It is currently Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:41 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
 Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations 
Author Message

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
I'm currently having a discussion on Archbishop Lefebvre Forum on Sede Vacantism; we were arguing about the validity of the post Vatican II canonizations, somebody just posted this argument that I have never run across before:
Quote:
The problem with Vatican II canonizations is that they reverted back to the standards of the 12th century, which was only the judgment of a local bishop for beatification and canonization of a person, the Pope merely confirming the judgment. In Pope Benedict XIV's judgment, the canonizations and beatifications up to the 12th century were non-infallible.

Is this accurate?

http://abplefebvreforums.proboards.com/ ... ollTo=6237

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Michael Wilson wrote:
I'm currently having a discussion on Archbishop Lefebvre Forum on Sede Vacantism; we were arguing about the validity of the post Vatican II canonizations, somebody just posted this argument that I have never run across before:
Quote:
The problem with Vatican II canonizations is that they reverted back to the standards of the 12th century, which was only the judgment of a local bishop for beatification and canonization of a person, the Pope merely confirming the judgment. In Pope Benedict XIV's judgment, the canonizations and beatifications up to the 12th century were non-infallible.

Is this accurate?

http://abplefebvreforums.proboards.com/ ... ollTo=6237


Ask him to give you Benedict XIV´s quote; otherwise what he says has no value.

Besides, a canonization is infallible because of the judgment of the Pope. The process is irrelevant to the question.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:12 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Dear Michael,

Well, it's an interesting argument, but it doesn't strike me as right (however I haven't clicked on your link to see if the argument is developed properly).

The keys seem to me to be simply that the decree is clear that the person is in heaven (which includes the obligation to venerate them publicly, not just the permission to do so), and that it is issued solemnly by the Roman Pontiff. From these two factors we conclude that the Catholic Church has committed herself to the doctrine that this individual is a saint.

Now, some time ago I did look up some decrees of canonisation in order to check the modern ones and compare them with old ones. I recall two specifically - that of St. Joan of Arc, and that of Josemaria Escriva. I was surprised to discover that the decree of canonisation of the latter was, if anything, more clearly assertive regarding his sanctity than that of St. Joan of Arc.

Here they are (thank you Google!):
Quote:
http://www.maidofheaven.com/joanofarc_canonization.asp

Behold, that moment of time, so long awaited by good men, has now come, when the sanctity of Joan of Arc, supereminent in every respect, is ratified by the authority of Peter. May the whole Catholic world hear, and just as it has come to admire her brave deeds in defense of her country, may it now and henceforward venerate her as a most brilliantly shining light of the Church Triumphant.


Quote:
http://www.opusdei.org.au/art.php?p=12479

Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter's Square, before an immense multitude of the faithful, we have pronounced the following formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá to be a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what we have declared, we desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, the sixth day of October, in the two thousand and second year of our Lord, of our Pontificate the twenty-fourth.

John Paul
Bishop of the Catholic Church

Marcello Rossetti, protonotary apostolic


I don't see anything in the point that the process is different, less rigorous, etc., since that seems to me to be suggesting that the Church's infallibility relies upon her human efforts. The equivalent would be to suggest that if a pope can be shown to have been sloppy in preparing a solemn dogmatic decree, then the decree itself is suspect of error. But this notion is explicitly rejected by all theologians. Dogmatic decrees stand alone, infallible because of the authority which promulgated them, not because of - and without dependence upon - anything which went into their preparation.

What I expected to find with the Modernist decrees of canonisation, precisely because Modernists do not believe in the principle of authority, was that they would present the person as a saint, but not declare that it is so authoritatively, nor impose anything. Yet Escriva's decree is very clear on these points.

Anyway, it's an interesting situation, given the looming canonisation of Wojtyla. Will it cause non-sedes to reconsider their position? I suspect not, actually, because of confusion over the infallibility of canonisations.

What does seem to me to be making people reconsider is Francis himself, however. In 1973 the sedevacantist was the man who said that, despite all appearances, Paul VI could not be pope; in 2013 the sedeplenist is the man who says that, despite all appearances, Francis is pope. The entire question has been turned upon its head, I think.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Michael Wilson wrote:
I'm currently having a discussion on Archbishop Lefebvre Forum on Sede Vacantism; we were arguing about the validity of the post Vatican II canonizations, somebody just posted this argument that I have never run across before:
Quote:
The problem with Vatican II canonizations is that they reverted back to the standards of the 12th century, which was only the judgment of a local bishop for beatification and canonization of a person, the Pope merely confirming the judgment. In Pope Benedict XIV's judgment, the canonizations and beatifications up to the 12th century were non-infallible.

Is this accurate?

http://abplefebvreforums.proboards.com/ ... ollTo=6237


Michael, I clicked on the link. St. Thomas says this, Benedict XIV says that, and Fr. Faber says something else - but no quotes?

One good link, however (Fr. Faber's Essay on Beatification, Canonisation, and the Processes of the Congregation of Rites): http://archive.org/details/anessayonbeatif00fabegoog

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John and Christian,
Thank you for your help; I will look into the links and then post a reply to QVP when I get a chance.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
I asked Q.V.P. If he had the quote from Benedict XIV on the non-infallibility of the pre-13th c. Canonizations and he said that he didn't have the quote, but linked me to a pair of articles:
Quote:
I don't have the quote, but I have the reference, from the Angelus two-part article on beatification and canonization:
2 Such is the opinion of Benedict XIV in his treatise On the Beatification and Canonization of Saints, Bk. I, Ch. X, No. 6.

Here is the article: Part 1 - www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section ... le_id=3227

Part 2 - www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section ... le_id=3238

I just started on the first one; and I will try to read more this weekend.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:46 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
I'm reading this now, Michael, and it's excellent so far. It's by Fr. Gleize, an excellent theologian in my opinion. It is interesting to see that he very clearly disagrees with the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject on one point, that of the specific judgement that the pope is infallible in making when he canonises somebody. The CE author, Camillo Beccari, S.J., says: "What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven."

Fr. Gleize is very clear to the contrary. He writes, "The object of canonization is threefold, for this act does not involve the cultus only. Firstly, the pope declares that the faithful departed is in the glory of heaven; secondly, he declares that the faithful departed merited to reach this glory by the exercise of heroic virtues which serve as an example for the whole Church; thirdly, in order to better set these virtues as an example and to thank God for having made them possible, he prescribes that public veneration be rendered to the faithful departed. Regarding these three points: canonization is a precept; it obliges the whole Church; it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act."

And, "For St. Thomas, canonization calls for infallibility not in the first place as disciplinary law, but as the profession of a truth that is virtually revealed. This does not exclude the other two aspects: the example of the saint’s life and the prescribed cultus. But there is an order among the three judgments the pope makes when he canonizes a saint. The first judgment bears upon a theoretical fact and states that a deceased person persevered to the end in the heroic exercise of supernatural virtue and is at present glorified in eternal beatitude. The second judgment gives the heroic virtues practiced during the canonized person’s lifetime to the whole Church as a model to imitate. The third judgment is a precept that imposes public veneration of the saint on the whole Church. Canonization gives the heroic virtues of the saint as a model and makes his cultus obligatory. But it assumes the fact of the saint’s glorification. Benedict XIV, who quotes and adopts these reflections of St. Thomas, considers that, in the last analysis, the judgment of canonization rests upon a statement of a speculative truth deduced from revelation."

(Points of interest: Beccari was Postulator General of the Jesuits in Rome, which meant he was a kind of ecclesiastical lawyer and expert on canonisations, especially on the process, with responsibility for acting as the advocate for Jesuits proposed for beatification or canonisation at the Congregation of Rites. If Beccari has "never seen this question discussed" then one would be confident that it is absent from the works of the major theologians and from the manuals. I would like to see what Benedict XIV says on this, if anything. Fr. Gleize seems to suggest that he does address the matter.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
I read the first part:

I agree with most of what he says in the first part. I obviously have problems with the last part, in special with this:

Quote:
The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is obtained, not by way of revelation, nor by way of inspiration, but by way of divine assistance. That is why the pope, in virtue of his function, is bound to employ the means required in order to elucidate the truth sufficiently and to expound it correctly; and these means are the following: meetings with bishops, cardinals, and theologians, and having recourse to their counsels. The means will vary according to the matters treated; and we must believe that when Christ promised divine assistance to St. Peter and to his successors, this promise also included the requisite and necessary means so that the Pontiff could state his judgment infallibly.


Obviously this is true, but when Gasser says: "(The Pope) is bound", does he mean it for its validity or just for its lawfulness? And even if it is necessary for the validity (which I don`t concede), who is able to decide if the means taken have been the required ones or not?

What about Padre Pío`s canonization? If it is valid, what is the difference with Escrivá? If it was invalid, why do they venerate him (Fr. Pío) publicly, as they did last year?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:24 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian, I'm with you. Fr. Gleize goes from utter clarity and logic, to vagaries and non sequiturs.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Thank you John and Christian, for taking the time to read this, and giving me your opinions.
I look forward to your comments when you finish.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:01 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Dear Michael,

I hope the following is not too esoteric, but this is a fascinating subject.

Consider this argument of Fr. Gleize:
Quote:
To corroborate these defensive arguments, St. Thomas then uses an argument of theological reason. The judgment of canonization is a judgment of the pope in a matter that implies a certain profession of faith, since to venerate a saint and imitate his virtues is to say implicitly that one believes he has attained the glory of heaven. Now, in these matters that touch upon the profession of faith, the pope’s judgment is infallible because of God’s promise. The judgment of canonization is hence infallible. It is at this point useful to turn to clarifications given by John of St. Thomas in order to understand why the divine assistance is here required in particular. The judgment of canonization can be understood as a conclusion resulting from two premises. The first is a formally revealed conditional: whoever perseveres to the end in the heroic exercise of supernatural virtues obtains an eternal recompense in glory. The second is a probable fact attested by human testimony: such a one of the faithful did persevere to the end in the heroic exercise of the supernatural virtues. The conclusion that flows from these two premises is thus obtained by means of testimony, and that is why it does not flow from a real, absolutely compelling, scientific demonstration. The judgment of canonization involves a line of argument which the classical logicians would have considered as probable. We find there what must normally be proved in every theological reasoning, since the proposition stated in the conclusion in this case is linked, albeit indirectly, to a truth of faith.18 This link is only indirect, for between the truth formally revealed and the conclusion intervenes the mediation of a truth the certitude of which is not that of faith. Though only indirect, the link exists, and the conclusion is rooted despite everything in a formal and explicit profession of faith. The difference that leads one to say that this argument is only probable is that, to establish a theological conclusion, one reasons from an evident and certain proposition of reason, whereas to establish the judgment of a canonization one reasons from testimonies. That is why divine assistance is necessary, precisely at the level of the discernment of the testimonies: infallibility cannot accompany an act in which one appeals to contingency and of which the certitude remains only probable.

One could object that if canonization is considered as infallible, it is placed on the same level as solemn, ex cathedra definitions, which seems inconceivable. Benedict XIV answers, with all of the most assured theological tradition,19 that such assimilation is, on the contrary, in the order of things.


I don't find the argument or explanation of John of St. Thomas here compelling. He seeks to explain where the divine assistance is actually given in the act of canonisation. He says (as paraphrased by Fr. Gleize):
Quote:
The judgment of canonization can be understood as a conclusion resulting from two premises. The first is a formally revealed conditional: whoever perseveres to the end in the heroic exercise of supernatural virtues obtains an eternal recompense in glory. The second is a probable fact attested by human testimony: such a one of the faithful did persevere to the end in the heroic exercise of the supernatural virtues. The conclusion that flows from these two premises is thus obtained by means of testimony, and that is why it does not flow from a real, absolutely compelling, scientific demonstration.


This is all true, except that it is not sound epistemology to describe a judgement of moral certitude as "probable" merely because it is a judgement of moral certitude. Moral certitude is a form of certitude. It is not metaphysical certitude and therefore it isn't a scientific demonstration, that is true. But here we are being brought to focus our attention on a distinction without a (relevant) difference.

Even a scientific demonstration is only able to produce certitude in the mind of one capable of grasping its force. The development of theology over the course of history shows very clearly how truths which can be scientifically demonstrated based upon one divinely revealed premiss and one naturally knowable truth, were not realised for centuries, even by the highest and most well-trained intellects. They were first proposed by some theologian or other, then taken up by others who grasped the force of the argument, and then eventually they became commonly accepted and taught. The point is that even if certitude can be achieved by one (say, the Roman Pontiff himself), infallibility is still most necessary in order for an immediate judgement of certitude to be reached by the whole Church. Whether we are speaking, therefore, of directly revealed truths or dogmatic facts, the point is the same - one man - the Roman Pontiff, achieves certitude, and then by a special Providence, that divine assistance promised to all successors of Peter, he is able to give certitude to the whole Church. That is, he is able to supply to all (including himself, as a matter of fact) a greater ground of certitude than even a scientific demonstration, the veracity of God Himself.

The point is, a papal judgement is not a scientific demonstration, nor is it a way of sharing a scientific demonstration with others; it is a new argument, a fresh epistemological fact, if you like, a new reason for all to achieve certitude about its object. This is why, if Fr. Gleize has expressed the argument of John of St. Thomas accurately, it is not right. On the ground he explains, there is no essential difference between a decree of canonisation and a dogmatic decree. Neither a scientific demonstration possessed by one man, nor a judgement of moral certitude possessed by the same man, is capable of producing certitude in the minds of all, immediately. The only thing which can and does achieve this is a new argument, on new grounds, that is, the fact of an infallible decree from a divinely guranteed source. Such a fact is no longer, essentially, an argument at all (as a demonstration is and must remain), but rather it is truly a fact, evident immediately to all (i.e. to all who have the Catholic faith).

Fr. Gleize's conclusion is unsound:
Quote:
That is why divine assistance is necessary, precisely at the level of the discernment of the testimonies: infallibility cannot accompany an act in which one appeals to contingency and of which the certitude remains only probable.
The certitude, if it is certitude, is not probable, it is certain. That is not the reason why the special assistance we call infallibility must accompany the act; the reason is to be found elsewhere, as already explained.

Fr. Gleize sees in this line of argument by John of St. Thomas a path to the notion that modern canonisations are not infallible due to defects in the Process. But this seems to me to be merely a new way of arriving at an old error - viz. that the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is contingent on the quality of the acts which led up to his final judgement. As Cristian has pithily observed, it's the judgement itself that is infallible, not anything else, and most certainly not the reasoning that led to it. No doubt Providence aids the Church Teaching in arriving at true certitude regarding a proposition which is definable; but the final judgement is not infallible because of that Providence, that assistance granted to theologians and bishops engaged in theological effort. No, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is a charism, a special intervention by God at the very moment when an infallible decree is promulgated, ensuring that it contains no error.

This is true of canonisations just as it is of dogmatic decrees. If modern canonisations are not infallible (as they manifestly are not), then the reason must be found in some essential defect in the decrees themselves, and their promulgation. Personally, I can see none except for the absence of a Roman Pontiff to deliver them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
I agree with your post John.

Some further thoughts:

Fr. Gleize:
Quote:
The judgment of canonization can be understood as a conclusion resulting from two premises. The first is a formally revealed conditional: whoever perseveres to the end in the heroic exercise of supernatural virtues obtains an eternal recompense in glory. The second is a probable fact attested by human testimony: such a one of the faithful did persevere to the end in the heroic exercise of the supernatural virtues. The conclusion that flows from these two premises is thus obtained by means of testimony, and that is why it does not flow from a real, absolutely compelling, scientific demonstration.


I don´t know why Fr makes that reasoning. Marín Solá, in his masterpiece (a must read), "The homogeneous evolution..." makes this reasoning (and I hope I´m not misunderstanding the subjects):

Major: It is revealed that every saint, if the Church canonizes him, it is infallible saint, or is infallibly in heaven.

Minor: but, this saint (say Saint Isidoro for instance) has been canonized by the Church.

Therefore it is revealed that this saint is infallibly saint or that he is infallibly in heaven.

Is not this the true reasoninig? You have a major which is reavealed and then a minor (a fact) included in the major, and then the theological conclusion.

See that no one puts the major in these terms: "It is revealed that every saint, if the Church canonizes him through a due process, it is infallible saint, or is infallibly in heaven".

Anyway, I haven´t read the second part yet... where is suppose to be the quote or reference of Benedict XIV?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:53 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Major: It is revealed that every saint, if the Church canonizes him, it is infallible saint, or is infallibly in heaven.

Minor: but, this saint (say Saint Isidoro for instance) has been canonized by the Church.

Therefore it is revealed that this saint is infallibly saint or that he is infallibly in heaven.

Is not this the true reasoninig?


Well, it assumes, in the major, that the Church is infallible in canonising. I have no problem with this, I agree with it of course, but it's always good to recognise what's actually being asserted.

The real question is whether the meaning of the term "revealed" has changed from the major to the conclusion. If it has, then the reasoning is false; if not, it is sound and the conclusion true.

Do you agree?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John and Christian,
thank you again; I read through your critiques, this will give me the material that I need to formulate a response to QVP; I need to finish reading the second part of the article and then post a reply.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I read the first part:

I agree with most of what he says in the first part. I obviously have problems with the last part, in special with this:

Quote:
The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is obtained, not by way of revelation, nor by way of inspiration, but by way of divine assistance. That is why the pope, in virtue of his function, is bound to employ the means required in order to elucidate the truth sufficiently and to expound it correctly; and these means are the following: meetings with bishops, cardinals, and theologians, and having recourse to their counsels. The means will vary according to the matters treated; and we must believe that when Christ promised divine assistance to St. Peter and to his successors, this promise also included the requisite and necessary means so that the Pontiff could state his judgment infallibly.


Obviously this is true, but when Gasser says: "(The Pope) is bound", does he mean it for its validity or just for its lawfulness? And even if it is necessary for the validity (which I don`t concede), who is able to decide if the means taken have been the required ones or not?

What about Padre Pío`s canonization? If it is valid, what is the difference with Escrivá? If it was invalid, why do they venerate him (Fr. Pío) publicly, as they did last year?

Msgr. Gasser in his "relation" to the Council Fathers states the following (The Gift of Infallibility" translated with commentary by the Rev. James T. O'Connor) pg. 50:
Quote:
Nevertheless, some of the most reverend Fathers, not content with these conditions, go farther and even want to put into this constitution conditions which are found in different ways in different theological treatises and which concern the good faith and diligence of the Pontiff in searching out and enunciating the truth. However, these things, since they concern the conscience of the Pontiff rather than his relation [to the Church], must be considered as touching on the moral order rather than the dogmatic order. For with great care Our Lord Jesus Christ willed that the charism of truth depend not on the conscience of the Pontiff, which is private-even most private-to each person, and known to God alone, but rather on the public relation of the Pontiff to the universal Church. If it were otherwise, this gift of infallibility would not be an effective means for preserving and repairing the unity of the Church. But in no way, therefore, should it be feared that the universal Church could be led into error about faith through the bad faith and negligence of the Pontiff. For the protection of Christ and the divine assistance promised to the successors of Peter is a cause so efficacious that the judgement of the Supreme Pontiff would be impeded if it were to be erroneous and destructive to the Church; of, if in fact the Pontiff really arrives at a definition, it will truly stand infallibly.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Here is what Fr. Auguste-Alexis Goupil S.J.states in his book "La Regle de la Foi" pg. 13. Par. 15
http://catholicapedia.net/Documents/cah ... oi_48p.pdf
Quote:
oin de remplacer l’activité humaine, elle l’exige : le Pape et les Évêques doivent
chercher avec soin la vérité révélée, s’aider des travaux des théologiens et des exégètes ; quoique la valeur de la défini-
tion dogmatique ne dépende pas de la valeur de la recherche.


My translation:
"Far from replacing human activity; it (the Divine assistance) requires it; the Pope and bishops should carefully examine revealed truth, utilize the works of theologians and exegetes; however, the value of the dogmatic definition does not depend on the worth of the investigations."

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Major: It is revealed that every saint, if the Church canonizes him, it is infallible saint, or is infallibly in heaven.

Minor: but, this saint (say Saint Isidoro for instance) has been canonized by the Church.

Therefore it is revealed that this saint is infallibly saint or that he is infallibly in heaven.

Is not this the true reasoninig?


Well, it assumes, in the major, that the Church is infallible in canonising. I have no problem with this, I agree with it of course, but it's always good to recognise what's actually being asserted.

The real question is whether the meaning of the term "revealed" has changed from the major to the conclusion. If it has, then the reasoning is false; if not, it is sound and the conclusion true.

Do you agree?


Yes, of course I agree, the whole point of Marín Solá is that the minor is "inside" the major, so to speak, and that´s why it can be defined as a dogma that some person is saint and is in heaven. In the same way that it can be definied as dogma any theological conclusion.

But again, maybe this is something different to the question Michael propossed.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Michael Wilson wrote:
Here is what Fr. Auguste-Alexis Goupil S.J.states in his book "La Regle de la Foi" pg. 13. Par. 15
http://catholicapedia.net/Documents/cah ... oi_48p.pdf
Quote:
oin de remplacer l’activité humaine, elle l’exige : le Pape et les Évêques doivent
chercher avec soin la vérité révélée, s’aider des travaux des théologiens et des exégètes ; quoique la valeur de la défini-
tion dogmatique ne dépende pas de la valeur de la recherche.


My translation:
"Far from replacing human activity; it (the Divine assistance) requires it; the Pope and bishops should carefully examine revealed truth, utilize the works of theologians and exegetes; however, the value of the dogmatic definition does not depend on the worth of the investigations."


Thanks for these quotes Michael!

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:37 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
You're welcome Christian.
I was reading over Fr. Gleize's article and I would like to know what either one of you or both, think about this:
Quote:
Now, if one observes the new norms promulgated in 1983 by the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of John Paul II, it is clear that in the precise case of canonizations the pope, for the sake of collegiality, will exercise his teaching authority according to this third mode. Taking into account both the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983 and the Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem of 1998, when the pope exercises his personal teaching authority [magisterium] to proceed to a canonization, it seems that his will is to intervene as the organ of the collegial magisterium; thus canonizations are no longer guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the pope’s solemn magisterium. Would they be so in virtue of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the College of Bishops? Until the present, the entire theological tradition has never said that such was the case, and has always regarded the infallibility of canonizations as the fruit of a divine assistance granted only to the personal magisterium of the pope, which can be likened to ex cathedra pronouncements [locutio ex cathedra]. This constitutes a second reason authorizing us to entertain serious doubts about the infallibility of the canonizations carried out in conformity with the postconciliar reforms.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Major: It is revealed that every saint, if the Church canonizes him, it is infallible saint, or is infallibly in heaven.

Minor: but, this saint (say Saint Isidoro for instance) has been canonized by the Church.

Therefore it is revealed that this saint is infallibly saint or that he is infallibly in heaven.

Is not this the true reasoninig?


Well, it assumes, in the major, that the Church is infallible in canonising. I have no problem with this, I agree with it of course, but it's always good to recognise what's actually being asserted.

The real question is whether the meaning of the term "revealed" has changed from the major to the conclusion. If it has, then the reasoning is false; if not, it is sound and the conclusion true.

Do you agree?


Yes, of course I agree, the whole point of Marín Solá is that the minor is "inside" the major, so to speak,

Well, I'm not sure I follow. If the minor is intrinsic to the major, then the syllogism is just window-dressing for a blank assertion, an ipse dixit. No?

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
and that´s why it can be defined as a dogma that some person is saint and is in heaven.

No, this cannot be a dogma, in my view. It is an infallible doctrine, but not a divinely revealed one. I believe that there is such a thing as ecclesiastical faith. This is what Marin-Sola is really addressing, of course, and I think I am definitely against his thesis. His syllogism here is really false, in my view, in that he is changing the meaning of "revealed" from the major to the conclusion. In the major it means what we have always understood it to mean - public revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle. In the conclusion it means something else, something which would include facts which are guaranteed infallibly by the Church but which occurred after the death of the last Apostle. Such infallibly guaranteed facts do indeed exist, of course, but that's beside the point. Marin-Sola is asserting that such facts are parts of Revelation, and therefore they are actually definable as dogmas.

This doesn't mean his book is no good. What he and the other fellow whose name I forget have done is to clarify to a great degree this question of ecclesiastical faith, and the scope of infallibility. I think infallibility most definitely contains within its bounds things which are not parts of Revelation as such, and that's that.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
In the same way that it can be definied as dogma any theological conclusion.


It's late, and I'm tired, but I think that's mistaken, Cristian. Is it not the case that only one class of theological conclusions, the most directly derived ones, can be defined as dogmas? The ones that are truly implicit in the directly revealed truths? Or is this what part of this debate is about?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Lane wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I follow. If the minor is intrinsic to the major, then the syllogism is just window-dressing for a blank assertion, an ipse dixit. No?


How so? Marín Solá says it is a particular (this saint) case of a universal (every saint) principle.

Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
and that´s why it can be defined as a dogma that some person is saint and is in heaven.

No, this cannot be a dogma, in my view. It is an infallible doctrine, but not a divinely revealed one. I believe that there is such a thing as ecclesiastical faith. This is what Marin-Sola is really addressing, of course, and I think I am definitely against his thesis. His syllogism here is really false, in my view, in that he is changing the meaning of "revealed" from the major to the conclusion. In the major it means what we have always understood it to mean - public revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle. In the conclusion it means something else, something which would include facts which are guaranteed infallibly by the Church but which occurred after the death of the last Apostle. Such infallibly guaranteed facts do indeed exist, of course, but that's beside the point. Marin-Sola is asserting that such facts are parts of Revelation, and therefore they are actually definable as dogmas.


The whole subject is fascinating isn´t it? Do you think it deserves its own topic? I think we are talking about something else (very much related for sure) than the infallibility of the canonizations?

Quote:
This doesn't mean his book is no good. What he and the other fellow whose name I forget have done is to clarify to a great degree this question of ecclesiastical faith, and the scope of infallibility. I think infallibility most definitely contains within its bounds things which are not parts of Revelation as such, and that's that.


I think you mean Bp Fidel Martínez. I´m sure you recall this http://strobertbellarmine.net/fenton_ec ... faith.html any objection?

Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
In the same way that it can be definied as dogma any theological conclusion.


It's late, and I'm tired, but I think that's mistaken, Cristian. Is it not the case that only one class of theological conclusions, the most directly derived ones, can be defined as dogmas? The ones that are truly implicit in the directly revealed truths? Or is this what part of this debate is about?


According to Marín Solá, once a universal principle is revealed (Christ died for all men), then by logical consequence its application to a particular case is also revealed (Socrates is a man, therefore He died for Sócrates). The universal principle is de fide, and its application to a particular case is also de fide, according to Marín Solá, since it is the verification of a condition.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Michael Wilson wrote:
You're welcome Christian.
I was reading over Fr. Gleize's article and I would like to know what either one of you or both, think about this:
Quote:
Now, if one observes the new norms promulgated in 1983 by the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of John Paul II, it is clear that in the precise case of canonizations the pope, for the sake of collegiality, will exercise his teaching authority according to this third mode. Taking into account both the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983 and the Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem of 1998, when the pope exercises his personal teaching authority [magisterium] to proceed to a canonization, it seems that his will is to intervene as the organ of the collegial magisterium; thus canonizations are no longer guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the pope’s solemn magisterium. Would they be so in virtue of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the College of Bishops? Until the present, the entire theological tradition has never said that such was the case, and has always regarded the infallibility of canonizations as the fruit of a divine assistance granted only to the personal magisterium of the pope, which can be likened to ex cathedra pronouncements [locutio ex cathedra]. This constitutes a second reason authorizing us to entertain serious doubts about the infallibility of the canonizations carried out in conformity with the postconciliar reforms.


Well to me it is still the same answer: the process has changed (as it did in the X cent.), but infallibility is not there. There is nothing wrong that the Pope encharge the local Bishops with the process and then he ratifies (or not) the conclusion. To me this is similar to those local councils whose definitions were later on approved by the Pope.

The effect is the same: JPII bound everyone to worship Escrivá and told us that if we imitate him we are going to heaven.

What do you think?

PS: I got the reference of Benedict XIV, but I´ll write about it later on.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:28 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Well to me it is still the same answer: the process has changed (as it did in the X cent.), but infallibility is not there. There is nothing wrong that the Pope encharge the local Bishops with the process and then he ratifies (or not) the conclusion. To me this is similar to those local councils whose definitions were later on approved by the Pope.

The effect is the same: JPII bound everyone to worship Escrivá and told us that if we imitate him we are going to heaven.

What do you think?


Yes, I agree. The only reservation I had on the point was whether they have an authority for the claim that the Church doesn't infallibly teach that pre-Process saints are saints. I've always thought of it as analogous with any other doctrinal point taught by the ordinary, universal magisterium, including dogmatic facts such as the validity of the Council of Nicea. I like your analogue of the decrees of local councils ratified by the popes. Ultimately it comes down to the authority of the pope, however exercised, even if only by tacit approval - indeed, for much of the history of the Church the bulk of her dogmas were guaranteed in this way. The extraordinary magisterium is called extra-ordinary for a reason!

In any case, Beccari in the CE is clear enough:
Quote:
Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory. But in imposing this obligation the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases. Equivalent canonization occurs when the pope, omitting the judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant of God to be venerated in the Universal Church; this happens when such a saint has been from a remote period the object of veneration, when his heroic virtues (or martyrdom) and miracles are related by reliable historians, and the fame of his miraculous intercession is uninterrupted.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:17 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I follow. If the minor is intrinsic to the major, then the syllogism is just window-dressing for a blank assertion, an ipse dixit. No?


How so? Marín Solá says it is a particular (this saint) case of a universal (every saint) principle.
...
According to Marín Solá, once a universal principle is revealed (Christ died for all men), then by logical consequence its application to a particular case is also revealed (Socrates is a man, therefore He died for Sócrates). The universal principle is de fide, and its application to a particular case is also de fide, according to Marín Solá, since it is the verification of a condition.


Yes, I accept his logic as applied to universal redemption and Socrates.

But, is the historical contingency of sanctity the same as the essential nature of a being? If Socrates lived, he was necessarily a man; if Ignatius Loyola lived, he was necessarily a man, but he didn't have to be a saint. Indeed, he was not holy, then he became so. That becoming holy occurred after the death of the last Apostle.

To my mind this is really no different from, say, the miracle of the sun at Fatima, which likewise cannot be defined as public revelation and therefore become a dogma. This historically contingent event occurred after the death of the last Apostle. Yet it was a spectacular and really undeniable miracle, most certainly divinely sent. It is a dogma that God can intervene in history and temporarily suspend the laws of nature - it is what we call a miracle. Does every miracle thereby become potentially definable as a dogma?

It seems to me that Marin-Sola has done nothing more with his syllogism than to re-state his belief that theological conslcusions properly so-called are always truly part of divine revelation and can be dogmas if and when Providence decides.


Cristian Jacobo wrote:

The whole subject is fascinating isn´t it? Do you think it deserves its own topic? I think we are talking about something else (very much related for sure) than the infallibility of the canonizations?


Yes, and yes, it's a different subject. :)

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I think you mean Bp Fidel Martínez. I´m sure you recall this http://strobertbellarmine.net/fenton_ec ... faith.html any objection?


I must go and re-read it.


Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Quote:
thus canonizations are no longer guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the pope’s solemn magisterium.


I simply don't believe that the Conciliar sect would agree with this assessment. I believe that the Conciliar sect would absolutely demand that everyone accept their pronouncement that these people are in heaven.


Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:27 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Quote:
Yes, I accept his logic as applied to universal redemption and Socrates.

But, is the historical contingency of sanctity the same as the essential nature of a being? If Socrates lived, he was necessarily a man; if Ignatius Loyola lived, he was necessarily a man, but he didn't have to be a saint. Indeed, he was not holy, then he became so. That becoming holy occurred after the death of the last Apostle.


He didn´t have to be a saint, I agree, but he is if the Church says so.

In any case we agree that the Church can define as dogma some fact that happened after the death of Saint John, right? To my mind the whole question is if that fact is just a particular fact or a dogmatic one (see below).

Quote:
To my mind this is really no different from, say, the miracle of the sun at Fatima, which likewise cannot be defined as public revelation and therefore become a dogma. This historically contingent event occurred after the death of the last Apostle. Yet it was a spectacular and really undeniable miracle, most certainly divinely sent. It is a dogma that God can intervene in history and temporarily suspend the laws of nature - it is what we call a miracle.


Here is the thing! Marín Solá explains:

Quote:
There are three kind of facts:

a) Facts expressly revealed.

b) Facts merely particular.

c) Dogmatic facts.

(...) particular facts are all those which neither are expressly stated in divine revelation, nor have a necessary relation to it. They are facts which have no relation whatsoever with the doctrine on faith and morals or, if they do, they just concern particular persons and not the whole Church, and therefore they are not absolutely necessary for the conservation or explanation of public revelation. Besides all the profane facts, they are for instance, if such matrimony was valid or not, if that person was really guilt or not, if that property belongs to this or that person (St. Thomas, Quodlibetal 9, a. 16) http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/q09.html (the last one). (pag 475/6).


And then when Marin Sola deals specifically with the canonization he distinguishes it from:

Quote:
a) One thing is the power to canonize and other is the infallibility in canonization.
b) Canonization vs. beatification.
c) “One thing is the canonization and other the miracles, private revelations, apparitions, historical facts or relics of the canonized saint. When the Church approves the miracles of a saint in the process of canonization, or when he adds them into the breviary, or institutes an especial feast to honor the apparition of some saint, such as Lourdes, Saint Michael, etc. or approves some private revelations such as Saint Brigida’ s, it the most common opinion that those miracles, apparitions, private revelations are not infallibly defined, although they deserve the pious assent and due respect to all the teaching of the Church, even the non-infallible ones. (pag 498-9)


In the article I just quoted (I couldn´t find it in English. Please try to find it, since it is very important) Saint Thomas says that the canonization is related to the dogma of the glory that the saints enjoy in heaven. It is a particular application of the proffesion of that dogma.

And so the miracle of the sun is just a particular fact which has no necessary connection with divine revelation. Therefore the Church cannot define it as a dogma.


Quote:
Does every miracle thereby become potentially definable as a dogma?


If it was revealed yes, otherwise no. :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Ok this is what Fr. Gleize says in his second part:

Quote:
But the legislation of the 12th century merged beatifications and canonizations as two non-infallible acts


And then he quotes in the footnote 2 Benedict XIV, De Beatificatione... Bk. I, Ch. X, No. 6.

Now, see the file attached for the original latin.

It says:

1) Although sometimes the Pope has canonized some saints in a Council, nevertheless most of them have been outside the Councils. Therefore he has that authority.

2) This case of the canonizations is the same as the condemnation of heresies. Sometimes they were condemned in a Council but many times outside it.

3) Regarding the right to beatify and canonize this happened during the Pontificate of Alexander III: Bp. Arnulpho told the Pope that some person who suffered martyrdom while being drunk was worshiped as saint and so the Pope made a decree saying "it is not licit to venerate him publicly as saint without the authority of the Roman Church".

4-7): Some believe, as Bellarmine, that by this decree the Pope reserved to himself the faculty to worship the servants of God, while others say that this faculty existed before and that this decree supposed it. It is certain that Archbishops and Bishops could beatify in their provinces until Alexander III.

8) With his decree the Pope reserved to himself the faculty to beatify and canonize. Yet, some Bishops continued to perform beatifications, until finally Urban VIII cleared up the whole thing and expressly forbade them to beatify.

So... or I´ve misunderstood the text or the most that was granted was that the Bishops could only beatify (that is: allow their faithful to worship someone) but never canonize... and the reason is obvious: canonization is a law binding all the faithful to worship some saint. That universal law must have some sort of approval (at least tacit) from the Pope.

In a word, I deny Benedict XIV said what Fr. Gleize claims he did.


Attachments:
Benedict.pdf [263.13 KiB]
Downloaded 850 times

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy
Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:22 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I accept his logic as applied to universal redemption and Socrates.

But, is the historical contingency of sanctity the same as the essential nature of a being? If Socrates lived, he was necessarily a man; if Ignatius Loyola lived, he was necessarily a man, but he didn't have to be a saint. Indeed, he was not holy, then he became so. That becoming holy occurred after the death of the last Apostle.


He didn´t have to be a saint, I agree, but he is if the Church says so.


Cristian, we are absolutely agreed on the facts, it is the explanation of those facts which is the matter of the entire theological controversy. So yes, all agree that the Church is infallible in canonising saints. The question is how to describe accurately the assent which we give to the proposition that "Saint X is in heaven."

In the above I was answering a specific argument put forward by Marin-Sola. I think I have refuted it effectively. To be holy is not necessary, it is contingent. Marin-Sola's argument only works, is only valid, if the particular case is always necessarily within the universal which has been revealed. You say that Marin-Sola's argument is, "once a universal principle is revealed (Christ died for all men), then by logical consequence its application to a particular case is also revealed." I say, that this syllogism is a true syllogism, if the particular case must necessarily be within the universal. The force of it is felt by the mind to be overwhelming when one looks at the example of Socrates' human nature and universal redemption. We see immediately that the minor is really and truly contained within the major. This is simply not the case with the attempt to make the argument work for sanctity. Sanctity itself is within the minor; the sanctity of any given individual isn't. It is not implied, it is not suggested, it most certainly isn't ineluctably present there. It's a future contingent fact which bears an intimate relation to the major, but it is not logically within the major.

Now, it may be that Marin-Sola and Co. are right about their claim, but I cannot see that this argument is the reason why, or that it proves their case.

Turning to another of Marin-Sola's points (as given by Fenton), what is certainly true is that the sanctity of, say, St. Ignatius Loyola bears a real relation to the deposit of faith, and that the deposit of faith bears a real relation to St. Ignatius's sanctity. I agree with that, wholeheartedly. But the whole question is what those relations are. I have just re-read Fenton's article (I think there is another, later, article on the same subject by Fenton, no?) and I am more convinced than ever that the arguments put forward by Marin-Sola and his school are really nothing more than re-statements of the case to be proved. They all really just beg the question. They do, however, provide interesting insights into the problem. As you say, it's a fascinating problem.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
In any case we agree that the Church can define as dogma some fact that happened after the death of Saint John, right?

Are you not right here in this sentence begging the question just as Marin-Sola does? The whole controversy is over whether a dogmatic fact is assented to by divine and Catholic faith (i.e. it is truly a dogma) or by ecclesiastical or merely "catholic" faith ("catholic faith strictly so called). So no, we don't agree "that the Church can define as dogma some fact that happened after the death of Saint John."

More later, when time permits. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:17 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
This is a complete translation of a previous part I translated above (the reasoning). See if this clarifies something or not. Emphasis in the original.

Marín Solá says:

Quote:
287. First proof. According to all or almost all the theologians nowadays, it is truly revealed that “the Church is infallible in the canonization of the saints”, or, in other words, in the canonization of every saint.

This proposition, turned to the passive tense, is exactly the same as this: “It is revealed that every saint canonized by the Church is infallible saint and is infallibly in heaven”, since this is the meaning of canonization.

Put in a conditional mode, in order that we can grasp better the reasoning, it results exactly in the following proposition: “It is revealed that every saint, if the Church canonizes him, is infallibly saint or is infallibly in heaven”.

We have therefore the following reasoning:

It is revealed that every saint, if the Church canonizes him, is infallibly saint or is infallibly in heaven.

But, this saint (Saint Isidor for instance) has been canonized by the Church.

Therefore it is revealed that this saint is infallibly saint or is infallibly in heaven.

We invite the reader to examine without prejudices, all the propositions of this reasoning. The major is a universal revealed and definable as divine faith, if it is not already so, according to almost all the modern theologians. The minor limits itself to verify a condition of the revealed major. The conclusion is exactly the same revealed major, except for the difference of the universal and the particular (every/this). Therefore if once a universal is revealed, all the particulars contained in it are revealed, it is crystal clear that the conclusion “such canonized saint is in heaven” it is also revealed and it is able to be believed as divine faith.

If Saint Thomas and the immense majority of the theologians before Jansenism didn’t admit yet as divine faith this particular conclusion, it is because they didn’ t admit yet as divine faith, but as pious faith, the universal major. But nowadays this universal major is admitted as divine faith by almost all theologians.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
In any case we agree that the Church can define as dogma some fact that happened after the death of Saint John, right?

Are you not right here in this sentence begging the question just as Marin-Sola does? The whole controversy is over whether a dogmatic fact is assented to by divine and Catholic faith (i.e. it is truly a dogma) or by ecclesiastical or merely "catholic" faith ("catholic faith strictly so called). So no, we don't agree "that the Church can define as dogma some fact that happened after the death of Saint John."


Don´t you believe that it is de fide that Christ died for all? If so it is de fide that Christ died for you and me... now our birth is posterior to saint John´s death. Ergo, the Church can define as dogma that Our Lord died for you and me :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:09 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
In any case we agree that the Church can define as dogma some fact that happened after the death of Saint John, right?

Are you not right here in this sentence begging the question just as Marin-Sola does? The whole controversy is over whether a dogmatic fact is assented to by divine and Catholic faith (i.e. it is truly a dogma) or by ecclesiastical or merely "catholic" faith ("catholic faith strictly so called). So no, we don't agree "that the Church can define as dogma some fact that happened after the death of Saint John."


Don´t you believe that it is de fide that Christ died for all? If so it is de fide that Christ died for you and me... now our birth is posterior to saint John´s death. Ergo, the Church can define as dogma that Our Lord died for you and me :)


:)

I guess the Church has defined that Our Lady was redeemed, as part of the definition of the Immaculate Conception, "by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ."

What's the essential difference between that and a canonisation, as far as definability goes? Is there really a difference?

The fact of sanctity of any particular post-New Testament individual is not known to the Church by revelation given to the Apostles . I think this might be the heart of the question, really. How does the Church know that somebody is in heaven?

In the case of universal redemption, the minor is a part of the major. It's intrinsically already present. "All men were redeemed by Christ," is really only another way of saying, "Our Lady, and Cristian Jacobo, and his predecessor in wisdom Socrates, and his friend John Lane, and ..." naming every person who ever lived or ever will live. The Church only has to verify that an individual exists and it is known infallibly that he has been redeemed.

In the case of salvation, Marin-Sola is saying that the same is logically true. "All saints are in heaven," is really only another way of saying that "Our Lady is in heaven, and St. Polycarp, and St. Blandina, and St. John of the Cross, et al." But what does it mean to verify the condition, "Ignatius is a saint"? This condition is not verified by direct observation of natural fact, but rather by inference from fact, some of which is supernatural and therefore by definition unknowable by natural factulties. So is this knowledge (i.e. divinely guaranteed truth, not just an inferred probability) only possible by way of revelation? And if so, what kind of revelation?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Lane wrote:
What's the essential difference between that and a canonisation, as far as definability goes? Is there really a difference?

The fact of sanctity of any particular post-New Testament individual is not known to the Church by revelation given to the Apostles . I think this might be the heart of the question, really. How does the Church know that somebody is in heaven?

(...)

In the case of salvation, Marin-Sola is saying that the same is logically true. "All saints are in heaven," is really only another way of saying that "Our Lady is in heaven, and St. Polycarp, and St. Blandina, and St. John of the Cross, et al." But what does it mean to verify the condition, "Ignatius is a saint"? This condition is not verified by direct observation of natural fact, but rather by inference from fact, some of which is supernatural and therefore by definition unknowable by natural factulties. So is this knowledge (i.e. divinely guaranteed truth, not just an inferred probability) only possible by way of revelation? And if so, what kind of revelation?


Actually the arguments of Marín Solá are the following ones:

1) According to all or almost all the theologians nowadays, it is truly revealed that “the Church is infallible in the canonization of the saints”, or, in other words, in the canonization of every saint.

2) "It is revealed that every saint canonized by the Church is infallible saint and is infallibly in heaven”.

3) “It is revealed that every saint, if the Church canonizes him, is infallibly saint or is infallibly in heaven”.

4) The Church has canonized St Ignatius.

5) Ergo it is revealed that he is in heaven.

It is exactly the same with Councils and Popes. The Church may define as fide divina that such Council, say Trent, was an Ecumenical one, or that such Pope, say Pius XI, was Pope.

Fenton (btw I´m not aware of any other work of Fenton dealing with this, I hopw it exists :)) in the article I quoted earlier says:

Quote:
It would seem that the basic reason that constituted the Jansenists as heretics was their refusal to accept the authoritative and infallible decision of a Sovereign pontiff about a dogmatic fact. The men of Port Royal claimed that they rejected with the Church the five propositions condemned by Pope Innocent X in the Constitution Cum occasione. What they would not admit, however, was the fact, likewise taught authoritatively and infallibly by the Sovereign Pontiff, that these propositions expressed teaching actually contained in the book, Augustinus. That refusal gained them the designation of heretics.


The Jansenists were heretics not because they rejected the 5 propositions condemned by the Pope (actually they agreed with them), but because they said that those 5 propositions were not present in the book of Jansenius. This is a dogmatic fact. And so are canonizations.

PS: I don´t have all this crystal clear, of course! Just trying to learn :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Yes, I read the Fenton article, but I wasn't convinced by any of the arguments. The argument from Vatican I seemed to me to ignore the term "guard" in the text it quotes, and the one from the earlier profession of faith seemed to me to an enormous stretch based upon a really incidental fact of wording. The latter argument would have force if that wording had been noticed and relied upon by other, contemporary, theologians. Instead, it gets noticed a few centuries later? No, sorry, that's a whole wrong approach to sacred tradition.

Does the Church really teach as of divine faith that Trent was a true and valid general council? Is not this the entire argument in a nutshell?

The argument based upon the designation "heretics" seems also to be a stretch. Cartechini says that such miscreants are heretics against ecclesiastical faith, and he does not say that they automatically lose their membership in the Church, which makes them a different class of culprits than "full" heretics. Now, I cannot define what the difference is, but in the opinion of Cartechini (and others, I understand) it exists.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
PS: I don´t have all this crystal clear, of course! Just trying to learn :)


Yes, me too. I could well be entirely wrong. I just don't find the arguments put, convincing. That's simply the fact of it.

The reality that these men are grappling with is apparent, however. Somehow we do indeed ascribe to divine authority and infallibility the things that the Church teaches infallibly even when we do not think that they were revealed to the Apostles in the obvious sense of that term. How do we explain that? That's the question.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Lane wrote:
Does the Church really teach as of divine faith that Trent was a true and valid general council? Is not this the entire argument in a nutshell?


It may do that, since it is revelaed that "every Ecumencial Council is a rule of faith" or, in other words, "every Council is a rule of faith if it is ecumenical" (Marín Solá)

In the footnote to of page 476 Marin Sola says (his emphasis):

Quote:
We give as an example of a dogmatic fact the “orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the texts”, for instance the book of Jansenius, and we don’ t give the example of the facts whether such Council is infallible, if such version of the Bible is authentic, if such Pope is really Pope, etc. etc. in order that it doesn’t seem that we are trying to prejudge the question with these examples, examples that all agree are fide divina. But in fact, they are all dogmatic facts. If the modern authors, when dealing with the dogmatic facts, usually give as an example the book of Jansenius, and not if that Council is infallible, etc. it is because that would show the inconsistence or incoherence they fall while admitting as of divine faith some facts and as of ecclesiastical faith some others. As we will see, the dogmatic characters of all these facts are exactly the same. There is but one kind of dogmatic facts, in the same way as there is but one kind of theological conclusions. To say otherwise is, in our view, but pure empirism.


Regarding the Pope several authors say it is fide divina: Salmanticenses, Suarez, Tanner, Lugo, Ripalda, Arriaga, Henno, Billuart, Muncunill (who refers to all these authors).

For instance Muncunill says:

Quote:
It is de fide that St. Pius X is a true and legitimate pontiff because it was accepted as such by the whole Church. (Treatise on the Church n° 402)


The same Billuart, Dissertatio IV (De Summo Pontifice), art. IX, Utrum sit de fide Clementem XIV esse summum Pontificem? :

Quote:
Major: it is de fide that every man accepted by the whole Church as successor of Peter is the Pope.

But this particular: this man, Clement XIV, accepted by the whole Church as the successor of Peter, is the Pope, is contained in the major as the part in the whole.

Ergo it is also de fide.

No Catohlic denies the major... etc.


Quote:
The argument based upon the designation "heretics" seems also to be a stretch. Cartechini says that such miscreants are heretics against ecclesiastical faith, and he does not say that they automatically lose their membership in the Church, which makes them a different class of culprits than "full" heretics. Now, I cannot define what the difference is, but in the opinion of Cartechini (and others, I understand) it exists.


But here the thing is that the term ecclesiastical faith appeared after the condemnation of Jansenius and the Church has never understood this term in this sense, did She?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian, I wonder if you have read Billot's presentation of the view opposing Marin-Sola, in his De Ecclesia, thesis xvii ?

The problem I see is that Marin-Sola's opinion is just that - an opinion; and the Church allows the contrary opinion to be taught. Thus it is clear that at present Catholics are not obliged to hold Marin-Sola's view. But for as long as the Church permits the opposing view she cannot - and in practice does not - treat the pertinacious denial of a defined secondary object of the Magisterium as an act of heresy ; she attaches to it a grave censure, but one that falls short of heresy.

However, by the very fact that the Church acts in this way, she herself distinguishes between the primary and secondary objects of the Magisterium and their dogmatic status. This does not prove that Marin-Sola is wrong in abstract theory, but it surely shows that until such time as the Church formally defines his view as the only true one on the subject and modifies her practice accordingly, his view does not actually apply in reality.


Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:21 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Daly wrote:
Cristian, I wonder if you have read Billot's presentation of the view opposing Marin-Sola, in his De Ecclesia, thesis xvii ?


I did, long time ago. I disagreed with him. Especially after reading Bp. Fidel García Martínez´s criticism. I should re read everything, I know.

Quote:
The problem I see is that Marin-Sola's opinion is just that - an opinion; and the Church allows the contrary opinion to be taught. Thus it is clear that at present Catholics are not obliged to hold Marin-Sola's view. But for as long as the Church permits the opposing view she cannot - and in practice does not - treat the pertinacious denial of a defined secondary object of the Magisterium as an act of heresy ; she attaches to it a grave censure, but one that falls short of heresy.

However, by the very fact that the Church acts in this way, she herself distinguishes between the primary and secondary objects of the Magisterium and their dogmatic status. This does not prove that Marin-Sola is wrong in abstract theory, but it surely shows that until such time as the Church formally defines his view as the only true one on the subject and modifies her practice accordingly, his view does not actually apply in reality.


I agree. My point was though, that one thing is that something be revealed (de fide), and other is that something be defined by the Church as such (de fide divina et catholica). That´s why I said that it may be defined as dogma that N.N. is saint. The Church has never done that. I agree. But the whole discussion here (and I hope John understood it in this way) is if dogmatic facts are revealed and if the Church may define them as dogma or not. That´s why Billot says that the discussion is merely speculative (pag 435.).
This is all open to discussion, I know. It´s what we are doing here :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian, I understand that you have no dogmatic view on this, it's just a discussion. I'm in the same boat, although I used to be more inclined to the other view. In fact, I now think that the other view is really two essentially unrelated views. One is the question of ecclesiastical faith as such, versus the idea that all faith resting on an infallible assurance must be divine faith of some kind. I agree with Fenton, Beraza, et al. on this. The second is the notion that all dogmatic facts, for example, are actually truths that are "revealed," and that I cannot see is true.

Monsignor Fenton explains:
Quote:
Those things are said to be the object of ecclesiastical faith which are connected with the deposit of revelation, and without which this [deposit of revelation] could not be preserved in its entirety. But these things, despite the fact that they are said to be connected with the deposit of revelation, are really within the deposit of revelation. This connection is doubtless a relation of some kind. This, since it is mutual, is not only a relation of the other truths with the deposit of revelation, but also a relation of the deposit of revelation with these other truths. Consequently, the magisterium of the Church, as something spiritual and supernatural, has reference to the other truths, not considered absolutely in themselves, nor even according to the relations which they have to the deposit of faith, but rather according to the relations which the deposit of faith has to these [other] truths, If these are such that from their affirmation or denial there would follow an implicit affirmation or denial of some correlative truth contained in the deposit of faith, these things are themselves implicitly revealed; and thus, properly speaking, they are not outside but inside the deposit of revelation.


Let me ask a question about these truths, such as the validity of the Council of Trent. Would the denial of its validity entail any denial of any revealed truth? (That is, any revealed truth other than the truth that the Church is infallible in her knowledge of the validity of general councils.) I do not think so. Fenton's entire argument here rests upon this notion, however: "If these are such that from their affirmation or denial there would follow an implicit affirmation or denial of some correlative truth contained in the deposit of faith, these things are themselves implicitly revealed."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Lane wrote:
I used to be more inclined to the other view. In fact, I now think that the other view is really two essentially unrelated views. One is the question of ecclesiastical faith as such, versus the idea that all faith resting on an infallible assurance must be divine faith of some kind. I agree with Fenton, Beraza, et al. on this.


Im not sure I´m following you here. Are you saying that "ecclesiastical faith" doesn´t exist since if something is infallible taught it falls under divine faith?

Quote:
The second is the notion that all dogmatic facts, for example, are actually truths that are "revealed," and that I cannot see is true.

Monsignor Fenton explains:
Quote:
Those things are said to be the object of ecclesiastical faith which are connected with the deposit of revelation, and without which this [deposit of revelation] could not be preserved in its entirety. But these things, despite the fact that they are said to be connected with the deposit of revelation, are really within the deposit of revelation. This connection is doubtless a relation of some kind. This, since it is mutual, is not only a relation of the other truths with the deposit of revelation, but also a relation of the deposit of revelation with these other truths. Consequently, the magisterium of the Church, as something spiritual and supernatural, has reference to the other truths, not considered absolutely in themselves, nor even according to the relations which they have to the deposit of faith, but rather according to the relations which the deposit of faith has to these [other] truths, If these are such that from their affirmation or denial there would follow an implicit affirmation or denial of some correlative truth contained in the deposit of faith, these things are themselves implicitly revealed; and thus, properly speaking, they are not outside but inside the deposit of revelation.


Let me ask a question about these truths, such as the validity of the Council of Trent. Would the denial of its validity entail any denial of any revealed truth? (That is, any revealed truth other than the truth that the Church is infallible in her knowledge of the validity of general councils.) I do not think so. Fenton's entire argument here rests upon this notion, however: "If these are such that from their affirmation or denial there would follow an implicit affirmation or denial of some correlative truth contained in the deposit of faith, these things are themselves implicitly revealed."


Implicitly, yes. It would mean the denial of a revealed truth, according to Marín Solá and others. The revealed truth that "every ecumencial Council is a rule of faith" and Trent was an ecumenical council. Ergo.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:05 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I used to be more inclined to the other view. In fact, I now think that the other view is really two essentially unrelated views. One is the question of ecclesiastical faith as such, versus the idea that all faith resting on an infallible assurance must be divine faith of some kind. I agree with Fenton, Beraza, et al. on this.


Im not sure I´m following you here. Are you saying that "ecclesiastical faith" doesn´t exist since if something is infallible taught it falls under divine faith?


Well, all terms must be defined or we'll never clear anything up. :) I'd say that insofar as we have God's own assurance (via the infallibility of the Church) for anything, we have some kind of divine faith in it; whereas I also cannot see that it was part of the Deposit, to be guarded for all time, that St. Ignatius Loyola is a saint in heaven, so in this truth we do not have the divine faith in Public Revelation that we usually refer to when we use the term "divine faith."

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Implicitly, yes. It would mean the denial of a revealed truth, according to Marín Solá and others. The revealed truth that "every ecumencial Council is a rule of faith" and Trent was an ecumenical council. Ergo.


I feel like we are looking at a Russian doll but we don't agree on which layer we're at. :) The way this argument usually works is that the Church must have infallible knowledge of, say, the validity of Pius IX's papacy or anybody with what he considered to be sufficient grounds could doubt the Immaculate Conception without heresy.

Consider Van Noort:
Van Noort wrote:
PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church's rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.


Fenton's argument is quite different from this. He is arguing not that we must have infallible assurance that Pius IX was pope in order to safeguard the intrinsically unrelated truth of the Immaculate Conception, but rather that the validity of Pius IX's reign must be infallibly taught by the Church since the validity of all true popes is within the Deposit. This argument is really an apparently parallel but radically distinct argument from the traditional one. Yet it's posing as the traditional one. This seems totally illegitimate to me.

I remind you of his argument,
Monsignor Fenton wrote:
Those things are said to be [i.e. by men like Van Noort] the object of ecclesiastical faith which are connected with the deposit of revelation, and without which this [deposit of revelation] could not be preserved in its entirety. But these things, despite the fact that they are said to be connected with the deposit of revelation, are really within the deposit of revelation. [So far, you'd think he was simply abandoning the traditional argument. He appears to be saying, "not connected, within." But look how he proceeds.] This connection is doubtless a relation of some kind. This, since it is mutual, is not only a relation of the other truths with the deposit of revelation, but also a relation of the deposit of revelation with these other truths. Consequently...


What these theologians ought to say is something like, "what have traditionally been referred to as the secondary objects of infallibility were thought to be within the scope of infallibility because without an infallible assurance of them, truths which were themselves formally revealed could not be safeguarded. Now, we say that these objects of infallibility are themselves revealed, so that it is superfluous to speak of their 'connection' or 'relation' with truths formally revealed."

Do you see?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Cristian,

A bit more explanation.

Whatever the explanation of the mechanism, so to speak, the assurance we have of infallibly taught truths is from God, so we have God's own authority for believing those things, therefore we have some kind of "divine faith" in them. The term "ecclesiastical faith" as it originated at Paris does seem to imply a merely human faith (the term they used was "human and ecclesiastical faith"), which to my mind is inadequate. Unless I've misunderstood the question, the point at issue with this is inspiration vs infallibility. Since the latter is not the former - indeed, it is merely a negative guarantee - the voice of the Church remains the voice of the Church, not the voice of God (as you know well, inspired texts are truly God's own words, as He is the principle Author of them). If we were to say that when the Church speaks then God speaks, without qualification, we would risk blurring that distinction. So that is why, I think, the theologians refer to our faith in revealed truths as "divine faith" and have embraced the term "ecclesiastical faith" for the secondary objects of the magisterium.

But having safeguarded the distinction, I think we still need to recognise and acknowledge that our faith in the things infallibly proposed by the Church is divinely guaranteed, just as our faith in revealed truth itself is. There's a difference, but the difference is not that one has the certitude of God's infinite truthfulness and the other only a human certitude. Our Lord Himself declared, "We who hears you [i.e. the Church hierarchical], hears Me."

The thing to do is ensure that all terms are clearly defined. So, if by "divine faith" one means faith in public revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle, then we do not, in my opinion, believe in dogmatic facts with divine faith. But if one means by "divine faith" that one has God's assurance for the truth of the object of faith, then we do indeed have divine faith in such objects.

The Church is divine and human. Her infallibility is the Holy Ghost acting in her. Ergo.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I used to be more inclined to the other view. In fact, I now think that the other view is really two essentially unrelated views. One is the question of ecclesiastical faith as such, versus the idea that all faith resting on an infallible assurance must be divine faith of some kind. I agree with Fenton, Beraza, et al. on this.


Im not sure I´m following you here. Are you saying that "ecclesiastical faith" doesn´t exist since if something is infallible taught it falls under divine faith?


Well, all terms must be defined or we'll never clear anything up. :)


:D

Quote:
I'd say that insofar as we have God's own assurance (via the infallibility of the Church) for anything, we have some kind of divine faith in it; whereas I also cannot see that it was part of the Deposit, to be guarded for all time, that St. Ignatius Loyola is a saint in heaven, so in this truth we do not have the divine faith in Public Revelation that we usually refer to when we use the term "divine faith."


Well, it all depends on the "major" of the above-said proposition. Is it de fide or not. That is the real question at issue here.

Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Implicitly, yes. It would mean the denial of a revealed truth, according to Marín Solá and others. The revealed truth that "every ecumencial Council is a rule of faith" and Trent was an ecumenical council. Ergo.


I feel like we are looking at a Russian doll but we don't agree on which layer we're at. :) The way this argument usually works is that the Church must have infallible knowledge of, say, the validity of Pius IX's papacy or anybody with what he considered to be sufficient grounds could doubt the Immaculate Conception without heresy.


I know that´s the argument, but I´m far from being convinced :)

Quote:
Consider Van Noort:
Van Noort wrote:
PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church's rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.



Well, he was a faithful disciple of Billot :D

Quote:
Fenton's argument is quite different from this. He is arguing not that we must have infallible assurance that Pius IX was pope in order to safeguard the intrinsically unrelated truth of the Immaculate Conception, but rather that the validity of Pius IX's reign must be infallibly taught by the Church since the validity of all true popes is within the Deposit. This argument is really an apparently parallel but radically distinct argument from the traditional one. Yet it's posing as the traditional one. This seems totally illegitimate to me.


Well, actually the concept of ecclesiastical faith is very modern. You can´t find it before 18th century. And you won´t find it in any decision or teaching of the magisterium either before or after.
When the theologians before Jansenius´ controversy said that it wasn´t de fide that N.N. was saint but only a theological conclusion, the reason they gave (the Salmanticenses say this explicitly, De fide, d. 4, dub. 2, n.46) was that the major "every saint canonized by the Church" was not de fide, but if some day it were so, then also the conclusion.

Quote:
I remind you of his argument,
Monsignor Fenton wrote:
Those things are said to be [i.e. by men like Van Noort] the object of ecclesiastical faith which are connected with the deposit of revelation, and without which this [deposit of revelation] could not be preserved in its entirety. But these things, despite the fact that they are said to be connected with the deposit of revelation, are really within the deposit of revelation. [So far, you'd think he was simply abandoning the traditional argument. He appears to be saying, "not connected, within." But look how he proceeds.] This connection is doubtless a relation of some kind. This, since it is mutual, is not only a relation of the other truths with the deposit of revelation, but also a relation of the deposit of revelation with these other truths. Consequently...


What these theologians ought to say is something like, "what have traditionally been referred to as the secondary objects of infallibility were thought to be within the scope of infallibility because without an infallible assurance of them, truths which were themselves formally revealed could not be safeguarded. Now, we say that these objects of infallibility are themselves revealed, so that it is superfluous to speak of their 'connection' or 'relation' with truths formally revealed."

Do you see?


I think I understand but I´m not sure. I agree Fenton´s argument is a bit odd.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
John Lane wrote:
Cristian,

A bit more explanation.

Whatever the explanation of the mechanism, so to speak, the assurance we have of infallibly taught truths is from God, so we have God's own authority for believing those things, therefore we have some kind of "divine faith" in them.


Agreed, except that I´d take the "some kind" :D

Quote:
The term "ecclesiastical faith" as it originated at Paris does seem to imply a merely human faith (the term they used was "human and ecclesiastical faith"), which to my mind is inadequate.


Agreed!

Quote:
Unless I've misunderstood the question, the point at issue with this is inspiration vs infallibility.


I have to admit that I never thought it in this way.

Quote:
Since the latter is not the former - indeed, it is merely a negative guarantee - the voice of the Church remains the voice of the Church, not the voice of God (as you know well, inspired texts are truly God's own words, as He is the principle Author of them). If we were to say that when the Church speaks then God speaks, without qualification, we would risk blurring that distinction. So that is why, I think, the theologians refer to our faith in revealed truths as "divine faith" and have embraced the term "ecclesiastical faith" for the secondary objects of the magisterium.


Well but what if God would come down from heaven now and say "every saint the Church canonizes is in heven"? Will we believe as revealed that St. Ignatius is in heaven when the Church canonizes him?

That was what God taught 2000 years ago. (This is Marín Solá´s argument, not mine).


Quote:
The thing to do is ensure that all terms are clearly defined. So, if by "divine faith" one means faith in public revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle, then we do not, in my opinion, believe in dogmatic facts with divine faith. But if one means by "divine faith" that one has God's assurance for the truth of the object of faith, then we do indeed have divine faith in such objects.

The Church is divine and human. Her infallibility is the Holy Ghost acting in her. Ergo.


I always understood "divine faith" in the first sense in this distinction and it all comes to the same: is it revealed that every saint canonized by the Church is in heaven?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
One last argument from Marín Solá (his emphasis):

Quote:
276. The attitude of the Church. Regarding this subject of the facts, as in many others, there has been progress in the Catholic theology and to this has contributed manly, as always, the practice of the Roman Church. The strong reaction of Pope Clement VIII in the beginning of XVII century against the supporters of the well known thesis of Alcala (“it is not de fide this man, v. gr. Clement VIII is truly the Pontiff”), guided the thought of the theologians on the subject of that dogmatic fact in particular, and since then almost all admit that fact as of divine faith.

(Footnote: “Clement VIII gave a strong impulse to this sentence, jailing some doctors who thought the opposite, and ordered them to go to Rome…” (Peter Hurtado, De Fide, d. 3). Before this attitude of Rome, the theologians, both the Jesuits and Thomists, hurried to support the pontifical course (direction) in such a way that already Lugo says this teaching is held “commonly by our recent doctors” (De Fide, n. 326); and the Salmanticenses, after quoting in their favor almost all the Thomists posterior to Clement VIII, they regard it as “common teaching” (De Fide, d. 4, n. 30). Therefore, in order to defend, that the dogmatic facts, once defined by the Church, are of divine faith, the only thing he has to do the modern theologian is to apply to the dogmatic facts in general, exactly the same principles, that almost all the theologians applied since Clement VIII to the fact “whether it is of divine faith that this Pope, once accepted by the Church, is truly the Pope”, or the fact “whether it is of divine faith that this Council, once accepted as ecumenical by the Church, it is a rule of faith”. Just that.)

The posterior and no less strong attitude of Popes Innocence X, Alexander VII and Clement XI against the resistance and endless jansenistics sophistry, orientated also the Catholic theology in the study of the dogmatic fact in general, and since then you can hardly find a theologian who doesn’ t admit that it is revealed the infallibility of the Church in every dogmatic fact. Which is the same, for every Thomist, as saying that it is revealed every dogmatic fact, and therefore, it is revealed that this dogmatic fact is infallibly true after the definition. In other words, that it is of divine faith, since it is of divine faith both that which God reveals, as well as that which God reveals as true.
The only thing is that although that is of divine faith since it is contained as a particular in the revealed universal, it is not of divine faith that it is of divine faith, for not being yet defined this revealed universal. That’ s why he who denies it, it is not heretic.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
The selection below is from the 1897 book, The Creed Explained; or, An Exposition of Catholic Doctrine, by Arthur Devine [Google Books link: http://books.google.com/books?id=WT08AQAAIAAJ]

pp.300-302

Quote:
It is certain and of faith, or at least definable of faith,* that the Church has the authority to canonize Saints. That authority she has always exercised from the beginning. Either she has that authority from God, and, as it is a spiritual authority, it could not be otherwise than from God, or it must be said that the Church has exercised from the beginning an usurped authority. But this latter we cannot say; therefore the Church has this authority; therefore she has it by revelation, as that is the only way in which she could receive it from God; and therefore we may conclude that it is revealed that the Church has this authority from God.
*Murray, de Ecc. D. xvii. S. v.

6. From this it follows that the Church is infallible in the Canonization of Saints. This at least is the more common and more probable opinion of Theologians. The Church in Canonization defines a person to be a Saint, and to be regarded as such by the whole Church, and in a matter of this kind her definition must be infallible. That she declares those canonized to be Saints is evident from the Decrees and Rules of Canonization: as in the Decree of Canonization of 27 Saints by His Holiness Pius IX. on the Feast of Pentecost, 8th June, 1862. Ad honorem Sanctae et Individuae Trinitatis, & exaltationem fidei Catholicae, & Christianae religionis augmentum, auctoritate D. N. Jesu Christi, Beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli acnostra……Beatos Petrum Bapt. &c.,…… Sanctos esse decermimus & defininimus ac sanctorum cata logo adscribimus; statuentes ab ecclesia universali illorum memoriam…… quolibet anno…… pia devotione recoli debere.

"To the honour of the holy and undevided Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith, and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and Our authority, we declare and define the Blessed Peter Baptist &c. to be Saints, and to be numbered in the catalogue of the Saints, determining at the same time their memory to be kept by the universal Church every year with pious devotion."

This was the practice of the Church in former times, as we may learn from the decree of Pius II. in the Canonization of St. Catherine of Sienna: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of His Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our authority, we declare Catherine of Sienna to have been received into the heavenly Jerusalem, and to have received the crown of eternal glory; and we decree and define that she be both privately and publicly venerated as a Saint."

The same truth may be proved from the Note of Sanctity in the Church. The Church is holy, and were she to propose a wicked or ungodly person to be venerated and imitated as a Saint, the faithful would be deceived, and her sanctity would be impaired.

In concluding this subject it may be useful to explain the quality of certitude with which the proposition of the Church's infallibility in the Canonization of Saints is to be received.

Some, with Benedict XIV,* hold the proposition, which affirms the Church to be infallible in this to be of faith, but many others deny this, as the same author attests. We may therefore safely say—
*De Canoniz. 45. 14, &c.

(a) It seems that the proposition which affirms the infallibility of the Church in the Canonization of Saints is revealed, and therefore definable of faith, or one that may be defined.

(b) It appears certain that the proposition is not of divine Catholic faith, so that the opposite doctrine can be called heretical.* For although it is certainly of faith that the Church is infallible in the common doctrine of morals, it is not certain with the same certitude of faith that the Canonization of Saints pertains to the common doctrine of morals, nor do all agree that it does. There is no express definition of the Church as to its infallibility in this respect being the doctrine of divine faith, neither can it be gathered from the usual practice of the Church. Hence we believe the infallibility of the Church in the Canonization of Saints, and those whom she has canonized to be Saints, not by divine faith, nor by purely human and fallible faith, but on ecclesiastical and infallible faith, founded on the assistance given by the Holy Ghost to the Church.
*Benedict XIV., de Canoniz. N. 27.

Anyone who should deny a canonized Saint to be in heaven, would not thereby be actually a heretic, but he would be (a) temerarius, (b) scandalous, (c) impious, and suspected of heresy.


Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Argument against the infallibility of V-II Canonizations
Here is some information from the above mentioned source on the distinction between divine faith and divine-Catholic faith:

p.4
Quote:
Faith is divided into divine and divine-Catholic faith. Divine faith is that which is given to truths revealed by God, even though not yet proposed by the Church to all to be believed. Divine-Catholic faith is that which is given to truths revealed by God, and proposed by the Church to all to be believed.

6. The only difference between these two is, that what is simply revealed by God is believed by divine faith, and if a truth revealed by God be proposed by the Church to all to be believed, it is called divine-Catholic faith. Thus, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and the Papal Infallibility, were believed by divine faith, and were of divine faith always; but it was only after they were defined to be so, that the faithful were obliged to believe them, and that they were numbered among the Church's dogmas as the objects of divine-Catholic faith. This distinction between divine and divine-Catholic has reference only to the manner in which the word of God is made known to man, and the difference in the faith is only accidental, yet it is of great importance to know it, as it serves to explain Catholic doctrine and practice; and I shall have reason to refer to it more fully later on.



p.26
Quote:
I must call attention, in the first place, to the distinction given above, between divine faith and divine-Catholic faith. We give divine faith to every truth revealed by God; but that it may be the object of divine-Catholic faith, it must be proposed by the Church to be believed by all as tne word of God.

2. Heresy is an error against divine-Catholic faith, as it consists in the denial of some truth revealed by God and proposed by the Church. Thus, for example, Gallicans who denied the Papal Infallibility before the definition of the Vatican Council, were not guilty of heresy, because, although that truth was revealed by God, and could be believed by divine faith, it had not been defined or proposed by the Church as the object of faith. Any one wilfully denying or disbelieving in the truth since its definition, becomes guilty of the sin of heresy, as the Papal Infallibility as defined in the Vatican Council is now the object of divine-Catholic faith.


pp.326-327
Quote:
The ordinary Magisterium is that authority which is daily used by her pastors and doctors. By virtue of this second Magisterium, a truth can be proposed as Catholic, or such a truth remaining in a state of truths of faith purely divine, may so far progress as to attain almost to the state of defined truths, and then it may be said to be a truth proximate to divine-Catholic faith. A person denying such a truth would not thereby be a heretic, but he would be proximate to heresy; thus, for example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, before its definition in 1854, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility, before the definition of the Vatican Council (1870), were truths to be believed by divine faith; but by the special Magisterium of the Church, they are now defined and to be believed by all, so that he would be a heretic who should deny either of them.


Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:03 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.