Eastern Churches Canonisation Process

[DL82]

What is the process for the canonisation of saints in the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Do the Eastern Catholics share this process, and if so, do their canonisations need to be agreed by the Pope? Do they have a similar process of tribunals, evidence of miracles, searching of the saint’s private correspondence, etc?

It seems from a brief survey of Eastern and Western saints that the East has fewer recent saints than the West, but those it does have seem to come from a broader spread of people, including lay people, people canonised for their artistic and social contributions to Christian life, as well as priests and religious. Even though the number of canonisations in the West has increased in recent times, apart from St Gianna Beretta Molla, I can’t think of many famous lay people who have been canonised in the West in recent times. Does the Western process tend to be biased in favour of priests and religious? It seems to me that lay people, even very holy lay people, are less likely to have lots of correspondence on faith issues to show a tribunal examples of their religious thought, and fewer will have followers to give a public account of their lives. That makes satisfying a Vatican tribunal pretty tricky. Is the East different?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

What is the process for the canonisation of saints in the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Do the Eastern Catholics share this process, and if so, do their canonisations need to be agreed by the Pope? Do they have a similar process of tribunals, evidence of miracles, searching of the saint’s private correspondence, etc?

It seems from a brief survey of Eastern and Western saints that the East has fewer recent saints than the West, but those it does have seem to come from a broader spread of people, including lay people, people canonised for their artistic and social contributions to Christian life, as well as priests and religious. Even though the number of canonisations in the West has increased in recent times, apart from St Gianna Beretta Molla, I can’t think of many famous lay people who have been canonised in the West in recent times. Does the Western process tend to be biased in favour of priests and religious? It seems to me that lay people, even very holy lay people, are less likely to have lots of correspondence on faith issues to show a tribunal examples of their religious thought, and fewer will have followers to give a public account of their lives. That makes satisfying a Vatican tribunal pretty tricky. Is the East different?

Modern saints from the Catholic East are canonized through Rome just the same as Latin ones are.

Just curious, where are you seeing a lot of non-martyr canonizations of the laity in the East in the last century?

To take a look at some of the causes for canonization in the Catholic Church these days, see here:
hagiographycircle.com/index.htm

I would hope and expect to see a lot of priestly and religous saints. To stand at the altar or to be consecrated to the service of God in such an exclusive way… it stands to reason that many of them will be raised to the dignity of the altar.

http://www.santuariodivinoamore.it/img/beati.jpg

• Bls. Maria and Luigi Beltrame Quattrocchi - beatified by JP2 in 2001

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Modern saints from the Catholic East are canonized through Rome just the same as Latin ones are.

Sadly, this is 100% accurate. However, Bishops by their very office in the East may declare a person “blessed”. Of course, the whole “blessed”/“saint” distinction is a latinization. The Church has always had local veneration of saints, whether Rome approved or not.

History lesson over.

 

[wjp984]

Seems legitimate to me considering the pope is still the leader of the Catholic Church. It would seem kind of weird if one rite acknowledges a person as a saint but another does not.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

I have no idea how a rite could acknowledge someone as a rite. A rite simply refers to the customs, spirituality and traditions used by a particular Church.

Furthermore, Christ is the Head of the Church. The Pope of Rome, as the Patriarch of Rome, is the Protos of the Roman Synod and of the Church of Rome.

That being said, it has always been the practice of the Church up until the Schism, of the Holy Synod and Bishops to canonize saints. The fact that only Rome does this is ahistorical/historical-theological revisionism.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I have no idea how a rite could acknowledge someone as a rite. A rite simply refers to the customs, spirituality and traditions used by a particular Church.

LYR - you really didn’t know what the previous poster meant, necessitating a “teachable moment”?

The “ahistorical” charges… There is some merit to the notion that the current process is not historical. Then again, if we were all going only on history, no Church would look the way it does today. Episcopal vestments would be very different, authorities would be in place in the east to call ecumenical councils, and I am not convinced that autocephalous polyarchy based on the borders of nation-states and ethnicity would hold sway…

So yes, this is different, like a lot of things are.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

I am not convinced that autocephalous polyarchy based on the borders of nation-states and ethnicity would hold sway…

Spot on! I agree…which is why numerous non-native Eastern Catholics have been able to affect a formal transfer of Churches.

The ethno-nationalism of Orthodox is practically old hat. The fact that native english speakers join churches that conduct services in mostly a non-english language is a farce of the countless “Illuminators and Enlighteners” of the Holy Orthodox Catholic tradition. Americans speak English. Our Ethnicity is American. The Church of America is now evangelising these people.

However, Autocephly/polyarchy is already a reality. The question is How can this work in a reunified Church, not if it can work.

Honestly, SimpleSinner, I think we are already on the same page.