You have a hangup not only on Lefebvre, but also on Aquinas. It seems as if in your mind, if Aquinas didn’t say it, then it must not be true or the other way around.
Amazing. Now you are trashing St. Thomas in order to support the emotional doctrine of papalotry.
Read what Pope St. Pius XI had to say about St. Thomas.
saints.sqpn.com/pope0259s.htm
Aquinas never said that the Immaculate Conception was true.
Aquinas never denied it, and he laid the groundwork for the formulations of the dogma.
“Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.” From the Commentary on the Book of Sentences.
Here’s the whole article:
the-pope.com/stThomas.html
Aquinas also said that masturbation was sinful because there was a human person in every sperm cell.
Not quite. How 'bout if you source that one?
Aquinas also did not know about canonizations, because in the Middle Ages canonizations were rare. None of the prophets, apostles, Fathers of the Church or early saints were ever canonized. One of the first people to be canonized was Francis of Assisi in 1228. There was no official canon law, much less an office for the causes of saints. Therefore, Aquinas would not be against canonizations. He simply described it as he knew it in his time.
OH! Then I’m sure you can point to the papal document or the council decree that states that canonizations are infallible.
Funny, I thought Revelation was closed. Who’d have thought that God was transmitting direct information to the Pope’s mind? Wow.
All devotions to saints were pious devotions, even devotions to the Blessed Mother.
Saints were publicly venerated through vox populi, that’s the form that Aquinas was familiar with.
Then why was he referring to the canonizations of the Pope as being infallible or not?
As to the decree being infallible, it goes without saying.
Hah! How can you have something infallilbe in the Church without it being said? That goes against the whole concept of infallible definitions.
The Pope is telling the Church that he recognizes that an individual is in Heaven and also gives permission for the faithful to venerate that saint.
No. Canonization states that the Church has a moral certitude concerning the sanctity of a person’s life, heroic virtue etc. and that they are in Heaven.
There is no more public revelation. No absolute certitude on the state of a person’s soul after the death of the Apostle is possible. Canonizations are not infallible.
He goes beyond that, he includes that saint in the liturgical calendar of the Church.
And???
How can a Pope include the veneration of a saint into the liturgy and endorse the veneration of a saint, without infallibility, when these are statements of faith?
They are educated guesses, not new rervelations.
He is speaking about the Communion of Saints, which is a dogma of the Church.
The Communion of Saints is a part of Revelation. Joe Schmoe who lived and died in the 20th Century is not part of the that Revelation.
He is saying that this person is truly among the Church triumphant and worthy of public veneration.
He’s making a judgment call that it’s safe to assume that that person is in Heaven. But it’s not an infallible statement. St. Robert Bellarmine said the Pope could be wrong based on the human information he’s given concerning a certain person. And Bellarmine indisputably knew what papal canonizations were.
There maybe theologians who have issues with this as to whether it’s infallible or not, but the Popes don’t have issues with it.
John XXIII was not a fan of papal infallibility. Especially since he took away the canonization of St. Philomena. She was canonized by Pope Gregory XVI. What do you think of that?
Their opinion is the last word on the public veneration of Blesseds and Saints.
What about when they contradict each other as in the case of multiple Popes for St. Philomena and John XXIII against?
If you have a problem with any of these saints, it is up to you to prove that the beatifications or canonizations were wrong, not up the the Holy See.
The problem I have is:
- Mother Teresa is not declared a saint and hopefully won’t be until the confusion concerning her indifferentism is cleared up.
- You keep insisting things are infallible that aren’t.
The difference between them and you is that they have the authority to make these statements and you don’t.
The difference is, I don’t invent authority for them that they don’t claim and don’t have.
It is what it is. Even Archbishop Lefebvre would not question the Pope on Beatifications or Canonizations.
In fact, prior to his defection, he participated in several alongside Pope John Paul II.
Uh…I’m not familiar with that. Do you want to expand on that a little? Names, dates. LeFebvre was already in heated battles with the Curia and could not get to Paul VI for years. He only had one meeting with JPII which was illuminating. I seriously doubt LeFebvre was in good enough standing to participate in what Cardinal Oddi called “the Saint Factory.”
I doubt that he would be so inconsistent or arrogant as to say that only the Beatifications and Canonizations which he dignified with his presence were valid.
I don’t believe LeFebvre ever directly commented on the issue. But the SSPX has simply expressed doubt about the methods of the modern canonization process and suspends judgement until they can be re-examined. I know that Bishop Williamson has little doubt about St. John Neumann and Padre Pio, but Jose’ Escriva he is doubtful about.
Try that on for size and see if it fits.
It’s a little too loose. Try to tighten up your arguments a bit.
