Is the Pope Infallible when canonizing a Saint?

[YoungTradCath]

But if the person is in heaven for sure, doesn’t that automatically mean the person is a saint?

But just because Pope XXXXX names XXXXXXX XXXXX a saint doesn’t mean anything, other than that the person is now venerated. There are, potentially, tons of other people in heaven who we don’t venerate on earth as saints, but are saints nevertheless. Being a saint just means you’re in heaven. Being Saint XXXXX means you’re in heaven, plus you’re venerated on earth in recognition of the life you led and the power of your proven intercessory prayers which caused miracles.

 

[JReducation]

One thing that is still not clear to me is:-

Since Beatifications are not infallible, is it possible that the person beatified is actually in hell?

It would seem it must be or Canonization would have followed or there would be no need to ‘further investigate’ right?

As has been said, a canonization does not make you a saint. A canonization is a public decree that you are a saint. Even if there is no such decree, you can still be in heaven; therefore, you’re a saint. Only saints go to heaven.

A Blessed would not be in hell, as you have already heard, there is a miracle there. God does not work miracles through demons.

The Church does not proceed to canonization and waits for a second miracle, but that’s a discretionary action, not mandatory. As I pointed out there are at least four canonized saints who were never venerable or blessed. As we will hear on Nov 1, there are many saints who have never been canonized, because no one knew they were here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

But just because Pope XXXXX names XXXXXXX XXXXX a saint doesn’t mean anything, other than that the person is now venerated. There are, potentially, tons of other people in heaven who we don’t venerate on earth as saints, but are saints nevertheless. Being a saint just means you’re in heaven. Being Saint XXXXX means you’re in heaven, plus you’re venerated on earth in recognition of the life you led and the power of your proven intercessory prayers which caused miracles.

Well said, and solid definitions. Also, the distinction between you used with the letter “s” helps explains things.

Small “s” saints = someone in Heaven.

Capital “S” Saints = someone in Heaven, who is venerated, and has performed miracles through intercessory prayers.

Chris had some excellent points too, as does Brother JR.

So to answer the original post; beautification, and canonization, are both infallible.

 

[TrueLight]

So to answer the original post; beautification, and canonization, are both infallible.

Is that the summary of the posts?

My impression is that beatification is not and canonization is infallible.

 

[Melchior_1]

Is that the summary of the posts?

My impression is that beatification is not and canonization is infallible.

Beatification is the legit no questions asked 100% guarantee that someone is in Heaven. Period. Someone has a beatification done, they’re in Heaven. End of discussion. This is truly a matter of Faith, because we have ZERO way of knowing someone is in Heaven unless:

1. They do miracles through intercession.
2. Someone receives an authentic vision or prayer type thing that confirms this.
3. You die and you meet them in Heaven. Which means to tell someone “hey, this dude is in Heaven” . Which means then you need to do 1 or 2 to even TELL people someone else is in Heaven (and thus pretty much saying you are too).

It’s literally a matter of faith when a beatification happens, because we take the Pope’s word(s) to be total Truth and believe it to be true. We have zero way of knowing otherwise without those extraordinary things happening that I mentioned earlier

There’s no room for error with this, none at all. And what happens exactly when the Pope needs to do something with zero error (like talking about faith and morals)? And what happens when a Pope speaks on Faith and makes a definitive statement and says “let it be so”?

 

[PazzoGrande]

The book “Making Saints” by Kenneth Woodward says that theologians are split on whether or not canonisations are Infallible. But if I remember right, the Catholic Almanac says that canonisations are. I’m inclined to agree. I can’t seem to find anything definitive that says it for sure though, and I doubt anything out there really confirms it or not.

Does anyone know if someone can be “Un-beatified”?

No, but their cultus can be “suppressed.” The Beatification isn’t undone, but the extent to which they are venerated would be limited. For example, their Feast Day is taken off the Calendar.

BUT there is a peculiar case of a Beatification that was approved and scheduled, but canceled and suspended. John Paul II approved the Beatification for the French Father Leon Dehon. It was scheduled for 24 April 2005. The Pope died on 2 April so they had to delay it. Then they discovered anti-Semitic writings from Father Dehon, so Benedict XVI suspended it, had a commission study it, then it didn’t go on. So apparently they weren’t thorough enough when they investigated his life.

I don’t doubt that he’s in heaven though, because there was a miracle through his intercession (for all we know, he sinned with his anti-Semitic remarks but got absolution for it afterward and repented – who knows? It’s not like saints never sinned). The canceled beatification isn’t the Vatican saying, whoops, the guy isn’t in heaven. Rather, it’s them saying, beatified people are supposed to have their examples followed, and we don’t want you following this guy’s example. He may be in heaven, you can pray to him yourself if you want, but we’re not promoting anti-Semitism, so the cause stops here.

But, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if these writings came out after he was beatified. Of course the press that the Holy Father would have to endure would be unfair – he wasn’t even the one who approved of the beatification – and would be another PR disaster to waste the Vatican’s time.

I asked similar questions to yours on this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=595829

It is about whether or not beatifications can be by mistake, though my question deals more with martyrs and groups.

My thing is, we know Purgatory exists because of that story in the Bible where people were martyred fighting for God but they had idols of pagans on them, so they couldn’t immediately go into heaven. Today, isn’t it possible that a martyr is also in purgatory? We’d need a miracle to prove that they’re in heaven, but we know from the Bible that it’s possible for a martyr not to be, right? Miracles aren’t needed to beatify martyrs, so how do we know where they are? Martyrdom apparently isn’t a guarentee into heaven.

Or in groups of people who are beatified together, how do we know that the intercession is not done by only *one *of those people, and why is it safe to presume that the entire group interceded?

Furthermore, the Catechism says that people in purgatory can pray for us; so how do we know that the person we prayed to isn’t in purgatory and was able to intercede for us from there?

For me, it’s just one of those times that I trust the Vatican knows what it’s doing. I just know they know better than I do. I don’t question if these people are in heaven; it’s not that I blindly follow, but I just know they’re the experts at this, and like you I’m interested in the process of how they got to that conclusion. The miracle needed for a canonisation is seen as God’s stamp of approval anyway.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Pope Benedict did not revise the tradition.

What Joe Kelley said was that the Holy Father revived the tradition, not revised.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Does anyone know if someone can be “Un-beatified”?

No

Actually let me qualify that. Theoretically, the pope can, since as a rule of canon law, the Pope can do whatever he wants to. But, it’s more like, there is no precedent for doing that, it just isn’t done and it’s rather unthinkable to revoke a beatification or canonisation, but there is a way to sort of get around it (i.e., cultus suppressed).

 

[Alfonsus]

I always understand it this way:

1. A person is in heaven
2. God glorifies the person trough a miracle (or miracles)
3. The Church proclaims it trough:
   a. Beatification, which means a legal decree that the person veneration may be liturgically celebrated in limited jurisdiction (either it regional, institution, etc).
   b. Canonization, which means a legal decree that the person veneration may be liturgically celebrated in the universal church.

Except for the jurisdiction scope, there is no difference in acknowledging that the person is now part of the Church triumphant.

 

[passer_by]

The book “Making Saints” by Kenneth Woodward says that theologians are split on whether or not canonisations are Infallible. But if I remember right, the Catholic Almanac says that canonisations are. I’m inclined to agree. I can’t seem to find anything definitive that says it for sure though, and I doubt anything out there really confirms it or not.

No, but their cultus can be “suppressed.” The Beatification isn’t undone, but the extent to which they are venerated would be limited. For example, their Feast Day is taken off the Calendar.

BUT there is a peculiar case of a Beatification that was approved and scheduled, but canceled and suspended. John Paul II approved the Beatification for the French Father Leon Dehon. It was scheduled for 24 April 2005. The Pope died on 2 April so they had to delay it. Then they discovered anti-Semitic writings from Father Dehon, so Benedict XVI suspended it, had a commission study it, then it didn’t go on. So apparently they weren’t thorough enough when they investigated his life.

I don’t doubt that he’s in heaven though, because there was a miracle through his intercession (for all we know, he sinned with his anti-Semitic remarks but got absolution for it afterward and repented – who knows? It’s not like saints never sinned). The canceled beatification isn’t the Vatican saying, whoops, the guy isn’t in heaven. Rather, it’s them saying, beatified people are supposed to have their examples followed, and we don’t want you following this guy’s example. He may be in heaven, you can pray to him yourself if you want, but we’re not promoting anti-Semitism, so the cause stops here.

But, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if these writings came out after he was beatified. Of course the press that the Holy Father would have to endure would be unfair – he wasn’t even the one who approved of the beatification – and would be another PR disaster to waste the Vatican’s time.

I asked similar questions to yours on this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=595829

It is about whether or not beatifications can be by mistake, though my question deals more with martyrs and groups.

My thing is, we know Purgatory exists because of that story in the Bible where people were martyred fighting for God but they had idols of pagans on them, so they couldn’t immediately go into heaven. Today, isn’t it possible that a martyr is also in purgatory? We’d need a miracle to prove that they’re in heaven, but we know from the Bible that it’s possible for a martyr not to be, right? Miracles aren’t needed to beatify martyrs, so how do we know where they are? Martyrdom apparently isn’t a guarentee into heaven.

Or in groups of people who are beatified together, how do we know that the intercession is not done by only *one *of those people, and why is it safe to presume that the entire group interceded?

Furthermore, the Catechism says that people in purgatory can pray for us; so how do we know that the person we prayed to isn’t in purgatory and was able to intercede for us from there?

For me, it’s just one of those times that I trust the Vatican knows what it’s doing. I just know they know better than I do. I don’t question if these people are in heaven; it’s not that I blindly follow, but I just know they’re the experts at this, and like you I’m interested in the process of how they got to that conclusion. The miracle needed for a canonisation is seen as God’s stamp of approval anyway.

Thanks, that was very informative.

About the Purgatory part, I think that is also considered to not be an impediment to sainthood. Everyone in Purgatory is going to heaven anyway.

But what I still don’t understand is whether a beatification gives any guarantee that the person is in heaven? If its not protected by infallibility, it seems problematic to have a feast or prayers for an example to those beatified.

As for character, Canonization does not say which part of a saint is worthy of an imitation and which part is not, no? I would think it still first requires Church teaching to determine which things to adopt and which things to not adopt for our lives.

What I mean is that, just because St. Paul is a saint, it does not mean that we can take his example and persecute Christians. It would appear to be common sense but I can see people confusing less subtle matters with other saints and even adopting problematic behavior.

 

[Ohana]

I would think the canonization by the Pope to be infallible. Take note however, that many are involved in the process leading to that declaration. There needs to be solid evidence of sanctity collected by the Defender of the Faith among others, and generally a series of steps before sainthood is declared. The preemptory declaration I had never heard of, but would seem to be based upon the charisms the Pope is blessed with upon his election/accession.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

For the definition of Infallible see LUMEN GENTIUM, chapter I THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH*** section 25.

---

… And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*)…

I have seen this summarized as requiring that it be

1. A pronouncement on a matter of faith or morals
2. Directed to whole Church.

I think that a canonization is a matter of faith to be believed by the whole Church; so seems to meet the criteria.

 

[JReducation]

What Joe Kelley said was that the Holy Father revived the tradition, not revised.

Pope Benedict did not do that either. Popes have been canonizing since the 11th century. Very few times have bishops been allowed to make the decree. We say, “make the decree” because the decree itself still comes in the form of a Papal Bull. It is the pope’s decree, which someone else is simply reading.

This is the same case for beatifications. These are not usually presided over by the pope. He writes the Papal Bull and someone else is delegated to read it. That’s because most beatifications occur in the homeland of the Blessed. Pope Benedict did break with tradition when he presided over the beatification of Bl. John Henry Newman and Bl. John Paul II. I’m trying to remember of Bl. John Paul presided over the beatifications of Bl. John XXIII or Bl. Mother Teresa.

I would think the canonization by the Pope to be infallible. Take note however, that many are involved in the process leading to that declaration. There needs to be solid evidence of sanctity collected by the Defender of the Faith among others, and generally a series of steps before sainthood is declared. The preemptory declaration I had never heard of, but would seem to be based upon the charisms the Pope is blessed with upon his election/accession.

Actually, there is no need for evidence. This is a legal process that is built in by the Church to inspire confidence more than anything else. Pope have canonized without any evidence collected by anyone, in opposition to their cardinals on their own reconnaissance.

Pope Gregory IX canonized Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua and Dominic Guzman without any of this. The Cardinals protested the canonization of St. Francis, because they wanted the process. Pope Gregory stopped it. His response was that if someone said that they prayed to Francis and Francis had worked a miracle, he believed it, because Francis was his friend and he knew him personally for over 20 years. He had been Francis’ spiritual director when he was Cardinal Hugolino. This did not sit well with the cardinals, so Gregory travelled to Assisi under some pretext, canonized Francis on July 16, 1228, but did not tell the cardinals until August. Everyone in Assisi knew about it, but the folks at St. John Lateran did not. It pays not to have E-mail or telephone.

Later, he went even faster on Anthony of Padua. Within 11 months Anthony was declared a saint. I believe it is the fastest canonization in Church history, other than Dismas. Finally, Dominic died and he canonized him too, not as quickly, but without a process. Of course, after the battle over Francis, the cardinals did not even question Anthony’s and Dominic’s canonization. The pope proved that he could do it and that it was binding on everyone to venerate these saints. Pope Alexander IV, who had been the Cardinal Protector of the Franciscans, canonized Clare within 18 months, without a process, claiming that he believed the testimony of those who said that she had worked miracles, because he had known her for many years.

The only evidence that you really need is the pope’s confidence.

For the definition of Infallible see LUMEN GENTIUM, chapter I THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH*** section 25.

---

I have seen this summarized as requiring that it be

1. A pronouncement on a matter of faith or morals
2. Directed to whole Church.

I think that a canonization is a matter of faith to be believed by the whole Church; so seems to meet the criteria.

The difference between a canonization and a beatification is that in a canonization the pope declares that the person is in heaven and binds the entire Church to venerate this person He is binding the faithful to believe.

These words are not included in the decree of Beatification. However, we give assent, because this is an act of the Ordinary Magisterium who says, "John Doe is a Blessed and may be venerated publically with the following restrictions. The usual restrictions is that he can be venerated by his people, not the universal Church. However, the Church can ask for permission. The USA has it for John XXIII and Teresa of Calcutta.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[passer_by]

The difference between a canonization and a beatification is that in a canonization the pope declares that the person is in heaven and binds the entire Church to venerate this person He is binding the faithful to believe.

These words are not included in the decree of Beatification. However, we give assent, because this is an act of the Ordinary Magisterium who says, "John Doe is a Blessed and may be venerated publically with the following restrictions. The usual restrictions is that he can be venerated by his people, not the universal Church. However, the Church can ask for permission. The USA has it for John XXIII and Teresa of Calcutta.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So is it possible that the beatified person is actually in hell? Because it would appear that if it was certain after beatification that the person is in heaven, then that would be an automatic Canonization, no?

 

[PazzoGrande]

The USA has it for John XXIII and Teresa of Calcutta.

That’s interesting. I’m curious though, when exceptions like that are made, does it only mean that there can be the special Mass prayers to them on their Feast Days, or does it also mean that churches within the US can be named after them?

 

[JReducation]

So is it possible that the beatified person is actually in hell? Because it would appear that if it was certain after beatification that the person is in heaven, then that would be an automatic Canonization, no?

No it is not possible. As I said before, the steps were put in to help the pope gather the necessary information that he needs. A beatification is part of a process. It’s not a sign of doubt or reservation on the part of the pope.

Think of it as a betothal in ancient times. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. By their law, this made her his wife. However, they did not live together yet, not because there was any doubt about the marriage, but because this was a step in the marriage process.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

That’s interesting. I’m curious though, when exceptions like that are made, does it only mean that there can be the special Mass prayers to them on their Feast Days, or does it also mean that churches within the US can be named after them?

You can name churches after them. I know of at least one parish named Bl. John XXIII. The pastor is my friend and I was invited to its consecration.

Bl. John XXIII Catholic Church

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[passer_by]

No it is not possible. As I said before, the steps were put in to help the pope gather the necessary information that he needs. A beatification is part of a process. It’s not a sign of doubt or reservation on the part of the pope.

Think of it as a betothal in ancient times. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. By their law, this made her his wife. However, they did not live together yet, not because there was any doubt about the marriage, but because this was a step in the marriage process.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

But this is what I am asking.

If Beatification is not infallible, that means that there is no certainty that the individual is in heaven, no? Otherwise, it would already be the Canonization step.

In the case of Mary and Joseph’s betrothal, there is obviously no doubt because what was left was just mere customs. So I don’t think that is the same as what we are talking about here. In this case, the event that gives certainty (Canonization) is yet to follow.

 

[JReducation]

But this is what I am asking.

If Beatification is not infallible, that means that there is no certainty that the individual is in heaven, no? Otherwise, it would already be the Canonization step.

In the case of Mary and Joseph’s betrothal, there is obviously no doubt because what was left was just mere customs. So I don’t think that is the same as what we are talking about here. In this case, the event that gives certainty (Canonization) is yet to follow.

No. It does not work that way. The person beatified is in heaven. A canonization is a decree that commands the Church to venerate the person and mandates that the person’s name be inscribed in the book of saints.

Just because the command is not there and the person is not inscribed in the book of saints does not mean that he is not in heaven. The Church has no obligation to command this until the pope is good and ready to do so.

Remember, the Ordinary Magisterium is also protected from error. Canonization is not Ordinary Magisterium. It’s Extraordinary. The pope speaks Ex Cathedra. But the pope can be infallible even when he does not speak Ex Cathedra, when he is teaching the faith to the Church. He cannot teach error. Therefore, he cannot say that a demon is a blessed. If he says that John Henry Newman is a Blessed, you can bet your life that Newman is in heaven. If Newman were a demon, the pope would not be able to call him a Blessed. That would be a serious moral error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PazzoGrande]

But what I still don’t understand is whether a beatification gives any guarantee that the person is in heaven? If its not protected by infallibility, it seems problematic to have a feast or prayers for an example to those beatified.

As for character, Canonization does not say which part of a saint is worthy of an imitation and which part is not, no? I would think it still first requires Church teaching to determine which things to adopt and which things to not adopt for our lives.

Well, I look at it this way. The Pope says a lot of things about morals too. For example, a couple of Lents ago, the Vatican recommended people reduce their use of their gadgets to meditate more. If the Pope said that, it’s advice that relates to our faith and how we practise it, but it isn’t Infallible. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong – I think he’s totally right about that. It just means that he didn’t bring out the big guns for this and Infallibility isn’t something so liberally applied.

So, it’s as if the advice to reduce gadget-distraction is given the pope’s blessing, but it’s not put on the official canon (since canon means list) of what we are to believe.

When you look at it that way, the use of the words “Blessed” and “Canonisation” is pretty apt. With a beatification, veneration of the person is given a “blessing.” It’s not as solemn as putting them on the canon of saints Infallibly, but the Church gave its blessing for them to be venerated.

But I guess that’s more glass-is-half-full approach to it. We’ve got evidence that they are in heaven because there was a miracle, just as we’ve got evidence that gadgets distract you. Although, for me, it still makes me wonder how we know that beatified martyrs are in heaven because, as the Bible shows us, martyrdom doesn’t automatically mean entrance into heaven.