Pope waives process and Approves Peter Faber's Canonization
#11
(12-17-2013, 08:06 PM)DJR Wrote:
(12-17-2013, 02:44 PM)TeaGuyTom Wrote: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/pope-appr...l-process/Father Z has a blog post on this topic. Apparently Pope Francis announces during a private audience that he approves the canonization of Blessed Peter Faber, a Jesuit. Do we even have the official ceremonies anymore?

The Catholic Church does not need official ceremonies to declare canonizations.  When someone possesses an infallible authority, and Catholics do, there's no need to have official ceremonies, nor is there a worry that there will be an error.  Official ceremonies are a new thing when taking into consideration the age of the Church. 

Saint Patrick was never canonized in an official ceremony; neither were any of the following:

Petri et Pauli, Andreae, Iacobi, Ioannis, Thomae, Iacobi, Philippi, Bartholomaei, Matthaei, Simonis et Thaddaei: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Ioannis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damiani, Ioanne, Stephano, Matthia, Barnaba, Ignatio, Alexandro, Marcellino, Petro, Felicitate, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnete, Caecilia, Anastasia.

I don't think it trivializes anything, and I don't see the problem here.  Why shouldn't saints be recognized?  And lots of them at that?

This isn't a "watering down" of the canonization procedure.  The canonization procedure isn't even necessary, just like it wasn't necessary for the early Church.  We possess an infallible Church headed by a person that can rule infallibly on such issues.  As a Catholic, that's enough for me.

If, after the Catholic Church has infallibly stated, in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, that a person is in Heaven, and I have doubts about whether that is true, the problem lies with me, not with the Church; and it would be my opinion that is wrong, not the Church's ruling.

I'll repeat what I said:

Quote:Maybe I wouldn't be so upset if the Vatican wasn't bum-rushing every post-Conciliar pontiff to sainthood as a PR stunt to prop up the dying Vatican II.
Reply
#12
To be honest, I figured he was a Saint already!  :blush:
Reply
#13
(12-17-2013, 08:06 PM)DJR Wrote: We possess an infallible Church headed by a person that can rule infallibly on such issues.  As a Catholic, that's enough for me.

Agreed, Holy Mother Church is infallable, has always been and will continue to be infallable (despite men's best efforts to destroy her over the past 2000+ years).  Unless you talk to a liberal Catholic, then there are only 2 infallible pronouncements (Immaculate Conception and Assumption of BVM) since infallibility was "coined" in 1870 at Vatican I.  Don't dare to bring up Unam Sanctum (1302), for example, as that does not fit the agenda (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).

The neo-Catholics can't have it both ways -- either the Church has been infallible since Our Lord founded it, or -- there are only 2 infallible dogmas and anything pre-1870 (1965?)doesn't count .
Reply
#14
The waiving of the process might be considered an "exception" to the rule, normally.

Pope Francis has been making a habit of it, it seems.
Reply
#15
Frs. Solanus Casey, Faber, John Hardon, Fulton Sheen (and many more I cannot think of now), all of these deserve canonization.  Francis is pope; can't tell him what he can or can't do.  Do I think any of those I mentioned are still in Purgatory?  I doubt it.  Then they are in heaven. 
Reply
#16
(12-17-2013, 09:25 PM)Pinkerton Wrote: To be honest, I figured he was a Saint already!  :blush:

And this is the kind of person equivalent canonization is most appropriate for--the kind who everyone pretty much already considers a Saint.
Reply
#17
(12-17-2013, 08:06 PM)DJR Wrote: I don't think it trivializes anything, and I don't see the problem here.  Why shouldn't saints be recognized?  And lots of them at that?

This isn't a "watering down" of the canonization procedure.  The canonization procedure isn't even necessary, just like it wasn't necessary for the early Church.  We possess an infallible Church headed by a person that can rule infallibly on such issues.  As a Catholic, that's enough for me.

The business of saint-making is a business. It became more political when the popes got involved, and they are a popularity contest among the public anyway. I have often argued on this forum that the devil’s advocate, for example, wasn’t invented by a pope until the early 17th century. It’s not even that traditional, considering the long history of the church. Rules can be waived, but when too much waiving happens in too short a time, something is lost. The significance of a rule becomes silly-looking. Ya know? Just throw the rule out.  And then when something becomes a trend, like beatifying Post Vatican II popes, three in less than 50 years, there's something silly-looking there too. The Church should never become trendy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)