Infallible canonization?

[mardukm]

I often hear that canonization is an infallible act of the Church.

This was in fact debated at Vatican 1 and the Fathers explicitly decided to exclude the act of canonization from the definition, instead restricting infallibility to definitions regarding doctrinal teaching.

So it appears that the idea of canonization being an infallible act of the Church is as yet a theologoumenon?

Comments?

 

[Roman_Army]

That is because canonization of a specific Saint is not in the realm of doctrine. It is more in the realm of popular piety. But, I would say that canonizations are infallible since it would be the exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium. Beatifications, on the other hand, are on the local diocesan level in which the Pope would sometimes personally be the one beatifying. In my opinion, it might be possible to anull a Blessed, Venerable, or Servant of God. But, not so with an already canonized capital “S” Saint.

Just like in the Early Church the concept of infallibility for an Ecumenical Council was never solemnly declared though it was assumed to be infallible, so to is the case with canonization. Canonizations have never been solemnly declared infallible, yet the sensus fidelium has assumed it to be so.

 

[Drawmack]

That is because canonization of a specific Saint is not in the realm of doctrine. It is more in the realm of popular piety. But, I would say that canonizations are infallible since it would be the exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium. Beatifications, on the other hand, are on the local diocesan level in which the Pope would sometimes personally be the one beatifying. In my opinion, it might be possible to anull a Blessed, Venerable, or Servant of God. But, not so with an already canonized capital “S” Saint.

Just like in the Early Church the concept of infallibility for an Ecumenical Council was never solemnly declared though it was assumed to be infallible, so to is the case with canonization. Canonizations have never been solemnly declared infallible, yet the sensus fidelium has assumed it to be so.

Wasn’t St. Christopher decanonized a number of years ago?

 

[Roman_Army]

Wasn’t St. Christopher decanonized a number of years ago?

No, Saints never get de-canonized. What happened was that the diocese of Rome removed his feastday from their liturgical calendar. That was misinterpreted by liberals as a “de-canonization.” Keep in mind there are so many saints that it is not possible to celebrate them all in every diocese. Each diocese and country has its own distinct liturgical calendar. The Saints that they choose to celebrate varies depending on the popular piety of the local faithful. Just because the diocese of Rome removed St. Christopher from its calendar it does not mean they have been de-canonized.

 

[Drawmack]

No, Saints never get de-canonized. What happened was that the diocese of Rome removed his feastday from their liturgical calendar. That was misinterpreted by liberals as a “de-canonization.” Keep in mind there are so many saints that it is not possible to celebrate them all in every diocese. Each diocese and country has its own distinct liturgical calendar. The Saints that they choose to celebrate varies depending on the popular piety of the local faithful. Just because the diocese of Rome removed St. Christopher from its calendar it does not mean they have been de-canonized.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Just_Lurking]

This was in fact debated at Vatican 1 and the Fathers explicitly decided to exclude the act of canonization from the definition, instead restricting infallibility to definitions regarding doctrinal teaching.

Do you have a reference for this? I’ve never heard it before.

 

[mardukm]

Do you have a reference for this? I’ve never heard it before.

I believe the great majority of people are not really concerned with what went on “behind the door” at the Councils - i.e., all the debates and amendments to the original draft of the Decrees. It seems many (if not most) Catholics and non-Catholics alike think the Vatican Decrees were made “by acclamation” - papal extremists to prove the solid foundation of the dogma; non-Catholic polemicists to prove that the Council was not really “free” and therefore invalid.

The story behind the Council is much more rich and textured than what many normally think (or care to think).

I must be off for several days, but when I return, I will provide excerpts from Dom Cuthbert Butler’s The Vatican Council to demonstrate what I stated. It was originally published in 1930. Dom Cuthbert Butler had the advantage of having actually known and corresponded with several members of the Council, particularly Archbishop Ullathorne, who is described in the book as having “**acted as a moderating influence on the extremists./B]” His sources are staggering, having plumbed the depths of the official Council records, the diaries and contemporary letters of many of its members, and several earlier histories of the Council (both pro and con).

The book is $50+ on Amazon. I got it at a library book sale for 50 cents (is that Providence, or what!) 6 years ago, and has been instrumental in my understanding of the First Vatican Council (as he quotes profusely from the Fathers of the Council), and my eventual translation to the Catholic Church.

Blessings**

 

[Roman_Army]

I believe the great majority of people are not really concerned with what went on “behind the door” at the Councils - i.e., all the debates and amendments to the original draft of the Decrees. It seems many (if not most) Catholics and non-Catholics alike think the Vatican Decrees were made “by acclamation” - papal extremists to prove the solid foundation of the dogma; non-Catholic polemicists to prove that the Council was not really “free” and therefore invalid.

It mainly has to do with the fact that most people, lacking the resources and time or interest, tend to focus almost exclusively on the final official documents of the council. Certainly, I understand that the Council Fathers would have discussed extensively all aspects of the Papal Magisterium and would have debated on some points as well as the fact that many of them would have publicized it and perhaps also the debates might have been recorded in writing and kept in the Secret Archives of the Vatican for future historical and theological research. The final document is the compromise or common ground between all parties involved and usually focuses on the bare minimum of what’s deemed necessary at that specific moment in history when the doctrinal teaching authority of the Pope was being challenged and the office of the Papacy was perhaps being seen as superfluous.

 

[mardukm]

“But by far, the most vital change was the insertion of the words “as of faith,” and “as contrary to faith” (tamquam de fide, tamquam fidei contrarium). These words limited the infallibility to definitions de Fide and condemnations under the censure of “heresy.” Hereby was involved a theological question long debated in the schools. The Catechism definition of “Faith” runs: “Faith is a supernatural gift of God – a grace – which enables us to believe without doubting whatever God has revealed.” God the Revealer is the motive of Faith, and only what He has revealed, only what is in “the depositum,” be it contained in Scripture or in Tradition, explicitly or at least implicitly, can be the object of divine Faith. We have heard Bilio formulate the theological difficulty (in Senestrey’s Diary): this is all that could be said to be of Catholic Faith; and therefore the definition of Papal infallibility could not be extended wider than the certain sphere of the Church’s infallibility. He himself held the ordinary opinion of theologians, that the infallibility of the Church, does extend beyond the limits of what is of divine Faith as revealed by God; that such things as the canonization of saints, the approbation of religious orders, condemnations of propositions under censures short of “heresy,” and dogmatic facts intimately bound up with the safeguarding of revealed truth, do fall within the sphere of the Church’s infallibility, and are to be accepted with interior assent, not by divine Faith, because they are not revealed truths, but by what is called “ecclesiastical faith” in the teaching authority of the Church. This is the common teaching of theologians, but it has never been defined, and discussions are still current over the whole question…As will be seen, the Vatican Council deliberately left this question untouched, and defined the papal infallibility in such a way as to leave these theological questions undecided.”

“It is surprising that the draft schema on the Church * prepared by the theologians does not in the chapter “Infallibility” come to grips with this questions. It is couched in terms that may include dogmatic facts and censures less than “heresy,” but could not be applied to canonizations and approbations of religious orders: it is confined to what is necessary for the safe-keeping of the ‘depositum.’

“It is not surprising that, as we learn from Senestrey, great dissatisfaction was felt among the more ardent spirits of the infallibilists when the changed form of the formula became known: it seemed to them to have been “not reformed by deformed,” and private meetings were held in the rooms of the Archbishop of Bourges, attended by Manning, Senestrey, Mermillod, Fillion of Mans, and others. It was agreed that every effort should be made to have the new formula withdrawn and the first one restored.”

Though, as Dom Chapman stated, Vatican 1 left the question (the topic of this thread) untouched, it seems Vatican 2 actually did restrict infallibility only to the realm of Faith and morals (i,e, the depositum fidei).

“This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded.

Blessings*

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Roman Army,

That is because canonization of a specific Saint is not in the realm of doctrine. It is more in the realm of popular piety. But, I would say that canonizations are infallible since it would be the exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium. Beatifications, on the other hand, are on the local diocesan level in which the Pope would sometimes personally be the one beatifying. In my opinion, it might be possible to anull a Blessed, Venerable, or Servant of God. But, not so with an already canonized capital “S” Saint.

Just like in the Early Church the concept of infallibility for an Ecumenical Council was never solemnly declared though it was assumed to be infallible, so to is the case with canonization. Canonizations have never been solemnly declared infallible, yet the sensus fidelium has assumed it to be so.

As noted in my previous post, it seems Vatican 2 did intend to restrict the object of infallibility to the depositum fidei. So this teaching on the infallibility of canonizations remains theologumenon, and should not be regarded as an actual teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium.

I suppose it might be defined one day, but I don’t see any need for it.

Blessings

 

[Roman_Army]

Dear brother Roman Army,

As noted in my previous post, it seems Vatican 2 did intend to restrict the object of infallibility to the depositum fidei. So this teaching on the infallibility of canonizations remains theologumenon, and should not be regarded as an actual teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium.

I suppose it might be defined one day, but I don’t see any need for it.

Blessings

But, then the question is, would solemn canonizations fall under the depositum fidei? Certainly, the doctrine of Saints and their intercessory ability as well as the ability of the Church to declare them Saints is part of the deposit of faith. But, the question is could that infallible doctrine in the deposit of faith also extend infallibility to specific canonizations? I would say yes, since it is believed such canonizations are confirmed by some sign from God. Also, if for example, in the Early Church prior to the establishment of the present process all the bishops as well as the faithful unanimously accepted a specific person as a Saint, would that not be infallible as in not in error as to the final destination of the deceased person and their intercessory ability? Is not the common sense of the faithful (sensus fidelium) which has held such people as Saints not infallible too? Is not this very solemn gesture of the Pope in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff not infallible? These are questions that have to be addressed in some other Council or Ex Cathedra decree. It would seem to me that it is only logical to consider such solemn gestures of the whole church infallible as well. Even though it might not be directly connected with the deposit of faith, it is at least indirectly connected to it. This is certainly something to ponder about.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Roman Army,

But, then the question is, would solemn canonizations fall under the depositum fidei? Certainly, the doctrine of Saints and their intercessory ability as well as the ability of the Church to declare them Saints is part of the deposit of faith. But, the question is could that infallible doctrine in the deposit of faith also extend infallibility to specific canonizations? I would say yes, since it is believed such canonizations are confirmed by some sign from God. Also, if for example, in the Early Church prior to the establishment of the present process all the bishops as well as the faithful unanimously accepted a specific person as a Saint, would that not be infallible as in not in error as to the final destination of the deceased person and their intercessory ability? Is not the common sense of the faithful (sensus fidelium) which has held such people as Saints not infallible too? Is not this very solemn gesture of the Pope in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff not infallible? These are questions that have to be addressed in some other Council or Ex Cathedra decree. It would seem to me that it is only logical to consider such solemn gestures of the whole church infallible as well. Even though it might not be directly connected with the deposit of faith, it is at least indirectly connected to it. This is certainly something to ponder about.

The intercessory ability of the saints is already a dogma of the Church. It is contained in our Creed “We believe in the communion of Saints.”

I still don’t see a need to claim that the proclamation of WHO is a saint requires the exercise of infallibility. That people personally prefer one intercessor over another is a matter of personal piety. It does not need to be raised to the level of dogma.

Blessings

 

[bookgirl32]

Dear brother Roman Army,

The intercessory ability of the saints is already a dogma of the Church. It is contained in our Creed “We believe in the communion of Saints.”

I still don’t see a need to claim that the proclamation of WHO is a saint requires the exercise of infallibility. That people personally prefer one intercessor over another is a matter of personal piety. It does not need to be raised to the level of dogma.

Blessings

I couldn’t quite get this thread under my belt until I read this post. At first I was reading it as if the infallibility or noninfallibility of cannonizations could have an impact on the Church’s claim to infallibility in and of itself. The concept of necessity is what helped me. “Not being able to” and “not needing to” are two different things.

 

[cassini]

“But by far, the most vital change was the insertion of the words “as of faith,” and “as contrary to faith” (tamquam de fide, tamquam fidei contrarium). These words limited the infallibility to definitions de Fide and condemnations under the censure of “heresy.” Hereby was involved a theological question long debated in the schools. The Catechism definition of “Faith” runs: “Faith is a supernatural gift of God – a grace – which enables us to believe without doubting whatever God has revealed.” God the Revealer is the motive of Faith, and only what He has revealed, only what is in “the depositum,” be it contained in Scripture or in Tradition, explicitly or at least implicitly, can be the object of divine Faith. We have heard Bilio formulate the theological difficulty (in Senestrey’s Diary): this is all that could be said to be of Catholic Faith; and therefore the definition of Papal infallibility could not be extended wider than the certain sphere of the Church’s infallibility. He himself held the ordinary opinion of theologians, that the infallibility of the Church, does extend beyond the limits of what is of divine Faith as revealed by God; that such things as the canonization of saints, the approbation of religious orders, condemnations of propositions under censures short of “heresy,” and dogmatic facts intimately bound up with the safeguarding of revealed truth, do fall within the sphere of the Church’s infallibility, and are to be accepted with interior assent, not by divine Faith, because they are not revealed truths, but by what is called “ecclesiastical faith” in the teaching authority of the Church. This is the common teaching of theologians, but it has never been defined, and discussions are still current over the whole question…As will be seen, the Vatican Council deliberately left this question untouched, and defined the papal infallibility in such a way as to leave these theological questions undecided.”

Blessings

Mardukm. This is an important opinion. I hope I am reading it correctly, but does the author say that if a definition and declaration is labeled HERESY, it must be considered infallible?

It also suggests canonisation is outside the realm of infallibility. This is very comforting as there are ‘saints’ canonised by Pope John Paul II that I and others would not pray to if paid. It also is comforting because since Vatican II there is a rush to canonise as many Modernists as possible just to give that council credibility among the gullible flock.

 

[Roman_Army]

Dear brother Roman Army,

The intercessory ability of the saints is already a dogma of the Church. It is contained in our Creed “We believe in the communion of Saints.”

I still don’t see a need to claim that the proclamation of WHO is a saint requires the exercise of infallibility. That people personally prefer one intercessor over another is a matter of personal piety. It does not need to be raised to the level of dogma.

Blessings

It’s not just a matter of picking favorites. Certainly, each individual is free to pick and choose which particular Saints to seek for intercession and imitate. Instead, it’s a matter of whether or not the Church is correct in asserting that such a specific person is in Heaven and has the power to intercede and whether or not this judgment must be adhered to in some way by the faithful even though they themselves might not request the specific Saint’s intercession. In my humble opinion, the Church is correct and the faithful are to accept that person as a Saint, though they certainly are not required to pray to them, imitate them, nor celebrate their Feastday. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in the canonization process too. Does not the canonization of a specific Saint have anything to do with faith? Perhaps there might not be the faith assent, but there is definitive or religious assent that is required, and since normally these judgments are never reformed then this religious assent is perpetual.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother cassini,

Mardukm. This is an important opinion. I hope I am reading it correctly, but does the author say that if a definition and declaration is labeled HERESY, it must be considered infallible?

Yes, all positive definitions and negative definitions (i.e., labelling something a heresy) on a matter of faith or morals have the stamp of infallibility. But those things “short of heresy” should not automatically be considered to be infallible teaching. I believe this is the distinction between “error” and “heresy.”

It also suggests canonisation is outside the realm of infallibility. This is very comforting as there are ‘saints’ canonised by Pope John Paul II that I and others would not pray to if paid.

Well, praying to the person who is canonized is not imposed by the act of canonization.

It also is comforting because since Vatican II there is a rush to canonise as many Modernists as possible just to give that council credibility among the gullible flock.

Well, V2 was (is) and infallible teaching organ of the Church, regardless of who the Church canonizes. But that is a topic for a different thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It’s not just a matter of picking favorites. Certainly, each individual is free to pick and choose which particular Saints to seek for intercession and imitate. Instead, it’s a matter of whether or not the Church is correct in asserting that such a specific person is in Heaven and has the power to intercede and whether or not this judgment must be adhered to in some way by the faithful even though they themselves might not request the specific Saint’s intercession. In my humble opinion, the Church is correct and the faithful are to accept that person as a Saint, though they certainly are not required to pray to them, imitate them, nor celebrate their Feastday. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in the canonization process too. Does not the canonization of a specific Saint have anything to do with faith? Perhaps there might not be the faith assent, but there is definitive or religious assent that is required, and since normally these judgments are never reformed then this religious assent is perpetual.

If tomorrow the Church declared that St. Cyprian was not a saint (God forbid!), that would not affect the teaching authority of the Church. His teachings are still considered orthodox. Declarations regarding the person of St. Cyprian simply doesn’t affect the teaching of the Church (some might argue otherwise.).

I respect your opinion, though. I certainly don’t see anything wrong with it.

Blessings

 

[Roman_Army]

If tomorrow the Church declared that St. Cyprian was not a saint (God forbid!), that would not affect the teaching authority of the Church. His teachings are still considered orthodox. Declarations regarding the person of St. Cyprian simply doesn’t affect the teaching of the Church (some might argue otherwise.).

LOL. I don’t think that would ever happen. There’s just no precedent for it and neither is it opportune. It would certainly seem strange.

 

[cassini]

Dear brother cassini,

Originally Posted by cassini
Mardukm. This is an important opinion. I hope I am reading it correctly, but does the author say that if a definition and declaration is labeled HERESY, it must be considered infallible?

Yes, all positive definitions and negative definitions (i.e., labelling something a heresy) on a matter of faith or morals have the stamp of infallibility. But those things “short of heresy” should not automatically be considered to be infallible teaching. I believe this is the distinction between “error” and “heresy.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Now mardukm the $64,000 question:

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616 the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

You do realise what this means, the rewriting of history.

 

[Roman_Army]

Now mardukm the $64,000 question:

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616 the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

You do realise what this means, the rewriting of history.

:banghead:

This claim of infallibility of yours has been refuted in a previous thread already. 1. Those individual Cardinals with the approval of the Pope were correct in saying that the Sun was not the centre of the world and immovable, ** 2.** Although this particular judgment was correct scientifically, it does not concern faith, the fact that the individuals involved mistakenly thought it was does not change the fact that it does not concern faith, and 3. the Pope cannot delegate his infallible charism to someone else, so approving a decree by a Congregation or Tribunal of the Roman Curia is not Ex Cathedra. The decree must concern a doctrine of faith or morals and must come out directly and definitively out of the Pope’s own mouth or hand and must be clearly intended to bind the whole Church to it.