So what will it mean? St JP2-St.John23?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Pshaw what makes you think we arnt friends??

[voxxpopulisuxx]

So your position is similar to when Jesus said...do as they say but not as they do because they hold the seat of Moses? I can respect that position

[nmoerbeek]

So your position is simeler to when Jesus said...do as they say but not as they do because they hold the seat of Moses? I can respect that position

Cheers my friend! 

[trentcath]

I think you should probably take back your false statement about the SSPX believing that solemn canonisations are not invalid. That is not what they believe. Your syllogism is also flawed in that it does not take into account a variety of circumstances: i) intention on the part of the pontiff; ii) whether the process itself is necessary for infallibility, and so on.

It turns out that I was mistaken:

"Canonization comes under the category of disciplinary facts, among which theologians classify the various laws promulgated for the good of the whole Church and which correspond to secondary objects of the infallible teaching authority [magisterium]. Among these are the universal liturgical law, which prescribes the manner by which the worship due to God is rendered; canonization, which is the law by which the Church prescribes the veneration [cultus] of one of the faithful departed who exercised perfect holiness during his lifetime."

http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-1

Another article, however, led me to believe that the SSPX held otherwise: "It is certainly true that, before Vatican II, pious theologians proposed that the pope's infallibility should extend to his legislative acts.  We know, however, that if such a thesis be accepted, that it does not and cannot include all his legislative acts, any more than his infallibility can include all his teaching acts."

The examples given above this passage, though, were universal laws (the Novus Ordo and the 1983 CIC).  Hopefully you can understand why I came to the conclusion I did.  So, yes, I was mistaken.

No problem.

[trentcath]

There's a lot I don't understand, but I'll start by asking this: Why couldn't these 2 upcoming 'canonizations' be doubted without doubting that we have a pope?

Because if he is Pope...he will be asserting something that all the fathfull must accept as true...that these two personages are equals of the apostles in venerableness.

Stop exaggerating, it is saying they are in heaven, it doesn't assign them a score equal in merit to the Apostles or the Virgin Mary, or the Angels. 

So when you pray to all the Saints on all Saints day will you say, All you Saints except JP II and John XIII?  You even said in your rant directed at me farther up that you accepted the possibility of them being in purgatory? How do you know they are not in Heaven?

Listen you rant too...sometimes its called for...so that ad hominum you can put back in your pocket.

A saint proclaimed venerable and worthy of a cultus is a far different matter than simply proclaiming someone in heaven. If one is proclaimed a saint they are placed right next St Joseph and the Apostles...the saint martyrs...Churches are built in their name...the laity are encouraged to speak to them and ask for their help...etc...etc...and the fact that you make no distinction between Nice Aunt tootsy who died a faithfully practicing Catholic mother...in the arms of her parish priest after receiving last rites. And Glorious St Joseph or St Gertrude...or St Patrick....shows how very stupefying the false obedience necter can be.

Vox could you point out to me where I am drinking the false obedience nectar?

That I accept the Church's judgement that if JPII is canonized he is in heaven?
Here..this one...because the position held by many here including myself is that it is beyond credulity to think the Holy Spirit would protect as infallible an OBVIOUSLY incorrect act......again it is not just about proclaiming them NOT in hell..they are going to encourage a cultus for them (and their council) and Churches built and writings promulgated and insert their names next  to even Glorious St Joseph....so I would gladly accept the Churchs Judgment but I wont accept these churchmen...and aye there be the rub

My friend,

I have failed you.  I thought when you listed off the options at the beginning of the thread that you were seriously considering all of them and I advocated as strongly as I could that Pope John Paul II when canonized will be in Heaven, that God is allowing it for some greater good and that we should try to be docile to it.  I argued as strongly as I could against the other opinions.

You are right that many here have decided that this act is opposed to Gods will and is sinful.  Some like GGreg have declared they will leave the Church, one other to become Anglican, and a few have declared their willingness to embrace SV.

What I do know is that the issue is totally out of my hands and based on my reading and understanding of Canonization it is possible with the Church to Canonize and establish a cult for someone who has not practiced heroic virtue.

Just like it is possible for God to allow the Mass to be changed, for Church's to be uglified, or for any of the other things that have happened that have caused us affliction.

Take it for what its worth, I hope we can still be friends.

I'm sure you have read books on hell, heard sermons on it etc... It's pretty difficult to get into heaven and its generally accepted that most souls go to hell, now are you going to tell me with a straight face that these two are in heaven? Utterly ridiculous.

[nmoerbeek]

There's a lot I don't understand, but I'll start by asking this: Why couldn't these 2 upcoming 'canonizations' be doubted without doubting that we have a pope?

Because if he is Pope...he will be asserting something that all the fathfull must accept as true...that these two personages are equals of the apostles in venerableness.

Stop exaggerating, it is saying they are in heaven, it doesn't assign them a score equal in merit to the Apostles or the Virgin Mary, or the Angels. 

So when you pray to all the Saints on all Saints day will you say, All you Saints except JP II and John XIII?  You even said in your rant directed at me farther up that you accepted the possibility of them being in purgatory? How do you know they are not in Heaven?

Listen you rant too...sometimes its called for...so that ad hominum you can put back in your pocket.

A saint proclaimed venerable and worthy of a cultus is a far different matter than simply proclaiming someone in heaven. If one is proclaimed a saint they are placed right next St Joseph and the Apostles...the saint martyrs...Churches are built in their name...the laity are encouraged to speak to them and ask for their help...etc...etc...and the fact that you make no distinction between Nice Aunt tootsy who died a faithfully practicing Catholic mother...in the arms of her parish priest after receiving last rites. And Glorious St Joseph or St Gertrude...or St Patrick....shows how very stupefying the false obedience necter can be.

Vox could you point out to me where I am drinking the false obedience nectar?

That I accept the Church's judgement that if JPII is canonized he is in heaven?
Here..this one...because the position held by many here including myself is that it is beyond credulity to think the Holy Spirit would protect as infallible an OBVIOUSLY incorrect act......again it is not just about proclaiming them NOT in hell..they are going to encourage a cultus for them (and their council) and Churches built and writings promulgated and insert their names next  to even Glorious St Joseph....so I would gladly accept the Churchs Judgment but I wont accept these churchmen...and aye there be the rub

My friend,

I have failed you.  I thought when you listed off the options at the beginning of the thread that you were seriously considering all of them and I advocated as strongly as I could that Pope John Paul II when canonized will be in Heaven, that God is allowing it for some greater good and that we should try to be docile to it.  I argued as strongly as I could against the other opinions.

You are right that many here have decided that this act is opposed to Gods will and is sinful.  Some like GGreg have declared they will leave the Church, one other to become Anglican, and a few have declared their willingness to embrace SV.

What I do know is that the issue is totally out of my hands and based on my reading and understanding of Canonization it is possible with the Church to Canonize and establish a cult for someone who has not practiced heroic virtue.

Just like it is possible for God to allow the Mass to be changed, for Church's to be uglified, or for any of the other things that have happened that have caused us affliction.

Take it for what its worth, I hope we can still be friends.

I'm sure you have read books on hell, heard sermons on it etc... It's pretty difficult to get into heaven and its generally accepted that most souls go to hell, now are you going to tell me with a straight face that these two are in heaven? Utterly ridiculous.

I have even published an audiobook on hell
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/catholic-audibook-the-torments-of-hell/

But I have also published a number on the Virgin Mary
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/miracles-of-the-brown-scapular/
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/virginmostkind/

And the Love of Jesus Christ
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/catholic-audiobook-the-love-shown-to-us-by-jesus-in-his-passion/

I assure you I have read many stories of murders, whores, and thieves being saved and I have also read stories of those who had lived a pious life committing one mortal sin and being damned.

I have faith in the mercy of God and the infallibility of canonizations in so far as they are declarations that the person is in Heaven. 

"TURN your eyes unto yourself, and beware you judge not the deeds of other men. In judging of others a man labors in vain, often errs, and easily sins; but in judging and discussing of himself, he always labors fruitfully. We often judge of things according as we fancy them; for private affection bereaves us easily of true judgment. If God were always the pure intention of our desire, we should not be so easily troubled, through the repugnance of our carnal mind."  Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ

[voxxpopulisuxx]

So your position is simeler to when Jesus said...do as they say but not as they do because they hold the seat of Moses? I can respect that position

Cheers my friend! 

But if what what they SAY is also wrong? Can they rightly be said to hold the seat of Peter?

[Gerard]

I want to be clear.....are there some saints Gerard that it is infallably certain they are Saints? (silly phrasing I know...but you get the gist)

I know there are more saints that those named and the very few we know of by name that are infallibly known are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, The 11 Apostles, the Blessed Mother, St. Stephen, St. Dismas and of course the Angels who did not Fall.  Micheal, Gabriel, Raphael etc. 

[Gerard]

Gerard, I tend to agree with your position, and it's not just because I want to.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, my understanding is that revelation closed with the death of the last apostle, the Deposit of Faith complete, and infallible pronouncements can only apply to matters that the Magisterium deem to be part of the Deposit of Faith.

If canonizations were infallible (which would imply some sort of new revelation beyond simple human observation), then why bother with investigations into the candidate's life? The pope could canonize and it would be so, regardless of miracles or evidence of personal holiness. It seems to lead to a slippery slope of papal positivism.

Can you recommend any prominent theologians who have held your position regarding canonizations?

Fr. Faber has a book that is online that shows a balanced argument citing theologians on both sides.  Aquinas viewed the infallibility of canonizations as a "pious belief" 

I don't think I know of anyone who focuses on the Revelation factor in depth as I do, they more focus on the constraints surrounding infallibility and unsuitability of canonizations for that papal charism. 

[Gerard]

If I'm not mistaken, Gerard attends the SSPX masses? So, again, is Pius X a saint or not, Gerard? If yes, how do we know this? If not, why not?

Yeah, so like now I am totally confused. If canonizations have never been infallible and we can have no certainty short of "divine revelation" of who is in heaven and who isn't, then what saints can we pray to in confidence or can we pray to any saints at all and why did they put all of those saints into my Missal which I am going to now have to throw in the trash can? And what the heck is the communion of saints anyway? What saints are they talking about? Why are there names of all these so called alleged "saints" on my calendar? Who put then there and why?

The whole idea is beyond ridiculous.

Look through your missal and the number of saints listed there who have never been papally canonized would stagger you. 

If you want infallible certainty, pray your Rosary or the Chaplet of St. Michael.  If you have moral certainty, pray to any saint in the Canon.  God will not hold it against you for taking a leap of faith for the Good. 

Prayers are never wasted. 

[Gerard]

If I'm not mistaken, Gerard attends the SSPX masses? So, again, is Pius X a saint or not, Gerard? If yes, how do we know this? If not, why not?

The Church has put together a Canon of Saints.  So you address the person as a Saint.  Is St. Augustine a saint even though he was never papally canonized? 

Just because something decreed by the Church isn't guaranteed by infallibility doesn't mean automatically that the Church is infallibly wrong.  Have some faith.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

I want to be clear.....are there some saints Gerard that it is infallably certain they are Saints? (silly phrasing I know...but you get the gist)

I know there are more saints that those named and the very few we know of by name that are infallibly known are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, The 11 Apostles, the Blessed Mother, St. Stephen, St. Dismas and of course the Angels who did not Fall.  Micheal, Gabriel, Raphael etc.

Ok so now were getting somewhere. These are considered so...by you...based on what authority? Im not trying to trap you....I like the line of this reasoning.

[Gerard]

Ok I can distill a question from INPEFESS to Gerard (if I may be so bold)

Can the true faith cause spiritual harm?
Misinforming folks about who is and isnt worthy of veneration (even if they dont know they've been deceived) could cause some to wrongly ask for intercession to someone who cant actually help them...thus wasting spiritual effort...better spent in other actually effective ways.

Prayers are never wasted for one thing.  God will not abandon good people to call into the void.  At the very least if you want a flowchart, one possible option would be for your Guardian Angel to redirect your prayers and either intercede or involve through God's permission another saint perhaps unknown who is particularly equipped to give aid. 

Can the true faith cause spiritual harm?  I think our fallen nature prevents us from utilizing the true faith to its perfection so, a person can know and accept the truths of the faith and harm themselves by misapplying them, a focus and contemplation on the reality of sin and Hell without a balance of sanctification, forgiveness and Heaven can lead one to despair or scrupulosity. 

[Gerard]

Ok so now were getting somewhere. These are considered so...by you...based on what authority? Im not trying to trap you....I like the line of this reasoning.

The authority of the Church as being divinely revealed to the Apostles.  They were handed on through Scripture and Tradition.  The Assumption of Our Lady can't be more explicit in the definition and the rest are listed in the Scriptures as defined by the Church as part of Revelation. 

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Ok so now were getting somewhere. These are considered so...by you...based on what authority? Im not trying to trap you....I like the line of this reasoning.

The authority of the Church as being divinely revealed to the Apostles.  They were handed on through Scripture and Tradition.  The Assumption of Our Lady can't be more explicit in the definition and the rest are listed in the Scriptures as defined by the Church as part of Revelation.

Ok so when did canonizations start?