Posted on 01/29/2005 7:44:55 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
I don't agree with everything from this source but it gives a decent explanation of the Theological virtues, the human virtues and others grouped around the core human virtues.
If 2000 years of tradition and canon law was summarily dismissed as you claim and as it appears, the post-conciliar problem is much, much worse than I realized. The process of saintmaking has become a novel creation. Whether the Magisterium has the authority to reinvent Catholicism is the issue.
If I have time I'll go back and research the details. For now, you can have the point.
The so-called "Devil's Advocate" (a popular term for the Promoter of the Faith) is never even heard of until after 1512.
The essential position was always there from the beginning but not officially declared until Urban VIII.
13) When the Bishop has sent to Rome all the acts and documents pertaining to a cause, the procedure in the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints is as follows:1. First of all, the Undersecretary is to verify whether all the rules of law have been followed in the inquiries conducted by the Bishop. He is to report the result of his examination in the ordinary meeting of the Congregation.
2. If the meeting judges that the cause was conducted according to the norms of law, it decides to which Relator the cause is to be assigned; the Relator, then, together with a collaborator from outside the Congregation, will prepare the Position on virtues or on martyrdom according to the rules of critical hagiography.
3. In ancient causes and in those recent causes whose particular nature, in the judgment of the Relator General, should demand it, the published Position is to be examined by Consultors who are specially expert in that field so that they can cast their vote on its scientific value and whether it contains sufficient elements required for the scope for which the Position has been prepared.
In particular cases, the Sacred Congregation can also give the Position to other scholars, who are not part of the group of Consultors, for their examination.
4. The Position (together with the votes of the historical Consultors as well as any new explanations by the Relator, should they be necessary) is handed over to the theological Consultors, who are to cast their vote on the merit of the cause; their responsibility, together with the Promotor of the Faith, is to study the cause in such a way that, before the Position is submitted for discussion in their special meeting, controversial theological questions, if there be any, may be examined thoroughly.
5. The definitive votes of the theological Consultors, together with the written conclusions of the Promotor of the Faith, are submitted to the judgment of the Cardinals and Bishops.
No, it's not the same position. It is a new creation with some similarities to the old.
Elaborate, perhaps? The writings and the life of the Servant of God are critically examined, as are the the miracles attributed to his intercession.
The old Promotor Fidei (devil's advocate) was solely responsible for arguing against the canonization of the proposed. It was his job to call witnesses from among the faithful and gather evidence of negative sanctity to ensure a thorough investigation. That position has been eliminated.
The Postulator who is appointed by the petitioner, normally presents the case only for the cause. Under the new law, he is responsible for arguing both for and against the cause. Now if you want to get someone canonized, are you going to present evidence to the contrary?
Opus Dei was therefore able to control the process and prevent those opposed to Escriva from testifying against him.
There is a Promotor of Justice who provides canonical counsel but his position is not that of the former devil's advocate. He is not required to gather evidence or call witnesses. His presence isn't even required.
Even if this was true, we have the dogmatic fact of St. Josemaria's canonization to prove that these witnesses were either lying or sadly mistaken.
I want to see the evidence that the so-called "devil's advocate" was an official of the Roman Curia from ~1000-1500.
What are you saying here? "Dogmatic fact of St. Josemaria's canonization"?
In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define Blessed Josemaria Escriva to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Obviously this is an infallible act: consult the Constitution of Vatican I and you will note that all the requisite "ex cathedra" conditions are fulfilled.
Canonizations are not dogmatic facts. Revelation closed with the death of John.
The communion of saints is a dogmatic fact. It is a pious belief, not a dogmatic fact that individual canonizations under the old format are infallible.
We only know for sure that the Communion of the Saints is for real. We do not know the names of all the saints in history. We do know the identities of those whom the Church has chosen to honor and whose intercession it specifically invokes........whose feast days she celebrates.
But you are correct in saying that there is no way of being absolutely sure if all of the saints names under the "old waY" are infallible. However, one does have enough documented stories of answered prayers, and seemingly miraculous intercessions, to know that some saints are "for real".
A very interesting question, regarding the saints whom are canonized by the church, is if all of them are in heaven? Or went directly to heaven?
There is only one kind of saint whom we are assured went directly to heaven - without going to purgatory first - the martyr. Their death, offered as a sacrifice in reapration for their sins, and out of love for Christ, and in defense of the faith, merits the crown of martyrdom, and direct admission to heaven.
We can read in the lives of the saints that many of them were far from perfect. They were all sinners - some were grave sinners. But, what makes us consider them to be saints is the way in which they ccarried their crosses in life. Their attemps at self perfection, penance, prayer. To walk the narrow way. Of their love for, and close relationship in prayer with Jesus, Mary, the saints, the angels. This is the example of a life of heroic virtue.
So, perhaps it is that some of the saints are currently in purgatory, atoneing for sins they committed here on earth. They cannot pray for themselves - like all souls in purgatory. They can pray for us.......and we can pray for them. They can intercede for us before God - we know that much of the Holy Souls in Purgatory.
Am I correct? I would like to hear come intelligent comment on this matter.
Of course,I did know that obedience is part of justice,in terms of a right relationship with God as well as legitimate authority/ies. However,I still do not know the context or the source document of the statement in your post #23,wherein you commented under the title OBEDIENCE in the FAITH
It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is a part of justice,one of the cardinal virtues,which is subordinate to the theological virtues of faith,hope and charity. Faith is greater than obedience. Therefore,if obedience acts to harm the faith,then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superiors.
So to go back to square one,where did that statement come from or did you weave it together from diverse sources? In either case,it seems to me that it is wrong and can lead to total anarchy. I just wish there were more we could do to get the imposters out of the Church and ensure that it will be here for our children and theirs,like it has been there for me through some awful times. I guess I'll just keep praying and writing letters and trust that the Triune God will see us through the storms.
Post #76 is to you, I must have looked back to what I had said to you in an earlier post and beamed back from there rather than from your post to me. Sorry.
I did not weave it together. The statement is a direct summary of what is contained in the Catechism. What part of the statement do you find erroneous?
"When somebody demands blind obedience, wariness is best."
Christ demands blind obedience, so I guess I'll just have to take my chances.
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.