Canonization - Can Saint's belief be contrary to faith?

[Digitonomy]

We know of various Saints, especially in the early Church, who held views which we would now consider heretical.

The current process for canonization includes a review of all writings, described in the old Catholic Encyclopedia

If nothing contrary to faith and morals is found in the writings of the servant of God…

If these Saints of long standing were subjected to this scrutiny of their faith as compared to to the current Catechism, they would not be canonized. However, they did not write or speak against faith as it had been defined up to that point.

In theory, on any given day a pope or ecumenical council may define a particular tenet of the faith, which had been unclear the day before.

My question is when does one apply the test as to whether writings are contrary to faith and morals?

1. 
   *] At the time of beatification, so that a tenet of faith defined after the death of a servant is nonetheless binding on the evaluation of their writings.
   *]At the time of the servant’s death.
   *]At the time the writings are made - so that a letter written at age 20 may express a contrary view to a tenet of faith that is only defined a decade later, but all letters after the tenet is defined must conform to it

 

[Paul_W]

I don’t agree with the premise.

I can’t think of any saint whose views are now “heretical.” Some may not have fully understood a principle, because it hadn’t been fully developed by the Church, but you’ll have to start with an example of a saint who taught the opposite of what we now accept as a matter of faith or morals.

 

[Digitonomy]

You’ve exposed my weak grasp of the Church Fathers.
Paul W:

Some may not have fully understood a principle, because it hadn’t been fully developed by the Church.

It seems likely that a misunderstanding of a principle would from time to time lead to a misstatement about that principle - a misstatement which could be contrary to the faith. I’m confident this has happened at least a few times, but all I can come up with at the moment is Aquinas, who stated that Mary was conceived with original sin (he felt she was sanctified shortly afterward).

 

[Digitonomy]

Bump - I’m still interested in this question.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m not sure how that works. I think the key would be that they did not dissent from any binding teaching at the time. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas argued against the Immaculate Conception, but at the time, it was a point of liberty–now it must be believed with a divine and Catholic faith. He, I assume, would have believed it if it was required of him. The same can be said for various Church fathers, who may have held to things like millenerianism or apokostasis before they were officially ruled out by the Church.

I also think the Catholic Encyclopedia may be oversimplifying the procedure.

 

[thistle]

You’ve exposed my weak grasp of the Church Fathers.It seems likely that a misunderstanding of a principle would from time to time lead to a misstatement about that principle - a misstatement which could be contrary to the faith. I’m confident this has happened at least a few times, but all I can come up with at the moment is Aquinas, who stated that Mary was conceived with original sin (he felt she was sanctified shortly afterward).

Mary having NOT been conceived in original sin was not doctrine at the time of Aquinas so his opinion was not contrary to Church teaching.

 

[Man]

I don’t know, but I have been writing for some time, throughout the last couple of years as an exercise thereof. If someone was to take them as a whole most of my mistakes have been redacted…

I assume these things are forgiven, even if we are unable to destroy every error… if they are corrected.