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
Here's a source, Catholic Encylopedia:

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.
 
What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:
 
"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."
 
(Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)
 
There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
(05-29-2018, 10:03 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

But what does canonisation mean? Is the Church only saying this person is in heaven, or is the Church saying the things this person did during his life are worthy of emulation, and if you do them, you will go to heaven? I'd say the Church is only guaranteeing the first, particularly with the changes to the process such that any whiff of unorthodoxy put an end to the process. Saying Paul VI is in heaven doesn't mean we have to think that his promulgation of the new Mass was good.

The ordinary magisterium is not necessarily infallible. We owe it our consideration, but there's no way that Amoris lætitia and its implied approval of Communion for the unrepentant adulterer is infallible. And it's certainly not infallible when it contradicts past teachings - see John Paul II's opinions on the death penalty.
One more point, as noted by the Catholic encyclopedia.
 
The infallible formula for the canonization itself is to simply declare the person a “Saint.”
 
Consider: everyone in heaven is a Saint, but not everyone in heaven should be canonized because of what they did in their lives. That is the point. The canonization prayer only infallibly declares a person is a Saint – nothing beyond that.
 
So, taken at face value, that’s the only thing infallible in a canonization. My Grandma could certainly be a Saint in heaven, and she could potentially enact a miracle for me, but that doesn’t mean she practiced heroic virtue, that she is safe for emulation, and of course that she should be formally canonized.
(05-29-2018, 10:25 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-29-2018, 10:03 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

But what does canonisation mean? Is the Church only saying this person is in heaven, or is the Church saying the things this person did during his life are worthy of emulation, and if you do them, you will go to heaven? I'd say the Church is only guaranteeing the first, particularly with the changes to the process such that any whiff of unorthodoxy put an end to the process. Saying Paul VI is in heaven doesn't mean we have to think that his promulgation of the new Mass was good.

But, in fact, this is the whole point of the discussion.

The theologians have not universally and certainly defined the object of infallibility. 

Historically this definition seems to include the establishment of heroic virtue and worth of emulation at least in the process, which is why those who did not show this, or upon whom any suspicion of error could even be though, were quickly dismissed from ever being considered.

Thus there are two possible reactions in the face of these modern canonization which try our Faith.

1. Reduce the object of infallibility to "they're in heaven".

2. Reduce confidence in the infallibility of the modified process as it stands.

That's the matter for discussion, and the very fact that we have to even discuss this is not our fault, but that of the Popes who have made a laughing stock of the process and proposed candidates which everyone hopes made it to heaven, but who committed objective grave public sins and never publicly repented.

John Paul II is a perfect example. The meeting at Assisi was an objective and grave sin against the First Commandment. It was one of several things which pushed Archbishop Lefebvre to consider consecrating bishops, it was so scandalous. Yet never did the Pope directly or indirectly publicly repent of this objective sin. It is quite hard to claim that it was not also subjectively imputable, since this is the Vicar of Christ we are talking about, who has the grave duty of promoting the Catholic Faith and protecting the faithful from Error.

I am no judge of the internal forum and hope that the Pope confessed and repented of this to the extent he understood its grave evil, but the very lack of a public abjuration of some kind makes his beatification and canonization scandalous.

If I had organized various Christian sects, Jews, Muslims and pagans together to pray for peace in 1930, I would rightly have been condemned and even perhaps excommunicated. Today this is seen as a supreme virtue, and yet Pius XI wrote in 1928 :

Quote:But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth.

... Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." 

...Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."

Was he wrong?

If not, then how can we say that the canonization of John Paul II (whatever we want to consider to be the object of infallibility in a canonization, if there be one), is not a grave scandal perpetuated on the Church?
(05-29-2018, 10:15 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
(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?
 
There's no way. It's completely contradictory to say the Church can come to multiple erroneous conclusions on qualities such as heroic virtue and required miracles, and have these erroneous conclusions then lead up to one infallible conclusion - the canonization of the person. There is no way that the Church teaches such a thing.
(05-29-2018, 11:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Was he wrong?

If not, then how can we say that the canonization of John Paul II (whatever we want to consider to be the object of infallibility in a canonization, if there be one), is not a grave scandal perpetuated on the Church?

I didn't think Popes could ever be wrong. Oh, wait, that's only the Popes since Vatican II.

I agree it is a scandal, and, like you said, there's only two possible conclusions. Either the infallibility of canonisations extends only to the fact that the person is in heaven, or they aren't infallible at all and there's a possibility that there are canonised saints in hell. I don't see how the opinion that canonisation, as currently practiced by the Church, infallibly means the person practised heroic virtue can be defended, if a Pope who committed such a public violation of the First Commandment and never publicly repented of it can become a Saint. Such a thing by any previous Pope would have stopped the cause immediately, if one ever even started.
(05-29-2018, 10:25 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-29-2018, 10:03 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

But what does canonisation mean? Is the Church only saying this person is in heaven, or is the Church saying the things this person did during his life are worthy of emulation, and if you do them, you will go to heaven? I'd say the Church is only guaranteeing the first, particularly with the changes to the process such that any whiff of unorthodoxy put an end to the process. Saying Paul VI is in heaven doesn't mean we have to think that his promulgation of the new Mass was good.

The ordinary magisterium is not necessarily infallible. We owe it our consideration, but there's no way that Amoris lætitia and its implied approval of Communion for the unrepentant adulterer is infallible. And it's certainly not infallible when it contradicts past teachings - see John Paul II's opinions on the death penalty.
 
Here is the definition from, "A Catholic Dictionary", from the 1940s. It's pretty self-explanatory. It officially approves of heroic virtue of the Saint and by insisting on public honor, confirms that the soul of the Saint has been saved.

Canonization - A public and official declaration of the heroic virtue of a person and the inclusion of his or her name in the canon (role or register) of the Saints. Beatification having been accomplished, it must be proved that two miracles have been subsequently wrought at the intercession of the Beatus; the tests and examination are as rigorous as those which have gone before, and the miracles are discussed in three meetings of the congregation of rites; there are required two things to be proved; what the candidate was formally or equivalently beatified, and has worked two (or if equivalently beatified, three) miracles subsequent to the beatification. The canonization is then carried out solemnly in St. Peter's by the pope in person, wherein the bull of canonization is read and a mass sung in honor of the Saint. Canonization involves that the same not only may but must receive public honor; a day is appointed for his feast and a liturgical office composed therefore; his relics are publicly venerated, treasures and alters dedicated in his honor, statues or pictures displayed in churches, and prayers to have made publicly. This judgment of the Church is infallible and irreformable. Owing to the amount of careful work involved and the sumptuous scale of the final ceremony, canonization is extremely costly process....
 
If you look in any Catholic book on the ordinary magisterium (the continuous, unchanged teaching of the Church), all books say it is infallible. I could provide many quotes and they all say it. So if we see something erroneous, the only logical answer is that it cannot possibly be part of the ordinary magisterium.
(05-29-2018, 10:33 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]One more point, as noted by the Catholic encyclopedia.
 
The infallible formula for the canonization itself is to simply declare the person a “Saint.”
 
Consider: everyone in heaven is a Saint, but not everyone in heaven should be canonized because of what they did in their lives. That is the point. The canonization prayer only infallibly declares a person is a Saint – nothing beyond that.
 
So, taken at face value, that’s the only thing infallible in a canonization. My Grandma could certainly be a Saint in heaven, and she could potentially enact a miracle for me, but that doesn’t mean she practiced heroic virtue, that she is safe for emulation, and of course that she should be formally canonized.
 
The definition I just posted says otherwise.
(05-29-2018, 11:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-29-2018, 10:25 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-29-2018, 10:03 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

But what does canonisation mean? Is the Church only saying this person is in heaven, or is the Church saying the things this person did during his life are worthy of emulation, and if you do them, you will go to heaven? I'd say the Church is only guaranteeing the first, particularly with the changes to the process such that any whiff of unorthodoxy put an end to the process. Saying Paul VI is in heaven doesn't mean we have to think that his promulgation of the new Mass was good.

But, in fact, this is the whole point of the discussion.

The theologians have not universally and certainly defined the object of infallibility. 

Historically this definition seems to include the establishment of heroic virtue and worth of emulation at least in the process, which is why those who did not show this, or upon whom any suspicion of error could even be though, were quickly dismissed from ever being considered.

Thus there are two possible reactions in the face of these modern canonization which try our Faith.

1. Reduce the object of infallibility to "they're in heaven".

2. Reduce confidence in the infallibility of the modified process as it stands.

That's the matter for discussion, and the very fact that we have to even discuss this is not our fault, but that of the Popes who have made a laughing stock of the process and proposed candidates which everyone hopes made it to heaven, but who committed objective grave public sins and never publicly repented.

John Paul II is a perfect example. The meeting at Assisi was an objective and grave sin against the First Commandment. It was one of several things which pushed Archbishop Lefebvre to consider consecrating bishops, it was so scandalous. Yet never did the Pope directly or indirectly publicly repent of this objective sin. It is quite hard to claim that it was not also subjectively imputable, since this is the Vicar of Christ we are talking about, who has the grave duty of promoting the Catholic Faith and protecting the faithful from Error.

I am no judge of the internal forum and hope that the Pope confessed and repented of this to the extent he understood its grave evil, but the very lack of a public abjuration of some kind makes his beatification and canonization scandalous.

If I had organized various Christian sects, Jews, Muslims and pagans together to pray for peace in 1930, I would rightly have been condemned and even perhaps excommunicated. Today this is seen as a supreme virtue, and yet Pius XI wrote in 1928 :

Quote:But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth.

... Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." 

...Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."

Was he wrong?

If not, then how can we say that the canonization of John Paul II (whatever we want to consider to be the object of infallibility in a canonization, if there be one), is not a grave scandal perpetuated on the Church?
 
I certainly hear the complaints you mention - they are concerning. That is why many people come to believe the sedevacantist position - they believe that no true pope can possibly do such things.
(05-30-2018, 01:13 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-29-2018, 10:33 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]One more point, as noted by the Catholic encyclopedia.
 
The infallible formula for the canonization itself is to simply declare the person a “Saint.”
 
Consider: everyone in heaven is a Saint, but not everyone in heaven should be canonized because of what they did in their lives. That is the point. The canonization prayer only infallibly declares a person is a Saint – nothing beyond that.
 
So, taken at face value, that’s the only thing infallible in a canonization. My Grandma could certainly be a Saint in heaven, and she could potentially enact a miracle for me, but that doesn’t mean she practiced heroic virtue, that she is safe for emulation, and of course that she should be formally canonized.
 
The definition I just posted says otherwise.

Which is precisely why I think one could take either of the two possible opinions mentioned above. Either we save infallibility and reduce the object (discarding the value of canonization as historically practiced), or we discard infallibility and preserve the object (preserving the historical value of a canonization).

Neither is a very good choice.

Heck, we shouldn't have to choose, but we have been forced to do so. I don't fault anyone for taking either position.

I simply find the latter one (which preserves the historical value of canonization and its wider object) to be more satisfying a conclusion. This is helped by the massive changes and relaxations as regards the process along with a whole new concept of sanctity which thanks to Lumen Gentium and the Rahnerite theology of Vatican II would suggest "elements of sanctification" outside of the Catholic Church.

However, recognizing that this is a theological matter whether there is now wide berth to sail, I'm not going to say that those who disagree do not have merit, but I find the opposing position deeply unsatifying, cheapening what it means to be a Saint, and undermining the whole reason the Church canonizes people to begin with.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21