The Ends Do Not Justify The Means: Canonizations Infallible or Not?

The Ends Do Not Justify The Means: Canonizations Infallible or Not? - Updated

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 worship

Getting 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

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ 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

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ 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

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

fammoOctober 19, 2018 at 6:18 PM
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.

Tradicat

Search This Blog