What do you mean "from standing?"
I'm quoting Saint Gregory the Great's language.
The Church teaching the Truth. If the Church embraces one explicit falsehood and teaches it, the Church no longer teaches the Truth in it's entirety and instead teaches falsehood in it's entirety.
Unfortunately, it seems to me it has happened.
What "it" are you referring to? Can you name a single dogma or truth of the faith, the universal Church is required to renounce or a new policy binding the faithful that is heresy?
Intercommunion with Lutherans...intercommunion with Orthodox...the change to the Death Penalty...communion while in a state of adultery..."extraordinary Eucharistic ministers"...
You aren't actually disputing the facts I bring up, you are trying to change the epistemological certainty of the Catholic Church in a doctrine absolutely foreign to what Rome has spoken - with the case being closed.
I'm not trying to change anything. I'm clarifying what indefectibility of the Church means and not an exaggerated caricature based on Neo-Ultramontanism.
Fair enough, but for me, based on the debates I've had, it sometimes can be hard from defining a caricature from reality.
Still, thanks for clarifying, it means a lot.
If I were a Priest of a Church and I rejected a Saint who was canonized, could I not be excommunicated?
It depends on what you mean by "rejecting" are you claiming that the name of the saint must be expunged? By what authority? If you are skeptical of the soul of the named being in Heaven, why would you speak of some kind of judgment for which you have no power to exclaim?
To know a soul is damned requires the same new revelation that would be required to know with certainty a soul is in Heaven.
Well, a couple of things.
1. A revelation should not be against the authority of the Church, which you argued on the thread "A Theory about the Crisis in the Church..."
2. If Saint Cyril had the authority to rebuke Nestorius while he was still alive, St. Leo the Great and those at Chalcedon had the authority to rebuke Eutyches and Nestorius, if the Fathers of the 6th Ecumenical Council had the authority to curse the dead Pope Honorius, if Saint Paul had the authority to not only rebuke Saint Peter himself, but several Church communities that delved into Judaization, Paganism, Adultery, and Schism, etc., but we are not allowed to rebuke the actions of those who did horrible things, one has to ask the question why for 1960 years the Church was able to curse people and now it's a sin to do so.
Every Church venerates Pope Paul VI, whether you like it or not, by the authority of the Pope himself.
So what?
How is it that the Church cursed Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Tertullian, Origen, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, but Pope Paul VI, who was the Pope, arguably did things just as bad if not worse, is a Saint? Why did the Church curse these other people in the first place - and that's not to mention the burning at the stake of several heretics and sinners, like Bruno?
And the Catechism is Rome's official teaching, and it's what's to believed everywhere by everyone, and it is officially a document of the Magisterium. If it wasn't, he wouldn't have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to do so. It's binding.
We are not bound to subjective, non-magisterially backed commentaries in Catechisms. That's absurd on its face. We are not bound to every statement in a papal bull or encyclical or conciliar document, just the doctrinal aspect.
No Catechism is infallible and we're not bound to every Catechisms assertions nor formulations.
Can you provide evidence that the Catechism published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith isn't magisterial?
First, 19th century theologians were vastly invested in the ideas of Neo-Ultramontanism and they were sorely disappointed by the decrees of Vatican I. Consequently, they virtually ignored Vatican I and proceeded to "extend" the definition of infallibility illicitly in their manuals.
Second, I don't know which Pope Benedict you are referring to. If it's Pope Benedict XIV, he did not claim they were infallible. He proceeded to state that people who definitively declared that the Church had erred in "this or that" canonization was if not a heretic (since he couldn't actually determine it in a general statement since He didn't know. ) He simply stated that the person was insolent.
Third, the language of a canonization is not sufficient to change its nature. Revelation is required to know how a soul has fared when in front of the Judgement seat of God. For a Pope to infallibly canonize he would be adding new, specific information to the Deposit of Faith that is post-Apostolic. The Church dogmatically teaches that public revelation closed with the death of St. John the Apostle.
Pope Benedict XVI, I have to find the encyclical where he says it.
But interesting argument; still, it's problematic to me at least doctrinally that the Church has canonized someone whose life is contradictory to the Saints of the past 1960 years, especially to the likes of Pope Pius X (who literally has the opposite life to Pope Paul VI), and even Saint Benedict, who destroyed a sanctuary to Apollo and created an oratory to Saint John the Apostle (who clearly didn't respect different religions in peace and love, like his holiness commanded us to do).
