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

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. 


Messages In This Thread
Re: Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII? - by Gerard - 11-06-2010, 12:45 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)