Do you know: St Jose Maria Escriva?
#31
(01-07-2012, 01:34 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As far as Catholicism goes canonisations are infallible, irrespective of the process observed, otherwise the belief in the communion of saints and respective intercessions we make to those believed to be in heaven would be nothing short of farcical.

So, unless you subscribe to sedevacantism or sedeprivationism, Escrivà is to be considered a saint.

Pure circular reasoning.  To claim that if canonizations are not infallible it undermines the communion of saints is just the other side of the coin of Universalism.  Since there is no "canon" of people in Hell, we can therefore conclude that no human souls are there. 

And whether or not St. Christopher existed does not negate the communion of saints or the prayers associated with him.

Our Lord made it known that people would be saved and people would be damned. That is sufficient for the faith.

 
Reply
#32
I'll try and get into more depth later, but it seems that everyone's reasoning including Ott's is that canonizations have to be infallible because it would be horrible for the Church if they weren't. 

That is completely irrational. That is making something dogmatic as a "patch" because they can't figure out how it could be any other way.  Forget the fact that they get the "patch" by tearing a hole into an already established doctrine on public Revelation being closed which, if you take that away leads to utter chaos. 

Infallibility prevents the binding of the faithful on something that is against the faith. It is testable. The deposit of faith is known.  If a Pope tries to bind people on some error concerning the Incarnation, it's not going to bind.  We don't even know the mechanism by which God will guarantee the infallibility of the Church.  Will He somehow positively prevent it?  Will the Pope automatically lose his office and the Church will have to somehow straighten it out?  Who knows? 

The specifics of exactly "who" after the close of Revelation is in Heaven is only (ONLY) a pious belief because the human mind cannot know without direct communication from God on that fact. And if that happens, then Revelation has not closed.  And if Revelation has not closed, then infallibility is a theological joke and soley a weapon of subversion of dangerous power and  the whole Church crumbles.
Reply
#33
(01-07-2012, 02:08 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-07-2012, 01:34 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As far as Catholicism goes canonisations are infallible, irrespective of the process observed, otherwise the belief in the communion of saints and respective intercessions we make to those believed to be in heaven would be nothing short of farcical.

So, unless you subscribe to sedevacantism or sedeprivationism, Escrivà is to be considered a saint.

Pure circular reasoning.  To claim that if canonizations are not infallible it undermines the communion of saints is just the other side of the coin of Universalism.  Since there is no "canon" of people in Hell, we can therefore conclude that no human souls are there. 

And whether or not St. Christopher existed does not negate the communion of saints or the prayers associated with him.

Our Lord made it known that people would be saved and people would be damned. That is sufficient for the faith.

To suppose that the saints the Church declares to be in Heaven and proposes to us as intercessors before God are really in hell is not only preposterous but, in fact, shatters the very belief in the communion of saints.
Reply
#34
I retract my last post and am now thoroughly confused.
Reply
#35
(01-07-2012, 02:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: To suppose that the saints the Church declares to be in Heaven and proposes to us as intercessors before God are really in hell is not only preposterous but, in fact, shatters the very belief in the communion of saints.

In the case of St. Christopher, the situation was whether he ever existed at all.  Not to mention Adam and Eve which a number of prelates seem to view as metaphors.  Were prayers wasted on them?

But the larger case is, to suppose that Revelation is closed and then to declare that specific information that cannot be known except by Divine Revelation is ongoing.  It shatters the very belief in the faith itself, forget about the Communion of Saints,the whole ball of wax is up for grabs. 

Reply
#36
(01-07-2012, 04:44 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-07-2012, 02:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: To suppose that the saints the Church declares to be in Heaven and proposes to us as intercessors before God are really in hell is not only preposterous but, in fact, shatters the very belief in the communion of saints.

In the case of St. Christopher, the situation was whether he ever existed at all.  Not to mention Adam and Eve which a number of prelates seem to view as metaphors.  Were prayers wasted on them?

But the larger case is, to suppose that Revelation is closed and then to declare that specific information that cannot be known except by Divine Revelation is ongoing.  It shatters the very belief in the faith itself, forget about the Communion of Saints,the whole ball of wax is up for grabs. 

Revelation closed with St. John the Evangelist. That is, the revelation concerning the divine truths of faith necessary for salvation. The Church henceforth was only allowed to expand on them, not to add or contradict them.

Nevertheless, the ability to know whether saint "A" or "B" is really a saint, and thus in heaven interceding for us before God, is a necessary condition for the belief in the communion of saints as practiced by the Church to even make sense. Imagine for a second that St. John, St. Augustine, St. Thomas or St. Pius X (or whatever patron saint you are devoted to or whose cult is widely renowned) are all in hell after all. It's a preposterous belief that would justly shatter the Church's credibility into pieces. Either there can be infallible certainty when declaring someone a saint or the Church should simply stop making those declarations and reform the whole thing bottom up.
Reply
#37
     A Catholic Dictionary by Donald Attwater defines CANONIZATION as follows: “A public and official declaration of the heroic virtue of a person and the inclusion of his or her name in the canon (roll or register) of the saints… This judgment of the Church is infallible and irreformable.” (A Catholic Dictionary, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, p. 72). 
Reply
#38
It appears that the SSPX has a problem with his canonization...

Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX, On “NewChurch Canonizations”, Dec. 6, 2002: “The October 6 ‘canonization’ of Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer, founder of the ‘Opus Dei’, like the September ‘beatification’ of Pope John XXIII, launcher of Vatican II, re-opens an old and hurtful wound – how can the Catholic Church do such things?  And if it is not the Catholic Church that is doing them, what is it?

     “For indeed it is clear beyond any doubt that the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, when she was still essentially faithful to Catholic Tradition, would never have beatified the Pope who initiated the Council which devastated that Tradition, nor canonized the founder of ‘Opus Dei,’ an organization preparing the way for that Council. 

                 “There is an abundance of quotes, proudly published by ‘Opus Dei’ itself, to prove that

            Msgr. Escriva shared and promoted key ideas of Vatican II….”

Bishop Richard Williamson of SSPX, Dec. 6, 2002: “Therefore, for Pope John XXIII to have been truly a Blessed, and for Msgr. Escriva to have been truly a Saint, the Second Vatican Council would have to have been a true Council, or a Council true to Catholic Tradition.  Which is ridiculous, as at least regular readers of this Letter know.  Yet are not Catholic canonizations infallible?”

     “Indeed before Vatican II, Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations (not beatifications) of Saints were virtually infallible... But since Vatican II... there has followed such a flood of canonizations under John Paul II, that the whole process of canonizing has lost, together with its solemnity, any likelihood of infallibility.  Indeed, how can John Paul II intend to do anything infallible, or therefore do it, when he so often acts and talks, for instance about ‘living tradition’, as though truth can change?

     “So this or that Saint ‘canonized’ by John Paul II may in fact be in heaven, even Msgr. Escriva, God knows, but it is certainly not his ‘canonization’ by this Pope which can make us sure of that fact.  Nor need we then feel obliged to venerate any of the post-Vatican II ‘Saints’.... Similarly Church infallibility does not mean that the Church’s teachers will never teach untruth by, for instance, dubious ‘canonizations’, only that, amongst other truths, the truth of the Christian sanctity will never be totally falsified or silenced... Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization.  However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch ‘canonization’ to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch ‘canonizations’ a credit which is not due to them.”
Reply
#39
     Fr. Peter Scott, the former U.S. District Superior of the SSPX, who remains a leading voice in the group, also rejected John Paul II’s “canonization” of Escriva in a recent letter.

 

Fr. Peter Scott, Nov. 1, 2002, from SSPX’s Holy Cross Seminary in Australia:

“THE ‘SAINTHOOD’ OF JOSEMARIA ESCRIVA- Numerous other issues presently demonstrate the rapid progression of the ‘auto-destruction’ foreseen even by the liberal Pope Paul VI thirty years ago.  The worst is that it is becoming increasingly more obvious that this destruction is coming from the top down, from the Pope himself.  A typical example of this was the shameful and highly questionable canonization of Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer last October 6.  For due process was not followed.  Not only was there no devil’s advocate, but the former members of Opus Dei who personally knew Msgr. Escriva and who attempted to register their objections, were not allowed to express their opinion.  As a last resort, last September they were forced to write an open letter to the Pope, stating their position before the Truth Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ: “...It is because we believe that the truth has been in large part hidden that we now give our testimony in order to avoid a danger for the Faith brought about by the unjustifiable reverence for the man that you have the intention of canonizing soon...’  They went on to explain that they include ‘people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper seeking of a title (Marquise of Peralta), to his dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of compassion and to his idolatrous devotion towards Opus Dei’ (DICI, No. 61).

     “After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say: ‘It (the canonization) will offend God.  It will stain the Church forever.  It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your Papacy.  It will undermine the future authority of the Papacy’.  They were not traditionalists, and they were former members of his organization, but their supplication was not heard, and the ceremony took place as arranged on October 6.  Their letter will certainly turn out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their assessment concerning Escriva as well as concerning Opus Dei that they so aptly compare to the liberal Sillon movement, rightly condemned by St. Pius X in 1910.  This kind of last minute objection is unheard of in the history of the Church.  How could Catholics possibly regard such a man as heroic in virtue, as an extraordinary model of Catholic spirituality, as a saint must be?  For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this ‘canonization’ as a valid, infallible Papal pronouncement.  We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a Saint this herald of Vatican II, who preached naturalism and indifferentism as early as 1928.”  (SOUTHERN SENTINEL - No. 3 - November 2002)
Reply
#40
Spencer, I don't know if you're new here, but one of the rules is that you have to speak of the current and former Popes respectfully. Even if you think he was an Antipope, the topic is off-limits.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)