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
(05-30-2018, 01:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

That's a third option, but I dismiss it entirely, since if I thought the reduced object of infallibility was a deeply unsatisfying option, the SV theory is more like this

(05-30-2018, 01:23 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I find the opposite more satisfying, as it upholds trust in the pronouncements of the Church and guarantees that we aren't venerating someone who not only can't intercede for us but lived a life bad enough that he was eternally damned. Even if someone barely made it into heaven and gets canonised for political reasons, at least we can pray to him.  Still, it's a departure from the general opinion from before Vatican II, and I agree it cheapens the process and the reasons. But cheapening and undermining are, unfortunately, what our shepherds have done for the past 50 years, and canonisation is just one more victim of that, and if God's permitted that, why not here, too?
(05-30-2018, 01:23 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.
 
Looking back through Church teaching, I have never seen the Church permit challenging a canonization. All documentation I have found says canonizations are always infallible; so I don't see how there is any wiggle room to challenge them.

However there is plenty of Church teaching and past occurrences that show that a man acting as Pope may not actually be Pope due to invalid election or heresy, in which case he could not possibly promulgate or receive a canonization. So this would appear to be the only possibility.
(05-30-2018, 11:13 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Looking back through Church teaching, I have never seen the Church permit challenging a canonization. All documentation I have found says canonizations are always infallible; so I don't see how there is any wiggle room to challenge them.

What do you mean by challenging a canonisation? What's being infallibly defined that we must believe?
(05-30-2018, 11:13 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Looking back through Church teaching, I have never seen the Church permit challenging a canonization. All documentation I have found says canonizations are always infallible; so I don't see how there is any wiggle room to challenge them.

However there is plenty of Church teaching and past occurrences that show that a man acting as Pope may not actually be Pope due to invalid election or heresy, in which case he could not possibly promulgate or receive a canonization. So this would appear to be the only possibility.

Well in fact not only is the latter theory not up for debate on this forum, but it's as much speculation as either of the other positions.

Plenty of theologians have talked about its possibility. Few have agreed on precisely how that would work out, leaving at least a half-dozen opinions on the matter. But it's never happened before, so it's speculative theology.

Many (not all) theologians have attributed a secondary kind of infallibility to canonizations. It is not dogma, and while it is would be temerity to challenge it without some serious reason, clearly that exists. It also only applies to those which were made a part of a thorough canonical process, not those saints who were canonized by equivalent processes or acclaimed or whose cult was the result of a devotion from antiquity without Papal intervention.

The question is now whether the reduction of that canonical process has changed the object (or if it were previously overstated), or if it makes these not an act of infallibility any longer. I don't presume to answer that question, but it's a fair question for discussion since it's not merely speculative, but founded on certain facts which war against the standard theology.

I don't see this any different from the present situation in the Church, really.

You have the Conservative/FSSP position, the SSPX and the SVs. Each position has pros and cons.

For example, the Conservative/FSSP/Hermeneutic of Continuity position must assert that the problems with the new theology and crisis are not thanks to Vatican II itself and cannot really be attributed to the Pope himself, but ultimately only reflect a "misinterpretation" of Vatican II which is completely orthodox, as have been all the Pope that have followed. We thus save the 1950s vision of the Pope's near impeccability among other things, but play down the crisis.

The SSPX/R&R position suggests that in fact it was Vatican II that contains errors and ambiguities, and the Popes that have followed have taught error (but not definitively). The major weight of the crisis is on their shoulders. This has the disadvantage of putting one in a precarious balancing situation to both try to preserve the traditional respect and obedience to the hierarchy, while still rejecting what in 1900 would have probably made one suspect of schism, and the added disadvantage of being marginalized.

The SV position solves the Vatican II and Pope question simply, allows one to preserve that customary near-impeccability of Popes and Councils, but in doing do introduces serious problems with the indefectibility of the Church and its continuity.

The fact that people have to take a position is not their fault. The important thing is to reasonably consider the position with all of its theological consequences.
(05-30-2018, 02:19 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2018, 01:23 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I find the opposite more satisfying, as it upholds trust in the pronouncements of the Church and guarantees that we aren't venerating someone who not only can't intercede for us but lived a life bad enough that he was eternally damned. Even if someone barely made it into heaven and gets canonised for political reasons, at least we can pray to him.  Still, it's a departure from the general opinion from before Vatican II, and I agree it cheapens the process and the reasons. But cheapening and undermining are, unfortunately, what our shepherds have done for the past 50 years, and canonisation is just one more victim of that, and if God's permitted that, why not here, too?

I am of this oppinion.
(05-30-2018, 02:19 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2018, 01:23 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I find the opposite more satisfying, as it upholds trust in the pronouncements of the Church and guarantees that we aren't venerating someone who not only can't intercede for us but lived a life bad enough that he was eternally damned. Even if someone barely made it into heaven and gets canonised for political reasons, at least we can pray to him.  Still, it's a departure from the general opinion from before Vatican II, and I agree it cheapens the process and the reasons. But cheapening and undermining are, unfortunately, what our shepherds have done for the past 50 years, and canonisation is just one more victim of that, and if God's permitted that, why not here, too?
 
I was curious what you are referring to when you say our shepherds have been "cheapening and undermining" for the past 50 years?
(05-30-2018, 04:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2018, 11:13 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Looking back through Church teaching, I have never seen the Church permit challenging a canonization. All documentation I have found says canonizations are always infallible; so I don't see how there is any wiggle room to challenge them.

However there is plenty of Church teaching and past occurrences that show that a man acting as Pope may not actually be Pope due to invalid election or heresy, in which case he could not possibly promulgate or receive a canonization. So this would appear to be the only possibility.

Well in fact not only is the latter theory not up for debate on this forum, but it's as much speculation as either of the other positions.

Plenty of theologians have talked about its possibility. Few have agreed on precisely how that would work out, leaving at least a half-dozen opinions on the matter. But it's never happened before, so it's speculative theology.
 
I was wondering why this subject can't be discussed on here when there are quotes from past popes, Councils, Doctors of the Church, and other trusted references with imprimatur that discuss the subject? There are probably 20 different quotes on the subject and they are very clearly defined.
(05-30-2018, 08:44 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I was curious what you are referring to when you say our shepherds have been "cheapening and undermining" for the past 50 years?

Assisi. Most of what the current Pope says. And wasn't there something where some priests did some bad things to children and some of the bishops tried to cover it up? I remember seeing something about that on the news.

Oh, yeah. The theology of the new Mass and Office, too. There's that.

Also Ireland.
(05-30-2018, 08:51 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2018, 04:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2018, 11:13 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Looking back through Church teaching, I have never seen the Church permit challenging a canonization. All documentation I have found says canonizations are always infallible; so I don't see how there is any wiggle room to challenge them.

However there is plenty of Church teaching and past occurrences that show that a man acting as Pope may not actually be Pope due to invalid election or heresy, in which case he could not possibly promulgate or receive a canonization. So this would appear to be the only possibility.

Well in fact not only is the latter theory not up for debate on this forum, but it's as much speculation as either of the other positions.

Plenty of theologians have talked about its possibility. Few have agreed on precisely how that would work out, leaving at least a half-dozen opinions on the matter. But it's never happened before, so it's speculative theology.
 
I was wondering why this subject can't be discussed on here when there are quotes from past popes, Councils, Doctors of the Church, and other trusted references with imprimatur that discuss the subject? There are probably 20 different quotes on the subject and they are very clearly defined.

I am not the owner, so will let Vox speak for herself, but the presumption here is that the man who Catholics commonly accept as Pope is such.

The theoretical discussion of the matter isn't at issue. The problem is that we are not theologians, and the application of the principles is not ours to do, thus the discussion never ends up going particularly well, nor does it seem to add much to our better practice of the Faith, and thus tends to divide the traddie communion over something of which none of us can be certain anyways.

In short, practically it doesn't provide any appreciable benefit to argue whether the apparent Pope is the Pope or not. Either way we're still stuck in the same place and doing the same things. Speculate as we will, it does not move the ball forward, but just consists in useless lateral passing with lots of movement, but never any progress.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21