Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII?
(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... 


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.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII? - by Historian - 11-05-2010, 08:07 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)