8.257. Is there a contradiction between Vatican II-era canonizations (e.g., John Paul II, Paul VI) and the traditional doctrine of infallible canonizations as practiced before 1958?
Yes. There is a serious contradiction between the “canonizations” carried out in the post-Vatican II era—especially those of Paul VI, John Paul II, and others—and the true Catholic understanding of canonization as a solemn, infallible judgment of the Church. The traditional process was marked by theological rigor, juridical caution, and an unwavering commitment to doctrinal purity and public veneration. Vatican II-era “canonizations”, however, are marked by new procedures, ecumenical motivations, and doctrinal ambiguity, raising grave concerns about their validity and trustworthiness.
1. True Catholic Teaching: Canonizations Are Infallible Acts
The traditional doctrine holds that when the pope solemnly declares someone a saint, he exercises the Church’s infallibility in matters of faith and morals. This is not merely a disciplinary act but a dogmatic fact—a truth so intimately linked to revealed doctrine that it is guaranteed by the Church’s charism of infallibility.
Benedict XIV, in his classic work De Servorum Dei Beatificatione, wrote:
“Canonization is an act of the supreme apostolic authority by which the pope declares a servant of God to be in Heaven and to be venerated by the whole Church. This judgment is infallible.”
“The Church has never canonized anyone who was not in Heaven.”
Canonization also implicitly affirms the person’s life, doctrine, and example as safe for universal imitation and veneration. Hence, it presupposes that the candidate lived and died in perfect adherence to Catholic truth.
2. Vatican II-era Changes to the “Canonization” Process
The post-1958 “Church” radically altered the “canonization” process:
The office of Devil’s Advocate (Promotor Fidei) was diminished or eliminated.
The requirement for multiple verified miracles was relaxed or waived.
The entire process became expedited, leading to mass canonizations.
Canonizations often served ecumenical or political goals, such as canonizing popes identified with Vatican II.
For example:
Paul VI was “canonized” despite introducing the Novus Ordo Missae and overseeing massive decline in vocations, faith, and discipline.
John Paul II was “canonized” just nine years after his death, despite praying with animists, attending synagogues, kissing the Qur’an, and promoting universalist themes.
These actions contradict the long-standing requirement that saints must be exemplary in doctrine, piety, and moral heroism.
3. Theological Consequences and Inconsistencies
Traditional theologians taught that canonizations are infallible only if all necessary conditions are met:
Use of the extraordinary papal magisterium (ex cathedra)
Rigorous canonical process, safeguarded from error
Veneration commanded by the whole Church
But if the modern “canonizations” fail in process and intention—e.g., if they do not intend to declare someone a model of orthodoxy and virtue, or if the pope himself lacks divine authority—then they cannot bind the faithful.
Sedevacantists (true Catholics) hold that the men who issued these “canonizations” were not true popes, and therefore had no authority to issue infallible judgments. Even setting sedevacantism aside, many theologians argue that these canonizations are doubtful at best, and no longer guarantee freedom from error.
| Category | Traditional Teaching | Post-Vatican II Canonizations | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Infallible declaration of sainthood and safe example for veneration | Inconsistent definitions; often symbolic or political | Undermines purpose and certainty of canonization |
| Criteria | Heroic virtue, orthodoxy, miracles, thorough examination | Relaxed criteria, often expedited process | Raises doubts about validity and discernment |
| Process | Rigorously juridical, multi-stage, Devil’s Advocate | Simplified, politicized, often lacks contradiction | Breaks with centuries of practice and safeguards |
| Doctrinal Safety | Must be doctrinally pure and morally heroic | Some promoted ecumenism, indifferentism, or error | Contradicts purpose of canonization |
| Authority | Exercised by true pope with intent to bind the faithful | Issued by Vatican II popes with doubtful authority | Possibly non-binding, even invalid |
Summary:
The canonization of saints is traditionally understood as a solemn, infallible act of the Church that guarantees the individual is in Heaven and worthy of universal veneration. This judgment also assures the faithful that the person's life, doctrine, and morals are safe to imitate.
However, post-Vatican II “canonizations” diverge sharply from this standard. New procedures have removed longstanding safeguards, such as the Devil’s Advocate and rigorous scrutiny of doctrine. Instead, modern “canonizations” often serve political or ecumenical purposes—especially in “canonizing” the architects of Vatican II itself, such as anti-popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
These figures, however, promoted liturgical reform, religious indifferentism, and doctrinal innovations that contradict centuries of Catholic teaching. Their “canonizations” raise grave scandal and confusion: how can Catholics venerate men who undermined tradition, kissed the Qur’an, or permitted interreligious worship?
In addition to procedural corruption, the issue of authority is crucial. These “canonizations” are null and void because the men who issued them were not valid popes. But even from a broader traditionalist perspective, one can legitimately question whether these canonizations are infallible, especially given the failure to follow the traditional canonical requirements.
Thus, there is indeed a contradiction between pre-1958 canonization doctrine—marked by infallibility, caution, and doctrinal integrity—and the post-Vatican II practice, which is marked by haste, novelty, and ambiguity. Faithful Catholics are not bound to accept these modern “canonizations” and are justified in rejecting them.