Pope Benedict XIV
Canonization is a decree and definition by the Catholic Church that a certain individual has died heroically in a state of grace to be venerated by the faithful as a saint with a place on the liturgical calendar as a holy day.
The formula for canonization, which has been in use since the eleventh century, declares:
“In honor of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory be devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast.”
Feast days or Holy Days are binding on the whole Church. It’s part of the sacred liturgy of the Church. The saint of a particular feast day is recognized by name in the liturgy making him part of the prayers of the sacred liturgy.
It’s not difficult to find reputed saints and theologians teaching that canonizations are infallible.
Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Antoninus, Bellarmine, and Alphonsus Liquori explained how and why canonizations are infallible. [1]
Cardinal Manning declared after the First Vatican Council how the council included in its definition canonization. [2]
NovusOrdoWatch cites Fr. Joachim Salaverri on how canonizations are infallible. [3]
In the 1700’s, Pope Benedict XIV taught as a cardinal, “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” [4]
Pope Benedict XIV quotes over 60 canonists and theologians on how and why canonizations are infallible. He notes that only a select few of ancient authors professed the contrary.
If canonizations are not infallible then Pope Pius XI couldn’t declare in 1925, Quas Primas, (22) : Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.
Pope Pius XII declared in 1956, Haurietis Aquas: It is clear that the faithful must seek from Scripture, tradition and the sacred liturgy as from a deep untainted source.
A liturgy that recognizes a canonized saint is untainted. Therefore, canonizations must be infallible for the possibility of error is absent.
In addition to the canonization of saints is the veneration of relics of the saints.
The Council of Trent decreed in Session XXV: “the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ—which bodies were the living members of Christ and ‘the temple of the Holy Ghost’ (1 Corinthians 6:19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men, so that they who affirm that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honored by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them.”
Relics, particularly of martyrs, are placed in altar stones as part of the consecrated altar of churches named for the particular saint of whose relic is used. The churches themselves are named after canonized saints.
The decree by the Council of Trent implies that canonizations are infallible.
The same council also declared in Session XXII, Can. 7: If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema [cf. n. 943]. (D. 954.)
None of the above teachings of popes and council make sense if canonizations are not infallible. Having infallible implications of fallible decrees is like the Protestant position of having a fallible canon of Scripture of infallible books. You can’t have your fallible decree with infallible conclusions.
If it’s not infallible that St. Ignatius of Loyola is a saint, then having churches built in his name, veneration of his relics, liturgical prayers that ask, “O God, Who, to spread abroad the greater glory of Thy name, didst, through blessed Ignatius, strengthen the Church militant with a new reinforcement, grant that we, who are fighting on earth by his help and after his example, may deserve to be crowned with him in heaven. Through our Lord”, and our profession of Faith that he’s in heaven is all based on a possible error. St. Ignatius is just one example. How many possible non-saints do we have with their churches, relics, and liturgical prayers all around the world? To suggest the possibility is insanity!
To say canonizations are not infallible is an outright attack on the Catholic Faith because the only reason why anyone today would make such a claim is because he doesn’t like the individual or individuals canonized.
Pseudo-traditionalists know how bad it is that John Paul II and Paul VI have been canonized, but they would rather take down all the Church holds sacred in the profession of faith concerning the communion of saints than to admit that sedevacantism is true.
Footnotes
[1] The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, https://books.google.com/books?id=k5wlCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
[2] “In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontiff as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition [at Vatican I] of his infallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority; as for instance, all judgments, sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under this will come the laws of discipline, canonization of the saints, approbation of Religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals and piety. The definition, then, does not limit the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority.” (Cardinal Manning, The Vatican Council and its Definitions, New York: D.J. Sadlier, 1887, pp. 95-96.)
[3] Jesuit theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri explains the Church’s teaching on the infallibility of canonizations as follows:
…the end of the infallible Magisterium demands those things that are necessary in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through the correct worship [=veneration] and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues. But for such a purpose infallibility concerning decrees on the Canonization of Saints is necessary.
…
[This] is certain, because by the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints the Church not only tolerates and permits, but also commends and instructs the whole flock of the faithful that certain definite Saints whom it canonizes are to be honored, and it proposes them as examples of virtue who are worthy of imitation. But the mere possibility of error in such a solemn declaration would take away all confidence from the faithful and fundamentally would destroy the whole cult of the Saints; because [then] it could happen that the Church would solemnly propose to all and mandate that condemned and evil men perpetually should be honored. Therefore, in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through correct worship and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues, infallibility is necessary concerning the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints.
(Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, 1955; English published by Keep the Faith, 2015], n. 724; underlining added; italics removed.)
This is the Catholic teaching, to deny which would be “temerarious, bringing scandal to the whole Church, … smacking of heresy … affirming an erroneous proposition”, in the words of Pope Benedict XIV (see Salaverri, n. 726; italics removed).
[4] Pope Benedict XIV: De Canonisatione Sanctorum L.1 c.43 n.3. quoted by Tanquerey, de Lugo, Salaverri, and others to defend the infallibility of canonizations.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
The problem with the R&R/indult groups (against Francis) is that they believe “the Church” must declare “a pope” not a pope through a means warnings, penalties, etc. and yet when their “pope” declares by saying, “we declare and define Blessed Paul VI… to be Saints and we enroll them among the Saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” they don’t believe it’s binding on them.
They maintain that canonizations are not infallible due to them being secondary objects when it’s clear according to Fr. Joachim Salaverri “[This] is certain, because by the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints the Church not only tolerates and permits, but also commends and instructs the whole flock of the faithful that certain definite Saints whom it canonizes are to be honored, and it proposes them as examples of virtue who are worthy of imitation..”
The million dollar question for the R&R is who has the final say in their Church?
Excellent !! and to the point without doubt. I hope everyone will pass this on to families, friends and especially clergy who are content with their ‘holy’ lives in the novus ordo clique. There is absolutely no excuse for any Catholic not to understand and grasp the implications arising from this issue and realize the novus ordo church is a non-catholic religion. The post VATII popes are their special saints! The R&Rs are simply retards and retarded thru and thru.
I think canonizations are not proven to be infallible, and I argue this on very simple logic.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already covered why it can’t possibly be error.
On the New Advent article entry for “Beatification and Canonization” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm – linked in your first footnote), the section “Papal infallibility and canonization” is worth reading but only the first two sentences are necessary, which say: “Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative.”
This logically implies that “some” theologicans must answer in the negative, therefore there is not consensus on this issue.
SPERAY REPLIES: Those theologians were rare and ancient. Since the 1700’s it was consensus from all.
If there was consensus, all these articles wouldn’t have to be written trying to argue that canonizations are infallible, we would simply declare it as an established fact.
SPERAY REPLIES: The theologians argue that it is an established fact and declaring anyone who would say otherwise heretics or suspect heretics.
Additionally, such cited footnote article does not explicitly condemn as heretics those “some” dissenting theologians who don’t believe canonizations are infallible.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s because there’s a difference between all the different types of doctrine and the censures that pertain.
Perhaps this does not, however, rule out canonizations being recognized as infallible in the future?
SPERAY REPLIES: Canonization are already recognized by all the theologians of recent times. As I explained in the article, it has to infallible or the teachings of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII would be wrong.
Other notes:
MHFM had an article: “Canonizations are Infallible” https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/are-canonizations-infallible/#.W9bnn5zLfQE
From article: “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.””
Again, lack of consensus if dissenting is heresy or next to heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: Has nothing to with infallibility.
SSPX also had an article, “Canonizations not always infallible?” http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonizations-not-always-infallible-3962
Furthermore as related to sedevacantism, I don’t think an argument can be made that John 23rd, or Paul VI, or John Paul II being “canonized” proves sedevacantism is true, since as I have shown above we do not have absolute proof that canonizations are infallible.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! I just showed that we are %100 certain that canonizations are infallible.
A lot of these “false start” arguments for sedevacantism, to me, have made me pause to stop and consider what the “real proof” of sedevacantism is.
SPERAY REPLIES: You should stop and ask what is the real proof that you’re a CAtholic.
I do believe sedevacantism is true, but I think these alleged proofs keep getting disproven.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! You most certainly have disproved nothing.
If it was a simple as canonizations are infallible, and you could prove John Paul II can’t be a canonized saint, then sedevacantism could logically follow as a conclusion;
SPERAY REPLIES: IT DOES!
but I think there’s fog around proving John Paul II couldn’t be a saint,
SPERAY REPLIES: ONLY A HERETIC WOULD SAY SUCH NONSENSE!
and then about canonizations being infallible; so, rather I think a proof of sedevacantism would have to be established elsewhere. It is indeed an unfortunate situation though, for sure.
SPERAY REPLIES: What’s unfortunate is that you’re not using your head.
Even the comments section of a novus ordo site on this topic had people arguing canonizations aren’t infallible: https://taylormarshall.com/2018/01/catholic-canonizations-saints-infallible-yes.html
SPERAY REPLIES: Well of course there are lots of people saying canonizations are not infallible. All of the R&R’s are saying it because they know that JP2 and Paul VI can’t be saints.
You are incorrect in your assumption that some theologians argue that canonizations are not infallible. That was only an ancient opinion found in very few.
There are different degrees of Catholic teaching. Infallibility is found in at at least of them.
You are not reading my articles very closely. I show how canonizations must be if you look at the teachings of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII.
People who say canonizations are not infallible are as Pope Benedict XIV said.
Lastly, the canonizations of John Paul II and Paul VI are proof for sedevacantism because they were blasphemous heretics. If you say differently, you are not a Catholic.
An Sede,
So you’re saying that when a pope says “we declare and define… decreeing… as such by the whole Church” it means to you that you don’t have to believe it because you personally don’t agree with it. No wonder you call it very simple logic. Protestants keep things that simple too.
The SSPX website you posted have to justify a way for Francis to be pope and the Novus Ordo to be Catholic, so they have to give a reason that it’s not infallible. Mr. Speray’s article proves that people like you and the SPPX and those doofus people commenting on the Dr. Taylor Marshall website are just skimming over and ignoring what real Catholicism actually taught and what Catholics are still bound to believe.
God in His wisdom has allowed the Vatican II cult to honor heretics to enable Catholics to understand the Vatican II heresy in a clear light that gives them a truth that can’t be denied. Many in the sect-like those caught up in the Protestant heresy because of pride and lukewarmness cannot accept the fact that they have been given over to a false worship of God. God’s mercy has allowed these glaring heresies in order to awaken those who have drunk from the cup of heresy. Pride is a great obstacle to overcome, especially when you have spent decades in a false religion and have contributed time and treasure to it. When Christ walked the earth the vast amount of the once chosen people refused him because of pride and belief in false teaching, likewise, those who have been graphed on to the tree have fallen because of the same error. one can only pray that the Chastisement that is the Vatican II heresy will come to an end and many will be saved before Christ’s return.
To An Sede….let’s suppose a research scientist comes out with a vaccine that kills millions. He is not going to get a Nobel prize in medicine for all his time and research nor will any university likely grant him a doctorate of music for his work. But a pope could canonize him fallibly and that might only screw up a few masses and calendars and want- be -Catholics. With you and the NO religion its no big deal. It appears that you fully endorse the post VATII canonizations. Now go back and read the article on the infallibility of canonizations instead of rubber-lipping total ignorance.
What is your opinion about Clement of Alexandria? Was he a declared saint or not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria
I’d have to do some research. Many saints are not canonized. My patron St. Patrick was not. The Apostles are not. Do you know his feast day? Is he venerated in the liturgy? If so, it would be a recognition by the Church that he’s a saint.
Thanks for answering. I don’t know was he really venerated in the liturgy. Some people use his example against the infallibility of canonizations. Antipope Benedict XVI spoke about him in this speech but he didn’t call him a saint https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=4281.On some other nominal Catholic websites I found that he was venerated as a saint but he isn’t
considered a saint by the Church anymore which was very weird to me if they are saying the truth.
Rev. Alban Butler writes: His name had a place in the martyrology of Usuard, which was long used in most churches in Gaul, but never in the Roman. Pope Benedict XIV., in his learned dissertation, addressed in the form of a brief, to the king of Portugal, prefixed to the edition of the Roman Martyrology, made in 1749, excellently shows, that there is not sufficient reason for ever inserting his name in the Roman Martyrology. The authority of certain private calendars, and the custom of sacred biographers suffices for giving his life in this place. See Tillemont, t. 3, Ceillier, t. 2, and John Potter, then bishop of Oxford, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, in the accurate edition of the works of St. Clement of Alexandria, which he published with notes, at Oxford, in 1715, t. 1, p. 1. t. 2, p. 10, 40, et seq.
Thanks again. I was pretty confused about this.