L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
Are each of the individual church’s allowed to glorify whom they choose, or is it always up to the vatican?
- Status
I
InspiritCarol
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization
Each church is “allowed” to do whatever it wants. The Catholic Church will not recognize other Churchs’ declarations: eg the Anglicans declared Charles I a saint. …
“In the case of the Eastern Catholic Churches, individual churches sui juris retain, in theory, the right to glorify (see next section on Eastern Orthodox practice) saints for their own jurisdictions, though this has rarely happened in practice.”
Anyway, the link pretty much give the low-down.
Each church is “allowed” to do whatever it wants. The Catholic Church will not recognize other Churchs’ declarations: eg the Anglicans declared Charles I a saint. …
“In the case of the Eastern Catholic Churches, individual churches sui juris retain, in theory, the right to glorify (see next section on Eastern Orthodox practice) saints for their own jurisdictions, though this has rarely happened in practice.”
Anyway, the link pretty much give the low-down.
L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
Yeah. Sorry. My clarification is for the Eastern Catholic Churches.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
A very good question and issue!
Historically, whenever churches separated from the Catholic Church either by reason of schism, heresy or both and then reunited with the Catholic Church, it was often the case that any new saints that were venerated by those churches/communities continued to be venerated.
The majority of saints were and are local saints, so this did not pose a problem. According to Fr. Holweck in his “Dictionary of the Saints” 1924, Arian saints are in the Catholic calendar including St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt who was killed while he destroyed pagan temples. St Nicetas the Goth and St Sabas the Goth were Arian or Semi-Arian priests. Fr. Holweck gives other examples of saints from other heretical communities etc. Their martyrdom for Christ allowed the Church to “overlook the defect of their orthodoxy.”
Some of these saints have, over time, made it into the Roman canon, in the same way that Orthodox-canonized saints have via Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI listings.
When Orthodox Churches entered into communion with Rome at various times in the past, their Orthodox saints and miracle-working icons continued to be venerated. Russian Greek-Catholics venerated and continue to venerate all the saints on the Russian Orthodox calendar (e.g. St Michael’s Russian Catholic Church).
In all cases, canonizations/glorifications were conducted by the local Church. Even with Pope Urban VIII’s decree that beatification was reserved to Rome alone, many Roman Catholic bishops continued to beatify their local worthies and establish feastdays for them. For example, Bl. John Duns Scotus the Franciscan theologian who outlined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in his day was beatified locally by an Italian bishop and was venerated as such for a very long time before Bl. Pope John Paul beatified him in recent years.
Although St Thomas More was only canonized in 1935, he was, in fact, venerated as a local saint in Rome since 1575 or forty years after his martyrdom. The same is true of St John Fisher. Peter Lombard was and still is locally venerated in several regions of Italy as a local Beatus (and I don’t believe Rome has approved his cult, but it continues nevertheless).
Jerome Savonarola the Dominican firebrand preacher and moral reformer (also an opponent of Pope Alexander VI) was highly venerated within the Dominican Order and in the city of Florence as the “Apostle of Florence and Martyr etc.” Medals were struck of him and, in the 15th and 16th centuries a special Mass for “Il Beato Girolamo Savonarola” was celebrated by Dominicans. Of course, this was all done without Rome’s approval and even in the face of Rome’s DISAPPROVAL.
Savonarola had died excommunicated but the society that promotes his canonization today have uncovered a papal document by none other than Alexander VI where the excommunication was dropped just prior to the Dominican’s death. The Jesuits are very much against Savonarola’s canonization because he opposed Alexander VI.
Pope Julius II wanted to canonize Savonarola but was told that the Brogias might not look favourably upon that . . . There is a portrait of Savonarola in the Vatican, but without a halo. The Archbishop of Florence has re-introduced his Cause. St Philip Neri and St Catherine of Bologna were both from Florence and were both personally devoted to Savonarola. When St Philip Neri died, a medal of Savonarola was found around his neck. This was reported to Rome during his canonization process as a possible impediment, but Rome ordered it to be “passed over” or “praetermissus.”
In the Orthodox East, canonizations were likewise done by local monasteries as they continue to be done on Mt Athos and elsewhere today. The more than 150 + Venerable Saints of the Kievan Caves Lavra were at first only locally venerated at the Lavra, but then St Peter Mohyla of Kiev canonized them in the 17th century for church-wide veneration. (the second part follows . . . sorry for being so long-winded . . .)
Alex
Historically, whenever churches separated from the Catholic Church either by reason of schism, heresy or both and then reunited with the Catholic Church, it was often the case that any new saints that were venerated by those churches/communities continued to be venerated.
The majority of saints were and are local saints, so this did not pose a problem. According to Fr. Holweck in his “Dictionary of the Saints” 1924, Arian saints are in the Catholic calendar including St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt who was killed while he destroyed pagan temples. St Nicetas the Goth and St Sabas the Goth were Arian or Semi-Arian priests. Fr. Holweck gives other examples of saints from other heretical communities etc. Their martyrdom for Christ allowed the Church to “overlook the defect of their orthodoxy.”
Some of these saints have, over time, made it into the Roman canon, in the same way that Orthodox-canonized saints have via Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI listings.
When Orthodox Churches entered into communion with Rome at various times in the past, their Orthodox saints and miracle-working icons continued to be venerated. Russian Greek-Catholics venerated and continue to venerate all the saints on the Russian Orthodox calendar (e.g. St Michael’s Russian Catholic Church).
In all cases, canonizations/glorifications were conducted by the local Church. Even with Pope Urban VIII’s decree that beatification was reserved to Rome alone, many Roman Catholic bishops continued to beatify their local worthies and establish feastdays for them. For example, Bl. John Duns Scotus the Franciscan theologian who outlined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in his day was beatified locally by an Italian bishop and was venerated as such for a very long time before Bl. Pope John Paul beatified him in recent years.
Although St Thomas More was only canonized in 1935, he was, in fact, venerated as a local saint in Rome since 1575 or forty years after his martyrdom. The same is true of St John Fisher. Peter Lombard was and still is locally venerated in several regions of Italy as a local Beatus (and I don’t believe Rome has approved his cult, but it continues nevertheless).
Jerome Savonarola the Dominican firebrand preacher and moral reformer (also an opponent of Pope Alexander VI) was highly venerated within the Dominican Order and in the city of Florence as the “Apostle of Florence and Martyr etc.” Medals were struck of him and, in the 15th and 16th centuries a special Mass for “Il Beato Girolamo Savonarola” was celebrated by Dominicans. Of course, this was all done without Rome’s approval and even in the face of Rome’s DISAPPROVAL.
Savonarola had died excommunicated but the society that promotes his canonization today have uncovered a papal document by none other than Alexander VI where the excommunication was dropped just prior to the Dominican’s death. The Jesuits are very much against Savonarola’s canonization because he opposed Alexander VI.
Pope Julius II wanted to canonize Savonarola but was told that the Brogias might not look favourably upon that . . . There is a portrait of Savonarola in the Vatican, but without a halo. The Archbishop of Florence has re-introduced his Cause. St Philip Neri and St Catherine of Bologna were both from Florence and were both personally devoted to Savonarola. When St Philip Neri died, a medal of Savonarola was found around his neck. This was reported to Rome during his canonization process as a possible impediment, but Rome ordered it to be “passed over” or “praetermissus.”
In the Orthodox East, canonizations were likewise done by local monasteries as they continue to be done on Mt Athos and elsewhere today. The more than 150 + Venerable Saints of the Kievan Caves Lavra were at first only locally venerated at the Lavra, but then St Peter Mohyla of Kiev canonized them in the 17th century for church-wide veneration. (the second part follows . . . sorry for being so long-winded . . .)
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
When the Kievan Orthodox Metropolia came into communion with Rome at Brest in 1596, many Ruthenian Catholic bishops believed it was their right (rite?) to continue to canonize locally for their Church. When the issue of the canonization of St Josaphat came to the fore, I understand that a discussion ensued about whether the Ruthenian Catholic Church should glorify him without reference to Rome (Rome would be informed of it afterwards) or whether the matter should be referred to Rome exclusively.
The latter party won out, but when Rome did canonize Josaphat in 1875, it declared him to be a Saint for veneration ONLY in the Eastern Catholic Churches and NOT, at first, for the Latin Catholic Church. In other words, even Rome respected the local character of the Eastern Catholic Churches’ cultus and hagiological traditions (when Eastern Catholics would not).
There is no reason why the Primates of the Eastern Catholic Churches could not canonize their own local Saints. Such canonization would be equal to the Western beatification. The Eastern Churches do not have “beatification” but once a saint is locally canonized, he is a “saint” plain and simply. His or her cultus can and will “grow” based on territory so that a saint canonized by a monastery or even venerated in a few villages can become venerated regionally, nationally and then universally.
St John Maximovych of San Francisco was first canonized locally in California. He was later canonized for church-wide veneration within the Russian Church Abroad. And when the Church Abroad united with the Moscow Patriarchate, St John became a universal Orthodox Saint (indeed, Roman Catholic dignitaries attended his canonization, venerated his relics and took home copies of his icon - clearly the RC Church recognized his canonization).
With the Anglican Ordinariates, I understand the Anglicans coming into communion with Rome are working with the Roman authorities to regularize their liturgical veneration of Blessed King Charles the Martyr. Catholic converts from Anglicanism, such as Bl. John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox, continued to venerate Bl. King Charles throughout their lives. Ronald Knox even wrote to Rome to petition the canonization of King Charles I and of King Henry VI (Bl Pope John XXIII had allowed members of the Society of King Henry VI, of which I am a proud member, to publicly invoke that king as “Blessed King Henry”).
The veneration of Bl. Charles is very much part and parcel of the Anglican experience and whether Rome allows it or not, they will continue to display his images and pray to him. I don’t see why Rome could not apply the same principle to the Anglicans as has always been applied to the churches and communities of the East.
With respect to the Eastern Catholic Churches, Patriarch Lubomyr set a precedent not too long ago when he had the relics of Blessed New Hieromartyr Nicholas Charnetsky “translated” to a shrine and then proceeded to declare a feastday for the translation of the relics. Such translations often become second festal days for Eastern saints, almost a kind of “second glorification” since the relics are opened. He later simply informed Rome of his action and that was that.
Alex
The latter party won out, but when Rome did canonize Josaphat in 1875, it declared him to be a Saint for veneration ONLY in the Eastern Catholic Churches and NOT, at first, for the Latin Catholic Church. In other words, even Rome respected the local character of the Eastern Catholic Churches’ cultus and hagiological traditions (when Eastern Catholics would not).
There is no reason why the Primates of the Eastern Catholic Churches could not canonize their own local Saints. Such canonization would be equal to the Western beatification. The Eastern Churches do not have “beatification” but once a saint is locally canonized, he is a “saint” plain and simply. His or her cultus can and will “grow” based on territory so that a saint canonized by a monastery or even venerated in a few villages can become venerated regionally, nationally and then universally.
St John Maximovych of San Francisco was first canonized locally in California. He was later canonized for church-wide veneration within the Russian Church Abroad. And when the Church Abroad united with the Moscow Patriarchate, St John became a universal Orthodox Saint (indeed, Roman Catholic dignitaries attended his canonization, venerated his relics and took home copies of his icon - clearly the RC Church recognized his canonization).
With the Anglican Ordinariates, I understand the Anglicans coming into communion with Rome are working with the Roman authorities to regularize their liturgical veneration of Blessed King Charles the Martyr. Catholic converts from Anglicanism, such as Bl. John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox, continued to venerate Bl. King Charles throughout their lives. Ronald Knox even wrote to Rome to petition the canonization of King Charles I and of King Henry VI (Bl Pope John XXIII had allowed members of the Society of King Henry VI, of which I am a proud member, to publicly invoke that king as “Blessed King Henry”).
The veneration of Bl. Charles is very much part and parcel of the Anglican experience and whether Rome allows it or not, they will continue to display his images and pray to him. I don’t see why Rome could not apply the same principle to the Anglicans as has always been applied to the churches and communities of the East.
With respect to the Eastern Catholic Churches, Patriarch Lubomyr set a precedent not too long ago when he had the relics of Blessed New Hieromartyr Nicholas Charnetsky “translated” to a shrine and then proceeded to declare a feastday for the translation of the relics. Such translations often become second festal days for Eastern saints, almost a kind of “second glorification” since the relics are opened. He later simply informed Rome of his action and that was that.
Alex
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Little Boy Lost,
If the bishop decides to pursue it only at a local level, the local bishop authorizes the cultus, and public veneration will proceed (i.e., in the Liturgy). The cultus can spread with the approval of other local bishops, and can even obtain official plenary approval from a head bishop.
If the bishop decides to pursue it on a universal level, then he forwards the “cause” to the Holy See, and an investigation is started - the one which you normally hear about on the secular news. During this investigation, a determination called “Declaration on the Absence of Cult” is required. If no local OFFICIAL cultus is proven to exist (i.e., no local PUBLIC veneration in the Liturgy), then the “cause” continues and eventually that person will be declared a Saint by the Holy See and UNIVERSAL public veneration will be afforded. If an official local cultus is found to already exist, the “cause” for universal recognition will proceed no further.
There has never been any sort of censure for local glorification of saints. In 1969, French author and sociologist Pierre Delooz published a list of locally glorified saints (the list is contained in the Vatican archives, but is hard to access) from 993 to 1967, demonstrating that the practice had been ongoing, and not censured, despite Pope Urban VIII’s restriction on the matter in the early 17th century.
Blessings,
Marduk
There are two ways that the Church can glorify a Saint. Any particular person can start a petition for a deceased person to be glorified. It is up to the local bishop if the cultus should be pursued only at the local level or the unversal level.
If the bishop decides to pursue it only at a local level, the local bishop authorizes the cultus, and public veneration will proceed (i.e., in the Liturgy). The cultus can spread with the approval of other local bishops, and can even obtain official plenary approval from a head bishop.
If the bishop decides to pursue it on a universal level, then he forwards the “cause” to the Holy See, and an investigation is started - the one which you normally hear about on the secular news. During this investigation, a determination called “Declaration on the Absence of Cult” is required. If no local OFFICIAL cultus is proven to exist (i.e., no local PUBLIC veneration in the Liturgy), then the “cause” continues and eventually that person will be declared a Saint by the Holy See and UNIVERSAL public veneration will be afforded. If an official local cultus is found to already exist, the “cause” for universal recognition will proceed no further.
There has never been any sort of censure for local glorification of saints. In 1969, French author and sociologist Pierre Delooz published a list of locally glorified saints (the list is contained in the Vatican archives, but is hard to access) from 993 to 1967, demonstrating that the practice had been ongoing, and not censured, despite Pope Urban VIII’s restriction on the matter in the early 17th century.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Alex,
Where were you, brother, several months ago, when I had a HUGE debate at the Byzcath forums about this issue. I had the unfortunate “pleasure”
of debating the issue with several Easterns who seemed interested in trying to “prove” that the Pope was a dictatorial tyrant with regards to the matter of canonizations/glorifications.
You are SOOOOO well-informed on so many matters.
I am very honored that you are here at CAF.
Blessings,
Marduk
:bowdown::bowdown:
Where were you, brother, several months ago, when I had a HUGE debate at the Byzcath forums about this issue. I had the unfortunate “pleasure”
of debating the issue with several Easterns who seemed interested in trying to “prove” that the Pope was a dictatorial tyrant with regards to the matter of canonizations/glorifications.You are SOOOOO well-informed on so many matters.
I am very honored that you are here at CAF.Blessings,
Marduk
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Brother Marduk,
As you know, I am no longer on the byzcath forums
and feel absolutely privileged (and also very happy) to be here, especially when I can read your extremely well-informed and lucid posts!!
In terms of EC praxis, I think you are absolutely right. The more the EC Church Synods go ahead and “do their own thing” (while informing Rome afterwards . . .), the more Rome will get used to that situation.
The EC churches can perform a great service to ecumenism in so doing, showcasing in their ontological reality how other Churches in the oikumene in union with the Church of Rome affirm their Particularity by means of such actions.
Most of the opposition to this might come from among our own. But I’ve seen real transformations over the years (e.g. our UGCC bishops all rallying around their chosen Patriarch Sviatoslav). There is no reason not to hope for further developments.
Cheers!
Alex
As you know, I am no longer on the byzcath forums
and feel absolutely privileged (and also very happy) to be here, especially when I can read your extremely well-informed and lucid posts!!In terms of EC praxis, I think you are absolutely right. The more the EC Church Synods go ahead and “do their own thing” (while informing Rome afterwards . . .), the more Rome will get used to that situation.
The EC churches can perform a great service to ecumenism in so doing, showcasing in their ontological reality how other Churches in the oikumene in union with the Church of Rome affirm their Particularity by means of such actions.
Most of the opposition to this might come from among our own. But I’ve seen real transformations over the years (e.g. our UGCC bishops all rallying around their chosen Patriarch Sviatoslav). There is no reason not to hope for further developments.
Cheers!
Alex
- Status