Canonization Is Not Infallible

[cmotherofpirl]

If we are to second-guess the Church on canonizations, merely hoping the Church and Pope got it right, and not trusting in the infallibilty guarenteed by God to the Church, then how can we trust the Church to get anything right ? This is the problem in a nutshell.

As far as I am concerned, taking this position puts you outside the doors of the Church looking in. You either believe the Church or your opinion- playing with definitions and hypotheticals - but you can't do both. C.S. Lewis calls this the "Christianity and" position. Its a great way to justify any position you want, but not a great way to be a faithful catholic trusting the almost 2000 year-old Church has got it right.

[thessalonian]

Mark,

Amen, it will not be a theology test. It will be the spirit, recieved in baptism and strengthened at confirmation guiding us through life. If we follow that spirit and abide in Christ he will abide in us. Knowing the theology makes us more accountable for what we do. The spirit will guide us in the right behavior without being theologians. There is also a Sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) that the church teaches that all who are striving to follow the Church have. They may not know the heavy ins and outs of the theology and have explanations for it all but they know the truth just the same and follow it.

God bless in your journey. We all struggle at different points.

[thessalonian]

CMP as always summed it up nicely. Further if you read much of the lives of the saints, it's not hard to tell that they lived truly heoric lives. If they are not in heaven then I don't have a snoball's chance ....

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='07 January 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1262920182' post='2032192']
If we are to second-guess the Church on canonizations, merely hoping the Church and Pope got it right, and not trusting in the infallibilty guarenteed by God to the Church, then how can we trust the Church to get anything right ? This is the problem in a nutshell.

As far as I am concerned, taking this position puts you outside the doors of the Church looking in. You either believe the Church or your opinion- playing with definitions and hypotheticals - but you can't do both. C.S. Lewis calls this the "Christianity and" position. Its a great way to justify any position you want, but not a great way to be a faithful catholic trusting the almost 2000 year-old Church has got it right.
[/quote]


Ironically, Lewis had a few "Christianity and" positions himself, not having been in union with Rome...

but I digress.

Cmom's post=good.

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 January 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1262902467' post='2032024']
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.
[/quote]
first, the CDF cannot teach infallibly by themselves nor is that even there first purpose. They may only teach non-infallibly and fallibly, you will be hearing much more about this.

second, the question of the limits of infalliblity is still in some sense not clear, since theologians are still debating Lumen Gentium, so the CDF is going with the long held theoligical opinion that there is primary and secondary exercise of infallibility which contradicts the Lumen Gentium teaching, however the VII teachings are still being debated. In any case the CDF was not teaching infallibly so like I said there is room for clarification and develepment and possible error (not enough to put one's salvation at risk) on that question of just how far infallibility extends.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 January 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1262903522' post='2032030']

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.
[/quote]
there are several problems with quoting Ad Tuendam Fidem as the source of infallible teaching that canonization of saints is an infallible practice as well as an infallible teaching of the Church, but I wont analyse it until I have my full arsenal completed. It is useless going in circles when you dont know where I am coming from.

I will say this there is a lot of confusion here and it isnt on my part. I'm not the one struggling here.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='07 January 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1262920182' post='2032192']

As far as I am concerned, taking this position puts you outside the doors of the Church looking in. You either believe the Church or your opinion- playing with definitions and hypotheticals - but you can't do both. C.S. Lewis calls this the "Christianity and" position. Its a great way to justify any position you want, but not a great way to be a faithful catholic trusting the almost 2000 year-old Church has got it right.
[/quote]
I'm glad you are not the judge of my salvation as well as my membership in the Church and sad that you presume to make a pronouncment publicly which is clearly out of your capacity.

edit response to Rexi:second, the question of the limits of infallibly is still in some sense not clear, since theologians are still debating Lumen Gentium, so the CDF is going with the long held theoligical opinion that there is primary and secondary exercise of infallibility which contradicts the Lumen Gentium teaching, however the VII teachings are still being debated. In any case the CDF was not teaching infallibly so like I said there is room for clarification and develepment on that question of just how far infallibility extends.

Edited January 12, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

also Nihil that quote about handing down Tradition refers to the transmission of Sacred Tradition which is the Public Deeds of God for the salvation of the entire human race, not the private salvation of an individual which has no bearing on the salvation of the entire human race. After the Apostles died we possessed everything necessary for salvation, and this is transmitted to us in several different ways.

also how do you intrepret definitively? It is a general term which can be used for a teaching or a practice. So if one has not the fundamental understanding of the charism of infallibility one could easily misintreprt meaning of terms and what the pope is doing.

and btw. I have no anti-Catholic bias. I am a practicing Catholic. However I do work privately and in a limited way publicly for the develepment of doctrine. The idea of canonization as infallible is an open question which needs develepment and clarification so we can be protected from the enemies of those websites you quote.

Edited January 12, 2010 by kafka

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kafka' date='12 January 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1263335305' post='2035597']
I'm glad you are not the judge of my salvation as well as my membership in the Church and sad that you presume to make a pronouncment publicly which is clearly out of your capacity.
[/quote]
Dude, I will make a poll regarding your holiness/salvation and let the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] definitively judge you!!!!


Muahahahaha!


People with negative phatmass points are reprobate and people with positive points are ultimately saved. People with epic points like Winchester and Apotheoun are the saints in our midst.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kafka' date='12 January 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1263335305' post='2035597']
I'm glad you are not the judge of my salvation as well as my membership in the Church and sad that you presume to make a pronouncment publicly which is clearly out of your capacity.
[/quote]
I am pleased to announce that you are saved, at the moment, and barely. Oh, and I am officially holier than thou.

[kafka]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='12 January 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1263335861' post='2035605']
I am pleased to announce that you are saved, at the moment, and barely. Oh, and I am officially holier than thou.
[/quote]
starting this thread along with the arrogance thread was a subconscious ploy to lower my reputation in the point system.

Edited January 12, 2010 by kafka

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' date='12 January 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1263335305' post='2035597']

I'm glad you are not the judge of my salvation as well as my membership in the Church and sad that you presume to make a pronouncment publicly which is clearly out of your capacity.

[/quote]

Al and Icey and Rexi and I all pointed out the error where your conclusions led. Fortunately it doesn't take a theology degree to point out your errors
The churches teaches that those people declared saints are in heaven and worthy of veneration. Feel free to privately disagree, but don't claim the church teaches otherwise.

[thessalonian]

"the CDF cannot teach infallibly by themselves nor is that even there first purpose. They may only teach non-infallibly and fallibly,"

Don't make the mistake that because they are not infallible per se, their teaching is errant. That's a logical fallacy. Further CDF teachings are scrutinized by Popes so that lends further credence to their word. Their documents may not be of the exactness and authority that an infallible statement requires. But I would sure take them over your musings. So tell me, is your determination that saint canonizations are not infallible, fallible?

Edited January 13, 2010 by thessalonian

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='kafka' date='12 January 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1263335305' post='2035597']

I will say this there is a lot of confusion here and it isnt on my part. I'm not the one struggling here.
[/quote]

We're not struggling here, we just happen to completely disagree with you on this point. If, by some strange chance, we are in error at least we're in the good company of all the popes who have ever canonized saints.

[AccountDeleted]

Although I respect your intelligence and scholarliness (a word?), my question would be why you would even want to bring up something like this in public, since it can serve to confuse and scandalise the faithful, who are already struggling with so many other contentious issues in the Church. What we need right now are faith warriors supporting the Church. As someone else posted, if the Popes are standing out there proclaiming these people to be saints, and in heaven, then we need to support that view to all, and if we happen to disagree for any reason, then we need to limit this kind of disagreement to a private area, such as a theology class or with a spiritual discussion group etc. I love debate and thinking about possibilities, but our first priority must always be for the good and building up of the Church.

And if you think that this forum is a good and appropriate venue for this discussion, then perhaps you could add some kind of a disclaimer to the effect that the views you hold are controversial and should not be taken to mean that canonized saints are NOT in heaven (or something to that effect). Because unfortunately, your point of view might have all the correct logical arguments (I can't understand half of what you say, sorry) but if you have not love, then you are as sounding brass..... The Church wants us to venerate the saints for our spiritual good, so debating whether she is infallible in her decisions about each saint, is a little counter-productive to the faith IMHO. But I still think you are really smart.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kafka' date='12 January 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1263335305' post='2035597']


I will say this there is a lot of confusion here and it isnt on my part. I'm not the one struggling here.

[/quote]
I realize that we have different understandings here, and I'm all right with that, but if you're going to make comments like this one, I'd prefer if they were substantiated. Otherwise it feels to me like you're impugning my/our understanding of our faith, which I am confident in saying we all take very seriously.

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='13 January 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1263358810' post='2035857']
I realize that we have different understandings here, and I'm all right with that, but if you're going to make comments like this one, I'd prefer if they were substantiated. Otherwise it feels to me like you're impugning my/our understanding of our faith, which I am confident in saying we all take very seriously.
[/quote]
sorry that was meant for motherofpearl and Rexi not you. I am sick of people making judgments on me that I am a heretic and fall outside the Church for upholding a speculative opinion. That is presumption that is arrogance. I would rather be attacked ad hominem since that is a much lesser offense.

and the confusion is in quoting documents without fundamental understanding of what is happening. I dont blame you or anyone for that, the Magisterium is complex and not many people have a clear conception of it. It tooks me years, and even now it is difficult for me to explain anything especially when there is no common reference point and I am working on a long article which I will probably get mocked at for in order to help everyone clear this up. No one has to choose to participate here or in any of my threads, but if I am going to spend all this time thinking and analysing that deserves respect and no rash responses.

No one has even realized yet the Ad Tuendam Fidem cannot even qualify as an exercise of Papal Infallibility since it is an promulgation of norms into the Code of Canon law and not a teaching of doctrines. It falls under JPII's temporal authority. It does not meet the criteria right from the beginning thus it defaults to something else namely an exercise of the Church's temporal authority

The whole purpose of this thread is to teach a few fundamentals that will assist everyone with their understanding.

It is an important point. Especially for ultra-conservatives and even conservatives and for everyone if they want to learn.

Edited January 13, 2010 by kafka