Infallibility and the canonization of a saint

[Sirach14]

If my mind serves me right, I believe I heard Karl Keating say on one of the CA tapes, that not only does a pope use his gift of infallibility in matters of faith and morales, but also in the canonization of a saint.
My parish priest said to me “No way, infallibility is used only in conjuction with pope and bishops, in matters of faith and morals.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

When the church officially canonizes a saint, we can be confident that THAT saint is a saint.

 

[Imprimartin]

Sirach14:

If my mind serves me right, I believe I heard Karl Keating say on one of the CA tapes, that not only does a pope use his gift of infallibility in matters of faith and morales, but also in the canonization of a saint.
My parish priest said to me “No way, infallibility is used only in conjuction with pope and bishops, in matters of faith and morals.”

That is not the ONLY time infallibility is used. It is used when canonizing a saint. The catholic church takes “Judge not lest ye be judged” very seriously. No one can KNOW who is in heaven or hell. Only God can judge that. And so, when the Pope says that a certain person is in heaven, (which is what canonization is), he is using the gift of infallibility.

Martin

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Imprimartin:

That is not the ONLY time infallibility is used. It is used when canonizing a saint. The catholic church takes “Judge not lest ye be judged” very seriously. No one can KNOW who is in heaven or hell. Only God can judge that. And so, when the Pope says that a certain person is in heaven, (which is what canonization is), he is using the gift of infallibility.

Martin

This is how I understand canonization also. Canonization is a lengthy procedure and in canonizing a person, The Church is stating that they are in Heaven. As I understand matters, this is based on heroic virtue obviated in their lives and assessed in the procedures of The Church prior to actual canonization. As Catholics therefore we are expected to believe that the person is indeed in Heaven but we do not have to necessarily believe in their visions, writings etc. Only that they are in Heaven and thus acknowledged saints by The Catholic Church. I do tend towards that if there was anything doctrinally incorrect in their writings etc. or departure from Church teaching The Church would clearly state so. To my knowledge this has never happened in the case of declared saints. Ways of insighting certain Catholic realities may differ but the conclusion is the same. In some cases certain devotions revealed to the saints through visions or locutions are officially affirmed by The Church as worthy and valid devotions, worthy of incorporating into personal piety, while there still is no obligation to follow such devotions in personal piety. As I understand matters.

Barb

 

[RobNY]

But, canonization defines no doctrines. How does that figure?

 

[Catholic2003]

From then Cardinal Ratzinger’s doctrinal note on Ad Tuendam Fidem:

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…

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Catholic2003:

From then Cardinal Ratzinger’s doctrinal note on Ad Tuendam Fidem:

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…

I’m much more informed for the above…thank you Catholic2003.

Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

RobNY:

But, canonization defines no doctrines. How does that figure?

Hi there RobNY…thank you for your comment …I stand corrected - canonization is not an infallible declaration, as Catholic2003 points out, rather to be held definitively as dogmatic fact.

From Catholic2003’s Post…

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…

Barb

 

[neophyte]

BarbaraTherese:

…I stand corrected - canonization is not an infallible declaration, as Catholic2003 points out, rather to be held definitively as dogmatic fact…

I’ve been under the impresion that “to be held definitively as a dogmatic fact” means that it falls under the charism of infallibility. That’s how I read CCC 891.

I recall hearing Karl say that canonization is an infallible declaration.

 

[Catholic2003]

neophyte:

I’ve been under the impresion that “to be held definitively as a dogmatic fact” means that it falls under the charism of infallibility. That’s how I read CCC 891.

I recall hearing Karl say that canonization is an infallible declaration.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. It is a secondary object of infallibility, which means that it is still infallible, but that it is not heresy to deny it. I’ll try to append a more detailed description later.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Catholic2003:

Sorry, I should have been clearer. It is a secondary object of infallibility, which means that it is still infallible, but that it is not heresy to deny it. I’ll try to append a more detailed description later.

Thanks heaps Catholic2003…never heard of ‘still infallible, but not heresy to deny it’ nor the term ‘secondary object of infallibility’. I am now more informed than I was previously. Thank you

Barb