... yet again to plug a collection of essays one of which is from myself! But, of course, I always succumb to the temptation to do this!
Are Canonizations INFALLIBLE? Revisiting a disputed question.
Arouca Press, edited by the admirable Professor Kwasniewski.
I know many readers have been worried by the spate of canonisations of 'Conciliar popes', seeing this process as politically motivated. This collection has sixteen pieces ... including one from Prospero Lambertini, Pope Benedict XIV. Their views are varied. But many of the contributions are from the stable which, as well as the Dubia, brought you the Filial Correction and the other recent documents which establish a theological case against this pontificate.
Not to be missed!
I am repeating this August post because I really do think that this is a very important book, at a time when PF has forced upon us nolentes volentes a duty of taking a long and careful and critical look at the magisterial claims he makes. This question of Canonisation is pretty central.
I just got my copy and am on the third chapter. You should absolutely get this book!
You need a whole book for that question? I have a one word answer.
Thank you for nolentes volentes. Today's Daily Telegraph has a column headed 'In Memorium'.
Recently finished the book. Parts of it are tough going for a poorly-educated layman (me), but it provided much-needed perspective on this question which had frustrated me. The book is needed now more than ever.
Papal declarations on the subjects of FAITH and MORALS may be infallible, under certain conditions.
Unless the pope in question is a WILFULL HERETIC.
NOW, tell me, what does that have to do with canozitations??????????
What's that? Speak up!
Oh, yes, the answer is NOTHING
The SSPX's on-going Crisis in the Church podcast series covered the Canonisation issue last week. Well worth a listen. It's on YouTube (episode 45 of the series):
Because all the popes that presided over the self-demolition of the Catholic Church are now "saints," it only stands to reason that the Council and "all its works" cannot but be holy, traditional, sound, pleasing to Almighty God, and of mandatory acceptance for every Catholic on the planet. The canonizations are clearly (to all but the most obtuse and fanatical papolator) a ploy to canonize not so much these popes but the Council itself and the apostasy it has fostered. Political maneuver (for the mindless sheep) at its best---and at its most cynical.
Saints have done humanly imprudent things before, and some of the things they have done have clearly been things not to be imitated. Saints have done things in conflict with other saints. Saints have been wrong, in all good faith.
Now, personally, I find this hopeful. As someone who frequently acts like a stupid donkey, and who frequently chooses the silliest action, I have a great deal of sympathy for saints who did stupid things. And since I greatly suspect that I have done things that caused other people problems and hurt their souls, I am very sorry for shepherds who got themselves and their flocks tangled up.
The remedy is to walk back the changes that were stupid, and not waste too much time on anger against those who are no longer here. There are plenty of people living today who are problems to worry about.
Post a Comment