Removal of St. Christopher as a Saint

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChristopherM

Guest
Just heard about this tidbit that maybe most of you have heard of was that St. Christopher was deemed not a saint when they redid the calander

source: catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36

Was this an infalliable move should we not venerate or ask for intersession for St. Christopher …er i mean Christopher
 
No, he is still a Saint, just not on the calendar of saints. There are many saints not on the calendar. He wasn’t uncanonized.
 
There’s only so many Saints we can celebrate–I think it’s best to use the space for those saints who we know something about and from whom we can model our lives, rather than some we really don’t know much about.

As was said before, he wasn’t un-canonized, he was just dropped from the calendar. He’s basically treated like a “Blessed”

From the article:

“Christopher’s cult was not suppressed but it is confined to local calendars (those for a diocese, country, or so forth).”
 
It’s not that he’s no longer a saint, nor even that he no longer has a feastday (he still does, on 25th July). Simply that his feastday is no longer an obligatory celebration throughout the worldwide church. There are plenty of other saints in the same situation.

Of course there are places, like churches named after him or dioceses that are under his patronage, that can and do still celebrate his feastday. So have a happy name day on 25th July in good health, ChristopherM!
 
I believe St. Patrick falls into this situation as well.
 
There was a furor about this in the 80s if I recall. St. Patrick was removed along with St. Christopher. He may have been put back.
 
Nah, Patrick was there in 1969, and always stayed. He’s optional though.
 
ChristopherM said:
Just heard about this tidbit that maybe most of you have heard of was that St. Christopher was deemed not a saint when they redid the calander

source: catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36

Was this an infalliable move should we not venerate or ask for intersession for St. Christopher …er i mean Christopher
Click to expand...
He was merely removed from the Calendar of Saints. No need to throw away your St Christopher medal.
 
No one did and no one would dare remove St. Patrick from the calandar. You’d have heard the Irish screams from Antarctica!

John
 
Actually, Father Bugnini’s Commission recommended that Patrick be cut.
 
AlexV said:
Nah, Patrick was there in 1969, and always stayed. He’s optional though.
Click to expand...
Ah, life before the internet! There was a controversy and I have to think it was some time in the 80s. People were up in arms because St. Christopher and St. Patrick were removed. There were discussions as to whether or not either saint was an historical reality. I wouldn’t even begin to know how to do a search on that but I do remember the outcry. Anyone know how to do this?
 
That reminds me: I’ve never seen a Proper Office for St. Christopher since he’s alway commemorated and only at Lauds. Does anyone have one?
 
Here’s a quote:
Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as follows: “The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased fortifying the Church’s calendar with the inclusion’ of new protectors, penetrate into our churches!”
Click to expand...
Code: 
  John XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints' days with the ferial office. Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing them to "Calvinist principles."
Click to expand...
Code: 
  Dom Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated.
Click to expand...
I won’t post the links, because I don’t like any of the sites (for instance, this site I got this from seems to think Bl. John XXIII was a Jansenist), but you can find them by searching on “St. Patrick Bugnini calendar” in Yahoo! or Google.

John
 
ChristopherM said:
Just heard about this tidbit that maybe most of you have heard of was that St. Christopher was deemed not a saint when they redid the calander

source: catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36

Was this an infalliable move should we not venerate or ask for intersession for St. Christopher …er i mean Christopher
Click to expand...
We have thousands of Saints and only 365 days -52 Sundays = 313 spots on the calendar, they won’t all fit no matter how you look at it, and not all of those are filled either. So someone is going to be left off.
 
John_Higgins said:
Here’s a quote:

I won’t post the links, because I don’t like any of the sites (for instance, this site I got this from seems to think Bl. John XXIII was a Jansenist), but you can find them by searching on “St. Patrick Bugnini calendar” in Yahoo! or Google.

John
Click to expand...
It’s not true. I know some just love to quote Gueranger against the Popes, but the truth is actually that Gueranger was ultramontane to the core- and if the Pope said drop it- he would have.

If we take his criticism then we can also apply it to the motu proprio and subsequent decrees of the Congregation of Rites of St. Pius X- Abhinc Duos Annos- because they also preferred the recitation of the ferial Office to the festal. The Jansenists were extremely rigourous in applying it to both the Lenten and the Sunday Offices- and opposing perpetual occurence of saints on Sunday. This was exactly what St. Pius X aimed to do. This point is conviently forgotten by detractors. If you look at it actually, almost all the reforms of 1960 (except for the new rankings) have a precedent in those proposed in 1914 and in 1720.

I also point out that both St. Pius X and one of his predecessors, Benedict XIV, invoked ancient custom attested by many for the precedence of Lent (e.g. the Council of Laodecia, the 10th Council of Toledo). And the only reason why the breviary was not altered before is because of St. Pius X’s death. If you look, after the new regulations came out, there was a question put to the Congregation of Rites asking whether on a semidouble in Lent, was it preferable to choose the Mass of the feria or of the feast? The answer was that His Holiness wished that the beautiful simplicity and antiquity of the Lenten Masses be preserved and was taking steps to ensure the same.
 
St Christopher is STILL on the Byzantine Calendar.

Please remember that the Roman Calendar is NOT the only one the Church uses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top