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
(11-30-2012, 10:56 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(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. 

Now we know that you would just say that such an "infallible" statement on the infallibility of canonization was fallible, because it wasn't part of the divine revelation. Circular reasoning? I think this comes down to whether we have faith in the Church or not.
(11-30-2012, 03:18 AM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]
"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.

Just as Aquinas couldn't wrap his mind (which towers above every other mind in history) around the simple understanding of the Immaculate Conception, it's just the way it is.  And Aquinas was mixed on his belief in the infallibility of canonizations. And you are relying on one set of arguments that happens to be in the majority.  Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean that they are suddenly right. 

Quote: 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.

You're right in that they "came up with the concept."  Dogmatic facts are not a magisterial teaching and have never been claimed as infallible by the Magisterium as an extension of infallibility.    And you are going right back to the "validity of a papal election" after I've pointed out that Pope Stephen ruled that Formosus was not validly elected.  History is staring you in the face and telling you that you are wrong.  Are you going to address that inconvenient point of history or not? 

Quote: 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?


6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.


Quote:
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.


You can take a gander at Fr. Faber's essay on the issue of canonization and see that he can go no farther than calling canonizations being infallible as "probable de fide" but one can't accuse someone of denying it a heretic. "Probably infallible" is not "infallible." 


Quote: If there were any debates at all, it would have probably been the question of beatifications.

Wrong.


Quote:
"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.

You are the one citing that the fact that canonizations are not infallible puts in danger the moral teachings of the Church. 
Quote:
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.

And that is dependent on the canonization of Joe Schmoe being infallible?  I'm sorry that does not follow.  The Pope is infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals.  Cloning, extraordinary means of life support etc. are moral issues for the here and now concerning the actions of a person with consequences to their soul. The answer to each and every moral question is implicit in the Deposit of Faith.  Infallible canonization of saints is not.  That is essentially teaching, that is not sitting in judgment on the sanctity of a person and declaring what no human can know with certitude and what wasn't part of revealed teaching of the Church. 

(11-30-2012, 11:39 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-30-2012, 10:56 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(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. 

Now we know that you would just say that such an "infallible" statement on the infallibility of canonization was fallible, because it wasn't part of the divine revelation. Circular reasoning? I think this comes down to whether we have faith in the Church or not.

No.  The Church could very well infallibly rule that the canonization of saints is not infallible since it's not connected with teaching the faith and morals transmitted by the Apostles.  Circular reasoning is ignoring the Magisterium of the Church and instead, depending on fallible theologians to tell you that they are infallible too.  "We're infallible but it's "borrowed" infallibility."  nonsense. 

And the main point of my comment stands, the Church has not taught everywhere and for all times that papal canonizations are infallible. 
(11-30-2012, 01:39 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]And that is dependent on the canonization of Joe Schmoe being infallible?   I'm sorry that does not follow.  The Pope is infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals.  Cloning, extraordinary means of life support etc. are moral issues for the here and now concerning the actions of a person with consequences to their soul. The answer to each and every moral question is implicit in the Deposit of Faith.  Infallible canonization of saints is not.   That is essentially teaching, that is not sitting in judgment on the sanctity of a person and declaring what no human can know with certitude and what wasn't part of revealed teaching of the Church. 

Many moral issues are not a case of life and death, of salvation and damnation. If pronouncements on these minor issues was implicit in the original deposit, but still necessary for the souls, then why not have canonization of saints implicit within the communion of saints? What judges what is implicit or not? What judges whether something is of "consequence" to souls?
(11-30-2012, 01:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-30-2012, 01:39 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]And that is dependent on the canonization of Joe Schmoe being infallible?   I'm sorry that does not follow.  The Pope is infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals.  Cloning, extraordinary means of life support etc. are moral issues for the here and now concerning the actions of a person with consequences to their soul. The answer to each and every moral question is implicit in the Deposit of Faith.  Infallible canonization of saints is not.   That is essentially teaching, that is not sitting in judgment on the sanctity of a person and declaring what no human can know with certitude and what wasn't part of revealed teaching of the Church. 

Many moral issues are not a case of life and death, of salvation and damnation. If pronouncements on these minor issues was implicit in the original deposit, but still necessary for the souls, then why not have canonization of saints implicit within the communion of saints? What judges what is implicit or not? What judges whether something is of "consequence" to souls?


Because Revelation is closed.  That problem is not going to go away. 

With regards to your other point, think of it this way:  The Pope can infallibly declare that the words of institution of any particular rite in the Church are effective in changing the water and wine into Our Lord's Body and Blood if done by a validly ordained priest.  The Pope cannot using the charism of infallibility say that this or that particular host or chalice was properly consecrated and that the monstrance in the parish of St. Name in San Francisco is infallibly containing the Sacred Species. 

Gerard Wrote:Just as Aquinas couldn't wrap his mind (which towers above every other mind in history) around the simple understanding of the Immaculate Conception, it's just the way it is.  And Aquinas was mixed on his belief in the infallibility of canonizations.

We're talking about the unanimous teaching of the theologians. Not the teaching of one saint or theologian who may have been right or wrong. Take a look at this. One incurs a mortal sin indirectly against the faith by dissenting from such teachings.

And can you please provide proof that St. Thomas held mixed views on this.
Gerard Wrote:Dogmatic facts are not a magisterial teaching

We're bound to believe in more than just the infallible pronouncements of the Church.
Gerard Wrote:And you are going right back to the "validity of a papal election" after I've pointed out that Pope Stephen ruled that Formosus was not validly elected.   History is staring you in the face and telling you that you are wrong.  Are you going to address that inconvenient point of history or not?

I already addressed this in another post (at the bottom of page 7).

Pope Stephen never issued an ex cathedra pronouncement, nor was the universal Church in agreement with him on the issue. So I'm not exactly sure what bringing that up proves, other than the fact that Popes can err.
Gerard Wrote:6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Dogmatic facts are those things that help "religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation of the deposit of faith."
Quote:You can take a gander at Fr. Faber's essay on the issue of canonization and see that he can go no farther than calling canonizations being infallible as "probable de fide" but one can't accuse someone of denying it a heretic. "Probably infallible" is not "infallible."

My point here was simply that you were not accurate in describing St. Thomas' position. He believed that the infallibility of canonizations must be piously believed, and that the contrary would amount to being a damnable error within the Church.

And the same goes with Fr. Faber. He's in agreement with the theologians on dogmatic facts:
Quote:2. What is the exact meaning of a thing being de fide, and if it is not de fide, is it necessarily only of human faith? A thing is de fide because of the truth of God revealing it. Consequently dogmas are defined by the Church as de fide, not precisely because she is infallible about them, but because they are aliunde revelata. It does not therefore follow that the Church is not infallible about things not explicitly revealed, especially when they affect the salvation of the faithful. Canus* held that the Church was not infallible in the approval of religious orders ; but his opinion is almost unanimously rejected by theologians. Thus the Church is infallible upon dogmatic facts, in her precept of holydays of obligation and of hearing mass, in her judgment of lay-communion in one kind, the refusal of the Eucharist to infants, the condemnation of simoniacal and usurious contracts, and the like; because faith, morals, and genend discipline are laid down in theology as the three great provinces of her infallibility.


Moreover I don't think he asserted that canonizations were "probably de fide", either.

De fide is belief restricted to those things directly revealed by God within the deposit faith. We believe in dogmatic facts on what theologians have termed ecclesiastical faith.

In any case, here is the direct answer to the question at hand:
Quote: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.

I assume this was the essay you were referring to btw...
Gerard Wrote:
romanaround Wrote:If there were any debates at all, it would have probably been the question of beatifications.

Wrong.

There were questions surrounding the infallibility of beatifications, at least according to Fr. Faber (see the link I just provided).
Gerard Wrote:You are the one citing that the fact that canonizations are not infallible puts in danger the moral teachings of the Church.

If something cannot be infallible because it was not within the deposit of faith (i.e., directly taught by the Apostles), then that puts a whole punch of moral truths potentially up for grabs, yes...
Gerard Wrote:And that is dependent on the canonization of Joe Schmoe being infallible?   I'm sorry that does not follow.  The Pope is infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals.  Cloning, extraordinary means of life support etc. are moral issues for the here and now concerning the actions of a person with consequences to their soul. The answer to each and every moral question is implicit in the Deposit of Faith.

You misunderstand. It follows because if we can reject the common teaching of the theologians on dogmatic facts, then that puts a whole host of other teachings of the Church in jeopardy, especially when it comes to morality. That is because many of the Church's moral positions have never been officially addressed at all, but rest on the authority of her moral theologians. In other words, I reject your rationale which basically amounts to saying: "they're just theologians, they're not infallible, therefore I am justified in rejecting them if I can come up with what I think are good reasons." That is the sin of temerity.

Also, ironically enough, what is or is not implicit within the deposit of faith largely rests on the authority of the approved theologians as well. An authority which you seem very quick to dismiss in favor of your own personal views.

ETA: If you reject the authority of the theologians, here's the authority of a Pope who has weighed in on the issue:
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]
(12-01-2012, 04:59 AM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]
Gerard Wrote:Just as Aquinas couldn't wrap his mind (which towers above every other mind in history) around the simple understanding of the Immaculate Conception, it's just the way it is.  And Aquinas was mixed on his belief in the infallibility of canonizations.

We're talking about the unanimous teaching of the theologians. Not the teaching of one saint or theologian who may have been right or wrong.

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? 

Quote: Take a look at this. One incurs a mortal sin indirectly against the faith by dissenting from such teachings. 

What is the magisterial weight of that chart? 

Quote: And can you please provide proof that St. Thomas held mixed views on this.

Aquinas called for pious assent, not religious belief. He admitted that errors of fact could be possible.  His worst argumentation is his wild (for him) speculation on the damage that could be caused by canonizations not being infallible.

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:Dogmatic facts are not a magisterial teaching

We're bound to believe in more than just the infallible pronouncements of the Church.

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

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:And you are going right back to the "validity of a papal election" after I've pointed out that Pope Stephen ruled that Formosus was not validly elected.   History is staring you in the face and telling you that you are wrong.  Are you going to address that inconvenient point of history or not?

I already addressed this in another post (at the bottom of page 7).

Pope Stephen never issued an ex cathedra pronouncement, nor was the universal Church in agreement with him on the issue. So I'm not exactly sure what bringing that up proves, other than the fact that Popes can err.

Wait....so the Pope can use his supreme authority by ruling on the validity of another Pope and it's not binding because it's not infallible?  You are all over the place on this. How do you know Stephen didn't issue the order ex Cathedra?  By what authority did he make the ruling?  What does the "Universal Church" mean?  What body of voters is it that overrides the judgment of the Pope?  Weren't Catholics bound by Pope Stephen's ruling?

Quote: My point here was simply that you were not accurate in describing St. Thomas' position. He believed that the infallibility of canonizations must be piously believed, and that the contrary would amount to being a damnable error within the Church.

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

Quote: And the same goes with Fr. Faber. He's in agreement with the theologians on dogmatic facts:
Quote:2. What is the exact meaning of a thing being de fide, and if it is not de fide, is it necessarily only of human faith? A thing is de fide because of the truth of God revealing it. Consequently dogmas are defined by the Church as de fide, not precisely because she is infallible about them, but because they are aliunde revelata. It does not therefore follow that the Church is not infallible about things not explicitly revealed, especially when they affect the salvation of the faithful. Canus* held that the Church was not infallible in the approval of religious orders ; but his opinion is almost unanimously rejected by theologians. Thus the Church is infallible upon dogmatic facts, in her precept of holydays of obligation and of hearing mass, in her judgment of lay-communion in one kind, the refusal of the Eucharist to infants, the condemnation of simoniacal and usurious contracts, and the like; because faith, morals, and genend discipline are laid down in theology as the three great provinces of her infallibility.
 

Again with the "theologians" determining what is and is not infallible.  Fallible theologians claiming infallibility again beyond what is explicitly stated in the First Vatican Council.  When "unanimous" isn't there "almost unanimous" will do just as well it seems. 

Who the hell even knows what "infallible" in the approval of religious orders means?  He can't possibly fail in giving someone permission?  C'mon.  How is the whole Church bound by the approval of a religious order?  Is the Pope incapable of disapproving of a religious order? 

Quote: Moreover I don't think he asserted that canonizations were "probably de fide", either. 

Page 128 Faber:

Quote:

"It seems then probable that it is de fide that the judgment of the Church in canonization is infallible; but beyond this assertion of a strong probability we must not venture to go, especially seeing such great names for the negative opinion. It is safer to conclude with the wise and learned Lambertini, that each opinion should be left in its own probability, until a judgment shall issue from the Holy See; for when we are treating of setting up a dogma of faith, says the same careful theologian in another place, we must wait for the judgment of the Apostolic See, the mother and mistress of the other Churches, and of the chief pontiff, to whom it exclusively belongs to make definitions of faith, before we venture to brand with the infamous note of heresy those who follow an opposite opinion."

Quote: De fide is belief restricted to those things directly revealed by God within the deposit faith. We believe in dogmatic facts on what theologians have termed ecclesiastical faith.

Even stipulating your claim on "dogmatic facts" you have yet to prove that canonizations are dogmatic facts properly understood and that the specific knowledge of a specific person being in Heaven is not a revelation. 

Quote: In any case, here is the direct answer to the question at hand:
Quote: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?  The argument is a fiction practically understood. 


Quote:
I assume this was the essay you were referring to btw...
Gerard Wrote:
romanaround Wrote:If there were any debates at all, it would have probably been the question of beatifications.

Wrong.

There were questions surrounding the infallibility of beatifications, at least according to Fr. Faber (see the link I just provided).

The point being that Faber treats the question of both beatifications and canonizations.  The idea that there is no and never has been a debate with weighty arguments to the negative is simply not true. 

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:You are the one citing that the fact that canonizations are not infallible puts in danger the moral teachings of the Church.

If something cannot be infallible because it was not within the deposit of faith (i.e., directly taught by the Apostles), then that puts a whole punch of moral truths potentially up for grabs, yes...

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. 

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. 

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:And that is dependent on the canonization of Joe Schmoe being infallible?   I'm sorry that does not follow.  The Pope is infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals.  Cloning, extraordinary means of life support etc. are moral issues for the here and now concerning the actions of a person with consequences to their soul. The answer to each and every moral question is implicit in the Deposit of Faith.

You misunderstand. It follows because if we can reject the common teaching of the theologians on dogmatic facts, then that puts a whole host of other teachings of the Church in jeopardy, especially when it comes to morality.

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. 

Quote: That is because many of the Church's moral positions have never been officially addressed at all, but rest on the authority of her moral theologians. In other words, I reject your rationale which basically amounts to saying: "they're just theologians, they're not infallible, therefore I am justified in rejecting them if I can come up with what I think are good reasons." That is the sin of temerity.

That's a straw man argument.  "if I can come up with what I think are good reasons"  You imply that the motivation is to be immoral and there is no logical argument to counter the mysterious unnamed non-Magisterial theologians. 

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.

Quote: Also, ironically enough, what is or is not implicit within the deposit of faith largely rests on the authority of the approved theologians as well. An authority which you seem very quick to dismiss in favor of your own personal views.

Wrong again.  I don't dismiss their authority.  I don't exaggerate their authority.  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. 

Would that the Popes had that much power!  And here I thought the Magisterium of the Church was the Supreme teaching authority. But I guess it's only according to what the "theologians" decide the Magisterium is teaching.  How convenient. 

Quote: ETA: If you reject the authority of the theologians, here's the authority of a Pope who has weighed in on the issue:
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]
[/quote]

"if not a heretic"  is the key.  He's making a rant of it, but he's stating that he doesn't know.  If he'd anathematized anyone who dared say that it was possible for the Pope to err in a canonization, you might have something to go on.  Instead you've got the Holy Ghost preventing him from error in that statement. 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Gerard Wrote:Page 128 Faber:

Quote:"It seems then probable that it is de fide that the judgment of the Church in canonization is infallible"

I stand corrected. According to Fr. Faber, it is more likely that it was revealed by God through the Apostles that the Church has the power to infallibly canonize saints.

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?

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.

No where was an infallible revelation of the damned mentioned. 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).

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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 have the last word in this discussion since it appears we are getting no where.  :tiphat:
I think he was a good pope. And I think VII would have been less harmful had he seen the end of it.

The miracle ? They do happen, and I'm not in position to doubt it.

[Image: john23.jpg]

(12-02-2012, 06:53 PM)Whitey Wrote: [ -> ]I think he was a good pope. And I think VII would have been less harmful had he seen the end of it.

The miracle ? They do happen, and I'm not in position to doubt it.

[Image: john23.jpg]
.

How many miracles attributed to the Blessed JohnXXIII? I guess they are not more than half a dozen. I they were assessed by the "Bureau des Constatations" of Lourdes, probably they would not be declared true miracles since the rate of "miracles" vs unxeplained healings is less than 1 per cent.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10