Dogmatic Suicide – canonizations, infallibility and the consequences
Doubting the infallibility of canonizations implicitly denies the fundamental purpose of the Church herself - to be a sure guide, directing the faithful to salvation, right morality and true worship.
Introduction
Many Catholics are profoundly uneasy about the canonizations of Paul VI, John Paul II and others that have taken place since Vatican II.
Nonetheless, everyone is instinctively aware that there is something amiss about rejecting canonizations, which were previously held to be infallible. This is why there are such a variety of theories proposed to justify these rejections. These theories include:
The new canonization process is less rigorous, and therefore no longer infallible
The men being canonized are “invalid matter”
The conception of sainthood has changed
Canonizations are no longer backed by the infallible authority of the Pope, but by some other collegial authority
The infallibility of canonizations has not itself been infallibly taught by the Church
Some modern canonizations have political motives
Canonizations are not teaching acts
Infallibility only covers things that were revealed before the death of St John.
Another “reductionist” theory admits that canonizations are infallible, but that all this means is that canonized persons are in Heaven, rather than models of Christian life, to be imitated and venerated by the faithful. Such an idea allows the problem of the recent canonizations to be explained away, and so is sometimes the only “infallibilist” (or “inerrantist,” as some say) theory that anyone will acknowledge.
These various explanations are more or less ingenious, but they all neglect the relationship between canonizations and the purpose of infallibility, and of the Church herself.
Those of us who reject or doubt these canonizations need to be clear on why we are doing so, and the implications of our position.
Pre-conciliar theology
The theories proposed above run counter to powerful theological arguments and the weight of tradition. We can find this expressed in, among other places, the genre of books known as the theology manuals. These books were used for the education and training of seminarians and were adopted by bishops for this purpose. Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote of this genre, saying:
“[T]he common or morally unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine [and] has always been recognised as a norm of Catholic doctrine.”1
While these texts are not infallible, Fenton adds that when they are authorized, commissioned or approved by bishops for official use (such as for the education of priests) they “may be said to express in some way the ordinary magisterium of the Church.”
These books, particularly those written between Vatican I and Vatican II, are sometimes dismissed as representing a terrible period of “ultramontanism” or “hyperpapalim” (an alleged exaggerated idealised about the papacy). For this reason, they are also dismissed as having been rendered obsolete by the current crisis.
But in fact, the sober texts from this period are quite far from such exaggerations. They also represent a gold standard for ecclesiology and related issues, in that the authors benefited from Vatican I’s clarity on the extent and limits of infallibility, and yet preceded the errors and confusion which came with Vatican II.
It is beyond this article’s scope to engage with each alternative “errantist” theory about canonizations. Rather than looking at what theologians might have said on this throughout history, this article shall present the arguments for infallibility from a selection of such texts – typically those available in English, whilst representing authors of different nationalities.
Naturally this selection cannot pretend to show the unanimous consensus of theologians, but it will present a consistent witness which is largely ignored today.
I invite those who disagree with them, and with my conclusions, to make their case in the comments section below.
What is Canonization?
Mgr Van Noort, author of Christ’s Church, defined canonization as follows:
The final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person [to be] a saint worthy of public veneration.2
The Dominican theologian Fr De Groot gives a similar definition:
[T]he ultimate and definitive sentence, by which the Church declares that someone has led a holy life and has been received into heaven, and proposes him to all the faithful for veneration and invocation.3
This definition is standard, and expressed in similar terms in the manuals of Fr Sylvester Hunter,4 Fr Joachim Salaverri,5 Dr Ludwig Ott,6 Fr E. Sylvester Berry,7 Fr Adolphe Tanquerey,8 Cardinal Pietro Parente,9 and in the American Ecclesiastical Review articles of Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton10 and Fr John Hardon.11
St Robert Bellarmine (a higher authority than a manualist, of course, but relevant to the question) gives a similar definition.12
Note that this is a definition of canonization. It does not apply to beatification, and has in view only those canonizations decreed by the Roman Pontiff, and so the various other means by which men and women have been raised to the altar are outside of our scope.13
Fr Camillo Beccari, in Catholic Encyclopaedia article, “Beatification and Canonization,” states that canonization is an act by which a pope both defines and commands. He specifically says that the pope defines “that this person canonized is in heaven”; and commands that “public veneration [is] to be paid [to this] individual by the Universal Church.”14
Beccari also states that canonizations are universal, definitive and prescriptive, and that this is what distinguishes them from beatification.15 This final and definitive quality means that canonizations are irreformable – and this is a key reason why they must be infallible.
We can see, therefore, that these authors treat canonization as:
A definitive, final and therefore irreformable precept
Commanding that
All the faithful believe and profess not just that an individual is in Heaven, but also that he is worthy of veneration, and
All the faithful actually venerate him.
Can the Church err in such a matter?
The Secondary Object of Infallibility
Contrary to popular belief, infallibility is not limited to those things believed “everywhere, by everyone, and at all times”, or revealed before the death of St John.
In fact, it is theologically certain that the Church’s infallibility extends to those “other truths which are required necessarily in order to guard the whole deposit of revelation.”16 Such other truths are referred to as the secondary object of infallibility.
These truths, according to Van Noort, “are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could be made about them”.17 The various manual texts already cited say the same.18
This is common sense: if the Church were not infallible in matters pertaining to the secondary object of infallibility, then the faithful could not rely on her regarding truths “required necessarily” to guard the Faith. No Catholic can admit such a possibility.
The theologians who address this topic typically treat the same four or five “allied matters” under this heading – and these allied matters include formal canonizations by the pope.
What do the manuals, popes and saints say about canonizations being infallible?
As is admitted by all, before Vatican II, it was at least “the common opinion” that canonizations are infallible. In addition, Phil Campbell – the contributor to a book on the subject:
“[I]t is freely admitted that non-infallibilism is the minority position; not just a minority position, but a small minority. Even anti-infallibilists like Msgr. Gherardini admit that they are a very small minority, that the weight of theological tradition is against them. While the question has not been definitively settled, the tradition of the Church is weightily in favor of infallibility.”19
He then quotes Gherardini:
“The overwhelming majority of theologians responded in the affirmative [i.e., favoring infallibility of canonizations as directly connected to Christian revelation]; those who lean towards a negative response or even a only a doubtful one are very few.”20
But before we can consider why the texts in our chosen genre say that canonizations are infallible, let us look at some specific examples.
What do these manualist texts say?
In his Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Hunter writes:
“No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church.”21
Tanquerey’s Manual of Dogmatic Theology says:
“The Church is infallible in regard to canonization of saints, but not to beatification. This opinion is true and common”.22
Van Noort says that canonizations are infallible, and that this is the common opinion.23
Berry’s classic work The Church of Christ teaches that they are infallible.24
Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, teaches the same.25
Parente, in his Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, teaches the same.26
Beccari, in the Catholic Encyclopaedia article mentioned, says that “most theologians answer in the affirmative,” and cites the authority of Ss Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine and Antoninus, along with the theologians Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bañez and Vasquez, and a host of canonists.27
Hardon’s treatment of Bellarmine’s doctrine in the American Ecclesiastical Review shows that the saint (and Hardon himself) believed the same.28
Salaverri, in his On the Church of Christ, says that it is theologically certain that canonizations are infallible, and that this proposition is itself implicitly defined.29
Fenton says the same in even stronger terms: not only are canonizations infallible, he says, but they are also to be believed with divine faith; and that doubting any particular canonization is a heresy against ecclesiastical faith.30
Three Popes and Two Doctors
Before he became Pope, Benedict XIV (writing as Propser Lambertini) was the “Devil’s Advocate” for years. He wrote the classic and authoritative work on canonization. Although not the pope at the time, this work is commonly treated as being of very great weight and is usually referred to under his papal name.
In it, Lambertini teaches that “the universal Church cannot be led into error concerning matters of morals by the Supreme Pontiff; but this would be the case if he were not infallible in the canonization of saints”.31
He also teaches that “anyone who dares to assert that the Pontiff erred in this or that Canonization, that this or that Saint canonized by him is not to be honored” was, if not heretical, “temerarious, bringing scandal to the whole Church… smacking of heresy… affirming an erroneous proposition”.32
Further, he presents the teaching of Pope Sixtus V (sixteenth century) before this pope canonized St Didacus:
Basing his arguments upon Holy Scripture, theological reasoning, and all manner of proofs, the pope demonstrated that the Roman Pontiff […] cannot be mistaken nor induce into error when he canonizes saints.
And he affirmed that this truth must be believed not only as a pious belief, but as the object of a very certain and necessary act of faith; [adding] that the laws of the Church and of the pope are certain and guaranteed whenever they concern the discipline of faith and morals and rest upon sure principles and solid foundations.33
It is also clear that Pope Pius XI believed that his canonizations were infallible, saying during a decree:
We, as the supreme Teacher of the Catholic Church, pronounce an infallible judgment with these words.
We, from the Chair of Blessed Peter, as the supreme Teacher of the whole Church of Christ, solemnly proclaim with these words an infallible judgement.
Salaverri shows that there were at least another two other instances of such papal language.34 Even texts which lack the word “infallible” are sufficiently clear to conclude the belief of the popes.
As further examples, two doctors of the Church teach the same thing about this infallibility:
The Common Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas
The “Doctor of Ecclesiology,” St Robert Bellarmine.
St Thomas teaches that “the honor which we show to the Saints is a certain profession of faith” and that “it is piously believed that even in these matters the judgment of the Church cannot be in error”.35
St Robert Bellarmine teaches: “We hold that the Church does not err in the canonization of her saints” and says that
If we were ever granted the privilege of doubting whether a canonized saint is really a saint or not, we should also have the liberty of doubting whether he has to be worshipped or not.
But this, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, would be dogmatic suicide because then we should be allowed to call into question whether we have to do anything that the whole Church of Christ is doing.36
In his American Ecclesiastical Review, Hardon clearly follows Bellarmine in this.37
There are a minority of authors in the history of the Church which might disagree with these judgements. However, it does appear that there was a consensus, in this inter-conciliar period, that canonizations are infallible.
But why do they say that canonizations must be infallible?
Having demonstrated that these authorities agree on this issue, we may now turn to a more fundamental question:
Why do these authors agree that they must be infallible?
The Decrees of Canonization themselves
We have already seen a decree of canonization from Pius XI above. Although some of our fellow traditionalists dismiss canonization decrees as evidence for infallibility, some of these writers consider them to form a solid argument. Van Noort states that they show that the popes believe their canonizations to be infallible.38
This is the form used for the specific canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II:
For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II be Saints and we enrol them among the Saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.39
This form is largely the same as Pius XI’s, albeit with even more forceful language in places. He canonizes, not only “by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul”, but also with “[his] own [authority]” – a clear invocation of papal authority. He claims “divine assistance” as he “declares and defines.”
We could leave aside arguments about whether this meets Vatican I’s requirements for an ex cathedra definition (although several writers say so), and simply focus on the reality: such solemn language should make us consider the gravity of rejecting, or even questioning, such a decree.
Salaverri and others agree that decrees of this kind necessitate infallibility.40 It is clear that, although some today dispute this argument, the various authors cited considered it to be sound.
The point here is not about magic words, but rather that this is a definitive and irreformable act imposing something on the whole Church: and regardless of Vatican I, the Church cannot err in such an act.
The purpose of infallibility itself - and the dire implications of error
At the heart of the question lies this truth: Canonizations are infallible because of the very nature and purpose of the Church.
Tanquerey says of canonizations that “truly the Church cannot make a mistake in matters which concern a profession of faith and morals, when she is making known a definitive judgement and is imposing a precept on the faithful”.41
Fenton states that the Church can “infallibly declare [a man] a Saint”, because:
[She] teaches and acts as a living and infallible teacher of divinely revealed truth. […] And, for the infallible statements of its teaching, the Church demands the assent of divine faith.42
Fenton’s entire article refer to the classical range of secondary objects of infallibility, including canonizations. Canonizations are infallible, he says, because otherwise the Church would not be a living and infallible teacher.
Errors in canonizations would have serious repurcussions. Ott adds that “If the Church could err in her opinion [of canonizations], consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church.”43
We already saw that Van Noort teaches that the Church “is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life.” He argues that she would not be so, if she could err in canonizing saints:
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 protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and all to invoke?44
Berry agrees that in the act of canonization, “the Church proclaims the saint a model of virtue” and “commands all the faithful to honor him, and exhorts all to imitate his life.” But if the Church could err in this, then “the faithful would be led into grievous error by imitating the life of a sinner and honoring one who is forever estranged from the friendship of God”.45
Hunter teaches that canonizations must be infallible, because otherwise, in defining someone to be a saint and to be “honoured as such by the whole Church”, “the whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worship.”46
Moving away from the manuals, we have already seen that Fr Hardon translates St Robert Bellarmine such that doubting canonizations would be “dogmatic suicide.”47 If the Church could err in this way, St Robert says, then she also “would be calling down on herself the most dreadful maledictions every time she prayed” to these damned souls (which we hold has a certain application to giving someone the honours due to a saint as defined, even if these souls were in Purgatory, or on the basis that canonization “merely” means that they are in Heaven).
As above, Hardon himself follows the doctrine of this Doctor of the Church. St Robert does also cite the diligence of the investigatory process as a reason for credibility: but even in the absence of a diligent process, his first arguments on the nature of canonization stand.48
St Thomas makes the same argument and teaches that, if canonizations are not infallible, then the whole Church could be commanded to venerate a damned soul as a saint – and aside from anything else, this would result in confusion and dangerous error. This would be especially so for those who knew these non-saints in their lifetimes.49
Cardinal Lépicier says that doubting or denying the truth of a canonization is heretical, and makes similar arguments:
Things being so, to affirm that the Church can err in the canonization of saints is not only erroneous, rash, scandalous and impious, but even formally heretical. Firstly, certainly it is erroneous, since it opposes the common sense of the faithful; secondly, it is rash, since it is contrary to the general sentence of theologians; thirdly, it is scandalous, since it insinuates into the minds of the faithful that a canonized man may be tormented in hell; fourthly, it is impious, since it attacks religion and the worship due to the saints. But we said, fifthly, that it is formally heretical, since it opposes the certitude of revelation.50
Salaverri presents the most striking exposition of the matter. He says that the very purpose of the infallible Magisterium demands what is “necessary in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through the correct worship and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues”.51 But in the solemn decrees of canonization…
… the Church not only tolerates and permits, but also commends and instructs the whole flock of the faithful that certain definite Saints whom it canonizes are to be honoured, and it proposes them as examples of virtue who are worthy of imitation.
But the mere possibility of error in such a solemn declaration would take away all confidence from the faithful and fundamentally would destroy the whole cult of the Saints; because it could happen that the Church would solemnly propose to all and mandate that condemned and evil men perpetually should be honored and imitated.
Therefore, in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through correct worship and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues, infallibility is necessary concerning the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints.52
We are not entering into the question of the eternal destiny of any particular post-conciliar saint –some of whom (for example, Padre Pio, Fr Maximilian Kolbe, John-Henry Cardinal Newman, and the parents of St Thérèse of Lisieux) have compelling cases for sainthood. We are merely considering the purpose of the Church’s infallibility, and the reasons why theologians say that she is infallible in general, and with canonizations in particular – and how to reconcile this with certain canonizations of persons that lived in our own lifetimes, and who cannot be accepted as saints in the sense described.
Summary of the arugment
The central point – that the Church is “infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life” is itself a controversial position today. Many do not believe this of the Church. They instead believe that the truth is found in the Church, alongside some extent of error – and that it is incumbent on all to assess everything which is ever taught, to accept what is true and reject what is false.
However, this is a false conception of the Church. We can summarise these points as follows:
If the Church could err in canonizations (as defined below), then she cannot be a sure guide, directing the faithful to salvation, right morality and true worship.
Canonization establishes a public, universal, mandatory and perpetual veneration to a given person, definitively ruling that they are in Heaven and that they are worthy of veneration and imitation, and commanding universal veneration.
But the Church is indeed a sure guide, directing the faithful to salvation, right morality and true worship.
Therefore, the Church cannot err in canonizations.
Some objections, addressed in passing
As stated at the beginning, this article is presenting arguments for infallibility from the manualist tradition, rather than dealing with each alternative theory. But to address some objections in passing:
The process: Discussions around the investigation process and political motives miss the point in a profound way.
Obligatory devotion: It is obviously impossible for everyone to venerate every specific saint, at least in the sense of having a devotion to each one. But as As Van Noort mentions, the command for universal veneration is largely covered by the precept to believe that they are worthy of veneration, and to observe their feast if included in the universal calendar, etc. It does not require everyone to have a personal devotion to the saint.
Imitating the imperfections of saints: The extent to which the saints are held up as models for Christian behaviour may be quite restricted in its basis. We are not to venerate every saint in all aspects of their lives, nor to imitate all such aspects. For a start, not every saint can be imitated in every state of life. We are not taught to imitate the life of the Good Thief, for example, but rather his contrition and his death. However, it is clear that canonization makes a definitive statement about a wider set of facts than just that individual is in heaven.
Changed concept of sanctity: Saying that these canonizations are doubtful because of a change in perspective on sanctity and heroic virtue is to concede that the Church is no longer “a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life,”53 and could be led into superstitious worship.54 But this cannot be conceded. Although this thesis is now questioned today, including by many traditionalists, it is firmly established by the sources cited and the tradition of the Church. Denying it is indeed, as Bellarmine is quoted saying, “dogmatic suicide.”
Changed basis of authority: A similar problem arises by suggesting that canonizations are now a collegial act, and therefore not covered by the Pope’s personal infallibility. But canonizations are infallible by virtue of being universal, definitive and irreformable decisions. If such a precept is reformable, then we are conceding the same as above – that the person could be in Hell, or that the Church could command imitation of their merely natural virtues as sufficient for Heaven, or command veneration of someone truly unworthy – with all the deleterious consequences just outlined. It is, in the same way, “dogmatic suicide.”
Not actually irreformable: In his discussion of St Simon of Trent, John Lamont suggests canonizations are not irreformable,55 and others have claimed that this is also demonstrated by the case of St Philomena. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has made a similar claim.56 We cannot here enter into further discussion about the distinctions between a formal canonization and equivalent canonization, or the difference between inclusion in the Roman Martyrology and the universal calendar of the Roman Rite, and so on. But suffice it to say that these distinctions vitiate this objection.
However, referring to examples from 1965 is begging the question, as it is the Conciliar-Synodal Church and its canonizations which are under question.
Further, if the liturgy, doctrine and canonizations of the Conciliar Church can be questioned by traditionalist authors, then we see no reason why they should treat post-conciliar “unsaintings” as evidence of anything. Let us instead hear of pre-conciliar examples of saints, formally canonized by a Pope for universal veneration, who are then subsequently ‘unsainted’ by a pre-conciliar Pope: these are the cases that could undermine our thesis.
Not infallible that they are infallible: The objection that the Church has not infallibly defined that canonizations are infallible is a great red herring. Catholics might hold tolerated minority opinions in good faith – but good faith does not remove an idea’s theoretical consequences. We concede that it is not infallible that canonizations are infallible: it is however, according to Salaverri, theologically certain that they are infallible (to take one example). This is a lower grade of certainty than a de fide definition – but it is nonetheless certain.
When we look at the matter from this angle, it does seem that there can be no other conclusions: Canonizations are infallible – and so the canonizations of John Paul II and others pose a serious theological problem, which none of the theories mentioned satisfactorily resolve.
Conclusions
Faced with errors everywhere, Catholics try to hold fast to those things taught under “the primary object” of infallibility, namely “each and every religious truth contained formally in the sources of revelation.”57 But we cannot ignore the secondary objects of infallibility, including canonizations.
This is not to say that people are wrong for rejecting the canonization of men such as Paul VI, who oversaw what he himself called “the auto-demolition of the Church”. Some of these supposedly canonized men lived and died within our own lifetimes, under an unprecedented ecclesiastical crisis – over which some of these very men presided.
We cannot deny the clear evidence of our senses and intellects: they and various others were not saints. Accepting them as saints would be to hold them as worthy of imitation and public veneration. And this we cannot do: for against facts, there can be no arguments.
But those who go further, and build theories about why post-conciliar saints can be rejected need to do so with their eyes wide open. They need to acknowledge, not just that the common opinion and weight of tradition is in favour of infallibility, but also that the reasons and arguments for this common opinion are rooted in the most fundamental tenets of the Faith, and the most fundamental purposes of the Church herself.
We cannot evade the force of this by finding loopholes, as if this spectacle can be explained on the basis of technicalities. We also cannot throw out a theological consensus, or common opinions, or construct theories without reference to the reasons behind this consensus or majority. We cannot dismiss it as “ultramontanist” or “hyperpapalist” without refuting the arguments upon which this consensus is based, or producing more or higher authorities.
The situation is confusing, but we definitely cannot create explanatory theories based on theological errors which undermine the whole reason for having a Church at all.
But if theories must inevitably be proposed, we must begin by accepting the the traditional teaching and theology of the Church, and letting the chips fall where they may – even if that means arriving at a very uncomfortable, unpopular and controversial position.
One way to reconcile these unacceptable canonizations with the theological consensus is to say that they do not truly come from the authority of the Church. But how can this be, given that they have every appearance of having come from the Supreme Pontiff and been universally imposed?
The solution has already been raised by those writing of a false, “Conciliar Church” – which has now rebranded itself as a “Conciliar-Synodal Church,” eclipsing the Catholic Church, like the Moon eclipsing the Sun. While the case must be made from doctrine and theology, it has been spoken of in various quarters over the last few decades.58 Even Fr E. Sylvester Berry, one of the respected authors cited, discusses such an idea in his The Church of Christ:
The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of the Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church.59
Berry develops this idea in his work The Apocalypse of St John:
The [false] prophet will probably set himself up in Rome as a sort of antipope during the vacancy of the papal throne mentioned above.60
And when dealing with catholicity and diffusion as a mark of the Church, he also says:
There seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.61
Whether we have been living in the “End Times” since the 1960s or not, the ideas are instructive. False churches and false popes have no divine assurance of infallibility in canonizations. And faced with these clearly invalid canonizations of non-saints and unholy destroyers of the Church, we can hear again the words of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for twenty centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.62
Read Next:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Joseph Clifford Fenton, ‘The Teaching of the Theological Manuals’, American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270. Available here:
G. Van Noort, ‘Christ’s Church’, Dogmatic Theology II, Newman Press, Maryland 1957. 117
De Groot O.P., Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica, p 334, Ratisbonae, 1906. Cited in Ch. 1 of TheThesis.US.
Sylvester Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology I, Benzinger Bros, Chicago 1895. 311
Joachim Salaverri SJ, ‘On the Church of Christ’ Summa Theologiae Sacrae IB, Keep the Faith, 2015 262
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Baronius Press 2018. 321
E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, Wipf Stock and Publishers, Oregon, 1955. 292
Adolphe Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Desclee, New York 1959, Vol I.147.
Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee 1951, p 37.
Joseph Clifford Fenton, ‘The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith’, American Ecclesiastical Review, April,1953.
John Hardon SJ, ‘Bellarmine’s Defense of Canonized Saints’, American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1948.
Bellarmine, De beatitudine et canonizatione sanctorum, lib. I, cap 9 – quoted in Hardon.
See also fn. 28.
Camillo Beccari. (1907). ‘Beatification and Canonization.’ In The Catholic Encyclopaedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 2, 2020 from New Advent.
Beccari also writes in the same article:
“What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven.”
Beccari is alone amongst the sources we have found to make such a claim, and his arguments do not address the issues we discuss in this paper.
Revised Outline, Cn 9 – Draft Canons of Vatican I. Quoted in Salaverri, 266.
Van Noort, 117
Hunter, 308. Ott, 320. Berry, 289. Salaverri, 266. Tanquerey, 147.
https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2021/10/book-review-are-canonizations-infallible.html
Ibid.
Hunter, 311
Tanquerey 147.
Van Noort, 110.
Berry, 292.
Ott, 321.
Parente, 37-8.
Beccari, under the heading “Papal Infallibility and Canonization”.
Hardon.
Salaverri, 273.
Joseph Clifford Fenton, ‘The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith’, American Ecclesiastical Review, April,1953. Available at: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton_ecclesiastical_faith.html
Quoted in Berry, 292
Benedict XIV, quoted in Salaverri, 273.
Benedict XIV, On the Beatification and Canonization of Saints, Bk. I, Ch. 43, No. 2 – quoted in Fr Jean-Michel Gleize SSPX, Beatification and canonization since Vatican – https://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-2
Quoted in Salaverri, 273.
Quodl. 9, a. 16. Quoted in Salaverri, 273.
Bellarmine, De beatitudine et canonizatione sanctorum, lib. I, cap 9 – quoted in Hardon.
Ibid.
Van Noort, 118.
Salaverri 272 and the various other sources cited.
Tanquerey 147.
Fenton, ‘The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith’, American Ecclesiastical Review, April,1953.
Ott 321.
Van Noort 118.
Berry 292.
Hunter, 310.
Bellarmine, quoted in Hardon. Others have translated this as “insolent insanity,” but for the purposes of this article we prefer the colourful phrase used by the late Fr Hardon.
St Robert Bellarmine, On the Canonization and Veneration of the Saints, translated by Ryan Grant for Mediatrix Press, Post Falls Idaho 2019. 121. (UK readers can purchase here).
St Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibet 9, Article 16, quoted in Gleize.
Lépicier O.S.M., Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, 1935, p 130. Cited in Ch. 1 of TheThesis.US
Salaverri, 271.
Salaverri, 271-2.
Van Noort 118.
Hunter 310.
Cf. John Lamont’s article: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/12/follow-up-article-infallibility-of.html
Schneider writes:
677. Have individuals ever been removed from the Roman Martyrology, the Church’s official list of Saints?
Yes. The best-known case is that of St. Philomena, who was given a proper Mass and Office by Pope Pius IX in 1855, with devotion to her being showered with papal favors by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. Pope John XXIII later removed her from every liturgical calendar, and Pope John Paul II removed her from the Roman Martyrology altogether, thereby suppressing the veneration of a very popular saint. This does not mean, of course, that the faithful may not continue to be privately devoted to St. Philomena.
Athanasius Schneider, Credo. Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, New Hampshire, 2023.
Van Noort, 109
See also:
Fr Jean-Michel Gleize: https://fsspx.news/en/content/23744 and https://fsspx.news/en/content/23757
Mr John Lane:
.jpg){kind=link}
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (2013): http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Mr Louie Verrecchio: https://akacatholic.com/church-in-eclipse/
Consider also this interesting text from Fr Francis Owen Dudley:
“A Mock Church […] We speak of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, a framework, a supernatural organism living by the life of Christ. Is it beyond the genius of Satan to build to himself a parallel kind of framework, an antithesis to the Mystical Body of Christ? There is a carefully planned framework to be found in freemasonry — a supreme pontiff, a hierarchy, a temple, ceremonial worship, degrees of initiation, festivals, a creed. This planned framework is an antithesis to God’s plan for His Church. It is a deliberate plan of worship. It is naturalism as opposed to supernaturalism.”
Owen Francis Dudley, The Church Unconquerable, Australian Catholic Truth Society No. 709, 1936.
Berry 66.
Berry, The Apocalypse of St. John, Columbus, OH: John W. Winterich, 1921, 135.
Berry 1955, 87.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976. On the status of a doubtful pope, cf. the text from Wernz & Vidal, found here: https://akacatholic.com/the-traditionalist-and-the-pope-the-papacy-as-a-relation/
I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Canonizations and the Quodlibet quote got me interested. I read the Quodlibet IX question of interest and saw (some of) the strength of the argument (and how it had nothing to do with the particular investigation process). I decided to check this website since I hold it as a reasonable "sede" source and I wanted to see if there was any text on the subject. I must say I was not disappointed with what I found. I have some thinking to do!