Beatification of JPII
#21
(01-12-2011, 09:48 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 09:43 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Nope, it would just mean the beatification and Canonization process has been seriously flawed since VII.

So the Holy Spirit doesn't influence the process of canonization in any way?  I admit my ignorance.  I need to read up on this.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Beatification and Canonization

Is it only the decision of mortal men that so-and-so is a saint?  I figured partial knowledge of the heavenly roster would be necessarily of heavenly dispensation.

Well, when you refuse to let the Holy Spirit in by getting rid of the time requirements and ending the Devil's Advocate then anything's possible with the NO religion.

Reply
#22
(01-12-2011, 10:00 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Well, when you refuse to let the Holy Spirit in by getting rid of the time requirements and ending the Devil's Advocate then anything's possible with the NO religion.

This is shoddy reasoning.  The Devil's Advocate position wasn't invented until 1587.  Do you deny sainthood to saints from the first 1500 years of Christian history?
Reply
#23
No, and what I would normally say after this could get me some time off or even a permanent vacation so I won't say anything.

Reply
#24
(01-12-2011, 09:37 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 09:29 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 09:21 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 09:09 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 06:45 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: Does beatification imply orthodoxy?

It implies at least no personal culpability regarding heresy.

Thank you.  That's intriguing.

How so?

Such a beatification would, I think, render the sedeprivationist position untenable.  Not that that affects more than a handful of people, but nevertheless.  Baskerville and Mel Gibson would have to rethink things.

I was tempted to ask you how this hypothetical beatification would render sedeprivationism untenable but I realised that a discussion of that topic is forbidden here.

Suffice it to say that sedeprivationism can be tenable or untenable by its own merits (or lack of them), regardless of questionable beatifications done by a hierarchy they believe to have lapsed.
Reply
#25
(01-12-2011, 10:45 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I was tempted to ask you how this hypothetical beatification would render sedeprivationism untenable but I realised that a discussion of that topic is forbidden here.

Suffice it to say that sedeprivationism can be tenable or untenable by its own merits (or lack of them), regardless of questionable beatifications done by a hierarchy they believe to have lapsed.

It might've been an interesting conversation, but I'm remembering that Baskerville himself is currently under suspension, so let's let banned topics be banned. 

I'm curious about the notion of "questionable beatifications," though.  Does a declaration of sainthood lack infallibility?
Reply
#26
(01-13-2011, 12:07 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: I'm curious about the notion of "questionable beatifications," though.  Does a declaration of sainthood lack infallibility?

Strictly speaking, a beatification is not the same as a canonization, although both pertain to sainthood.

CE Wrote:Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration, however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or local. If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a decree of beatification.

It is theologically certain that canonizations are infallible but this is not a belief to be held with "Divine Faith, as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church."

As for beatifications, they are not considered infallible. Therefore, there's a legitimate possibility of some being questionable.

CE Wrote:This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p. 4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).
Reply
#27
(01-12-2011, 10:12 PM)Petertherock Wrote: No, and what I would normally say after this could get me some time off or even a permanent vacation so I won't say anything.

If it's a good argument, I'd be happy to read it on PM.  If it's just flippant nonsense, don't bother.
Reply
#28
Thank you, Vetus. 

The Catholic Encyclopedia article is informative, but it carried too much the flavor of a response to Protestant criticisms of veneration to keep my interest.  Thanks for reading & excerpting it for me.

(01-13-2011, 12:17 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Strictly speaking, a beatification is not the same as a canonization, although both pertain to sainthood.

CE Wrote:Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration, however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or local. If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a decree of beatification.

It is theologically certain that canonizations are infallible but this is not a belief to be held with "Divine Faith, as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church."

As for beatifications, they are not considered infallible. Therefore, there's a legitimate possibility of some being questionable.

So acquiescence can be withheld if any beatification is issued this week.

A canonization would seem to be a different matter.  Perhaps the forum rules will have changed to allow discussion by the time that rolls around.
Reply
#29
(01-13-2011, 12:18 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 10:12 PM)Petertherock Wrote: No, and what I would normally say after this could get me some time off or even a permanent vacation so I won't say anything.

If it's a good argument, I'd be happy to read it on PM.  It's it's just flippant nonsense, don't bother.

If Peter wants to have the discussion on CathInfo, I'd be interested to follow it or ask some questions.
Reply
#30
(01-13-2011, 12:27 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: So acquiescence can be withheld if any beatification is issued this week.

Theoretically, yes.

However, a Christian should have a very grave reason to doubt, question or even deny a given beatification. As you know, the Church is Mater et Magistra and the Christian's attitude towards her decisions should always reflect the spirit of filial obedience.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)