Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
#20
(05-12-2018, 08:42 PM)Paul Wrote:
(05-12-2018, 03:18 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The infallibility of canonization is not a dogma, nor is it even a universally-accepted theological opinion. Even then, it is clear that those who hold the infallibility of canonizations hold it to be something different from a de fide definition, such that one would certainly not be a "heretic" for denying that a particular man were a Saint.

Some older theologians would say such a denial made one "suspect of heresy" and would be sinful, but such questioning of the common theological opinion always would, unless there were some serious reason for this doubt or questions.

What are the arguments some theologians have for why canonisation isn't infallible? Is it because we know there's no new public revelation since the Apostles, and knowing someone's in heaven would be new?

And, if it's not, what would they say about the Church, in the Mass and Office, publicly asking for the intercession of someone who's actually in hell?

I think a place to start that disucssion would be with Prof de Mattei who surveyed the matter in an interview with Catholic Family News. It's not so much his personal opinion that's valuable here (he's not a theologian), but his presentation of the various theological positions.

Even the best theologians, however distinguish between the "infallibility" we are speaking of with regard to the definition of a dogma, and that of canonizations. The two are not the same thing.

In dogma, for instance, the Pope is definitively pronouncing by his papal authority that a certain truth is contained in Revelation and that the faithful must assent to this or they deny the Catholic Faith.

In canonizations, there is a decision by which the Pope determines that this man is a Saint. That's not a revealed truth (since public revelation has ended). This is why we speak of a secondary kind of infallibility in which the Pope, using ordinary prudence plus the help of the Holy Ghost.

The question comes, however, whether if in the course of such things ordinary prudence is dismissed whether the help of the Holy Ghost (which would protect the decision and make it infallible) would come.

We experience this all the time. God gives grace sufficient that we can avoid all of our sins. We act seriously imprudently and reject an important grace (e.g. we fail to say any prayers when seriously tempted), and then consequently fall into grave sin. The Holy Ghost was there to help us, if we did our ordinary part, but instead we refused this.

That is essentially a summary of Fr. Gleize (SSPX) with regard to the modern canonizations. The rigorous process was what guaranteed "ordinary prudence". Accidental modifications would not cause major problems, but a seemingly substantial change here (especially as regards the object of that determination) means that we can have doubts, and perhaps it is prudent to have such doubts.

That is what I meant above when I said that a canonization does not sanate the process. If ordinary prudence is not used, then no amount of papal act fixes the lack of prudence and make it sufficient that the determination is infallible.

By analogy, we could say that if the Pope in an off the cuff remark on a plane lamented the mistreatment of livestock as a symbol of the materialistic culture we live in, and therefore defined that from henceforth the killing of any animal for food is a grave sin. We would clearly say : (1) He's doing it again, (2) It's probably not done with enough study and reflection, thus not binding on the faithful.

I'll admit that this is not a complete argument, but I really don't have the time and Fr Gleize's arguments for doubt of infallibility in the modern process are far better, anyway.

The consequences with regard to Mass and Office, are secondary considerations, but a problem to address, I agree. They are not inconsequential, so don't think I'm just dismissing them entirely, but that really cannot be considered until we first determine what precisely is the object of infallibility in canonizations and whether the modern canonizations have this same object, thus are also infallible.

If we're trying to determine for the purposes of taxation whether this newfangled Tesla is a "motor vehicle" by the definition which used to cover a V8 diesel truck, then while the effect on the fuel tax revenue is not inconsequential, that's a separate issue that first requires the first to be solved.

Still a supporter of the thesis that canonizations are an act of infallibility Fr. Edward McNamara does have this to say :

Quote:A further argument can be offered. With a canonization, the Pope mandates (rather than permits, as is the case of beatification) that a saint be venerated in the Church's liturgy and especially with the Eucharistic celebration in his honor. Considering that the Mass is the highest and most perfect form of worship, it is logical that the Holy Spirit would guard the Pope and the Church from any error regarding a canonized person's definitive state.

At the same time, it must be recognized that this is an argument based on congruence and is not apodictic. The institution of a liturgical celebration does not in itself imply an exercise of infallibility.

While that's fodder for a later discussion, I think at Fr. McNamara's statement that the Pope "mandates" this veneration is overstatement, as most new saints are not formally inscribed in the calendar as mandatory feasts. For instance, John Paul II's "feast day" is October 22, but even this is an "optional memorial", which means there is no strict "mandate".
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-10-2018, 06:18 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-11-2018, 01:25 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-11-2018, 01:26 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-14-2018, 05:07 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-15-2018, 02:59 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-12-2018, 08:42 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by MagisterMusicae - 05-13-2018, 04:40 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-13-2018, 12:11 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-29-2018, 10:25 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 01:11 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 02:19 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 09:02 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 02:16 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-31-2018, 01:10 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-01-2018, 09:52 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-02-2018, 08:11 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-03-2018, 02:56 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-12-2018, 03:54 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-12-2018, 05:17 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 10:08 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:14 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 11:04 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-15-2018, 12:16 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-18-2018, 03:46 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-18-2018, 05:25 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-15-2018, 12:14 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:21 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:39 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:35 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:42 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 03:01 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 04:54 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)