+
JMJ
I noticed that Dr. Lamont has posted a follow-up article on the infallibility of canonizations.
Given this new article, I thought it would be a good idea to widen the perspective with a better version of the email that I posted a few weeks ago.
Now I know that I am not a license theologian, as is Dr. Lamont ,and I am quite confident that he would dismiss my thoughts with a "he has no standing on this topic".
Which would be partly correct and partly incorrect.
Even someone with no standing can point out the issues that I believe Dr. Lamont fails to adequately address or only does so in an off handed manner. So, for the record, I have attached a modified version of my article .
I would like to draw your attention to one assertion that Dr. Lamont makes:
Many supporters of the infallibility of canonizations have argued that it is impossible for a canonisation to be in error, because the public veneration of someone in the liturgy who is in fact not worthy of it would be displeasing and dishonouring to God, and the Church's public liturgy is guaranteed to be pleasing and honouring to Him.This misses the point, the 'supporters' rest their arguments upon someone of higher theological stature than Dr. Lamont, a person whom I believe he also holds in high regard: St. Thomas Aquinas.
'Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err' (Quodl. 9:8:16).
If Dr. Lamont desires to depart from the thought of St. Thomas, that is his decision.
For my part, given that the canonizations are only a symptom of this crisis, I simply insist on standing on the existing doctrine until it is altered by the appropriate authority.
I'm not going to tilt at this particular windmill.
P^3
Keeping Perspective In The Crisis
The canonizations of post-conciliar Pontiffs is not so much a hot topic
as an emotional one that usually simmers in between canonizations. With
the Canonization of Pope Paul VI, the pot has again boiled over.
In order to remain faithful to the Catholic Church, it is crucial that we adhere to Catholic principles and make clear distinctions. Even the more so given the scandalous canonizations that have been foisted upon the church by the last 3 pontiffs.
The first distinction to make is that it is not a dogma that canonizations are infallible. The theological note is somewhere between common theological opinion and one level higher. It doesn't really matter which because the censures for contradicting the doctrine are the same for each: temerarious. While some authors have asserted that there is reason to doubt the recent canonizations, this is an academic position and does not over ride the fact that the censures attached to the denial of the doctrine remain.
The second distinction pertains to what is, according to the doctrine, infallible about canonizations. That the person being canonized is enjoying the beatific vision and may be venerated. No Catholic worthy of their religion should wish the damnation of Pope Paul VI, not matter the destruction he personally wrought upon the Church and the world at large.
The third distinction is that we can only imitate the saints in their virtues and not their vices and poor decisions. This is all the more crucial as the example left by the post conciliar popes is scandalous. Canonization does not mean they were impeccable in their lives.
The fourth distinction is focused on the process preceding canonization. It must be acknowledged that a human process can never actually confer infallibility. This is because just as any human is fallible, so will be any process that is devised by a human. A good process just helps to provide assurance. The leap between a fallible human process and an infallible one is infinite.
The fifth and final distinction that I will make is the actual reason why canonizations are held to be infallible. As St.Thomas teaches, echoed by Hunter:
In short, if canonizations were not infallible, this would impinge upon the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church.
It cannot be emphasized enough that departing from the doctrine simply because we don't like this or that person who was canonized is temerarious and for good reason: by rejecting one doctrine we endanger at least one and perhaps more.
In order to remain faithful to the Catholic Church, it is crucial that we adhere to Catholic principles and make clear distinctions. Even the more so given the scandalous canonizations that have been foisted upon the church by the last 3 pontiffs.
The first distinction to make is that it is not a dogma that canonizations are infallible. The theological note is somewhere between common theological opinion and one level higher. It doesn't really matter which because the censures for contradicting the doctrine are the same for each: temerarious. While some authors have asserted that there is reason to doubt the recent canonizations, this is an academic position and does not over ride the fact that the censures attached to the denial of the doctrine remain.
The second distinction pertains to what is, according to the doctrine, infallible about canonizations. That the person being canonized is enjoying the beatific vision and may be venerated. No Catholic worthy of their religion should wish the damnation of Pope Paul VI, not matter the destruction he personally wrought upon the Church and the world at large.
The third distinction is that we can only imitate the saints in their virtues and not their vices and poor decisions. This is all the more crucial as the example left by the post conciliar popes is scandalous. Canonization does not mean they were impeccable in their lives.
The fourth distinction is focused on the process preceding canonization. It must be acknowledged that a human process can never actually confer infallibility. This is because just as any human is fallible, so will be any process that is devised by a human. A good process just helps to provide assurance. The leap between a fallible human process and an infallible one is infinite.
The fifth and final distinction that I will make is the actual reason why canonizations are held to be infallible. As St.Thomas teaches, echoed by Hunter:
"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"
In short, if canonizations were not infallible, this would impinge upon the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church.
It cannot be emphasized enough that departing from the doctrine simply because we don't like this or that person who was canonized is temerarious and for good reason: by rejecting one doctrine we endanger at least one and perhaps more.
So what do we do?
Other Articles
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/are-canonizations-infallible-yes-and-no
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/are-canonizations-infallible-yes-and-no
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/q09.html
https://aquinas-in-english.neocities.org/quodlibeta_spade.html
Utrum omnes sancti qui sunt per Ecclesiam canonizati, sint in gloria, vel aliqui eorum in Inferno
Et videtur quod aliqui possunt esse in Inferno de his qui sunt in Ecclesia canonizati.
Nullus enim potest esse certus de statu alicuius, sicut ipsemet de se: quia quae sunt hominis, nemo novit nisi spiritus hominis, qui est in ipso, ut dicitur I Cor. II, 11. Sed homo non potest esse certus de seipso, utrum sit in statu salutis: dicitur enim Eccle. IX, 1: nemo scit, utrum sit dignus odio vel amore. Ergo multo minus Papa scit: ergo potest in canonizando errare.
Praeterea,
quicumque in iudicando innititur medio fallibili, potest errare. Sed
Ecclesia in canonizando sanctos innititur testimonio humano, cum
inquirat per testes de vita et miraculis. Ergo, cum testimonium hominum
sit fallibile, videtur quod Ecclesia in canonizando sanctos possit
errare.
Sed
contra. In Ecclesia non potest esse error damnabilis. Sed hic esset
error damnabilis, si veneraretur tamquam sanctus qui fuit peccator, quia
aliqui scientes peccata eius, crederent hoc esse falsum; et si ita
contigerit, possent ad errorem perduci. Ergo Ecclesia in talibus errare
non potest.
Praeterea,
Augustinus dicit in epistola ad Hieronymum, quod si in Scriptura
canonica aliquod mendacium admittatur, nutabit fides nostra, quae ex
Scriptura canonica dependet. Sed sicut tenemur credere illud quod est in
sacra Scriptura, ita illud quod est communiter per Ecclesiam
determinatum: unde haereticus iudicatur qui sentit contra
determinationem
Conciliorum. Ergo commune iudicium Ecclesiae erroneum
esse non potest; et sic idem quod prius.
Respondeo.
Dicendum, quod aliquid potest iudicari possibile secundum se
consideratum, quod relatum ad aliquid extrinsecum, impossibile
invenitur. Dico ergo, quod iudicium eorum qui praesunt Ecclesiae, potest
errare in quibuslibet, si personae eorum tantum respiciantur. Si vero
consideretur divina providentia, quae Ecclesiam suam spiritu sancto
dirigit ut non erret, sicut ipse promisit, Ioann. X, quod spiritus
adveniens doceret omnem veritatem, de necessariis scilicet ad salutem;
certum est quod iudicium Ecclesiae universalis errare in his quae ad
fidem pertinent, impossibile est. Unde magis est standum sententiae
Papae, ad quem pertinet determinare de fide, quam in iudicio profert,
quam quorumlibet sapientum hominum in Scripturis opinioni; cum Caiphas,
quamvis nequam, tamen quia pontifex, legatur etiam inscius prophetasse,
Ioann. XI, v. 51. In aliis vero sententiis quae ad particularia facta
pertinent, ut cum agitur de possessionibus, vel de criminibus, vel de
huiusmodi, possibile est iudicium Ecclesiae errare propter falsos
testes. Canonizatio vero sanctorum medium est inter haec duo. Quia tamen
honor quem sanctis exhibemus, quaedam professio fidei est, qua
sanctorum gloriam credimus, pie credendum est, quod nec etiam in his
iudicium Ecclesiae errare possit.
Source: Corpus Thomasticum
Comments
Post a Comment