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

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

By
 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

By
 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

By
 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

By
 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...
Post a Comment
Read more

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

By
 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...
10 comments
Read more