Post by hibernicus on Feb 10, 2012 23:13:34 GMT
This is not just a trad position - the liberals go in for it as well. I have seen liberal sites linking to SSPX denunciations of the canonisation of St josemaria Escriva, for example.
The liberals are actually more generally consistent on this since they presumably dislike the veneration of saints per se (other than the Blessed Martyrs Kung, Gaillot and Morris and their Companions, who fall into a special category). Trads are in a different position and are treading on dangerous ground when they start calling post-Vatican II canonisations into question (as the SSPX does). For the record, I do think that there are problems with the new form of the canonisation process (not least the abolition of the Devil's Advocate) but the standard Catholic view before Vatican II was that canonisations are infallible, and given that the process in its pre-Vatican II form only existed since the early modern period and the first Papal canonisation only took place around the year 1000, it is not possible to say that the validity of canonisations is bound to a particular process.
BTW the SSPX have been refusing to recognise even the post-Vatican canonisation of saints whom they recognise as adherents of traditional spirituality, such as St Pio of Pietrelcina, and seem to think that sooner or later all post-Vatican II canonisations will have to be reviewed. I don't see how anyone who is not a sedevacantist can take this view, which amounts to second-guessing the Pope on something which is clearly a legitimate exercise of his authority.
The liberals are actually more generally consistent on this since they presumably dislike the veneration of saints per se (other than the Blessed Martyrs Kung, Gaillot and Morris and their Companions, who fall into a special category). Trads are in a different position and are treading on dangerous ground when they start calling post-Vatican II canonisations into question (as the SSPX does). For the record, I do think that there are problems with the new form of the canonisation process (not least the abolition of the Devil's Advocate) but the standard Catholic view before Vatican II was that canonisations are infallible, and given that the process in its pre-Vatican II form only existed since the early modern period and the first Papal canonisation only took place around the year 1000, it is not possible to say that the validity of canonisations is bound to a particular process.
BTW the SSPX have been refusing to recognise even the post-Vatican canonisation of saints whom they recognise as adherents of traditional spirituality, such as St Pio of Pietrelcina, and seem to think that sooner or later all post-Vatican II canonisations will have to be reviewed. I don't see how anyone who is not a sedevacantist can take this view, which amounts to second-guessing the Pope on something which is clearly a legitimate exercise of his authority.