FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bl John XXIII Miracle
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(12-02-2012, 04:24 AM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]
Gerard Wrote:Let's clarify this a bit.  What list of theologians are you talking about, what do you mean by unamimous and what magisterial document shows this to be true?

I'm talking about the approved theologians before the Council. What was taught by them universally in the manuals of sacred theology.

I asked for a list.  Do you even know who you appeal to? 

Gerard Wrote:What is the magisterial weight of that chart?

It's not a magisterial document. It's as authoritative as any approved theological textbook I suppose.

So, there are no guarantees about it being free from error. 

Quote:Aquinas called for pious assent, not religious belief.

St. Thomas held that it must be piously believed and that it was certain. Moreover he held that the contrary would be tantamount a damnable error within the Church, which cannot happen. That is not a mixed view, contrary to your claim. But in any case his opinion on this is a side issue; my main point here was that the common and now unanimous theological tradition teaches that canonizations are infallible.

BC, pp. 126-27: ―6. Is it de fide that the Church is infallible in the decree of canonization? This is an open question in the Catholic schools. They who maintain the negative argue as follows:
―1. St. Thomas [Quodlib. 9. 16.] places the judgment of the Church in canonization as something between a judgment in matters of faith and a judgment on particular facts; and therefore it would follow that the infallibility of the decree is a pious belief, but nothing more, inasmuch as it only pertains to the faith reductive.
―2. It is de fide that the Church is infallible in the common doctrine of morals; but it is not so certain that the canonization of Saints pertains to the common doctrine of morals.
―3. The Church has never defined her infallibility in this matter to be de fide, neither can we collect it from her practice.
―4. The great names of Suarez, Vasquez, Canus, Raynaudus and the doctors of Salamanca, are found on this side of the question.‖
BC, pp. 131-32: ―7. Is it de fide that the canonized Saint is really a Saint? Those who maintain the negative side in the last question argue thus:
―1. If the infallibility of the Church in canonization is not de fide, a fortiori it is not de fide that each canonized Saint really enjoys the beatific vision: for, first, it is plainly not a matter of immediate revelation, and, secondly, if the Church‘s infallibility in this respect is not de fide itself, the glory of any particular Saint is not a matter of mediate revelation.
―2. Nothing can be put by the Church among the dogmas of faith which is neither implicitly nor virtually revealed: now the sanctity of anyone in particular is neither implicitly nor virtually revealed. This is denied by those who take the affirmative side, in their third argument quoted in the last question. Supposing however the present objection valid, it will, as its own partisans are careful to assert, by no means follow that cultus could be denied with impunity to any Saint, just as adoration could not be refused at the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, although it is not de fide that that particular Host is consecrated.‖

Gerard Wrote:He admitted that errors of fact could be possible.

We can err when it comes to certain historical facts about the saints, yes; but the Church doesn't infallibly pronounce on these things. All the Church pronounces when canonizing a saint is that a person is now in heaven and is to be universally honored as such.

But you presuppose that it is infallible.  It is not. 

Gerard Wrote:His worst argumentation is his wild (for him) speculation on the damage that could be caused by canonizations not being infallible.

It's your word against his (as well as practically all of the theologians of the Church who have addressed this issue).

Athanasius contra mundum if necessary.  But as I've shown there are a number of theologians who argue the negative. 

Gerard Wrote:But we're not bound to believe that all things are infallible, which is the point I'm making.

I never argued that all things were infallible.

You state we are bound to believe in things that are not declared infallibly.  I claim that the canonization of saints is one example.

Gerard Wrote:I'm bound to believe in the Communion of Saints and I accept the Canon of Saints as being authentic, do I believe in the infallibility of canonization?  No.  Because I'm bound to beleve that revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle.  And canonization is new revelation.

Canonization is not a new revelation. Not anymore than when the Church infallibly pronounces on modern day moral issues that were obviously not addressed by the Apostles.

An individual's soul is not the same thing as a moral precept.  God doesn't sit in judgement of a moral precept. He's revealed already everything we need to know about morals.  The Church gives teaching on its application.  We don't have new morals coming down from Heaven. 

And yes, canonization would be a new revelation if it were infallible. 

Take it another way, Is the sanctity of St. Theresa of Avila a part of the Deposit of Faith? If so, how can there be additions to the Deposit of Faith if Revelation is closed?  So, if St. Theresa's sanctity is part of the Deposit of Faith, it must be something Divinely Revealed, so Revelation isn't closed. 

But Revelation being closed is part of the Deposit of Faith, so one of these premises must be wrong.   Catholicism falls apart if canonizations are infallible.  It holds together if they are not. 

Gerard Wrote:How do you know Stephen didn't issue the order ex Cathedra?

Think about what you're asking here. If Pope Stephen issued an ex cathedra pronouncement when declaring Pope Formosus' papal acts as null and void (when in fact they were completely valid), then Pope Stephen would have been in error. But as the First Vatican Council declared, a Pope cannot pronounce something erroneously when he does so ex cathedra. That's how I know.

No. Read the First Vatican Council.  He can only be infallible on matters concerning Faith and Morals.  Not on matters concerning specific facts and orders of governance.  The Pope has supreme authority of governance, not infallible power of governance. 

Gerard Wrote:My point is that there is no "universal consent" on the infallibility of canonizations.

It's common teaching among theologians; something we must believe as Catholics under pain of the mortal sin of temerity.

No. It's not. 

Gerard Wrote:Again with the "theologians" determining what is and is not infallible.

Why put theologians in quotations marks? Is it because you don't believe they were actual theologians or is it because you hold little to no regard for their teachings?

You can't even provide their names, much less a statement from a Council or Pope confirming your assertion about the infalliblity of "the theologians." 

Gerard Wrote:Fallible theologians claiming infallibility again beyond what is explicitly stated in the First Vatican Council.

Has it ever occurred to you that you were fallible as well?

I mean no insult but it seems to me more plausible that men who tower both you and I in sanctity and learning have understood the teachings of the Church better.

I'm very fallible, in fact I'm an expert at recognizing my own kind.  My simple faith is protection that the "smart guys" don't have, they will all eventually try and twist something they don't like or like too much to their own image, even the best of them. 

Gerard Wrote:Who the hell even knows what "infallible" in the approval of religious orders means?

It means that the Church cannot officially approve a religious order that holds (in her official rule) a way of life intrinsically contrary to her faith and morals.

That's a low bar for "infallibility" any problems can simply be attributed to a misunderstanding of the intrinsic "goodness" of the rule. 

Gerard Wrote:Even stipulating your claim on "dogmatic facts" you have yet to prove that canonizations are dogmatic facts properly understood

And in what better why do I do that than by appealing to the authorities that came up with the concept of dogmatic facts in the first place?

You can't.  And that's the problem.  A better way would be if there were an infallible Magisterial decree from a Council or Pope.  There are none.  Infallibility was defined forever and it did not include the "common consent of (unnamed) theologians". 

Gerard Wrote:
Fr. Faber Wrote:Our question is, Is the Church infallible in the canonization of Saints ? Most certainly. [and two of the reasons he gives...] 3. The opposite opinion would destroy the note of sanctity in the Church, for it would admit that she could pay religious cultus to the damned, God's enemies and the companions of the devil...7. Sixtus V. in the last consistory for canonization of St. Didacus, spoke for an hour in assertion of the infallibility of the decrees of canonization, but it may be said that was was then speaking as a private doctor;  yet even so his opinion of his great weight.
Once again, the argument is illusory.  How does one know who is among the damned?  Only if canonization were infallible would there be an infallible revelation of who is among the damned?

You didn't understand the argument.

I understood it perfectly. It's a red herring.  They never explain just how it is that we are to know infallibly that someone is among the damned.  God is not scandalized by genuine human error. 

Quote: No where was an infallible revelation of the damned mentioned.

It would of necessity be an infallible knowledge of the damned. 

Quote:  His argument was this: if canonizations were liable to error, it would destroy the sanctity of the Church because it would be tantamount to the Church promulgating a liturgy where she legislates that we honor and ask the intercession of the damned (which is, btw, what basically happens when canonized saints are really damned souls in hell. We would be commanded by the Church to honor something fictitious in her official liturgy, which also cannot happen). 

Nonsense.  It would be no different than a person praying for a loved one or the intecession of a loved one who is not in Heaven.  Probably happens all the time. 

Gerard Wrote:You keep asserting that I'm claiming something must be directly taught.  Not so.  It must be implicitly in the deposit of faith.  Canonizations do not clarify the understanding of the Communion of Saints, they are incidental to the doctrine.

Then I take that back. So you hold that a doctrine must at least be implicitly contained within the deposit of faith to be infallible, correct?

What then constitutes implicit in your view? And who determines this?

The Magisterium of the Church has already defined this issue.  The Trinity is a prime example.  The doctrine of transubstantiation clarifies and preserves the understanding that Christ's body and blood are present with the appearances of bread and wine.  There may be an even better explanation at some point in the future, but it will only clarify the teaching more and will fully hold alongside and harmoniously with transubstantiation. 

Gerard Wrote:Faber points out the argument and it is not refuted that the Church can infallibly declare what is necessary and what is ilicit in defining the necessary elements for a valid consecration but it cannot be infallibly declared based on human investigation that this or that particular host in this or that random parish is guaranteed to be the Blessed Sacrament.

I'm not sure what your intention is in bringing this up, but it's clear that Fr. Faber is not on your side. Why try to support your claim by constantly bringing up authors whose reasoning you deride?

Faber has his opinion, but he's clear enough to know that he's not on settled ground concerning the matter and refers it's final ruling to the Church. 

Gerard Wrote:Who determines what a dogmatic fact is infallibly?  Can we reject claims of things being dogmatic facts when they are not dogmatic facts?  Your whole argument is circular.

How is it circular? I think it is eminently reasonable to follow an authority that is more likely to be right than the reasoning of some random layman, no?

What good is infallible when you are now using it interchangeably with "more likely right"?    If I say I'm infallible and I'm the authority on that infalliblity and I'll be the one to determine when I exercise authority, then it is completely circular to assert my own claims as proof of my claims. 

Gerard Wrote:I'm sorry that they aren't infallible.  But they aren't.  Because they aren't.  They can be wrong.  Just because they are as fallible as I am, that means through no merit of my own, I might stumble onto a big error on their part because I'm appealing to the truly undisputed infallible authority of the Church and not relying on "borrowed infallibility" or other such fictions.

According to you, the theologians (whoever they are) claim to be infallible, decide what their authority is, and decide that they are the only ones qualified to decide what is or is not within their purview to decide on. 

I never claimed they were infallible, but authoritative and binding. When something is commonly taught by the theologians, we are bound to it under pain of the mortal sin of temerity. That is my claim.

Theologians in and of themselves do not have the power of the keys to bind and loosen. 

Quote: Which brings me to my last point you you did not address: that is, a lot of the moral teachings of the Church have not been officially taught by the Magisterium. Think about that. Can you offer me a list of at least a couple of ex cathedra pronouncements regarding what is or is not a mortal sin? And if I can come up with what I believe to be good arguments against the moral teachings that have not been defined, does that justify me in dissenting from said moral teachings?

You are still equating what the Church has authority in defining with what it does not.  The specific, individual sanctity of a particular person is far different from a moral teaching.   Just as the Church can rule on what constitutes valid form, matter and intent for the priest to confect the Blessed Sacrament.  The Church cannot rule infallibly that this or that particular host is properly consecrated or even the weight and size of the host involved.  It can be measured scientifically but it can't be infallibly ruled on and bound by the Pope as an exercise in infallibility. 

Just curous: Are you a geocentrist by any chance? I don't have a problem with it, but I'm curious if you are because of Church pronouncements on the subject. 

Gerard Wrote:
Quote:Pope Benedict XIV, "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.” (Translated by John Daly). . [source]
"if not a heretic"  is the key.

No, the operative words in that quote would be "at least...",

In the mind of Pope Benedict XIV you would at least be temerarious (a mortal sinner), a giver of scandal (providing others with the opportunity to commit a mortal sin), and an insulter of the saints (a blasphemer). But apparently that does not matter since it was not pronounced ex cathedra, correct?

You got it right by stating "in the mind of Pope Benedict XIV"  because that's as far as that statement goes Magisterially.  Second, he's talking about someone claiming "this or that canonization"  I'm not going that far at all.  I'm stating broadly that the power of infallibility is inapplicable to canonizations. 

Quote: You have the last word in this discussion since it appears we are getting no where.  :tiphat:

If Canonizations are infallible and the sudden knowledge that a person is in Heaven is not revelation, what is it?  Is it specifically part of the Deposit of Faith?  If so, how?  If not, what is it?  The questions are rhetorical at this point, because I believe that your view is not universal enough in understanding the consequences on the Faith involved if infallibility goes beyond faith and morals into new knowledge unknowable by human efforts and unrevealed until a certain time. 

I just have to interject that these posts are getting laughably long.  :O
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10