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
(07-11-2013, 11:27 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It isn't whether they are "Traditionalists", but whether they have received and passed on the Word of God passed on to them. In this, I don't think there can be a real doubt. I don't think there is any real doubt that they understand saints to be the blessed in heaven. I think where you misstep here is introducing the idea of "Traditionalism" instead of seeing the reality of the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, invoking the authority he receives from Christ, the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, to make the declaration. To say then that maybe he means something different creates a doubt which man cannot resolve. The same applies for the sacraments. It was often said that you can't go to any New Mass because the priest would not intend to confect the sacrament. Well, how can anybody ever resolve such a situation unless you can read someone's mind? What about even the "indult Masses" said by the same crop of priests? Probably can't go to those either. And we see how this line of thought can lead to extreme and absurd situations and actions. No, when the priest observes the correct matter and form, and barring any clear conditions to the contrary, the faithful have assurance that the sacrament is confected. And so with canonization. We can't be expected to read Pope Francis' mind, and there is no evidence that he intends anything other than what is traditionally intended. So we have the assurance of faith.
(07-12-2013, 07:20 AM)2Vermont Wrote: [ -> ]
(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)

Read "Except" as "However".
(07-12-2013, 09:17 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-11-2013, 11:27 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It isn't whether they are "Traditionalists", but whether they have received and passed on the Word of God passed on to them. In this, I don't think there can be a real doubt. I don't think there is any real doubt that they understand saints to be the blessed in heaven. I think where you misstep here is introducing the idea of "Traditionalism" instead of seeing the reality of the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, invoking the authority he receives from Christ, the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, to make the declaration. To say then that maybe he means something different creates a doubt which man cannot resolve. The same applies for the sacraments. It was often said that you can't go to any New Mass because the priest would not intend to confect the sacrament. Well, how can anybody ever resolve such a situation unless you can read someone's mind? What about even the "indult Masses" said by the same crop of priests? Probably can't go to those either. And we see how this line of thought can lead to extreme and absurd situations and actions. No, when the priest observes the correct matter and form, and barring any clear conditions to the contrary, the faithful have assurance that the sacrament is confected. And so with canonization. We can't be expected to read Pope Francis' mind, and there is no evidence that he intends anything other than what is traditionally intended. So we have the assurance of faith.

There is plenty of room to doubt due to JP II's scandalous actions.  You yourself attack the validity of SSPX sacraments based on doubts, but won't extend the same level of scrutiny to the Pope.

If JP II believed in universal salvation, and there is evidence to suggest he did, then Sainthood does not have the same meaning it did in the past.  Indeed, we are all Saints in that case and perhaps the new meaning is meant to highlight virtues that the Pope finds most agreeable.  JP II got rid of the Devil's advocate, which only makes sense if all are saved. 
(07-12-2013, 07:03 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]There is plenty of room to doubt due to JP II's scandalous actions.  You yourself attack the validity of SSPX sacraments based on doubts, but won't extend the same level of scrutiny to the Pope.

If JP II believed in universal salvation, and there is evidence to suggest he did, then Sainthood does not have the same meaning it did in the past.  Indeed, we are all Saints in that case and perhaps the new meaning is meant to highlight virtues that the Pope finds most agreeable.  JP II got rid of the Devil's advocate, which only makes sense if all are saved. 

On all fronts I simply uphold what the Church upholds.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5