Do we have to recognize all canonization?

  • Thread starter Thread starter james753
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church considers canonizations infallible (infallibility, of course, is not conditioned on a particular process, but on the prescriptive nature of the judgment and supreme authority of the Church).
  1. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”.14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
  1. The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth.
    …
    With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …37
    https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
Click to expand...
Also, during the canonization rite, this petition is made to the Pope:

“Most Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord’s promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the saints.”
 
Last edited:
Do you have to “recognize” the canonization, yes. Do you have to venerate the Saint, no.

Regardless, what this “SSPXer” is saying makes little sense. Canonizing a Pope does not mean that the Pope was flawless in his leadership of the Church.

Paul VI was a holy man. Did he make mistakes, sure. But he also recognized some serious evils - like Birth Control and he was the one who said the smoke of devil was in the Sanctuary.

I have also read that Pope Paul VI wished somethings would have turned out differently after Vatican II. But he also did a lot of good.

I highly recommend the movie Paul VI: The Pope in the Tempest - you can watch it on FORMED https://formed.org/watch/571e6a450acd238c0799ae2a

If you don’t have a subscription to “FORMED On Demand,” you can get a free trial or sign up for the pay per view “FORMED Market” and rent it here: https://market.formed.org/paul-vi-the-pope-in-the-tempest.html

Totally worth watching. I was not a fan of Paul VI until I watched this movie, and now I see just how holy he was.

After all, again, it’s about whether the man is in Heaven, not whether or not he was a good Pope.

God Bless
 
Genesis315 said:
The Church considers canonizations infallible
Click to expand...
Then there is a big problem if Catholics want reunion with the Orthodox Church because there are some Catholic saints that the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize, and there are EO saints not recognized yet by the Roman Catholics.
 
I think there are far bigger issues than saints dividing us from the Orthodox. I wonder whether they view canonisation as an infallible act?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think it’s a problem. It happens all the time where historically Eastern Orthodox that enter into union with Rome bring along with them their saints and so on.
 
The function is still carried out, just in a less adversarial way (ie writings are examined for error, witnesses for and against are brought forth, etc.).

The “devil’s advocate” was instituted in the 16th century, but papal canonizations have been going on since the 12th (they happened different ways before that).

There are probably pros and cons of having such an office, but having it is by no means necessary for the canonization process to have integrity.
 
Last edited:
What disturbs me is that their name indicates somehow they are the “remnant,” a biblical term for the small portion that remains the true followers. I am skeptical about what people who speak from a position outside of the Church say, so if someone wants to be a “remnant,” let them talk to their fellow clique-mates.
 
If your friend is a “die hard” SSPXer why would you think he gives a hoot what the Church says?

He’s already rejected and began to Protest the hierarchy.

I think your time would be better spent praying for him than arguing with him.
 
AlNg said:
There is a problem with the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics because there are some saints recognized in one Church but not the other. In the event of a reunion between the two Churches, what will happen here ?
Click to expand...
The Roman Church has no problem whatsoever with venerating Eastern Orthodox Saints.

The Eastern Catholic Churches already venerate them all.

I personally have a devotion to all three of the Pillars of Orthodoxy - St. Photius the Great, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus.

St. Photius even died in peace and communion with the Roman Church.

St. Gregory and St. Mark were both incredibly holy men who had intense zeal for the faith - unfortunately their zeal caused them to cling to some erroneous views regarding the Church - but I’m not going to stop venerating them just because some of their views were a bit “off.”

You have any idea how many Saints had whacky beliefs? A couple even heretical? Yet we still venerate them because we forgive them for clinging to erroneous beliefs in their time.

So this is a non-issue for the Catholic Church.

It is, as usual, the Eastern Orthodox who would have to come to terms with and accept Roman practices and traditions and saints - St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Padre Pio, St. Pope John Paul the Great, etc.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
The Roman Church has no problem whatsoever with venerating Eastern Orthodox Saints.
Click to expand...
So it is OK to venerate and pray to Czar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra and their five children and to recognize them as Saints?
Spyridon said:
The Eastern Catholic Churches already venerate them all.
Click to expand...
What day do Eastern Catholics set aside to venerate Czar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra and their five children? Do even Ukrainian Greek Catholics venerate the Russian Czar as as Saint?
Further, do Catholics recognize Constantine the Great as a saint?
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
What day do Eastern Catholics set aside to venerate Czar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra and their five children? Do even Ukrainian Greek Catholics venerate the Russian Czar as as Saint?

Further, do Catholics recognize Constantine the Great as a saint?
Click to expand...
Yes to all your questions.

And I personally venerate the Tsar and all his passion-bearing family of martyrs as well as St. Emperor Constantine the Great and St. Empress Helena.

There is no official day to remember him as he was just recently glorified by the Russian Church - but there is certainly no problem with Catholics venerating him.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we are also part of the remnant. I don’t think Michael Matt considers himself to be outside of the church. I know he has not been excommunicated. So I guess I don’t really understand your comment. His father started a newspaper around the time the Latin Mass was abolished. He has always been a proponent of TLM. Maybe you know more about it than I.
 
anon64350612 said:
Maybe we are also part of the remnant.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting idea. I know how the word is used throughout the Old Testament though, where most of the chosen are either in sin, or destroyed for their sin, and a remnant are a faithful few who stay true to God. In light of the application of this term to those who hold to the traditional Mass, I find the reference inappropriate.
 
You are more likely to stand next to a brick wall and make your statements and change the brick wall, than you are with an SSPX individual. Or, for that matter, with someone who is Orthodox.

It is not for no reason that Cardinal Muller said that while the SSPX are not in schism de jure, they are in fact.

Underneath it all, the SSPX appear to believe they are the Remnant Church, and the rest of us are heretics.
 
Spyridon said:
40.png
AlNg:
What day do Eastern Catholics set aside to venerate Czar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra and their five children? Do even Ukrainian Greek Catholics venerate the Russian Czar as as Saint?

Further, do Catholics recognize Constantine the Great as a saint?
Click to expand...
Yes to all your questions.

And I personally venerate the Tsar and all his passion-bearing family of martyrs as well as St. Emperor Constantine the Great and St. Empress Helena.

There is no official day to remember him as he was just recently glorified by the Russian Church - but there is certainly no problem with Catholics venerating him.
Click to expand...
St Helena has always been venerated in the West as a saint and revered for finding the True Cross. She is my confirmation saint 🙂

Not so much Constantine.
 
The majority opinion is that they are infallible. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia says that it’s technically an open question whether they are or not, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says that their infallibility is theologically certain (AFAIK there were no changes in the state of the question during the 20th century, so it’s not a matter of the latter having new information). So their seems to be some dispute over the question of whether their infallibility is an open question or not, though there are still a few who defend the proposition that they aren’t, and I’m not aware of anyone ever being censured for denying their infallibility.

Even if they are not infallible though, it would still be rash to deny the truth of a given canonization (since how would one know otherwise?). Note that a canonization only declares that a person is currently in Heaven, not that they did their job well, or that the decision to canonize them is objectively prudent.
 
LilyM said:
Not so much Constantine.
Click to expand...
Yes. That was my point. You are going to find Catholics who do not agree with some of the saints recognized by the Orthodox Church, but not officially recognized by the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top