Papal infallibility (Merged threads)

[Odell]

How does one discuss papal infallibility, ex-cathedra/ cathedra without it sounding like this is a scape goat for papal infallibility. If the pope was truly infallible why would he not always be infallible when he spoke about the faith, but only when he speaks ex-cathedra?

 

[Della]

How does one discuss papal infallibility, ex-cathedra/ cathedra without it sounding like this is a scape goat for papal infallibility. If the pope was truly infallible why would he not always be infallible when he spoke about the faith, but only when he speaks ex-cathedra?

Because when he speaks ex cathedra he is speaking officially on matters of faith and morals. Otherwise, he teaches just as any other bishop does. As for his personal opinions, they are his, just as any other bishop’s personal opinions are his. It’s only when he speaks on official matters in an official manner that he is considered speaking ex cathedra, or “from the seat” of the pope.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[ServantPD]

Because even though popes are infallible, they are only under certain circunstances. The usage of papal infallibility is only drawn when it defines the confirmation of some dogma after much prayer, study and certainty that it was confirmed by the Holy Spirit in their position as Pope. It’s hardly ever used because it’s a long process and the necessity of defining something as dogma isn’t really existent. It was only used twice, and it was to confirm Marian beliefs as confirmed and dogmas. This position enables the Pope to do that, but it really isn’t to be used unless the circunstances so require. Popes aren’t oracles!

 

[JerryZ]

Because even though popes are infallible, they are only under certain circunstances. The usage of papal infallibility is only drawn when it defines the confirmation of some dogma after much prayer, study and certainty that it was confirmed by the Holy Spirit in their position as Pope. It’s hardly ever used because it’s a long process and the necessity of defining something as dogma isn’t really existent. It was only used twice, and it was to confirm Marian beliefs as confirmed and dogmas. This position enables the Pope to do that, but it really isn’t to be used unless the circunstances so require. Popes aren’t oracles!

Actually Papal Infallibility is also invoqued when proclaiming to the Universal Church that someone is a Saint.
Since the proclamation binds the whole Church.

–

 

[Abu]

ServantPD #4
The usage of papal infallibility is only drawn when it defines the confirmation of some dogma after much prayer, study and certainty that it was confirmed by the Holy Spirit in their position as Pope. It’s hardly ever used because it’s a long process and the necessity of defining something as dogma isn’t really existent. It was only used twice, and it was to confirm Marian beliefs as confirmed and dogmas.

Incorrect, because infallibility extends to doctrines as well as dogmas – there have been many infallible doctrines.

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s *Motu Proprio *(= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The three levels of teaching are:
**1) Dogma – infallible **(Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible **(Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith.

Vatican II, reiterated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility, and its documents are readily available [from the EWTN Library (http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp, or the Vatican Library) for anyone with the will to know what Christ’s Church is teaching, like most of the documents of Vatican I, and the papal documents before and since Vatican II.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Actually Papal Infallibility is also invoqued when proclaiming to the Universal Church that someone is a Saint.
Since the proclamation binds the whole Church.

I have seen this claimed here MANY times, but I have never seen it backed up by any official Church teaching.

The Canonization of a Saint by a Pope is unquestionably a doctrine (teaching) of the Church (as are ALL Papal teachings on any level), but I have never seen any official teaching that maintains that Canonization is Dogma (ie, MUST be accepted).

In fact, the idea that a Canonization is to be regarded as Dogmatic is itself problematic. It requires a judgement of character by the Pope, not (only) a judgement of doctrine. Everyone who dies in a State of Grace is a Saint, and nobody who dies outside such a state can be a Saint. But the Church cannot judge whether any person is (or is not) in a State of Grace - the person cannot even know this himself with absolute assurance (and THAT is a dogma of the Church, taught by the Council of Trent)

So, I maintain here in this thread (as I have done so in many others) that Canonization is NOT an infallible teaching of the Church, and I repeat my plea that someone show me anything that would prove me wrong (nobody in any previous challenge has accommodated me, so I persist…)

 

[Abu]

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

The 1967 *New Catholic Encyclopedia *discusses the theological foundation for the infallibility of canonization: “The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. … St. Thomas Aquinas says, ‘Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err’ (Quodl. 9:8:16).”

“The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man’s life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person’s acts to be in accord with its teaching.”
ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur373.htm

Canonization: **An infallible declaration by the pope **that a person, who died as a martyr and/or practiced Christian virtue to a heroic degree, is now in heaven and is worthy of honor and imitation by all the faithful. [My emphases].
osv.com/OSV4MeNav/CatholicAlmanac/ExcerptCanonizations/tabid/353/Default.aspx

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have seen this claimed here MANY times, but I have never seen it backed up by any official Church teaching.

The Canonization of a Saint by a Pope is unquestionably a doctrine (teaching) of the Church (as are ALL Papal teachings on any level), but I have never seen any official teaching that maintains that Canonization is Dogma (ie, MUST be accepted).

In fact, the idea that a Canonization is to be regarded as Dogmatic is itself problematic. It requires a judgement of character by the Pope, not (only) a judgement of doctrine. Everyone who dies in a State of Grace is a Saint, and nobody who dies outside such a state can be a Saint. But the Church cannot judge whether any person is (or is not) in a State of Grace - the person cannot even know this himself with absolute assurance (and THAT is a dogma of the Church, taught by the Council of Trent)

So, I maintain here in this thread (as I have done so in many others) that Canonization is NOT an infallible teaching of the Church, and I repeat my plea that someone show me anything that would prove me wrong (nobody in any previous challenge has accommodated me, so I persist…)

David-

This is a new topic for me…one I have not spent much time studying, oddly enough.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Genesis315]

How does one discuss papal infallibility, ex-cathedra/ cathedra without it sounding like this is a scape goat for papal infallibility. If the pope was truly infallible why would he not always be infallible when he spoke about the faith, but only when he speaks ex-cathedra?

Compare it to a king or other ruler. Not every utterance of a king is law. Rather, he has to formally legislate.

When the Pope lays down the “law of belief” he is infallible, but his other personal utterances do not determine what the Church believes, and are therefore not infallible. This is because the Pope’s infallibility is the same infallibility of the whole Church’s teaching and belief, and therefore he is only infallible when he definitively determines and binds the Church’s beliefs.

 

[DavidFilmer]

What are your thoughts on this?

I think that the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) is a useful resource for established Doctrine, but outdated in areas of theological opinion. The most recent version of the CE was issued just over a century ago (and no edition can be considered an authoritative teaching of the Church - it was never like our modern Catechism. Despite its “official sounding” name, it was a secular publication). In matters of established doctrine, it is reliable, but in matters of current theological opinion, it is questionable at best. In this manner, it is not much different than a 1930 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica - it might be fine for telling us about algebra but it would be absurd to use it as a source of reliable information about modern views on quantum theory.

During the time of the publication of the CE, the majority of theologians proactively taught the idea of Limbo. You would be hard-pressed to find a respected Catholic theologian today would would do the same. Theological opinion can make massive shifts over the course of just a few decades.

The CE cited only the opinion of respected Catholic theologians. Respected Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott attempted to characterize the “hierarchy of truth” of Catholic teaching (realizing that some teachings bind more strongly than others). According to Ott’s hierarchy, common theological opinion occupies the sixth rung from the top of “absolute” truth (de Fide) - it occupies a category he called Sententia Communis and defined thus:

Sententia Communis - Common teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. (Example: Christ’s soul possessed infused knowledge.)

According to Ott, this type of teaching is inferior to *De fide, Sent. certa, Scientia contemplationis, Scientia simplicis intelligentiae, *and Scientia futuribilium.

So, my thoughts are that the CE is an outdated source when discussing theological opinion in the first place, and even if modern theologians were in similar agreement, their collective opinion is a long way off from being able to call any such teaching “infallible.”

I maintain that it would be unlikely that Canonization could be considered infallible because it requires a judgement on character, which is not within the purview of Papal infallibility.

There was a work of fiction in which a young monk died. His short life was heroic in virtue, and his cause rapidly progressed. But, during the course of the investigation (which was initially presumed to be a mere formality to be quickly and summarily discharged), it was proven that the monk had died by willful and deliberate suicide (his death had been presumed accidental). Some of you know the work to which I refer, but don’t give it away; I’ve related enough to make my case without spoiling a good story for those who do not know it.

Nobody could be Canonized who committed suicide. The modern Church canonizes Saints at a remarkable pace (John Paul the Great canonized more Saints than all of his predecessors combined), and the Church has eliminated the office of devil’s advocate in the canonization process, so there is less scrutiny (this story was set back before this office had been eliminated, which is how the truth of the monk’s death was revealed).

Our fictional monk was fast-tracked for Sainthood. His cause was ultimately denied because of the investigation. The modern Church does far more fast-tracking, but far less investigation.

Are Catholics expected to believe that a Pope would be somehow prevented by the Holy Spirit from canonizing our fictional monk, had the investigation been less rigorous? I see nothing in the Church’s teaching about Papal infallibility that would support such an idea.

If we accepted such an idea, then why do any investigation at all? If the Pope is prevented from canonizing unfit candidates, why bother to check it out? Let the Holy Spirit do all the work. Just give the Holy Father the list of all the candidates, and let the Holy Spirit guide him to cross off the names of the unfit. The Holy Father could do, in a few minutes, what would take investigative committees thousands of combined man-hours to accomplish.

But we don’t really think it works that way, do we?

 

[dogman28]

I’m a new Catholic, and I have a question that is simply academic curiosity. Prior to the New Covenant, did the ancient Jewish authorities (Pharisees, high priest, etc.) exercise any sort of infallibility, comparable to papal and magisterial infallibility of today? I recall when Jesus told the people to obey the teachings of the Pharisees but not follow their hypocritical personal examples. I’m pretty fuzzy on my understanding of how Jewish authority operated under the Old Testament, and how things were authoritatively passed down prior to Christ. Just a curiosity of mine, and it might help to know this if I’m ever asked something along these lines by somebody not familiar with Catholicism. Thanks!

 

[1ke]

No. Not infallibility.

 

[MarcoPolo]

They did not teach it as an official charism of the Spirit, but there is at least, I would say, a type of it associated with the “high priest.”*John 11:49-52 But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. *

 

[DavidFilmer]

I recall when Jesus told the people to obey the teachings of the Pharisees but not follow their hypocritical personal examples.

I think you have Matthew 23 in mind:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses [we would say Peter]. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Matt 23:1-3]

Jesus did not claim that the Pharisees taught infallibly, but authoritatively. The fact that they were hypocrites who did not follow their own instruction does not diminish their authority.

This is a useful passage in Catholic apologetics because it demonstrates that authority is not dependent on personal merit (so sinful Bishops and Popes still exercise full authority). But the text cannot go so far as to imply that the Pharisees were infallible - only authoritative.

The Jewish Church has never had a central authority comparable to a Pope.

 

[Abu]

Catholics are reassured when Mother Angelica’s outstanding group at EWTN through Dr David Gregson, as well as the New Catholic Encyclopedia, agreeing with the older Catholic Encyclopedia, affirm the truth that the pronouncement of a canonization by a Pope is an exercise of infallibility. [Post #8].

Further, in Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, by Archbishop Michael Sheehan and revised by Fr Peter Joseph, Saint Augustine Press, 2001, p 187, under dogmatic facts: “It has been the common teaching of theologians that a canonization is an infallible proclamation of a dogmatic fact. A canonization is a solemn declaration that a member of the Church is now in Heaven and is enrolled in the ‘canon’ (official list) of saints, for public veneration and invocation by all the faithful.”

The Council of Trent has defined the Catholic teaching on the invocation of the saints: “It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ, who alone is our redeemer and Saviour.” This Is The Faith, Canon Francis Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, England, 1973, p 269-70].

Of what value is such an invocation if we fantasise that there is no certainty, through infallibility, that anyone is a saint?

Additionally Catholic teaching has been clarified as summarised below by none other than the acknowledged St John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Catholics are reassured when Mother Angelica’s outstanding group at EWTN through Dr David Gregson, as well as the New Catholic Encyclopedia, agreeing with the older Catholic Encyclopedia, affirm the truth that the pronouncement of a canonization by a Pope is an exercise of infallibility. [Post #8].

The above cited sources are opinion, not infallible or non-infallible doctrine. The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates a diverse set of theological opinions on the topic, and none supports the idea that a canonization is a dogmatic fact. So the opinion you cite below from the private theology of one Bishop is a minority opinion.

Further, in Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, by Archbishop Michael Sheehan and revised by Fr Peter Joseph, Saint Augustine Press, 2001, p 187, under dogmatic facts: “It has been the common teaching of theologians that a canonization is an infallible proclamation of a dogmatic fact. A canonization is a solemn declaration that a member of the Church is now in Heaven and is enrolled in the ‘canon’ (official list) of saints, for public veneration and invocation by all the faithful.”

That book expresses an opinion; it is not an act of the Magisterium.

The Council of Trent has defined the Catholic teaching on the invocation of the saints: “It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ, who alone is our redeemer and Saviour.” This Is The Faith, Canon Francis Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, England, 1973, p 269-70].

The Council did not address the question as to whether every canonization is infallible.

The question has not been decided by the Magisterium, and therefore the faithful may hold any pious opinion which they believe to be true, as long as it does not conflict with doctrine or dogma.

 

[Abu]

The faithful assent to the teaching of the Church, rather than mere opinions.

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
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 …37 [My emphasis]

“Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, the Solemnity of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  Prefect
  Note:
  37 Cf. DS 3315-3319.”
  ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Bl John Paul II’s *Motu Proprio *(= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998:
“Canon 750.2. Each and every proposition stated definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of the faith or morals, that is, each and every proposition required for the sacred preservation and faithful explanation of the same deposit of faith, must also be firmly embraced and maintained; anyone, therefore, who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.” [My emphasis].

Thus from post #12: Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.

Thus the faithful are assured that the canonizations of saints are dogmatic facts to be held definitively.

 

[Odell]

Compare it to a king or other ruler. Not every utterance of a king is law. Rather, he has to formally legislate.

When the Pope lays down the “law of belief” he is infallible, but his other personal utterances do not determine what the Church believes, and are therefore not infallible. This is because the Pope’s infallibility is the same infallibility of the whole Church’s teaching and belief, and therefore he is only infallible when he definitively determines and binds the Church’s beliefs.

This was helpful. Thank you. Key word being DEFINITIVELY.

 

[DavidFilmer]

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
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

Ah, I had not thought the Church had officially addressed whether canonization of Saints is to be regarded as infallible. This statement settles the question beyond all doubt - Canonizations are NOT regarded as infallible.

ALL Church teaching is to be held definitively, but only those teachings which are declared as divinely revealed are to be regarded as infallible (that’s what “divinely revealed” means - ONLY that which is “divinely revealed” can be regarded as infallible, since anything else is, umm, not “divinely revealed” and thus possibly subject to error, as God alone (and teachings that he reveals) can be infallible).

I will tag this post with some keywords to aid those who wish to search on this topic in the future: KEYWORDS CANONIZATION SAINT INFALLIBLE PAPAL DECREE DE FIDE SAINTHOOD ELEVATE ELEVATION PROMOTE PROMOTION PROCESS CERTIFIED MIRACLE DEVIL’S DEVILS ADVOCATE

I have decided to start a thread to bring these several non-infallible matters to the attention of the CAF community, as there seems to be much misunderstanding about these topics. Alas, I have typed this addendum after already posting my reply, and I will not have that additional post in-place before the 20-minute time limit on post edits, so I am unable to post a link here, but you can find it with a title beginning with “Non-Infallible Teachings”