Showing posts with label canonization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canonization. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 20, 2024

What Direction for Men?



Tuesday, September 07, 2021

A Latin Defense of the Infallibility of Canonizations

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

Will This Succeed in the Roman Saint-Making Machine?

Monday, May 03, 2021

The Roman Saint-Making Machine Continues

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Much Ado About...

Latin traditionalists may bemoan the fact that Pope Francis has done away with the reform by Benedict XVI of the rite canonization, using a simpler formula and omitting the petitions before the formula. (See, for example, Fr. Hunwicke.)

Some remarks:
1. Regarding the pope's response to the third petition in the Benedictine reform: "Let us, then, invoke the Holy Spirit, the Giver of life, that he may enlighten our minds and that Christ the Lord may not permit his Church to err in a matter of such importance."

One can invoke God's help, but if the act exceeds the authority given by God, is there any point?

The second petition itself was rather presumptuous:
"Most Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord's promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the saints."

The Church Universal? No. A few members and representatives of the patriarchate of Rome and maybe representatives of those non-Latin particular Churches which have been Latinized to one degree or another and are still under the captive sway of Rome in their mindset.


2. It is inferred that the papal decree of canonization is an infallible act because it is supposedly an act regarding the Church Universal, and not the way around (e.g. the act must be proper to the pope because it is or needs to be infallible, and only the pope, representing the whole Church is infallible.)

But if it is not properly an act regarding the whole Church, despite what the decrees may say, but regarding only his patriarchate, the urgency of determining whether such an act is infallible is mitigated.

3. Even if the Benedictine reform is "better" at emphasizing certain aspects of the Latin conception of the authority of the bishop of Rome than the simpler formula now being used by Francis, the simpler formula nonetheless in its essence still reflects that same Latin conception, maximalist as it is.

See the document of the Congregation of the Causes of Saints, "NEW PROCEDURES IN THE RITE OF BEATIFICATION":

In the 11th century, the principle that as universal Pastor of the Church the Roman Pontiff alone has the authority to prescribe a public devotion began to gain ground, both in the particular Churches and the universal Church. With a Letter to the King and Bishops of Sweden, Alexander III asserted the Pope's authority to confer the title of Saint and the relevant public cult. This norm became a universal law with Gregory IX in 1234. 

Historical evidence that non-Latin particular Churches were agitating for this? And just because a pope decrees it doesn't make it a universal law.
Canonization is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. 
 And there it is.

Tuesday, July 09, 2019

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

St. John Henry Newman?

CNA: Pope Francis approves canonization of John Henry Newman

As much as I like Newman, I'd be content with him remaining a Blessed until a local cult developed, rather than having another declaration from the modern Roman saint-making machine.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

A Weak Defense of the Process

And the resulting canonization of Paul VI. "It wasn't done for political concerns, really!" How about ecclesial politics?

Church Life: The Political Pawning of Saints written by J.M. Hogue

Thursday, December 27, 2018

John Lamont on Infallibility, Again

the original article, linked at this blog here

Rorate Caeli: Follow-up Article - Paul VI: The Infallibility of Canonizations and the Morals of the Faithful

The question of what role in which the bishop of Rome acts when he solemnly canonizes someone is not addressed. I don't think it was addressed in the previous installment either. He rather presumes the "traditional" Latin opinion in his article, when he speaks of the Church Universal (in relation to the bishop of Rome), rather than the patriarchate of Rome.

Canonisation, as they addressed it, took two forms; equipollent canonisation, and formal canonisation. Equipollent canonisation happens when a Pope decrees the universal veneration of a person to whom devotion has existed since time immemorial, and whose holiness and miracles are recorded by historians who are worthy of belief. Formal canonisation happens when a Pope decrees the universal veneration of a person whose heroic virtue and miracles have been established by a juridical process undertaken by the Holy See.

And so does he presume a Vatican I definition of papal infallibility? It would seem so:

This argument fails to grasp the nature of an infallible definition. In order for a papal teaching to be infallible, it is not enough for it to say that it is infallible; it has to actually satisfy the conditions for an infallible statement. Such statements must be exercises of the teaching authority of the Apostolic See, and they must definitively and finally bind all the faithful to assent to the assertions that they are making. In the case of an infallible truth that is divinely revealed, the faithful are required to believe (credere) the truth that is being taught. In the case of an infallible truth that belongs to the secondary object of the infallible magisterium, the faithful are required to hold (tenere) the truth that is being taught. The term ‘belief’ is used for divinely revealed truths, not because truths belonging to the secondary object of the magisterium do not also need to be believed to be true, but to underline that divinely revealed truths must be believed with an act of the theological virtue of faith.

Monday, October 29, 2018

From a Flawed Perspective?

A Latin ecclesiology dominates the mindset of the author at least...

Eastern Christian Books: The Ecumenism of Blood

Ecumenism of Blood: Heavenly Hope for Earthly Communion

An imperfect communion with the bishop of Rome, but out of communion with the Church? Questionable.

Monday, May 21, 2018

Anaxios!

The straw that broke the camel's back? There have been so many so far in this pontificate.

Blesseds Oscar Romero and Paul VI Will Be Canonized Oct. 14 by Hannah Brockhaus/CNA/EWTN News
The canonizations will take place during the 2018 Synod of Bishops.

Friday, March 16, 2018

More from Fr. Hunwicke on Canonization

CANONISATION (2)

The rites of Canonisation have tended ... this will not surprise you ... to vary in the last seventy years. The most recent changes before this (PF) pontificate, which took place under Benedict XVI, seemed designed to impose on the rites a theological meaning which they previously had not so explicitly expressed. As Pope Benedict left the rite, before the singing of Veni Creator Spiritus the Pontiff asked for prayer that Christ the Lord would not permit His Church to err in so great a matter. And, in the Third Petition the Cardinal Prefect for the Causes of Saints informed the Pontiff that the Holy Spirit "in every time renders the supreme Magisterium immune from error (omni tempore supremum Magisterium erroris expertem reddit)".

These phrases, added by Pope Benedict, were in formulae cut out by PF when he canonised a number of beati in 2014; and subsequently.

It looks to me as though Pope Benedict's additions were intended to confirm the view that acts of canonisation are infallible and require acceptance de fide. I wish now to point out that, if the formulae introduced by Benedict XVI did affect this debated theological question, then, surely, so does the action of this Pontificate in removing them. In the gradual accumulation of evidences and precedents which gradually build up an established judgement of the Magisterium, surely phrases which were introduced into rites by one Pontiff and, very soon afterwards, removed by the next, have less auctoritas than established and immemorial formulae which have been used by successive pontiffs for centuries.

See also this blog entry at ccwatershed.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Canonization and Papal Infallibility

Fr. Hunwicke

Again the question needs to be asked as to whether the bishop of Rome canonizes as the first bishop of the Universal Church or as the patriarch of Rome. Was his authority to canonize on behalf of the Universal Church ever been recognized in the first millenium? I would think the answer is no.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Fine-Tuning the Process?

Hm!

Fr. Hunwicke: Bishop Fellay and Mutual Enrichment

It is very much to the Holy Father's credit that, apparently, he has lowered the doctrinal bar for reconciliation, in line with the interesting remarks made by Archbishop Pozzo ... who had (or has a friend who had) clearly been diving into the Conciliar archives and unearthing formal statements made in the aula about the non-binding status of certain documents. And the Pope's statement that he had not spoken infallibly when he performed certain recent canonisations must help reconciliation. Obviously, a formula of canonisation does not fall within the parameters of Pastor aeternus; additionally, there is significance in the changes Pope Francis made in the rites of Canonisation.