Canonization Is Not Infallible

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='06 January 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1262833390' post='2031343']
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.)
[/quote]
Guys why don't you start a new thread on veneration.

[Apotheoun]

The act of idolatry ([i]idololatria[/i]) involves giving adoration ([i]latria[/i]) to something other than God.

[Aloysius]

so giving veneration (dulia) to a golden calf is not idolatry? it certainly would be...

and no, we don't venerate our toys. dulia is what we offer to the saints, I don't think anything else we do qualifies as dulia... the closest thing on earth would be respectful rituals towards popes, kings, queens, emperors, presidents, et cetera; but even that type of honoring of someone isn't veneration (dulia)

in any event, offering veneration to non-existent beings is no better than idolatry; if the Catholic Church promotes veneration of non-existent beings, it has no argument against idolatry because it does something just as bad. of course, the Church does not do that, because everyone the Church raises to the altar to be venerated is a real saint in heaven.

[Mark of the Cross]

Aloysius Apotheoun choose your weapons. Emoticons are a good choice.
[img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb037.gif[/img] [img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb034.gif[/img]
The looser gets his tongue tie-wrapped to the minus points post.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='07 January 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1262846136' post='2031599']
Aloysius Apotheoun choose your weapons. Emoticons are a good choice.
[img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb037.gif[/img] [img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb034.gif[/img]
The looser gets his tongue tie-wrapped to the minus points post.
[/quote]
Rexi is Aloysius' second, but we need a second for Apotheoun.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='06 January 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1262836980' post='2031402']
so giving veneration (dulia) to a golden calf is not idolatry? it certainly would be...[/quote]
No, technically speaking it is not. It was only idolatry because the Israelites were giving it adoration ([i]latria[/i]).

For example: the veneration given to the brazen serpent was perfectly legitimate, but that bronze image was destroyed once the Israelites began giving it inordinate worship (i.e., [i]latria[/i]).

Moreover, if a person where to give adoration ([i]latria[/i]) to the saints, or to their relics and icons, that would be an act of idolatry.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='06 January 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1262836980' post='2031402']Dulia is what we offer to the saints, I don't think anything else we do qualifies as dulia... the closest thing on earth would be respectful rituals towards popes, kings, queens, emperors, presidents, et cetera; but even that type of honoring of someone isn't veneration (dulia)

in any event, offering veneration to non-existent beings is no better than idolatry; if the Catholic Church promotes veneration of non-existent beings, it has no argument against idolatry because it does something just as bad. of course, the Church does not do that, because everyone the Church raises to the altar to be venerated is a real saint in heaven.
[/quote]
One can give [i]proskynesis[/i] or [i]douleia[/i] to the saints, to one's parents, to the civil authorities, etc., and that is all perfectly acceptable. Relative worship can be given to any number of things without necessarily being a form of idolatry. Nevertheless it is possible for one to act imprudently by giving veneration ([i]proskynesis[/i] or [i]douleia[/i]) to something that really is not worthy of such honor, but being imprudent does not by definition make one an idolater (e.g., Pope John Paul II's making an act of reverence by kissing the Quran was certainly an imprudent act, but it was not idolatrous).

Edited January 7, 2010 by Apotheoun

[kafka]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='06 January 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1262820049' post='2031205']



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.



Maybe you should. No snarkiness intended.


[/quote]
and you are right I was losing my patience.

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='06 January 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1262832183' post='2031328']
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.
[/quote]
right on thanks for the rebuke.
sorry for the ad hominem Rex. I know you mean well however:

I lose my patience because I have had it with the presumption of people in general debating out of their capacity in the name of the CDF, the Magisterium, etc. I've seen this a lot (in many forums) in the case open questions of speculative theology such as when one probes the possibility of the salvation of unbapstised infants and prenatals and mystical baptism and other topics such as this one. They trample on the weak by speaking out of their capacity and setting themselves on the side of the CDF and or Magisterium over and against their opponent.

This offends me whether or not the person means well and thinks he is defending the Faith, etc. It makes my blood boil and I will continue to be offended and speak out against it in good conscience.

edit: unbaptised infants and prenatals

Edited January 7, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

some concluding thoughts. I would like to know the opinion of those who hold the opinion that the pope has excercised his papal infallibility only twice with the teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. If canonization is infallible which everyone by now knows I disagree with then the popes would have exercised their papal infallibility literally thousands of time, which is an absurd possibility in my mind.

If I had the time and will I would search for more opinions such as Cardinal Newman's in his infallibility articles and others, but I dont have either. I will wait until the Magisterium clarifies the limits, range and sources of infallibility which is a very good possibility that this will happen in my lifetime.

If circumstance permits I will also bring the subject up to my bishop whom I have coffee with a few times a month.

[Nihil Obstat]

Why do you think that the possibility that infallibility has been exercised thousands of times is absurd?

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 January 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1262892263' post='2031853']
Why do you think that the possibility that infallibility has been exercised thousands of times is absurd?
[/quote]
it comes from my fundamental understanding of the nature of infallibility (some of which I have expounded in previous posts) and the development of the Church's understanding of Divine Revelation over space and time or in other words what theologians like Cardinal Newman call the development of doctrine.

However I disagree with those who hold the opinion that papal infallibility has only been exercised twice because it was only recently defined by VI. I think Pope Boniface exercised papal infallibility in Unam Sanctam and there are some other examples I cant think of off the top of my head. Also, certainly Saint Peter exercised Papal Infallibility.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='07 January 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1262892156' post='2031850']
I will wait until the Magisterium clarifies the limits, range and sources of infallibility which is a very good possibility that this will happen in my lifetime.
[/quote]

The Magisterium already has clarified the issue of infallibility in Ven. Pope John Paul II's [i]Ad Tuendam Fidem[/i] and in the accompanying Doctrinal Commentary. The Holy See has stated quite clearly which doctrines are infallible, and among those included were canonizations.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='07 January 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1262893012' post='2031862']
it comes from my fundamental understanding of the nature of infallibility (some of which I have expounded in previous posts) and the development of the Church's understanding of Divine Revelation over space and time or in other words what theologians like Cardinal Newman call the development of doctrine.
[/quote]

If your fundamental understanding of the nature infallibility contradicts that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then I have good reason to think your understanding is incorrect.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='04 January 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1262656383' post='2029840']
Hey! All believers of Christ are saints. I have a boring unimportant life and I'm a sinner, but Jesus loves me and I'm going to heaven when I die. I know this because Jesus inferred it in one of his messages to me. So I really am unaffected by who gets canonised. I pray direct to God because he is the one who will perform the miracle if it suits his purpose.
I love my God and my God loves me. Full stop.[img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/271.gif[/img]
[/quote]

"Let him who thinks he stands, watch out, least he fall". Not saying you won't go to heaven, but Paul says he does not even judge himself, though he knows of nothing against him. That he leaves even the judgement of himself to God. This protestant assurance is not anywhere in the Bible. Further it does not even hold up to simple logic. This is what I mean. You say the Bible does support OSAS (Once saved always saved) by your biblical analysis. Yet, you are not 100% assured of your interpretations. Let's say you were 95% sure that you were 100% assured of your salvation. By the rules of logic this is a falacy because to be 100% assured you must be 100% sure of your interpretation. So your boasting is not of God. It is of man. Sorry.

[Nihil Obstat]

This would be the relevant section of Ad Tuendam Fidem, for reference's sake.


[color="#000080"]A) Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law will now consist of two paragraphs; the first will present the text of the existing canon; the second will contain a new text. Thus, canon 750, in its complete form, will read:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church. [/color]

It strikes me that the recognition of a saint, whether by the older method or the current more regulated method is something that "has been written or handed down by tradition". Would you disagree? Furthermore it also seems to me that if one were to reject the sainthood of any particular person, they would be "[rejecting] propositions which are to be held definitively". Is this not so?

Continuing on, something I found on what happens to be an anti-Catholic website (declaring more recent popes to in fact be heretics and antipopes):

[quote]Pope Benedict XIV: “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.”[/quote]
Another quotation:
[quote]St. Francis De Sales: (+1602): “…to say the Church errs is to say no less that God errs, or else that He is willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy.” (The Catholic Controversy, p. 70.)[/quote]

Finally, still on that anti-Catholic website, I find a formula for canonizations which is, according to them, the one still used today.
[color="#000080"]In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define “x” to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.[/color]

In my humble opinion this looks as if it were certainly intended to be infallible. "...with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc...

In case the anti-Catholic website above was inventing quotes I also went to Catholic Encyclopedia and looked for the same formula, and it was slightly different, although in my opinion it has the same effect ([color="#000080"]"we decree and define..."[/color]).

[color="#000080"]"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

(Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)[/color]




So I guess the gist of my post, Kafka, is to ask where in Ad Tuendam Fidem you find room for your interpretation, because I certainly do not see it.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='08 January 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1262903224' post='2032029']
"Let him who thinks he stands, watch out, least he fall". Not saying you won't go to heaven, but Paul says he does not even judge himself, though he knows of nothing against him. That he leaves even the judgement of himself to God. This protestant assurance is not anywhere in the Bible. Further it does not even hold up to simple logic. This is what I mean. You say the Bible does support OSAS (Once saved always saved) by your biblical analysis. Yet, you are not 100% assured of your interpretations. Let's say you were 95% sure that you were 100% assured of your salvation. By the rules of logic this is a falacy because to be 100% assured you must be 100% sure of your interpretation. So your boasting is not of God. It is of man. Sorry.
[/quote]
You are correct! I often wonder how long I will need to spend in purgatory or even if I am delusional and am not going to make it at all. But I am trying, very trying to some people.
The thing is though I don't actually conclude that once saved always saved. I know I must keep striving to become what he wishes me to be. But I think there is a difference between Gods judgement and say a theology exam. In a theology exam you have to get most of the answers correct to pass. Whereas in Gods exam it really is only necessary to keep giving it the best shot you can. I don't think God expects any-more than he made us capable of. I was raised in the Anglican Church but at a particular time God called me to become a Catholic, I'm sure it was his calling because I wasn't all that taken by it thinking that it is only necessary to follow Jesus teaching but God wanted me to become a Catholic and I ended up one even though I had fought against the idea. So there is a lot to be said for those claiming that Catholicism as far as Christianity is concerned is the way to Jesus and thus God.
BTW If you perceive me as boasting then I'm sorry, it is quite unintentional. My real aim is the same as I do in my parish life and that is I feel that if I hide any doubt and display the utmost of faith it will be an encouragement to others who may be struggling.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Mark of the Cross