"anullment" of sainthood
#41
(08-06-2009, 08:30 AM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(08-05-2009, 02:21 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: "With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, [url=http://"http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei[/url], 6-7, 11)

But the canonization of a saint is not directly connected to revelation.  The most we can say is that the investigation of the saint's life reveals that he lived the kind of life that we know (by revelation) would be sufficient to make him a saint.  It is theoretically possible that he was a secret sinner, but we can say beyopnd a reasonable doubt that he is a saint.  As the above quote says, the sanctity of the individual saint is "to be held definitively, but [is] not able to be declared as divinely revealed". 

According to both respected theologians and the Holy Office itself canonizations are directly connected with revelation.

Of course canonizations are not able to be declared as divinely revealed. I never claimed that they were able to be declared as such. As has been stated, canonizations are not divinely revealed, but are necessarily connected to divine revelation. As such, they are secondary objects of the Church's infallibility.
Reply
#42
(08-06-2009, 12:14 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: Of course canonizations are not able to be declared as divinely revealed. I never claimed that they were able to be declared as such. As has been stated, canonizations are not divinely revealed, but are necessarily connected to divine revelation. As such, they are secondary objects of the Church's infallibility.

We will have to disagree, but I do not see much practical difference between us.  It is at least morally certain that any particular canonized saint is in heaven, given the rigorous nature of the process.  I don't know of any canonized saint whose sanctity I would doubt.
Reply
#43
(07-28-2009, 12:07 PM)Slayer Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 11:58 AM)DrBombay Wrote: I thought canonization was considered infallible?  ???

I have heard that the process of canonization has changed after Vatican II that makes it no longer infallible. It is not as meticulous as it once was and it is fast tracked. I have heard that Opus Dei saved the Vatican from bankruptcy during the scandal crisis and Pope John Paul II canonized their founder not long after. I have not checked the aforementioned information that I heard (which was from a priest) but if anyone wants to correct me feel free to do so.

Your right on both counts. The devils advocate position has been removed and it is nearly impossible to not be canonized now. And yeah I heard that Opus Dei thingy too. That it was a Mafia style pay off. Kinda a we'll bail you out you pay us back somehow. (cue Godfather theme now).
Reply
#44
(08-10-2009, 12:32 AM)Baskerville Wrote: The devils advocate position has been removed and it is nearly impossible to not be canonized now.

You are aware that miracles are needed for someone to be canonized. Miracles don't just happen without God, you know.
Reply
#45
I don't have time to translate the whole thing, but Aquinas, in Quodlibet IX, q. 8, asks (translations are my own):

Quote:Utrum omnes sancti qui sunt per Ecclesiam canonizati, sint in gloria, vel aliqui eorum in Inferno?
Whether all the saints who were canonized by the Church are in glory, or whether some of them are in Hell?

After giving the reasons why this might be so, Aquinas responds:

Quote:Sed contra. In Ecclesia non potest esse error damnabilis. Sed hic esset error damnabilis, si veneraretur tamquam sanctus qui fuit peccator, quia aliqui scientes peccata eius, crederent hoc esse falsum; et si ita contigerit, possent ad errorem perduci. Ergo Ecclesia in talibus errare non potest.

Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in epistola ad Hieronymum, quod si in Scriptura canonica aliquod mendacium admittatur, nutabit fides nostra, quae ex Scriptura canonica dependet. Sed sicut tenemur credere illud quod est in sacra Scriptura, ita illud quod est communiter per Ecclesiam determinatum: unde haereticus iudicatur qui sentit contra determinationem Conciliorum. Ergo commune iudicium Ecclesiae erroneum esse non potest; et sic idem quod prius.


But on the contrary.  In the Church, it is not possible for damnable error to exist.  But this would be a damnable error, if one who was a sinner were to be venerated as a Saint, since some, knowing his [i.e., the pseudo-saint's] sins, would believed this to be false.  And if this were to come about, they could be led to error.  Therefore, the Church cannot err in this way.

Moreover, Augustine says in his letter to Jerome that if some lie is admitted in the canonical Scripture, our faith, which depends upon the canonical Scripture would waver.  But as we are obliged to to believe that which is in Sacred Scripture, so also [we are obliged to believe] that which is commonly determined by the Church, whence the heretic is judged who thinks contrary to the determination of the Councils.  Therefore, the common judgment of the Church cannot be eroneous, and so the same conclusion follows as before.

However, Aquinas does not seem to consider this infallibility to be de fide, but rather of piety:

Quote:Quia tamen honor quem sanctis exhibemus, quaedam professio fidei est, qua sanctorum gloriam credimus, pie credendum est, quod nec etiam in his iudicium Ecclesiae errare possit.
Because the honor which we show the saints is a kind of profession of faith - that we believe the glory of the saints - it must be piously believed that the judgment of the Church cannot err in these matters.

So, according to the Angelic Doctor, we are sure that canonizations are not erroneous, but they are not necessarily de fide.  This entire question can be read at:

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/q09.html#68749
Reply
#46
At the risk of injecting a note of sanity here, may I offer:
   1. It really doesn't matter about what a bunch of lay armchair experts have to say about the canonization process because the Holy See has made the determination.
   2. None of us knows the final judgment on any soul, let alone the various people who have been awarded the honors of the altar.
      a. The charitable thing to do would be to just ascribe arrival in heaven for anyone who was able to demonstrate a miracle at their intercession.
   3. It is more likely that I will become a saint than any of the exchanges here offered altering, amending or changing the current process.

So let us manifest a certain unity of faith, shrug our shoulders together and say "Whatever."
Reply
#47
(08-10-2009, 08:42 PM)DarkKnight Wrote: At the risk of injecting a note of sanity here, may I offer:
   1. It really doesn't matter about what a bunch of lay armchair experts have to say about the canonization process because the Holy See has made the determination.
   2. None of us knows the final judgment on any soul, let alone the various people who have been awarded the honors of the altar.
      a. The charitable thing to do would be to just ascribe arrival in heaven for anyone who was able to demonstrate a miracle at their intercession.
   3. It is more likely that I will become a saint than any of the exchanges here offered altering, amending or changing the current process.

So let us manifest a certain unity of faith, shrug our shoulders together and say "Whatever."

:amen:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)