallibility and doubts concerning the recent canonizations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.
Since I accept that Francis is the Pope, I likewise accept the scandalous canonizations as infallible.
I apologize to all who at any time may have been swayed by any of my rhetoric to the contrary.
While it is not clear to me how the SSPX can publish articles raising doubts about the canonizations, yet simultaneously admit they have no authority to question them (if I have understood this response correctly), seems to be an issue beyond my pay grade.
Shocked and discouraged that I appear to have made such a blunder, I will no longer be posting on controverted issues, fearing to lead others astray, despite my good intentions.
Sincerely,
Sean Johnson
If a Catholic pope declares and defines so and so to be a saint, this is an infallible act. Good. But remember why this is true. Fr. Granges is giving you a non-answer.
256 The Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law, for the Church has received the obligation of leading souls to salvation. Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God.
The efficient cause of infallibility is the assistance of God or of the Holy Spirit...
The divine assistance does not render at all superfluous the hard work and study of men, the investigation of the sources of revelation, etc.; it rather supposes and includes these elements. In actual practice, the usual preamble to doctrinal definitions includes not only the request for divine light, but also the most careful theological research. Consequently, those who object that the promise of divine assistance fosters indolence do so without justification. However, infallibility (or the inability to err) does not depend formally on human industry, but on divine assistance. And so no one can spurn a definition of the Church on the pretext that it is not backed up by adequate research; when a definition has once been issued, one can be sure that the Church's official teacher did not act precipitously, but did all the necessary preliminary research; or else, if he did act rashly, that his rashness did not adversely affect at least the truth of the definition. All this is, of course, only a supposition, for it seems much more reasonable to hold that the Holy Spirit would never allow the Church's rulers to act rashly in issuing doctrinal definitions (120).
If you believe the canonizations are infallible, it is contradictory to simultaneously believe them to be "defective, bad, wrong" as Fr. Granges puts it.
The truth is never "defective, bad [or] wrong."
-
If you believe the canonizations are infallible, it is contradictory to simultaneously believe them to be "defective, bad, wrong" as Fr. Granges puts it.
The truth is never "defective, bad [or] wrong."
You are one uptight dude, there, Mithrandylan!
Just why can't we believe two diametrically opposed truths at the same time, man?
Can't you cut Sean some slack? :smoke-pot:
-
Keep in mind the motivation of Mr. Siscoe (promoted here by Sean Johnson):
I think prudence would require that we hold them suspect of heresy and be cautious with regard to them, but going further and declaring them to have lost their office through the crime of heresy, when none of the Cardinals have done so, seems presumptuous and potentially dangerous to me. One of the dangers, and this is what I told Gerry Matatics, is that by taking the firm position that the Pope is an anti-Pope and that the Conciliar Church is the Whore of Babylon is that you will not want the Church to improve. In fact, any improvement will be viewed as a trick to draw in the unwary. Therefore, the person will actually be against the Church, and desirous that it falls. That is one psychological effect that Sedevacantism will produce. On the contrary, if you suspend judgment you will not fall into that mentality. You will then be able to appreciate any good (such as Summorum Pontificuм), rather than considering every good merely a trick to bring those with the faith into the false fold. I think it is best not to make a firm conclusion with respect to the Pope. Maybe he did lose his office through heresy, but I personally don't think I have enough information to draw that conclusion.
I'm okay with this, except Siscoe doesn't even adhere to his own advice. Sure, he suspends his own judgment, yet he continues on to judge others who have a different view. Then he publishes articles to promote his "withheld judgment."
-
Siscoe is a Conciliar apologist and should be treated as such and ignored. Some of his statements are so inconsistent as to almost be incoherent.
Following along with the hermeneutic of false characterization.
Does not anyone remember the Max Krah propaganda interview?
He is correct on one point, we do not want the Conciliar church to improve, we want it to disappear.
The Holy Catholic Church is perfect an needs no improvement.
-
Thank you, Mith.
-
If a Catholic pope declares and defines so and so to be a saint, this is an infallible act. Good. But remember why this is true. Fr. Granges is giving you a non-answer.
If you believe the canonizations are infallible, it is contradictory to simultaneously believe them to be "defective, bad, wrong" as Fr. Granges puts it.
The truth is never "defective, bad [or] wrong."
Yes, otherwise, they would be ....fallible.
Seriously, these people make my head spin.
-
If you believe the canonizations are infallible, it is contradictory to simultaneously believe them to be "defective, bad, wrong" as Fr. Granges puts it.
Correct. If one believes that these canonizations are infallible, then he should have no qualms praying to Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II.
-
If you believe the canonizations are infallible, it is contradictory to simultaneously believe them to be "defective, bad, wrong" as Fr. Granges puts it.
Correct. If one believes that these canonizations are infallible, then he should have no qualms praying to Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II.
Indeed.
But JPII was a manifest heretic who imposed a non-Catholic catechism, a sacrilegious canon law and habitually participated in public blasphemies by praying to non-Catholic gods (i.e., demons as St Paul tells us). His life is a blueprint on how to reach the deepest bowels of Hell.
Which is as contradictory as the former position.
-
If you believe the canonizations are infallible, it is contradictory to simultaneously believe them to be "defective, bad, wrong" as Fr. Granges puts it.
Correct. If one believes that these canonizations are infallible, then he should have no qualms praying to Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II.
But nowhere does it say that canonizations are infallible so there is no such contradiction. What they are arguing is the validity of the neocanonizations. Because there is the possibility of canonizations being fallible, the newcanonizations may be invalid but it is not up to the SSPX to recognize it as such but the Church herself.
Code of Canon Law of 1983 abolished the 141 principal canons that regulated beatifications and canonizations. In other words, after this drastic removal, the processes became, practically speaking, a personal choice of the Pope and lost the seriousness and integrity of the previous investigations.
By diverting attention from the crucial point of validity by discussing whether or not canonizations are infallible, they want to discredit the SSPX position.
These are invalid canonizations. They simply are another move of progressivist modernist propaganda to glorify Vatican II and everything that it represents.
-
Sean, Bravo. Having wondered if I was being too forceful in disagreeing with you, I commend and congratulate you now for your sincerity, honesty and uprightness. It takes a great deal of courage to do what you have done.
Now, as to the naysayers on this thread, and detractors of the Society, I'll say this - first of all, before coming to the issue of infallibility, the very fact that the Roman authorities have become careless and imprudent, for example in abolishing the devil's advocate, among countless other missteps, necessitates that someone else take up the position of criticizing and questioning those who without the necessary precautions are proposed for beatification and canonization. Fr. Luigi Villa, God rest his soul, did this for a while, and the Society does the same.
Secondly, yes the response does frankly say that the Society does not have the authority to say the canonizations are invalid, for Pope Francis does have the power of canonizing. Rather, we can question the prudence of it, and say it is bad in the sense that the motives for it are less than upright. When the object of canonization seems to us to be missing, before the declaration has been made, anyone is permitted to raise the necessary doubts and criticisms, by pointing out well known public facts.
But all that being said, God will not allow the Pope to declare error infallibly. And therefore once an infallible declaration has been made, even made imprudently, it must be recognized as such.
-
These are invalid canonizations.
Correct.
-
If you believe the canonizations are infallible, it is contradictory to simultaneously believe them to be "defective, bad, wrong" as Fr. Granges puts it.
Correct. If one believes that these canonizations are infallible, then he should have no qualms praying to Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II.
But nowhere does it say that canonizations are infallible so there is no such contradiction. What they are arguing is the validity of the neocanonizations. Because there is the possibility of canonizations being fallible, the newcanonizations may be invalid but it is not up to the SSPX to recognize it as such but the Church herself.
I'm assuming that "the possibility of canonizations being fallible" that you're referring to are the local canonizations of the early Church. It is granted that local cults approved by bishops in the early Church are not protected by the Church's infallibility because a bishop on his own is not infallible, or is he defining something for the whole Church.
The situation we are in today is not analogous to these local canonizations in the early Church
There is no debate as to whether or not canonizations done by the pope are infallible. They are, because he declares with his authority that such and such is a saint, and establishes that such and such should be venerated throughout the whole Church. This is an act of papal infallibility, not just a matter of the Church's infallibility in moral precepts.
Code of Canon Law of 1983 abolished the 141 principal canons that regulated beatifications and canonizations. In other words, after this drastic removal, the processes became, practically speaking, a personal choice of the Pope and lost the seriousness and integrity of the previous investigations.
The process is not what guarantees infallability. The Church is infallible because it is guided by the Holy Ghost, not because it is guided by human diligence.
3. The efficient cause of infallibility is the assistance of God or of the Holy Spirit...
The divine assistance does not render at all superfluous the hard work and study of men, the investigation of the sources of revelation, etc.; it rather supposes and includes these elements. In actual practice, the usual preamble to doctrinal definitions includes not only the request for divine light, but also the most careful theological research. Consequently, those who object that the promise of divine assistance fosters indolence do so without justification. However, infallibility (or the inability to err) does not depend formally on human industry, but on divine assistance. And so no one can spurn a definition of the Church on the pretext that it is not backed up by adequate research; when a definition has once been issued, one can be sure that the Church's official teacher did not act precipitously, but did all the necessary preliminary research; or else, if he did act rashly, that his rashness did not adversely affect at least the truth of the definition. All this is, of course, only a supposition, for it seems much more reasonable to hold that the Holy Spirit would never allow the Church's rulers to act rashly in issuing doctrinal definitions (120, emphases added).
By diverting attention from the crucial point of validity by discussing whether or not canonizations are infallible, they want to discredit the SSPX position.
These are invalid canonizations. They simply are another move of progressivist modernist propaganda to glorify Vatican II and everything that it represents.
You just said that canonizations aren't infallible. Now you're saying that argument attracts from the "real" argument which is that they aren't "valid?"
If Francis is a true pope, these canonizations are infallible. If a true pope declares and defines something for the whole Church with the authority of Our Lord, the apostles and his own, he is infallible.
-
Last post should have read:
Now you're saying that the argument [canonizations are fallible] detracts from the "real" argument which is that they aren't "valid?"
-
Swan Song:
Some here (and on Bellarmine Forums) are asking how I concluded the infallibility of Francis's canonizations of John XXIII and JPII, despite the response from Menzingen (which seemed to say the opposite):
1) Thus far, I had relied on the arguments of Fr. Gleize for the "invalidity" (i.e., fallibility) of the canonizations, for the reasons he adduces in his 3-part study;
2) But the response I received from Menzingen (via Fr. Granges) admitted towards the end of the response, that the SSPX could not declare the invalidity/fallibility of the canonizations.
3) The implication was that, if the reasons adduced by Fr. Gleize do not rise to the level of allowing the SSPX to state the fallibility of the canonizations, then the whole rationale of my backing that theory is undermined and nullified.
4) Therefore, I had to accept (despite the intent of the response from Menzingen) that if Francis is the Pope - for which I give him the benefit of the doubt- his declaration is infallible;
5) And that it is not therefore acceptable to protest the canonizations as "bad, wrong, defective," etc, for the reasons highlighted in this thread most notably by Mithrandylan.
Like it or not, that is my apologia.
-
Swan Song:
Some here (and on Bellarmine Forums) are asking how I concluded the infallibility of Francis's canonizations of John XXIII and JPII, despite the response from Menzingen (which seemed to say the opposite):
1) Thus far, I had relied on the arguments of Fr. Gleize for the "invalidity" (i.e., fallibility) of the canonizations, for the reasons he adduces in his 3-part study;
2) But the response I received from Menzingen (via Fr. Granges) admitted towards the end of the response, that the SSPX could not declare the invalidity/fallibility of the canonizations.
3) The implication was that, if the reasons adduced by Fr. Gleize do not rise to the level of allowing the SSPX to state the fallibility of the canonizations, then the whole rationale of my backing that theory is undermined and nullified.
4) Therefore, I had to accept (despite the intent of the response from Menzingen) that if Francis is the Pope - for which I give him the benefit of the doubt- his declaration is infallible;
5) And that it is not therefore acceptable to protest the canonizations as "bad, wrong, defective," etc, for the reasons highlighted in this thread most notably by Mithrandylan.
Like it or not, that is my apologia.
Your being logical, but your logic is built on an initial faulty premise: Francis the destroyer is not the Pope, so his acts are null and void.
Someday you may realize this fact, but your post-Lefebvre-SSPX indoctrination has caused you to to reject this obvious truth out of hand.
In the meantime, before you wake up, I hope you don't start collecting JP2 relics and praying novenas to him. There is no logical reason not too, if you think he is a saint, but I fear that invoking a man most likely damned will not be good for you.
Please do not emulate JP2 by calling for more interfaith prayer, getting blessed by a pagan woman, or kissing the Koran. I know we are supposed to emulate the saints, but you may have to resist the urge in this case.
-
Swan Song:
Some here (and on Bellarmine Forums) are asking how I concluded the infallibility of Francis's canonizations of John XXIII and JPII, despite the response from Menzingen (which seemed to say the opposite):
1) Thus far, I had relied on the arguments of Fr. Gleize for the "invalidity" (i.e., fallibility) of the canonizations, for the reasons he adduces in his 3-part study;
2) But the response I received from Menzingen (via Fr. Granges) admitted towards the end of the response, that the SSPX could not declare the invalidity/fallibility of the canonizations.
3) The implication was that, if the reasons adduced by Fr. Gleize do not rise to the level of allowing the SSPX to state the fallibility of the canonizations, then the whole rationale of my backing that theory is undermined and nullified.
4) Therefore, I had to accept (despite the intent of the response from Menzingen) that if Francis is the Pope - for which I give him the benefit of the doubt- his declaration is infallible;
5) And that it is not therefore acceptable to protest the canonizations as "bad, wrong, defective," etc, for the reasons highlighted in this thread most notably by Mithrandylan.
Like it or not, that is my apologia.
Your being logical, but your logic is built on an initial faulty premise: Francis the destroyer is not the Pope, so his acts are null and void.
Someday you may realize this fact, but your post-Lefebvre-SSPX indoctrination has caused you to to reject this obvious truth out of hand.
In the meantime, before you wake up, I hope you don't start collecting JP2 relics and praying novenas to him. There is no logical reason not too, if you think he is a saint, but I fear that invoking a man most likely damned will not be good for you.
Please do not emulate JP2 by calling for more interfaith prayer, getting blessed by a pagan woman, or kissing the Koran. I know we are supposed to emulate the saints, but you may have to resist the urge in this case.
Ambrose-
One step at a time.
Pax,
Sean
-
So Sean you have no qualms about praying to Pope John Paul II. Correct?
-
So Sean you have no qualms about praying to Pope John Paul II. Correct?
EM-
The chastisement will come before anyone in my family prays to JPII.
I am saying that, for the moment, I am trapped by the logic of the sedes.
I now need some time and consultation to sort things out.
-
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
Fr. Henri Le Floch
http://web.archive.org/web/20030411135559/http:/sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm
-
So Sean you have no qualms about praying to Pope John Paul II. Correct?
EM-
The chastisement will come before anyone in my family prays to JPII.
I am saying that, for the moment, I am trapped by the logic of the sedes.
I now need some time and consultation to sort things out.
Always the best approach. And of course, the best consultants one can have recourse to are Christ and the His mother.
-
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
Fr. Henri Le Floch
http://web.archive.org/web/20030411135559/http:/sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm
Ha, I followed your link and was told:
Oops, something went wrong.
Please try again.
That about sums it up, I suppose!
-
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
Fr. Henri Le Floch
http://web.archive.org/web/20030411135559/http:/sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm
Pope St Pius X taught:
Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves.
The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.
It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!
And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public docuмents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls.
Saint Pius X
Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union
November 18, 1912
-
Yet Blessed Peter, the first Pope denied Our Lord three times. A Pope is a fallible human being, as it is demonstrated even by Christ Himself in choosing Peter. There is historical evidence of Roman Pontiffs fallen into error and God has allowed that for the sake of the Elect.
-
The "Canonizations": CFN interviews Professor Roberto de Mattei
"In the case of a Pope, to be considered a saint he must have exercised heroic virtue in performing his mission as Pontiff, as was for example, the case for Saint Pius V or Saint Pius X. Well, as far as John XXIII, I am certain after careful consideration, that his pontificate was objectively harmful to the Church and so it is impossible to speak of sanctity for him" - Professor Roberto de Mattei
Catholic Family News Interviews
Professor Roberto de Mattei:
On the proposed April 27 Canonizations
of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II
Note from CFN Editor: We are grateful to Roberto de Mattei,* eminent professor of Church History, and author of The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story for this insightful, respectful interview regarding the canonizations scheduled in Rome for the Sunday after Easter - jv
Catholic Family News: Professor de Mattei, the imminent canonizations of John XXIII and of John Paul II raise, for various reasons, doubts and confusion. As a Catholic and as a historian, what judgment do you express?
Professor Roberto de Mattei: I can express a personal opinion, without pretending to solve this complex problem. First of all, I am perplexed, generally speaking, by the ease with which, in the past few years, the canonization processes begin and conclude. The First Vatican Council defined the primacy of jurisdiction of the Pope and the infallibility of his Magisterium under certain conditions, but certainly not the personal impeccability of the Sovereign Pontiffs. In the history of the Church, there have been good and evil Popes, and those solemnly elevated to the altars were few in number. Today, one has the impression that, in place of the principle of infallibility of the Pope, there is the desire to substitute it with that of their impeccability. All Popes, or rather, all the most recent Popes, starting from the Second Vatican Council, are presented as saints. It is not by chance that the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II have left in their wake the canonization of Pius IX and the beatification of Pius XII, while the cause of Paul VI moves forward. It almost seems that a halo of sanctity must envelop the Conciliar and Post-conciliar eras, to “infallibilize”an historic age which saw the primacy of pastoral praxis assert itself over doctrine in the Church.
CFN: Do you hold, instead, that the last Popes were not saints?
RDM: Allow me to explain myself using the example of one Pope whom I know better, as a historian: John XXIII. Having studied the Second Vatican Council, I examined in depth his biography and consulted the acts of his beatification process. When the Church canonizes one of the faithful, it is not that she wants to assure us that the deceased is in the glory of Heaven, rather She proposes them as a model of heroic virtue. Depending on the case, it is a perfect religious, pastor, father of a family, and so on. In the case of a Pope, to be considered a saint he must have exercised heroic virtue in performing his mission as Pontiff, as was for example, the case for Saint Pius V or Saint Pius X. Well, as far as John XXIII, I am certain after careful consideration, that his pontificate was objectively harmful to the Church and so it is impossible to speak of sanctity for him. Dominican Father Innocenzo Colosio, one who understood sanctity and is considered one of the greatest historians of spirituality in modern times, affirmed this before me, in a famous article in the Rivista di Ascetica e Mistica (Ascetical and Mystical Review).
CFN: If, as you think, John XXIII was not a pontiff-saint, and if, as it seems, canonizations are an infallible papal act, we find ourselves facing a great contradiction. Is there not a risk of falling into sedevacantism?
RDM: The sedevacantists apply an excessive meaning to papal infallibility. Their reasoning is simplistic: if the Pope is infallible and does something evil, it means that the seat is vacant. The reality is much more complex and the premise that every action, or almost every action, of the Pope is infallible, is mistaken. In reality, if the upcoming canonizations cause problems, sedevacantism causes infinitely greater problems of conscience.
CFN: And yet, the majority of theologians, especially the surest, those of the so-called “Roman School” support the infallibility of canonizations.
RDM: Infallibility of canonizations is not a dogma of the faith, it is the opinion of a majority of theologians, above all after Benedict XIV, who expressed it moreover as a private doctor and not as Sovereign Pontiff. As far as the “Roman School” is concerned, the most eminent representative of this theological school, living today, is Msgr. Brunero Gherardini. And Msgr. Gherardini expressed in the review Divinitas directed by him, all of his doubts on the infallibility of canonizations. I know in Rome, distinguished theologians and canonists, disciples of another illustrious representative of the Roman School, Msgr. Antonio Piolanti, these harbor the same doubts as Msgr. Gherardini. They hold that canonizations do not fulfill the conditions laid down by Vatican I to guarantee a papal act’s infallibility. The judgment of canonization is not infallible in itself, because it lacks the conditions for infallibility, starting from the fact the canonization does not have as its direct or explicit aim, a truth of the Faith or morals contained in Revelation, but only a fact indirectly connected with dogma, without being properly-speaking a “dogmatic fact.” The field of faith and morals is broad, because it contains all of Christian doctrine, speculative and practical, human belief and action, but a distinction is necessary. A dogmatic definition can never involve the definition of a new doctrine in the field of faith and morals. The Pope can only make explicit that which is implicit in faith and morals, and is handed down by the Tradition of the Church. That which the Popes define must be contained in the Scriptures and in Tradition, and it is this which assures the infallibility of the act. That is certainly not the case for canonizations. It is not an accident that the doctrine of canonizations is not contained in the Codes of Canon Law of 1917 and of 1983, nor the Catechisms of the Catholic Church, old and new. Referring to this subject, besides the aforementioned study of Msgr. Gherardini, is an excellent article by José Antonio Ureta appearing in the March 2014 edition of the magazine Catolicismo.
CFN: Do you hold that canonizations lost their infallible character, following the changing of the canonization procedure, willed by John Paul II in 1983?
RDM: This position is supported in the Courrier de Rome, by an excellent theologian, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize. Moreover, one of the arguments, on which Fr. Low in the article on Canonizations in the Enciclopedia cattolica (Catholic Encyclopedia), bases his thesis on infallibility is the existence of a massive complex of investigations and findings, followed by two miracles which precede the canonization. There is no doubt that after the reform of the procedure willed by John Paul II in 1983, this process of ascertaining the truth has become much weaker and there has been a change of the very concept of sanctity. The argument, however, does not seem to me decisive because the canonization process has deeply changed throughout history. The proclamation of the sanctity of Ulrich of Augsburg, on the part of Pope John XV in 993, considered the first canonization on the part of the pope was done without any investigation on the part of the Holy See. The process of thorough investigation dates back mainly to Benedict XIV: he was responsible, for example, for the distinction between formal canonization, according to all the canonical rules, and equivalent canonization, when a Servant of God is declared a saint by virtue of popular veneration. St. Hildegard of Bingen received the title of saint after her death, and Pope Gregory IX, starting in 1233, began the investigation for the canonization. However, there was never a formal canonization. Nor was St. Catherine of Sweden, daughter of St. Bridget, ever canonized. Her process was held between 1446 and 1489 but never concluded. She has been venerated as a saint without ever being canonized.
CFN: What do you think of the thesis of St. Thomas, also echoed in the article on Canonizations of the Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique (Dictionary of Catholic Theology) according to which, if the Pope was not infallible in a solemn declaration like canonization, he would deceive himself and the Church.
RDM: We must first dispel a semantic misconception: a non-infallible act , is not a wrong act that necessarily deceives, but only an act subject to the possibility of error. In fact, this error may be most rare, or never happened. St. Thomas, balanced, as always, in his judgment, is not infallible to the end. He is rightly concerned to defend the infallibility of the Church and he does so with a theologically-reasonable argument, on the contrary. His argument can be accepted in a broad sense, but admitting the possibility of exceptions. I agree with him that the Church as a whole cannot err. This does not mean that every act of the Church, as the act of canonization, is in itself necessarily infallible. The assent which lends itself to acts of canonizations is of ecclesiastical faith, not divine. This means that the member of the faithful believes because he accepts the principle that the Church does not normally err. The exception does not cancel out the rule. An influential German theologian Bernhard Bartmann, in his Manual of Dogmatic Theology (1962), compares the veneration (cult) of a false saint to homage paid to a false ambassador of a king. The error does not detract from the principle according that the king has true ambassadors and the Church canonizes true saints.
CFN: So then, in what sense, can we speak of infallibility of the Church in canonizations?
RDM: I am convinced that it would be a serious mistake to reduce the infallibility of the Church to the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. The Church is not only infallible when She teaches in an extraordinary way, but also in her Ordinary Magisterium. But just as there are conditions for the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium, there also exist conditions for the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. And the first of these is its universality, which is proved when a truth of faith or morals is taught in a consistent manner over time. The Magisterium can infallibly teach a doctrine with an act of definition by the Pope, or with a non-definitive act of the Ordinary Magisterium, provided that this doctrine is constantly held and passed down (transmitted) by tradition and by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The instruction Ad Tuendam Fidem of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of May 18, 1998 (no. 2), confirms that. By analogy, one could argue that the Church cannot err when she confirms truth, over time, related to faith, dogmatic facts, liturgical usages. Canonizations may also fall into this group of connected truths. You can be sure that St. Hildegard of Bingen is in the glory of the saints, and can be proposed as a model, not because she was solemnly canonized by a Pope, seeing as in her case there has never been a formal canonization, but because the Church recognized her cult, without interruption, since her death. A fortiori for those saints who have never been formally canonized, like St. Francis or St. Dominic, the infallible certainty of their glory in a diachronic sense (developed over time) stems from the universal cult that the Church has bestowed on them and not by a judgment of canonization in itself. The Church does not deceive, in its universal Magisterium, but one can admit a mistake on the part of ecclesiastical authorities constricted in time and space.
CFN: Would you like to summarize your opinion?
RDM: The canonization of Pope John XXIII is a solemn act of the Sovereign Pontiff, which derives from the supreme authority of the Church, and that should be regarded with respect, but it is not a judgment infallible in itself. The exercise of reason, supported by a careful examination of the facts shows quite clearly that the pontificate of John XXIII was not of benefit to the Church. If I had to admit that Pope Roncalli exercised virtue in a heroic way while carrying out his role of Pontiff, I would undermine at the core, the rational presuppositions of my faith. When in doubt, I adhere to the dogma of faith established by the First Vatican Council, according to which there can be no contradiction between faith and reason. Faith transcends reason and elevates it but it does not contradict it, because God, Truth itself, is not contradictory. I feel in conscience able to maintain all my reservations about this act of canonization.
–------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Professor Roberto de Mattei teaches Church History at the European University in Rome, where he is the head of the Faculty of Historical Sciences. He is Vice President of the National Research Council [Consiglio nαzιonale delle Ricerche, CNR], and a member of the Boards of Directors of the Historical Institute for the Modern and Contemporary Era and of Italian Geographical Society. He is President of the Lepanto Foundation and edits the scholarly journals Radici Cristiane and Nova Historica. Moreover he collaborates with the Pontifical Council for Historical Sciences, and the Holy See awarded him the insignia of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great in recognition of his services to the Church. Among his more recently published words: The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (English edition, Loreto, 2012); Blessed Pius IX (Gracewing, 2004); Holy War, Just War: Islam and Christendom at War (The Rocford Institute: Chronicles Press, 2007); La dittatura del relativismo [The Dictatorship of Relativism] (Chieti: Solfanelli, 2007), Turkey in Europe: Benefit or Catastrophe? (Gracewing, 2009).
- taken from The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story
• Posted April 15, 2014: Catholic Family News, all rights reserved. Permission to quote is granted provided source of interview is noted/linked.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/6f68a916ecfd1824ca26cf802db0c2fc-217.html
-
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
Fr. Henri Le Floch
http://web.archive.org/web/20030411135559/http:/sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm
Ha, I followed your link and was told:
Oops, something went wrong.
Please try again.
That about sums it up, I suppose!
-
Update-
Just went to the Bellarmine Forums, and saw a post from John Lane regarding my interpretation of the response received from Menzingen.
John Lane says:
"Now, Johnson adds this:
Sean Johnson wrote:
2) But the response I received from Menzingen (via Fr. Granges) admitted towards the end of the response, that the SSPX could not declare the invalidity/fallibility of the canonizations.
But that is erroneous. Fr. Granges does not say that. He says the following: "Now, we cannot say that this canonization is invalid on the point of view of the efficient cause, as if Pope Francis had not the power of canonizing." That is a comment purely on the pope question. That is, we (the SSPX) cannot say that the canonisations are invalid because Francis isn't pope. Rather, we (the SSPX) say that the canonisations are invalid for other reasons already explained."
Response:
1) I thank John Lane for bringing to my attention that I did in fact misread Fr. Granges;
2) It means that the SSPX is not contradicting itself by adducing reasons for the invalidity/fallibility of the canonizations, while simultaneously admitting it has no authority to declare such a thing (as I originally thought it to have done upon my first reading of Fr. Grange's response);
3) It was on the basis of that mistaken interpretation that I waived the white flag, as I took Fr. Grange's response to evince lack of conviction in the objections the SSPX was promulgating to the canonizations.
4) While that apparently is not the case, I do still acknowledge these matters are better left to those who know more about it, and I look forward to following (but not contributing) to the discussion.
-
The independent falsehood of 55 year sedevacantism rather easily established is one thing, and the internal inconsistency and intellectual incoherence of some of the positions espoused here is another. The claim that canonizations, even traditional canonizations, are not infallible is demonstrably false.
But nowhere does it say that canonizations are infallible so there is no such contradiction.
Weren't you corrected on this before?
Pope Benedict XIV said, "The universal Church cannot be led into error concerning matters of morals by the Supreme Pontiff; but this would be the case if he were not infallible in the canonization of saints" (Doctrina de Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione [1811], Ch. XLIII, sec. 4; qtd. in Fr. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ [Herder, 1927], p. 510).
The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that the Pope is infallible in matters concerning faith or morals, thus including canonizations in that definition.
As has been also posted here, the Pontiff also said, "If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insultor of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.”
If these words do not at least give you pause to reflect and cause you to be cautious in propagating the exact contrary, well, you should consider why that is.
-
Nishant wrote:
The independent falsehood of 55 year sedevacantism rather easily established is one thing, and the internal inconsistency and intellectual incoherence of some of the positions espoused here is another. The claim that canonizations, even traditional canonizations, are not infallible is demonstrably false.
55 or or 50? That is open to debate, and from all available evidence it seems that it seems that June 3, 1963 is the more probable date.
Secondly, you have not proven the falsity of the "sedevacantist" position. The lawful papal electors still live in the world, appointed by a true Pope.
Third, despite your own opinion that you are right on the supplied acts of appointment of an antipope, you have not proven your case. You have never demonstrated that supplied jurisdiction fails to supply in all cases when the conditions are met.
-
The lawful papal electors still live in the world, appointed by a true Pope.
Who are they?
-
The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that the Pope is infallible in matters concerning faith or morals, thus including canonizations in that definition.
Therefore, that so and so is in heaven part of the Deposit of Faith?
-
The lawful papal electors still live in the world, appointed by a true Pope.
Who are they?
They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.
-
They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.
I generally think the sedevacantist position makes sense but this is the one area where I think the sedevacantist arguments do not make sense. They rely on unknown orthodox Novus Ordo bishops appointed by a true pope without whom they say the Church would fail. Will you renounce your sedevacantist position in ten years when the last Pope John XXIII Bishop dies?
-
They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.
I generally think the sedevacantist position makes sense but this is the one area where I think the sedevacantist arguments do not make sense. They rely on unknown orthodox Novus Ordo bishops appointed by a true pope without whom they say the Church would fail. Will you renounce your sedevacantist position in ten years when the last Pope John XXIII Bishop dies?
The Church will never run out of members of the hierarchy, so I am not worried about it. Their lives are in the hands of God, and we know that the hierarchy will exist until the end if the world.
We do not rely on "Novus Ordo" bishops, we look to Catholic bishops who have kept the Faith through the crisis. Adherence to the Conciliar church or it's antipopes is not in and of itself proof of heresy.
The fact is that Catholics since the beginning of this crisis have remained in the Conciliar church, while erroneously believing that this sect is the Catholic Church. This does not mean that they have lost their Faith or are out of the Church, only that they fail to recognize where the Church is.
In order for a Catholic bishop to lose his office due to heresy, he must meet the canonical definition of a heretic. To this date, May 5, 2014 I have never read any case against any of these bishops which would demonstrate that they are heretics, and by that have lost their offices. The only thing I have ever seen are groundless assumptions, with absolutely no accompanying evidence.
-
They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.
I generally think the sedevacantist position makes sense but this is the one area where I think the sedevacantist arguments do not make sense. They rely on unknown orthodox Novus Ordo bishops appointed by a true pope without whom they say the Church would fail. Will you renounce your sedevacantist position in ten years when the last Pope John XXIII Bishop dies?
The Church will never run out of members of the hierarchy, so I am not worried about it. Their lives are in the hands of God, and we know that the hierarchy will exist until the end if the world.
We do not rely on "Novus Ordo" bishops, we look to Catholic bishops who have kept the Faith through the crisis. Adherence to the Conciliar church or it's antipopes is not in and of itself proof of heresy.
The fact is that Catholics since the beginning of this crisis have remained in the Conciliar church, while erroneously believing that this sect is the Catholic Church. This does not mean that they have lost their Faith or are out of the Church, only that they fail to recognize where the Church is.
In order for a Catholic bishop to lose his office due to heresy, he must meet the canonical definition of a heretic. To this date, May 5, 2014 I have never read any case against any of these bishops which would demonstrate that they are heretics, and by that have lost their offices. The only thing I have ever seen are groundless assumptions, with absolutely no accompanying evidence.
Following Ambroses post, here are some possibilities:
1. Bishops in the Eastern Catholic Rites that have if not vocally rejected Vatican II and the changes, but have kept the Faith and kept their Rite substantially intact.
2. Bishops in the underground (True) Catholic Church in China. Information on them is hard to come by, but considering the persecution they have been under and either been in prison or in hiding, some of them I think could certainly be for all intents and purposes, 'pre Vatican II'
3. Bishops in other remote locations such as Africa. The African bishops/clergy seem much more conservative than the Western NO clergy to begin with. I am sure at least some have kept the faith intact.
4. Bishops in the Latin Rite in N America/Europe/Latin America. There are many of them. Not all of them make the news for outrages/abuses. It is hard to know, since the Vatican II agenda has been so fully implemented in the west, but maybe there is a small diocese or few here and there that have mostly, if not completely resisted the changes?
-
They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.
I generally think the sedevacantist position makes sense but this is the one area where I think the sedevacantist arguments do not make sense. They rely on unknown orthodox Novus Ordo bishops appointed by a true pope without whom they say the Church would fail. Will you renounce your sedevacantist position in ten years when the last Pope John XXIII Bishop dies?
The Church will never run out of members of the hierarchy, so I am not worried about it. Their lives are in the hands of God, and we know that the hierarchy will exist until the end if the world.
We do not rely on "Novus Ordo" bishops, we look to Catholic bishops who have kept the Faith through the crisis. Adherence to the Conciliar church or it's antipopes is not in and of itself proof of heresy.
The fact is that Catholics since the beginning of this crisis have remained in the Conciliar church, while erroneously believing that this sect is the Catholic Church. This does not mean that they have lost their Faith or are out of the Church, only that they fail to recognize where the Church is.
In order for a Catholic bishop to lose his office due to heresy, he must meet the canonical definition of a heretic. To this date, May 5, 2014 I have never read any case against any of these bishops which would demonstrate that they are heretics, and by that have lost their offices. The only thing I have ever seen are groundless assumptions, with absolutely no accompanying evidence.
Following Ambroses post, here are some possibilities:
1. Bishops in the Eastern Catholic Rites that have if not vocally rejected Vatican II and the changes, but have kept the Faith and kept their Rite substantially intact.
2. Bishops in the underground (True) Catholic Church in China. Information on them is hard to come by, but considering the persecution they have been under and either been in prison or in hiding, some of them I think could certainly be for all intents and purposes, 'pre Vatican II'
3. Bishops in other remote locations such as Africa. The African bishops/clergy seem much more conservative than the Western NO clergy to begin with. I am sure at least some have kept the faith intact.
4. Bishops in the Latin Rite in N America/Europe/Latin America. There are many of them. Not all of them make the news for outrages/abuses. It is hard to know, since the Vatican II agenda has been so fully implemented in the west, but maybe there is a small diocese or few here and there that have mostly, if not completely resisted the changes?
Great post Luker! The only task that we have as Catholics if we wish to identify the hierarchy is to figure out which bishops still have the Faith, and which have defected.
The Church supplies when it is necessary for the common good and when there is common error. I think it is safe to say that bishops who are appointed that continue the use of the Novus Ordo Missae and the Vatican II theology, especially that which is taught by the CCC would not be part of the common good.
So, it would seem that we could isolate appointees in the Roman rite to pre-1970 appointees, and bishops of the Eastern rites who have continued to support the teaching of the Church and have not embraced the novelties of Vatican II, the postV2 "popes" and the CCC.
-
Sorry, Ambrose, I really don't want to get into this on this thread. We've gone over this before, and your thesis is problematic for at least five reasons, being expressly contrary to one defined dogma and the resuscitation of a proposition condemned at Constance. Your theory of how Apostolic succession can be continued without the Petrine succession is contradicted, among other sources, by cuм Ex, as I will mention in a new thread. (Even the suggestion of the same is an affront on the Church's monarchical constitution, only a Successor of Peter can make formal Successors of the Apostles, otherwise Peter is not the Rock on which the Church is built).
The Church is indefectible ... in her monarchical constitution (principle 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors ... is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such?
And though a sede vacante certainly cannot be prolonged beyond the point when all bishops appointed by the last Pope die, that does not mean that it can necessarily be prolonged up to that point. If all remaining Roman clergy or Ordinaries recognize a single candidate, it is impossible that the Church be in a sede vacante. You must profess communion with these to remain in the Church, and since they profess communion with the Pope, you must profess communion with him. Therefore, it is impossible, as all theologians teach, when all the authorities of the Church profess communion with the Pope, for the Pope not to be the Pope.
God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election
Ecclesia Militans, canonizations are dogmatic facts, in the judgment of which the Church cannot err. That the Church is infallible in Her judgments is itself a revealed truth and the object of this judgment, inseparably connected with revelation and contained in it not formally but implicitly, is called the secondary object of infallibility.
To the secondary objects of infallibility belong... the canonization of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration.
... then a further decree may be issued by which the Pontiff defines that the person is a “Saint” and is to be honored as such in the whole Church with public veneration. No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”
Will you tell me it doesn't matter what "Tom" or "Bob" (God forgive me, but it is necessary to show the consequences Fr. Pfeiffer's position leads to) thought, because, after all, St. Thomas or St. Robert may not be Saints? Do you see how problematic it is to say the Church has never held canonizations to be infallible?
-
Ecclesia Militans, canonizations are dogmatic facts, in the judgment of which the Church cannot err. That the Church is infallible in Her judgments is itself a revealed truth and the object of this judgment, inseparably connected with revelation and contained in it not formally but implicitly, is called the secondary object of infallibility.
To the secondary objects of infallibility belong... the canonization of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration.
... then a further decree may be issued by which the Pontiff defines that the person is a “Saint” and is to be honored as such in the whole Church with public veneration. No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”
Will you tell me it doesn't matter what "Tom" or "Bob" (God forgive me, but it is necessary to show the consequences Fr. Pfeiffer's position leads to) thought, because, after all, St. Thomas or St. Robert may not be Saints? Do you see how problematic it is to say the Church has never held canonizations to be infallible?
Nishant, please define for me what you mean by "dogmatic fact".
-
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
-
Ecclesia Militans, canonizations are dogmatic facts, in the judgment of which the Church cannot err. That the Church is infallible in Her judgments is itself a revealed truth and the object of this judgment, inseparably connected with revelation and contained in it not formally but implicitly, is called the secondary object of infallibility.
To the secondary objects of infallibility belong... the canonization of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration.
... then a further decree may be issued by which the Pontiff defines that the person is a “Saint” and is to be honored as such in the whole Church with public veneration. No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”
Will you tell me it doesn't matter what "Tom" or "Bob" (God forgive me, but it is necessary to show the consequences Fr. Pfeiffer's position leads to) thought, because, after all, St. Thomas or St. Robert may not be Saints? Do you see how problematic it is to say the Church has never held canonizations to be infallible?
Nishant, please define for me what you mean by "dogmatic fact".
They're indirect objects of infallibility, so you wouldn't understand. :smoke-pot:
Things like the legitimacy of papacies are dogmatic facts. Canonizations could probably be called them as well.
What Nishant is driving at, and what Fr. Pfeiffer can't see through his tunnel vision (nor can many others) is that this neo-minimalism "definitions only" traditionalism undermines traditionalism itself, as in rejecting the very notion of indirect objects of infallibility, there is nothing to stop these faithful from rejecting the legitimacy of Pope Pius V, in which case they would then reject the very missal the traditional position uses, the very council wherein the Catholic faith was so eloquently explained, etc.