Chris Ferrara on Canonizations

Heresy of the Week, Week of 2/04/05
By Bro. Peter Dimond
For more see: Heresies of the Week Relating to “Traditional” Issues and Persons

Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, Jan. 31, 2005, p. 4: “In any case, if the requirement of miracles is abandoned, at least we can take comfort in the probability that any resulting ‘canonizations’ of Novus Ordo heroes – and that is what the whole innovation is all about – will be subject to error.  For the commonality of theologians has based its opinion that canonizations are infallible (by no means an article of faith) on the traditional process for declaring them, which has always had miracles at its core.  Take away the miracles and you have only human assessments of a candidate’s virtue, which in turn depend upon historical facts whose verification cannot be cloaked in the charism of infallibility… What I am saying is that we would have reason to doubt any canonization declared without the benefit of miracles, unless the Pope removes all doubt by an infallible definition excluding their necessity… If the Vatican apparatus wishes to dispense with God’s evidence for the first time in Church history, then the Pope should declare infallibly that Ratzinger’s decision is correct… Otherwise, I, for one, reserve the right to doubt any canonization not supported by miracles.  In that doubt may lie our refuge in the dark days to come.”

Chris Ferrara is addressing the recent talk that the Vatican might dispense with the miracle requirement in the Canonization process.  He says that if this occurs the “Canonizations” of the Conciliar Church, which he considers to be the Catholic Church, will be subject to error.  He is saying that a Canonization’s infallibility is based on the miracle requirement; and that without the miracle requirement there is no infallibility to the Canonization.  This is faithless and heretical nonsense. 

1)  Ferrara: “Take away the miracles and you have only human assessments of a candidate’s virtue, which in turn depend upon historical facts whose verification cannot be cloaked in the charism of infallibility…” 

The certainty that Canonizations are infallible is based on the declaration of the Pope who, in declaring that a Saint must be venerated, speaks infallibly on behalf of the Church which cannot err. (Please notice the bolded portion below)

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“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.”

Ferrara’s statement above is a blasphemy against the Papacy.  He says that if you take away the miracles you have only a human assessment.  What an insult to the divine protection of Papal Infallibility!  According to Ferrara, the solemn declaration by a Pope that someone is a Saint is only a human assessment.  This is clear heresy from a faithless heretic who doesn’t really believe in Papal Infallibility.  Sorry, Mr. Ferrara, but the solemn declaration of a Pope is not merely a human assessment.  A true Pope is the Vicar of Christ who, when speaking from the Apostolic See (as he does in solemnly canonizing), has a divine protection from Jesus Christ.  Those who don’t believe this are not Catholic.  Again, here is the solemn formula that is pronounced by John Paul II in “canonizing” (and was used before Vatican II).

“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 “x” 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.” 

Since this is solemn and infallible language dealing with a point of Faith, if a Pope declares a Saint with this formula, even if no miracles were required, it would certainly be infallible. 

2)  Ferrara writes: “What I am saying is that we would have reason to doubt any canonization declared without the benefit of miracles, unless the Pope removes all doubt by an infallible definition excluding their necessity…”

This is heretical and a total contradiction.  It is heretical because, as stated above, it denies the infallibility of the Papal definition in declaring a Saint.  But notice also the incredible contradiction.  He says that a Canonization without the benefit of miracles would be infallible if the Pope issued an infallible definition excluding the necessity of miracles.  Let’s untwist this: A Canonization (even without miracles) is itself a solemn definition on Faith by the Pope.  According to Ferrara, we must only believe in this solemn definition on Faith by the Pope (the Canonization) if the Pope issued another solemn definition on Faith telling us that the first one is true without miracles!  But if the first solemn definition on Faith by the Pope (the Canonization) could be false, then so can the second one (declaring that the first one is true)!  Ferrara’s statement is contradictory and heretical nonsense.  And that is the whole point: if a Canonization by a Pope using the formula above can be false then any ex cathedra statement by any Pope could be false.  Those who deny this deny Christ’s promise to St. Peter and his true successors.  Those who deny this have no divine Faith whatsoever in the indefectibility of the Church.  Those who deny this deny the infallibility of the Apostolic See (the office of the Papacy).  Such persons are non-Catholic schismatics, and they need to be converted to an acceptance of the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

3)  Ferrara writes: “If the Vatican apparatus wishes to dispense with God’s evidence for the first time in Church history, then the Pope should declare infallibly that Ratzinger’s decision is correct… Otherwise, I, for one, reserve the right to doubt any canonization not supported by miracles.

Ferrara is teaching that he has the right to doubt the judgment of what he deems to be the Apostolic See. 

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.” (Denz. 330)

As stated above, a Catholic does not have the right to doubt any Canonization that is solemnly declared by the Apostolic See, regardless of whether or not the process included miracles.  This is because the Pope, when speaking solemnly and bindingly on Faith in virtue of his apostolic authority (as he does in Canonizations), speaks on behalf of Jesus Christ. 

4) Ferrara writes: “For the commonality of theologians has based its opinion that canonizations are infallible (by no means an article of faith) on the traditional process for declaring them, which has always had miracles at its core.”

This is false because, as we saw above, St. Alphonsus and the other Doctors based their teaching that Canonizations cannot be denied under pain of heresy on the declaration of the Pope, who is protected from error.  It is not based on the process leading up to the Canonization.  His statement here is also heretical because he says that it is “by no means” an article of Faith that Canonizations are infallible.  This means that St. Therese of the Child Jesus, St. Thomas, St. Vincent Ferrer, etc., etc., etc. are by no means certainly Saints.  Ferrara may try to deny that this is what he means, but then he would only be lying; for if it is by no means an article of Faith that Canonizations are infallible then any Saint might not be a Saint – period.

5) Ferrara writes: “Otherwise, I, for one, reserve the right to doubt any canonization not supported by miracles.  In that doubt may lie our refuge in the dark days to come.”

Ferrara states that if the Conciliar Church dispenses with the miracle requirement, doubting “Canonizations” may be his and other false traditionalists’ refuge.  Yes, the devil wants them to be prepared for the Conciliar Church to “canonize” even darker figures such as Paul VI and Mother Teresa or perhaps even Martin Luther.  This non-Catholic sect will continue to “Canonize” heretics, and the false traditionalists will continue to explain it away to their own damnation.  Their “refuge” of denying the infallibility of Canonizations is no refuge at all.  It is a heresy which prevents them from seeing the truth that the Vatican II “Church” is a defected non-Catholic sect and that Antipope John Paul II is a non-Catholic Antipope.

It seems clear from Ferrara’s words that he, and those of his ilk, will continue to recognize the Vatican II sect as the Catholic Church no matter what it does.  They are already at the point of admitting that they will be ready to deny the “Canonizations” of their “Church,” yet they still cannot see that it is not the Catholic Church; and they defend groups such as the SSPX which has already flatly rejected John Paul II’s solemn “Canonizations.”  These people are pathetically blind.  You will see them correcting grammatical errors and straining out all kinds of gnats, while they swallow the camel of heresy that is the Conciliar Church, even when they are at the point of rejecting its “Canonizations.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“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.”

For more see: Heresies of the Week Relating to “Traditional” Issues and Persons