+
JMJ
Just a quick note as I see that another person has jumped on the "Canonizations are not Infallible" bandwagan.
First a list of the current links that I've noticed:
https://onepeterfive.com/paul-vi-not-saint/
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-authority-of-canonisations-do-all.html
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/10/de-mattei-true-and-false-saints-in.html
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4137-the-canonization-crisis-part-ii
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
This reference to Dr. Lamont's is telling:
“We need not hold that the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II were infallible, because the conditions needed for such infallibility were not present. Their canonizations are not connected to any doctrine of the faith, they were not the result of a devotion that is central to the life of the Church, and they were not the product of careful and rigorous examination. But we need not exclude all canonizations whatsoever from the charism of infallibility; we can still argue that those canonizations that followed the rigorous procedure of former centuries benefited from this charism.”Ok so ... I'm not a theologian ... but I can posit some opinions.
First, let's go back to Dr. Ott for some back ground from Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma page 299 (a shorter version than the one I last cited here):
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.) ...
To the secondary object of Infallibility belong: a) Theological conclusions derived from a formally revealed truth by aid of a natural truth of reason. b) Historical facts on the determination of which the certainty of a truth of Revelation depends (facta dogmatica). c) Natural truths of reason which are intimately connected with truths of Revelation. For further details see Introduction, Par. 6. d)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.
Note well that Ott (if my english is correct) separates the Natural Truths from paragraph 'd'. I do not know if canonization is simply a natural truth.
Also Hunter echoes St. Thomas:
No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church, for were it mistaken, the whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worshipGetting to the core of the issue: The reason for all this fuss about Paul VI's canonisation is because those objecting in the manner of Dr. Lamont are, in my opinion, unable to reconcile the canonization with the actions of this pontiff and the holiness of the Catholic Church.
In other words, they neither like him, nor the Novus Ordo.
Following these principles, they appear to feel they can accept those canonizations that they approve of and reject those they do not.
This focus on the process, which is simply a human process that provided human assurances of immunity from error, misses the point entirely.
While it was comforting when the Church took canonizations seriously and didn't hand them out for toeing the party line - this really didn't matter because the reason for infallibility was this:
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.This is why the theologians have concluded that the "judgement that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration." is infallible.
While not De Fide ... that reason still stands ignored by the theories that are being bandied about.
Frankly, I think that they are arguing about the wrong things.
We have a Pope Emeritus who resigned because of the wolves (Lavender Mafia). Now we have Pope Canis Lupus who won't resign because of the Lavender Mafia.
Perhaps I am jumping to the wrong conclusion and they are simply trying to help people to realize that these canonizations could be reversed and that it isn't a matter of Faith (De Fide) that Canonizations are infallible - but there is still a censure attached to the denial and it would be rash to do so only because we really don't like Pope Paul VI who gave us the abomination called the Novus Ordo.
P^3
The simple matter of common sense alone tells one that rash of so called Sainthoods upon Popes of the era of the Novus Ordo is nothing more than "rubber stamping" of V11. Now there's even consideration being given to enshrining Pope John Paul 1 as a saint. Good God! He only reigned for thirty three days! Clearly our current Pope Francis gives no heed to time honoured processes to determine the merits of a proposed candidate for Sainthood. Francis's uses the Council to justify the destruction of all things Traditional, which, not even Pope John XX111 had in mind for his Council to strip away anything so drastic as the Church's "Second pillar." Pope John was even horrified that his Council had been taken over by the "modernist camp" who emerge triumphantly as the dominate group following the popular[?] rejection of Pope John's approval of the original ["schemas"] discussion[s] agenda. "Instaurare Omnia in Christo" v's "et Oculos per misericordiae Eligens" is, I suggest, an interesting comparison of St. Pius X, and our present day Pope. One Christ centered, the other Man centered. One a Restorer the other a Destroyer.
ReplyDelete