If the Church canonised a person as a saint wrongly, does that mean the Pope was not infallible?

[MH84]

I was wondering about this, and this was flared up by this thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3603412.

Especially this part by one poster:

The faithful, through the Magesterium of the Church will continue, and have every right, to canonize by popular acclaim men and women of outstanding holiness. This is the way it has always happened. The “popular acclaim” for the late Pontiff, which was so evident at his death and particularly at his funeral, was a clear indication of the widespread belief that John Paul II was a model of Christian virtue.

Since there was no canonisation process until recent times, does that mean there was a chance that the Pope declared someone a saint previously without looking into the matter properly, and may have been under pressure to do so.

And if that is the case, that would mean the Pope made a mistake in regards to the faith; declaring on behalf of the Church and God that someone was saint, and has gone straight to Heaven. That means the Pope was not infallible. Am I wrong with this assumption?

 

[ibkc]

Papal infallibility applies to pronouncements on doctrine (faith and morals) ONLY. Canonization of saints does not fall under the category of doctrine. Popes are infallible ONLY when speaking ex cathedra from the chair of St. Peter. That isn’t part of the canonization process.

Papal infallibility seems to be one of the most widely misunderstood precepts of the church. I don’t understand why, because it really isn’t that difficult.

 

[MH84]

When the Pope declares something officially, isn’t that an athoritative pronouncement?

 

[ibkc]

When the Pope declares something officially, isn’t that an athoritative pronouncement?

That isn’t the same as an infallible pronouncement. Repeat: the Pope is ONLY infallible when speaking ex cathedra from the chair of St. Peter on matters of faith and morals: very high level stuff, the kind of stuff that goes in the catechism. Ex cathedra statements are extremely rare. There has not been one since the early 1950s, and it was around a hundred years since the ex cathedra statement before that, and even longer for the one before that.

 

[MH84]

That isn’t the same as an infallible pronouncement. Repeat: the Pope is ONLY infallible when speaking ex cathedra from the chair of St. Peter on matters of faith and morals: very high level stuff, the kind of stuff that goes in the catechism. Ex cathedra statements are extremely rare. There has not been one since the early 1950s, and it was around a hundred years since the ex cathedra statement before that, and even longer for the one before that.

Wrong. What about encyclicals?

 

[ralphinal]

Infallible statements are always clearly stated. It is almost like they have a sign saying “This is the Infallible Statement right here.” INfallible statements only occure when there is need to clarify the teaching of the Church against a heresy.

Encyclicals can contain ex cathedra statements, but they are clearly defined as such. The language preceeding sucha statement leaves no doubt that it is a teaching point. Generally, however, the encyclicals will not contain any infallible pronouncements. It may re-itterate the constant teaching of the Church. For example, one may say that it has been the constant teaching of the Church that women cannot become priests. There would be supporting evidence along with it. This is not a newly defined doctrine, but a restatement of the fact in a clear and concise way.

Some theologins do consider true cannonization to be infallible. It is not something that the Church has seen the need to clarify. That said, cannonization by popular acclaim is not. The multi-step process is needed. Now, does that mean that St. Joseph, the Blessed Mother, St. Peter and all of the Bible saints may not in heaven? No. None of them were formally cannonized. There is no reason to doubt that they are in heaven now.

 

[AntePavelic]

Yes.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

No.

I think that in the past many people were called saints only by popular acclaim. They were not officially canonized by a pope. Then in later years it was realized that very little actual knowledge about some of their lives had been passed down to us. One of these was St. Christopher about whom virtually nothing is known. Another is St. Philomena whose bones were uncovered in a catacomb. There was an inscription which said God be with you Philomena. It was not known if Philomena was even a name or just meant little beloved one. But the grave was in a place where martyrs had been buried so some people prayed for her intercession and miracles occurred so she was considered a saint by the people although never officially canonized.

But it would be practically impossible to canonize a saint wrongly. In the past, and even today, when someone is called a saint by popular acclaim, there is rarely any doubt of the person’s holiness over a long period of time during their life. And it is only after the popular acclaim and the petition by large numbers of people, many of whom knew the person well, that the cause of a saint is even taken up today. His life is thoroughly investigated and there must be three otherwise unexplainable medical healings due to his intercession that take place. Then the Pope puts his ‘seal of approval’ on him.

 

[seren1ty]

You know, this is the kind of silliness that keeps people from the truth. If people spent as much time LEARNING the truth of something and less time trying to teardown and re-build something already established by Christ “bigger and better” (a human being equalling Christ is funny to me and, no, Catholics do not say the pope or anyone else is equal to God, but he is the successor of Peter, an apostle who was also with sin but was also given the gift of the HOLY SPIRIT - along with the other apostles - to spread God’s word along with the other apostles who were equal in the fact they were human beings, with sin, but only Peter, who Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and upon this rock I will build my church - and, please, remember Christ spoke aramaic, so don’t try to go Greek on me; the only apostle he asks 3 times if he loved Him to which, after Peter gave a reply of love in a “brotherly love” to Christ, Christ replied, “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my sheep”.). The issue with the infallibility of the pope, is scripture.

The problem is this. This isn’t a debatable issue if people look at the truth instead of finding it more important to establish their own point of view by saying what’s wrong with another point of view.

The short answer: If you’re going to ask a question, get the facts first, unless, of course, you’re not concerned with bringing out the truth and more concerned at winning an argument.

 

[seren1ty]

You know, this is the kind of silliness that keeps people from the true Church of Christ. If people spent as much time LEARNING the truth of something and less time trying to teardown and re-build something already established by Christ “bigger and better” (a human being equalling Christ is funny to me and, no, Catholics do not say the pope or anyone else is equal to God, but he is the successor of Peter, an apostle who was also with sin but was also given the gift of the HOLY SPIRIT - along with the other apostles - to spread God’s word along with the other apostles who were equal in the fact they were human beings, with sin, but only Peter, who Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and upon this rock I will build my church - and, please, remember Christ spoke aramaic, so don’t try to go Greek on me; the only apostle he asks 3 times if he loved Him to which, after Peter gave a reply of love in a “brotherly love” to Christ, Christ replied, “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my sheep”.). The issue with the infallibility of the pope, is scripture (The Bible, which is only complete in the Catholic Bible and, therefore, a Catholic book) and whether you follow the true interpretation or one of the many other interpretations.

The problem is this. This isn’t a debatable issue if people look at the truth instead of finding it more important to establish their own point of view by saying what’s wrong with another point of view. Seems people will believe anything if it’s believable - Hello Relativity!

The short answer: If you’re going to ask a question, get the facts first, unless, of course, you’re not concerned with coming to the truth and more concerned at winning an argument.

 

[Vincent]

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

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 …

​

 

[ralphinal]

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

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 …

​

Thanks for this one. Somehow, I have never seen this part of that document on any site discussing the topic. I see that the church has issued a statement on it.

 

[MH84]

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

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 …

​

Thanks Vincent for the link.

You know, I sometimes take without much further thought what some fellow Catholics say on this forum. However, even though Ibkc had good intentions, compared to the above quote, he/she was really quite wrong. Not only that, he/she criticised people who didnt understand Papal infallibility:

Papal infallibility seems to be one of the most widely misunderstood precepts of the church. I don’t understand why, because it really isn’t that difficult.

Ibkc, I don’t think you were quite ready to make that statement.

 

[emeraldcoast]

I love to read up on information concerning Saints. Our children attend a Catholic school and our eldest child had to do a report on a Saint. Needless to say, the chosen Saint was ST. DOMINIC SAVIO ewtn.com/library/MARY/SAVIO.HTM . To be honest, I am not really sure why he is a Saint. It seems that he was basically just a really good kid. Any help?

God Bless!