John Paul 2 a saint???
Germane to the OP, I'm reading Fr. Edmund J. O'Reilly's The Relations of the Church to Society and happened to come across this learned priest's thoughts RE infallibility and canonizations:

OReilly, The Relations of the Church to Society, pp.43-44. Wrote:The Pope is commonly held to be Infallible in the Canonization of Saints, and there can be no reasonable doubt on this point; as both Infallibility in Morals and the Sanctity of the Church require that public religious honours through the whole world should not be decreed to be paid to a lost soul.  Such a mistake could not be permitted.  It is not to be inferred from this that Infallibility is claimed as to the details of the process.  There is question only of the result, the actual enrolment of a deceased person in the catalogue of the saints, concerning which act of the Church or the Pope is not liable to err, though this is not strictly a dogma of Faith, but, in my judgment, altogether certain.

O'Reilly, Edmund J.  The Relations of the Church to Society.  Reprint ed.  First published 1892.  Saint Croix du Mont, France:  Tradibooks, 2010.



N.B.:  O'Reilly is reputed to have been one of the foremost theologians of the 19th century, particularly among the Irish; as such, his published opinion RE canonizations and infallibility is certainly due at the very least some serious consideration.

IIRC, Ott classifies the infallibility of canonizations as theologically certain, although I'll need to double-check to confirm.  Will edit this post later to include my finding.

EDIT:

Ott, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.299 Wrote:b) The secondary object of the Infallibility is truths of the Christian teaching on faith and morals, which are not formally revealed, but which are closely connected with the teaching of Revelation. (Sent. certa.)

This doctrine is a necessary consequence of the doctrine of Infallibility which has the purpose "of preserving and of truly interpreting the deposit of Holy Faith" (D 1836).  The Church could not achieve this purpose if she could not infallibily decide regarding doctrines and acts which are intimately linked with Revelation.  She may exercise her power in these matters either positively by the determination of the truth or negatively by the rejection of the error opposed to the truth.

To the secondary object of Infallibility belong: [ . . . ] d) The canonisation of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration.  The veneration shown to the saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, to a certain extent a confession of the faith, in which we believe in the glory of the saints" (Quodl. 9, 16).  If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church.

Ott, Ludwig.  The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.  Patrick Lynch, trans.  James Canon Bastible, editor.  Reprint ed.  First published in 1954.  Fort Collins, CO:  Roman Catholic Books, 2012.

RE the classification "sent. cert." the aforecited Fr. Cartechini offers the following information:

Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them Wrote:(e) Theological Note: Theologically certain.

Equivalent term:                                                     Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion.

Explanation:                                                              A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.

Example:                                                                   Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).

Effects of denial:                                                       Mortal sin against faith.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
Reply
(09-12-2012, 10:56 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Germane to the OP, I'm reading Fr. Edmund J. O'Reilly's The Relations of the Church to Society and happened to come across this learned priest's thoughts RE infallibility and canonizations:

OReilly, The Relations of the Church to Society, pp.43-44. Wrote:The Pope is commonly held to be Infallible in the Canonization of Saints, and there can be no reasonable doubt on this point; as both Infallibility in Morals and the Sanctity of the Church require that public religious honours through the whole world should not be decreed to be paid to a lost soul.  Such a mistake could not be permitted.  It is not to be inferred from this that Infallibility is claimed as to the details of the process.  There is question only of the result, the actual enrolment of a deceased person in the catalogue of the saints, concerning which act of the Church or the Pope is not liable to err, though this is not strictly a dogma of Faith, but, in my judgment, altogether certain.

O'Reilly, Edmund J.  The Relations of the Church to Society.  Reprint ed.  First published 1892.  Saint Croix du Mont, France:  Tradibooks, 2010.



N.B.:  O'Reilly is reputed to have been one of the foremost theologians of the 19th century, particularly among the Irish; as such, his published opinion RE canonizations and infallibility is certainly due at the very least some serious consideration.

IIRC, Ott classifies the infallibility of canonizations as theologically certain, although I'll need to double-check to confirm.  Will edit this post later to include my finding.

Yes, but the simple way around that in the case of JPII is to declare that the Pope is not the Pope.  Q.E.D. But only really smart brainiacs will come to that conclusion.  And if you don't think they're really smart, just ask them, they'll tell you how well-read and smarty-pantsy they are.  :tiphat:
Reply
(09-12-2012, 11:00 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Yes, but the simple way around that in the case of JPII is to declare that the Pope is not the Pope.  Q.E.D. But only really smart brainiacs will come to that conclusion.  And if you don't think they're really smart, just ask them, they'll tell you how well-read and smarty-pantsy they are.  :tiphat:

Beyond sedevacantist-baiting, any other thoughts RE O'Reilly?
Reply
(09-12-2012, 10:19 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I understand where you're coming from, but the very term "newchurch" or "(post)conciliar church" exists as a way for trads to differentiate between the Catholic Church and the festering cancer of the novus ordo.  Whether or not the first letter is capitalized is more or less immaterial, I think.  We capitalize the names of other churches that aren't Catholic. 

IMO, the "post-conciliar" in "post-conciliar Church" is just an adjective and fine in itself, but it's often used to mean capital P, capital C "Post-Conciliar Church," as if the Church before and after that unfortunate Council are two different things, KWIM? Statements like "anything from the post-conciliar Church is not to be trusted" is material heresy, plain and simple. Changing that to "I don't trust a lot of what comes from our hierarchs in the post-conciliar era" or something makes more sense, isn't as scandalous, doesn't go against the Creed, etc. People are just sloppy with language around here quite a bit and it bugs me.

"Newchurch", IMO, is a term that can only logically be used by sedevacantists.

In any case, it'd still be a good thing for people to be more careful in how they speak of "the Church" -- "conciliar," "post-conciliar" whatever.  I mean, we are talking about the very Bride of Christ, made one with Him through marriage. I.e., we're talking about the Body of Christ. That's serious stuff.

An aside with regard to the quoted post but not to this thread:  this comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, my emphasis:


Members of the Church

The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted (VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited the grace of God. In this case he is a withered branch of the true Vine; but he has not been finally broken off from it. He still belongs to Christ. Three conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.

In the first place, he must profess the true Faith, and have received the Sacrament of Baptism. The essential necessity of this condition is apparent from the fact that the Church is the kingdom of truth, the society of those who accept the revelation of the Son of God. Every member of the Church must accept the whole revelation, either explicitly or implicitly, by profession of all that the Church teaches. He who refuses to receive it, or who, having received it, falls away, thereby excludes himself from the kingdom (Titus 3:10 sq.). The Sacrament of Baptism is rightly regarded as part of this condition. By it those who profess the Faith are formally adopted as children of God (Ephesians 1:13), and an habitual faith is among the gifts bestowed in it. Christ expressly connects the two, declaring that "he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16; cf. Matthew 28:19).

It is further necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom. Thus St. Ignatius lays it down in his Letter to the Church of Smyrna (no. 8 ): Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be there is the universal Church". In regard to this condition, the ultimate touchstone is to be found in communion with the Holy See. On Peter Christ founded his Church. Those who are not joined to that foundation cannot form part of the house of God.

The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners. It may inflict this punishment not merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offences. Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous Corinthian (1 Corinthians 5:3). This penalty is no mere external severance from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the excommunicated man in the condition of the heathen and the publican". It casts him out of God's kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as "delivering him over to Satan" (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20).

Regarding each of these conditions, however, certain distinctions must be drawn.


[html]Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God's will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally, though not externally.[/html] Even in regard to those who have themselves fallen away from the Faith, a difference must be made between open and notorious heretics on the one hand, and secret heretics on the other. Open and notorious heresy severs from the visible Church. The majority of theologians agree with Bellarmine (de Ecclesiâ, III, c. x), as against Francisco Suárez, that secret heresy has not this effect.

In regard to schism the same distinction must be drawn. A secret repudiation of the Church's authority does not sever the sinner from the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her authority.

Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is only those whom she has branded as "to be shunned" who are cut off from God's kingdom (see Murray, De Eccles., Disp. i, sect. viii, n. 118). (See EXCOMMUNICATION.)
Reply
(09-12-2012, 11:02 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 11:00 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Yes, but the simple way around that in the case of JPII is to declare that the Pope is not the Pope.  Q.E.D. But only really smart brainiacs will come to that conclusion.  And if you don't think they're really smart, just ask them, they'll tell you how well-read and smarty-pantsy they are.  :tiphat:

Beyond sedevacantist-baiting, any other thoughts RE O'Reilly?

I buy what he says.  I was in error, canonizations are probably infallible.  Huh.  Not that my little old opinion matters much.  :shrug:
Reply
(09-12-2012, 11:04 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...as if the Church before and after that unfortunate Council are two different things, KWIM?

I was under the impression that the contradictions between the church that emerged from Vatican II and the one that entered it were a given. From the heydays of "we declare that every human being must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved" to the rather unassuming development of "Christ does not refrain from using non-catholic churches as means of salvation," etc.

In fact, this stark rupture is the whole basis for there even being a traditional movement in Roman Catholicism to begin with, isn't that so? The differences of opinion among traditionalists generally concern how one should interpret this rupture, not that there isn't one.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 10:11 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 06:02 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The Church used to say, "Return, and we'll welcome you in our bosom!". Now, however, the message is, "We're so much alike that your separated communities also make up the Church of Christ and you build it up every time you [illicitly] celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!". From 'conversion' to, 'Eh, it's optional.'

Amen to being perturbed by the dearth of missionary zeal these past 50 years (though I lament the way you put it:  it's not "the Church" that is engaging in misguided ecumenism; it's some of Her earthly members). As we all know, there is One Church, and it's the Catholic Church with the "descendant" of St. Peter at the helm, but I've heard many stories of people actually being turned away from conversion. It's sickening, and I can't beginto understand it.

On the other hand, though, there are some people who understand "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" in a way that goes beyond saying merely that Protestants and other Christians (i.e., those who have valid Baptisms and believe in the Trinity) are wrong in many of their beliefs, are material heretics, are called to become Catholic, and that all who are saved are members of the Catholic Church in some way -- either formally or by being a part of the Soul of the Church, etc. Somewhere in the middle of those two extremes is the Truth.

First, allow me to offer an apology for using imprecise language.  I hate it when I see it, but I too have been guilty of using it.

Second, I'm in agreement with Msgr. Fenton that belonging to both the Church's soul and body are necessary by a necessity of means.  He warns against the error of treating membership in "the Church in voto as the thing that really counts":  "Unfortunately there have been and there still are individuals who look upon the Church as really necessary only for the complete fulness of those revealed truths and other supernatural aids which, according to their teaching, can be obtained outside the Church and independently of it less perfectly, although still to an extent sufficient to make salvation possible.  Obviously such an interpretation of the Church’s necessity for salvation reduces this teaching to a mere empty formula."

See: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...eaning.htm

In my opinion, this is dangerously close to what's taught in Unitatis Redintegratio:  "Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church ...  All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. ...  For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [i.e. false sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church" (3).

UR states that all of the supernatural aids belong by right to the Church, but practically speaking, it also admits that they can be obtained outside of her and sufficiently to make salvation possible.  The ecumenical Council of Florence (Denz. 714), Popes Leo XIII (Satis Cognitum, 9~7), St. Pius X (Editae Saepe, 29) and Pius XII (Mystici Corporis Christi, 103) all teach that the Catholic Church alone supplies the means of salvation and that they can only be enjoyed in her alone.

"A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration.  Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: 'The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?'" (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 13; quoting in psalm. contra part. Donat.).
Reply
(09-12-2012, 05:40 PM)kingofspades Wrote: No, criticizing actions is not disloyalty per se.
Criticizing a beatification isn't a sin as such, if only you finally accept it as a subject of faith.
Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such, until the moment we don't want to bow our head anymore.
And it's a grave sin when we are attacking Popes, calling them out for 'heretic' or 'modernist' and try to convince others not to obey, not to believe what they teach.

The latter happened here in this topic and I cannot remain silent about that.

So. Everyone is allowed to say: "I don't like JPII kissing a Koran", "I would never do so", "I wouldn't recommend anyone to do so", even: "I am not a fan of his style", or even: "I don't want to read any of his sermons", or even more dangerous "I ask myself whether it was the best thing to do when John Paul sanctified ...." BUT BUT BUT we are passing a critical line when we say:  "And so"... "He is not in heaven" or even worse "He cannot be in heaven". First because we are not God nor His Son who has the keys for judging, but also because those statements are stating that you don't accept the infallible decision of the actual Pope, which is a sinful act of disobedience and a grave sin against Catholic Faith. And if - like some here do - the following statement is that Pope Benedict is to be condemned because of beatifying John Paul II (and meanwhile summing up all the other so called 'heresies') the loyalty line is definitely crossed...

Got my point? Critizing isn't the biggest problem, although we need to be careful not to be imprudent! Drawing final conclusions and making an act of the will not to accept, is lethal.

Very well said, mon pere. I support you 100%. I am very sorry that the shameful group of neo-Protestant Pope-haters has attacked you in such a disrespectful manner. It is, unfortunately, the expected behavior of such persons. Their mouths say "Peter" but their hearts say "Luther". I am glad that you have an elephant's skin! But you should not have to have it. You should be shown respect.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 11:24 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I was under the impression that the contradictions between the church that emerged from Vatican II and the one that entered it were a given. From the heydays of "we declare that every human being must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved" to the rather unassuming development of "Christ does not refrain from using non-catholic churches as means of salvation," etc.

In fact, this stark rupture is the whole basis for there even being a traditional movement in Roman Catholicism to begin with, isn't that so? The differences of opinion among traditionalists generally concern how one should interpret this rupture, not that there isn't one.

A "Church" didn't emerge after Vatican II; there's been One Church all along.  In the 1960s, Her human element started oing a lot of messed up things that didn't touch on dogma but did treat how the Church's teachings were handed down. The "stark rupture" is there and in the Church's liturgy, disciplines, religious life, and view of small-T traditions (the everyday view of the value of sacramentals, for ex.). The goal of the "traditional Catholic movement" (as defined on this page: http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html) is to restore these things and ensure that the dogmas are passed down intact.
Reply

Sorry, I know I'm posting a lot in this thread, but so much bothers me. What's on my mind right now is that we have a Catholic priest -- KingOfSpades -- who (if I understand things correctly, and I beg pardon if I don't) has recently started offering the traditional Mass. He didn't have to do this, but he did. He is reaching out, trying to understand where trads are coming from, he wants to do the right things, he wants to shepherd trads in his parish, etc. He comes to this website -- and how is he treated? What is he learning about "the trad world"?

It makes me so sad...

I can imagine some of the thinking. "Well, so what? He should be offering the TLM anyway."  Of course he should have been trained in the TLM in seminary (preferably ONLY the TLM) and been offering it all along. But that's not how things have been working for the past half a century. And in spite of that, he is going out of his way to learn how to do it and to offer it to his parishioners.

"Well, so what? He's offering the TLM but isn't a 'real trad.' You can tell by other things he posts." Well, he's respectful of Popes that, at the very least (in my case anyway) find very weak, or worse, find heretical, or further along, believe to not be Popes at all (in the case of the sedevacantists who post here). But Catholics are supposed to be respectful of Popes, even those they find to be bad ones. St. Catherine of Siena's letters admonishing the Pope didn't address him with disrespectful nicknames (e.g, "Bennie")

But let's just say this priest were to have gotten things wrong (which I am not intimating; I'm just putting it out there as a hypothetical premise):  the way to deal with it is through charity, prudence, logic, and patient teaching, not the disrespectful stuff that's been going on at this forum. Here we have a PRIEST who cares enough about his vocation and about the souls of his parishioners to learn about the "trad movement" and to offer the traditional Sacramental rites (at least the TLM)! This is a great and beautiful thing, and we're shitting all over it. I am so disheartened I want to cry. Not just for this priest, but for the people in his parish who want the TLM and who MIGHT end up with a priest who becomes so wary of "trad-dom" because of the behavior of too many trads that he says "t'heck with it; this sort of animosity and arrogance haven't been a danger with the N.O. communities I've dealt with so far, I am getting as far away from "traditionalists" as I can and will do all in my power to warn my parishioners away from them, too!" And it'd be understandable. Not right, but understandable. I find myself often inviting people to check out the FE main site -- and warning them away from the forum because of the foulness of some of the posts here. Yeah, I warn people away from my own forum.

Really, I don't know what to do about this sort of thing aside from prayer and throwing in posts here and there. I have no idea what good my prayers for this cause are doing, but it seems that posting has no effect, that there are some people who are so angry and bitter that they would even bite a hand that is trying to feed them. There seems to be a lot of chest-thumping, a pride in being contrary for the sake of it, lots of throwing around of outlandish, hurtful language "just 'cause" or just to "prove" that the writer isn't afraid of the PC police (or is really -- and most likely righteously -- angry about the PC police) or just to show that the poster is a "real man" -- isn't like one of those spineless, touchy-feely products of the overly-feminized "newchurch." (Oorah! The angrier and nastier the better, right!? And let's talk nonsense about women while we're at it!) It's childish. 

I've said it before and I will say it again now and, undoubtedly, a hundred more times in the future:  prudence is thrown to the wind around here. It hurts the cause of Tradition -- and, worse, it wounds Our Lord Himself. There's pride in some folks for the amount of anger they exhibit. Pride and anger, two of the seven deadlies, with one being used to support the other. If Dante had it right, there will be a lot of Fishies choking on thick, heavy smoke while carrying huge boulders on their backs in Purgatory.  Or if they die without grace, broken on a wheel and dismembered.

Father, if you're still around, I want to assure you of something:  as I said in another thread, the less angry, less bitter, more "sane," if you will, trads tend not to post as much as those have problems with wrath and pride. There are gazillions (I counted!) of trads out there who are warm, joyous, bright people who sincerely love Jesus Christ and His Church and who want to see all of the goals of "the trad movement" realized. Many even have a sense of humor! ha Seriously, I pray that no matter what you see on internet forums, you continue to offer the traditional Mass -- and ALL of the traditional Sacramental rites. They are so beautiful, so much more reverent and efficacious in inspiring piety and awe, much more complete in terms of Scripture and Church teaching than the newer rites. Your parishioners deserve them, and with a priest who knows JOY and the PEACE OF CHRIST offering them, a priest who doesn't water down the Church's teachings in his sermons, they can't lose. I, for one, thank you for helping with the Restoration. Bravo to you! :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)