FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
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 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(05-11-2018, 02:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2018, 01:26 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]If Paul VI is canonised, I'll accept the judgment of the Church that says he's in heaven. 

Well said, Paul! I agree with you. I, too, accept the infallibility of canonisations, for the reasons you mention, but Saints were traditionally role models for the Church Militant. Paul VI and John Paul II as role models? For those out to destroy the Church, maybe, but as a general rule, I can't think of worse examples.

Which is precisely why I wonder ... is "he's in heaven" the object of the definition?

I think most older theologians saw the object of infallibility as much wider than this, including the definition of sanctity and heroic virtue. If that's true then we have to wrestle with the problem of the modern canonizations, and it also cheapens previous canonizations.

I would ask then the question : If the object of an infallible judgement here is "he's in heaven" then why did the old process impose such overkill as ensuring the absolute absence of any ambiguity from the writings or actions of a man, testimonies establishing an heroic degree of sanctity far above the ordinary practice of supernatural virtue, plus at least four miracles?

Why all that when two miracles (or none if the Pope wants), plus ordinary virtue is sufficient to declare someone "in heaven"?

Even modern Vatican canonists who support infallibility, judge it as a very different thing than the infallibility we speak of when we speak of definitions of faith and morals.
Personally i find it impossible to believe that John Paul II or Paul VI are saints and worthy of emulation. Of course i certainly hope they are in heaven the same way i hope anyone is in heaven,but i just cannot accept their being canonized. 

This business of canonizing dubious characters is yet another nail in the coffin of credibility for the RCC as far as I'm concerned. With every one of these clowns canonized its making a statement that the vatican II revolution IS the new Catholicism. 

Now it's Paul VI the man who helped cement the destruction of the liturgy. A man who uses his power to destroy the liturgy of his ancestors is of dubious character at best.
(05-12-2018, 10:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Personally i find it impossible to believe that John Paul II or Paul VI are saints and worthy of emulation. Of course i certainly hope they are in heaven the same way i hope anyone is in heaven,but i just cannot accept their being canonized. 

This business of canonizing dubious characters is yet another nail in the coffin of credibility for the RCC as far as I'm concerned. With every one of these clowns canonized its making a statement that the vatican II revolution IS the new Catholicism. 

Now it's Paul VI the man who helped cement the destruction of the liturgy. A man who uses his power to destroy the liturgy of his ancestors is of dubious character at best.

Why do you even post here? All you ever talk about is how you don't believe in Catholic dogma and how the church is dead.
(05-12-2018, 02:55 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2018, 10:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Personally i find it impossible to believe that John Paul II or Paul VI are saints and worthy of emulation. Of course i certainly hope they are in heaven the same way i hope anyone is in heaven,but i just cannot accept their being canonized. 

This business of canonizing dubious characters is yet another nail in the coffin of credibility for the RCC as far as I'm concerned. With every one of these clowns canonized its making a statement that the vatican II revolution IS the new Catholicism. 

Now it's Paul VI the man who helped cement the destruction of the liturgy. A man who uses his power to destroy the liturgy of his ancestors is of dubious character at best.

Why do you even post here? All you ever talk about is how you don't believe in Catholic dogma and how the church is dead.

In formerbuddihist's defense (we don't agree about much), he has a pretty good point here. He takes it too far, obviously, but it's one of the damaging aspects of this "he's in heaven" definition of canonization.

I know that not all here will accept the SSPX position, but with regard to John Paul II there were serious theological questions raised that at least deserved consideration. They were written up in the standard Roman style by theologians and were hand delivered to the Holy See's relevant office to be considered among the documents for John Paul II's beatification. The submission was "lost" and then mysteriously "found" days after the case had been closed. As a result it was publicly published as Doubts about a Beatification. It was re-submitted for the canonization process, only to have the same thing happen again.

That kind of anecdote proves nothing about the process, nor about other people who were canonized or beatified, but it does at least prompt questions, and especially if we are going to take the formerly common opinion that canonization is an infallible act.

If people who have serious questions about the crisis in the Church see such things as the cheapening of the process, the glossing-over of serious questions, the promotion of questionable figures as the greatest of saints, then we should expect that it will have blowback.

If the process was weakened to the point that it could allow characters who did not show eminent heroic virtue and a rejection of any sinful past or public errors or sins, then it's only reasonable that it could harm the Church's credibility.

St. Augustine gives the same idea with regard to Scripture in his commentary on the literal meaning of Genesis, saying that we should not hold Scripture to say something dogmatic about the natural world when it could be later proved false and be the point of ridicule for unbelievers who will use our false opinions as an excuse to reject Scripture and God.

That is why the Church has been (historically) always very careful, hence the extreme rigor of the canonization process. Sadly that is not the case today. 

If a man is canonized who later it turns out had an sordid past that he did not unequivocally reject, or was weak in the world's eyes (e.g. he was a bishop that did not immediately burn at the stake without trial an alleged priest child-molestor, before himself publicly committing harakiri to repair for the evil, and even then I don't know if that would be enough), then it will be a terrible damage to the credibility of the Church. We can save our doctrines and theological opinions by claiming it's only saying "he's in heaven", but the damage is done.

As regards the question at hand, though, formerbuddhist is not denying (at least here) any Catholic dogma. The infallibility of canonization is not a dogma, nor is it even a universally-accepted theological opinion. Even then, it is clear that those who hold the infallibility of canonizations hold it to be something different from a de fide definition, such that one would certainly not be a "heretic" for denying that a particular man were a Saint.

Some older theologians would say such a denial made one "suspect of heresy" and would be sinful, but such questioning of the common theological opinion always would, unless there were some serious reason for this doubt or questions.
(05-12-2018, 02:55 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2018, 10:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Personally i find it impossible to believe that John Paul II or Paul VI are saints and worthy of emulation. Of course i certainly hope they are in heaven the same way i hope anyone is in heaven,but i just cannot accept their being canonized. 

This business of canonizing dubious characters is yet another nail in the coffin of credibility for the RCC as far as I'm concerned. With every one of these clowns canonized its making a statement that the vatican II revolution IS the new Catholicism. 

Now it's Paul VI the man who helped cement the destruction of the liturgy. A man who uses his power to destroy the liturgy of his ancestors is of dubious character at best.

Why do you even post here? All you ever talk about is how you don't believe in Catholic dogma and how the church is dead.

Not true man, FB makes great contributions here.
(05-12-2018, 03:18 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2018, 02:55 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2018, 10:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Personally i find it impossible to believe that John Paul II or Paul VI are saints and worthy of emulation. Of course i certainly hope they are in heaven the same way i hope anyone is in heaven,but i just cannot accept their being canonized. 

This business of canonizing dubious characters is yet another nail in the coffin of credibility for the RCC as far as I'm concerned. With every one of these clowns canonized its making a statement that the vatican II revolution IS the new Catholicism. 

Now it's Paul VI the man who helped cement the destruction of the liturgy. A man who uses his power to destroy the liturgy of his ancestors is of dubious character at best.

Why do you even post here? All you ever talk about is how you don't believe in Catholic dogma and how the church is dead.

In formerbuddihist's defense (we don't agree about much), he has a pretty good point here. He takes it too far, obviously, but it's one of the damaging aspects of this "he's in heaven" definition of canonization.

I know that not all here will accept the SSPX position, but with regard to John Paul II there were serious theological questions raised that at least deserved consideration. They were written up in the standard Roman style by theologians and were hand delivered to the Holy See's relevant office to be considered among the documents for John Paul II's beatification. The submission was "lost" and then mysteriously "found" days after the case had been closed. As a result it was publicly published as Doubts about a Beatification. It was re-submitted for the canonization process, only to have the same thing happen again.

That kind of anecdote proves nothing about the process, nor about other people who were canonized or beatified, but it does at least prompt questions, and especially if we are going to take the formerly common opinion that canonization is an infallible act.

If people who have serious questions about the crisis in the Church see such things as the cheapening of the process, the glossing-over of serious questions, the promotion of questionable figures as the greatest of saints, then we should expect that it will have blowback.

If the process was weakened to the point that it could allow characters who did not show eminent heroic virtue and a rejection of any sinful past or public errors or sins, then it's only reasonable that it could harm the Church's credibility.

St. Augustine gives the same idea with regard to Scripture in his commentary on the literal meaning of Genesis, saying that we should not hold Scripture to say something dogmatic about the natural world when it could be later proved false and be the point of ridicule for unbelievers who will use our false opinions as an excuse to reject Scripture and God.

That is why the Church has been (historically) always very careful, hence the extreme rigor of the canonization process. Sadly that is not the case today. 

If a man is canonized who later it turns out had an sordid past that he did not unequivocally reject, or was weak in the world's eyes (e.g. he was a bishop that did not immediately burn at the stake without trial an alleged priest child-molestor, before himself publicly committing harakiri to repair for the evil, and even then I don't know if that would be enough), then it will be a terrible damage to the credibility of the Church. We can save our doctrines and theological opinions by claiming it's only saying "he's in heaven", but the damage is done.

As regards the question at hand, though, formerbuddhist is not denying (at least here) any Catholic dogma. The infallibility of canonization is not a dogma, nor is it even a universally-accepted theological opinion. Even then, it is clear that those who hold the infallibility of canonizations hold it to be something different from a de fide definition, such that one would certainly not be a "heretic" for denying that a particular man were a Saint.

Some older theologians would say such a denial made one "suspect of heresy" and would be sinful, but such questioning of the common theological opinion always would, unless there were some serious reason for this doubt or questions.
Magister-


That's really all i was getting at,that things like these fast track canonizations of characters of questionable orthodoxy weaken the credibility of the Church to many,myself included. 


So are you saying it's an allowable opinion for a Catholic to question the infallibility of modern canonizations? If so that would be interesting.

As always,thanks for a more in depth slant on this. 

And Florus, thanks for that. Tip o' the hat
(05-12-2018, 03:18 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]The infallibility of canonization is not a dogma, nor is it even a universally-accepted theological opinion. Even then, it is clear that those who hold the infallibility of canonizations hold it to be something different from a de fide definition, such that one would certainly not be a "heretic" for denying that a particular man were a Saint.

Some older theologians would say such a denial made one "suspect of heresy" and would be sinful, but such questioning of the common theological opinion always would, unless there were some serious reason for this doubt or questions.

What are the arguments some theologians have for why canonisation isn't infallible? Is it because we know there's no new public revelation since the Apostles, and knowing someone's in heaven would be new?

And, if it's not, what would they say about the Church, in the Mass and Office, publicly asking for the intercession of someone who's actually in hell?
Well, why is this advertised as a "Traditional Catholic" site, when Novus Ordo liberals, Mormons, conservative Catholics post here? To be a truly Traditional Catholic, one cannot accept the heresies in Vatican II and especially their 250+ decrees, proclamations, statements, Motu Proprios (which Must be obeyed) which place into law a false ecumenism and a corrupted "Mass" and that outside the Catholic Church, there Is salvation? I think one should read Michael Davies book on the Alta Vendita, so that many who post here would realize that the Novus Ordo "church" they are defending is a thinly veiled Freemasonry.
(05-12-2018, 11:50 PM)greatdame Wrote: [ -> ]To be a truly Traditional Catholic, one cannot accept the heresies in Vatican II and especially their 250+ decrees, proclamations, statements, Motu Proprios (which Must be obeyed) which place into law a false ecumenism and a corrupted "Mass" and that outside the Catholic Church, there Is salvation?

Vatican II defined nothing heretical, since it didn't define anything. Disciplinary decisions of the Church, or pastoral decisions in how the Church decides to promote the faith, can be wrong, and there's plenty of that in the interpretation of Vatican II.

Outside the Church there is no salvation, but a child who's baptised by a Protestant minister is Catholic, until such time as he becomes a heretic. If he dies before he knows any better, and hasn't committed any other mortal sins, he goes to heaven.
(05-12-2018, 08:42 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2018, 03:18 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]The infallibility of canonization is not a dogma, nor is it even a universally-accepted theological opinion. Even then, it is clear that those who hold the infallibility of canonizations hold it to be something different from a de fide definition, such that one would certainly not be a "heretic" for denying that a particular man were a Saint.

Some older theologians would say such a denial made one "suspect of heresy" and would be sinful, but such questioning of the common theological opinion always would, unless there were some serious reason for this doubt or questions.

What are the arguments some theologians have for why canonisation isn't infallible? Is it because we know there's no new public revelation since the Apostles, and knowing someone's in heaven would be new?

And, if it's not, what would they say about the Church, in the Mass and Office, publicly asking for the intercession of someone who's actually in hell?

I think a place to start that disucssion would be with Prof de Mattei who surveyed the matter in an interview with Catholic Family News. It's not so much his personal opinion that's valuable here (he's not a theologian), but his presentation of the various theological positions.

Even the best theologians, however distinguish between the "infallibility" we are speaking of with regard to the definition of a dogma, and that of canonizations. The two are not the same thing.

In dogma, for instance, the Pope is definitively pronouncing by his papal authority that a certain truth is contained in Revelation and that the faithful must assent to this or they deny the Catholic Faith.

In canonizations, there is a decision by which the Pope determines that this man is a Saint. That's not a revealed truth (since public revelation has ended). This is why we speak of a secondary kind of infallibility in which the Pope, using ordinary prudence plus the help of the Holy Ghost.

The question comes, however, whether if in the course of such things ordinary prudence is dismissed whether the help of the Holy Ghost (which would protect the decision and make it infallible) would come.

We experience this all the time. God gives grace sufficient that we can avoid all of our sins. We act seriously imprudently and reject an important grace (e.g. we fail to say any prayers when seriously tempted), and then consequently fall into grave sin. The Holy Ghost was there to help us, if we did our ordinary part, but instead we refused this.

That is essentially a summary of Fr. Gleize (SSPX) with regard to the modern canonizations. The rigorous process was what guaranteed "ordinary prudence". Accidental modifications would not cause major problems, but a seemingly substantial change here (especially as regards the object of that determination) means that we can have doubts, and perhaps it is prudent to have such doubts.

That is what I meant above when I said that a canonization does not sanate the process. If ordinary prudence is not used, then no amount of papal act fixes the lack of prudence and make it sufficient that the determination is infallible.

By analogy, we could say that if the Pope in an off the cuff remark on a plane lamented the mistreatment of livestock as a symbol of the materialistic culture we live in, and therefore defined that from henceforth the killing of any animal for food is a grave sin. We would clearly say : (1) He's doing it again, (2) It's probably not done with enough study and reflection, thus not binding on the faithful.

I'll admit that this is not a complete argument, but I really don't have the time and Fr Gleize's arguments for doubt of infallibility in the modern process are far better, anyway.

The consequences with regard to Mass and Office, are secondary considerations, but a problem to address, I agree. They are not inconsequential, so don't think I'm just dismissing them entirely, but that really cannot be considered until we first determine what precisely is the object of infallibility in canonizations and whether the modern canonizations have this same object, thus are also infallible.

If we're trying to determine for the purposes of taxation whether this newfangled Tesla is a "motor vehicle" by the definition which used to cover a V8 diesel truck, then while the effect on the fuel tax revenue is not inconsequential, that's a separate issue that first requires the first to be solved.

Still a supporter of the thesis that canonizations are an act of infallibility Fr. Edward McNamara does have this to say :

Quote:A further argument can be offered. With a canonization, the Pope mandates (rather than permits, as is the case of beatification) that a saint be venerated in the Church's liturgy and especially with the Eucharistic celebration in his honor. Considering that the Mass is the highest and most perfect form of worship, it is logical that the Holy Spirit would guard the Pope and the Church from any error regarding a canonized person's definitive state.

At the same time, it must be recognized that this is an argument based on congruence and is not apodictic. The institution of a liturgical celebration does not in itself imply an exercise of infallibility.

While that's fodder for a later discussion, I think at Fr. McNamara's statement that the Pope "mandates" this veneration is overstatement, as most new saints are not formally inscribed in the calendar as mandatory feasts. For instance, John Paul II's "feast day" is October 22, but even this is an "optional memorial", which means there is no strict "mandate".
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21