Posted on 12/20/2004 5:45:44 PM PST by wagglebee
CANDIDATES for sainthood will be exonerated from the requirement to have performed a miracle under guidelines being considered by the Pope.
Already under fire from some Roman Catholics for running a “saint factory”, the Pope is preparing to overturn a centuries-old rule that candidates for canonisation must have performed “medically inexplicable” posthumous miracles.
The Pope, 84, has created 482 saints in his 26 years as pontiff — more than all his predecessors put together — and has beatified 1,337 people. He believes that “latter-day saints” offer a much-needed example at a time when Christianity is under threat from secularism and rival religions.
Abolishing the need for miracles would speed up the canonisation of some of the Pope’s favourite candidates, including Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who was beatified last year. It could also revive plans to beatify Robert Schuman, the French-born founder of the EU, shelved earlier this year because of lack of evidence that anyone had been cured after praying to him.
The Pope last streamlined the beatification and canonisation process in 1983, when he decreed that martyrs — those killed for their faith — could be beatified without the need for a certifiable miracle.
Yesterday Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa, disclosed that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pope’s ideologial “enforcer” for two decades, had presented a formula for the abolition of the “the miracle clause” to the Pope. Cardinal Bertone said that there was a growing feeling in the Vatican that the need for miracles for both beatification and canonisation was “anachronistic”.
At present, candidates for beatification, which confers the title “Blessed” and is the penultimate step before sainthood, must be shown to have performed at least one miracle after death by curing the terminally ill in response to prayers of intercession. For sainthood, evidence of at least two miracles is required. Claims of miraculous cures are examined by a panel of five medical experts at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a Vatican body.
The panel, drawn from a pool of a hundred doctors and specialists, must conclude that the cure was “sudden, complete and permanent” and had no scientific explanation. Cardinal Bertone said what mattered was not whether saints had performed miracles but whether they had displayed “heroic virtues” and led an exemplary Christian life.
Il Secolo XIX, the Genoa newspaper, said the proposed “revolution in saintmaking” would upset traditionalists who regarded miracles as “one of the cornerstones of the Catholic faith”.
Question: How can a canonization be infallible and not be a "new revelation" ????
Like all dogmatic facts, it was already revealed.
That would be prophecy, not canonization. Infallibility is a charism, it is not the same as a dogmatic fact. A dogmatic fact is true. (ie, Christ died and rose, Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven) Infallibility is the charism that prevents these declarations from being made in error. Revelation about particular people prior to their lives would be tantamount to open, constant and public knowledge of Calvinistic predestination. Also it would presume an infallible knowledge on the part of the pontiffs on the interior workings of the soul. This is something that the pontiffs have denied forcibly.
What has been revealed is "the Communion of Saints" only those Saints that have been determined as such during the period when Revelation was open would be infallible. As I stated, only Our Lady, St. Stephen the Holy Angels and a few others must be believed to be in Heaven in an infallibly defined way.
But how are we to explain for example that what theologians call for short the Jansenist fact (do the five propositions figure in the Augustinus in a condemnable sense?) is a revealed fact and contained in the primitive deposit?
The question is inverted, In order to answer this, I have to clean up this sentence to have it make more sense.
Basically what you are asking is: How do we explain that the five propositions in the Augustinus are condemnable and that condemnation is a part of revelation?
Answer: Simply put the charism of infallibility is a negative charism. Condemnation itself is not part of revelation. The teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium) has among it's ability the job to "push away" so to speak, errors that are trying to "push themselves into" the teaching of the Church. They make a false claim to be part of revelation. Infallibility is like an electrical fence that zaps an incorrect idea that touches part of the deposit. The teaching authority cannot add anything "new" to the deposit of faith.
Calling the deposit of faith the "primitive deposit" is misleading. The Popes and saints have consistently taught what St. Pius X summed up in the anti-modernist oath: " I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed down to us from the Apostles by the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and with the same interpretation."
To explain "development of doctrine" correctly one need only look at the comparison between St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Blessed Sacrament. Aquinas did not "add" anything to the deposit of faith. All he did was explain it better in response to the needs of people probing the "how" and "why" of the Eucharist. But it's still the same "Body and Blood" that Augustine believed. Augustine understood this as a "Latent Mystery" in his writings. He did not attempt to explain it, he simply accepted it on Our Lord's word. Eventually someone with less faith and a more "proof oriented" mind would not be able to accept this on Augustine's statement alone. So, St. Thomas' use of the philosophy of Aristotle to understand the physical world is adapted to understand the supernatural as well as the natural. The characteristics of the Eucharist are explained and the Latent Mystery is developed into the understanding of Substance and Accidents. But in either case, the Mystery of the Substance changing and the Accidents remaining is just as mysterious and pure as Augustine's "primitive" Latent Mystery.
Both Augustine and Aquinas are sufficient in their condemnation that the Eucharist is somehow "part bread and wine" and "part blood and wine" The Consubstantiation of the Lutherans is equally invalid in either of the arguments of Augustine and Aquinas.
Exactly as we explain that other facts posterior to the primitive deposit (e. g. the Council of Trent is oecumenical, Pius XI is a true successor of St. Peter, the Canon of the Mass is free from error) are revealed and contained in the deposit.
Those facts are simply part of sacred Tradition.
The Council of Trent is not a part of the deposit of faith, The "infallibility" of a Council in union with the Pope and speaking with the full authority of the Church binding the faithful on a matter of faith and morals is a power that is granted as part of the deposit of faith.
That Pius XI is a true successor of St. Peter is a historical fact. The office of the papacy is a Sacred Tradition established by Christ himself. Whoever is the legitimate successor of Peter is the bishop of Rome and that cannot change. That is the infallible part of the deposit of faith. Whether Pius XI is the true successor is not something that is infallibly defined. That is also why the Church takes such care in preventing corruption in the Conclaves. In either case, a scoundrel can become the Pope and make attempts to destroy the Church, but the Church is indefectible and God will prevent him from completely destroying his creation. That is also part of the deposit of faith. Finally, the Canon of the Mass is essentially unchanged from the Apostolic Age (except for the Novus Ordo translations)
They are particular applications of a universal proposition revealed from the outset.
Definitions not revelations are what the Church engages in when a condemnation is necessary, it is because the idea is intrinsically denying a doctrine of the Church as it has always been understood. For a canonization to be infallibly defined, it would have to be an inspiration from God revealed directly to the Pope. There is no promise of Christ for this.
So, when a child comes into the world, it becomes of faith that this child has sinned in Adam, although there is no new revelation there, or any new article of faith, but the application to a particular datum of the revealed universal 'All have sinned in Adam’"
This does not hold for the "exiting of this world" while all have sinned in Adam, not "all are saved". For someone beyond the Revelation of the Apostolic age to be known to be in Heaven would by it's nature be a new revelation. Our Lady is in Heaven as a dogmatic fact because this has been a part of the deposit of faith from the moment it happened. Which by necessity must be before the close of revelation.
A final point, A declaration of a dogmatic fact such as the Assumption contains within it the anathemas and penalties of anyone who dares question it. Canonizations do not have this qualifier, simply because the Church has not been harmed by the saints that have been canonized by acclamation.
Whether all the saints who have been canonized by the Church, are in glory, or are some of them in Hell? It seems that some of those who have been canonized by the Church are able to be in Hell.
For no one is able to be certain of the state of others, as is said by he concerning himself: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him?" [1 Cor. 2:11]. But a man is not able to be certain about himself whether he may be in a state of salvation: for it is said: "no one knows whether he may be worthy of hatred or love" [Eccl. 9:1]. Therefore much less the Pope knows: therefore he is able to err in canonizing.
Moreover, whoever in judging supports himself by a fallible rule is able to err. But the Church in canonizing saints supports herself by human testimony when she inquires through testimonies concerning his life and miracles. Therefore, as the testimony of men may be erroneous, it seems that the Church is able to err in canonizing saints.
On the contrary, damnable error is not able to be in the Church. But it may be a damnable error, if he who was a sinner is venerated as if a saint, because some knowing his sins may believe that this is false; and if it defiled them in this way, they could be led to error. Therefore the Church is not able to err in such things.
Moreover, Augustine says in an epistle to Jerome that if in the Scriptural canon is admitted any mendacity, our faith, which derives from the Scriptural canon, will be negated. But just as we are held to believe that which is in sacred Scripture, so that which has been commonly determined through the Church: from whence the heretic is judged who thinks against the determination of Councils. Therefore the common judge of the Church is not able to be wrong; and thus the same as before.
I answer that, speaking, that someone is able to be judged probably according to examining himself, which having been reported to him from without, is found impossibly. I say therefore, that the judge of these by whom the Churches are commanded, is able to err in such things, if the persons of such as these are regarded. If in truth divine providence is considered, by which the holy spirit guides his Church that it may not err, just as he himself promised, "which spirit coming will teach all truth" [John 16:13], concerning things he knows necessary to salvation; it is certain that for the judge of the universal Church to err in these things which pertain to the faith is impossible. From whence more is the standing of the sentence of the Pope, to whom it pertains to determine concerning the faith, which he produces in judgment, as of such things the wisdom of men in the Scriptures for belief; as Caiphas, exceedingly worthless, however because the high priest, is also commissioned to have prophesied incisively [John 11:51]. Truly in other opinions which pertain to particular facts, as is done concerning possessions or crimes or other things, it is possible that the judge of the Church err because of false testimonies. Truly the canonization of saints is the middle between these two. Because however the honor which we pay to the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we confess the glory of the saints, it must be piously believed that the judgment of the Church is not able to err in these matters also.
To the first therefore saying that the pontiff, to whom it belongs to canonize saints, is able to be made certain concerning the state of someone through investigation of his life and the attestation of miracles; and principally through the inspiration of the holy spirit, by whom all is examined, even the vast [knowledge?] of God.
To the second saying, that divine providence preserves the Church lest she be tricked in such matters by the fallible testimony of men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.