FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
“Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+---- Forum: Sedevacantism, Benevacantism, Etc. (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=67)
+---- Thread: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization (/showthread.php?tid=89483)

Pages: 1 2


“Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - Memories_in_Rain - 05-16-2021

https://akacatholic.com/dogmatic-suicide-on-canonization/

A very compelling argument that even the post-V2 canonizations are infallible. It answers common objections (like the belief that because the restrictions have lessened, they are not infallible, or that canonization only means an individual is in Heaven) and uses a lot of the writings of Saints and theologians to back the point.

Your thoughts? Hope you enjoy the read!


RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - J Michael - 05-16-2021

Probably over my head and above my pay grade. 

If the Church says someone is a saint and canonizes him or her, I'll accept that at face value even if I may not like some of the things that person did or failed to do in this life.

Imo, the only way post-VII canonizations could not be infallible, thus negating the "sainthood" of the saint, is if the Church is not the Church and the Pope was not the Pope.

There are far too many saints (formally canonized and not), Eastern and Western, for me or probably anyone to know about, let alone keep up with and cultivate a devotion to.  So, I'll venerate the saints I venerate and the Church will canonize whomever she wishes and I will accept that and carry on living my little life.


EDIT: Eeeek! I just noticed that I've posted in the Sede sub-forum! How'd I get here?!?!?!? :-)


RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - Marmot - 05-16-2021

I believe Francis to be pope. I consider all saints, including the recently canonized, to be in Heaven, and I think that suffices in order for them to be worthy of veneration. Whether they led exemplary lifes on Earth is another question. I think there are some who are like St. Dismas, who ought not to be imitated apart from the very end of their lives.


RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - jovan66102 - 05-16-2021

I have never questioned the recent canonisations. What I HAVE questioned is the prudence of several of them. I especially consider the canonisations of the post-Conciliar Popes to be a great prudential mistake on the part of the Church. Under the old system, prior to the Council, I cannot imagine any of them being canonised. They were canonised in an attempt to 'canonise' the Council, an attempt to convince Catholics that probably the greatest disaster in the history of the Church was actually a good thing.

Saints are supposed to be role models. May God preserve us from future Popes and Prelates using them as role models!


RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - Memories_in_Rain - 05-16-2021

(05-16-2021, 04:05 PM)Marmot Wrote: I believe Francis to be pope. I consider all saints, including the recently canonized, to be in Heaven, and I think that suffices in order for them to be worthy of veneration. Whether they led exemplary lifes on Earth is another question. I think there are some who are like St. Dismas, who ought not to be imitated apart from the very end of their lives.
See I think there are 2 differences between St. Dismas and these post-V2 “saints”.

1. St. Dismas is known to have publicly and truthfully repented of his sins. We cannot know this for certain for all of the other post-V2 “saints”. All we know from testimony is that they were the exact same, they felt no remorse for previous actions done.

2. The Church recognizes the fault of St. Dismas as a thief. The post-conciliar church does not recognize the faults of these “saints”. Well, actually it does. It recognizes the faults, but not as faults. It instead recognizes these faults as examples to be followed and as groundbreaking achievements. Thus these faults, which lead men to deep sin, mortal sin, are cherished as virtues because these “saints” first did them.

If Martin Luther were to be suddenly canonized a Saint, could we really, truthfully, honestly use the excuses that (1) he had a deathbed conversion and (2) canonization only means the person is in Heaven when the post-conciliar church has never stated that as so? 



RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - Memories_in_Rain - 05-16-2021

(05-16-2021, 04:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I have never questioned the recent canonisations. What I HAVE questioned is the prudence of several of them. I especially consider the canonisations of the post-Conciliar Popes to be a great prudential mistake on the part of the Church. Under the old system, prior to the Council, I cannot imagine any of them being canonised. They were canonised in an attempt to 'canonise' the Council, an attempt to convince Catholics that probably the greatest disaster in the history of the Church was actually a good thing.

Saints are supposed to be role models. May God preserve us from future Popes and Prelates using them as role models!
So then would that not mean that the Church has set on a high pedestal to be imitated people who orchestrated, as you said, “the greatest disaster in the history of the Church”? This is the same as if Luther was canonized, who orchestrated a lesser disaster!


RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - Anon777 - 05-16-2021

(05-16-2021, 04:05 PM)Marmot Wrote: I believe Francis to be pope. I consider all saints, including the recently canonized, to be in Heaven, and I think that suffices in order for them to be worthy of veneration. Whether they led exemplary lifes on Earth is another question. I think there are some who are like St. Dismas, who ought not to be imitated apart from the very end of their lives.
Off topic, but I really want to steal your profile name. I suddenly have an affection for Marmots because of your pictures. Cute buggers are they not?


RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - Marmot - 05-16-2021

(05-16-2021, 04:30 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: See I think there are 2 differences between St. Dismas and these post-V2 “saints”.
I wasn't referring to the post-V2 saints when mentioning St. Dismas. I think there are other similar cases from earlier in Church history.
Quote:1. St. Dismas is known to have publicly and truthfully repented of his sins. We cannot know this for certain for all of the other post-V2 “saints”. All we know from testimony is that they were the exact same, they felt no remorse for previous actions done.
"They"? Were all of the post-V2 saints guilty of some common fault? Many of the recently canonized saints died a rather long time ago and were revered by the faithful since their death.
Quote:2. The Church recognizes the fault of St. Dismas as a thief. The post-conciliar church does not recognize the faults of these “saints”. Well, actually it does. It recognizes the faults, but not as faults. It instead recognizes these faults as examples to be followed and as groundbreaking achievements. Thus these faults, which lead men to deep sin, mortal sin, are cherished as virtues because these “saints” first did them.
I am a member of what you call the post-conciliar church, and I do not recognize this within myself. I do not think I praise the faults of any saint. I know there are some who do, but I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
Quote:If Martin Luther were to be suddenly canonized a Saint, could we really, truthfully, honestly use the excuses that (1) he had a deathbed conversion and (2) canonization only means the person is in Heaven when the post-conciliar church has never stated that as so? 
The motives of the men who participate in the process of a canonization have never been held to be immune from error, just like the motives given by a pope for an ex cathedra definition may be full of errors, without detriment to the infallibility of the definition itself.
(05-16-2021, 04:52 PM)Anon777 Wrote: Off topic, but I really want to steal your profile name. I suddenly have an affection for Marmots because of your pictures. Cute buggers are they not?
They are very cute but sometimes annoying: https://www.thelocal.de/20090825/21481/


RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - AnaCarolina1 - 05-16-2021

Whether or not someone is officially cannonized they care not.They have seen God and He is thier focus.


RE: “Dogmatic Suicide”: On Canonization - Memories_in_Rain - 05-16-2021

(05-16-2021, 05:15 PM)Marmot Wrote: I wasn't referring to the post-V2 saints when mentioning St. Dismas. I think there are other similar cases from earlier in Church history.

I’d love to see them to be honest.

"They"? Were all of the post-V2 saints guilty of some common fault? Many of the recently canonized saints died a rather long time ago and were revered by the faithful since their death.

When I refer to “post-V2 saints”, I am referring primarily to John XXIII, Paul VI, JP2, and Mother Theresa (and possibly Sister Faustina but that’s a whole debate on the Divine Mercy devotion, not on canonization so I digress). Yes there were plenty of other canonizations, and many of them are well deserved because Canonization means something. For example, I do believe Padre Pío, Maximilian Kolbe, etc. are Saints. However that’s just like an SSPX-leaning individual may believe Marcel Lefebvre is a Saint (which, I mean, he probably is).

Now, were the individual cases I have cited guilty of some common fault? Yea, many of them. One example is religious indifferentism. 

I am a member of what you call the post-conciliar church, and I do not recognize this within myself. I do not think I praise the faults of any saint. I know there are some who do, but I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

I did not invent the term “post conciliar church”, the church you are a member of did. In a letter to Marcel Lefebvre, one of the high-ranking Vatican officials (name slips my mind) called the post-V2 church that. So it’s just a phrase which has been adopted. 

You don’t praise the faults of these men (and woman) because you are traditional-minded. However, based on the actions of those who have canonized these individuals and based on the testimony of the post-conciliar church’s officials concerning these men, what we consider to be their faults are not. Thats the issue. 

The motives of the men who participate in the process of a canonization have never been held to be immune from error, just like the motives given by a pope for an ex cathedra definition may be full of errors, without detriment to the infallibility of the definition itself.

I don’t understand how this applies to our discussion.