Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

1. Explanation. a) Canonization¹ is the definitive sentence of the supreme pontiff by which some Blessed is prescribed to the whole Church as to be believed and venerated as a heavenly inhabitant. It is called: a definitive sentence, i. e. final and peremptory, which can be neither abrogated nor revised; of the supreme pontiff, because "the causes of the beatification of the servants of God and of the canonization of the Blessed are reserved to the judgment of the Holy See alone";² by which some Blessed is prescribed, because "no one can seek the canonization of anyone . . . unless it has first been established that the Servant of God in question has been enrolled among the Blessed either formally or equivalently",³ to be believed and venerated as a heavenly inhabitant, because canonization includes both the speculative judgment that the Blessed enjoys the glory of the heavenly inhabitants and the practical precept that the Blessed is to be venerated on earth; and it is prescribed to the whole Church in the sense that all the faithful are obliged to hold the canonized person indubitably as a heavenly inhabitant and worthy of public veneration. Therefore canonization differs from beatification, which is a prior sentence of the supreme pontiff by which the veneration of some Servant of God is only permitted, or at least not universally prescribed.⁴

b) We do not extend infallibility to beatification. Beatification indeed is carried out with such great diligence that it wins for itself the greatest possible moral certainty. Nevertheless, since the sentence of beatification is not definitive or irrevocable, neither is it infallible.⁵ Nor does the insertion of the saints in the Roman Breviary produce infallibility. Before the Roman pontiffs reserved to themselves the right of canonization, many Servants of God were first venerated in individual churches, afterwards they were gradually taken up by the universal Church as to be venerated, the supreme pontiffs not contradicting or even approving. Nevertheless such approbation is only a permissive judgment, not truly a definitive and peremptory one of the supreme pontiff. Whence it can happen that some deceased person who is not a saint is found in the body of the Roman Breviary.⁶ Much less does the inscription of the saints in the Martyrology prepare infallibility. This inscription is indeed an effect which always follows canonization; nevertheless it neither necessarily presupposes nor demonstrates canonization, since many names are read in the Martyrology of those who were never canonized or beatified, and since the Martyrology has in the course of time undergone various corrections.⁷ Therefore we say that the Church is infallible in canonization properly so called alone.

2. Proof. a) From the end of infallibility. By canonization the deceased is strictly prescribed to all the faithful as to be venerated and imitated, and thereby a rule of morals is established for the whole Church. But if the Church erred in canonization, it could prescribe a member of the devil to be venerated and imitated, and thereby prescribe a false rule of morals to the whole Church. Therefore, lest so great an error be in the Church, God must be believed to provide individually that the Church not err in the canonization of the saints.

They object wrongly: 1° that the evil action, such as is the veneration and imitation of a member of the devil, to which the Church erring in canonization would lead, would be not formal but only material. I concede the premise, but I deny the conclusion, namely, that the Church can prescribe to all the faithful that such a material error be held. For material error is an error evil in itself; but if the Church by its definitive judgment sanctioned an error evil in itself, it would be all over with its infallibility in moral matters. This indeed is evident a fortiori from the fact that the Church in canonizing judges not only practically that the canonized one is to be venerated and imitated, but "professes as speculatively true that the Saint himself is in eternal glory".⁸

2° that the Church in the canonization of the saints relies on merely human testimonies, by which it learns and proves the heroic virtue and the miracles of the one to be canonized; but human testimonies do not afford infallible certainty. This indeed is true, but it does not prove that the Church can err in canonization. For the reason of infallibility is not heroic virtue and miracles established by human testimonies, but the assistance of the Holy Spirit prohibiting that the Church err in the very definitive judgment concerning the sanctity of the Blessed.

b) From the persuasion of the Church. The supreme pontiffs enunciate their infallibility in canonizing the saints both implicitly and explicitly.

Implicitly indeed, inasmuch as in the act of canonization and in the bulls of canonization they use such formulas as infallible decrees are wont to shine with. The common formula is this: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and Our own, after mature deliberation had beforehand and divine help repeatedly implored ... We decree and define the Blessed N. to be a saint and ascribe him to the catalogue of the saints, ordaining that his memory be recalled by the universal Church every year on the day of his birth into heaven ... with pious devotion ... Let no one therefore be allowed to infringe this page of Our definition ... But if anyone shall presume with rash daring to contravene, let him know that he will incur the indignation of almighty God and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul."⁹ With these words the supreme pontiffs, by their supreme authority, oblige the whole Church to assent. Therefore they supply all things which pertain to infallible decrees. Nay more:

Explicitly too they assert that they enjoy infallibility in the canonization of the saints. E. g. Sixtus IV in the bull by which he canonized the blessed Bonaventure: "Trusting, therefore, that in this canonization God will not permit us to err ... We decree that the blessed Bonaventure is a saint ... and must be held faithfully and firmly." Likewise Sixtus V in the canonization of the blessed Didacus appeals to the "infallible assistance" of the Holy Spirit, and declares in general: "the Roman pontiff ... cannot err and be deceived in the canonization of the saints. And this is to be believed not only piously, but necessarily and with the most certain faith", he affirms.¹⁰ These words, although they do not constitute a definition ex cathedra, nevertheless manifest that the pontiffs are most firmly persuaded of the infallibility of the Church in the canonization of the saints.¹¹

Whence Benedict XIV thus demolishes the contrary opinion: "If not a heretic, yet rash, bringing scandal upon the whole Church, injurious to the saints, favoring the heretics who deny the authority of the Church in the canonization of the saints, savoring of heresy, as paving the way for infidels to deride the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous proposition and liable to the gravest penalties, we shall call him who would dare to assert that the pontiff erred in this or that canonization, and that this or that Saint canonized by him is not to be venerated with the cult of dulia."¹²

Therefore the direct object of infallibility is constituted by all revealed truths, or the apostolic deposit; the indirect object, however, by all doctrines necessarily connected with the revealed deposit. Nevertheless infallibility embraces these two objects in different ways. For:

1. Revealed truths fall under infallibility by reason of themselves; connected doctrines, however, which are not revealed but serve for the safeguarding of the revealed deposit, are subject to ecclesiastical infallibility not by reason of themselves, but by reason of the revealed deposit with which they cohere.

2. Revealed truths which are defined by the Church are to be believed with catholic faith, by which "all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church ... as divinely revealed to be believed".¹³ Truths connected with revelation, however, if they are defined by the Church, are to be believed with ecclesiastical faith, by which we hold all those things which are proposed by the infallible authority of the Church to be held, although they are not contained in the revealed word of God.

3. That revealed truths constitute the object of the infallible magisterium is a dogma of faith proposed by the Church more than enough, which therefore cannot be denied without heresy. On the contrary, the infallibility of the Church with regard to the doctrines connected with revelation, although it is a most certain thing, nevertheless is not yet a definitively proposed dogma, the negation of which would constitute heresy properly so called.¹⁴