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, 12:38 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.


But, of course, the Church does not explicitly teach that all aspects of canonization are infallible, right?
 
 
In fact, the Church teaches that infallibility rests on infallible decrees. There is nothing in the canonization that makes the declaration of heroic virtue, worthy of emulation, confirmation of miracles, etc. infallible. 
 
 
What is bizarre is that we can say everything the Church looks at and decides about a candidate is somehow infallible – when in fact that canonization declaration does not name anything other than the person is a saint.
 
 
(05-30-2018, 01:13 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ] 
The definition I just posted says otherwise.

 
The Catholic dictionary from 1940s is not infallible and does not have any binding authority behind it.  It’s also not clear as to what exactly is infallible in the process.
 
The quote I gave you from the Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t infallible either, but it makes note that the infallible declaration used in canonization do not automatically make everything in the process an infallible decision.
 
Its object is to declare someone a saint. And we already know, that there can be saints in heaven who should not be propped up as worthy of emulation. And we know that there can be people in heaven who did not practice heroic virtue in life. Therefore, it does not follow that the canonization declaration is infallible within all aspects.
(05-30-2018, 09:31 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2018, 12:38 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

But, of course, the Church does not explicitly teach that all aspects of canonization are infallible, right?
In fact, the Church teaches that infallibility rests on infallible decrees. There is nothing in the canonization that makes the declaration of heroic virtue, worthy of emulation, confirmation of miracles, etc. infallible. 
 What is bizarre is that we can say everything the Church looks at and decides about a candidate is somehow infallible – when in fact that canonization declaration does not name anything other than the person is a saint.
 
(05-30-2018, 01:13 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]the definition I just posted says otherwise.
 
The Catholic dictionary from 1940s is not infallible and does not have any binding authority behind it.  It’s also not clear as to what exactly is infallible in the process.
 
The quote I gave you from the Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t infallible either, but it makes note that the infallible declaration used in canonization do not automatically make everything in the process an infallible decision.
 
Its object is to declare someone a saint. And we already know, that there can be saints in heaven who should not be propped up as worthy of emulation. And we know that there can be people in heaven who did not practice heroic virtue in life. Therefore, it does not follow that the canonization declaration is infallible within all aspects.
 
You are making up your own rules here. You take "A Catholic Dictionary", a very trusted resource with imprimatur, and toss it out as worthless, then refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia which holds the same weight. Something doesn't need to be defined solemnly for us to believe it, so Catholics need to stop using the "not infallible" argument - it's a false argument.

If the Church makes an infallible declaration, then all information gathered to come to that conclusion must also be free from error. You can't have a single error in a multistep equation and expect to come out to a true answer. Picking apart the canonization process looking for errors is nothing but a novelty. If a Pope canonizes someone we cannot question it or pick it apart looking for flaws. As mentioned already, the only way we can possibly question it is if the Pope has no authority due to invalid election, or lost authority due to heresy. Other than that Catholics cannot question infallible declarations in any way.
(05-30-2018, 10:03 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]You are making up your own rules here. You take "A Catholic Dictionary", a very trusted resource with imprimatur, and toss it out as worthless, then refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia which holds the same weight.

 
I didn't make up any rules - I stated the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible either, it simply brings up a better point.
 
 
Quote:Something doesn't need to be defined solemnly for us to believe it, so Catholics need to stop using the "not infallible" argument - it's a false argument.

 
 
Yet, at the same time, things can be subject to err.
 

What I am trying to say is if you and I cannot come up with an authoritative source that says X is true and infallible then we have only two things to go by.
 
1. We go by way of what is already defined. And the only thing solemnity defined in canonization is that a person is a saint - which doesn't actually follow that everything else confirmed in the canonization process is infallible.
 
 
2. Actual examples of problematic so-called saints that we can run our claims against. So in this situation, you must prove that JPII's actions are worthy of the title "Saint." So far, no explanation from you has come forth. If everything you claim is infallible, then we have a problem here and it's up to you to prove that being an accessory to breaking the first commandment and sacrilege  is a-ok for someone who we should emulate. 
 
 
For myself, I already found a plausible answer: certain affirmations in canonizations cannot be infallible. What is ridiculous is that you want to argue that emulation and heroic virtue are infallible when we have someone like JPII. MagisterMusicae’s position and my own at least get around the glaring contradiction and impossibly that someone can do these things and be considered a “saint.” What’s your explanation?

 
 
 
Quote:If the Church makes an infallible declaration, then all information gathered to come to that conclusion must also be free from error. You can't have a single error in a multistep equation and expect to come out to a true answer.

 
False. As the declaration itself does not deal with the individual as being safe for emulation, possessing heroic virtue, and producing miracles.

How in the world is the gathering of information also infallible? Herein lies the real novelty.
 
Quote:Picking apart the canonization process looking for errors is nothing but a novelty. If a Pope canonizes someone we cannot question it or pick it apart looking for flaws. As mentioned already, the only way we can possibly question it is if the Pope has no authority due to invalid election, or lost authority due to heresy. Other than that Catholics cannot question infallible declarations in any way.


 
You presume that everything in a canonization is infallible, and then presume that I am questioning what is infallible – which is not what I am arguing.
 
Also, one can certainly question the prudence of declaring something infallibly. I.E. not questioning the doctrine in and of itself, but questioning whether it was wise to declare it. E.G., even if JPII is in heaven, it was not wise to infallibly declare so.
(05-30-2018, 10:35 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]For myself, I already found a plausible answer: certain affirmations in canonizations cannot be infallible. What is ridiculous is that you want to argue that emulation and heroic virtue are infallible when we have someone like JPII. MagisterMusicae’s position and my own at least get around the glaring contradiction and impossibly that someone can do these things and be considered a “saint.” What’s your explanation?

I'm getting the feeling that pabbie's argument is that Assisi was heresy, canonisations are infallible, therefore John Paul II can't be a saint and Francis - since the Pope can't proclaim a false saint, can't be the Pope.

While sedevacantism is one explanation for all the craziness, it has its own problems, including the opinion of most theologians that the Church's acceptance of someone as Pope is a sign the person is in fact Pope, and the practical one of, if sedevacantism is true, there aren't any cardinals left, so how do we get out of this mess?
(05-31-2018, 01:10 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]if sedevacantism is true, there aren't any cardinals left, so how do we get out of this mess?

Well, with no Pope to appoint new ones, or to change the process of Papal election, I guess we're stuck! Big Grin
(05-30-2018, 10:35 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]1. We go by way of what is already defined. And the only thing solemnity defined in canonization is that a person is a saint - which doesn't actually follow that everything else confirmed in the canonization process is infallible.
 
2. Actual examples of problematic so-called saints that we can run our claims against. So in this situation, you must prove that JPII's actions are worthy of the title "Saint." So far, no explanation from you has come forth. If everything you claim is infallible, then we have a problem here and it's up to you to prove that being an accessory to breaking the first commandment and sacrilege  is a-ok for someone who we should emulate. 
 
For myself, I already found a plausible answer: certain affirmations in canonizations cannot be infallible. What is ridiculous is that you want to argue that emulation and heroic virtue are infallible when we have someone like JPII. MagisterMusicae’s position and my own at least get around the glaring contradiction and impossibly that someone can do these things and be considered a “saint.” What’s your explanation? 
 
I have already provided you with a trusted source with imprimatur that confirms that when someone is canonized, that infallible declaration is also a confirmation of heroic virtue. That's what the definition states and you simply tossed it aside and said it's "not infallible". You have no grounds for doing so.

I am with you 100% in that some of JP II's actions were clearly not that of a saint, and I have already provided my opinion on that based on what the Church has taught on the subject. The only logical answer is that had no authority due to invalid election or heresy. Nothing else makes sense. Saying that parts of the canonization process are not infallible is a complete novelty and not found in any Catholic book - this goes along the same lines as those in the SSPX who say Vatican II, a General Council, was not infallible (when General Councils always are infallible, no exceptions).
(05-31-2018, 12:23 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I have already provided you with a trusted source with imprimatur that confirms that when someone is canonized, that infallible declaration is also a confirmation of heroic virtue. That's what the definition states and you simply tossed it aside and said it's "not infallible". You have no grounds for doing so.

One source does not theology make.

Every major publication of the Neo-Modernists before Vatican II had an imprimatur.

(05-31-2018, 12:23 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I am with you 100% in that some of JP II's actions were clearly not that of a saint, and I have already provided my opinion on that based on what the Church has taught on the subject. The only logical answer is that had no authority due to invalid election or heresy. Nothing else makes sense. Saying that parts of the canonization process are not infallible is a complete novelty and not found in any Catholic book - this goes along the same lines as those in the SSPX who say Vatican II, a General Council, was not infallible (when General Councils always are infallible, no exceptions).

First off, as we discussed before a "General Council" is not infallible. This is not a theological term, but a medieval term which applied to Ecumenical Councils, Provincial Councils, National Councils, Plenary Councils, Metropolitan synods, etc. Among those only an Ecumenical Council can be infallible, but even there the infallibility of it is limited and specific.

Clearly the disciplinary canons of Nicaea are not infallible, since many have changed. However when such Councils (with the approval of the Pope) define a doctrine, then clearly they act infallibly.

For example The Council of Trent, Sess. XV, Dec. de Reg., cap. 2 writes :

Quote:For no Regular, therefore, whether man, or woman, shall it be lawful to possess, or hold as his own, or even in the name of the convent, any property moveable or immoveable, of what nature soever it may be, or in what way soever acquired; but the same shall be immediately delivered up to the Superior, and be incorporated with the convent. Nor shall it henceforth be lawful for Superiors to allow any real property to any Regular, not even by way of having the interest, or the use, the administration thereof, or in commendam. But the administration of the property of monasteries, or of convents, shall belong to the officers thereof only, removable at the will of their Superiors.

Yet later the Code of Canon Law and various decrees changed this discipline to accommodate simple vows in religious institutes, so it clearly is a merely disciplinary decree, not a dogmatic one. Yet it was from a "General Council" and approved by the Pope. So, your principle, aside from being terminologically ill-defined is also far too broad.

The logic is only as simple as you make it out if you ignore the complexities of Catholic theology and want to make all of Catholic theology as simple as a grade-school Catechism.

Theology is a complex subject with many things well-defined, but also many disputed points. Canonization and the various aspects of it are one of those disputed points. Generally they were accepted as infallible, but most theologians who wrote on the subject was not the same "infallibility" as the Assumption or Trent's decrees.

Also you have a process for the canonization which has changed, so clearly there are parts which are not infallible, if aspects can change.
(05-31-2018, 04:48 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2018, 12:23 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I have already provided you with a trusted source with imprimatur that confirms that when someone is canonized, that infallible declaration is also a confirmation of heroic virtue. That's what the definition states and you simply tossed it aside and said it's "not infallible". You have no grounds for doing so.

One source does not theology make.

(05-31-2018, 12:23 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I am with you 100% in that some of JP II's actions were clearly not that of a saint, and I have already provided my opinion on that based on what the Church has taught on the subject. The only logical answer is that had no authority due to invalid election or heresy. Nothing else makes sense. Saying that parts of the canonization process are not infallible is a complete novelty and not found in any Catholic book - this goes along the same lines as those in the SSPX who say Vatican II, a General Council, was not infallible (when General Councils always are infallible, no exceptions).

First off, as we discussed before a "General Council" is not infallible. This is not a theological term, but a medieval term which applied to Ecumenical Councils, Provincial Councils, National Councils, Plenary Councils, Metropolitan synods, etc. Among those only an Ecumenical Council can be infallible, but even there the infallibility of it is limited and specific.
 
Here is another source that says the Church only canonizes and beatifies those with heroic virtue. There is no further reason to challenge this.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Beatification and canonization:
"The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments...."

As for Councils, the terms "Ecumenical Council" and "General Council" are often used interchangeably. Regardless of the term used, the Catholic Church has always declared them infallible without question since this is promised in Scripture. All Catholic books say it and the First Vatican Council confirmed it when it stated:

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn
judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
 
(05-31-2018, 06:01 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Here is another source that says the Church only canonizes and beatifies those with heroic virtue. There is no further reason to challenge this.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Beatification and canonization:
"The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments...."

You can quote 100 sources, but quoting sources is not doing theology or studying the relevant question, nor it is understanding what the sources are saying.

The Church has never defined that Canonization is infallible, nor has she ever defined the object of that infallibility. These rely on various theologians. The consensus of those theologians prior to the present time is that when a canonical process concluded the decree of canonization shared in some aspect of infallibility flowing from the Pope. The general consensus was that the object of this infallibility included the definition of heroic virtue.

This consensus existed at least in part because of the rigor of the process which established heroic virtue along with the certainty of several miracles undeniably attributable to the person in question after such a process which helped guaranteed divine confirmation of that prudential decision.

The debate now takes the fact that we have fewer, and in some cases, no miracles confirmed, and a very lax process combined with a new notion of sanctity and virtue, and even reports that the Popes themselves did not believe such canonizations to be infallible decisions.

Quoting sources does not address that problem, nor does it answer the relevant questions.

(05-31-2018, 06:01 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]As for Councils, the terms "Ecumenical Council" and "General Council" are often used interchangeably. Regardless of the term used, the Catholic Church has always declared them infallible without question since this is promised in Scripture. All Catholic books say it and the First Vatican Council confirmed it when it stated:

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

Which no one here denies. The key phrase is "divinely revealed truths".

Not everything even an Ecumenical Council says is a "divinely revealed truth" so again, quoting sources does not help. The question always is precisely what is being dogmatically defined, and therefore, what must be believed.

Again, the situation we are in and the hard work which is theology are far more complex that you are trying to make them.

No one denies there are problems, which is precisely why there are such open questions, but you cannot hope to solve such a complex problem by recourse only to the Catholic Encyclopedia or a dictionary.

If you are not familiar with the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, Benedict XIV, Suarez, Billuart, Billot, and a dozen other major authors on the subject you simply have inadequate tools to answer the question definitively : you're trying to use a Cresent Wrench for finish carpentry.
(05-31-2018, 06:43 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2018, 06:01 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Here is another source that says the Church only canonizes and beatifies those with heroic virtue. There is no further reason to challenge this.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Beatification and canonization:
"The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments...."

You can quote 100 sources, but quoting sources is not doing theology or studying the relevant question, nor it is understanding what the sources are saying.

The Church has never defined that Canonization is infallible, nor has she ever defined the object of that infallibility. These rely on various theologians. The consensus of those theologians prior to the present time is that when a canonical process concluded the decree of canonization shared in some aspect of infallibility flowing from the Pope. The general consensus was that the object of this infallibility included the definition of heroic virtue.

This consensus existed at least in part because of the rigor of the process which established heroic virtue along with the certainty of several miracles undeniably attributable to the person in question after such a process which helped guaranteed divine confirmation of that prudential decision.

The debate now takes the fact that we have fewer, and in some cases, no miracles confirmed, and a very lax process combined with a new notion of sanctity and virtue, and even reports that the Popes themselves did not believe such canonizations to be infallible decisions.

Quoting sources does not address that problem, nor does it answer the relevant questions.

(05-31-2018, 06:01 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]As for Councils, the terms "Ecumenical Council" and "General Council" are often used interchangeably. Regardless of the term used, the Catholic Church has always declared them infallible without question since this is promised in Scripture. All Catholic books say it and the First Vatican Council confirmed it when it stated:

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

Which no one here denies. The key phrase is "divinely revealed truths".

Not everything even an Ecumenical Council says is a "divinely revealed truth" so again, quoting sources does not help. The question always is precisely what is being dogmatically defined, and therefore, what must be believed.

Again, the situation we are in and the hard work which is theology are far more complex that you are trying to make them.

No one denies there are problems, which is precisely why there are such open questions, but you cannot hope to solve such a complex problem by recourse only to the Catholic Encyclopedia or a dictionary.

If you are not familiar with the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, Benedict XIV, Suarez, Billuart, Billot, and a dozen other major authors on the subject you simply have inadequate tools to answer the question definitively : you're trying to use a Cresent Wrench for finish carpentry.
 
It is Canon Law that confirms both General Councils and canonizations are infallible. What you are doing is challenging Canon Law, which no Catholic can do. I don't think I really need to comment any further on this.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21