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
Maybe the answer to that question has to be put thus:  In canonizing such and such a person, did the post-conciliar popes intend to engage their infallibility, or no?

In normal times, there could be no question of this, but in times like these, I can scarcely see how not to question it.
(11-26-2012, 09:09 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe the answer to that question has to be put thus:  In canonizing such and such a person, did the post-conciliar popes intend to engage their infallibility, or no?

In normal times, there could be no question of this, but in times like these, I can scarcely see how not to question it.

Why is there so much dancing?  Either the Church has defected or not.  If it has, we are the most pitiable of men.  If it has not, then the seat is still occupied and we don't need to invent absurd scenarios to justify apparent contradictions.
(11-26-2012, 09:12 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-26-2012, 09:09 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe the answer to that question has to be put thus:  In canonizing such and such a person, did the post-conciliar popes intend to engage their infallibility, or no?

In normal times, there could be no question of this, but in times like these, I can scarcely see how not to question it.

Why is there so much dancing?  Either the Church has defected or not.  If it has, we are the most pitiable of men.  If it has not, then the seat is still occupied and we don't need to invent absurd scenarios to justify apparent contradictions.

The Church doesn't defect, churchmen defect from Her. 
(11-26-2012, 09:12 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-26-2012, 09:09 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe the answer to that question has to be put thus:  In canonizing such and such a person, did the post-conciliar popes intend to engage their infallibility, or no?

In normal times, there could be no question of this, but in times like these, I can scarcely see how not to question it.

Why is there so much dancing?  Either the Church has defected or not.  If it has, we are the most pitiable of men.  If it has not, then the seat is still occupied and we don't need to invent absurd scenarios to justify apparent contradictions.

What can I say, Doc?  I think the miracles God has used to prove the existence of His Church are sufficient.  Just because I can't see the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.
Quote:
(11-26-2012, 09:00 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, there were canonizations through public acclamations, there were also bishops who canonized by their own authority in the Church's primitive times. In my opinion, the DA's job was created to avoid too many abuses, so I am more distressed than you are that we may see these abuses to come back since it was suppressed by JPII. The case of Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer is emblematic.

Emblematic of what exactly?  Are canonizations infallible or not?  Has the Church defected or not?  What say you?

Canonizations cannot be infallible.  Revelation is "the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature."

No human means can be used to discover the final destination of a person's soul. 

Therefore, the infallibility of a canonization is a declaration of public Divine Revelation on a matter not concerning faith and moral as transmitted by the Apostle's but a specific fact of knowledge in a post revelation period. 

This falls outside the scope of infallibility and goes against the dogma of the Church that public Revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle. 

If canonization is infallible, then the dogma of the Church and the integrity of the deposit of faith are false and the Church is false, and therefore the whole thing including infallibility is false. 

It's a tautology that makes the Church an affront to the principle of non-contradiction. 
Canonizations not infallible.  Check.

Well, that solves that problem.  See how simple it is when you people stop dancing?  :tiphat:
Gerard,

It is part of public revelation that many souls would enter Heaven after the last apostle died.  So to say that this or that person is in Heaven seemingly doesn't add something new to what God has revealed, since God already revealed that many people would end up in Heaven, even if He didn't explicitly name them in the Bible.  Christ foretold, for instance, that there would be martyrs in future generations (cf. John 16:2-3; John 15:18-9, etc.).  He was speaking, clearly, of some who lived and died long after the apostles were on the Earth.

To give you an analogy, Christ revealed as part of public revelation that before the end of time the "man of sin," the Antichrist, will come and unleash a savage persecution of the faithful (2 Thess. 2:3ff; John 5, etc.).  But the Antichrist did not come before St. John the Apostle's death (he was the last apostle to die).  And yet it clearly be false to accuse the Church of defecting if at some future time she points out the man who is obviously the Antichrist and says, "That's him." 

Some parts of public revelation concern future realities which unfolded or will unfold following the death of the last Apostle.  The revelation about the end times is one such matter, as is the fact that the elect spoken of by Christ include among their number many who lived and died long after the apostles.  I think the Jansenist controversy involved this point: there are dogmas, but there are also "dogmatic facts" which are intrinsically related to dogmas and about which the Church must be able to infallibly pronounce.  For instance, the perpetual succession of popes in the See of Peter is part of the Faith, but the fact that specific men (Clement VIII, Leo X, St. Pius V, John XIV, etc.) fulfilled that succession is directly related to the dogma, and therefore the Church must be capable of rendering judgment on the matter.

To give another analogy, St. Vincent Ferrer famously claimed that he was actually mentioned in the Scriptures, in the Book of the Apocalypse or Revelation (Apocalypse 14:6-7).  Apparently this claim caused a great uproar, so St. Vincent walked into a church where a dead woman was laid out for her funeral.  He asked the dead woman if he spoke the truth about being the angel of the Apocalypse.  The deceased sat up, said, "Yes, Father, that's true," then fell back dead again.  After that, people no longer questioned St. Vincent's claim. 

And yet St. Vincent was born over a millenium after St. John the Apostle's death.  This must mean that matters dealing with public revelation can be pronounced upon without adding anything to the Deposit, or else you would seemingly have to accuse St. Vincent of heresy or something similar.

As for human means of verifying if someone is in Heaven, the miracles which are required for canonization are a (divine) confirmation of a given person's salvation.  The First Vatican Council said that a religion which can advance true miracles in support of its claims is evidently of divine origin, since a miracle is an action impossible to anyone but God alone (or someone given power directly by God).  So the very fact that God performs a true miracle because of a prospective saint's intercession is a sign that this person is in Heaven.

In any event, many, many reputable and learned preconciliar theologians were aware of what you state about public revelation being closed, and yet those same theologians also believed that canonizations were infallible.  So I don't think it can be held that there is an obvious contradiction between the two, given the countless learned authorities who believed both.

God bless.
Canonizations are infallible.  Check.

Well, that solves that problem.  See how simple it is when you people stop dancing?  :tiphat:
It's clear the formula used makes it infallible. Invoking the apostolic authority, using the words "decernimus et definimus".
(11-26-2012, 11:45 PM)GUDC Wrote: [ -> ]Gerard,

It is part of public revelation that many souls would enter Heaven after the last apostle died.  So to say that this or that person is in Heaven seemingly doesn't add something new to what God has revealed, since God already revealed that many people would end up in Heaven, even if He didn't explicitly name them in the Bible.  Christ foretold, for instance, that there would be martyrs in future generations (cf. John 16:2-3; John 15:18-9, etc.).  He was speaking, clearly, of some who lived and died long after the apostles were on the Earth.

Several things to address.  The revelation  that this or that particular soul is in heaven is not related to faith or morals nor does it affect the doctrine of salvation.  It's not a development of doctrine since it doesn't clarify the doctrine.  Conversely, if this were true, the Church would also be infallible in condemnations.  There is no infallible canon of the damned because no one can know the internal disposition of a person at the moment of death.  It's far less scandalous to get to Heaven and find out that a damned person was considered saved  than is for a saved person to be considered damned.  One is  a simple error the other is an injustice.

Nor is canonization of Apostolic Origin.  It's a process invented about a 1000 years into the life of the Church. 

Quote: To give you an analogy, Christ revealed as part of public revelation that before the end of time the "man of sin," the Antichrist, will come and unleash a savage persecution of the faithful (2 Thess. 2:3ff; John 5, etc.).  But the Antichrist did not come before St. John the Apostle's death (he was the last apostle to die).  And yet it clearly be false to accuse the Church of defecting if at some future time she points out the man who is obviously the Antichrist and says, "That's him." 

I'm not saying the Church would defect for surmising that someone is the Anti-Christ.  I'm saying the Church is not infallible in making that specific declaration.  St. Pius X  wrote that the Anti-Christ was probably among us back in the encyclical "Our Apostolic Mandate."  By all normal criteria he was wrong. The Church did not defect.

Quote: Some parts of public revelation concern future realities which unfolded or will unfold following the death of the last Apostle.  The revelation about the end times is one such matter, as is the fact that the elect spoken of by Christ include among their number many who lived and died long after the apostles.  I think the Jansenist controversy involved this point: there are dogmas, but there are also "dogmatic facts" which are intrinsically related to dogmas and about which the Church must be able to infallibly pronounce.  For instance, the perpetual succession of popes in the See of Peter is part of the Faith, but the fact that specific men (Clement VIII, Leo X, St. Pius V, John XIV, etc.) fulfilled that succession is directly related to the dogma, and therefore the Church must be capable of rendering judgment on the matter.

I don't view it as outside of the scope of the Church to infallibly declare that Elijah has returned since that eventual return is a part of revelation during the Apostolic period.  But the Church does not have the ability to infallibly declare on individuals not specifically mentioned or dealt with prior to the death of the Apostle John.

Quote: To give another analogy, St. Vincent Ferrer famously claimed that he was actually mentioned in the Scriptures, in the Book of the Apocalypse or Revelation (Apocalypse 14:6-7).  Apparently this claim caused a great uproar, so St. Vincent walked into a church where a dead woman was laid out for her funeral.  He asked the dead woman if he spoke the truth about being the angel of the Apocalypse.  The deceased sat up, said, "Yes, Father, that's true," then fell back dead again.  After that, people no longer questioned St. Vincent's claim. 

And yet St. Vincent was born over a millenium after St. John the Apostle's death.  This must mean that matters dealing with public revelation can be pronounced upon without adding anything to the Deposit, or else you would seemingly have to accuse St. Vincent of heresy or something similar.

St. Vincent also followed an anti-Pope during the Great Western Schism.  Are you claiming that the Church has infallibly declared that St. Vincent was the person referenced in that scriptural passage?  I don't even necessarily hold the story as infallibly factual.  There are a lot of saints' stories that don't smack of credibility. 

Quote: As for human means of verifying if someone is in Heaven, the miracles which are required for canonization are a (divine) confirmation of a given person's salvation.  The First Vatican Council said that a religion which can advance true miracles in support of its claims is evidently of divine origin, since a miracle is an action impossible to anyone but God alone (or someone given power directly by God).  So the very fact that God performs a true miracle because of a prospective saint's intercession is a sign that this person is in Heaven.

You are back to claiming that God is directly revealing after the death of St. John, through miracles that a person is an occupant of Heaven.  That is Revelation.  Revelation is closed.  Are you now adding to the mix that the Church infallibly declares on miracles?

Quote: In any event, many, many reputable and learned preconciliar theologians were aware of what you state about public revelation being closed, and yet those same theologians also believed that canonizations were infallible.  So I don't think it can be held that there is an obvious contradiction between the two, given the countless learned authorities who believed both.

God bless.

I think for a devout person an ultramontanist attitude towards the papacy has been a real problem Churchwide during its good periods.  The fact is, that error or any error will eventually be exploited and used by the Devil.  Archbishop LeFebvre said the masterstroke of the Devil was to create disobedience through obedience.  Fr. LeFloch prior to LeFebvre warned that exaggerating papal infallibiity was going to lead to real problems.  He was right.  Fr. Malachi Martin called the papacy "our greatest strength and also our great weakness." 

We are now in a situation where the previously harmless and pious belief in infallibility of canonizations is coming home to roost.  It's leading to scandalous saints and the denial of the obvious by conservatives and defections from the Church by sedevacantists, both mislead by the same exaggeration of papal infallibility. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10