It is currently Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:37 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
 Canonisations - the process 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Canonisations - the process
I see that around the Web there is confusion over the role of the process of canonisation, as if a defective process could result in a fallible (and actually erroneous) judgement. This is wrong.

Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I wrote:
Nevertheless, some of the most reverend fathers, not content with these conditions, go farther and even want to put into this constitution conditions which are found in different ways in different theological treatises and which concern the good faith and diligence of the Pontiff in searching out and enunciating the truth. However, these things, since they concern the conscience of the Pontiff rather than his relation [to the Church], must be considered as touching on the moral order rather than the dogmatic order. For with great care our Lord Jesus Christ willed that the charism of truth depend not on the conscience of the Pontiff, which is private - even most private - to each person, and known to God alone, but rather on the public relation of the Pontiff to the universal Church. If it were otherwise, this gift of infallibility would not be an effective means for preserving and repairing the unity of the Church. But in no way, therefore, should it be feared that the universal Church could be led into error about faith through the bad faith and negligence of the Pontiff. For the protection of Christ and the divine assistance promised to the successors of Peter is a cause so efficacious that the judgment of the supreme Pontiff would be impeded if it were to be erroneous and destructive of the Church; or, if in fact the Pontiff really arrives at a definition, it will truly stand infallibly.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1070


So a defective process is irrelevant, according to Bishop Gasser.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
John, here is a new argument I had not heard before.

Since the whole Church (the traditional Catholics) does not accept the canonizations as infallible, they are not. For based on what St. Thomas wrote: “the Catholic Church cannot err in giving us holy models for living our life." we need not worry becase the Catholic Church is not giving us the canonizations they are being given only by a bad pope.

Now this seems to directly contradict Vatican I which stated an infallible decision is true without the consent of the Church. The consent of the Church is not necessary.

Quote:
Vatican I
"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."


I was amazed really to hear such a claim and am left wondering what is to be denied next as people who reject these canonizations refuse to look at the sedevacantist position as at least a possibility. If nothing else it illustrates the real paradox St. Robert Bellarmine stated with a Catholic not being able to avoid his head.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
James,

The "new" (I'd be rich if I had a dime for every apparently "new" argument against the infallibility of canonizations over the last week or so, the sedeplenists are running scared and throwing out every argument until one sticks) theory is an ironic opposite to a popular argument against sedevacantism which has recently resurfaced (at least in my online dealings recently) and dominated much of the discussion in this thread: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... 05&p=15382

What a very, very confused situation.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:46 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Just remember that these rather desperate arguments are as likely to be posed by men who feel the force of our position and are hoping that we will explode their arguments as they are to be put forward with real conviction. The emperor's nakedness is more manifest by the day. I think that is why we are hearing more bare (no pun intended!) assertions that he is fully clothed.

I just had a quick look over that thread to which you linked, and the similarity between the approach of Nishant and RJS really struck me. Both developed an entire theory based upon a single text and imagined that somehow or other further texts would appear reinforcing their (twisted) interpretation. None did appear, and won't in future, I'll wager, precisely because their theories are not the teaching of any theologians.

But actually none of this now matters. We've won all the debates about the theology and law involved; that's really irrelevant now. Because all are faced with a giant chasm between two churches which can no longer be denied - churches which believe different things, worship according to different rites which are utterly incompatible with each other, and obey different laws. The schism is now openly consummated (it's been real from the beginning, but more or less obscured). Bergoglio treats us with contempt, quite strikingly different from the overtures made by Ratzinger. Let's try and be kind to those who are reacting against it because the situation is causing a great deal of distress.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
John Lane wrote:
I see that around the Web there is confusion over the role of the process of canonisation, as if a defective process could result in a fallible (and actually erroneous) judgement. This is wrong.

Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I wrote:
Nevertheless, some of the most reverend fathers, not content with these conditions, go farther and even want to put into this constitution conditions which are found in different ways in different theological treatises and which concern the good faith and diligence of the Pontiff in searching out and enunciating the truth. However, these things, since they concern the conscience of the Pontiff rather than his relation [to the Church], must be considered as touching on the moral order rather than the dogmatic order. For with great care our Lord Jesus Christ willed that the charism of truth depend not on the conscience of the Pontiff, which is private - even most private - to each person, and known to God alone, but rather on the public relation of the Pontiff to the universal Church. If it were otherwise, this gift of infallibility would not be an effective means for preserving and repairing the unity of the Church. But in no way, therefore, should it be feared that the universal Church could be led into error about faith through the bad faith and negligence of the Pontiff. For the protection of Christ and the divine assistance promised to the successors of Peter is a cause so efficacious that the judgment of the supreme Pontiff would be impeded if it were to be erroneous and destructive of the Church; or, if in fact the Pontiff really arrives at a definition, it will truly stand infallibly.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... =11&t=1070


So a defective process is irrelevant, according to Bishop Gasser.


The assumption you're making is that canonizations are of the dogmatic order, that is, when a Pope defines a matter of faith. The historical element of canonizations creates a different animal, it is a secondary object of infallible authority and based in part on human testimony. No traditional theologian has ever, to my knowledge, asserted that the infallibility of a dogmatic definition rests upon the due diligence of the Pope precisely because there is no element of human testimony invovled. The argument viz. the process also serves to demonstrate real doubt concerning the Pontiff's will to engage infallible authority. A reckless disregard for truth would certainly mitigate against the notion.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Quote:
The first difficulty: 
inadequacy of procedure

The guarantee of infallibility does not dispense its holders from due diligence.

The divine assistance that causes the infallibility of dogmatic definitions works providentially. Far from dispensing the pope from having to examine carefully the sources of Revelation transmitted by the Apostles, it requires this examination by its very nature.

During the First Vatican Council, the bishop charged with defending in the name of the Holy See the text of the fourth chapter of the future Constitution Pastor Aeternus defining the pope’s personal infallibility, laid stress on this point:
"

The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is obtained, not by way of revelation, nor by way of inspiration, but by way of divine assistance. That is why the pope, in virtue of his function, is bound to employ the means required in order to elucidate the truth sufficiently and to expound it correctly; and these means are the following: meetings with bishops, cardinals, and theologians, and having recourse to their counsels. The means will vary according to the matters treated; and we must believe that when Christ promised divine assistance to St. Peter and to his successors, this promise also included the requisite and necessary means so that the Pontiff could state his judgment infallibly.[24]

This is truer still for canonization: it supposes the most serious of human testimony attesting the heroic virtue of the future saint, as well as an examination of the divine testimony of miracles, at least two for a beatification, and two others for canonization.

The procedure followed by the Church until Vatican II was the expression of the utmost rigor.
The process for the canonization itself relied upon a double process carried out at the time of the beatification, one that took place before the tribunal of the Ordinary acting in his own name; another that depended exclusively on the Holy See.

The process of canonization comprised the examination of the brief of beatification, followed by the examination of two new miracles. The procedure concluded when the Sovereign Pontiff signed the decree; but before giving his signature, he held three consecutive consistories.

By the Apostolic Constitution Regimini Ecclesiæ Universæ of August 15, 1967, and the motu proprio, Sanctitatis Clarior of March 19, 1969, Pope Paul VI modified this procedure: the essential innovation was the replacement of the twofold inquiry of the Ordinary and the Holy See by a single inquiry carried out henceforth by the bishop in virtue of his own authority and with the reinforcement of a delegation of the Holy See.

The second reform took place following the 1983 Code of Canon Law with the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of John Paul II on January 25, 1983. This particular law, which the Code of Canon Law references, abrogated all previous laws pertaining to the matter. It was completed by a decree of February 7, 1983.

According to the new norms, the essential part of the inquiry is confided to the local bishop: he is the one who investigates the life of the saint, his writings, virtues, and miracles, and establishes the dossier sent to the Holy See.

The Sacred Congregation examines this dossier and makes its pronouncement before submitting everything to the judgment of the pope. Only one miracle is now required for beatification and, once again, only one for canonization.

Access to the dossiers for causes of beatification and canonization is not easy, which hardly affords an opportunity to assess the seriousness with which the new procedure has been implemented. But it is undeniable that by the very terms of the new procedure, it is no longer as rigorous as formerly. It realizes all the less the guarantees that should be forthcoming from churchmen for divine assistance to assure the infallibility of canonizations and, with greater reason, the absence of factual error in beatifications.

Incidentally, Pope John Paul II decided to bend the current procedure (which stipulates that a cause for canonization cannot begin until five years after the death of a servant of God) by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa scarcely three years after her death. Benedict XVI has acted likewise for the beatification of his predecessor. Doubt can only be the more legitimate considering the wisdom of the Church’s proverbial slowness in these matters.

24 Discourse given on behalf of the Deputation de fide by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, Prince-Bishop of Brixen, Austria Tyrol, during the 84th general assembly of July 11, 1870, in reply to the 53rd amendment of Ch. IV of the Constitution De Ecclesia in Mansi, t. 52, col. 1213. See also Billot, L'Eglise, II, No. 991, p. 486.


http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-ca ... tican-ii-3


Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
It seems to me that many people have a new First Commandment: Thou shalt not be a sedevacantist no matter how many doctrines must be re-interpreted.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Quote:
The first difficulty: 
inadequacy of procedure.


What makes one procedure adequate and another inadequate other than the judgment of the pope? If a true pope has judged the new procedures to be adequate, who is anyone to judge the pope to be wrong? I thought the official SSPX teaching was the no one can judge the pope?


Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Caminus,

Please respond to TKGS first, but here are some additional points.

Quote:
Caminus:
The assumption you're making is that canonizations are of the dogmatic order, that is, when a Pope defines a matter of faith.


The Pope is also infallible when he defines not only a matter of faith but of morals as well. Please read Vatican I Dogma of Papal Infallibility. Reliance on adequate (who determines it is adequate or not as TKGS points out?) human testimony is not listed in Vatican I's definition of Papal Infallibility as a consideration of whether his statement is infallible or not. As for that case our entire faith is transmitted through human testimony (through words of mouth, letters, documents, books, etc.), the question we apply is does the Holy Ghost guaranty this as infallibly true.

Quote:
Vatican I:
" 1.Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."


Quote:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Morality
It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.


Morals incorporates what is a sin and what is not. Whether someone is a saint or not effects this. If individuals are not saints we should pray for them, it is a spiritual work of mercy, but if they are saints, we should pray to them and not for them. To pray for them or to disrespect them would be a sin. To pray for them would be disrespectful as it would assert they have not obtained Heaven. What person awarded the Medal of Honor would not take insult if a man walked up to him and said "too bad you don't have one." Look at a traditional examination of conscience.

Examination of Conscience:
"Sins contrary to the Second Commandment:
dishonoring of God by profane or disrespectful use of the Name of God, or of the Holy Name of Jesus Christ, the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints; blasphemy (speech or gestures that have contempt for or insult to God, Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary or the saints)"

"11.Have I made fun of God, Our Lady, the Saints, the Church, the Sacraments, other holy things?"

Quote:
Recusant:
Also, I believe it would do you a great deal of good, RJS, to read the following article from the American E.R. Vol. 118, page 265, "Bellarmine's Defence of Canonized Saints."

On page 271, Saint Robert expresses the Church's doctrine regarding the infallibility of canonizations:

"We hold that the Church does not err in the canonization of Her saints. Proofs for this are not difficult to find. If we were ever granted the privilege of doubting whether a canonized saint is really a saint or not, we should also have the liberty of doubting whether he has to be worshipped or not. But this, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, would be dogmatic suicide because then we should be allowed to call into question whether we have to do anything that the whole Church of Christ is doing.

" On the one hand, those among the canonized who were not in heaven would be deprived of all the suffrages of the living since we are forbidden to pray for the repose of the souls of canonized saints. "We do the martyrs an injustice when we pray for them," says St. Augustine. The same holds for all the canonized, according to the teaching of innocent III. On the other hand, people on earth would be deprived of the intercession of many of the Saints because as often as not they would be paying their respects to the souls in Hell instead of those in Heaven. What is worse, the Church would be calling down on herself the most dreadful maledictions every time she prayed that God might grant us His graces according to the glory He has bestowed on those whom we honor is Saints."


Hence canonizations must fall under the protection of the Holy Ghost as they directly pertain to Catholic morality.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
TKGS wrote:
Quote:
The first difficulty: 
inadequacy of procedure.


What makes one procedure adequate and another inadequate other than the judgment of the pope? If a true pope has judged the new procedures to be adequate, who is anyone to judge the pope to be wrong? I thought the official SSPX teaching was the no one can judge the pope?


Because one procedure was developed with a view to engaging infallible authority and the other, mimicking pre-12th century practice, apparently is not. The question is, adequate for what? When one changes the very notion of sanctity and the process by which the Church renders judgment, is it not legitimate to doubt that those who are responsible for said changes have no intention of engaging an infallible judgment? With regard to judging the pope wrong, why you've done that very thing. And as the quote from Bellarmine points out implicitly, a Pope can certainly err outside the use of unerring authority, as the very terms suggest. Indeed, if you can sift a Pope's teaching and determine he has not only erred but is no longer a Catholic simply speaking, certainly you would allow other Catholics the right to question the implications and ramifications of certain ideas and practices.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
James, you should try to distinguish between an abstract concept (canonizations are infallible) from a concrete situation (whether this canonization can be considered a canonization properly speaking and consequently whether it was an infallible act). Catholics today can't assert such without serious consideration unfortunately.


Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:21 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Caminus wrote:
No traditional theologian has ever, to my knowledge, asserted that the infallibility of a dogmatic definition rests upon the due diligence of the Pope precisely because there is no element of human testimony invovled.


This is wrong on both counts, I think.

First, many theologians did indeed assert that if the pope didn't employ due diligence then his judgements would not be secure, and that is why Bishop Gasser at the Vatican Council had to reply as he did. That is, he refuted exactly that argument.

Second, it is essential to faith that it is transmitted by human witnesses. St. John in his Gospel lays down that he is an eyewitness and his testimony is true, so that we may believe. But we don't believe merely because St. John testifies. There is a second element, the witness of the Church preaching today. So both the divine and catholic elements of the act of divine faith rest upon human witnesses. The human witnesses are not sufficient, obviously, there needs to be a supernatural element provided by God Himself, but the human witnesses are necessary. Not necessary in absolute terms. That is, God could have revealed His truths and not employed human witnesses, but as a matter of fact He chose to use human witnesses, so that for that faith which is necessary for salvation - divine and catholic faith - we must have the witness of other human beings. So is there an "element of human testimony involved" in dogma? Absolutely there is. But the certitude of the dogma is greater than the certitude of the supporting human testimony, because of the intervention of the Holy Ghost. I don't see how this differs, in its essential nature, from canonisations.


Caminus wrote:
The argument viz. the process also serves to demonstrate real doubt concerning the Pontiff's will to engage infallible authority. A reckless disregard for truth would certainly mitigate against the notion.


You would need to explain why this is not the case with dogmatic definitions, which it most certainly isn't, yet is the case with canonisations.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 01, 2014 12:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Caminus wrote:
TKGS wrote:
Quote:
The first difficulty: 
inadequacy of procedure.


What makes one procedure adequate and another inadequate other than the judgment of the pope? If a true pope has judged the new procedures to be adequate, who is anyone to judge the pope to be wrong? I thought the official SSPX teaching was the no one can judge the pope?


Because one procedure was developed with a view to engaging infallible authority and the other, mimicking pre-12th century practice, apparently is not. The question is, adequate for what? When one changes the very notion of sanctity and the process by which the Church renders judgment, is it not legitimate to doubt that those who are responsible for said changes have no intention of engaging an infallible judgment? With regard to judging the pope wrong, why you've done that very thing. And as the quote from Bellarmine points out implicitly, a Pope can certainly err outside the use of unerring authority, as the very terms suggest. Indeed, if you can sift a Pope's teaching and determine he has not only erred but is no longer a Catholic simply speaking, certainly you would allow other Catholics the right to question the implications and ramifications of certain ideas and practices.


You are just substituting your judgment for that of the man you regard as the pope's. How is this not Protestantism?


Last edited by TKGS on Thu May 01, 2014 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 01, 2014 12:29 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Caminus wrote:
James, you should try to distinguish between an abstract concept (canonizations are infallible) from a concrete situation (whether this canonization can be considered a canonization properly speaking and consequently whether it was an infallible act). Catholics today can't assert such without serious consideration unfortunately.


What you are saying is that this canonisation is not really a canonisation.

We agree. And that's because Bergoglio isn't pope and doesn't do papal things, like proper canonisations. He does Modernist things like declaring that a man is a saint even though he has insufficient reason for that assertion. And of course, for Bergoglio, the Assisi horror is a reason to admire JP2, so even the things we'd put on the negative side of Wojtyla's ledger are put on the positive side by Bergoglio.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 01, 2014 12:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Caminus wrote:
James, you should try to distinguish between an abstract concept (canonizations are infallible) from a concrete situation (whether this canonization can be considered a canonization properly speaking and consequently whether it was an infallible act). Catholics today can't assert such without serious consideration unfortunately.


While discussing the criteria needed for someone to become canonized does not prove any one particular case, a particular case cannot be known without understanding the needed criteria. To know when I see a bird if it is a duck or not, I have to know the definition of what a duck is (a bird with web feet, a bill, etc.) Otherwise we are not arguing about the abstract but a personal relative abstract. If the definition is relative to the individual, there can be no such thing as a concrete situation. This is exactly why it is imperative to first understand the necessary criteria so we can properly apply it to this particular case, the canonization of John Paul II, and see if this case fulfills the required criteria. The problem with your approach is you are trying to define the criteria from your personal judgment on a particular case.

The criteria for an infallible judgment is laid out by Vatican I is:

“when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,”

Adequate procedure according to Caminus is not listed as one of the necessary criteria. Therefore it is not relative to the infallibility of the decision for the Holy Ghost still protects the Roman Pontiff from error. The burden of proof you must show is where this particular case, the canonization of John Paul II, does not match the criteria. You must demonstrate positive doubt to the facts pertaining to if it met the necessary criteria, not the conclusion. Certainly one seeing this “canonization” should at least feel something is wrong and review the facts to check if it met all the criteria. But this uneasy feeling does not allow any Catholic to subsequently sift the criteria to fit his personal conclusion.

Now from examining the criteria necessary and the criteria of this particular case, I can find no defect if Francis is your pope. Hence if Francis is the pope, it is unavoidable to conclude anything else except that this man is truly a saint. For myself, however, there is a defect in the necessary criteria as, since I am morally certain Francis is not the pope, I am able to have positive doubt that this particular case did not fulfill the necessary criteria. After examining the facts I am morally certain this particular case fail to meet the criteria for a man who is not pope is not infallibly protected by the Holy Ghost, and John Paul II is not a saint or even a Catholic from his external actions and words. And with no infallible or authoritative pronouncement to overrule my judgment, there is no authority I must yield my personal judgment to.


Thu May 01, 2014 1:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
James, what a clear and concise post, bravo!


Thu May 01, 2014 4:05 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
A fellow called Sean Johnson sent Bishop Fellay the following.

Quote:
Greetings Your Excellency-

I read your letter discussing the forthcoming canonization of Pope John Paul II, and share your dismay that such a man should be held as a model to immitate.

But it was not clear to me whether you were saying that his canonization would be invalid, or merely unfortunate (but regrettably valid).

Could you please let me know whether the SSPX shall consider the canonization as valid?

Sincerely,

Sean Johnson
USA

He received the following reply yesterday.
Quote:
Dear Mr. Johnson,

Please excuse my delayed answer on behalf of His Excellency Bishop Fellay. You are asking whether the SSPX is considering the future canonization of Pope John Paul II as valid or invalid.

The word "valid" is properly used when we speak of the sacraments. We make a distinction between the valid and the licit administration of a sacrament: the validity concerns the physical integrity of a sacrament and the liceity its morality in so far as it depends on circumstances.

The canonization can be seen

1° in what must define it as such, that is to say in its object: the canonization declares the beatitude and gives as an example the heroic sanctity of a departed faithful; if this object is not existing or doubtful, the canonization is deprived of its integrity; in this case, it can be said defective or bad (not in the moral sense but in the sense of a privation of physical integrity or of lack of object) or even invalid (but this term only refers to a lack of object).

2° in the circumstances which must surround it: if the canonization is not prudent because it constitutes a bad example, we can say that it is bad (in the moral sense of a lack of conformity to the rule of faith or of reason) or even illicit (but this term only refers to a disorder in relation to common good).

In short, we can say that the canonization of John Paul II is defective, bad, wrong, atypical, contrary to the other canonizations, scandalous, harming the faith and the Church and therefore dangerous for the faithful…

You can find the motives of such a statement for instance in these excellent articles of Fr. Gleize, professor of ecclesiology at the Seminary of Ecône:

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/can ... ul-ii-2637
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-ca ... tican-ii-1
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-ca ... tican-ii-2
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-ca ... tican-ii-3.

Now, we cannot say that this canonization is invalid on the point of view of the efficient cause, as if Pope Francis had not the power of canonizing. We (the SSPX and even its General Superior) do not have the sufficient authority to make such a judgment and we do not need to make it. The Church will judge it later on. For now, the elements that we have are sufficient for us to protest vehemently against it and this is what we do.

As you see, it is important to make all the necessary distinctions and to be precise in our judgments and statements. Unfortunately, this is today too often lacking and, for this reason, many people are misguided in their understanding of the reality, which is everything but univocal.

Hopefully this will help you to understand better where we stand.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

Fr. Granges


So the SSPX considers this canonisation to be fallible and actually defective, and further, it relies upon the articles of Fr. Gleize as its theoretical foundation for these conclusions.

Also, this confirms what I have said many, many times is the position that the SSPX takes with respect to the pope question:
Quote:
We (the SSPX and even its General Superior) do not have the sufficient authority to make such a judgment and we do not need to make it. The Church will judge it later on. For now, the elements that we have are sufficient for us to protest vehemently against it and this is what we do.


1. The SSPX considers that some authority or other, not defined, is necessary in order to form the judgement that the current popular claimant is not truly pope.
2. The hypothesis is not absurd, so that it is useful to say that the Church herself will judge at some later time.
3. The doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre which I have described as "humble minimalism" - the notion that all that is required is to establish a sufficient area of certain ground to enable the faith to be preserved, leaving aside all further questions as unnecessary (or worse, distracting or even dangerous).

There's no sign in this of the doctrine of Cajetan, for example, and still less of John of St. Thomas. There's no intention to agitate for a judgement while these heretics live (that is what Cajetan and John of St. Thomas envisaged), or any assertion that such a judgement would be necessary in order for their claims truly to have been false. All that the SSPX says officially is what Archbishop Lefebvre said, which is that the heretics may not have been popes and one day the Church will settle the question, but the doctrine of true and false obedience suffices to provide solid ground for maintaining tradition in the mean time.

One can criticise this, but it is easy to see how much of the criticism usually leveled against the Fraternity is mis-directed.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 04, 2014 7:12 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
This is an aside, but Sean Johnson then proceeds to draw exactly the opposite conclusion from the reply than what it actually says:

Quote:
Based on this response from Menzingen, I retract all my arguments which advocated the fallibility and doubts concerning the recent canonizations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.

Since I accept that Francis is the Pope, I likewise accept the scandalous canonizations as infallible.

I apologize to all who at any time may have been swayed by any of my rhetoric to the contrary.

While it is not clear to me how the SSPX can publish articles raising doubts about the canonizations, yet simultaneously admit they have no authority to question them (if I have understood this response correctly), seems to be an issue beyond my pay grade.

Shocked and discouraged that I appear to have made such a blunder, I will no longer be posting on controverted issues, fearing to lead others astray, despite my good intentions.



Sincerely,

Sean Johnson


Fr. Granges is completely clear, if highly technical.

Quote:
The canonization can be seen

1° in what must define it as such, that is to say in its object: the canonization declares the beatitude and gives as an example the heroic sanctity of a departed faithful; if this object is not existing or doubtful, the canonization is deprived of its integrity; in this case, it can be said [called?] defective or bad (not in the moral sense but in the sense of a privation of physical integrity or of lack of object) or even invalid (but this term only refers to a lack of object).


In this passage he defines his terms. A defective or "invalid" (he qualifies that this is not the proper term, but uses it all the same) canonisation is one in which the object (i.e. the eternal beatitude and heroic sanctity) of the subject of canonisation "is not existing or doubtful."

Then he applies his terms to the concrete case of Wojtyla: "In short, we can say that the canonization of John Paul II is defective, bad...etc."

This is crystal clear. In the opinion of the SSPX the canonisation of John Paul II is not an infallible decree defining his eternal beatitude and heroic sanctity.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 04, 2014 7:23 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Hi John,

Can you really blame Sean Johnson for drawing that conclusion? It seems to me that his error lies not in his conclusion but, in his trust for the SSPX "authorities" for a definitive answer, as if they are the Church's infallible magisterium, No? He seems to want to reconcile a contradiction, whereas Father G. doesn't seem to recognize that a contradiction needs to be reconciled. To my mind, saying that the "canonization" was "defective", does not help solve the issue but merely muddies the waters and causes confusion.


Sun May 04, 2014 10:03 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Dear Recusant,

His conclusion was the opposite of what was said, so whomever he was reading he got the message wrong!

As for the SSPX view, I met a priest last year who said he studied under Fr. Gleize. I asked him what he was like, and he said, "Oh, we all thought he was a sede!" :) He's obviously a serious scholar and his arguments are subtle and penetrating, even if I don't agree with them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 04, 2014 11:08 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
John Lane wrote:
Dear Recusant,

His conclusion was the opposite of what was said, so whomever he was reading he got the message wrong!

As for the SSPX view, I met a priest last year who said he studied under Fr. Gleize. I asked him what he was like, and he said, "Oh, we all thought he was a sede!" :) He's obviously a serious scholar and his arguments are subtle and penetrating, even if I don't agree with them.


Sorry John, I meant Father Granges ( Father G.) not Father Gleize. I agree he got the message wrong but, he read Bergolio's bull of canonization and could not help but draw the conclusion that the act was infallible because he assumes wrongly that Bergolio is the pope. This is a huge problem for the SSPX and their adherents. Because they don't want to recognize the obvious and follow Saint Robert and the logical conclusions that must be drawn, they are becoming a paragon of irrationality.

Imagine a time when we have a true pope, how will the followers of the SSPX position act? Will they continue to sift through papal documents and pronouncements making sure that all is orthodox, that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, thus acting as if they are the ultimate authority? Or will they bow down and treat the pope as a true successor of Peter ought to be treated? I do not claim to know the answer however , I fear it will be the former and the more obvious the sedevacantist position becomes, the more certain the former will be inevitable. It's almost as if the Ultramontanes are battling the Gallicans once again. :?


Sun May 04, 2014 11:20 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
Recusant,

I am saying that Johnson misread Granges.

John Lane wrote:
His conclusion was the opposite of what was said, so whomever he was reading he got the message wrong!

Now, Johnson adds this:
Sean Johnson wrote:
2) But the response I received from Menzingen (via Fr. Granges) admitted towards the end of the response, that the SSPX could not declare the invalidity/fallibility of the canonizations.


But that is erroneous. Fr. Granges does not say that. He says the following: "Now, we cannot say that this canonization is invalid on the point of view of the efficient cause, as if Pope Francis had not the power of canonizing." That is a comment purely on the pope question. That is, we (the SSPX) cannot say that the canonisations are invalid because Francis isn't pope. Rather, we (the SSPX) say that the canonisations are invalid for other reasons already explained.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 05, 2014 2:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Posts: 60
New post Re: Canonisations - the process
In the time leading up to the "canonizations" of last month and since, I've spent no small amount of time (although admittedly, probably miniscule compared to the time others here have dedicated to the subject) reading over theological texts about the infallibility of canonizations, as the matter has become hotly disputed among some Trads online. Although this topic regards the process of canonizations, I didn't think the following distinct enough to make an entirely new thread:

Earlier today I decided to see if Fr. Cartechini wrote anything about canonizations in his often-cited book De Valore Notarum Theologicarum. Surely enough...

Cartechini, Sixtus. De Valore Notarum Theologicarum. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University 1951. p. 127. wrote:
Est theol. certum quod Eccl. in canonizatione sanctorum sit infallibilis; non est theol. certum quod sit infallibilis etiam in beatificatione.


N.B. the text was bolded in the original.

Some of the sedeplenist objections to the infallibility of last month's canonizations have taken interesting turns over this past week; one has gone so far as to apply the principles of sacramental theology to canonization, saying that because JP2 wasn't valid matter (due at the very least to his scandalous actions), the canonizations are de facto invalid.

_________________
Thomas Williams


Fri May 09, 2014 6:30 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.