Bls John Paul Ii & John Xxiii To Be Canonized

[Amppax]

Also Pope Francis released his first encyclical today "Lumen Fidei" or "Light of Faith".  And Benedict XVI joined Francis to consecrate the Vatican to St. Michael the Archangel.

 

“Faith is not a light which scatters all our darkness, but a lamp which guides our steps in the night and suffices for the journey.” - Lumen Fidei

 

A nice little summary from Jimmy Akin: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/14-things-you-need-to-know-about-pope-franciss-new-encyclical

[Apotheoun]

If I'm not mistaken, canonization is an exercise of the infallible charism of the Church and as such must be assented to by all the faithful, even if one doesn't personally agree.  

Yes, the first part of your statement represents the modern position of the Roman Church. But the whole process of canonization in the Roman Church - as it exists today - is a modern innovation, and as such it can hardly be described as "infallible."

[Dr. Bombay]

Yes, the first part of your statement represents the modern position of the Roman Church. But the whole process of canonization in the Roman Church - as it exists today - is a modern innovation, and as such it can hardly be described as "infallible."

 

Unless you consider the old Catholic Encyclopedia and St. Thomas Aquinas (among others) to be "modern," you might wish to rethink your position:
 

 

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error."

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

[Era Might]

Wait...it looks like John XXIII actually WAS done by popular vote. Go figure..."Everyone loved the guys, let's make 'em Saints.'

 

That's how they did it in the old days before Vatican II hehe.

[Era Might]

That's how they did it in the old days before Vatican II hehe.

 

The really, really old days that is.

[Nihil Obstat]

That's how they did it in the old days before Vatican II hehe.

 

 

The really, really old days that is.

SSPI or bust, bro.

[Era Might]

SSPI or bust, bro.

 

Anything post-Shepherd of Hermes is suspect.

[Nihil Obstat]

Anything post-Shepherd of Hermes is suspect.

The Council of Jerusalem simply has to be interpreted in light of Tradition, and that is all there is to it. We cannot view it as there being a rupture between the pre-Jerusalem and post-Jerusalem Churches.

[qfnol31]

Yes, the first part of your statement represents the modern position of the Roman Church. But the whole process of canonization in the Roman Church - as it exists today - is a modern innovation, and as such it can hardly be described as "infallible."

 

But the proclamation of a person as a Saint, the Latin formula of canonization proper, can and is under the heading of Papal infallibility, even in its modern form. I don't know where I could find something that makes such an argument, but I think that the Church just knows this to be true and teaches it as such, which is why only the Holy Father does canonizations.

[BG45]

Thanks for the links.  (And loved Akin's breakdown of it into 14 commonly asked questions.)

[OnlySunshine]

But the proclamation of a person as a Saint, the Latin formula of canonization proper, can and is under the heading of Papal infallibility, even in its modern form. I don't know where I could find something that makes such an argument, but I think that the Church just knows this to be true and teaches it as such, which is why only the Holy Father does canonizations.

 

major props  :like:

[Noel's angel]

As you toe the line with criticizing the Holy Father, would you care to perhaps provide proof instead of just sarcasm?

 

I don't believe I criticised anyone. The requirement of a second miracle was over-looked for John XXIII and instead a 'favourable vote' by the Congregation appears to have swung things. Don't get me wrong, I love John XXIII, I just think that the process should be more rigorous. But then again, back in the day, some weird folks were declared 'Saints'.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Noel's angel

[Amppax]

An analysis of this by Fr. Z. thought I'd just throw it in here.  

 

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/07/wherein-fr-z-explains-what-is-really-going-on-with-the-canonizations-of-john-xxii-and-john-paul-ii/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wdtprs%2FDhFa+%28Fr.+Z%27s+Blog+-+What+Does+The+Prayer+Really+Say%3F%29

[Apotheoun]

But the proclamation of a person as a Saint, the Latin formula of canonization proper, can and is under the heading of Papal infallibility, even in its modern form. I don't know where I could find something that makes such an argument, but I think that the Church just knows this to be true and teaches it as such, which is why only the Holy Father does canonizations.

That's great, but that is a modern belief. In fact, you won't find anyone talking about papal infallibility in the first millennium.

[qfnol31]

That's great, but that is a modern belief. In fact, you won't find anyone talking about papal infallibility in the first millennium.

Just as you'll find high medieval theologians who swear Mary must have been conceived in sin.

This doesn't really bother me.