Heresy in Sr. Faustina's Diary
#71
(08-13-2014, 09:35 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Conditioning infallibility on a particular process also doesn't work, for a variety of reasons.  Here's how the relatio for Pastor Aeternus dealt with such suggestions....

This is the very problem here, questioning the infallibility of a particular judgment based on suXXXXions concerning the integrity of a process.

And yet in the defense of the schema on infallibility (in the name of the Pope) by Msgr. Vincent Ferrer-Gasser we read (emphasis mine):
Quote:The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is obtained, not by way of revelation, nor by way of inspiration, but by way of divine assistance. That is why the pope, in virtue of his function, is bound to employ the means required in order to elucidate the truth sufficiently and to expound it correctly; and these means are the following: meetings with bishops, cardinals, and theologians, and having recourse to their counsels. The means will vary according to the matters treated; and we must believe that when Christ promised divine assistance to St. Peter and to his successors, this promise also included the requisite and necessary means so that the Pontiff could state his judgment infallibly. (Source: Discursus pro Deputation de fide by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, Prince-Bishop of Brixen, Austria Tyrol, 84th general assembly, July 11, 1870, in re ammend. 53, Ch. IV of the Constitution De Ecclesia, quoted in Mansi, t. 52, col. 1213., also in Billot, L'Eglise, II, No. 991, p. 486.)

The Holy See's claim to support the infallibility of the Pope is that there must be a minimum use of normal means to establish the truth sufficiently. We must believe that Christ's promise guarantees that the Pope will have these necessary means. And yet, the Pope need not use these means -- Potency does not necessarily imply act.

Further, in St. John of Thomas we read that canonization is the conclusion of a syllogism based on two premises:
  • Major (a formally revealed conditional): whoever perseveres to the end of his life in the heroic exercise of supernatural virtues obtains the eternal reward in heaven.
  • Minor (a probable fact attested by human testimony, sufficiently determined as certain by divine assistance): This person did persevere to the end in the heroic exercise of the supernatural virtues.

So the conclusion is certain and virtually revealed (thus infallible), but only insofar as the minor premise is certain and guaranteed as true by divine assistance through infallibility, but as we read in the defence quoted above, this is dependent on the use of the sufficient means.

But it is also why when we say "infallible" as regards canonzation, we mean something entirely different from "infallibility" as regards dogma. The "infallible" conclusion in the case of canonization comes by means of testimony, not from an absolutely compelling, scientific demonstration. Thus the whole matter does seem rests on this testimony and its certainty.

The reason that the relatio in Pastor Aeternus seems to contradict this is it is discussing infallible dogmatic definitions. That is, things which are formally or virtually reveals without need of testimony, thus in no need of a process of any kind. The syllogism takes two certain revealed truths, and the conclusion is certain and virtually revealed.

That is exactly not the case in canonization. It is one formally revealed truth and only a probably certain minor premise. Thus the need for a process and divine assistance.

(08-13-2014, 09:35 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Furthermore, I'm not sure the idea that canonizations are infallible can be tossed aside willy nilly anymore.  This doctrine has since been articulated by CDF (as well as the Congregation for Saints) and is contained explicitly in the current rite of canonization.

No one can 'willy-nilly" question anything that is or was considered as the common opinion of theologians, but when there is a serious reason to do so, one can at least discuss the matter and express reasonable doubts. Consider also, that there have been a significant number of reputable theologians who have questioned the nature of the infallibility of canonization.

What are those reasonable doubts:

  1. Inadequacy of procedure
  2. The use of collegiality in the process
  3. Notion of Sanctity/Heroic Virtue
  4. Question on the intention to define infallibly

(08-13-2014, 09:51 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The infallibility applies to the fact that they enjoy the beatific vision--that they are sanctified--that they are Saints.

So the Church devised a process by which multiple miracles were considered, any suspicion of error in their written works, any smell of the least question on virtue, and a devil's advocate whose job it was to establish doubts about the heroic virtue and doctrinal orthodoxy of the candidate, along with a process that took years, multiple investigations, and involved dozens of theologians, all was to declare that a certain person died in the State of Grace?
Reply
#72
(08-13-2014, 08:17 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(08-13-2014, 04:36 AM)Cetil Wrote: "Sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue. "

Exactly the new concept of Sanctity.

If Sanctity does not mean heroic virtue, then what does it mean, and exactly what is being infallibly defined?

It is not new in fact. The quote I gave which you have repeated comes directly from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia: "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)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

You are stuck on a process being followed which does not come from the Apostolic age or the Fathers. It is of much later introduction and open to modification. Whoever stated or defined that any part of the investigation or process itself cannot be altered?  No one.

C.
Reply
#73
(08-13-2014, 04:54 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(08-13-2014, 08:17 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(08-13-2014, 04:36 AM)Cetil Wrote: "Sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue. "

Exactly the new concept of Sanctity.

If Sanctity does not mean heroic virtue, then what does it mean, and exactly what is being infallibly defined?

It is not new in fact. The quote I gave which you have repeated comes directly from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia: "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)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

You are stuck on a process being followed which does not come from the Apostolic age or the Fathers. It is of much later introduction and open to modification. Whoever stated or defined that any part of the investigation or process itself cannot be altered?  No one.

So, instead of replying to the argument, you'll just requote what you already posted?

In fact, what you quote is yet more problematic and addresses point number 4 above. There are several reasons to think that the Popes are not intending an infallible act, among them the whole debacle over Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, when Pope John Paul II wrote:

Quote:Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

And when dubia were put to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Ratizinger explained that this was not an infallible statement, and not an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium, but merely the Pope reminding people of the tradition of the Church. It was thus only indirectly "infallible" or infallible because it reiterated what was already certain. Yet it did use a formula including "declare" (declarimus) and indicated tha something must be "definitively held" (esse definitive tenendam) or better put "to be held by means of definition".

So we know that just because certain words are used we do not have infallibility, even if those words sound quite definitive.

There are also major problems for the intention of the use of infallibility for canonizations since the official commentaries by the CDF on Donum Veritatis (1990), and Ad Tuendam Fidem] (1998).

That all is said, not absolutely denying the infallibility of canonization, but certainly demonstrating a problem with modern canonizations.
Reply
#74
(08-14-2014, 07:34 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(08-13-2014, 04:54 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(08-13-2014, 08:17 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(08-13-2014, 04:36 AM)Cetil Wrote: "Sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue. "

Exactly the new concept of Sanctity.

If Sanctity does not mean heroic virtue, then what does it mean, and exactly what is being infallibly defined?

It is not new in fact. The quote I gave which you have repeated comes directly from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia: "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)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

You are stuck on a process being followed which does not come from the Apostolic age or the Fathers. It is of much later introduction and open to modification. Whoever stated or defined that any part of the investigation or process itself cannot be altered?  No one.

So, instead of replying to the argument, you'll just requote what you already posted?

In fact, what you quote is yet more problematic and addresses point number 4 above. There are several reasons to think that the Popes are not intending an infallible act, among them the whole debacle over Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, when Pope John Paul II wrote:

Quote:Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

And when dubia were put to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Ratizinger explained that this was not an infallible statement, and not an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium, but merely the Pope reminding people of the tradition of the Church. It was thus only indirectly "infallible" or infallible because it reiterated what was already certain. Yet it did use a formula including "declare" (declarimus) and indicated tha something must be "definitively held" (esse definitive tenendam) or better put "to be held by means of definition".

So we know that just because certain words are used we do not have infallibility, even if those words sound quite definitive.

There are also major problems for the intention of the use of infallibility for canonizations since the official commentaries by the CDF on Donum Veritatis (1990), and Ad Tuendam Fidem] (1998).

That all is said, not absolutely denying the infallibility of canonization, but certainly demonstrating a problem with modern canonizations.

Artless dodging and deflection. No, I didn't repeat mine, I showed you 1) it was someone else's! And, not "new". That's part of the point. As you cannot answer the other major weakness in your argument namely that the process of canonization you are enamored of is not beyond modification by the pope your points are pretty much moot. No point then in asking you again: " Whoever stated or defined that any part of the investigation or process itself cannot be altered?" Thanks for that, ignoring the question is a concession.
I actually did not address the issue of whether canonizations should be considered infallible or not. I suggest you write the CDF yourself if in fact you might condescend to consider their authority. Everyone knows Ordination Sacerdotalis was not ex cathedra. That actually was never in question.

C.
Reply
#75
(08-14-2014, 08:00 AM)Cetil Wrote: Artless dodging and deflection. No, I didn't repeat mine, I showed you 1) it was someone else's! And, not "new". That's part of the point. As you cannot answer the other major weakness in your argument namely that the process of canonization you are enamored of is not beyond modification by the pope your points are pretty much moot. No point then in asking you again: " Whoever stated or defined that any part of the investigation or process itself cannot be altered?" Thanks for that, ignoring the question is a concession.
I actually did not address the issue of whether canonizations should be considered infallible or not. I suggest you write the CDF yourself if in fact you might condescend to consider their authority. Everyone knows Ordination Sacerdotalis was not ex cathedra. That actually was never in question.

First, if you want to have a discussion, Cetil, have a modicum of respect. I'm not going to continue in a thread where I'm accused of "artless dodging and deflection", or where you're playing the sarcasm card. Ignoring a question is ignoring a question, perhaps because other things are being addressed. Play nice, or don't play. I will try to do the same.

Secondly, since you so desire a response to your question: Concedo. I never said and will not say that the process is unable to be altered. But that doesn't change anything. We know sacramental forms can change, so why not a process aimed at making as certain as possible a probably truth.

Thirdly, getting your posts and SaintSebastian's mixed up, I used the space to address both. My apologies for the confusion. Your quote, however, is the source material for the Catholic Encyclopedia article quoted earlier, so I still don't see it's relevance.
Reply
#76
I apologize if you are bothered by the sarcasm, but you said I was simply repeating what I already posted and that in fact wasn't the case.
I have never understood why some people get so bothered by and question the canonization process. To me, it's enough that they are generally thought to be infallible though I think everyone admits the  Church has not formally defined this. By that standard then I guess all canonizations can be questioned including those done before the process was modified but I am not going to worry or bother over it. I can live without ironclad definitions of everything.

C.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)