Revoking Sainthood

[hilde_the_dog]

This came up the other day whether the Church could make somebody a Saint only to realize latter that the person was not a saint. I argued that the pope was infallable on this matter and that the Holy Spirit would not let the Church select nonsaint person as worthy of veneration. But that made me wonder – has it ever happened and did I argue correctly.

 

[Trelow]

Not possible.

 

[Scottgun]

I don’t know if the pope is infallible, but more importantly, he is authoritative. Having the power to bind and loose people from sins (and any temporal punishment due I think) is actual. That is, pope says saint, that person is a saint. Saints do not get revoked, however some are taken off the liturgical calender for various reasons.

Scott

 

[bear06]

Yes, canonizations have always been considered to be infallible.

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

 

[batteddy]

But canonizations have only been a Papal act since the 1100’s.

Before that, Saints were proclaimed by popular acclaim or local bishops. Nowadays these might just be called “Servant of God” or something…and yet the Pope didn’t “recanonize” everyone in 1100.

It’s sort of like an “ordinary magisterium” type thing…the Pope may have centralized Saint-making…but he recognized all the Saints of the centuries before, recognized that they were always venerated, and they are on the liturgical calendar. Maybe more like a “cultus confirmed” declaration for these before 1100. They were tacitly accepted by the Pope by their continued inclusion in the Martyrology etc…(in that way, they would be more equivalent to the cultus-confirmed type of *Blessed *like Charlamagne or John Duns Scotus)

 

[plato3]

There have been some cases raised about not having enough evidence to support that certain early saints actually existed. Some early legends were treated as fact. Rather than revoke sainthood, this information was made available to the faithful. The Church is careful in stating the facts that they have. There is a great effort not to lead anyone astray. Some folks got very upset, when this info came out. It was never said, however, that you could not believe in a saint that has a sketchy background.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This came up the other day whether the Church could make somebody a Saint only to realize latter that the person was not a saint. I argued that the pope was infallable on this matter and that the Holy Spirit would not let the Church select nonsaint person as worthy of veneration. But that made me wonder – has it ever happened and did I argue correctly.

At least once, it has.​

Simon of Trent, a boy who was allegedly murdered by a Jewish physician at Trent in N. Italy, died in 1475
In 1588 he was canonised by Sixtus V
In 1965, all veneration was abolished.

Little St. Hugh of Lincoln - not to be confused with the sainted bishop of the same name & place - & William of Norwich are other examples of children allegedly murdered by Jews for their blood, so that the blood could be used in Passover matzos; there is not one single verified example of this accusation, the “blood libel”, which in any case displays total ignorance of Jewish practice. ##

 

[BBoy]

Benedict XVI said that on this matter of canonization, the Church could not fall into error

 

[atsheeran]

At least once, it has.​

Simon of Trent, a boy who was allegedly murdered by a Jewish physician at Trent in N. Italy, died in 1475
In 1588 he was canonised by Sixtus V
In 1965, all veneration was abolished.

No, Simon of Trent was not canonized. His cultus was confirmed. This is roughly equivalent to modern beatification.

 

[bear06]

At least once, it has.​

Simon of Trent, a boy who was allegedly murdered by a Jewish physician at Trent in N. Italy, died in 1475
In 1588 he was canonised by Sixtus V
In 1965, all veneration was abolished.

Little St. Hugh of Lincoln - not to be confused with the sainted bishop of the same name & place - & William of Norwich are other examples of children allegedly murdered by Jews for their blood, so that the blood could be used in Passover matzos; there is not one single verified example of this accusation, the “blood libel”, which in any case displays total ignorance of Jewish practice. ##

He was beatified in 1588, not canonized from what I’ve read. Public cultis was confirmed in 1588 and this is just one of the steps to canonization, not canonization itself. It appears this is the same for William of Norwich.