Canonization Is Not Infallible

[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.)

[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.