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
(11-27-2012, 12:15 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]It's clear the formula used makes it infallible. Invoking the apostolic authority, using the words "decernimus et definimus".

It's not the formula alone, it's the subject.  It's not one of faith and morals but an assertion of fact about an individual.  Infallibility is not covered by this.  It's like the Church declaring infallibly the final height of Charlemagne.
It's not a fact. It's an interpretation of the facts of a given person's life.
(11-27-2012, 12:25 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-27-2012, 12:15 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]It's clear the formula used makes it infallible. Invoking the apostolic authority, using the words "decernimus et definimus".

It's not the formula alone, it's the subject.  It's not one of faith and morals but an assertion of fact about an individual.  Infallibility is not covered by this.  It's like the Church declaring infallibly the final height of Charlemagne.

Yes, they are called secondary object of infallibility. They are intimately related to revealed dogmas. The height of Charlemagne is not. If it isn't infallible, then the Popes words are meaningless, or at least way open to doubt, and the recent declarations of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are fallible. The cult of saints is intimately bound up with our faith. We pray for their intercession, and we believe that they can answer our prayers. That's one huge reason. If they're in hell, and the Church says there is heaven, and we have a cult to a person in hell, and our calls to intercession are in error, then we have the destruction of the liturgical practice since the earliest days of the Church. Your theological opinion leads to absurdity. The Church is absurd.

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/the...tions.html
(11-27-2012, 02:32 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, they are called secondary object of infallibility. They are intimately related to revealed dogmas.

It's called creeping infallibility.  And having the roll call of Heaven periodically revealed by God is not part of dogma. 

Quote: If it isn't infallible, then the Popes words are meaningless, or at least way open to doubt, and the recent declarations of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are fallible.

The Pope's non-infallible words are not meaningless. Popes don't have to be infallible to be valuable. 

Thomas Kempis will never be canonized. he may very well be a saint but the Church will never declare hims so.  His words have helped millions despite not being canonized.  He will never be a "Doctor' of the Church.

And don't you think if the canonization process was infallible they would forward the cause of Thomas Kempis?  The problem is they don't know and they won't say anything because of the claw marks on his coffin. 

Regarding the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady. Both of those declarations refers to incidents that are part of the Deposit of Faith from the time prior to the close of Revelation.  The Apostles knew Mary was Immaculately concieved and passed that along.  Those that lived long enough knew that she was assumed into Heaven and passed that down as well. 

Quote:  The cult of saints is intimately bound up with our faith. We pray for their intercession, and we believe that they can answer our prayers. That's one huge reason. If they're in hell, and the Church says there is heaven, and we have a cult to a person in hell, and our calls to intercession are in error, then we have the destruction of the liturgical practice since the earliest days of the Church. Your theological opinion leads to absurdity. The Church is absurd.

Local devotions to people who were never canonized have occurred, so has the suppression of certain cults and devotions.  Those are real prayers going up to Heaven to people that the Church has decided not to pursue or even changed their minds on. 

The truth is, anyone praying to a saint that may never have existed or someone who didn't make it to Heaven is being handled by an intercessor in Heaven anyway.  God doesn't waste prayers. 

And since there is no way to verify canonizations, the Church will never suffer because of making a mistake. 

The Church did very well without canonizations and St. Joseph isn't in need of one, nor are most of the Apostles who were never canonized. 
(11-27-2012, 06:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]The Pope's non-infallible words are not meaningless. Popes don't have to be infallible to be valuable.

That was not my point. I find a lot of value in all of our fallible thoughts. So what? The point is that the Rock on which the Church is founded is understood that when She says something She means what She means to say. If She defines and declares something, it is true. And those words have the seal of Christ. If this most solemn of statements is open to doubt, then what's the point of the whole fiasco. Is it just florid words to impress people with an awe of God? "He said 'define', that sounds serious!" Or is it really a declaration and definition of an objective truth? If this is thrown into doubt, then really She is on sand, because we can open up the Church to so many other claims of doubt when using similar words. Like others have shown, it leads to absurdity. Catholicism is a "cohesive philosophical system with intransigent historical claims".

(11-27-2012, 06:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]And don't you think if the canonization process was infallible they would forward the cause of Thomas Kempis?

But that seems to view infallibility as a faucet instead of a levee. As Fulton Sheen said, the Pope doesn't turn it on and out pours truth, but rather it is a barrier which prevents him from error.

(11-27-2012, 06:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Local devotions to people who were never canonized have occurred, so has the suppression of certain cults and devotions.  Those are real prayers going up to Heaven to people that the Church has decided not to pursue or even changed their minds on.

You seem to be trying to prove your point from cases of absence. The cases in which the Church remains silent, She remains silent. The cases in which She forbids a devotion (pretty rare), it was never an object of formal canonization, and thus open to further inquiry.

(11-27-2012, 06:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]The truth is, anyone praying to a saint that may never have existed or someone who didn't make it to Heaven is being handled by an intercessor in Heaven anyway.  God doesn't waste prayers.

And look how far you have to go to twist some sense out of your opinion. No one is saying that prayers are wasted. The point is not waste, but that people operate under an error that is positively willed by the Church for universal acceptance as an objective truth.

(11-27-2012, 06:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]And since there is no way to verify canonizations, the Church will never suffer because of making a mistake.

Outside of faith in Christ, there is no way to verify any of the supernatural doctrines of our religion. We never can verify the authoritative voice of the Church outside of faith. That's the "intransigent historical claims" Waugh referred to.

(11-27-2012, 06:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]The Church did very well without canonizations and St. Joseph isn't in need of one, nor are most of the Apostles who were never canonized.

That's a different argument -- whether there should be formal canonizations.
(11-27-2012, 07:25 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]...The point is that the Rock on which the Church is founded is understood that when She says something She means what She means to say. If She defines and declares something, it is true.

My point is that when "She" says something it is different than when "He" says something as Vicar of Christ.  Infallibility is not as strict in wording as a sacrament is.  It is the essence and character of the words that invoke the Magisterial infallibility. 

Quote: And those words have the seal of Christ. If this most solemn of statements is open to doubt, then what's the point of the whole fiasco. Is it just florid words to impress people with an awe of God? "He said 'define', that sounds serious!" Or is it really a declaration and definition of an objective truth?

It's not nor can it be a declaration of basically a "new truth"  a person was on earth and is now in Heaven.  That is  public Revelation.  It cannot be known other than being divinely revealed.  The idea of "dogmatic facts" is a theologians way to skirt around it.  But it doesn't hold water when looked at with straightforward common sense. 

The fact is, it is a way to get the populace to elevate their minds and hearts.  If focusing on a particular person helps, and it turns out that person did not make it to Heaven, it still served its ultimate purpose.  I tend to give moral certitude to the Church and I don't worry that a particular saint may not be in Heaven.  It's not my fault if they aren't.  God will not punish me nor consider my prayers wasted if this or that saint is not in Heaven, is in purgatory or they are not a saint at all.  It's no different than the saints of acclamation who have had people praying for their intercession for century upon century and there is no evidence that they actually existed.  They may, or they may not.  God will sort it out. 

Quote:  If this is thrown into doubt, then really She is on sand, because we can open up the Church to so many other claims of doubt when using similar words. Like others have shown, it leads to absurdity. Catholicism is a "cohesive philosophical system with intransigent historical claims".

The Church is held together by the thinnest of threads and on top of that is a lot of puffery made by man, some of it is good and efficacious but some goes too far and the Church tries to live with it, until it becomes a real problem.  You can't have Revelation closed and constantly reveal new updates of positive knowledge of the specifics of a person's fate.  Infallibility is about faith and morals, not determination of supernatural fact finding missions dependent on God to drop a few hints in order to skirt His own law about Revelation being closed. 

Quote: But that seems to view infallibility as a faucet instead of a levee. As Fulton Sheen said, the Pope doesn't turn it on and out pours truth, but rather it is a barrier which prevents him from error.

It prevents him from error regarding the faith or morals.  Not the truth of whether H.R. Puffenstuff is among the Heavenly Hosts.  Faith says we know there is a Communion of Saints.  It does not say that the Church will positively infallibly identify them by name.  If no one was ever canonized, we would still have the Communion of Saints. 

Quote: You seem to be trying to prove your point from cases of absence. The cases in which the Church remains silent, She remains silent.

I'm stating that it's no scandal to be praying to people that may doubtfully not be saints.  The devotions and prayers for intercession start and continue long before the actual canonizations.  When the Church is silent, people have no certitude that they are actually praying to a real saint. 

Quote: The cases in which She forbids a devotion (pretty rare), it was never an object of formal canonization, and thus open to further inquiry.

But the devotion and cult occurred.  The idea that this is some Church-breaking problem simply does not hold. 

Quote: And look how far you have to go to twist some sense out of your opinion. No one is saying that prayers are wasted. The point is not waste, but that people operate under an error that is positively willed by the Church for universal acceptance as an objective truth.

It's not positively willed by the Church.  It's a prudent pastoral permission given to the faithful by the Pope.  It's not a matter of binding the faithful under mortal sin, it's not a teaching on faith or morals. 

Quote: That's a different argument -- whether there should be formal canonizations. 

Which goes to show you, they can't be infallible because they can be done away with and didn't exist for a thousand years. 

Doesn't  the human element of the canon of saints ever make you aware of the human mechanism involved?  Is it a surprise that the staggering number of saints that are Italian were canonized by Italian Popes?  No.  It's completely natural that the further away you get from Rome geographically the fewer saints you are going to see canonized until the media explosion of the late 20th century.  Are the Norwegians really that despicable a group that they don't get a comparable number of saints? 

The canonization of saints is a process that is very human, very political at times and most times beneficial to the piety of the people.  We are now approaching a time where the corruption of the Church is reaching into that humanly devised mechanism and corrupting it.  JPII watered it down and now along with dubious candidates we are having every Pope involved with Vatican II up on the boards for causes.  The most terrible Popes who despite personal piety, did not display heroic virtue in the exercise of their office. 

And Trads accuse New Church of being fuzzy about the Faith. Ha!
Gerard,

You're making a few fundamental mistakes, which have been pointed out before. There can be no "new truths" about Christ, His doctrine, and His Mission, but there can be new information about people who have existed after his earthly life, which the Church can state through the apostolic authority. (Just as she can make new declarations on new moral situations.) These truths are not known through divine revelation, but through observation of reality. (Are you against indulgences too?) First, the life is examined. Next, there is an investigation into miracles. The miracle must be scientifically unexplaineable in the concrete conditions and also of a Christian character. For instance, someone making a cup float is not considered miraculous, but healing a dying nun in a complete reversal of condition would be miraculous, especially since these type of miracles are vouched by Christ's life itself. After this exaustive investigation takes place, based on observable phenomena, the declaration is made. These declarations, even with the number John Paul II engaged in, are quite rare. There are surely many more people in heaven than those declared so by the Church. But through Christ's authority the Church deems the act to be of benefit to the faithful. Christ gave room for humans to cooperate with Him, which also means that the apostolic authority can introduce new things intimately related to revealed dogma, and naturally extending from it, for the good of the faithful. Obviously since sainthood is played out in time, the canonizations occur over time. Your view of revelation is pretty much High Church Protestant like Vetus, except you haven't jumped off the cliff yet. Furthermore, you straitjacket faith and morals into a little 1st century corner, with no real interaction with the unfolding of the Mystical Body of Christ. Implicit in your opinion is a complete denial of the powers of the Church in regard to extra-biblical teaching.

Now let's look at Jose Escriva's form:

Decree of Canonization of Saint Josemaría Escrivá, 6 October 2002, Pope John Paul II Wrote:Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter's Square, before an immense multitude of the faithful, we have pronounced the following formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá to be a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what we have declared, we desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=12479

Now if this is not a truth, then the Papacy is a paper tiger. In the end he is blowing smoke. Follow the logic and we see the house of cards fall. Invoking Jesus Christ, the founders of the Roman Church, and JPII making the connection to himself as successor are meaningless. They're fancy window dressing to put on airs. I pray you see this and step back from your error. If this statement is not true -- "declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá to be a Saint" -- then what else is up for grabs? When he says "he be devoutly honored among the Saints", he isn't saying it is merely allowed ("a prudent pastoral permission"), or merely praiseworthy, but that we do it, and not omit it through lack of faith in the apostolic authority from Jesus.

There are so many holes in your argument that make the Faith looks utterly absurd. Your vision of the life of the Church is utterly common, and not very impressive compared to other religions. We're just sort of elevating our minds in ignorance, the Church saying one thing on one side, and men playing dress up saying another thing on another side. You also rent asunder the Church by cleaving the Church in Her spotless essence and the people who exercise authority. The visible and invisible Church are essentially inseparable. The Pope can be a wretch, but if He invokes Christ, He has the guarantee from that Founder that His words are sealed in heaven. "He who hears you, hears me!" Your whole concern about infallibility creep is also absurd and a red herring. The Church doesn't go about making solemn declarations on any matter. Everything is intimately bound up with the holy life, with the teachings of Christ. If we were talking about the heighth of Charlemagne, then I would grant you this, but you can't make a case for the Church defining and declaring such ephemeral matters.

Sorry, I suspect that you feel a lack of comfort with people like Jose Escriva and certainly JPII, which, please God, is coming soon. Perhaps you no longer have faith in God and His wisdom as understood by the Church. Perhaps you've embraced the sedevacantist error, or have courted her a bit to see if you wish to lie with her in adultery. (But tehy don't support your theory either, thus they need to reject the Popes.) Just like them, you have your opinions, and go back and alter the logic of the Faith to suit your theory --  a posteriori to a fault, a sort of Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "I deem that Jose Escriva was not holy. I didn't do the investigations. I wasn't privy to the examinations. But I did read a few websites and books. And we all know JPII is a saint making machine. Plus JPII is the worst Pope ever, except for Paul VI, the gravedigger of tradition. So I declare him not a saint. Now let me formulate a theory of canonization which allows me to remain faithful but reject solemn papal decisions concerning saints. One can't live in this dissonance anyhow. Plus I know more than the Pope." Now insert unfaithful craptastic theory which 99.99999999999999999999% of the theologians reject. The only debate is how much such declarations bind us.

I would be with you in debate if it was some light matter, but Popes declaring and defining saints is not light. I will pray for you, as I have before, that you may abandon these dangerous opinions and come to a fuller knowledge of the Faith. God be with you, my friend!
I agree fully with the essence of Scriptorium's post.

Coming to the same conclusion about the necessary reliability of the Church in the matter of her Saints is also what gave me peace over the thought of a prospective canonization of John Paul II. Namely, it can no more possibly happen than rising tomorrow to discover that 2 + 2 = 5, or that the world was created last Saturday. Unless one already loses sleep over those eventualities, there is no reason to lose sleep over the former.
(11-27-2012, 09:49 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Gerard,

You're making a few fundamental mistakes, which have been pointed out before. There can be no "new truths" about Christ, His doctrine, and His Mission, but there can be new information about people who have existed after his earthly life, which the Church can state through the apostolic authority. (Just as she can make new declarations on new moral situations.)

I'm sorry, that is hogwash.  "New information" about who is positively in Heaven?  How their Judgement before the seat of God went?  And you're trying to claim that that is not a "truth" that is necessarily beyond the capability of a rational creature through the ordinary course of nature? 

By your reckoning the Magisterium could unveil "new information" about the Trinity and declare Mary to be a fourth person in the Trinity because of some contorted argument based on semantics and poetry. 

By your reckoning the Pope could infallibly declare "new information" about Hitler, Photius, Martin Luther, Patrick Swayze or William F. Buckley that occurred after their passing and that's not "revelatory?" 

Quote: These truths are not known through divine revelation, but through observation of reality.

No they aren't.  There is no way to know the final judgment of a particular soul outside of God's public revelation of it. 

Quote:  (Are you against indulgences too?)

I don't think a Pope can infallibly state whether a person was interiorly disposed to receive an indulgence, but he is empowered to bind and loose, this is nothing new.  It has nothing to do with infallibility. 

Quote: First, the life is examined.

By human agents who are prone to error by their nature. 

Quote: Next, there is an investigation into miracles. The miracle must be scientifically unexplaineable in the concrete conditions and also of a Christian character.

Again, this is a human endeavor to see if they can fail to attribute it to something natural.  Scientific explanations change with the development of the hard sciences.  All of this is a fallible human endeavor.

Quote: For instance, someone making a cup float is not considered miraculous, but healing a dying nun in a complete reversal of condition would be miraculous, especially since these type of miracles are vouched by Christ's life itself.

Christ's miracles included a bunch of miracles that would not make the cut today.  The coins in the mouths of the fish, the calming of the seas, the transformation of water into wine. walking on water, passing through doorways, "hiding" himself from the crowds, multiplying fishes and loaves etc.

Quote:  After this exaustive investigation takes place, based on observable phenomena, the declaration is made.

It's guesswork.  Most of the time it's testimony, not observable phenomena.  Observable phenomena would be the ability to witness the miracle itself.  St. Pius X healed people all during his pontificate but none of those count in the canonization process, same for Padre Pio, it's only when they can't observably perform the miracles that they get the credit for them.  Strange. 

Quote: These declarations, even with the number John Paul II engaged in, and quite rare. There are surely many more people in heaven than those declared so by the Church.

On what do you base that?  That's simply an act of faith and hope on your part (nothing bad about it, but let's call it what it is)  Heaven could be occupied by the BVM, St. Dismas and the Angels and that's it for all we know.

Quote: But through Christ's authority the Church deems the act to be of benefit to the faithful.

So was the Novus Ordo and Vatican II and some of the heinous decress from previous Councils,  it was using (and abusing) Christ's authority that the fiasco of judgement on the validity of the orders and ordinations of Formosus that Pope Stephen condemned him.

Quote:  Christ gave room for humans to cooperate with Him, which also means that the apostolic authority can introduce new things intimately related to revealed dogma, and naturally extending from it, for the good of the faithful.

No he can't. This or that particular person being on the books in Heaven is not intimately related to teaching on faith and morals, there is no new clarity on the Communion of Saints doctrine by saying Joe Schmoe was successfully judged by God.  God didn't reveal this to us, we just happen to know it through natural means.  C'mon. 

Quote: Obviously since sainthood is played out in time, the canonizations occur over time. Your view of revelation is pretty much High Church Protestant like Vetus, except you haven't jumped off the cliff yet. Furthermore, you straitjacket faith and morals into a little 1st century corner, with no real interaction with the unfolding of the Mystical Body of Christ. Implicit in your opinion is a complete denial of the powers of the Church in regard to extra-biblical teaching.

Canonizations of course occur over time. They are just not infallible, like any other declaration of saints.  The papacy only took over the process to cut down on the potential for scandal a thousand years into the life of the Church.  My view of Revelation is exactly the Catholic view.  The Deposit of Faith was complete with the death of the last Apostle.  The Canon of Scripture was written in that time, the Church was protected from error in claiming the inspiration of those books that were not inspired by God.  (Epistles of Clement for example) and those books with errors (Enoch) were rejected. 

With regards to "unfolding" which I take it you mean the "development of doctrine" I think its best to understand that nothing changes in development of doctrine properly understood.  Transubstantiation doesn't consitute a change in the truth that the Sacred Species is truly Christ's body.  Transubstantiation is simply an error free way to explain what Augustine called "the latent mystery" of how Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.  "latent mystery" is just as correct as "transubstantiation"  the difference is one explains it in a way that is reasonable and intellectually digestible to the human intellect and most of all avoids errors like consubstantiation.  It clarifies and helps the faith, but it's still the same unfathomable mystery. 


Quote: Now let's look at Jose Escriva's form:

Decree of Canonization of Saint Josemaría Escrivá, 6 October 2002, Pope John Paul II Wrote:Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter's Square, before an immense multitude of the faithful, we have pronounced the following formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá to be a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what we have declared, we desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.


What is the purpose of the formula?  "..for the uplifting of the Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life..."  not for the clarification of a doctrine or the judgment of a moral action.  It's a booster for the faithful. 


Quote: Now if this is not a truth, then the Papacy is a paper tiger.

Not at all. It's an exercise of pastoral nature.  Not a supernatural telephone call from God "revealing" specific details about a person for the entire Church when the Church rests on the idea that God closed revelation with St. John's death.  Nobody has "more Catholicism" nowadays than they did in the year 100.

Quote: In the end he is blowing smoke.

If that's how you take it.  You require an infallible Pope on every utterance.  He's obviously blowing smoke on everything he says and does by your standard.

Quote: Follow the logic and we see the house of cards fall.

Following the logic shows you can't have new revelations and say revelation is closed at the same time. 

Quote:  Invoking Jesus Christ, the founders of the Roman Church, and JPII making the connection to himself as successor are meaningless.

Not at all.  It has pastoral value and until JPII it had a lot of serious work behind it. 


Quote:  They're fancy window dressing to put on airs.

So, any saint that has not been canonized is suspect by you?  Isn't it funny that in the declaration the Pope invokes The Holy Apostles Peter and Paul who have never been "infallibly" canonized? 

Quote: I pray you see this and step back from your error. If this statement is not true -- "declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá to be a Saint" -- then what else is up for grabs? When he says "he be devoutly honored among the Saints", he isn't saying it is merely allowed ("a prudent pastoral permission"), or merely praiseworthy, but that we do it, and not omit it through lack of faith in the apostolic authority from Jesus.

The Pope judging the personal holiness of someone is not a definition of faith and morals.  Added to that is the fact that he cannot have this knowledge certainly without a communication from God Almighty.  It must be a public revelation or God is  a liar.  And if it is a public revelation then God is a liar because it is also a public revelation that public revelation is closed.  So, it's either all a lie or it's not infallible because it's not a public revelation and revelation is still closed. 

Quote: There are so many holes in your argument that make the Faith looks utterly absurd.

I haven't seen you come up with one of those "holes" yet.  I've dealt with everything.  You have yet to explain coherently the problem with public revelation.  The "dogmatic facts" is not a magisterial definition and it simply is not logical nor persuasive.  It's special pleading for an exeption when there can be none. 

Quote: Your vision of the life of the Church is utterly common, and not very impressive compared to other religions.

Christ Himself looked utterly common compared to other men.  He rarely exhibited His miraculous abilities as a show.  The Church in its essence is alot of man-made organizational structure, devotional practice and little "t" tradition.  It's a marvelous construction but it's not the Divine part of the Church that simply does only a few things till Christ returns.  It gets souls to Heaven, it doesn't keep score, it's a simple vehicle with miraculous power to forgive sins, give sanctifying grace through weak human vessels with very little razzle dazzle from God. 

Quote:  We're just sort of elevating our minds in ignorance, the Church saying one thing on one side, and men playing dress up saying another thing on another side.

No. You're listening to people that have inferred things that are not there.  Yes. Churchmen often ignorantly imply or directly state things that are in error, but that's once again, the human element of the Church.  Errors run wildly and free in the Church until they become enough of a problem where the Churchmen apply the supernatural aid that they can invoke.  Their prudence as men guides the Church, if they resist we have an Obama style of papacy that tears the structure down and makes it difficult, if they are good, prudent men, with intelligence and sincerity, they may have more success or more persecution from the world. 


Quote:  You also rent asunder the Church by cleaving the Church in Her spotless essence and the people who exercise authority.

It's your understanding that is rent asunder, not the Church itself.  The wheat and tares grow together, the Church is pure spotless but the members drop in and out of spotlessness depending on the availability of the confessional. 

Quote:  The visible and invisible Church are essentially inseparable. The Pope can be a wretch, but if He invokes Christ, He has the guarantee from that Founder that His words are sealed in heaven. "He who hears you, hears me!"

"Essentially inseparable" means in "essence" the "essence" of the Church is to be in the state of Grace.  the visibile Church consists of the good and the bad.  The Invisible Church shares the essence of the "good" with with visible Church, not the bad.

It's how and in what form the Pope invokes Christ, not just invoking Christ.  JPII can invoke John the Baptist to protect Islam all he wants, but John the Baptist isn't going to listen except to pray for them to convert to Catholicism. 

Quote:  Your whole concern about infallibility creep is also absurd and a red herring.


No it's not. 

Quote: The Church doesn't go about making solemn declarations on any matter.

When it does, they are not all infallible. 

Quote:  Everything is intimately bound up with the holy life, with the teachings of Christ. If we were talking about the heighth of Charlemagne, then I would grant you this, but you can't make a case for the Church defining and declaring such ephemeral matters.

Actually, I can.  Facts of history that are a part of revelation in scripture can be infallibly defined.  So, they could infallibly define the height of Goliath, but not Charlemagne.  Goliath's height is Divinely Revealed, Charlemagne's was not.

Quote: Sorry, I suspect that you feel a lack of comfort with people like Jose Escriva and certainly JPII, which, please God, is coming soon.

I don't think they were great shakes for one thing.  But I would hope they would be in Heaven.  But I still would not want them canonized because they are political canonizations.  And if it happens it will just be evidence of a political canonization.  My belief in the level of fallibiity of canonizations is a theological conclusion, not one based on personal opinion about this or that candidate for canonization. 

Quote:  Perhaps you no longer have faith in God and His wisdom as understood by the Church.

On the contrary, I have more faith in God and His wisdom.  He can leave the Churchmen in power to do a lot of damage, make a lot of wrong conclusions and He'll still protect the Church to get Her job done. 

Quote:  Perhaps you've embraced the sedevacantist error, or have courted her a bit to see if you wish to lie with her in adultery. (But tehy don't support your theory either, thus they need to reject the Popes.)

I don't understand what you just wrote there.  I think sedes are wrong based on the same error you think you are correct about.  Along with a few other superpowers the Pope has been given by popular acclaim and not God.

Quote: Just like them, you have your opinions, and go back and alter the logic of the Faith to suit your theory --  a posteriori to a fault, a sort of Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "I deem that Jose Escriva was not holy. I didn't do the investigations. I wasn't privy to the examinations. But I did read a few websites and books. And we all know JPII is a saint making machine. Plus JPII is the worst Pope ever, except for Paul VI, the gravedigger of tradition. So I declare him not a saint. Now let me formulate a theory of canonization which allows me to remain faithful but reject solemn papal decisions concerning saints. One can't live in this dissonance anyhow. Plus I know more than the Pope." Now insert unfaithful craptastic theory which 99.99999999999999999999% of the theologians reject. The only debate is how much such declarations bind us. 

You would have to try to ascribe that opinion to me in order to disqualify it.  Actually my understanding comes from Vatican I, St. Thomas Aquinas,  Pope Benedict XIV, and a common sense understanding of non-contradiction.  Only God knows the internal disposition of a soul at death.  No one knows His judgment.  Revelation is closed.  The Pope is only infallible on matters of teaching faith and morals concerning teachings transmitted to the Church by the Apostles..  The ongoing occupancy of Heaven and the names on the Book of Life are not part of the Deposit. 

Quote: I would be with you in debate if it was some light matter, but Popes declaring and defining saints is not light. I will pray for you, as I have before, that you may abandon these dangerous opinions and come to a fuller knowledge of the Faith. God be with you, my friend!

Thanks for the prayers. I'll keep you in mine.  But I'm not wrong on this. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10