Catechism on Modernism by Pascendi's ghostwriter Fr. Lemius

[ts aquinas]

The pretzels that many are going to turn themselves into when the canonization of JPII takes place will be painful to watch.

I think the pretzels will take one of two shapes: (1) canonizations are not infallible-- indeed, they never have been and never will be; or (2) canonizations used to be infallible but due to the changes made to the process they are no longer so.

I just wanted to share this quote I found on the subject,

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.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection

[INPEFESS]

The pretzels that many are going to turn themselves into when the canonization of JPII takes place will be painful to watch.

I think the pretzels will take one of two shapes: (1) canonizations are not infallible-- indeed, they never have been and never will be; or (2) canonizations used to be infallible but due to the changes made to the process they are no longer so.

I just wanted to share this quote I found on the subject,

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.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection

As significant as that is for a layman humbly coming to a pious decision about canonizations by meekly submitting to the judgment of the saints, I would imagine the response to this would be that saints are not infallible and have been in error before.

If they can ignore Benedict XIV and mince his words such that what he says bears no practical meaning or application to reality...

"If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church's authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties" (Pope Benedict XIV: quoted by Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Fundamentalis, Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1937, new edition ed. by J.B. Bord, Vol. I. p. 624, footnote 2).

...they can ignore St. Alphonsus. There truly seem to be no limits to this reckless audacity.

[LandOfConfusion]

Curious...

Do any of you believe Sergius of Radonezh & Isaac the Syrian were saints? Neither were Catholic as one was Orthodox and one self-proclaimed Nestorian and both were commissioned by Pius XII are in Butler's Lives in the 50's editions since the Vatican fully approved them.

Rome approved a commission in 1917 to allow veneration of certain Orthodox "saints" like Photius and Gregory Palamas as well.

Do you adhere to their sanctity and if so please explain how non-Catholic "saints" were added from Benedict XV to Pius XII with the teachings of the Church that you claim are necessary. Do we say the last pope then is St. Pius X?

[Geremia]

Do you adhere to their sanctity and if so please explain how non-Catholic "saints" were added from Benedict XV to Pius XII with the teachings of the Church that you claim are necessary. Do we say the last pope then is St. Pius X?

Immaculata-one.com is a comprehensive site defending the thesis that all post-Pope St. Pius X popes are anti-popes.

[INPEFESS]

Curious...

Do any of you believe Sergius of Radonezh & Isaac the Syrian were saints? Neither were Catholic as one was Orthodox...and both were commissioned by Pius XII are in Butler's Lives in the 50's editions since the Vatican fully approved them.

I believe Fr. Butler died in the later half of the 18th century, and the claim made in the book refers to an alleged permission given by the Holy See in 1940, so this is not Fr. Butler giving us this information but someone using Fr. Butler's credible reputation to give us this information. I find the claim made by the author suspicious because the author provides no citation or reference to the Holy See's records for this claim. This authorization would have been recorded in the AAS, published as an approved calendar, or included in the Decrees of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, yet I can find nothing about it to verify that this is in fact what the Holy See approved. The only other source we're given is from Fr. Korolevsky, who was a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenist.

...and one self-proclaimed Nestorian

Nestorian by birth, yes, but not necessarily by profession. It doesn't seem he actually professed the heresy in his later years. I am not sure whether this was actually approved either, but even if it were it seems that he was not Nestorian in his later years.

Towards the end of his life he passed under a cloud as his Nestorian orthodoxy became suspected. He was author of three theses, which found but little acceptance amongst Nestorians. Daniel Bar Tubanita, Bishop of Beth Garmai (some 100 miles south-east of Mossul), took umbrage at his teaching and became his ardent opponent. The precise contents of these theses are not known, but they were of too Catholic a character to be compatible with Nestorian heresy. From an extant prayer of his, addressed to Christ it is certainly difficult to realize that its author was a Nestorian. Eager to claim so great a writer, the monophysites falsified his biography, placing his life at the beginning of the seventh century, making him a monk of the Jacobite monastery of Mar Mattai, and stating that he retired to the desert of Scete in Egypt. Since the discovery of Ishodenah's "Book of Chastity" by Chabot in 1895 the above details of Isaac's life are beyond doubt, and all earlier accounts must be corrected accordingly.

Rome approved a commission in 1917 to allow veneration of certain Orthodox "saints" like Photius and Gregory Palamas as well.

Do you have a source from the AAS, Holy Office, or Decrees of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints for this?

Even as it concerns the actions and statements of Francis, most of us here see the benefit in withholding judgment until the claims are fully substantiated. I think most of us here would be interested in seeing a credible source for this information before any conclusions are made.

[Roland Deschain]

I believe that Pius XII added St Sergei of Radonezh to the Martyrologium Romanum in 1940. I'm still trying to track down substantiating documentation on that. I have also heard that St Pius X allowed veneration of post-schism, Eastern saints.

I know for a fact that Gregory Palamas is celebrated on the 2nd Sunday of Lent in Byzantine Catholic churches.

[Gerard]

The pretzels that many are going to turn themselves into when the canonization of JPII takes place will be painful to watch.

I think the pretzels will take one of two shapes: (1) canonizations are not infallible-- indeed, they never have been and never will be; or (2) canonizations used to be infallible but due to the changes made to the process they are no longer so.

I just wanted to share this quote I found on the subject,

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.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection

As significant as that is for a layman humbly coming to a pious decision about canonizations by meekly submitting to the judgment of the saints, I would imagine the response to this would be that saints are not infallible and have been in error before.

If they can ignore Benedict XIV and mince his words such that what he says bears no practical meaning or application to reality...

"If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church's authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties" (Pope Benedict XIV: quoted by Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Fundamentalis, Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1937, new edition ed. by J.B. Bord, Vol. I. p. 624, footnote 2).

...they can ignore St. Alphonsus. There truly seem to be no limits to this reckless audacity.

You seem to read what you want into Popes of the past. 

Benedict XIV is taking umbrage about someone saying that a Pope had erred about "this or that" canonization.  He isn't even addressing infallibility but just incensed by the temerity of such a person.   I don't know what authority a person could claim "this or that" person was incorrectly canonized.  That is a condemnation of sedevacantists, not someone stating that canonizations cannot be infallible.  The SV has the temerity to assert for himself that the Pope himself had erred in this or that policy or private preaching and had ceased to be Pope!

The Pope also says, "..if not a heretic..."   So, even a person that positively claims a specific canonization was wrong, is probably not a heretic but simply issuing an arrogant opinion. 

So, you can pretend to think it says what it doesn't say, but reality steps in and the words mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean to apply them to something else. 

This is why SVs and Charismatic Neo-Catholics have so much in common.  The Neo-Catholics deny the law of non-contradiction from Pope to Pope based on Vatican II, the SV's deny the law of non-contradiction based on post Vatican I neo-ultramontanism.  Both are Protestant conceptions of the papacy and errors that the Magisterium of the Church has never embraced. 

[tradne4163]

Do you adhere to their sanctity and if so please explain how non-Catholic "saints" were added from Benedict XV to Pius XII with the teachings of the Church that you claim are necessary. Do we say the last pope then is St. Pius X?

Immaculata-one.com is a comprehensive site defending the thesis that all post-Pope St. Pius X popes are anti-popes.

Every time I see that URL, I think of those people on YouTube who copy and paste from the website. I've had it done to me twice, and both times it was the same text, word for word.

[LandOfConfusion]

I believe Fr. Butler died in the later half of the 18th century, and the claim made in the book refers to an alleged permission given by the Holy See in 1940, so this is not Fr. Butler giving us this information but someone using Fr. Butler's credible reputation to give us this information. I find the claim made by the author suspicious because the author provides no citation or reference to the Holy See's records for this claim. This authorization would have been recorded in the AAS, published as an approved calendar, or included in the Decrees of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, yet I can find nothing about it to verify that this is in fact what the Holy See approved. The only other source we're given is from Fr. Korolevsky, who was a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenist.

Butler's Lives was not meant to be a static book, but a book cataloging saints as new saints were to be added. To say that it wasn't Fr. Butler is fairly inconsequential to the point which is that it shows these Orthodox saints were added.

I guess the bigger question is do you think they lied about this or do you think they got the information credibly?
Here's the link with TIA quoting the passage:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/b020ht_RussianSt.htm

...and one self-proclaimed Nestorian

Nestorian by birth, yes, but not necessarily by profession. It doesn't seem he actually professed the heresy in his later years. I am not sure whether this was actually approved either, but even if it were it seems that he was not Nestorian in his later years.

I've read the quote you provided. The question is "was he a Catholic by his own profession?" He believed in apokatastasis after it was condemned and while his theology wasn't strictly Nestorian he never identified as a Catholic. The rest to me is inconsequential.

Do you have a source from the AAS, Holy Office, or Decrees of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints for this?

I want to show you this:
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09/communicatio-in-sacris-ii-tollerari.html

Not only did St. Pius X allow Catholics through Sheptytsky but it's believed he allowed them to venerate Orthodox saints.

Look at the history of this and it all makes sense: Sheptytsky starts this under Pius X, his follower Slipyj is consecrated bishop in 1929 I believe in 1917 the Vatican allowed the Eastern Catholic the addition of Orthodox saints. The quote from Butler's I provided mentions 30 of them.

I looked those up from memory when it comes to Butler's and St. Pius X. The 1917 meeting, and inclusion of other Orthodox additions in Catholic rites can be looked up in their rites so that confirms I'm not off on this. While the additions of Palamas & Photius in the calendar were post Vatican II actions, the venerations as "saints" were added as far back as 1917 in some cases.

I've been buried with work but I wish I catalogued my research in this. Obviously it would have been more helpful, but the books and quotes I've cited point to the direction that most trads don't want to touch.   

[Geremia]

Do you adhere to their sanctity and if so please explain how non-Catholic "saints" were added from Benedict XV to Pius XII with the teachings of the Church that you claim are necessary. Do we say the last pope then is St. Pius X?

Immaculata-one.com is a comprehensive site defending the thesis that all post-Pope St. Pius X popes are anti-popes.

Every time I see that URL, I think of those people on YouTube who copy and paste from the website. I've had it done to me twice, and both times it was the same text, word for word.

I think it's just one person.
Yes, he's a pro proof-texter, and that's about the extent of it.

[INPEFESS]

LOC: Yes, I have seen that blog entry before and do not find it convincing. What is being presented is a sloppy  forced interpretation of what specifically was approved.

If you don't believe me, see this thread at FE, where I debated this very topic with an erudite poster who bought into the author's interpolation of what was permitted.

Please read the entire discussion between us starting at the end of the linked page through the last post.

[LandOfConfusion]

LOC: Yes, I have seen that blog entry before and do not find it convincing. What is being presented is a sloppy  forced interpretation of what specifically was approved.

If you don't believe me, see this thread at FE, where I debated this very topic with an erudite poster who bought into the author's interpolation of what was permitted.

Please read the entire discussion between us starting at the end of the linked page through the last post.

It might seem sloppy, but I base my views on what actually happened which is the mind of the law-giver, not the erudition of someone trying to explain something. If you read what happened after this toleration was possible the Orthodox received Communion from Catholic priests during the time of Sheptytsky. Sheptytsky also has prayers for the unity of the Church and was the proto-patriarch for ecumenical issues in the East.

I'm not asking you to believe me just because I said it, but research what I'm telling you, you'll find it fascinating and frankly frightening as I was taught in a strict Scholastic manner with manualists who taught this was strictly opposed to Catholic doctrine. You'll begin to see why I don't find manualists arguments that convincing after being taught it for years. Also, look up the Union of Brest and the compromise on Eastern perspectives on purgatory. What they did was far more important than what we think the law to mean.

What they did not many trads would agree with, and I still don't. If a member of the Orthodox wanted to receive Holy Communion why not renounce and become Catholic? These people were not dying usually, but fully functioning people. Read a good biography of Sheptytsky you'll see I don't misunderstand him or the law. Also, look up who Cardinal Slipyj is as well who Sheptytsky appointed and consecrated himself.

[INPEFESS]

LOC: Yes, I have seen that blog entry before and do not find it convincing. What is being presented is a sloppy  forced interpretation of what specifically was approved.

If you don't believe me, see this thread at FE, where I debated this very topic with an erudite poster who bought into the author's interpolation of what was permitted.

Please read the entire discussion between us starting at the end of the linked page through the last post.

It might seem sloppy, but I base my views on what actually happened which is the mind of the law-giver, not the erudition of someone trying to explain something. If you read what happened after this toleration was possible the Orthodox received Communion from Catholic priests during the time of Sheptytsky. Sheptytsky also has prayers for the unity of the Church and was the proto-patriarch for ecumenical issues in the East.

I'm not asking you to believe me just because I said it, but research what I'm telling you, you'll find it fascinating and frankly frightening as I was taught in a strict Scholastic manner with manualists who taught this was strictly opposed to Catholic doctrine. You'll begin to see why I don't find manualists arguments that convincing after being taught it for years. Also, look up the Union of Brest and the compromise on Eastern perspectives on purgatory. What they did was far more important than what we think the law to mean.

What they did not many trads would agree with, and I still don't. If a member of the Orthodox wanted to receive Holy Communion why not renounce and become Catholic? These people were not dying usually, but fully functioning people. Read a good biography of Sheptytsky you'll see I don't misunderstand him or the law. Also, look up who Cardinal Slipyj is as well who Sheptytsky appointed and consecrated himself.

You assume I have not researched the matter. My point is that the information being presented by various sources is not trustworthy. I am looking for information from specific Vatican sources to confirm exactly what happened; too many second-hand sources present their own interpretation of what they think or assume was actually approved. For example, you presented the blog as solid evidence earlier, but it was shown that even this putatively credible source is misinterpreting what exactly was approved, which misinterpretation was occasioned by an ignorance of the historical context relating to intercommunal Catholic-Orthodox relations. These sorts of sources are insufficient. I am not saying definitively that none of these things did happen, but if it is as you say, then there should be no shortage of proof from Vatican-approved sources documenting what specifically was approved.

[LandOfConfusion]

You assume I have not researched the matter. My point is that the information being presented by various sources is not trustworthy. I am looking for information from specific Vatican sources to confirm exactly what happened; too many second-hand sources present their own interpretation of what they think or assume was actually approved. For example, you presented the blog as solid evidence earlier, but it was shown that even this putatively credible source is misinterpreting what exactly was approved, which misinterpretation was occasioned by an ignorance of the historical context relating to intercommunal Catholic-Orthodox relations. These sorts of sources are insufficient. I am not saying definitively that none of these things did happen, but if it is as you say, then there should be no shortage of proof from Vatican-approved sources documenting what specifically was approved.

Have you studied what Sheptytsky actually did after that law was passed? That is how you understand the law. You say it's a misinterpretation but I look at what happened, and even from 2nd hand sources of a biography they confirm this.

Again, if 2nd hand sources are to be dismissed epistemology states we need credible sources to see a motive for doing so and some evidence of the contrary. I've never seen evidence of the contrary. If you dismiss all secondary sources most of history can be discarded as its very rarely its from a 1st person narrative. When all the evidence is in the favor of those who present it what source do we have to show a contrary? I've never seen one so it stands to reason without me showing Vatican proof this is accurate unless we are to believe that the publications that show this just fabricated the information, which is highly unlikely without censure.

Also, to state the sources aren't trust-worthy doesn't mean its not accurate either. You just lack information to make a final conclusion to see if trust can be placed in the sources. I can assure you I did my homework 2 years ago and it all pans out and I've never seen contrary evidence, just laymen trying to make sense of it because its so bizarre.

Study the theology of Sheptytsky, Slipyj and you'll see 2 ecumenists working with direct approval of Rome from the document of St. Pius X, the 1917 Agreement, and the continuation of venerating Orthodox "saints". Also, the document people cite from St. Pius X was not published to the public until fairly recently. One biographer, a Catholic priest who's name I forgot, knew about this document well before the internet was around who said this was to be kept secret out of fear of scandal. That could be one reason why you can't find the proof you seek.

[INPEFESS]

You assume I have not researched the matter. My point is that the information being presented by various sources is not trustworthy. I am looking for information from specific Vatican sources to confirm exactly what happened; too many second-hand sources present their own interpretation of what they think or assume was actually approved. For example, you presented the blog as solid evidence earlier, but it was shown that even this putatively credible source is misinterpreting what exactly was approved, which misinterpretation was occasioned by an ignorance of the historical context relating to intercommunal Catholic-Orthodox relations. These sorts of sources are insufficient. I am not saying definitively that none of these things did happen, but if it is as you say, then there should be no shortage of proof from Vatican-approved sources documenting what specifically was approved.

Have you studied what Sheptytsky actually did after that law was passed? That is how you understand the law. You say it's a misinterpretation but I look at what happened, and even from 2nd hand sources of a biography they confirm this.

Again, if 2nd hand sources are to be dismissed epistemology states we need credible sources to see a motive for doing so and some evidence of the contrary. I've never seen evidence of the contrary. If you dismiss all secondary sources most of history can be discarded as its very rarely its from a 1st person narrative. When all the evidence is in the favor of those who present it what source do we have to show a contrary? I've never seen one so it stands to reason without me showing Vatican proof this is accurate unless we are to believe that the publications that show this just fabricated the information, which is highly unlikely without censure.

I didn't say I disregard all second-hand testimony; I said that, as it concerns this matter, if it is true, there would be first-hand proof from the source.

Also, to state the sources aren't trust-worthy doesn't mean its not accurate either. You just lack information to make a final conclusion to see if trust can be placed in the sources. I can assure you I did my homework 2 years ago and it all pans out and I've never seen contrary evidence, just laymen trying to make sense of it because its so bizarre.

I am saying that it isn't trustworthy on account of the fact that it isn't accurate. Some, for example, are promoting the agenda of trying to establish continuity between pre-VII praxis and post-VII novelty. All they need is a single link to establish the necessary precedent they need to avoid the terrifying conclusion that would follow were there no precedent. Others do the same with the design of promoting the new order: if Pius did it, then what is happening now can't be all that bad; in fact, it's commendable. Most are Orthodox sources trying to justify their schism. Some of the sources providing this information wreak of these agendas, and when you look closer, you find that there is very little proof behind the claims. The PS blog, for example, is quite obviously attempting to accept the new in principle by finding precedent in the old. Unfortunately, there are very serious interpretive errors being made in order to reach this conclusion. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when one is prone to confirmation bias. Look at how the conservatives pluck lines out of St. Augustine to make him promote partial communion. If you read only those texts, you will be convinced that St. Augustine taught the doctrine of partial communion, but if you look at the context and read it carefully, you see that he promoted no such thing.

Study the theology of Sheptytsky, Slipyj and you'll see 2 ecumenists working with direct approval of Rome from the document of St. Pius X, the 1917 Agreement, and the continuation of venerating Orthodox "saints". Also, the document people cite from St. Pius X was not published to the public until fairly recently. One biographer, a Catholic priest who's name I forgot, knew about this document well before the internet was around who said this was to be kept secret out of fear of scandal. That could be one reason why you can't find the proof you seek.

Where can this document be found? Are we talking about the same document?