Yes, Canonization Of Saints Is An Infallible Decision.

[jswranch]

My Radtrad buddy denies that canonization is infallible. Can anyone make a case? A link to an article is sufficient. I am looking for something meatier than pointing to the words, "We [Pope and bisops] declare and define that X is a saint."

[Era Might]

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

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

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. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."
(Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)

There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).
This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p.4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).

-[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm"][u]Source[/u][/url]-[/quote]

HOWEVER, the Holy See has clarified this matter. In The CDF's commentary on the "Professio Fidei", then-Cardinal Ratzinger refers to canonizations as "dogmatic facts:

[quote]With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, [b]the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)[/b], the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations...

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"][u]Source[/u][/url][/quote]

[jswranch]

However, a definition from the "JPII & Ratzinger axis of evil" serves as a weak argument to my target audience. Atleast we have a pre-VII source. Edited September 28, 2006 by jswranch

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I heard somewhere that canonization was an act of some level of the magisterium, making it infallible. I dunno where... Somebody here can probably explain.

[zunshynn]

Would pre-congregation saints, be infallibly canonized then?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1077954' date='Sep 28 2006, 12:48 PM']
My Radtrad buddy denies that canonization is infallible. Can anyone make a case? A link to an article is sufficient. I am looking for something meatier than pointing to the words, "We [Pope and bisops] declare and define that X is a saint."
[/quote]

That's odd. I'm "rad-trad" and I definitely believe canonizations are infallible. In fact that was a small contributing factor to me being where I'm at now. But that's irrelevant.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

"Any mistake in either beatifying or canonizing seems well-nigh impossible even on natural grounds, on account of the strict examination insisted on. By the act of canonization, the veneration of a saint, and so to a certain extent the acknowledgment of the Church's belief in him, is imposed on the faithful, and he is then officially recognized in the Church's offices, as in the Mass and Breviary; hence if any one not a saint were declared holy, the whole Church would approve an error. Such a supposition is impossible. Pope Benedict XIV. declares his own experience in these cases of the assistance of the Holy Spirit in removing insuperable difficulties which beset a process, or, on the other hand, in breaking it off entirely. Finally the Church in its decisions whether of beatification or canonization is dealing with things which have the closest connection with doctrine of faith or morals."

The Catechism Explained - An Exhaustive Explanation of the Catholic Religion" Spirago-Clark, Copyright 1899. Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanlan S.T.D. Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Patrick J. Hayes D.D. Archbishop of New York. New York. October 18, 1921

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[jswranch]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1079335' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:02 PM']
That's odd. I'm "rad-trad" and I definitely believe canonizations are infallible...[/quote]

My buddy denies the infallible decision. He believes this in light of all of JPIIs canonizations. He has stated he expects the church to suddenly wake up soon and learn JPII was the most evil and liberal people to ever infiltrate the church. I asked him what he will do once JPII or Mother Theresa(JPII's partner in crime) is canonized. He responded it did not matter because a canonization means nothing. I responded it was an infallible decision. He asked me to prove it.... so here we are.

Golden, your quotes have helped greatly.

[goldenchild17]

Is he SSPX? That would be the stance they would take, ie. that nothing bad that John Paul II did ever fell into the realm of infallibility.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[jswranch]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1079546' date='Sep 29 2006, 04:15 PM']
Is he SSPX? That would be the stance they would take, ie. that nothing bad that John Paul II did ever fell into the realm of infallibility.
[/quote]
No, he finds them disobediant. We do have a SSPX parish in the Springs area. He sent the pastor a letter condemning him for breaking from Rome.

[goldenchild17]

hmm. How is he rad-trad then? Just wondering because I can't think of any rad-trad group that would hold that position, besides sspx. I went to the FSSP indult on Colorado Springs for a little over a year, and they are definitely not "rad-trad".

[jswranch]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1079613' date='Sep 29 2006, 05:21 PM']
hmm. How is he rad-trad then? Just wondering because I can't think of any rad-trad group that would hold that position, besides sspx. I went to the FSSP indult on Colorado Springs for a little over a year, and they are definitely not "rad-trad".
[/quote]

Theology of the Body= evil
Deus Caritas Est= evil
Norvus Ordo= evil
JPII BXVI= evil
Women participating in church= evil
UN= evil

the list goes on

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Theology of the Body= evil
Deus Caritas Est= evil
Norvus Ordo= evil
JPII BXVI= evil [/quote]

I don't think the FSSP thinks Theology of the Body, Deus Caritas Est and the Novus Ordo Missæ are evil seeing as the FSSP is in full Communion with the Holy See

[quote] Women participating in church= evil [/quote]

I can see why they would think that... God the Holy Ghost says

[quote]34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. 35 But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. [/quote]

And I think any Catholic could see why the UN is evil...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1080114' date='Sep 30 2006, 07:50 AM']
Theology of the Body= evil
Deus Caritas Est= evil
Norvus Ordo= evil
JPII BXVI= evil
Women participating in church= evil
UN= evil

the list goes on
[/quote]

Okay, well I'm not allowed to get into those points, but I don't see what he could be if he's not SSPX. That's a typical SSPX position from what I can see. But if he's got something against SSPX like that then it's just confusing .

[jswranch]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1080346' date='Sep 30 2006, 04:54 PM']
Okay, well I'm not allowed to get into those points, but I don't see what he could be if he's not SSPX.[/quote]
I suppose he is a grumpy Latin Masser who gets full of vinegar when he has to go to a NO.

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1080346' date='Sep 30 2006, 04:54 PM']
But if he's got something against SSPX like that then it's just confusing .
[/quote]
It is an inconsistancy. He rejects SSPX for lack of obedience to the Church (JPII) but allows himself to reject teachings and rulings of JPII.

He has been scandalized by post VII liturgical abuses. He believes he communists/masons have infilltrated the Vatican. Now they are pawns of the Illuminate.

BTW, do you have any more preVII data proving infalliblitiy for canonization?

Edited October 1, 2006 by jswranch

[goldenchild17]

I'll look and see what else I can pull up