Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII?
#21
(11-05-2010, 12:23 AM)Pax et Bonum Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 05:42 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Wouldn't Paul 6 be worse because without him JP2 couldn't've done what he did?

I believe this would be the case.

My question is less about which one was worse.  I've been playing with the idea that they were two sides of the same coin, implementing to complementary aspects of a larger plan.  Paul VI damaging the Church from the inside and JPII destroying the image and credibility of the Church in the eyes of the world.  Not a pleasant research idea,  but not out of the realm of possibility considering the state of the church.  To paraphrase Dietrich von Hildebrand, it's arguable that if the devil had been given free reign to wreak havoc in the Church, he couldn't have done as much damage directly as these two Popes have done.
Reply
#22
(11-03-2010, 10:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The best solution seems to be number 2.

I don't think this is teneble. First, canonizations are dogmatic facts. Here's a good article on why dogmatic facts are defined infallibly. As far as the process being a condition for the infallibility of a judgment, this came up at the First Vatican Council. At that Council many Fathers wanted to condition the infallibility of definitive proclamations of the Pope on him following a particular process (some Fathers proposed processes more rigorous than others) but in the official relatio, Bishop Gasser (the relator) rules this out due to the fact that many definitions were given in the past following different processes (or practically no process at all). He additionally argues that it would be impossible for the faithful or even bishops to investigate and verify whether the process was carried out with sufficient digilgence and precision every time.

The same is true in regards to canonizations--there hasn't been one specific process that has been used--and the processes that have been used in particular cases have also had various levels of integrity, thoroughness, and even availability of information. But that's in fact why the charism of infallibility exists--the truth is greater than the weakness of the people.

It's like how the high priest was given the special charism of prophesy that was dependent on his office, not his own merits or diligence. For example, when Caiphas prophesied that one should die for the many and "he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied" what process was he following? He was in the midst of conspiring to commit Deicide--that's about as bad a process as you can get and yet the charism was not lost (see John 11:49-51) (as an aside, I didn't come up with this last comparison myself, it's what St. Peter Damian used himself to defend the permanence of papal and episcopal charisms despite the sins or laxity of the office-holder).

Beatifications on the other hand are merely indults and do not have a definitive character.
Reply
#23
Revelation is closed.  One could only have absolute certainty of a canonization if revelation was still open.  There is no positive infallibility in the Church only negative infallibility.  If there were, the Church would have a canon of souls in Hell as well as those in Heaven. 

Reply
#24
(11-03-2010, 05:56 PM)ies0716 Wrote: I think that Paul VI is far worse because he actively presided over the devastation of the Church.  Whatever the faults of JPII, he inherited a situation where the devastation had already happened and was actively on-going. 

It seems to me that John XXIII tilled the ground, Paul VI planted the seed, and JPII watered the tree.
Reply
#25
(11-05-2010, 07:00 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 05:56 PM)ies0716 Wrote: I think that Paul VI is far worse because he actively presided over the devastation of the Church.  Whatever the faults of JPII, he inherited a situation where the devastation had already happened and was actively on-going. 

It seems to me that John XXIII tilled the ground, Paul VI planted the seed, and JPII watered the tree.

Spot on. :thumb:
Reply
#26
(11-03-2010, 10:37 PM)Gerard Wrote: The infallibility of canonizations is only a pious belief, not an article of faith.

Not since like 1989.  Canonizations are to be definitively held.   A doctrinal commentary from the Holy Office is difficult to sweep under the rug.  Roma locuta est... 


http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

Quote:DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith


6. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda".14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

7. The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.

...

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 ...37

The question to me is if the recent canonizations were done in such a way that meets the bar of infallibility.  The method of canonization was drastically changed, as we all know.  Infallibility isn't magic or a rubber stamp.  There is a proper form that is needed, for example, a preponderance of teachings of the ordinary magisterium or clarity that something is ex cathedra or signatures of a council.

This isn't a weasel-way out either, though I'm sure to some it seems like it.  The same paragraph talks about the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff yet we know in the past that there have been anti-Popes and bogus councils that haven't been sorted out until later.  If the election is done wrong, the man is not Pope; it could be if the canonization is done wrong, someone is not definitively a saint.  But that's for the theologians to figure out.

In the meanwhile, the way I read the CDF statement is that at the very least any canonizations done in the old way by any Pope need to be held definitively.  Which is actually good news for us because the Modernists can't go back and empty the books of people they don't like.
Reply
#27
By all means pay respectful attention to what comes out of the Holy Office but when Ecclesia Dei is a motu proprio by the Pope himself and it's so obviously a load of crap when it comes to the truth, we don't have to take leave of our reason because of some power grab of a rule that oversteps or abuses legitimate authority. Wheat and chaff look virtually identical and we have to sift through it since chaff can be present in the authentic magisterium and only wheat in the ordinary infalllible and extraordinary infallible magisterium. 

Since Vatican I there has been the problem of "infallibility creep" going from Pius IX  and the pre-conciliar Popes we were blessed with who  rarely abused their authority or power.  But this  lead to the ultramontanism given to JPII by the conservatives and  since Vatican II and  Paul VI came along with the "religious submission of mind and will...even when the authentic magisterium is not speaking ex cathedra." schtick. 

The problem with the CDF document  is, and this is a frequent post-conciliar trick, a non-infallible document is suddenly placed above an infallible declaration or at the very least it tries to glom onto infallibility by association.

What can be definitively held without a definition?  And it's circular reasoning to talk about "truths" as being accepted when the whole question is whether they are truths in the first place.  Sure, I'll assent to "truths" but I won't assent to falsehoods sold as truths. 

This strikes me as an attempt to cut off legitimate resistance by taking the true obedience dogmatically required by Vatican I and by extension making it absolute obedience. 

The only way I can read that commentary and make it make sense in a Catholic understanding  is that the truth to be held "definitively" is that the Pope has the right and the authority to canonize.  The process can't be denied him.  But the truth of the particular canonizations cannot be infallibly assured. 

This is typical Novus Ordo ambiguity. 
Reply
#28
Dogmatic facts, like the canonizations of saints or the judgment as to invalidity of the Anglican orders, etc. are judgments as to particular instances of truths revealed once and for all. The article I posted earlier in the thread explains this decently enough. It was an error of the Jansenists to limit infallibility to only propositions in the abstract and not particular instances of those propositions. This is nothing new. Infallibility has never been limited only to revealed truth (dogma), but also those doctrines connected to dogma by a logical or historical necessity, as well as those necessary for defending and expounding upon revealed truth. This is why Vatican I uses the broader term "doctrine" and also the broader phrase "believed or held" (believed is for dogma, held is for the others).

As to what would be considered infallible in regards to canonizations, this is what the author of the Catholic encyclopedia article on canonizations says and I tend to agree:

Quote:What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

    "In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

    (Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)

There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

Again, as to some specific process being necessary, as I said in my previous post, this was ruled out as unacceptable in the relatio at Vatican I for a variety of reasons.

Also, in regards to the election of the Roman Pontiff, either the entire Church (moral unanimity) or the particular Roman Church could definitively judge that--even if it took time for them to come to that decision. This is because of their indefectibility--the body can't follow the wrong head.

Sorry if this is rambling, there were a lot of points I wanted to hit in a short period of time.
Reply
#29
(11-05-2010, 10:35 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Dogmatic facts, like the canonizations of saints or the judgment as to invalidity of the Anglican orders, etc. are judgments as to particular instances of truths revealed once and for all.

Anglican orders are invalid because of basic logic, it has nothing to do with being a dogmatic fact.  It was a long and convoluted series of events that lead to that clarification.  And it became even more confused after Leo when the Anglicans started getting ordained by Old Catholics and willing Orthodox bishops. 
It isn't a fact because Leo XIII ruled on it.  It's a fact that Leo XIII made a ruling about.  He's the competent authority on ruling matters concerning Apostolic Succession and Sacramental form. 

He is not peering into a crystal ball and revealing who is in Heaven and who is in Hell.  He simply can't do it.  I don't care how many theologians don't want to admit it out of reverence for the papacy and good manners. 

Revelation is closed. Period. 

Quote: The article I posted earlier in the thread explains this decently enough. It was an error of the Jansenists to limit infallibility to only propositions in the abstract and not particular instances of those propositions. This is nothing new. Infallibility has never been limited only to revealed truth (dogma), but also those doctrines connected to dogma by a logical or historical necessity, as well as those necessary for defending and expounding upon revealed truth. This is why Vatican I uses the broader term "doctrine" and also the broader phrase "believed or held" (believed is for dogma, held is for the others). 

A canonization of a particular person is not a doctrine.  The closest you can get is the Assumption of the Blessed Mother and that happened before the close of Revelation. 

Quote: As to what would be considered infallible in regards to canonizations, this is what the author of the Catholic encyclopedia article on canonizations says and I tend to agree:

Quote:What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

    "In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

    (Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)

There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

The whole article is full of speculation and consensus gathering.  And he unfairly places St. Thomas in with the "positive infallibility" gang. 

Quote: Again, as to some specific process being necessary, as I said in my previous post, this was ruled out as unacceptable in the relatio at Vatican I for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps you could explain how a canonization is not a new revelation of a particular person's place in Heaven? 

Quote: Also, in regards to the election of the Roman Pontiff, either the entire Church (moral unanimity) or the particular Roman Church could definitively judge that--even if it took time for them to come to that decision. This is because of their indefectibility--the body can't follow the wrong head.

On a practical level, that is meaningless.  On a large timescale yes it has meaning.  But since the Great Western Schism was multigenerational, it's not particularly useful. 


Quote: Sorry if this is rambling, there were a lot of points I wanted to hit in a short period of time.

No need to apologize.  You were quite clear and non-rambling. 

Reply
#30
In my opinion and this is just me being an armchair theologian. JPII the terrible was worse. Paul VI brought in the invalid proti Mass and let traditional devotion wither but JPII could have stopped it but prefered to bask in his rock star Pope status.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)