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
Hmmm...before I embraced Traditional Catholicism, I asked for the intercession of "Blessed" John XXIII in helping me understand Vatican II and its controversies. Shortly thereafter the scales fell from my eyes and I became a Traddie. I wonder if they would accept that as a proof of his sanctity... :mrwinky:
(11-29-2012, 08:22 AM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Canonization is a recognition of their state, not a positive willing of them into sanctity and heaven.
(11-29-2012, 04:54 AM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]
"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."

The main point of your error is that you don't understand what  a proper dogmatic fact is.  I suggest you read the documents of Vatican I and not rely on hypotheses of theologians.  The dogmatic fact that is relevant is the closing of revelation with the last Apostle.

Quote: If we're discussing canonizations then the dogma in question would indeed be the Communion of Saints.

But we're not.  We're discussing infallibility of canonization and the closing of revelation.  The dogma of the Communion of Saints is not affected by a canonization.  Trying to claim canonization is infallible directly affects the understanding of infallibility and the closing of the period of revelation.

Quote: 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 

You have the wrong notion.  Dogmatic facts are things that directly affect the understanding of revelation.  If it doesn't "teach" anything about something that has been transmitted by the Apostles, it's not infallible and it's not dogmatic.

The Pope sitting in judgement of the sanctity of a particular person is not "defining a teaching of the Church" 

Quote: 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.


St. Thomas Aquinas beliefs that infalliblity of canonizations is ultimately a pious belief, not a de fide doctrine.  There are also a number of theologians that hold the negative.  Fr. Faber wrote an essay on it. 

Quote: 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.

I don't have a problem with pronouncements not being infallible.  Your arguments work against your own case.  Virtually everything must be infallible in your opinion and you run into contradictions in history, you're going to end up delusional and servile or sedevacantist.

Quote:  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. 

Can you cite some? 
(11-29-2012, 10:30 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-29-2012, 08:22 AM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Canonization is a recognition of their state, not a positive willing of them into sanctity and heaven.

No, it is a recognition that their displayed heroic virtues along their life an thus they are worthy to be given as an example to all the catholic faithfuls.
Do you know what is the "apostolic benediction in articulo mortis"? It may be given to a dying person by a priest on his deathbed and makes that person to earn a plenary indulgence, provided only that he was baptized a catholic and that he he has recited a few prayers once in his life even if the other conditions (confession, communion) are not fulfilled.
That indulgence is granted even in the case the  priest is not available.
This means that theoretically every catholic may go straight to Heavens and thus be a saint.
So, I repeat, why not to canonize all the catholic faithfuls?
(11-29-2012, 04:37 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-29-2012, 10:30 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-29-2012, 08:22 AM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Canonization is a recognition of their state, not a positive willing of them into sanctity and heaven.

No, it is a recognition that their displayed heroic virtues along their life an thus they are worthy to be given as an example to all the catholic faithfuls.
Do you know what is the "apostolic benediction in articulo mortis"? It may be given to a dying person by a priest on his deathbed and makes that person to earn a plenary indulgence, provided only that he was baptized a catholic and that he he has recited a few prayers once in his life even if the other conditions (confession, communion) are not fulfilled.
That indulgence is granted even in the case the  priest is not available.
This means that theoretically every catholic may go straight to Heavens and thus be a saint.
So, I repeat, why not to canonize all the catholic faithfuls?

It couldn't be because they're not all outstanding models of Christian virtue, could it?
The Church has always taught that canonizations are always infallible.
(11-29-2012, 04:37 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]Do you know what is the "apostolic benediction in articulo mortis"? It may be given to a dying person by a priest on his deathbed and makes that person to earn a plenary indulgence, provided only that he was baptized a catholic and that he he has recited a few prayers once in his life even if the other conditions (confession, communion) are not fulfilled.
That indulgence is granted even in the case the  priest is not available.
This means that theoretically every catholic may go straight to Heavens and thus be a saint.
So, I repeat, why not to canonize all the catholic faithfuls?

The Church isn't a magic wand Gandalf the Grey. The Church does everything to help souls, including indulgences, but people have to cooperate. The Church is not greater than God, and even God cannot, from our human perspective, make someone go to heaven.
I think maso is on to something.  I definitely think the Church should canonize all the catholic faithfuls.  And the perfidious ones too.  That would be a load off my mind, let me tell you.
"Gerard" Wrote:The main point of your error is that you don't understand what  a proper dogmatic fact is.  I suggest you read the documents of Vatican I and not rely on hypotheses of theologians.  The dogmatic fact that is relevant is the closing of revelation with the last Apostle.

I'm relying on the common teaching of the theologians. Men who tower both you and I in learning. What you are basically saying is that they don't understand what a dogmatic fact is, whereas you --contrary to their unanimous teaching-- do.
"Gerard" Wrote:Dogmatic facts are things that directly affect the understanding of revelation.

Dogmatic facts are things connected with the dogmas of the faith, though not formally revealed.

The validity of a papal election, the validity of an ecumenical council, and the canonization of saints, are all classic examples listed by those who came up with the concept in the first place.
"Gerard" Wrote:If it doesn't "teach" anything about something that has been transmitted by the Apostles, it's not infallible and it's not dogmatic.

Can you cite the section within the decrees of the First Vatican Council that says infallibility is limited to those things directly transmitted by the Apostles? Where are you getting that idea from?
Quote:St. Thomas Aquinas beliefs that infalliblity of canonizations is ultimately a pious belief

He actually believes quite more than that. Here's a translation of the relevant section of his work:
Quote:On the contrary, damnable error cannot be in the Church. But it is a damnable error, if one who was a sinner should be venerated as if a saint, since some knowing his sins, could believe this to be false; and if they had taken it in this way, they might be led to error. Therefore the Church, in such matters, is not able to err.

Moreover, Augustine says in a letter to Jerome that if any lie should be admitted in canonical Scripture, our faith will be void, which depends on canonical Scripture. But just as we are held to believe that which is in sacred Scripture, so also that which is universally determined by the Church: wherefore the heretic is judged who thinks against the determination of Councils. Therefore the universal judgment of the Church cannot be erroneous; and so the same as above.

I reply: it must be said that something can be judged possible when considered according to itself, which when related to something extrinsic is found impossible. I say, therefore, that the judgment of those who preside over the Church can err in these matters, if only their persons are looked upon. But if Divine Providence is considered, which directs His Church by the Holy Spirit so that it may not err, as He Himself promised that the coming Spirit would teach all truth (John 16), namely of the things necessary for salvation; it is certain that for the judgment of the Church universal to err in these matters which pertain to the Faith is impossible. Wherefore more is the standing of the sentence of the Pope, to whom it pertains to determine concerning the Faith, which he pronounces in judgment, than the opinions of any of those men learned in the Scriptures; since Caiaphas, even though worthless, is also found to have prophesied (John 11:51), since he was, however, Pontiff. But in other sentences which pertain to particular facts, as when it is made about possessions, or crimes, or other such things, it is possible for the judgment of the Church to err because of false witnesses. But the canonization of the saints is a mean between these two things. Since, however, the honor which we pay to the saints is a certain profession of faith, by which we acknowledge the glory of the saints, it must be piously believed that in these matters also the judgment of the Church is not able to err.

(1) To the first, therefore, it must be said that the Pontiff, to whom it belongs to canonize the saints, can be made certain of the state of someone by the investigation of his life and the attestation of miracles; and especially by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who knows all things, even the depths of God.

(2) To the second, it must be said that Divine Providence preserves the Church, lest in these matters she be deceived by the fallible testimony of men". [Thomas de Aquino, Quodlibet IX (CTh1)

And I very much doubt that there were other theologians of repute who held that error was possible in canonizations.

If there were any debates at all, it would have probably been the question of beatifications.
"Gerard" Wrote:Your arguments work against your own case.  Virtually everything must be infallible in your opinion

That is not my opinion.

If canonizations were infallible it doesn't follow that virtually everything is.
Quote:
"romanaround" Wrote: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.

Can you cite some?

I was thinking of the modern day moral problems like human cloning, the distinctions between immediate and remote cooperation with evil, and what constitutes extraordinary and ordinary means to support life (feeding tubes, defibrillators) and such other issues which, though they were not addressed by the Apostles, the Church and her moral theologians have the authority to issue binding teachings on.
(11-29-2012, 06:28 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]The Church has always taught that canonizations are always infallible.

Except for the fact that the Church has never ruled on this issue and papal canonizations didn't occur for the first 1000 years of the Church's history.  Added to that is the fact that there are a number of theologians that have argued in the negative. 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10