Canonization Is Not Infallible

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='05 January 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1262741981' post='2030503']
wait, I thought the SSPX was the proper interpreter of Vatican II.

lol jk
[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='05 January 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1262737740' post='2030459']
Rexi's on the flip side of this with his formulas and such (the ones I'd be more inclined to agree with, as they are currently what the CDF itself says)...
[/quote]

Well, I [i]am[/i] heavily influenced by those manualists, and you know how they were...

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='05 January 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1262741621' post='2030499']


I certainly agree with the ecumenical council that the infallibly of the Church extends as far as the deposit of revelation is. But with the Holy See, I agree that the infallibility of the Church also encompasses truths that have a necessary connection to divine revelation (see CDF, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei). [b]It is the Holy See that is the authentic interpreter of Vatican II, not you. [/b]
[/quote]
that is your interpretation of the commentary. You speak in your own light, so do not presume to speak in place of the CDF.

The points I've made are clear. We will see how the Magisterium clarifies the range and limit of infallibility in the future.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='06 January 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1262813926' post='2031104']
that is your interpretation of the commentary. You speak in your own light, so do not presume to speak in place of the CDF.

The points I've made are clear. We will see how the Magisterium clarifies the range and limit of infallibility in the future.
[/quote]

Your points may have been clear, but they were in contradiction to the teachings of the Holy See.

The CDF document clearly states that truths belonging to the second paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei are infallible. The document was also completely clear in stating that canonizations are truths belonging to the second paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei. (See [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=101651&view=findpost&p=2029248"]Post #7[/url] for these statements from the CDF.)

If you knowingly and willing choose to reject the doctrinal decision of the Holy See, you are putting your own soul at risk.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Resurrexi

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='06 January 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1262814713' post='2031126']
Your points may have been clear, but they were in contradiction to the teachings of the Holy See.

The CDF document clearly states that truths belonging to the second paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei are infallible. The document was also completely clear in stating that canonizations are truths belonging to the second paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei. (See [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=101651&view=findpost&p=2029248"]Post #7[/url] for these statements from the CDF.)

If you knowingly and willing choose to reject the doctrinal decision of the Holy See, you are putting your own soul at risk.
[/quote]
which again shows your ignorance. My soul is at risk if I deny an infallible dogma. Canonization has not been taught infallibly, so even if I faithfully dissent from the majority opinion or even faithfully dissent from a non-infallible teaching (which is what I would categorize that particular part of that commentary as) that it is a dogma I am not putting my soul at risk.

Again you are interpreting that paragraph which is a commentary. It is not clear cut, and the term definitive is not the same as infallible. Plus this commentary is not infallible teaching of the Magisterium.

I ask you for the last time, stop speaking in their place and being arbiter of my conscience.

I will give you the last word, but perhaps you should graduate from highschool first. And that was meant in all snarkiness.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='06 January 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1262816151' post='2031140']
My soul is at risk if I deny an infallible dogma.[/quote]

One's soul is not merely at risk if he knowingly and willingly denies infallible dogma, it is also at risk if he knowingly chooses to deniy any authentic teaching. Although I know you don't like quotes, I'm going to use this quote to support what I have already stated in my own words:

"While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine." (Code of Canon Law, can. 752)

(N.B., the same canon is included in the [i]Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches[/i], in which it is canon 599)

[quote name='kafka' date='06 January 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1262816151' post='2031140']
Plus this commentary is not infallible teaching of the Magisterium.[/quote]

Catholics are not merely required to assent to infallible teachings. They are to adhere with religious assent even to those teachings of the Church which have not been infallibly defined. Again, I am going to provide a quote to back up what I have already stated in my own words:

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me'; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Pope Pius XII, [i]Humani Generis[/i], 20)

[quote name='kafka' date='06 January 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1262816151' post='2031140']
I will give you the last word, but perhaps you should graduate from highschool first. And that was meant in all snarkiness.
[/quote]

Yay for ad hominems!

Edited January 6, 2010 by Resurrexi

[IcePrincessKRS]

Given that the vast majority of theologians agree that canonization is infallible I'm definitely siding with Al and Rexi on this one. Especially since all indications are that the Popes believe the canonization decree is infallible when they give it. If the Pope thinks he's giving an infallible decree then who the heck are we to say he's wrong?

newadvent.com has a decent section on this as well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

[quote]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).[/quote]

[kafka]

I am not going to defend my position anymore, it amounts to faithfully dissenting from one teaching in favor of sacredly assenting to another higher teaching which is the infallible teaching from Lumen Gentium I quoted above.

However I will point out that Rex's behavior in that last post is exactly what I am talking about in my arrogance thread.

up until then it was fine we were using quotes and explaining the meanings interpreting them in our own light, then at the very end I give him the last word. He pulls two quotes out that I rightly doubt he has a mature and clear understanding of in order to prove his point or perhaps nudge my conscience and make me feel guilty under the weight of them.

And the quotes he uses are a whole new topic namely the relationship of sacred assent, ordinary assent and faithful dissent which maybe I should start a new thread on. Also perhaps I should start a new thread on the difference between infallible teaching, non-infallible teaching and fallible teaching but what is the point?

Edited January 6, 2010 by kafka

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='06 January 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1262818167' post='2031184']
I am not going to defend my position anymore, it amounts to faithfully dissenting to one teaching in order to sacredly assent to another higher teaching which is the infallible teaching from Lumen Gentium I quoted above.[/quote]

If you think that it is necessary to deny the teachings found in Pope John Paul II's [i]Ad Tuendam Fidem[/i] and the CDF's accompanying Doctrinal Commentary in order to uphold the teachings that are found in [i]Lumen Gentium[/i], it is probably you, not the Holy See, who is misinterpreting that conciliar document.

[quote name='kafka' date='06 January 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1262818167' post='2031184']
up until then it was fine we were using quotes and explaining the meanings interpreting them in our own light, then at the very end I give him the last word. He pulls two quotes out that I rightly doubt he has a mature and clear understanding of in order to prove his point or perhaps nudge my conscience and make me feel guilty at the weight of them. [/quote]

If anyone has doubts about my understanding of the documents I quoted, he can easily find the documents of the Vatican's website and look at the original context himself. That's why I include the source of the document at the end of the quote.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kafka' date='06 January 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1262818167' post='2031184']
I am not going to defend my position anymore, it amounts to faithfully dissenting from one teaching in favor of sacredly assenting to another higher teaching which is the infallible teaching from Lumen Gentium I quoted above.
[/quote]

you... quoted? and claimed the quotation was infallible?

[quote]
However I will point out that Rex's behavior in that last post is exactly what I am talking about in my arrogance thread.
[/quote]

I couldn't let this sentence disappear... I just found it really funny. Rexi didn't display any arrogance whatsoever. I think you're being just a wee bit sensitive.

[quote]
Also perhaps I should start a new thread on the difference between infallible teaching, non-infallible teaching and fallible teaching but what is the point?
[/quote]

Maybe you should. No snarkiness intended.


Just wanna say that you should respect Rexi's opinion. Who cares if he's in high school; he's much better catechized than anyone I can think of, and he's only quoted documents he understands quite well.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='06 January 2010 - 08:47 AM' timestamp='1262728059' post='2030376']
I thought that, too, Ora.
[/quote]

Could you tell me why? I'm always ready to learn from you, if you have the patience to explain things. I will gather information where ever I can. Do I have to put my signature in bold type?

Oh I see it's the bold type. I'm the nut job that believes Jesus talks directly into my mind sometimes! While I was suffering intensely on one occasion an image came into my mind that said. "This will seem like nothing when you are in Paradise" I suppose people will consider me arrogant to believe that, but then I never have won any popularity contests.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kafka' date='06 January 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1262816151' post='2031140']
[b]which again shows your ignorance.[/b] My soul is at risk if I deny an infallible dogma. Canonization has not been taught infallibly, so even if I faithfully dissent from the majority opinion or even faithfully dissent from a non-infallible teaching (which is what I would categorize that particular part of that commentary as) that it is a dogma I am not putting my soul at risk.

Again you are interpreting that paragraph which is a commentary. It is not clear cut, and the term definitive is not the same as infallible. Plus this commentary is not infallible teaching of the Magisterium.

I ask you for the last time, stop speaking in their place and being arbiter of my conscience.

[b]I will give you the last word, but perhaps you should graduate from highschool first. And that was meant in all snarkiness.[/b]
[/quote]

Excuse me young man, but we have a [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=101676"]thread[/url] in Open Mic you might want to check out.

[Mark of the Cross]

[size="2"]A priest explained the following quotation to me. Wouldn't this mean that even if a canonisation wasn't infallible that we would not be committing idolatry if a saint wasn't really a saint since were are only venerating them and not adoring them?
[quote]We have veneration("doulia") for Mary & Saints, but not adoration ("latria"),which is proper only to God. [/quote][/size]

[Aloysius]

even just venerating an idol is still idolatry

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='07 January 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1262833056' post='2031338']
even just venerating an idol is still idolatry
[/quote]
But don't we venerate lots of things like our toys or does that have a different name? As long as God is held above all else, surely we are not being idolaters. (Just asking for the education.)