Cackling Mitch McConnell Reveals To Stunned Democrats He’s Been Working Undercover For Republican Party This Whole Time

Briefly...

I rarely likes to comment on ecclesial administrative issues but:

--I think there needs to be an easier way to hold cardinals accountable for negligence than has traditionally been the case.

Also...

--Some level of lay involvement needs to be required and not merely optional.

Points to Ponder:

Life's too short to drink bad wine or smoke poor cigars. [Don Johnson]

Potassium Rich Foods

Who is Boris Johnson, the man poised to be the next British leader?

Remembering Chris (circa December 11, 2006)

Robert Mueller Laughs At Jerry Nadler’s Demands, Won’t Testify Anytime Soon

Points to Ponder:

"The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine, and a good cigar." [Attributed to G K Chesterton]

Points to Ponder:

Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day. You shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense. [Ralph Waldo Emerson]

The Titanic's Forgotten Sister

On Correcting the Pretentious "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing its Accusations, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has never been such a case. [Rev. James J. McGovern Quoting Abp. John B. Purcell at the First Vatican Council in His Book Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII, pg. 241 (circa 1903)]

Throughout the months leading up to and throughout Lent of 2019, a series of postings were made to this site. They each had value on their own merits of course but they were building towards what was eventually posted during Holy Week of 2019: a three part series written in October of 2017{1} responding to a so-called "correctio filialis" published in September of that year. For those who are interested, the aforementioned threads in order from oldest to most recent can be viewed HERE.

Getting back to the recently published material{2}, I could not for more than a year find both the time as well as the motivation to delve into those matters anew. Nonetheless, through a gradual process as well as using the Lenten season as a kind of cudgel,{3} it was possible to get to the point to where those writings were finally published. It now is manifestly evident that my motivation for finally getting around to doing that was truly prescient.

For on Holy Week of 2019, a sequel letter of sorts was put out there by more or less the same pretentious sorts that were behind the original so-called "correctio filalis" and it takes a fair amount of material from the same letter that was addressed in the series I recently published. Only rather than hedge somewhat on the accusation as was the case in the "correctio filialis", this time they have gone further and rather than merely insinuate that Pope Francis is a heretic, they have actually shown the temerity to actually call him one!

As I have already pointed out in reasonable detail why it is not possible for a pope to be an actual heretic{4} as well as how this position was one affirmed by the First Vatican Ecumenical Council{5}, I am therefore not going to retread that ground. Nor am I going to reiterate anew the points already more than adequately refuted in that series except to note that in perusing the new text, I see that there are seven explicit claims of heresy leveled at Pope Francis. Of the seven, five were already addressed in the prior series{6} along with the deficient spiritual formation that permeates the diseased mindset of these folks. (Also dealt in detail with previously and not to be repeated at length here.) However, let us at least touch briefly on one of the problems inherent with these sorts of folks with a very brief reprisal of some material from the earlier series:

It is a fundamental principle of the Catholic spiritual tradition to not rashly presume the worst in others. Before touching on their seven accusations of heresy, let us consider this factor of no small importance. What do the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition have to say about those who are quick to presume the worst possible interpretation of the words and statements of another? Time and space constraints will only allow us to touch quickly on a few so without further ado: 

Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable one will just as certainly choose the worst.[...]

St. Francis de Sales also said that we are not "[to] weigh so carefully the sayings and doings of others, but let your thought of them be simple and good, kindly and affectionate."[...] Does any of this resemble the actions and statements of the folks who authored or signed onto the so-called “fraternal correction”? Hardly!{7}

The same principles outlined in that note apply in spades to the folks involved in the most recent letter. What will be addressed here is the two new points which were not previously dealt with. It bears noting that the format of this Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church is more convoluted than that of the Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis which despite its many problems was at least more straightforward in its presentation. Without further ado, onto addressing the two new accusations.

It is false that the only sexual acts that are good of their kind and morally licit are acts between husband and wife.

What is common to virtually all the areas in the new text that supposedly buttress this claim is they revolve around the subjects of conscience as well as jumping into areas where Pope Francis himself admits are difficult to pastorally navigate. If there was greater humility by these folks, it would be easier to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, that is unfortunately not the case as these folks objectively manifest operative presumptions that are rash and sinful in themselves.

We could say if we were being charitable{8} that at least they seem to have zeal for the salvation of souls. But even granting them that premise, we must still consider many of the pitfalls that can befall such persons quite often without them having any recognition of such. To wit:

1. Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, and yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name! Evil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God. 

2. The saints themselves can be mistaken in this delicate matter. We see a proof of this in the incident related to the Apostles Saint James and Saint John; for Our Lord reprimanded them for asking Him to cause fire from heaven to fall upon the Samaritans. (Luke, IX., 54.) 

3. Acts of zeal are like coins the stamp upon which is necessary to examine attentively, as there are more counterfeits than good ones. Zeal to be pure should be accompanied by great humility, for it is of all virtues the one which self-love most easily glides. When it does so, zeal is apt to become imprudent, presumptuous, unjust, bitter. Let us consider these characteristics in detail, viewing them, for the sake of greater clearness, in their practical bearings. 

4. In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak.

5. Some persons are even presumptuous enough in their mistaken zeal to meddle in the domestic affairs of strange families, blaming, counselling, attempting to reform without measure and discretion, thus causing an evil much greater than the one they wish to correct. Let us employ the activity of our zeal in our own reformation, says Saint Bernard, and pray humbly for that of others. It is great presumption on our part thus to assume the role of apostles when we are not as yet faithful disciples. Not that you should be be by any means indifferent to the salvation to souls: on the contrary you must wish it most ardently, but do not undertake to effect it except with great prudence, humility, and diffidence in self.{9}

Once again, if the persons doing these things at least had some manifested semblance of humility, it would be easier to take them somewhat seriously. But that is not what we have here. Or as I have noted elsewhere:

[A]mong the biggest bellyachers on [Amoris Laetitia] are Catholics who in a number of other areas frequently slander, libel, denigrate, ridicule, and express contempt and/or profound disrespect for the Roman Pontiff and the last Ecumenical Council. There is no shortage of folks who do these things often (read: multiple times per day!) yet they still judge themselves as "at peace with God" and thus as fit to receive communion. The odds are pretty good that they do not accuse themselves of these sins in the confessional which means they receive unworthily themselves. They are therefore in no position morally or spiritually to judge anyone else yet they do it all the time.{10}

As for the rest, there is a section in the second installment of the recent three part series{11} which goes over in detail the subject of conscience and more than adequately highlights the ethical and theological shortcomings of these sorts of folks with their accusations along these lines. I therefore need not reinvent the wheel here.

God not only permits but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions, both Christian and non-Christian.

The source of this claim is the Joint Declaration on Fraternity of Pope Francis and Grand Imam Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb of Egypt. It should go without saying that joint declarations are fundamentally not doctrinal instruments but intended for the formation of common ground among at times widely divergent entities. In diplomatically sensitive circumstances, there are therefore at times uses of terminology that while true are nonetheless incomplete from the standpoints of the various parties in question. In terms of how Pope Francis intends the statement he signed to be understood, there is no better source to ascertain this than his own general audience on the very subject:

Some might ask themselves: but why is the Pope going to the Muslims and not just to Catholics? Because there are many religions, and why are there many religions? Along with the Muslims, we are the descendants of the same Father, Abraham: why does God allow many religions? God wanted to allow this: Scolastica theologians used to refer to God’s voluntas permissiva. He wanted to allow this reality: there are many religions. Some are born from culture, but they always look to heaven; they look to God. But what God wants is fraternity among us and in a special way, this was the reason for the trip, with our brothers, Abraham’s children like us, the Muslims. We must not fear differences. God allowed this. We should be afraid were we to fail to work fraternally to walk together in life.{12}

In short, we have another nothing burger from the Usual Suspects on this matter and this claim of heresy as with their other pathetic offerings{13} laughably falls well short of the mark. I note for a third time that it would be easier to feel some sympathy for these folks if they showed even a scintilla of humility. However, they do not. As I explained in a Lenten reflections thread on folks of this mindset:

There is a difference between legitimate difficulties respectfully expressed and brazenly acting as if they are the determiners of orthodoxy or that they are the ones to "formally correct" the pope or whatever rather than actually being willing to be taught by the Vicar of Christ. It is true that not every statement is of equal weight and there is room for divergent views in different areas to certain extents. But the seeming attitude of many is that if the pope has not spoken infallibly on dogma that it means something is up for grabs. I guess that means at Nicaea only the divinity of Christ was required belief and everything for the first 325 years was optional. That is not how it works and the so-called "paragons of faithful orthodoxy" should know that if they are what they claim.{14}

For some reason, I doubt most of these folks will repent of their calumny and slander (to put it mildly) no matter what anyone says. Therefore, they are deserving of no respect whatsoever and only contempt until such time as they start acting like mature Catholics instead of pompous bellyaching brats.

[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them... 

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. [Pope Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua (circa June 17, 1885)]

Notes:

{1} "I wrote some draft texts eighteen months ago that constituted a preliminary response to the signatories of a then recent so-called "correctio filialis" (filial correction) of Pope Francis. A variety of circumstances prevented me from publishing them at the time or in subsequent months. However, as we are about to enter into Holy Week 2019, it seems appropriate to address this matter but not in precisely the same way I originally planned.

The material below is close to seventy percent different than that original first draft with a different approach taken for the most part compared to my earlier intentions." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{2} To list them in sequence:

To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)

On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

{3} "As far as my preparation for the season goes, among the things I am giving up and the things I will be taking up for this season[...], one of the latter is that I am actually considering doing some apologetics during Lent. Why? Because I have for so long had a low opinion of most of what passes for apologetics on the web over the years. While ignoring it most of the time has long been what I have done, this Lent I will don a proverbial digital hairshirt and wade into this matter from time to time during the Lenten season as a form of penance." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 5, 2019)]

{4} "The Church does teach and has always taught that a pope cannot teach heresy. However, to be clear, she has 'always taught' this the same way she has 'always taught' things like papal primacy, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. This is not hard to demonstrate but because of the variegations of Church history, it can be tedious to do so." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{5} "Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."[...]

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{6} The five in question are indicated in the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church by the Roman numerals I, II, III, IV, and VI which correspond to five of the seven heresies insinuated to various degrees in the document Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis and which were numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from that text respectively.

{7} Excerpt from the Note On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

{8} If we are being more charitable to them than they are to others.

{9} Fr. R. P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Ally Their Fears (circa 1795) From the Section on Zeal

{10} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 21, 2019)

{11} See the Note On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. for details.

{12} Pope Francis: From the General Audience Catechesis on the Apostolic Visitation to Morocco (circa April 3, 2019)

{13} Among the doctrinally specious claims made by many of these folks is a denial of the infallibility of papal canonizations.

{14} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2019)

BREAKING. Attorney General Barr Launches Investigation To Determine How The Russia Investigation Started And More

TWITTER DELENDA EST

Doug Baldwin Represented an Era of Seahawks Football

Points to Ponder:

Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. [GK Chesterton]

On the Infallibility of Papal Canonizations of Saints:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This material was mostly compiled in late 2018 and early 2019 and finally completed yesterday. Having noted that, I cannot believe I have to do this with Catholics who should know better. However, if I learned anything in twenty odd years of involvement in these matters, it is that those who claim to be so Catholic so often are ignorant of the basics of theology and other matters. This is certainly the case for those who claim to be More Faithful Than Thou who try to parse out or separate papal canonizations into different eras or seek to find ways to downplay or dismiss modern canonizations. The purpose of this note is to look at the subject of papal canonizations and why logically in Catholic theology they have to be infallible, period. Let us start with the standard formula used in a canonization ceremony:

In honor of the Holy Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of Our Own, after long reflection, having invoked divine assistance many times and listened to the opinion of many of our Brothers in the Episcopate, We declare and define as Saint Blessed N. and inscribe his/her name in the list of the saints and establish that throughout the Church they be devoutly honored among the saints.{1}

I realize that formularies are not the be-all and end-all on these things but it is made manifest by the Pope in canonizing someone that they are defining their presence in heaven and placing an obligation on the faithful to reverence the canonized person as such henceforth in perpetuity. None of this is consistent with the claims of those who would rashly assert that such proclamations are not definitive. As canonizations of saints became centralized in the papacy in the second millennium{2}, along with the developing notion of church and papal infallibility, the understanding that papal canonizations would be infallible over time came about. The earliest explicit exponent of this belief that I am aware of is St. Thomas Aquinas who had this to say on the matter (all emphasis is mine):

Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err.{3} 

As the process of canonization became more centralized over time, "bishops were designated as the primary ecclesiastical authorities to determine the historical veracity of martyrs and confessors"{4} and the bishops were "licensed to confer a kind of beatification on a meritorious individual within their dioceses."{5} From there, "[c]ults of an officially recognized martyr or confessor could transfer (translatio) the saint's body to a designated shrine location and select a festival date on which liturgical rites could be performed annually. The act of translating a saint's body to an altar or shrine came to be interpreted as the act of canonization."{6} Over time, cults spread across various dioceses as a result of both veneration by believers as well as promotion by church authorities. As the cults of saints grew, profiteers decided to get in on the act and it became so pervasive that church councils begin to address the matter. The Council of Mainz in 813 "decreed that a body could be moved only by permission of the relevant bishop and provincial synod and after informing the secular authority."{7}

While the first papal canonization on record is from 993 AD, "the first universal canonization occurred in 1041, with a papal bull addressing all nations and languages, not just clergy and selected ethno-cultural groups."{8} The reasons for increasing appeals to the papacy to validate canonizations was "initially done to introduce Church oversight and doctrinal rigor into beatification, a process that continued to be controlled by the bishops at the local level."{9} It was a status symbol basically to seek the pope's approval because then the act carried the greater spiritual weight and stature of the Roman Church. And of course "the demand for papal canonization corresponded to the rise in power and prestige of the papacy in Rome."{10}

Prior to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), there were only a few decrees of importance pertaining to the canonization of saints. The first was from the Fifth Council of Carthage (401) concerning the verification of shrines by the local bishop to ensure that they had a connexion with a true martyr and to insist that no one be venerated as a martyr without a reasonable basis of historical evidence. The second is the aforementioned Council of Mainz (813). The papacy of Pope Alexander III (1159-1181) saw the further crystallization of basic principles including the reservation of canonization to the papacy{11} with the formulation of customs that would later be set forth in formal decrees. In the aftermath of the Council of Trent, the following was included in a Profession of Faith by Pope Paul IV:

I steadfastly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated.{12}

If you read the words carefully, you will see that the Tridentine Profession of Faith, it is mandated that the saints are to be honoured and invoked as well as their relics venerated. If it is a matter of faith that the saints are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated, then that means the determination of saints is logically a matter with a connection to dogma. What does this mean if the Church could err in canonizing saints?

To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.{13} 

This was the standard view by all reputable theologians and doctors throughout the post-Tridentine period. At the First Vatican Council, one of the factors involved in addressing the subject of papal infallibility was the extent of that infallibility. On the issue of truths necessary for guarding the faith even though not themselves formally revealed, the Relator Bishop Vincent Gasser said the following:

'All Catholic theologians completely agree that the Church, in her authentic proposal and definition of truths of this sort, is infallible,' such that to deny this infallibility would be a very grave error. A diversity of opinion turns only on the degree of certitude, i.e., on whether the infallibility in proposing these truths--and therefore in proscribing errors through censures inferior to the note of heresy--should be considered a dogma of faith, so that to deny this infallibility to the Church would be heretical, or whether it is a truth not revealed in itself but one deduced from revealed dogma and as such is only theologically certain.{14}

In other words, there was a consensus amongst Catholic theologians that the Church is infallible in more than matters of faith and the only diversity of opinion was whether denying this infallibility would be heretical or whether it was merely deduced from revealed dogma and as such is only theologically certain. What was the decision of the Deputation on how to handle this matter?

[I]t has seemed to members of the Deputation, by unanimous agreement, that this question should not be defined, at least not now, but should be left in the state in which it presently is.{15}

If you read carefully, you will see that Bishop Gasser was not saying that the proposed dogmatic formula intended to leave in a state of indecision the question of whether the Pope is infallible in defining both secondary truths as well as formal revealed truths. What was intended to be left in the state in which it presently is is only the question of the specific theological qualification of the teaching; namely, if it is de fide or just theologically certain. Irrespective of the theological qualification however, it is clear that there is certainty and the requirement for all Catholics to hold firmly that the Pope is infallible in defining secondary doctrines necessary for guarding and expounding the deposit of faith. Among these secondary truths is the canonization of saints.

So by 1870 and prior to the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus by the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, this matter was already one that was not subject to theological speculation. The aforementioned factor was also noted as follows in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

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.{16} 

And in the words of pre-Vatican II dogmatic theologian Gerardus van Noort:

Canonization (formal) is 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 a saint worthy of public veneration... Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible.{17}

In other words, there was prior to the Second Vatican Council a theological consensus that secondary objects of infallibility were infallible. And on the scope of infallibility, the Second Vatican Council had the following to say in one of its dogmatic constitutions:

[T]his infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.{18}

Up to this point, the teaching was long proposed over the course of centuries as at least theologically certain. By including this teaching in a Dogmatic Constitution of an Ecumenical Council, this simply underscored that the aforementioned teaching was definitive by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium and faithful Catholics were bound to accept it with what is called ecclesiastical faith (Lat. fides ecclesiastica). This understanding was one explicitly delineated in a declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in the years following the Second Vatican Council:

According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded. (Cf. Vatican Council II: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 25; Const. Decr. Decl., p. 139.){19}

And finally, the CDF has explicitly stated that among the truths connected to revelation to be held definitively but which cannot be declared matters of dogma include the following:

[T]he legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.{20}

In summary, the overwhelming evidence over the centuries from the time that canonizations of saints became centralized in the papacy is that the infallibility of the church extends not only to matters properly considered de fide but also matters which pertain to the deposit of faith by logical extension. Among these areas required for the preservation and expounding of the deposit of faith is the canonizations of saints. And as the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council settled this matter doctrinally, the only response of faithful Catholics is the assent of ecclesiastical faith: something not present in the schismatics who by denying this fundamental principle of the Catholic faith are themselves proximate to heresy.

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. [Pope Benedict XIV: Excerpt from De Canonisione Sanctorum 1.I c.43 n.3; c.45 n.28. (circa ante-1758)]

Notes:

{1} The Concluding Canonization Formulary Used By Popes When Canonizing Saints

{2} The first papal canonization was of Ulrich, bishop of Augsburg by Pope John XV in 993 AD at the Lateran Council held that year.

{3} St. Thomas Aquinas: Quodl. 9:8:16 (circa ante 1274)

{4} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 193 (circa 2011).

{5} From The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 193 (circa 2011)

{6} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 193 (circa 2011).

{7} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 194 (circa 2011).

{8} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 194 (circa 2011).

{9} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 194 (circa 2011).

{10} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 194 (circa 2011).

{11} While Pope Alexander III did not formally decree this, the last canonization performed by a local bishop preceded his pontificate and he did establish the principles that resulted in his successor Pope Gregory IX decreeing that all canonizations were reserved to the Apostolic See.

{12} Pope Pius IV: Profession of Faith (circa November 13, 1564)

{13} St. Alphonsus Liguori: Excerpt from The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, pg 23 (circa 1759)

{14} Bishop Vincent Gasser: From His Relatio to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council (circa July 11, 1870)

{15} Bishop Vincent Gasser: From His Relatio to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council (circa July 11, 1870)

{16} Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpt from the Article Beatification and Canonization (circa 1913)

{17} Mgr. G. Van Noort: Excerpt from Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ’s Church, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, pg 117 (circa 1957)

{18} Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §25 (circa November 21, 1964)

{19} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae §3 (circa June 24, 1973)

{20} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: From the Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei (circa July 29, 1998)

The Last Days of Father Schall

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine
Et lux perpetua luceat eis:
Fidelium animae, per misericordiam Dei,
Requiescant in pace.
Amen.

Points to Ponder:
(From a Facebook Entry circa April 17, 2010)

"We begin to see, therefore, the importance of selecting our environment with the greatest of care, because environment is the mental feeding ground out of which the food that goes into our minds is extracted." [Napoleon Hill]

'Game of Thrones' Is Porn. Change My Mind

A Series of Website Threads Foreshadowing A Recently Completed Series:
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)

In light of what I am about to post, it seems appropriate to summarize up to this point in one spot all of the threads that worked together in sequence to foreshadow the recently published website series posted during Holy Week of 2019. Without further ado...

Revisiting the Subject of the SSPX and Their Status (circa December 4, 2018)

"None Dare Call It Conspiracy" Dept. (circa December 6, 2018)

Points to Ponder on Obedience from St. Catherine of Siena (circa December 6, 2018)

"One From the Vault" on Dialogue (circa December 6, 2018)

Briefly (circa December 30, 2018)

Remembering John and Bill (circa January 7, 2019)

On Papal Dissent, Argumentation Fallacies, Etc (circa February 9, 2019)

More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc (circa February 11, 2019)

Briefly on Lent (circa March 5, 2019)

Briefly on Burying the Hatchet in 2019 (circa March 6, 2019)

Points to Ponder from Church Father Rufinus (circa March 13, 2019)

Revisiting the Controversial Dubia -A Lenten Reflection (circa March 21, 2019)

On Certain Pharisee Parallels Amongst the "More Faithful Than Thou" Crowd -A Lenten Reflection (circa March 24, 2019)

Points to Ponder From the Book of Wisdom (circa March 26, 2019)

Points to Ponder from the Book of Proverbs (circa March 30, 2019)

On the Subject of Conscience and Sacramental Reception -A Lenten Reflection (circa April 4, 2019)

On Rash Judgment - A Lenten Reflection From St. Francis de Sales (circa April 6, 2019)

On Burying Hatchets, Building Bridges, Facilitating Authentic Dialogue, Etc. in 2019 and Beyond (circa April 9, 2019)

Points to Ponder from the First Epistle of Peter (circa April 9, 2019)

The reason for this recapitulation thread will become quite evident very soon...