The
Infallibility Of Canonizations
by
Stefano
Wolfe
|
T |
he infallibility of canonizations is Theologica Certa. The censure attached to this is ‘Error in theology.’ The effects of its denial are ‘mortal sin against Faith.’ This is because:
1. The common opinion of theologians teaches canonizations are infallible.
2. Tuas Libenter of Pius IX sates you must believe those teachings of the universal, ordinary Magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith...You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as theological truths and conclusions.
3. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches canonizations are infallible.[1]
4. St. Thomas Aquinas[2] teaches canonizations are infallible. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated – It is a fact that St. Thomas Aquinas has magisterial authority in philosophy and theology as dictated by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church,[3] Canon Law,[4] and the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Studies.[5] St. Thomas Aquinas holds a unique place among the Doctors of the Church.[6] He has become the official theologian of Christ’s Mystical Spouse, her Universal Doctor. She has canonized his teaching, making it her own in all its essential elements.[7] According to the theologian Fr. Salaverri, St. Thomas Aquinas’ authority is intrinsic, extrinsic, and canonical.[8]
5. Fr. Sixtus Cartechini’s Manual “De Valore Notarum Theologicarum” says the infallibility of Canonizations is ‘theologica certa.’[9] “The infallibility of the Church in all censures less than heresy may be proved from the acts of the Council of Constance. In the eleventh article of the Interrogatory proposed to the followers of Huss are included condemnations of all kinds. They were asked whether they believed the articles of Wickliffe and Huss to be ‘not Catholic, but some of them notoriously heretical, some erroneous, others temerarious and seditious, others offensive to pious ears.’ Martin V., therefore, in the Bull ‘Inter cunctos’ requires belief, that is, interior assent, to all such condemnations made by the Council of Constance, which therein extended its infallible jurisdiction to all the minor censures, less than that of heresy.” – Cardinal Manning
6. Plus, most theologians (which forms a common opinion) from St. Thomas Aquinas to the Post-Vatican II era teach that the secondary object of infallibility includes Canonizations. Some of the eminent theologians forming this common opinion includes: Fr. Sylvester Hunter, S.J.;[10] Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey;[11] Fr. G. Van Noort;[12] Fr. Sylvester Berry;[13] Ludwig Ott;[14] Pietro Cardinal Parente;[15] Fr. Beccari;[16] and Melchior Cano,[17] Suarez, Bañez[18] and Vasquez.[19]
7. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. confirms this (see “Reality, A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought”).
8. Benedict XIV. One of the greatest geniuses of the Church and an expert on Canonizations, wrote the book that is still used for the Process. “If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion, and liable to very grave penalties.”
9. Popes Sixtus V and Pius XI teach the infallibility of Canonizations.[20] “Several times the Pontiffs have declared with express words that this judgment is infallible. For example, Pius XI: “Having implored the divine light again and with great fervor, We, as the supreme Teacher of the Catholic Church pronounce an infallible judgment with these words: For the honor etc.””[21]
10. Fr. Gregory Hesse, theologian, Canon Lawyer and personal secretary to Cardinal Stickler, taught that the infallibility of canonizations are at least sententia certa on the Notæ Theologice.
11. The eminent theologian G. Van Noort in his Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (1932) says the secondary object of infallibility “pertains specifically to theological conclusions, dogmatic facts, the general discipline of the church, approbation of religious orders, and the canonization of saints.”
12. The catechism called the, “Exposition of Christian Doctrine from the Brothers of the Christian Schools,” teaches that the Church's infallibility extends to A) Theological conclusions, that is, truths deduced from revelation by means of reasoning; B) Upon facts relating to dogma, such as the authenticity of the Sacred Books, the legitimacy of this or that council, C) Upon texts containing dogma and having a human origin, that is, it pronounces upon the natural sense of the words which express truth or error, D) Upon the holiness of a deceased canonized person, E) Upon the statutes of a religious order, upon general discipline, and upon the liturgy, F) And upon points of human science which are related to dogma.”
13. Ludwig Ott – “The secondary object of infallibility belong: a) Theological conclusions derived from a formerly revealed truth by aid of a natural truth of reason. b) historical facts on the determination of which the certainty of a truth of Revelation depends (facta dogmatica). c) Natural truths of reason which are intimately connected with truths of Revelation.... d) The canonisation of saints, that is, the final judgement that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration. The veneration shown to the saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, "to certain extent a confession of the faith, in which we believe in the glory of the saints” (Quodl. 9, 16). If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church.”
14. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913): “Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.”[22]
The majority of theologians taught that “All things are a secondary object of infallibility which are thus connected with the deposit of revelation that the revelation itself would be endangered unless an absolutely certain judgement is able to be made concerning these things.”[23] Or, to use the words of the Exposition of Christian Doctrine, infallibility extends: “To all truths which, though not formally revealed, yet have an intimate connection with revealed truths. If the Church were not infallible in these truths, it would not guard with fidelity the deposit of revelation.”
Even though canonizations are an exercise of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, the teaching of canonizations being infallible is also Theologica Certa on the Notæ Theologice and requires assent anyways. Fr. Van Noort also teaches that the secondary object of infallibility pertains to Canonizations. And specifically, two Doctors – St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Robert Bellarmine; three Popes – Benedict XIV; and many theologians forming a common opinion, with the greatest twentieth century theologian Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., teaching they are infallible. So, the fact that some within the school of R&R traditionalism, who think they know more than two Saints who are Doctors, three Popes, with one of those popes having a genius intellect, and one of the greatest theologians of the Twentieth Century, is astounding and reveals a deeper problem.
The eminent theologian, Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J.,[24] in his treatise “De Ecclesia Christi” teaches:
“Canonizations of Saints are definitive decrees of the universal ecclesiastical power, whereby the servants of God are solemnly declared to be saints, are added to the catalogue of saints and are proposed to the faithful of the whole Church to be honored and imitated...” (Cf. C.I.C. 1999-2141 [1917]).
And:
“With respect to decrees of the solemn Canonization of the Saints. A. The end of the infallible Magisterium requires infallibility regarding decrees of this sort. For the end of the infallible Magisterium requires those things which are necessary for directing the faithful without error to salvation through right cult and imitation of exemplars of the Christian virtues. But infallibility regarding decrees of Canonization of the Saints is necessary for such scope. Therefore the end of the infallible Magisterium requires infallibility regarding decrees of solemn Canonization of the Saints.
The major is clear from the Church’s presupposed power of sanctifying, to which are immediately ordained the other powers of the Church. The minor stands, because in the solemn decrees of Canonization of the Saints the Church not only tolerates and permits, but also commends and commands to the entire flock of the faithful, that certain determinate Saints whom she canonizes are to be venerated, and she proposes the same as exemplars of virtue worthy of imitation. But the mere possibility of error in so solemn a judgment would destroy any trust of the faithful and would render the entire cult of the Saints destitute of foundation; because it would be able to happen that the Church would solemnly propose to all and would command that wretched and vicious men be perpetually venerated. Therefore, for directing the faithful without error to salvation through right cult and imitation of exemplars of the Christian virtues, infallibility is necessary regarding solemn decrees of Canonization of the Saints.”[25]
Fr. Salaverri goes on to teach:
“On the grade of certitude with which it must be held that the Church us infallible in the Canonization of Saints, it is necessary to cite the opinions of the eminent authors. St. Thomas said: "The Canonization of Saints is the middle between these two (namely between the things that pertain to faith and those pertaining to particular facts): because the honor, which we show to the Saints, is a certain profession of faith, by which we believe in the glory of the Saints, and by which it is piously believed that even in these matters the judgment of the Church cannot be in error” (Cf. Summ. Theol., Quodl. 9, a. 16).
Fr. Suarez: “Even though it is not a matter of faith, I think it is sufficiently certain, and that the contrary is impious and temerarius” (Cf. Suarez, De Fide d. 5 s. 8 n. 8).
Benedict XIV mentions that a few older authors denied the infallibility of the Church concerning the decrees of Canonization. However, he defends the common opinion: "If it is not heretical, still it is temerarious, bringing scandal to the whole Church,...we will say this about 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 with the worship of dulia” (Benedict XIV, De Canoniz. Sanctorum 1.1 c. 43 n. 28. See Dieckman, n. 851f.; F. Spedalieri, De Ecclesiae Infallibilitate in Canoniz. Sanctorum (1949)).”
It is apparent that “it is not infallible that canonizations are infallible: it is however, according to Salaverri, theologically certain that they are infallible. This is a lower grade of certainty than a de fide definition – but it is nonetheless certain.”[26] And, theologically certain propositions have their weight and certitude and its consequences if denied. See footnote no. 9 in this essay.
The WM Review in their scholarly and erudite essay on the Infallibility of Canonizations by S.D. Wright, and which the author of this essay wholeheartedly recommends, says,
“Fr Camillo Beccari, in his article, “Beatification and Canonization” in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, states that canonization is an act by which a pope both defines and commands. Beccari 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.” He states that canonizations are universal, definitive and prescriptive, and that this is what distinguishes them from beatification.”
The WM Review continues:
“We can see, therefore, a consensus: canonization is a definitive, final and therefore irreformable precept, commanding the faithful to believe and profess, not just that an individual is in Heaven, but also that he is worthy of veneration, and in fact to be venerated by all.”
So, where canonizations fall on the notæ theologice is not the issue. For a complete series of proofs on the infallibility of canonizations see, “Beatification and Canonization,” by, Fr. F.W. Faber, pgs. 104-121 specifically.[27]
We now come to one objection that is untenable. Its argument runs thus:
“A lot of old books and old authorities say that canonisations are infallible. What one has to remember is that St. Alphonsus and the rest used the term ‘infallible’ in a far looser way than Vatican I’s definition, and when the term is used today it is that definition which tends to uppermost in our minds...”
This argument is irrelevant.
It doesn’t matter how St. Alphonsus and others used the word ‘infallible.’ The First Vatican Council is a reality, it actually took place in history. We must assent to its definitions. And theology has developed since then. You have to go by what the Church taught after Vatican I. The eminent theologian Joachim Salaverri, S.J., in his treatise,[28] states that, “the Councils of Trent and Vatican I intended to define also in the Chapters” in addition to the Canons. This leads into another subject of certain trad bloggers questioning Vatican I in other articles which is just as dangerous. Even the titles of the documents from that Council are De fide definita. These “R&R Trad” bloggers risk being proximate to heresy even questioning the motives, purpose, and methods of that Council.
One must assent to these types of teachings. The fact that “R&R Trad” bloggers are leading astray so many people with this nonsense is scandalous. This makes a harsh reality in light of certain people being canonized. But they must face it with intellectual honesty and not change Church teaching to fit their view. You must conform yourself and one’s theological opinions to Church teaching, and not vice versa. They’ve fallen into the worst trap one can fall into. The bigger problem here is this: the recent lack of the theological precision and pretty much all out theological nonsense with “R&R Trad” Bloggers. Fr. Ripperger covers this (Link) in a podcast with Ryan Grant to some extent. These people do not realize the weight of the situation – that they have followers online and they are responsible for their souls and not leading them into error. It isn’t game.
So, one principle is certain. We are never
to change Catholic doctrine because it doesn’t fit with our opinions, theories,
or ideologies.
[1] St Robert Bellarmine, On the Canonization and Veneration of the Saints, translated by Ryan Grant for Mediatrix Press, Post Falls Idaho 2019.
[2] St. Thomas Aquinas is indeed the Angelic Doctor, the Eucharistic Doctor, the Common Doctor, the Universal Doctor, and the Doctor par excellence.
[3] Cf. Æterni Patris (Leo XIII), Doctoris Angelicis (St. Pius X), Studiorem Ducem (Pius XI), and Non Multo Post (Benedict XV). A total of over 24 Popes dating back to Pope John XXII († 1334) have spoken of St. Thomas Aquinas and his works as deserving special attention and adherence. To name a few: John XXII (Acta Sanctorum), Clement VI (In Ordine Fratrum Prædicatorum), Blessed Urban V (Bull Copiosus), Nicholas V (Bull Piis Fidelium), Alexander VI (Bull Etsi Cunctæ), Pius IV (Bull Salvatoris), St. Pius V (Bull Mirabilis Deus), Clement VIII (Bulls In Quo Est & Sicut Angeli), Paul V (Bulls Splendidissimus Athleta & Cum Sicut), Benedict XIII (Bull Demissas Preces), Benedict XIV (Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter), Pius VI (Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter), Pius IX (Letter to Fr. Raymond Bianchi). For further reading on the Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas see the work by the eminent theologian, Fr. Santiago Ramirez, O.P., “The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas,” The Thomist, Vol. XV, January, 1952 No. 1.
[4] C.I.C. 589; 1366, §2.
[5] The Twenty-Four Thomistic Theses (Acta Apost. Sedis, 1914, VI, 383 ff.) to be taught by all philosophy professors.
[6] There is indeed a ‘freedom of the schools.’ One is free to be a member of whatever School, be it Augustinian, Boventurian, Scotist, Suarez, Molina, etc. However, even if one belongs to one of the various theological schools, the teachers of these schools are obliged, in assent to the Magisterium, Canon Law, and decrees of the Roman Congregations, to teach, at a minimum, the 24 Thomistic Theses in Philosophy, and the “arguments, doctrine, and principles” (C.I.C. 1366 §2) of St. Thomas Aquinas in Dogmatic and Moral Theology, while still enjoying the autonomous freedom of their perspective school.
[7] Cf. the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, and others. According to Fr. Placid Conway, O.P., “At the Council of Basle, John of Segobia upheld the Immaculate Conception from St. Thomas’s writings.”
[8] Cf. Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, IB, Keep the Faith Publications, pgs. 333-340.
[9] Fr. Sixtus
Cartechini S.J., in his authoritative manual “De Valore Notarum Theologicarum,”
which was used by the Holy Office itself and other Congregations of the Roman
Curia in issuing decrees and condemnations says, “It is theologically certain
that the Church is infallible in the canonization of the saints.” Fr.
Cartechini’s manual goes on to say that the theological note, “Theologica
Certa,” is a “Dogmatic fact; a theological conclusion.” It is a “a truth
logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another
which is historically certain.” The censure attached to a contradictory
proposition is “Error (in theology).” And its effect is “Mortal sin against
faith.” So denying that canonizations are infallible is, although not a heresy,
a mortal sin against faith.
[10] Sylvester Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology I, Benzinger Bros, Chicago 1895. 311.
[11] Adolphe Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Desclee, New York 1959, Vol I.147.
[12] G. Van Noort, ‘Christ’s Church,’ Dogmatic Theology II, Newman Press, Maryland 1957. 117.
[13] E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, Wipf Stock and Publishers, Oregon, 1955. 292.
[14] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Baronius Press 2018. 321.
[15] Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee 1951, p 37.
[16] Camillo Beccari. (1907). ‘Beatification and Canonization.’ In The Catholic Encyclopaedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 2, 2020 from New Advent.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Pius XI: AAS 25 (1933) 425-426; 26 (1934) 539f.
[21] Fr. Salaverri,
S.J., “De Ecclesia Christi,” Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, IB.
[22] Beccari, C. (1907). Beatification and Canonization. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 14, 2022 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
[23] from G. Van Noort.
[24] “None other than
Msgr. Fenton praises Salaverri as the best author of ecclesiology after
Cardinal Billot.”
[25] Fr. Joachim Salaverri (1955) Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, vol. IB, Theologia Fundamentalis: Introductio in Theologiam, De revelatione christiana, De Ecclesia Christi, De S. Scriptura; 3rd ed., pg. 746-748.
[26] S.D. Wright, “Dogmatic Suicide – canonizations, infallibility and the consequences” https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/06/10/dogmatic-suicide-on-canonizations-and-why-we-must-accept-that-they-are-infallible-regardless-of-the-consequences/
[27] This book by Fr. Faber can be
bought at decent price on Lulu:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/rev-fw-faber/beatification-and-canonization/paperback/product-4672075.html
[28] “De Ecclesia
Christi,” Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, Third Edition, pgs. 352-353.
