Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 17:54:18 GMT -5
I have been trying to research whether canonizations are infallible and all I keep coming up with are varying sources that say "yes" they are infallible or "no" they are not infallible. Can someone give a definitive answer and the source? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 22, 2017 7:46:13 GMT -5
If the Pope binds on the entire Church a proclamation that such and such was a perfect example of Christian faith and morals...and binds the entire Church to belive them in Heaven and to establish a(or accept an existing) cult for that person...yes it has to be infallible.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 15:40:05 GMT -5
If the Pope binds on the entire Church a proclimation that such and such was a perfect example of Christian faith and morals...and binds the entire Church to belive them in Heaven and to establish a(or accept an existing) cult for that person...yes it has to be infallible. I thought infallibility only pertained to doctrine on faith and morals. How is proclaiming someone a saint a doctrine of faith and morals??
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 23, 2017 18:53:30 GMT -5
Veronica,
I posted some sources for you on this topic in the resourse section.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 11:03:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 24, 2017 14:15:55 GMT -5
Veronica, This is what happens when the response to the crisis becomes more important than the teaching of the Church. This trend has been happening more and more over the years. When Catholics, whether "R&R" or "sedevacantist" hit a roadblock where the facts challenge their position, they, in many cases preserve their response to the crisis by attacking the teaching of the Church. In this case, the "R&R" folks roadblock was Escriva's canonization, followed some years later by Paul VI's beatification, and John XXIII and John Paul II's canonizations. They can't stomach it, and in my opinion, reject it, but how can they do so when they publicly profess to believe in the papal clams of the men who have canonized these men? What they have done is to run an end run around the canonizations by pretending that a defect in the process or in the "pope's" intent allows Catholics to reject these canonizations. This thinking is perverse and uncatholic, as the decrees all use a very clear and traditional formula. Also, such thinking is a veiled attack against the powers of the papacy, by pretending that the pope is bound to a process, and canonizations made by popes can be reviewed by the church? I will post in the resourse section the actual decrees of canonizations we are discussing so you can see more clearly what I am saying. The only way a Catholic can legitimately justify rejecting these canonizations is to reject the authority that promulgated them. The only way to reject thta authority is to recognize that these men were not successors of St. Peter, and by that their acts of canonization did not bind the Church.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 15:15:42 GMT -5
Pacelli - I have never really studied the R&R position in my 2 yrs. I just concluded that Francis was a false Pope and that was it. However, when I started to read about Apostolic Succession, I tried to study some of the R&R position to see if their position could answer the Apostolic Succession issue. I have come to the same conclusion I originally held, Francis is a fake. The R&R are really trying to twist the whole canonization issue in their favor. It's sad.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 24, 2017 21:56:42 GMT -5
Pacelli - I have never really studied the R&R position in my 2 yrs. I just concluded that Francis was a false Pope and that was it. However, when I started to read about Apostolic Succession, I tried to study some of the R&R position to see if their position could answer the Apostolic Succession issue. I have come to the same conclusion I originally held, Francis is a fake. The R&R are really trying to twist the whole canonization issue in their favor. It's sad. Let me quote myself from another thread.... I can answer this...ignorance...cowardice...denial....pride of place...lazyness...lack of zeal...demonic deception all or some of these. Read more: tradcath.proboards.com/posts/recent#ixzz4Wjq7vxjJ
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 6:01:05 GMT -5
As I read somewhere - "why don't they just Canonize Vatican II" and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 25, 2017 14:29:56 GMT -5
Pacelli - I have never really studied the R&R position in my 2 yrs. I just concluded that Francis was a false Pope and that was it. However, when I started to read about Apostolic Succession, I tried to study some of the R&R position to see if their position could answer the Apostolic Succession issue. I have come to the same conclusion I originally held, Francis is a fake. The R&R are really trying to twist the whole canonization issue in their favor. It's sad. Veronica, this is what happens when the response to the crisis takes priority over the teaching of the Church. There is no way to legitimately and lawfully reject canonizations of a pope, so they are stuck, as they do reject these canonizations. The "R&R" position fails to answer the problem of apostolic succession as it fails to show how these men guarantee the apostolic doctrine, which is the underlying purpose of apostolic succession. The Vatican II "popes" have broken with apostolic doctrine, which would be impossible if these men were successors of St. Peter, and for the bishops scattered across the world to do so with the successor of St. Peter. The Papal Office prevents that from happening, and since it has happened, the only way to resolve the contradiction, is to recongnize that these men, Paul VI, and his successors were not popes.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 26, 2017 5:49:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 9:53:25 GMT -5
Pacelli - I have never really studied the R&R position in my 2 yrs. I just concluded that Francis was a false Pope and that was it. However, when I started to read about Apostolic Succession, I tried to study some of the R&R position to see if their position could answer the Apostolic Succession issue. I have come to the same conclusion I originally held, Francis is a fake. The R&R are really trying to twist the whole canonization issue in their favor. It's sad. Veronica, this is what happens when the response to the crisis takes priority over the teaching of the Church. There is no way to legitimately and lawfully reject canonizations of a pope, so they are stuck, as they do reject these canonizations. The "R&R" position fails to answer the problem of apostolic succession as it fails to show how these men guarantee the apostolic doctrine, which is the underlying purpose of apostolic succession. The Vatican II "popes" have broken with apostolic doctrine, which would be impossible if these men were successors of St. Peter, and for the bishops scattered across the world to do so with the successor of St. Peter. The Papal Office prevents that from happening, and since it has happened, the only way to resolve the contradiction, is to recongnize that these men, Paul VI, and his successors were not popes. Pacelli - If the Vatican II "popes" have broken apostolic doctrine and since there are not many pre-Vatican II Bishops left, how does it get restored? Also, what happens if they all die off?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 26, 2017 13:59:29 GMT -5
Veronica, this is what happens when the response to the crisis takes priority over the teaching of the Church. There is no way to legitimately and lawfully reject canonizations of a pope, so they are stuck, as they do reject these canonizations. The "R&R" position fails to answer the problem of apostolic succession as it fails to show how these men guarantee the apostolic doctrine, which is the underlying purpose of apostolic succession. The Vatican II "popes" have broken with apostolic doctrine, which would be impossible if these men were successors of St. Peter, and for the bishops scattered across the world to do so with the successor of St. Peter. The Papal Office prevents that from happening, and since it has happened, the only way to resolve the contradiction, is to recongnize that these men, Paul VI, and his successors were not popes. Pacelli - If the Vatican II "popes" have broken apostolic doctrine and since there are not many pre-Vatican II Bishops left, how does it get restored? Also, what happens if they all die off? The papacy can be restored at any time. In the absence of the cardinals the power of electing a pope falls to the hierarchy and clerics of Rome. Either of these to groups could elect a pope. There are still many of the old bishops left, but when you add the eastern rite bishops who have kept the Faith, the number of members of the hierarchy grows significantly. To give you an anology, in the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy had the power to go home the entire time, she just didn't realize it, and the same is with us. "Traditionalists" have been, since the start, overly focused on the preservation of the episcopal lines, holy orders, seminaries, opening chapels, etc. In my opinion, this response was misguided, as the focus should have been on imploring the hierarchy and clerics of Rome to act and use their offices to declare the seat vacant and to elect a Pope. If all the time, energy, and resources used towards the "traditionalist" goals mentioned above, were used to identify the faithful members of the hierarchy and Roman clerics, this crisis could have ended decades ago. The best window of opportunity to act was in the 1970's and 80's when there were countless bishops and Roman clerics who were still strong in their Faith. Unfortunately, the largest group, the SSPX, made it their priority to train new priests at Ecône. That might sound like a laudable goal, but keep in mind that these priests were not being trained with the approval of the Church, their fitness would not be judged by the Church, and lastly they would operate outside of the jurisdictional structure of the Church. This idea was a novelty, and it presents real dangers that were ignored, as the end result of having priests to bring the sacraments to starving Catholics all around the world gave the justification for these actions, and overshadowed any potential dangers. As the crisis continued into the 80's the response of establishing "seminaries," ordaining priests and operating chapels became a norm, new groups began with the +Thuc line and any thinking towards a real solution to this crisis was not being looked at by most Catholics. It's easy to get comfortable with the "traditional" model, the sacraments are provided, and it has in many ways the appearance of being the pre-Vatican II Church. This is why in 2017, we are stuck, there is no momentum towards petitioning and imploring the legitimate office-holders to act. The SSPX has institutionlaized its "R&R" position, and does not, at least from appearances, wish to look at the facts and theology relevant to grasping that these men could not have been popes. They are continuing the same policy that began in the 1970's, operating "seminaries," ordaining men, and establishing and maintaining chapels around the world. The other groups, such as the CMRI and SSPV and other smaller groups, have not ever made it a policy to reach out to the hierarchy and clerics of Rome, they, like the SSPX, follow the same model, of running a "seminary," ordaining men, and operating chapels. All of these groups maintain the status quo, none of them are focused on reaching out to the lawful hierarchy and clerics of Rome, and imploring them to act.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 26, 2017 16:58:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kim on Feb 1, 2017 10:02:23 GMT -5
Veronica, This is what happens when the response to the crisis becomes more important than the teaching of the Church. This trend has been happening more and more over the years. When Catholics, whether "R&R" or "sedevacantist" hit a roadblock where the facts challenge their position, they, in many cases preserve their response to the crisis by attacking the teaching of the Church. In this case, the "R&R" folks roadblock was Escriva's canonization, followed some years later by Paul VI's beatification, and John XXIII and John Paul II's canonizations. They can't stomach it, and in my opinion, reject it, but how can they do so when they publicly profess to believe in the papal clams of the men who have canonized these men? What they have done is to run an end run around the canonizations by pretending that a defect in the process or in the "pope's" intent allows Catholics to reject these canonizations. This thinking is perverse and uncatholic, as the decrees all use a very clear and traditional formula. Also, such thinking is a veiled attack against the powers of the papacy, by pretending that the pope is bound to a process, and canonizations made by popes can be reviewed by the church? I will post in the resourse section the actual decrees of canonizations we are discussing so you can see more clearly what I am saying. The only way a Catholic can legitimately justify rejecting these canonizations is to reject the authority that promulgated them. The only way to reject thta authority is to recognize that these men were not successors of St. Peter, and by that their acts of canonization did not bind the Church. Pacelli your explanations are so wonderfully clear and easy to understand.
|
|