FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Canonizations and Infallibility
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
(07-09-2013, 04:59 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2013, 11:32 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]The infallibility of the canonization refers only to the person being Heaven, not that we should all imitate everything the Saint ever did.  The formula for canonization only definitively declares this and that the person be honored in the liturgy.  Every Saint has sinned in one way or the other except the BVM, and we are not called to imitate their sins--so there's nothing that says you must imitate any actions of John Paul II's you judge to be sins (and of course there's always the possibility that you may have misjudged something....).  Unless you somehow know for certain that John Paul II was damned (which is impossible), this should not affect your faith in the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church.  Perfect prudence and timeliness was not promised to St. Peter and his successors.

Even if you think it is being done to further some agenda or another, and not for holy motives, that doesn't ultimately matter--nor would it be the first time this was the case.  To use another papal example, St. Celestine V was canonized quickly by Celement V at the demand of Clement's childhood friend Philip IV, to serve as an indirect negative judgment on Boniface VIII.  It served for Philip as a public demonstration that it was Celestine's treatment of Philip and policy toward France, rather than Boniface's (embodied by the Bull Unam Sanctam), that was the proper course.  This was Philip's consolation prize, as he had originally demanded that Boniface be directly condemned at the Council of Vienne (the threat of arms helped prevent this).

This is very helpful - if canonizations are simply that the person is in heaven, and no more, I can feel a bit more at peace... Thanks so much.

I don't like that option because it undermines the lives and actions of the other Saints. 

While canonization mandates that a person be honored in the liturgy, it is not universally held by all theologians that the person is in Heaven, and neither does the formula specify this. 
(07-10-2013, 02:30 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2013, 01:48 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]Scrip. here's the question: would you go into a mosque, synagogue, or heretical/schismatic place of worship to pray with them, for example for world peace, if the pope asked you to?

Actually that is not the Question. It is if you father had gone to a mosque, synagogue, or heretical schismatic worship to pray with them, for example for world peace, would you forgive him ? PS all saints are human and none were perfect, except Our Lord.

By your reasoning all sedevacantists are in that boat.

tim

Tim, I'm not that one who was the pope, the vicar of Christ, defender of the faith, the servant of the servants of God, who is being raised up to sainthood by the Church. Of course I forgive him. No one is asking for perfection. The question is, how many have lost the faith because of his many troubling actions and comments.

We are not talking about whether he lost custody of his eyes, engaged in drunkenness, etc. He said and did things as Christ's vicar on earth that his predecessors condemned and anathematized, in full view for all the world to see. And no one in authority has said boo about explaining them. No one.
(07-10-2013, 05:57 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2013, 02:38 PM)2Vermont Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2013, 02:30 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2013, 01:48 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]Scrip. here's the question: would you go into a mosque, synagogue, or heretical/schismatic place of worship to pray with them, for example for world peace, if the pope asked you to?

Actually that is not the Question. It is if you father had gone to a mosque, synagogue, or heretical schismatic worship to pray with them, for example for world peace, would you forgive him ? PS all saints are human and none were perfect, except Our Lord.

By your reasoning all sedevacantists are in that boat.

tim

Hmm.  I still don't think that's the question because there is no effective analogy for the leader of the Catholic Faith.  In other words, there is NO person on this earth we could substitute in the place of the Pope.  When the Pope publically sins (but privately confesses), consequences are something completely different than the consequences of Joe Schmoe sinning publically.


So, if Mrs Pelosi publically sins bcs she is supporting abortion, she cannot be given the Eucharist until she:
1/ repents and privately confesses
2/ publically recants of this error
Right?
If the Pope publically sins when kissing the Quran or praying with animists, no public recantation is necessary after he confessed?

Based on your and Dustin Dad's posts, I apparently phrased my post poorly because I actually agree with you both.  That was the point I was *trying* to make...sorry.
(07-10-2013, 01:48 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]Scrip. here's the question: would you go into a mosque, synagogue, or heretical/schismatic place of worship to pray with them, for example for world peace, if the pope asked you to?

As Tim alluded, the question is whether John Paul II's actions were:

Sinful, but could be forgiven/rectified privately with no public recognition.
Or, sinful, and must be forgiven/rectified in a public act.
Or, sinful, but there is doubt how he should have resolved it, or how it should be resolved now.

Or, not sinful, with no public recognition of this needed.
Or, not sinful, but must be stated as such in a public act.
Or, not sinful, but there is doubt whether any recognition of this is needed.

Or, immaterial to the question at hand. Canonization doesn't certify every action of a saint as saintly and gold-standard Catholic. Any believing Catholic would see in the canonization a recognition of forgiveness, resolution, and reconciliation with God. Case closed.



(07-10-2013, 06:11 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]While canonization mandates that a person be honored in the liturgy, it is not universally held by all theologians that the person is in Heaven, and neither does the formula specify this. 

The declaration is that they are a "saint". If one wishes to empty that, and the ceremony, of every reality which clearly the Pope intends to state, then what really is the ceremony about? A sort of ritual self-gratification of a false reality? It is clear in Catholic teaching that saints are in heaven. It theologians wish to discuss th oft chance that someone in purgatory can intercede for us, great. But no one seriously teaches that canonization of someone as a "saint" does not mean anything less than be with the blessed in heaven.
As Scrip has explained thoroughly above, the real issue is do you come to this decision based on a previous judgement. If going in you have determined in your mind supported by others of the same persuasion, then he can never be a saint. What proof do you have of his actions causing some to lose the Faith. The Faith has been being harmed starting farther back than his reign, in fact from the beginning. If Bl. Pope John Paul II is not a Saint, then the Holy Ghost not hindered whatsoever by mere mortals will stop this. The Commies, Masons, Homos, Modernists, Lib Theologians, Liberals, et al Do Not Stand a Chance. This all follows from the notion the councilar church is Not the Catholic Church, anymore.

tim
There is a middle ground between independently rejecting the notion of a particular person's Sainthood, and practically considering that Saint Immaculate.  Only one fully human being has been declared Immaculate by the Church -- and by the way, even many Catholics "refuse" to pray to the one person who is both a Saint and without sin. The Rosary is an official prayer of the Church (obviously), and includes The Hail Mary.  At other times also, in Church settings, the priest prays the Hail Mary in a public setting, surrounded by parishioners or other guests.  But lots of people don't have a personal devotion to My Favorite Saint, for a variety of reasons.

It's not up to me or to anyone who has an urge to appoint himself to do so, to try to "control" the way other people pray, or to cast judgment on the state of the soul who has devotions different from "you" or from me.

The likelihood that I will not be praying to JP2 does not mean that I am a "disobedient" Catholic.  That's absurd.  I am not "less" faithful than anyone else for the fact that he does not appeal to me in that regard, although I have nothing but admiration for his early role in Poland, and consider those actions of his heroic.

(This post is in response to semi-outraged comments that there are some people who will never pray "to" JP2.  And, your point is?....)
..." If Bl. Pope John Paul II is not a Saint, then the Holy Ghost not hindered whatsoever by mere mortals will stop this"...

Tim,
I hope like yourself, that the canonizations of JPII and John XXIII will not be achieved thanks to the Holy Ghost.
But I don't dare to say that the post conciliar Church isn't the true RCC.
(07-11-2013, 09:35 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2013, 06:11 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]While canonization mandates that a person be honored in the liturgy, it is not universally held by all theologians that the person is in Heaven, and neither does the formula specify this.   

The declaration is that they are a "saint". If one wishes to empty that, and the ceremony, of every reality which clearly the Pope intends to state, then what really is the ceremony about? A sort of ritual self-gratification of a false reality? It is clear in Catholic teaching that saints are in heaven. It theologians wish to discuss th oft chance that someone in purgatory can intercede for us, great. But no one seriously teaches that canonization of someone as a "saint" does not mean anything less than be with the blessed in heaven.

Thank you, Script! I was trying to wrap my ahead around the 'logic' of a Saint not being in Heaven. In my own case, in my journey to Rome, what absolutely convinced me of the Infallibility of the Church expressed through the Papacy was that She claimed to be able to declare someone a Saint, thus logically in Heaven. If that was false every claim the Church makes to being Mater et Magister collapses. My problem wasn't with Infallibility, per se, it was with the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Under the influence of the Angelic Doctor (yes, I know. Georgios Scholarios and I are about the only two Thomists the East ever had! :LOL:), I could not accept it and the question was, 'How could an Infallible Pope solemnly decree a false doctrine? When, by the prayers of our All-Holy, all-Pure and Immaculate Theotokos and I'm sure, those of St Thomas, I came to accept that, bingo!, I was a Catholic!
Scriptorium Wrote:The declaration is that they are a "saint". If one wishes to empty that, and the ceremony, of every reality which clearly the Pope intends to state, then what really is the ceremony about? A sort of ritual self-gratification of a false reality? It is clear in Catholic teaching that saints are in heaven. It theologians wish to discuss th oft chance that someone in purgatory can intercede for us, great. But no one seriously teaches that canonization of someone as a "saint" does not mean anything less than be with the blessed in heaven.

Except in the case of JP II, you have a Pope that praised Luther and found holiness in other religions.  So who knows what he thought a saint was, or what the current pope really intends?  They aren't Traditionalists, so why do you assume they would have a Traditionalist definition of what a Saint is?  Their intention can change everything.
(07-11-2013, 11:27 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
Scriptorium Wrote:The declaration is that they are a "saint". If one wishes to empty that, and the ceremony, of every reality which clearly the Pope intends to state, then what really is the ceremony about? A sort of ritual self-gratification of a false reality? It is clear in Catholic teaching that saints are in heaven. It theologians wish to discuss th oft chance that someone in purgatory can intercede for us, great. But no one seriously teaches that canonization of someone as a "saint" does not mean anything less than be with the blessed in heaven.

Except in the case of JP II, you have a Pope that praised Luther and found holiness in other religions.  So who knows what he thought a saint was, or what the current pope really intends?   They aren't Traditionalists, so why do you assume they would have a Traditionalist definition of what a Saint is?  Their intention can change everything.

Interesting.  This seems to be a good point to me. 

Are you sure that JPII didn't find holiness in other religions though (referring to the "except in the case of JPII" portion of your post)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5