Skip to main content

Canonizations

Image
By
+
JMJ

There's a bit of a fluffle over the canonization of Pope Paul VI.

So - in 60 minutes I'm going to try to provide some perspective that I believe is lacking from both Drs. Lamont and Kwasniewski in their articles or that people not used to reading academic article might overlook

For reference here's links to the articles.

https://onepeterfive.com/paul-vi-not-saint/

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-authority-of-canonisations-do-all.html

For some back ground from Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma page 299:

The secondary object of the Infallibility is truths of the Christian teaching on faith and morals, which are not formally revealed, but which are closely connected with the teaching of Revelation. (Sent. certa.)
This doctrine is a necessary consequence of the doctrine of Infallibility which has the purpose "of preserving and of truly interpreting the deposit of Holy Faith" (D 1836). The Church could not achieve this purpose if she could not infallibly decide regarding doctrines and acts which are intimately linked with Revelation. She may exercise her power in these matters either positively by the determination of the truth or negatively by the rejection of the error opposed to the truth.

To the secondary object of Infallibility belong: a) Theological conclusions derived from a fornlally revealed truth by aid of a natural truth of reason. b) Historical facts on the detennination of which the certainty of a truth of Revelation depends (facta dogmatica). Natural truths of reason which are intimately connected with truths of Revelation. For further details see Introduction, Par. 6.
The canonisation of saints, that is, the final judgement that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration. The veneration shown to the saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, " to a certain extent a confession of the faith, in which we believe in the glory of the saints" {Quodl. 9, 16}. If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church.
 So what are the core elements?
  1. That a member of the Church is enjoying the beatific vision,
  2. They may be an object of general veneration.
I'm pretty certain we don't want Popes John Paul II, Paul VI et al to be damned eh?

What is the Theological Grade of Certainty of this doctrine?

According to Dr. Lamont the grade common teaching. However Dr. Ott seems to ascribe the grade of Senta Certa.
A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

It is important to make the right distinctions at this point.  
  1. The theological note of this doctrine is at a level where Catholics don't have to accept it like a dogma.  In other words it can still change.
  2. Denial of it is Temerarious or unsafe.
  3. Denial of it is NOT an act of heresy.
From my understanding, if one denies this doctrine, it may cause other doctrines and beliefs to be doubted as a consequence.

In short, if you deny one, you deny them all as they are based on the same level of authority. In this case, if one denies the infallibility of the canonizations, then you would also start to have leeway to deny that Pope Francis is Pope because of the acceptable by the Church.

That's basically it.



We need to accept (until a higher authority tells us otherwise because doctrines at this level can change) that:
  1. Canonizations (in spite of the weakened process) are infallible in that they declare that someone is enjoying the beatific vision.
  2. Their virtues (definitely not their faults) can be emulated. 
  3. To deny this doctrine is temerarious.
Even though we don't like the fact of these 'political' canonizations, we have to hold to the doctrines and not join the modernists by allowing our feelings to override the teachings of the Church.

...

Nota Bene: If future Pope or Ecumenical Council were to review this information and find that these canonisations lacked some character necessary to make them infallible - that is fine with me!

P^3

Other References
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/74-infallability-of-canonizations.html

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonizations-not-always-infallible-3962

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-are-theological-notes.html
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

By
+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu
Post a Comment
Read more

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

By
 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin
Post a Comment
Read more

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

By
I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent wrot
Post a Comment
Read more

Gary Campbell - Former SSPX Priest

By
 + JMJ I've come across Gary Campbell's articles on Where Peter Is and noticed that he seems to have very strong biases, assumptions and reactions to anything that runs against these. Driven by curiosity I have found a copy of his letter to Bishop Fellay explaining his reasons for leaving the SSPX only five years after his ordination in Winona. I was surprised to learn that I was present for his ordination. Given this, I was interested in reviewing his letter to Bishop Fellay. There will be two versions in this post. The unblocked and blocked letter. The unblocked is, obviously the full letter. The block, meaning unnecessary text will be blocked out, is a technique I use to remove ancillary text while focusing on key phrases. After completing my read, I believe that the root of much of what caused the issues with Fr. Campbell could be the seeds of the 'resistance' that, when the same perceptions were challenged by continued negotiations with Rome resulted in the necessa
Post a Comment
Read more

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more