J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I was told by a friend that Pope Paul VI canonized 22 Episcopalian Ugandan martyrs. Is this true? I didn’t think that the Church canonized any non-Catholics. 
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I’ve never seen any evidence of a non-Catholic being canonized.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
He said that he read it in The Lives of the Saints.
C
Contarini
Guest
There were both Catholic and Anglican martyrs in Uganda. My understanding is that only the Catholics are venerated as saints in the Catholic Church. I would love to believe otherwise, since the idea of giving up Protestant saints (both Anglicans and non-Anglicans) is one of the things I’d find very difficult about becoming Catholic.
I do believe that Eastern Catholics venerate post-Schism Orthodox saints. But I could be wrong–this might not be an official practice.
Edwin
I do believe that Eastern Catholics venerate post-Schism Orthodox saints. But I could be wrong–this might not be an official practice.
Edwin
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Saint Pius X proclaimed them Venerable on August 16, 1912. Their beatification occurred on June 6, 1920, and they received the honors of canonization on October 18, 1964. So it appears Paul VI completed a process begun by Pius X.
I suppose you’d have to read the precise proclamations to be certain.
I suppose you’d have to read the precise proclamations to be certain.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
This source lists the names of all 45 matryrs, and says that the 22 Catholic martyrs were canonized by Paul VI: buganda.com/martyrs.htm
R
rossum
Guest
Have a look at Saints Barlaam and Josaphat who were canonised.“Barlaam and Josaphat found their way into the Roman Martyrology (27 November)”“The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha”
I think that the Buddha counts as a non-Catholic.
rossum
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Let’s get this in context here:
The principal characters of a legend of Christian antiquity, which was a favourite subject of writers in the Middle Ages. The story is substantially as follows: Many inhabitants of India had been converted by the Apostle St. Thomas and were leading Christian lives. In the third or fourth century King Abenner (Avenier) persecuted the Church. The astrologers had foretold that his son Josaphat would one day become a Christian. To prevent this the prince was kept in close confinement. But, in spite of all precautions, Barlaam, a hermit of Senaar, met him and brought him to the true Faith. Abenner tried his best to pervert Josaphat, but, not succeeding, he shared the government with him. Later Abenner himself became a Christian, and, abdicating the throne, became a hermit. Josaphat governed alone for a time, then resigned, went into the desert, found his former teacher Barlaam, and with him spent his remaining years in holiness. Years after their death, the bodies were brought to India and their grave became renowned by miracles. Barlaam and Josaphat found their way into the Roman Martyrology (27 November), and into the Greek calendar (26 August). Vincent of Beauvais, in the thirteenth century, had given the story in his “Speculum Historiale”. It is also found in an abbreviated form in the “Golden Legend” of Jacobus de Voragine of the same century.
The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva). Still it is of historical value, since it contains the “Apology” presented by the Athenian philosopher Aristides to the Emperor Adrian (or Antoninus Pius). The Greek text of the legend, written probably by a monk of the Sabbas monastery near Jerusalem at the beginning of the seventh century, was first published by Boissonade in “Anecdota Graeca” (Paris, 1832), IV, and is reproduced in Migne, P.G., XCVI, among the works of St. John Damascene. The legend cannot, however, have been a work of the great Damascene, as was proved by Zotenberg in “Notices sur le livre de Barlaam et Josaphat” (Paris, 1886) and by Hammel in “Verhandl. des 7 interneat. Orientalisten Congresses”, Semit. Section (Vienna, 1888). Another edition of the Greek was made by Kechajoglos (Athens, 1884). From the original Greek a German translation was made by F. Liebrecht (Münster, 1847). Latin translations (Minge, P.L., LXXIII), were made in the twelfth century and used for nearly all the European languages, in prose, verse and in miracle plays. Among them is prominent the German epic by Rudolph of Ems in the thirteenth century (Königsberg, 1818, and somewhat later at Leipzig). From the German an Icelandic and Swedish version were made in the fifteenth century. At Manila the legend appeared in the Tagala language of the Philippines. In the East it exists in Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Hebrew.
It’s a legend…nowhere does it say that it actually occurred.
The principal characters of a legend of Christian antiquity, which was a favourite subject of writers in the Middle Ages. The story is substantially as follows: Many inhabitants of India had been converted by the Apostle St. Thomas and were leading Christian lives. In the third or fourth century King Abenner (Avenier) persecuted the Church. The astrologers had foretold that his son Josaphat would one day become a Christian. To prevent this the prince was kept in close confinement. But, in spite of all precautions, Barlaam, a hermit of Senaar, met him and brought him to the true Faith. Abenner tried his best to pervert Josaphat, but, not succeeding, he shared the government with him. Later Abenner himself became a Christian, and, abdicating the throne, became a hermit. Josaphat governed alone for a time, then resigned, went into the desert, found his former teacher Barlaam, and with him spent his remaining years in holiness. Years after their death, the bodies were brought to India and their grave became renowned by miracles. Barlaam and Josaphat found their way into the Roman Martyrology (27 November), and into the Greek calendar (26 August). Vincent of Beauvais, in the thirteenth century, had given the story in his “Speculum Historiale”. It is also found in an abbreviated form in the “Golden Legend” of Jacobus de Voragine of the same century.
The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva). Still it is of historical value, since it contains the “Apology” presented by the Athenian philosopher Aristides to the Emperor Adrian (or Antoninus Pius). The Greek text of the legend, written probably by a monk of the Sabbas monastery near Jerusalem at the beginning of the seventh century, was first published by Boissonade in “Anecdota Graeca” (Paris, 1832), IV, and is reproduced in Migne, P.G., XCVI, among the works of St. John Damascene. The legend cannot, however, have been a work of the great Damascene, as was proved by Zotenberg in “Notices sur le livre de Barlaam et Josaphat” (Paris, 1886) and by Hammel in “Verhandl. des 7 interneat. Orientalisten Congresses”, Semit. Section (Vienna, 1888). Another edition of the Greek was made by Kechajoglos (Athens, 1884). From the original Greek a German translation was made by F. Liebrecht (Münster, 1847). Latin translations (Minge, P.L., LXXIII), were made in the twelfth century and used for nearly all the European languages, in prose, verse and in miracle plays. Among them is prominent the German epic by Rudolph of Ems in the thirteenth century (Königsberg, 1818, and somewhat later at Leipzig). From the German an Icelandic and Swedish version were made in the fifteenth century. At Manila the legend appeared in the Tagala language of the Philippines. In the East it exists in Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Hebrew.
It’s a legend…nowhere does it say that it actually occurred.
T
Tom
Guest
I haven’t researched it, mainly because it really doesn’t interest me, but wasn’t John the Baptist considered a saint? He certainly wasn’t Catholic, and St Joseph died prior to the ministry of Jesus and certainly Jocham and Anne, how about Moses, the prophets?
C
Contarini
Guest
ByzCath,
Anglicans and Lutherans, and less officially Methodists, have calendars of commemoration–I believe other Protestants do this as well on an unofficial basis (as is true of the Methodists). The only person ever officially declared a saint in Anglicanism was King Charles I (because the Puritans offered to spare his life if he would abolish episcopacy, making him a martyr), and that’s controversial (devotion to King Charles is one of the markers of a real Anglo-Catholic). The other people in our calendars are referred to as saints if they were canonized before the Reformation. The post-Reformation folks are not usually called “Saint so-and-so,” but they are called “Blessed so-and-so” sometimes.
Edwin
Anglicans and Lutherans, and less officially Methodists, have calendars of commemoration–I believe other Protestants do this as well on an unofficial basis (as is true of the Methodists). The only person ever officially declared a saint in Anglicanism was King Charles I (because the Puritans offered to spare his life if he would abolish episcopacy, making him a martyr), and that’s controversial (devotion to King Charles is one of the markers of a real Anglo-Catholic). The other people in our calendars are referred to as saints if they were canonized before the Reformation. The post-Reformation folks are not usually called “Saint so-and-so,” but they are called “Blessed so-and-so” sometimes.
Edwin
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
Prior to 1969 many people were canonised, including St. Christopher. After 1969, the Church was quite a bit more careful about who was canonized and who wasn’t, and ALL of the previous Saints were investigated, and many were removed, or restricted (St. Christopher was officially removed, but was so popular that official recognition was restricted to his local area see here ).
Peace
John
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Moses, the Prophet, John the Baptist, et. al., are all included in the Litany of the Saints of the Catholic Liturgy. They were not canonized, however.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I know. It’s all very sad.
M
metal4jesus
Guest
sorry, this may seem dumb, but what does cannonized mean?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Here’s 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article. Some processes may have changed, but it ought to get you up to speed…
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Beatification and Canonization
W
Will
Guest
PraRFLEsEkHm said:
Prior to 1969 many people were canonised, including St. Christopher. After 1969, the Church was quite a bit more careful about who was canonized and who wasn’t, and ALL of the previous Saints were investigated, and many were removed, or restricted (St. Christopher was officially removed, but was so popular that official recognition was restricted to his local area see here ).
Peace
John
Yes their feast days were removed from the universal calender. That dosen’t mean they are not Saints. Once you are declared a Saint you are always a Saint. Saint Christopher is still a Saint.
There just aren’t enough days in the year to reconize them all.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I was told by a friend that Pope Paul VI canonized 22 Episcopalian Ugandan martyrs. Is this true? I didn’t think that the Church canonized any non-Catholics.
He canonised 22 Catholics in 1964 - I’m not aware that he canonised the 13 Anglicans (though they are truly martyrs as the RCs, AFAIK, whether canonised by Rome or not).
justpeace.org/uganda.htm ##- Status