Just in Case JP2 & P6 are ever…..(umm… well, you know)

Catholic Encyclopedia, Beatification and Canonization, 1907: ―For several centuries the bishops, in some places only the primates and patriarchs (August., Brevic. Collat. cum Donatistis, III, xiii, no. 25 in P.L., XLIII, 628), could grant to martyrs and confessors public ecclesiastical honour; such honour, however, was always decreed only for the local territory over which the grantors held jurisdiction… Abuses, however, crept into this form of discipline, due as well to indiscretions of popular fervour as to the carelessness of some bishops in inquiring into the lives of those whom they permitted to be honoured as saints. Towards the close of the eleventh century the popes found it necessary to restrict episcopal authority on this point, and decreed that the virtues and miracles of persons proposed for public veneration should be examined in councils, more particularly in general councils. Urban II, Calixtus II, and Eugenius III followed this line of action. It happened, even after these decrees, that ‗some, following the ways of the pagans and deceived by the fraud of the evil one, venerated as a saint a man who had been killed while intoxicated‘. Alexander III (1159-81) took occasion to prohibit his veneration in these words: ‗For the future you will not presume to pay him reverence; and even though miracles were worked through him, this would not allow you to revere him as a saint unless with the authority of the Roman Church‘ (c. i, tit. cit., X. III, xlv). Theologians do not agree as to the full import of this decretal. Either a new law was made (Bellarmine, De Eccles. Triumph., I, viii), in which case the pope then for the first time reserved the right of beatification, or a pre-existing law was confirmed. As the decretal did not put an end to all controversy, and some bishops did not obey it in as far as it regarded beatification (which right they had certainly possessed hitherto), Urban VII published, in 1634, a
Bull which put an end to all discussion by reserving to the Holy See exclusively not only its immemorial right of canonization, but also that of beatification.‖
The first canonization of a saint by a pope took place in the 9th or 10th century. What follows is a quote from Fr. F.W. Faber‘s book An Essay on Beatification, Canonization, and the Process of the Congregation of Rites (hereafter BC), 1848:
BC: ―* There is a question about the first solemn canonization; some say it was Leo III‘s canonization of St. Swibert in 804; Mabillon and Papebroch decide in favour of the canonization of St. Udalrio by John XV. in 993.‖
It is certain, then, that all those who were declared saints by local bishops and hence not by papal canonizations were not infallibly declared saints because local bishops judged and declared them to be saints and local bishops do not have the charism of infallibility—only the pope does! The question, then, is, Can the pope infallibly judge and declare a dead person to be a saint? The answer is, No!
Canonizations Are Fallible
Canonizations have no link with Tradition
In 1870 the Vatican Council infallibly defined that supernatural revelations which constitute the object of the Catholic faith ended with the death of the last apostle and that the pope could only infallibly define these revelations on faith and morals. Therefore the charism of papal infallibility applies only to doctrines on faith and morals that were revealed to the apostles. Consequently, the process of canonization cannot be infallible because it has no link with Tradition, no link with the revelations given to the apostles. The canonization process was unknown to the apostles and all the popes until the 9th or 10th century when popes started to canonize saints. Thus canonizations are not subject matter for papal infallibility because the process of canonization was not part of the revelations given to the apostles.
(See in this book Popes teach infallibly only on things revealed to the apostles, p. 9.)
Popes can infallibly judge men to be notorious sinners but not saints
During the canonization process when judging and declaring a person to be a saint, the pope does not teach but judges. He is judging the sanctity of a person. The pope cannot infallibly judge that a living or dead person is sanctified because that person may have secretly embraced heresy or secretly committed some other mortal sin, even if just by thought: “Who can understand sins? from my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord.” (Ps. 18:13)“Prove me, O God, and know my heart: examine me, and know my paths. And see if there be in me the way of iniquity: and lead me in the eternal way.” (Ps. 138:23-24)“For I am not conscious to myself of anything. Yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.” (1 Cor. 4:4) www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/books/rjmi/br47_canonizations_not_infallible.pdf

Get AQ Email Updates

6 comments on “Just in Case JP2 & P6 are ever…..(umm… well, you know)

  1. That’s a *bleep* site. Why would a *bleep* be worried about canonization?

    His argument isn’t very strong. One shortcoming is his limiting infallibility to faith and morals, whereas the magisterium is infallible on more. For example, Ven. Pius IX (is he infallibly venerable?? Jus’ poking fun!) in Quanta cura (Denzinger 1698 and 1699) addresses this very issue, i.e., withholding assent on judgments of the Holy See provided they do not touch on faith or morals. He then proceeds to invoke his Apostolic authority in proscribing the errors of liberalism, socialism, and more — errors that were supposedly reversed by the Vatican-II “counter syllabus” (Fr. Ratzinger).

  2. It is? I copied it out from a post by a member of John Vennari’s new forum to stop the “beautification” of Pualo Sesto. John has been throwing “bleeps” off left and right since he started the site. I’ll try to recheck it when I can.

    If it is……Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSE me! ( A little Steve Martin lingo there.)

  3. Definitely a *bleep* site.


    His “position” (linked on the left side of the page)

    I, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi (RJMI), am a Roman Catholic, and thus a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, who has hence vowed submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff and all the teachings of the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. I accept all the 20 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the last being the Vatican Council in 1870. I reject the Second Vatican Council as an apostate and heretical anti-Catholic council. I also denounce John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, as well as all future leaders of the Vatican II Church, as apostate antipopes.

  4. Yep. Sure is.

    And I was wrong about whence this came. It is from a forum I just joined at the invite of an Army sergeant over in the Afghan. He began the site. Not John Vennari. Although the sarge posts on John’s new site. Sorry for the confusion – and the HUGE booboo.

    Anyway, this is from the online New Advent version of the Catholic Encyclopedia ( 1907 ) and you can get the whole article under “B” ( beatifications and canonizations ):

    “Papal infallibility and canonization

    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.”

Leave a Reply