Canonization Is Not Infallible

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='kafka' date='14 January 2010 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1263421316' post='2036457']


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.
[/quote]

But I doubt that "everyone" can or will be able to understand an issue this complex just through reading it on a forum. That doesn't mean to say that you shouldn't try, or that there aren't those who can and do understand all the implications you mentioned, but what you need to take into consideration is that most of us are at a very basic level of theology, and what we want to know from the Church is, what should we believe, with confidence and in faith? And if the Church says to me, these people are saints and you may venerate them and pray to them for their intercession, I say, ok, that's good enough for me.

Then it gets a bit confusing when someone who is very brilliant and well educated comes along and basically says "theologically speaking, not all saints may be in heaven because the Church isn't infalliable on who they select." (so the one you are praying to might not be able to hear you or help you!) or at least that is what it appears is being said here. And even if what you say can be proven to be theologically correct, what purpose does it serve to cause confusion in the faithful? Now do we start second guessing every saint and wonder if the Church was right about this one or that one? I know there are saints that I might not particularly care for, or even think deserve to be saints (yeah, yeah, I know I am not supposed to judge others, but I do sometimes since I am human) but I tell myself that the Church has declared this to be true, so it is good enough for me.

There is one woman that is being considered for sainthood right now that I can't understand why she would even qualify, but then I am not privy to all the information that is available to those who are considering her cause, so I can't really make this determination. And if the Church canonizes her, I might not pray to her a lot since I don't relate to her, but I will respect that the Church considers her a saint, and will try to find things in her life that can be an inspiration to me rather than tell myself that she probably isn't a saint after all since the Church isn't infalliable on this!

What I am saying is that when the Church rules on something, anything, I want not to have to second guess whether it was said with infallibility or not. I can see that you are doing this as an intellectual exercise, but I just ask that you be careful with the way you present things. Speaking as one of the ordinary faithful (and not a scholar), I don't really feel good about seeing Church rulings questioned.

[kafka]

o.k. fair enough. I accept that rebuke. The thread was ill titled, and perhaps I should have used a different springboard in which I could have made the same points.

As far as I am concerned this whole thread could be deleted if people think it is causing confusion or scandal, since I will cover all the points in my other article without mentioning canonization.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' date='13 January 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1263421316' post='2036457']
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.
[/quote]
The problem is however is presupposes you are qualified in some way, other than in your own mind, to teach these fundamentals.
If you kept your topics as speculation and stopped titling them as fact, you might get more positive responses.
You have yet to answer the point Al made that refusing to accept the church teaching that canonized saints are in fact in heaven, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the church can not teach anything infallibly.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='kafka' date='14 January 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1263422779' post='2036479']
o.k. fair enough. I accept that rebuke. The thread was ill titled, and perhaps I should have used a different springboard in which I could have made the same points.

As far as I am concerned this whole thread could be deleted if people think it is causing confusion or scandal, since I will cover all the points in my other article without mentioning canonization.
[/quote]


You know, you are just too intelligent for your own good! but I am sure that God is "well pleased with what you have written about Him". One day you are going to have a vision of God and then you will say "Everything I have written is as straw!"

Until then.... well finished.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='13 January 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1263423134' post='2036482']
The problem is however is presupposes you are qualified in some way, other than in your own mind, to teach these fundamentals.
If you kept your topics as speculation and stopped titling them as fact, you might get more positive responses.
You have yet to answer the point Al made that refusing to accept the church teaching that canonized saints are in fact in heaven, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the church can not teach anything infallibly.
[/quote]
But of course no one at Phatmass is qualified to teach anything as infallible.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 January 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1263423775' post='2036490']
But of course no one at Phatmass is qualified to teach anything as infallible.
[/quote]

I thought you didn't except the idea of infallibility? I recall you saying that you thought it was a Latin theological construct, and that the Church's dogmatic definitions are God-breathed rather than merely infallible.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 January 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1263424575' post='2036503']
I thought you didn't except the idea of infallibility?

I recall you saying that you thought it was a Latin theological construct, and that the Church's dogmatic definitions are God-breathed rather than merely infallible.[/quote]
You are right . . . I do not accept it, but pointing out that Phatmassers are not qualified to teach that a specific proposition is infallible does not require that I accept that the presuppositions underlying modern Latin magisterial theory.

That said, Kafka has simply pointed out that the documents being used to defend the idea that canonizations are infallible are themselves not infallible. Can a non-infallible document propose something infallibly?

Edited January 13, 2010 by Apotheoun

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 January 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1263426544' post='2036524']
You are right . . . I do not accept it, but pointing out that Phatmassers are not qualified to teach that a specific proposition is infallible does not require that I accept that the presuppositions underlying modern Latin magisterial theory.

That said, Kafka has simply pointed out that the documents being used to defend the idea that canonizations are infallible are themselves not infallible. Can a non-infallible document propose something infallibly?
[/quote]
Why do we need to rely on a current document to validate something that the Church has been teaching for a long long time?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='13 January 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1263429817' post='2036549']
Why do we need to rely on a current document to validate something that the Church has been teaching for a long long time?
[/quote]
Cmom,

The problem is that the Western Church has never said explicitly through her "extraordinary magisterium" that canonizations are infallible. In other words, the idea that canonizations are infallible is merely a theological opinion.

I think I will bow out of the present conversation, because this really is not an important issue for me as an Eastern Catholic.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 January 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1263430561' post='2036556']
Cmom,

The problem is that the Western Church has never said explicitly through her "extraordinary magisterium" that canonizations are infallible. In other words, the idea that canonizations are infallible is merely a theological opinion.

I think I will bow out of the present conversation, because this really is not an important issue for me as an Eastern Catholic.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd
[/quote]
Not everything needs to be taught through her "extraordinary Magisterium" to be infallible.

[kafka]

I thought I made it clear that this was a speculative opinion. Oh well I will be more careful in the future mthrofpearl

[quote name='nunsense' date='13 January 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1263423162' post='2036483']
You know, you are just too intelligent for your own good! but I am sure that God is "well pleased with what you have written about Him". One day you are going to have a vision of God and then you will say "Everything I have written is as straw!"

Until then.... well finished.
[/quote]
I hope so.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 January 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1263426544' post='2036524']

That said, Kafka has simply pointed out that the documents being used to defend the idea that canonizations are infallible are themselves not infallible. Can a non-infallible document propose something infallibly?
[/quote]
Those documents are a strange case. Ad Tuendam Fidem is an exercise of JPII's temporal authority since he is incorporating norms into Canon Law. Yet the CDF commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, I would term as non-infallibe teaching of the ordinary Magisterium which could be a mix of already defined infallible teachings (though no new ones), non-infallible teachings as well as some fallible theological opinions.

So there is definitely difficulty in quoting and interpreting Magesterial documents. That is why I was trying to make the point that we shouldnt quote so quickly Church documents. Sorry if I was being rude to anyone about it.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 January 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1263430561' post='2036556']
Cmom,

The problem is that the Western Church has never said explicitly through her "extraordinary magisterium" that canonizations are infallible. In other words, the idea that canonizations are infallible is merely a theological opinion.

I think I will bow out of the present conversation, because this really is not an important issue for me as an Eastern Catholic.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd
[/quote]
The term I use for extraordinary Magisterium would be Sacred Magisterium

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='13 January 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1263430856' post='2036559']
Not everything needs to be taught through her "extraordinary Magisterium" to be infallible.
[/quote]
I dont use the term extraordinary Magisterium yet the only three ways the charism of infallibility may be exercised is Papal Infallibility, Ecumenical Councils, and or Universal Magisterium which all have criteria, though the Universal Magesterium's criteria is not taught yet infallibly, or non-infallibly (that I know of) so it falls under theological speculation.

The basic point I am making ultimately is that canonization falls under the Church's temporal authority which can never be infallible, and not under the spiritual authority otherwise known as Magisterium. But I dont want to argue this point anymore just wanted to lend insight into your above comments.

Edited January 14, 2010 by kafka

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' date='14 January 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1263502423' post='2037135']
I thought I made it clear that this was a speculative opinion. Oh well I will be more careful in the future mthrofpearl


I hope so.


Those documents are a strange case. Ad Tuendam Fidem is an exercise of JPII's temporal authority since he is incorporating norms into Canon Law. Yet the CDF commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, I would term as non-infallibe teaching of the ordinary Magisterium which could be a mix of already defined infallible teachings (though no new ones), non-infallible teachings as well as some fallible theological opinions.

So there is definitely difficulty in quoting and interpreting Magesterial documents. That is why I was trying to make the point that we shouldnt quote so quickly Church documents. Sorry if I was being rude to anyone about it.


The term I use for extraordinary Magisterium would be Sacred Magisterium


I dont use the term extraordinary Magisterium yet the only three ways the charism of infallibility may be exercised is Papal Infallibility, Ecumenical Councils, and or Universal Magisterium which all have criteria, though the Universal Magesterium's criteria is not taught yet infallibly, or non-infallibly (that I know of) so it falls under theological speculation.

The basic point I am making ultimately is that canonization falls under the Church's temporal authority which can never be infallible, and not under the spiritual authority otherwise known as Magisterium. But I dont want to argue this point anymore just wanted to lend insight into your above comments.
[/quote]
Then we are going to agree to disagree. Canonizations are exercises of the Church's infallibility because she is unequivically announcing a person is worthy of veneration.

[kafka]

we will see what decision the Magisterium makes in the future concerning canonizations. I think it will be sooner than later perhaps when the Church matures a bit more. To much seems to be hanging on a thread these days.

Edited January 14, 2010 by kafka

[zunshynn]

Kafka... I came across this the other day and I thought you might appreciate taking a look at it. Might be something to consider when you post.

[quote name='kafka' date='04 January 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1262647484' post='2029678']
D. Some Catholics meddle in all areas of the Faith as if know it alls, when in fact they should only participate in matters they have a clear and mature understanding of. This sort of meddling is arrogant.[/quote]

[quote]G. Some Catholics on the other hand place there own personal opinions over and above Church teaching and undermine the faith by presenting useless and meaningless questions. This happens here especially in the debate table and usually regards matters of morals or passages of Sacred Scripture.
[/quote]

Anyway, personally, I find it very hard to take you seriously these days. You sound very intelligent... I'm sure you are. But what is the point of all these threads? Are you really aiming to edify and enlighten us, or is this some attempt to prove something to yourself about your intelligence and competence? You certainly don't have to answer that to me, that's between you, and God... but might be something to keep in mind. I wholehearted agree with nunsense, especially on this point that [i]"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."[/i]

I kind of wonder what "meaningless questions" you're referring to that you seem to see posted here all the time when you keep bringing up these points of supposed contention in regard to what exactly the Church has authority to teach. As far as I'm concerned, the institutions of the Church have more authority than you or I regardless of whether or not it is a point of infallibility, so I personally don't see the point in debating these things ad nauseum.

If you think that these matters are essential to debate, by all means do so, I guess. But it is a little obnoxious when you present an opinion or theory as fact that is not even held by most mainstream theologians and popes throughout history. Like IcePrincess said, if we're wrong, we still are in pretty good company.

[quote]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]

Mmm... yeah, I'm not confused, and I don't really think that just because someone disagrees with you means that they are "struggling".

[Socrates]

[quote name='kafka' date='14 January 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1263504673' post='2037146']
we will see what decision the Magisterium makes in the future concerning canonizations. I think it will be sooner than later perhaps when the Church matures a bit more. To much seems to be hanging on a thread these days.
[/quote]
Darned shame the Church hasn't reached your level of maturity yet.