Crisis Series #45: Are the New Canonizations Infallible?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2021
- Don Tranquillo will join us once again to look at the question of Canonizations since the time of the Second Vatican Council. Are the New Canonizations infallible? To answer this, we’ll need to see whether or not Canonizations in the past were infallible. It’s commonly understood by most Catholics that Canonizations are one of the things that are infallibly proclaimed by the Pope. How then can we square this seeming infallibility with some of the new saints, who contradict previous saints?
Note: This is one way of looking at the issue - theologians, in the last 250 years have had varied opinions on the infallibility of canonizations. It is still today, both in traditional and Vatican circles, debated.
The study of Fr. Gleize mentioned in the podcast:
sspx.org/en/beatification-and...
See the previous 44 episodes, subscribe, and get resources at sspxpodcast.com
Subscribe to the SSPX UA-cam channel here:
ua-cam.com/users/SSPXNewsEng...
Stay Connected on Social Media:
Twitter: / sspxen
Facebook: / sspxen
Instagram: / sspx_en
SSPX News Website:fsspx.news/en
Visit our website: sspx.org/en
Don Tranquillo should have his own podcast/series. I'd listen to him read a cookbook.
Don Tranquillo is the top of the number one
As a former Protestant, I appreciate pointing out Father's error in translation about worship vs. venerate. This is something we must remember in doing apologetics with Protestants, that just because one Catholic uses the word "worship" doesn't mean we worship the saints!
God is adored
The Saints are venerated
The BVM is “hyper-venerated”
St Joseph is “proto-venerated”
And there are various kinds of honour given to people on Earth, either because of their place in society or because of their character and virtues.
These are different species of “worship”.
Of course
@@jamesmc04 I understand how veneration of saints works. The word “worship” is traditionally used to describe a type of veneration reserved for God alone. Using the word “worship” to describe veneration is very problematic, especially when Protestants already think we worship the saints. That’s why I pointed it out.
It's not an error to use the term 'worship'. It is simply less commonly used than venerate. Worship can mean "venerate" because there are different levels. Venerate is a specific type of worship. The main thing is that there is worship that is due to God alone, and then lesser forms of worship - like how one worships an earthly king or parent. If someone prefers to use "venerate" specifically than that is fine. However, we should also not base our language off of pandering to protestants. I have so often heard Catholics say that we do not pray to the saints. And they always do so for the sake of protestants. It annoys me. We do pray to the saints. Rather than reducing our language to please the enemies of the Church, we should instead just make sure to clarify the meaning of the words we use. Changing our language is not going to make protestants convert. Explaining the teachings will.
I don't say this to be mean. I am a former Protestant myself. I pandered to Protestants for my first few years of conversion and than realized that it gained no one to the Church. So then I just spoke the faith and explained when necessary.
To clarify, I don't personally use the word "worship" in regard to the saints. But I am simply saying that my reason for the words I use should not be because of non-Catholics. I do however use the word "pray" instead of "ask" with the saints; because even though they mean the same thing, I prefer the word "pray".
No need to be afraid of the Protestants. No need to please these heretics.
I think Don Tranquillo is brilliant! Please host him more often!
Another fantastic episode. Thank you for explaining these issues.
The aftermath of Vatican II has been an unmitigated disaster. And the post-Vatican popes have introduced innovations and caused confusion. What a trial the Catholic Church is going through. I’m a pre-Vatican II Catholic, and practice my faith in accordance with pre-Vatican II teachings. My models are the pre-Vatican II canonized saints. Thank you for this vid. It confirms what I felt in my heart all along.
Canonizations are infallible. Suggesting that you avoid the Saints of Vatican 2, while recognizing the New Order popes as valid Catholic popes is absurd. The false traditionalists have led you into a terrible contradiction.
The prayer we give to the Saints is referred to as "Dulia." The worship we give only to God is called "Latria."
The "Old" Canonization Process produced an infallible declaration that the named person had, in fact, made it to Paradise. The only thing that the "New" Canonization Process tells us infallibly is "We think he was a nice guy!" I actually do not refer to Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, or Pope John Paul II as "Saint."
How is this different from Protestantism? You can't just pick and choose which Church teachings you'll follow and which ones you won't. The Church has infallibly declared that these Popes are saints. If you disagree then go be a Protestant instead of pretending to be Catholic.
The process itself is important, yes, and it is troublesome that they changed it, however the act of canonization itself is infallible according to many theologians. So you either put saint in front of padre pio and John Paul II or you don’t say saint for both. You can’t choose which ones. Be careful
@@nwg02 "according to many theologians" are the keywords here. The Church herself has never declared it a dogma.
@@ubermensch4304 It is completely different because the SSPX strictly follows the catholic faith like it was revealed to the apostles and teached by the Church for 2000 years. This, however, can not be said about some of the new "saints" if we look at some of their teachings.
UTOPIE.
I cannot believe in the current canonization process because it does not consider the cultus of the individual, and does not use devil's advocate to find any potential barriers for canonisation. JPII canonised hundreds of unknowns. This is not the purpose of canonisation as it was historically used. Many post-83 canonizations are of incredible saints, but many are not. All canonizations after 1983 should be re-examined under a stringent process to determine whether or not they should be canonised properly. We must not scandalise our catalogue of saints with bad actors.
Another great episode. Thanks
Just finished the book on this topic edited by Peter Kwasniewski. I am convinced that the new process is flawed.
Those who seems to hold everything Vatican 2 sacred, infallible and right, should really rethink,that nothing is left untouched,if we are doubting the new Mass,new catechism,new rites of the sacrament,new ecclesiology, ecumenism etc, canonization of John XX111,Paul V1,John Paul 11, now considering John Paul 1,all the flaws, procedures,objections, questions and protest,oh,i now understand more through the principles.i prefer to hold unto the accepted and recognised traditional Catholic saints,than flowing in doubt, contradiction and controversy. Thank you Fr and SSPX on this research and deep study with faith and hope that the church will be restore and refine by a future pontiff.
Mr Kwasniewski supports V2 last time I checked. I do not consider him a reliable source.
@@Andy-rk9mu I don't "support" V2. My position on that question is fully documented in a number of online articles that are easy to find.
Also, the book on canonizations is a collection from various authors, most of whom argue that canonizations are not necessarily infallible.
Enough You.
I had wondered this same question, it seemed like political moves for the recent canonizations. I figured someone is a saint if they're in heaven, it's not like they're on the same level as saint Paul or anything
Padre Pio is surely a Saint! I don't doubt about him!
I have a 3rd class relic of him :DD
Absolutely!!! ✝️🙏
Neither do I, but I understand the hestitation to venerate him formally by the SSPX. Like Don Tranquillo said, we can't pick and choose without usurping papal authority - either all post-V2 canonizations are equally legitimate or equally suspect. Still, there's nothing stopping us from venerating him privately! ✝
SSPX District of South America has in his possession a mitt that pertained to Padre Pío
Yes, I have no doubts about St Padre Pio. But we must reevaluate all post-1983 canonisations.
I love this show so much but I would love to donate a headset or mic to Fr. Tranquillo. How can I go about this?
Have a great Life!
Love this, thank you :DD
thank u Fr
So, should one report (possible) miracles or prayers answered to the adjutator of a cause, when the (possible) saint might end up with a questionable canonization?
Andrew, Fr. John Hotze who is the postulator of the cause of Fr. Kapaun told me directly that Fr. Kapaun led ecumenical prayer services in the prison camp since he was prohibited from offering Mass there.
Thank You Father
I am listening.
A question for Don Tranquillo: How have equipollent canonisations been affected by the changes implemented by JPII? Equipollent canonisations attest to the long-standing cultus and heroic virtues of the person in question, so are recent ones, such as Hildegard of Bingen, considered are valid, or do they suffer the same controversy as other canonisations?
Hello, the process of canonization in itself isn't infallible, it has changed a lot since the 10th century.
But the SENTENCE of canonization in itself ("In the name of Holy Trinity, etc.) is ex cathedra. Almost all Popes since Pius XI said that the formula is infallible, ex cathedra, etc... in official documents (decretals), which are concluded by something like : If anyone attack the Authority of this document, he encurrs the wrath of God and Sts. Peter and Paul.
In 1998, the Church officialy taught in Doctrinal Note illustating final conclusions of Professio Fidei, that canonizations are definitive, that they're to be believed by ecclesiactical faith, and that such truths have the same degree of certainty than dogmas of divine faith.
Canon 751, par. 2 expressely condemns those who deny such points proposed as "definitive" by the Church.
Also, in the official decretal of canonization of St. Hildegard of Bingen, Benedict XVI says this is definitive, immuable and irrevocable.
1998. Anything that adds to 9 or 6. Or whatever.
From what Don Tranquillo is saying about the college of bishops, then it would follow that the American college of bishops blocked the canonization of the Ven. Fulton Sheen. And since most of them were appointed by F. Bergoglio, one can deduce that they didn't want a traditional prelate such as F. Sheen to be emulated by the faithful.
He wasn't traditional. He was an enthusiastic supporter of V2 and the new Mass.
...
Anyone have a link to a list of those canonized since Vatican II?
No, but you could try this thing called google
Hello, the process of canonization in itself isn't infallible, it has changed a lot since the 10th century.
But the SENTENCE of canonization in itself ("In the name of Holy Trinity, etc.) is ex cathedra. Almost all Popes since Pius XI said that the formula is infallible, ex cathedra, etc... in official documents (decretals), which are concluded by something like : If anyone attack the Authority of this document, he encurrs the wrath of God and Sts. Peter and Paul.
In 1998, the Church officialy taught in Doctrinal Note illustating final conclusions of Professio Fidei, that canonizations are definitive, that they're to be believed by ecclesiactical faith, and that such truths have the same degree of certainty than dogmas of divine faith.
Canon 751, par. 2 expressely condemns those who deny such points proposed as "definitive" by the Church.
@@fidefidelis4460 what is the different between canonization process and canonization sentence?
If John Paul II is declared a saint (although the process is fallible), is that infallible? Thus we are bound to believe in its teachinf
Why not mention the new book by Dr. Kwasniewski?
Are Canonizations Infallible?: Revisiting a Disputed Question
Available on Amazon. Came out in July.
Thank you. I was wondering the same thing. It is the first book of its kind ever, and brings together highly esteemed authors, many of them familiar traditionalist names:
1 Jean-François Thomas, S.J., “The Church Triumphant and the Rules of Canonization Today”
2 José Antonio Ureta, “The Cult of Saints in the Catholic Church”
3 Phillip Campbell, “History and Role of the ‘Devil’s Advocate’”
4 William Matthew Diem, “The Infallibility of Canonizations: A Revisionist History of the Arguments”
5 Thomas Crean, O.P., “Infallibility and Canonizations: A Disputation”
6 William Matthew Diem, “A Reponse to Fr. Crean”
7 Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, “Canonization and Infallibility”
8 John R.T. Lamont, “The Authority of Canonizations”
9 John R.T. Lamont, “The Infallibility of Canonizations and the Morals of the Faithful”
10 Fr. John Hunwicke, “Approaching the Subject of Canonization with Careful Steps”
11 Christopher Ferrara, “The Canonization Crisis”
12 Roberto de Mattei, “True and False Saints in the Church”
13 Roberto de Mattei, “Interview on the Canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II”
14 Peter Kwasniewski, “Animadversions on the Canonization of Paul VI”
15 Joseph Shaw, “Walking into a Trap”
The FSSPX has the chapel of St. Maximillian Kolbe in Poland
Aurevoir ✌️.
This time is too late, but at least, it is easier the struggle compared to 2007.
I have a question: does the SSPX deny or question not only the infallibility of canonizations but also the miracles that occurred through the intercession of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II?
What they want is to “canonize” the Second Vatican Council. If the end is perverted, the means could also be manipulated. In fact, they simplified the question: before the changes, it was required two miracles for beatification and canonization, now only one miracle is enough. The criteria also changed: before, it had to be an incurable disease, a sudden cure that it was stable and permanent, now it is not that way.
I do not have any particular knowledge about the credibility of the miracles of modern Popes, although do I know that there are problems with the miracles in some new canonizations.
The real issue is another one, though. Before even looking at miracles, a process of canonization used to take into consideration and examination the writings, doctrines and actions of the candidate. If those are not good, the process ends.
Alleged miracles that may be attributed to people not having the doctrine of the Church, cannot be considered of divine origin: they have to be explained otherwise. We apply the usual general rule used to examine all alleged supernatural phenomena.
I hope this is sufficiently clear. God bless
Don Mauro
Merci beaucoup pour votre vidéo.
I do agree, but for clarification: Why do we still refer to saints prior to the 12th century as saints, and venerate them publicly, when their canonizations are not infallible, but at the same time we're not allowed to venerate publicly, say, Padre Pio?
In my opinion, because in the past, the Popes wanted to define and they followed the doctrine of always in the act of canonizations, as the subjects were all sound in this aspect.
Padre Pío is no doubt a great Saint, but SSPX prefers not to pray him in public as a prudential decision due to the fact that the procedure for canonizations has changed for all, in a way not to make differences.
This from Fr. Tranquillo: "Saints venerated before the XII century, so when they were not declared as saints by a formal papal sentence, are still infallibly canonized saints. I have not spoken about this historical question in my intervention just for reasons of time, but theologians generally agree about that. Martyrs, and later confessors, were publicly venerated by the faithful and under Bishops' authority, but in some implicit way they had papal approval, so they become infallible canonizations, particularly when they are celebrated in the Roman calendar, which is virtually universal. There is no doubt that saint Sebastian or Saint Ambrose are infallibly canonized, AT LEAST because they are given for veneration through the Roman liturgy to the entire Church. For other doubtful cases, we can consider them as beatifications, and in some cases we had a specific papal confirmation of worship even centuries after, called canonizatio aequipollens. In any case, nobody can doubt of the intervention of papal infallibility in canonizations even before the XII century. It was more implicit and maybe more focused on the obligation of universal worship (veneration) of a saint, but still they are absolutely true canonizations as the more recent ones. New canonizations differ substantially for other reasons, that I tried to explain in the video.
Anyhow, it was a good question."
agat dms
Evidence.
So a theoretical canonization of His Excellency Arcbp Lefebvre would not be recognized by the Society if done with present mechenisms?
That is pretty theoretical right now!! I think that it really would still be problematic, unless accompanied with at least some juridical reappraisal of the canonizations of John Paul II, Paul VI, etc. I think the same reasoning Fr. Tranquillo outlined would apply also here. Concretely, the SSPX has superiors and it would actually fall to their prudence how to handle such an (unlikely) eventuality, in concrete. In Christ, Fr. P. Franks
Regardless, we should pray for Lefebvre's intercession. The canonisation process does not make the saint, the actions they took during like their lives is what makes them saints.
Clock. 01.20 Samedi...2nd of September 2023.
36:10
Father, Pope Francis canonized and declared a schismatic oriental orthodox "saint" a doctor of the church. "St." Gregory of Narek.
"The central idea of Gregory's philosophy is eternal salvation relying solely upon faith and divine grace, and not necessarily upon the institutional church, in which his views are similar to those of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. This interpretation of Gregory as a precursor of Protestantism has more recently been challenged. Gregory may have been suspected of heresy and being sympathetic to the Paulicians and Tondrakians-two major sects in medieval Armenia."
Then it is surely infallible! He is in heaven now, we pray through his intercession that "separated brethrens" COME HOME
Early saints were nominated by the faithful and petitions to the bishop. 3 requirements - 3 miracles, incorruptible corpse, post death smells of roses.
The pope only took over control of saint making in the late middle ages
does a canonization only infallibly define that a person is in heaven?
Dear Brady,
Some theologians have held that position.
Van Noort, who held the position you outline, wrote thus:
"Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protege of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke?" (Christ's Church, p. 117).
But here, the necessity for the soul to be in Heaven is because their behavior is "set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate."
That is why canonization was thought to be infallible, because it is the Church telling us "this is what practicing virtue looks like, in a way that gets you to Heaven". But John Paul II was not a model of heroic virtue, whose example leads a sure way to Heaven (e.g. his kissing the Qur'an, The Assisi Meetings, general doctrinal unsoundness, etc.).
It seems to me, however, that unless there is some relation to proposing the person as a model of virtue, there is no connection to the Church actually teaching anything. i.e. if it is just a question of "somehow this man saved his soul, because God is good, but still don't imitate him or look at his life for an example of how to live", that is not really an act of Magisterium at all, and bears no relation to the deposit of Faith. Thus, there would be no reason at all for Infallibility to be involved. If it is merely "yes, Joe managed to save his soul. Still don't imitate him..." that does not really impact me or my actions at all, and would not seem to require any special protection of the Holy Ghost, since it could be wrong without really changing things.
In Christ,
Fr. P. Franks
Gratias Pater
Confirmed.
I'm not trying to be a jerk but I truly can't remember the last time I've heard someone pray for the intercession of Paul VI or John XXIII
On the other hand, JP II is referenced all the time, e.g. "I’m very pleased to be part of a group that was started by a saint, John Paul II, and that is responding to a renewed interest in tradition.” www.ncregister.com/interview/former-pro-baseball-player-completes-transition-to-priesthood
"In 1988, Pope St. John Paul II established the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) as a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right and approved its constitutions." reginacaeliparish.org/who-are-the-fssp
@@SSPX I kind of understand the ordination of JPII. He absolutely deserves criticism for many things but im a history major at a college ran by Dominican Sisters and his influence has as much (if not more) impact on the collapse of the USSR and the freedom of Poland as Ronald Ragan.
Actually, I happened to be present at the Mass being offered by an FSSP Priest that October 14, 2018, when Pope Paul VI was canonized. The Priest Pastor at this particular FSSP Church spoke about an hour, in a rather incensed manner, that how dare a certain group react vs the possibility of this Pope being canonized. (Several of us present knew well to which group he referred.) He made a crazy statement, “Do they want Paul VI in Hell?” Anyway, the big shocker was when he encouraged those present to pray to Pope Paul VI, then ending his sermon with the words, “Pope St. Paul VI, pray for us.” My immediate reaction was, “Does this Priest think we here in the congregation are stupid?” This Pope did so so much to destroy the Church😡!!!
@@SSPX John Paul II, for all his faults, does have a strong cultus. The same is not the case for John XXIII and Paul VI. However, some figures in Church history have had a cultus but were not saints for various reasons. Perhaps it will be some time before we find out whether or not JPII was a saint.
@@carolineawerkamp1755 then you could ve just walked away rather than receiving communion from his hand?
I believe St. Paul VI is a saint! As well as the other cases like JPII and JXXIII. Many of them make a heretical act, but doesnt stop them to be venerated. For some Eastern Catholics, JPII or JXXIII are clearly saints to them.
I personally believe also that Abp. Lefebvre is a heroic model and he is in heaven right now watching us along with JPII
If the process for canonizations was made by the Church and by a valid pope, cannot said Church and said valid pope change it? There was no process as such for 1300 years, when that became the sole perogative of the Pope after the schism with the East. There are many saints we accept and venerate from the 1st millennium that the Pope had nothing to do with.
So do we call Kolbe, Faustina and Padre Pio saints and not Paul VI and JPII even though the same process was used for all of them?
The more or less rigorous of the process (or the nonexistence of a process) is not in itself a proof. It could be an indication of the intention of the Pope. This is important because we are not in the case of extraordinary magisterium but in the ordinary one, that requires a definitive judgment or is conditioned to attachment of the perennial doctrine.
@@josari7618 While the intention may seem obvious to us, it is imposible to read their minds. It sets a dangerous precedent to place images and statues of post Vatican II declared saints such Padre Pio in chapels, but reject the papal ones such as Paul VI and JPII.
@@norbertx9415 As Father said, we know imitation of the lives and virtues of the likes of Kolbe, Padre Pio etc will direct us towards Heaven. On the other hand imitation of others like Paul VI, John Paul II will not do this. Not only that but a lot of things they've said contradict church teaching and the Catholic faith overall, whereas this is not seen with the aforementioned Saints.
God Bless.
Kolbe was a pseudo-martyr, which places him in a different situation. In his Christlike charity, he offered his life to save another. He should be venerated, but of course, without a proper process we can't say there is a canonisation. Remember that the canonisation process does not make the saint.
It's sad cause 99% of the black "saints" are canonized post VII
Good Name.
So a Pope can kiss a Qur’an and still be declared a Saint and the laity HAVE to believe this? Lol
I was thinking about being Catholic but I’ll just stick to Orthodoxy. What is the point of having a Vicar if he can infallibly wipe out hundreds of years of tradition with the stroke of a pen?
This should be taken down and re-done
Don't want to hear another word of Vatican II plaver.
EVIDENCE.
Q: "Are the new canonizations infallible?"
A: Yes.
A: No.
The formula is not (and was never apparently) extraordinary magisterium because there is no mention of the "to be held" by the whole Church.
The ordinary magisterium is also not involved, because even if there is a 'moral consensus', there is no continuity in the new Popes doctrines regarding the perennial magisterium.
No
@@josari7618 The CDF already said it was infallible
Aurevoir ✌️.