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
Gerard,

You're in error.

The Church's infallibility not only extends to those things directly contained within the deposit of faith, but also to what's known as "dogmatic facts".

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote:By a dogmatic fact, in wider sense, is meant any fact connected with a dogma and on which the application of the dogma to a particular case depends.

The following questions involve dogmatic facts in the wider sense: Is Pius X, for instance, really and truly Roman Pontiff [1909], duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter. Again, was this or that council ecumenical? This, too, is connected with dogma, for every ecumenical council is endowed with infallibility and jurisdiction over the Universal Church. The question also whether canonized saints really die in the odour of sanctity is connected with dogma, for every one who dies in the odour of sanctity is saved.

The New Catholic Dictionary (don't worry. "New" as in published around 1910):
Quote:Certain truths which, though not revealed by God, come nevertheless under the teaching authority of the Church because of their close connection with revealed doctrines. They are involved, for instance, in such questions as these: Was the election of Pius XI canonical, so that he is the rightful successor of Saint Peter? Are the Saints canonized by the Church really in heaven? Is this or that condemned teaching really contained in a certain book? If the Church did not enjoy infallible authority to determine such matters, it would be practically impossible for her to carry out her Divine mission.

Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith, American Ecclesiastical Review, April,1953:
Quote:Within this category they list theological conclusions in the strict sense of the term (truths which are only virtually revealed, as distinct from those revealed formally, even though in an implicit manner), dogmatic facts, pertinent teachings within the field of philosophy, final approval of religious orders, and the canonization of Saints. Unquestionably the magisterium of the Church can issue and does issue absolutely irrevocable and infallible declarations and decisions on these subjects.

What you are holding is in fact a Jansenist error.

Again, the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote:Jansenists distinguished between "fact" and "dogma". They held that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truth and in condemning errors opposed to revealed truth; but that the Church is not infallible in defining facts which are not contained in Divine revelation, and consequently that the Church was not infallible in declaring that a particular doctrine, in a particular sense, was found in the "Augustinus" of Jansenius. This would confine the infallible teaching of the Church to mere abstract doctrines, a view that cannot be accepted. Theologians are unanimous in teaching that the Church, or the pope, is infallible, not only in defining what is formally contained in Divine revelation, but also in defining virtually revealed truths, or generally in all definitions and condemnations which are necessary for safe-guarding the body of revealed truth.

It's no excuse to say all this is not infallible, either. According to Pope Pius X, we are bound under pain of sin to hold to the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians of the Church.
(11-28-2012, 09:42 AM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]It's no excuse to say all this is not infallible, either. According to Pope Pius X, we are bound under pain of sin to hold to the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians of the Church.

Also known as the UOM, correct?
(11-28-2012, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]There is no way to know the final judgment of a particular soul outside of God's public revelation of it.

Please provide proof for this statement.

(11-28-2012, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
Scriptorium Wrote: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.

"After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands" (Rv 7:9).

(11-28-2012, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]This or that particular person being on the books in Heaven is not intimately related to teaching on faith and morals ...

When the Pope declares it so, it is. If the Pope's declarations in this manner are less than what they purport, then it touches on the Faith. Our whole understanding of the papacy is thrown into doubt.

(11-28-2012, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It's not just a booster. That's my point. There's no need to employ such solemn language to give the faithful a spiritual "green drink". We know that the purpose of this style of language is to define the matter beyond doubt, so that public worship would not be called into question.

(11-28-2012, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody has "more Catholicism" nowadays than they did in the year 100.

In a sense, we do. There have been many more Catholics since the year 100. Unique souls who offered Christ unique gifts. Our knowledge of the faith is wider, more clear, and more defined. We have numerous generations to learn from in their successes and mistakes. Now I believe in equality of grace, namely, that all people are given sufficient grace to be saved, but for all intents and purposes, we have "more Catholicism".

(11-28-2012, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]You require an infallible Pope on every utterance.

Not at all what I said. I do, however, require that his words mean what he said. In this case there is no ambiguity or qualification. There's nothing provisional in the statement.

(11-28-2012, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]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?

Also not what I said. Those canonized through immemorial custom I accept on the basis of the Holy Ghost's guidance of the Church. I accept all the saints. I am stating that if the formula is employed, it has to be infallible because of the style. If the church wanted to revert to informal canonization, fine, but that is not the situation.

(11-28-2012, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Actually my understanding comes from Vatican I, St. Thomas Aquinas,  Pope Benedict XIV, and a common sense understanding of non-contradiction.

Please supply us some texts so we can better understand your position.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967):

The solemn act by which the pope, with definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of saints a person who has previously been beatified. By this act he declares that the person placed on the altar now reigns in eternal glory and decrees that the universal Church show him the honor due to a saint. The formulas indicate that the pope imposes a precept on the faithful, e.g. "We decide and define that they are saints and inscribe them in the catalogue of saints, stating that their memory should be kept with pious devotion by the universal Church."

The faithful of the primitive Church believed that martyrs were perfect Christians and saints since they had shown the supreme proof of love by giving their lives for Christ; by their sufferings, they had attained eternal life and were indefectibly united to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. These reasons induced the Christians, still oppressed by persecution, to invoke the intercession of the martyrs. They begged them to intercede before God to obtain for the faithful on earth the grace to imitate the martyrs in the unquestioning and complete profession of faith (1 Tm 2:1-5, Phil 3:17) .

Toward the end of the great Roman persecutions, this phenomenon of veneration, which had been reserved to martyrs, was extended to those who, even without dying for the faith, had nonetheless defended it and suffered for it, confessors of the faith (confessores fidei). Within a short time, this same veneration was extended to those who had been outstanding for their exemplary Christian life, especially in austerity and penitence, as well as to those who excelled in Catholic doctrine (doctors), in apostolic zeal (bishops and missionaries), or in charity and the evangelical spirit. . . .

In the first centuries the popular fame or the vox populi represented in practice the only criterion by which a person's holiness was ascertained. A new element was gradually introduced, namely, the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, i.e., of the competent bishop. However, the fame of sanctity, as a result of which the faithful piously visited the person's tomb, invoked his intercession, and proclaimed the thaumaturgic [miraculous] effects of it, remained the starting point of those inquiries that culminated with a definite pronouncement on the part of the bishop. A biography of the deceased person and a history of his alleged miracles were presented to the bishop. Following a judgment of approval, the body was exhumed and transferred to an altar. Finally, a day was assigned for the celebration of the liturgical feast within the diocese or province.

The transition from episcopal to papal canonization came about somewhat casually. The custom was gradually introduced of having recourse to the pope in order to receive a formal approval of canonization. This practice was prompted obviously because a canonization decreed by the pope would necessarily have greater prestige, owing to his supreme authority. The first papal canonization of which there are positive documents was that of St. Udalricus in 973. . . . Through the gradual multiplications of the Roman pontiffs, papal canonization received a more definite structure and juridical value. Procedural norms were formulated, and such canonical processes became the main source of investigation into the saint's life and miracles. Under Gregory IX, this practice became the only legitimate form of inquiry (1234). . . .

The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, "Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err" (Quodl. 9:8:16).

The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching.

May the Church ever "uncanonize" a saint? Once completed, the act of canonization is irrevocable. In some cases a person has been popularly "canonized" without official solemnization by the Church . . . yet any act short of solemn canonization by the Roman pontiff is not an infallible declaration of sanctity. Should circumstances demand, the Church may limit the public cult of such a person popularly "canonized." (vol. 3, 55-56, 59, 61)
(11-28-2012, 09:42 AM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]Gerard,

You're in error.

The Church's infallibility not only extends to those things directly contained within the deposit of faith, but also to what's known as "dogmatic facts".

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote:By a dogmatic fact, in wider sense, is meant any fact connected with a dogma and on which the application of the dogma to a particular case depends.

The following questions involve dogmatic facts in the wider sense: Is Pius X, for instance, really and truly Roman Pontiff [1909], duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter. Again, was this or that council ecumenical? This, too, is connected with dogma, for every ecumenical council is endowed with infallibility and jurisdiction over the Universal Church. The question also whether canonized saints really die in the odour of sanctity is connected with dogma, for every one who dies in the odour of sanctity is saved.

Not much time today, so I'll have to address these arguments in stages. 

Canonizations are not dogmatic facts.  They are not connected with a dogma on which the application of the dogma depends.  The dogma in question is not the Communion of Saints but rather the dogma of Infallibility which Vatican I clearly spelled out and did not include "dogmatic facts." 

That is a construction by theologians based on nothing and has no purpose but to extend Infallibility beyond what the Magisterium has infallibly taught. 

Also, the cite about the infallibility of ecumenical councils is wrong since Vatican II did not invoke the infallibility of the Church in any of its assertions.  It made no definitions but it still was an ecumenical Council. 

Also, remember the Holy Father's words as Cardinal that some ecumenical councils were just a waste of time. 
(11-28-2012, 09:42 AM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]The New Catholic Dictionary (don't worry. "New" as in published around 1910):
Quote:Certain truths which, though not revealed by God, come nevertheless under the teaching authority of the Church because of their close connection with revealed doctrines. They are involved, for instance, in such questions as these: Was the election of Pius XI canonical, so that he is the rightful successor of Saint Peter? Are the Saints canonized by the Church really in heaven? Is this or that condemned teaching really contained in a certain book? If the Church did not enjoy infallible authority to determine such matters, it would be practically impossible for her to carry out her Divine mission.


The problem with this example is, history shows a different story.  From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote: Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber.

No one doubts the validity of the papacy of Formosus or Stephen VI.  Yet, there is one Pope incorrectly and very fallibly declaring another Pope as having not been a valid Pope.  All of Formosus' acts that Stephen attacked were closely connected with doctrine were declared null by a full fledged successor to St. Peter and it turns out he was wrong.   This is the catch 22 of the "infallibility extends" crowd.  If Formosus was correct, Stephen VI was wrong and therefore, his laws were not infallible.  If Stephen VI is correct, Formosus was not infallible in a number of his decrees and was not a valid Pope despite the accession to the throne.  But Formosus seems to have been ruled  valid by Stephen's successor Pope John IX.   It's a circular firing squad of Popes demonstrating a sincere lack of infallibilty on "dogmatic facts."



(11-28-2012, 11:47 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-28-2012, 09:42 AM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]It's no excuse to say all this is not infallible, either. According to Pope Pius X, we are bound under pain of sin to hold to the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians of the Church.

Also known as the UOM, correct?

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium?

I think that's different.

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium is the bishops dispersed throughout the world in general agreement that a given doctrine is to be held by the faithful. That is infallible.

The unanimous teaching of the theologians is not part of the Magisterium, but is nevertheless authoritative to such an extent that dissent would be a sin.

This is from a sedevacantist site, but it summarizes nicely the different grades of teachings and the type of censure attach to their denial: http://www.sedevacantist.com/theolnotes.htm
"Gerard" Wrote:Canonizations are not dogmatic facts.

My main point was that you made an error in thinking that infallibility only extends to what's contained within the deposit of faith. It was an error which you would not have made if you were aware of the notion of dogmatic facts in the first place. 
"Gerard" Wrote:The dogma in question is not the Communion of Saints but rather the dogma of Infallibility which Vatican I clearly spelled out and did not include "dogmatic facts."

If we're discussing canonizations then the dogma in question would indeed be the Communion of Saints. If we're discussing the limits of infallibility, then I made two points: 1) that infallibility extends beyond those things that are directly contained within the deposit of faith (what's known as dogmatic facts or the secondary object of infallibility); and 2) that it would be no valid excuse to say that these distinctions are not infallible in themselves, for according to Pius X, we are also bound to hold to the common teachings of the approved theologians.

Also consider this: what you are suggesting is especially dangerous to the teachings of the Church in the area of morality.  About 99% of her moral teachings have not been defined ex cathedra but rest primarily on the authority of her approved moral theologians. Also many of these moral issues are not formally contained within the deposit of faith, either; but we as Catholics are still bound to hold to them.
Gerard Wrote:the cite about the infallibility of ecumenical councils is wrong

You misread. My quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia was not referring to the infallibility of an ecumenical council's doctrines (which may or may not be there), but whether or not such a council was validly convoked at all.
(11-28-2012, 10:04 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with this example is, history shows a different story.

The traditional theological position is that once the bishops or the universal Church agree that a given Pope was canonically elected, that that agreement is considered infallible. With regard to Stephen VI, he did not make an ex cathedra pronouncement nor were the bishops or the Church unanimous in holding to his decision. So I'm not exactly sure what this proves other than the fact that Popes can err (which I do not deny).
Now I understand better the arguments of Gerard, and I agree with him: The canonizations are not infallible.
If not, why the post conciliar Church doesn't immediately declare saints at least all the baptized catholic faithfuls so that not any one among them may have to go through the Purgatory  or end  into Hell? If the Church has the power to canonize a few catholics, that would be a grave injustice not to canonize the others.
She could even canonize all our separated christian brothers who believe in Christ.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10