The Church Courtyard > Traditional Catholic Discussion

SSPX Video - Are the new canonizations infallible?

(1/2) > >>

Philip G.:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI9FVR2Dfbc
I have said this before, but I will say it again.

The problem with canonization dates back 1000 years.  The problem is in its means, and its end. The means in this case is the devils advocate(or lack thereof to be more precise).  Such a person needs to be a genuine and organic manifestation with a vested interest.  One cannot simply "play" the devils advocate as the assigned cleric traditionally has, as there can easily be a conflict of interest(as the pope surrounds himself with partisan dominican and jesuit yes men), or a lack of depth regarding the maturity/wisdom cleric(think of the depths of hell, and lucifer's pure intellect).  The only way to draw out from the woodwork an authentic devils advocate is by reversing the process of the past 1000 years.  And, by this I mean, that beatification must instead first begin with a "regional/place of origin mandate" in terms of veneration, before it can proceed to what should be its peak with a "universal permission" to venerate.  By way of the "regional mandate" to venerate, you will draw out a genuine devils advocate, if there is indeed a need for one(in the case of those who should not be canonized, which is our current concern). The current and past thousand year approach has been to begin with a "regional permission" to venerate, then leap-frog all the way to a "universal mandate".  However, by this time, the act is perceived as decidedly dogmatically, and for political reasons is too late to entertain any objection. 

This is thoroughly flawed, and is part and parcel with the main problem, which is its end.  The church does not need "super-saints" aka new doctrinal authorities(because that is what saints have become).  The saying goes "if it(such teaching) is good enough for saint so and so, it is good enough for me".  Both ecclesiastical parties(left and right) weaponize this tool, and it is driving a wedge in the church.  The keys of peter regarding canonization have been turned into a weapon by way of this.  St. Peter was not assigned a weapon by Christ.  It is St. Paul who carries the weapon/sword.  Dogmatic facts are defined.  There is no precise definition for "heroic virtue", which is the criteria for saint, and there never will be.  We do not need to "feel" the power of the sacraments/sacramentals/saints for them to be efficacious.  The law is written on the heart of man.  "Feeling" that these novel teachings are correct because so and so super-saint whom you/the church has intense(approaching hyper) devotion taught it directly or indirectly tolerated it is not sufficient.  This is not the apostolic or scriptural standard for judging faith and morals.  And, it is an error to pursue/entertain such an end within the church.  The church must not drown out the significance of martyrdom(heroic virtues abstract) as regards veneration by crowding out the martyrs with saints that ultimately only require "a waive of the hand"(an abstract parallel of how emperors characteristically decide another's fate).  This is the crux of the issue.

GiftOfGod:
Wow, this video really shows you how logically inconsistent the Recognize & Resist position is.

Prayerful:
The sheer haste of them makes them already doubtful. St Pius V took 200 years to be canonised, and there was no doubt of his holiness and effectiveness, unlike all the recent V2 saint Popes.

Philip G.:

--- Quote from: Prayerful on October 24, 2021, 07:53:59 PM ---The sheer haste of them makes them already doubtful. St Pius V took 200 years to be canonised, and there was no doubt of his holiness and effectiveness, unlike all the recent V2 saint Popes.

--- End quote ---

Yes, but in the same sense, if time(or a lack thereof is the characteristic that makes them doubtful), how can the same time(more time that is) be also the characteristic that makes them certain?  It would only matter if the notion of a the devil's advocate is as significant as I say it is.  For, what does more time provide?  More time could provide for a genuine more qualified devil's advocate to emerge and dispute the cause.  Miracles happen in God's time, and I don't know why anyone would complain if that time were shortened.  What else does it leave us?  It leaves us cultus.  And, cultus, in this case the cult of the saints, is more characterized/defined by its quantity(how any adherents) than its quality(how ancient it is).  I have read of so many glorious saints of the early church, that are so edifying, yet so unknown and so neglected.  Does this lessen their stature?  Of course not.  So, the ancient/time aspect is not cultus' defining character.  To come full circle, the quantity(cultus of support) for a cause of canonization can never replace the significance of the quality of opposition(what the devils advocate has to say).   

I have a saying.  It goes, "the altar may an easy bed to lie on, but it is not an easy bed to die on".  And, we all have to die.  What is more aping of Christ, who is the altar and the sacrifice, than to make other humans function as those very things?  Believe it or not, devil's salivate at the opportunity. 

Stubborn:
I did not watch the OP video, no plans to sit through an hour of it. What Fr. Wathen says regarding the NO ordinations applies to all things NO, including changes made in the procedure used for canonizations. They changed everything in the procedure but chose to not change the few words proclaiming sainthood. Go figure.
 
"The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version