Canonization Is Not Infallible

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Why isn't canonization a matter of faith and morals?

[XIX]

Hmm

This is an interesting topic for me, because I have a devotion to Saint Philomena (whose existence is/was debated).

[Apotheoun]

It is a rather pointless debate since the present system used by the Roman Church for "canonizing" saints is a recent (within the last few hundred years) creation.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='XIX' date='04 January 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1262640022' post='2029607']
Hmm

This is an interesting topic for me, because I have a devotion to Saint Philomena (whose existence is/was debated).
[/quote]

She was never canonized by the Roman Pontiff. Her [i]cultus[/i] was merely permitted, and a Mass and Office were allowed to be celebrated in her honor.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='04 January 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1262640172' post='2029608']
It is a rather pointless debate since the present system used by the Roman Church for "canonizing" saints is a recent (within the last few hundred years) creation.
[/quote]

The process isn't infallible; it is the definition ("We declare and define that the blessed N. is a Saint") that is infallible.

Also, it is quite an important debate since many saints have been canonized in the last several centuries.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Resurrexi

[kafka]

First of all I want to re-iterate that canonization as an infallible act of the Pope is a theological opinion held now by a majority of theologians. However I disagree with it:

[Exodus]
{23:2} You shall not follow the crowd in doing evil. Neither shall you go astray in judgment, by agreeing with the majority opinion, apart from the truth.

Ultimately the whole purpose of this theological exercise is to teach fundamentals, so that we may live as mature Catholics with clear consciences, focused on essentials, casting all doubt aside in the midst of this evil world which threatens to destroy our Faith.

The Magisterium may only teach infallibly from Divine Revelation which is the Deeds(Tradition) and Words(Scripture) publicly wrought and written by God in history for the salvation of the entire human race. The pre-eminent Deed of God is the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. The Deeds and Words of God are infallible, perfect, pure, inerrant by their nature since God is all of these by His very nature. The strength and power of the Magisterium is in the truth that she teaches infallibly and non-infallibly the Deeds and Words of God which are infallible by their nature as I said. It is a perfect and indestructible structure based on inner life of God which is the Trinity. Magisterium proceeds from the Deeds and Words of God, just as the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The glory of the Church is that we love the Deeds and Words of God more than the nations and other religions, just as Peter and the Apostles loved the deeds and words of Christ who is God. We do not essentially and primarily depend upon human judgments, laws, disciplines, teachings, etc.

Without the Deeds and Words of God there would be no Magisterium, since the Magisterium is defined as the spiritual authority to protect, guide, and teach the Deeds and Words of God as the understanding of them unfolds in the Church over space and time. The Church's understanding of Divine Revelation (or the Sacred Deposit of Faith) which is the Deeds and Words of God, unfolds as the Church grows in grace, wisdom, and strength through time, much as the human nature of Christ did as we learn from Luke. And the Holy Spirit acts through and with the popes and bishops in this process. All other decrees, decisions, rulings, disciplines, etc. of the Pope and Bishops fall out of this range since they are not teachings. They are human in origin and subject to change. They are fallible. Whereas the teachings of the Popes and Bishops are of Divine Origin and not subject to change since God is Eternity. Rather the only things which changes is the Church's understanding of Divine Revelation which unfolds, and deepens through time and space like the unfolding of the Cosmos so to speak.

Canonization falls out of the range of this structure since it concerns private matters of particular people in space and time and is built up on private fallible human evidence. It can be compared to the process of the Church approving an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. When Mary appears a whole process is undertaken where a whole collection of evidence is gathered by the Bishops culminating with a decision by the Pope whether or not this private revelation comes from God. This is an act of the pope's temporal authority as head of the Church and not his spiritual authority to teach, guide and defend Divine Revelation. The same sort of process and decision occurs in canonization.

The infallible teachings of the Church are built upon the infallible public Deeds and Words of God, not upon human evidence, personal testimonies, and private miracles. If the latter were the case how could one possibly make the act of faith which is dependent upon and directed toward God the Revealer? I believe in God, not men.

In summary the Magisterium acts infallibly only when under certain conditions it teaches on matters of faith and morals drawn from the Deeds and Words, publicly wrought and written by God in history for the salvation of the entire human race. No more and no less.

This is all I will say concerning this matter for I would like to soldier on as I always do or hope to do.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='04 January 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1262640308' post='2029610']
The process isn't infallible; it is the definition ("We declare and define that the blessed N. is a Saint") that is infallible.[/quote]
What utter drivel! So if the process is totally messed up and a person who never really existed is "shown" to have lived a life of virtue . . . then the infallible decree of the Pope will give real existence to the fictitious person and make up for all that was wrong with the process?



[quote name='Resurrexi' date='04 January 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1262640308' post='2029610']
Also, it is quite an important debate since many saints have been canonized in the last several centuries.
[/quote]
Actually many saints were canonized during the last thirty years, most of whom people know nothing about.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Apotheoun

[kafka]

and I blogged the above for your reference:

http://trueandholyeucharist.blogspot.com/2010/01/canonization-is-not-infallible-ii.html

grace and peace

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='04 January 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1262640552' post='2029615']
What utter drivel! So if the process is totally messed up and a person who never really existed is "shown" to have lived a life of virtue, then the infallible decree of the Pope will give real existence to the fictitious person and make up for all that was wrong with the process?[/quote]

As a Catholic I believe that the Supreme Pontiff is protected by the charism of infallibility in canonizing saints.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='04 January 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1262640552' post='2029615']
Actually many saints were canonized during the last thirty years, most of whom people know nothing about.
[/quote]

While I do agree that perhaps the previous pontiff may have canonized too many people, it has to be noted that those seemingly obscure saints do have local [i]culti[/i], usually within the region in which they lived.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Resurrexi

[cmotherofpirl]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia
"Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory. But in imposing this obligation the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases. Equivalent canonization occurs when the pope, omitting the judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant of God to be venerated in the Universal Church; this happens when such a saint has been from a remote period the object of veneration, when his heroic virtues (or martyrdom) and miracles are related by reliable historians, and the fame of his miraculous intercession is uninterrupted. Many examples of such canonization are to be found in Benedict XIV; e.g. Saints Romuald, Norbert, Bruno, Peter Nolasco, Raymond Nonnatus, John of Matha, Felix of Valois, Queen Margaret of Scotland, King Stephen of Hungary, Wenceslaus Duke of Bohemia, and Gregory VII. Such instances afford a good proof of the caution with which the Roman Church proceeds in these equivalent canonizations. St. Romuald was not canonized until 439 years after his death, and the honour came to him sooner than to any of the others mentioned. We may add that this equivalent canonization consists usually in the ordering of an Office and Mass by the pope in honour of the saint, and that mere enrollment in the Roman Martyrology does not by any means imply this honour (Benedict XIV, l, c., xliii, no 14). "
"Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church. "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='XIX' date='04 January 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1262640022' post='2029607']
Hmm

This is an interesting topic for me, because I have a devotion to Saint Philomena (whose existence is/was debated).
[/quote]

From Catholic Answers, on St. Christopher:

[indent]
Q:“Is St. Christopher still a saint?”

A: St. Christopher is still recognized as a saint, though his feast day no longer appears on the Church’s universal liturgical calendar. He was one of the early martyrs about whom not much is known. His name means "Christ-bearer," which reflects the story told of him that he carried the child Jesus across a river. Because so little is known of Christopher, he may have been known only by his story and people gave him a name that reflected the story. Canonizations arose centuries after Christopher’s time. [b]Many of the early saints, including Christopher, were never formally canonized but were acclaimed as saints by Christian communities. In recent decades the Church has removed the feast days of obscure saints from the universal liturgical calendar, but the saints still remain saints, and their feast days may still be observed by parishes bearing their name and by those with a continuing devotion to the saint.[/b]
[/indent]

This one is also very good:

[indent]
[b]In the early days saints were not canonized by the pope but referred to as saints by popular acclaim. In the case of some of these very early ones, there is insufficient historical evidence regarding their sainthood (or even their existence). Thus, several such early saints who had never been canonized infallibly by a pope had their cults suppressed.[/b]

As an analogy, consider that there were a number of ancient books that in some places were considered to be inspired Scripture but that the magisterium ultimately declared to be non-canonical. The principle is not exactly the same, since the magisterium never definitively declares someone to be not a saint, as it has definitively excluded all non-canonical books from the canon. The canon of Scripture is closed; the canon of saints is not. Still, in both cases the earlier popular acclaim was not an exercise in infallibility, and is subject to review by the magisterium.

In the case of non-canonized saints, the Church does not even rule out the possibility that subsequent historical discoveries could shed new light on a popularly acclaimed saint, leading to his eventual canonization. All the Church does is say that, based on current information, it is not possible to canonize this figure of popular acclaim, and, as a result, it is necessary to suppress the cult around this figure.

It should be pointed out that St. Christopher is not the subject of such a suppressed cult. Though his day on the Church’s universal calendar was removed, he did exist and is still treated as a saint. He still can appear on particular calendars and have churches named after him.[/indent]

So, canonization is only infallible if the pope has proclaimed that a person be a Saint (and I assume), that the pope did so using the formula described by Rexi. In such cases where legitimate doubt exists, it is because they were never formally declared Saints.

Edited January 4, 2010 by mommas_boy

[King's Rook's Pawn]

But what about saints like Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, who's story is based on old accusations of blood libel? I'm rather glad he was removed from the calendar because that's sort of...controversial...

[cmotherofpirl]

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”



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.”[i]

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“[We] teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when [1) carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority [2] he explains a doctrine of faith or morals [3] to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1839)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='04 January 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1262642497' post='2029638']
But what about saints like Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, who's story is based on old accusations of blood libel? I'm rather glad he was removed from the calendar because that's sort of...controversial...
[/quote]
THis person was never canonized or on the calandar of saints. There was a bishop of that name however, hence the probable confusion.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='04 January 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1262642791' post='2029641']
THis person was never canonized or on the calandar of saints. There was a bishop of that name however, hence the probable confusion.
[/quote]

Are you sure? His [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Saint_Hugh_of_Lincoln"]Wikipedia page[/url] says, "Shortly after news was spread of his death, miracles were attributed to Hugh and he was rushed into sainthood. Hugh became one of the youngest individuals accorded sainthood, with July 27 declared his feast day. Over time, however, the question of the rush to sainthood was raised, and Hugh’s name was not included in Butler’s Lives of the Saints (1756–1759). Today, Hugh’s sainthood is significantly downplayed. Although the Vatican has not revoked the status of sainthood for the child, his feast is no longer officially celebrated."

Furthermore, he's listed on the [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/sainth22.htm"]Saints Index[/url], on [url="http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=3814"]Catholic Online[/url], and in the old [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07515b.htm"]Catholic Encyclopedia[/url]