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
(05-12-2018, 11:50 PM)greatdame Wrote: [ -> ]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.

This conservative (although, since I attend the OF, perhaps you'll find me a "Novus Ordo liberal"), not "a truly Traditional Catholic" poster is familiar with the Alta Vendita and still finds your premise tremendously flawed.

As for the bolded part above, Vatican II did not do away with EENS.

Lumen Gentium, #14:

“Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [this Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism, as through a door, men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved
It's amusing that she brings up the Alta Vendita and Michael Davies. If Michael Davies wrote a book on the Alta Vendita, I'd love to know about it, because I've never seen it and I'd like to check it out.

I knew Michael Davies, and he did not repudiate the Post Vatican II Church. In fact, he was adamant that it was the Church and that we were bound, for instance, by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. So, I guess, in certain peoples' eyes, one of the greatest Traditionalist authors of the late 20th century wasn't a Traditionalist at all. Big Grin
I just read through this discussion for the first time. People are posting errors ALL over the place. Canonizations are always infallible, and if they are granted, it means the process that was used to come to that conclusion is free from error. The SSPX view on resisting the process has never been seen in the Church, and basically stems from their faulty "recognize and resist" position.

I didn't see anyone mention this in the discussion, but the only thing that can make a canonization invalid as if the investigating Pope, or the receiving Pope were not actually valid. The Church has taught that such a scenario is possible, such as with an invalidly elected Pope, or a heretical Pope.
(05-29-2018, 05:13 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Canonizations are always infallible, and if they are granted, it means the process that was used to come to that conclusion is free from error.


This isn’t entirely true. The only thing most theologians agree on is that canonization is infallible when confirming that the person is in heaven.
 
Everything else is subject to err: confirmation of heroic virtue, confirming the person is safe to emulate, miracles, etc.
(05-29-2018, 05:26 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-29-2018, 05:13 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Canonizations are always infallible, and if they are granted, it means the process that was used to come to that conclusion is free from error.


This isn’t entirely true. The only thing most theologians agree on is that canonization is infallible when confirming that the person is in heaven.
 
Everything else is subject to err: confirmation of heroic virtue, confirming the person is safe to emulate, miracles, etc.

Can you provide any quotes from Catholic references that teach this? It makes no sense that the Church can infallibly canonize someone, yet the qualities that led the Church to reach that conclusion be at the same time erroneous. It makes no sense. Can you please post your source? Thanks
While it is generally agreed among theologeans that canonization are infallible it does not carry the same level of certainty as some infallible doctrine or dogma and not all theologians agree that this is so.
(05-29-2018, 09:31 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]While it is generally agreed among theologeans that canonization are infallible it does not carry the same level of certainty as some infallible doctrine or dogma and not all theologians agree that this is so.
 
Canonizations are either infallible or they are not. There are no "levels" of infallibility. Looking at some quotes on canonizations, the answer is clear:

A Commentary on Canon Law, Canon 1277 Footnote:
"Hence theologians are unanimous in stating the infallibility of the Pope with regard to canonization, whilst they are more or less divided concerning beatification"

A Catholic Dictionary, Canonization:
"...this judgment of the Church is infallible and irreformable"

The Catechism Explained, The Infallibility of the Church:
"Moreover, it is certain that the Church is infallible when it declares that any given opinion on faith or morals is contrary to revealed teaching, as also in the canonization of saints."
(05-29-2018, 09:27 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Can you provide any quotes from Catholic references that teach this? It makes no sense that the Church can infallibly canonize someone, yet the qualities that led the Church to reach that conclusion be at the same time erroneous. It makes no sense. Can you please post your source? Thanks


The only reference I have ever encountered is that it confirms the person is in heaven - I could look around if you want, but I can't right now.


But think about some things in the meantime:

Is there a source that says they are infallible in all instances? Is there an infallible source that says canonization is infallible in the first place?


Let me put it this way: The Church is infallible on faith and morals. 

The Church saying that someone is safe to imitate does not fall under these categories. The Church confirming a miracle does not fall under these categories. The Church's decision to say that a person has heroic virtue does not fall under these categories.

A pastoral and prudential judgement that person is safe for emulation is certainly not an infallible decree.


Otherwise, what is impossible for you and I to reconcile is how (for example) John Paul II accommodated pagans to worship their gods (which Scripture calls devils) on consecrated Church ground at Assisi - he accommodated breaking the first commandment and sacrilege. Public action, without public reparation and correction.



Did JPII repent of such an event? No.
Is it safe for emulation? No.
Does it show heroic virtue? No.


There's your quick answer. 

Otherwise, prove to me that Assisi is safe for emulation -an abominable event that has a Pope accommodate pagans in worshiping demons on sacred church ground.


If you say "well, obviously that's not safe for emulation, look at the other things he did instead!" Then my answer: what exactly is the point of canonization? We the lay people have to shift through piles of crap in order to find out what we should emulate? That's the whole point of the canonization process in the first place.

Since JPII did such actions (there is much more than Assisi) - actions against the faith, with no public correction - I am not going to sit here and assume it is all safe for emulation when it directly contradictions the very core of Christianity. Rather, I just say the canonization is a mistake and a canonization has limits on it's infallibility. Otherwise it is a horrid contradiction and wrecks Catholicism.
(05-29-2018, 09:50 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-29-2018, 09:27 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Can you provide any quotes from Catholic references that teach this? It makes no sense that the Church can infallibly canonize someone, yet the qualities that led the Church to reach that conclusion be at the same time erroneous. It makes no sense. Can you please post your source? Thanks


The only reference I have ever encountered is that it confirms the person is in heaven - I could look around if you want, but I can't right now.

But think about some things in the meantime:Is there a source that says they are infallible in all instances? Is there an infallible source that says canonization is infallible in the first place?

Let me put it this way: The Church is infallible on faith and morals. 

The Church saying that someone is safe to imitate does not fall under these categories. The Church confirming a miracle does not fall under these categories. The Church's decision to say that a person has heroic virtue does not fall under these categories.

A pastoral and prudential judgement that person is safe for emulation is certainly not an infallible decree.


Otherwise, what is impossible for you and I to reconcile is how (for example) John Paul II accommodated pagans to worship their gods (which Scripture calls devils) on consecrated Church ground at Assisi - he accommodated breaking the first commandment and sacrilege. Public action, without public reparation and correction.

Did JPII repent of such an event? No.
Is it safe for emulation? No.
Does it show heroic virtue? No.

There's your quick answer. Otherwise, prove to me that Assisi is safe for emulation -an abominable event that has a Pope accommodate pagans in worshiping demons on sacred church ground.

If you say "well, obviously that's not safe for emulation, look at the other things he did instead!" Then my answer: what exactly is the point of canonization? We the lay people have to shift through piles of crap in order to find out what we should emulate? That's the whole point of the canonization process in the first place.

Since JPII did such actions (there is much more than Assisi) - actions against the faith, with no public correction - I am not going to sit here and assume it is all safe for emulation when it directly contradictions the very core of Christianity. Rather, I just say the canonization is a mistake and a canonization has limits on it's infallibility. Otherwise it is a horrid contradiction and wrecks Catholicism.

Funny, I just happened to have started a separate discussion on the very topic of Assisi. I guess we can discuss that there.

But regarding canonizations, the quotes I provided in my last post, along with every other reference I have ever read on the subject, all say the same thing - canonizations are infallible, no exceptions. These quotes fall under the everyday teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium), which is itself infallible by definition. If Pope Francis is a true Vicar of Christ, then his upcoming canonization cannot be questioned.
(05-29-2018, 10:03 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Funny, I just happened to have started a separate discussion on the very topic of Assisi. I guess we can discuss that there.

But regarding canonizations, the quotes I provided in my last post, along with every other reference I have ever read on the subject, all say the same thing - canonizations are infallible, no exceptions. These quotes fall under the everyday teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium), which is itself infallible by definition. If Pope Francis is a true Vicar of Christ, then his upcoming canonization cannot be questioned.


No.


Confirming a person has heroic virtue and safe for emulation is not, in and of itself, a canonization.
The decision to go forward with a canonization, the prudential judgement, is not in and of itself a canonization.

The non-infallible vague quotations you give do not prove the above.


Do you think John Paul II's actions are safe for emulation?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21