The Infallibility of Canonization?

[scameter18]

If the Pope declares a deceased person to be canonized, to be considered a saint residing in Heavenly Beatitude, is this declaration infallible? Or is it possible that the person is not actually a saint, and that the Pope/Magisterium erred in their judgment? Thank you all and God bless.

 

[rossum]

If the Pope declares a deceased person to be canonized, to be considered a saint residing in Heavenly Beatitude, is this declaration infallible? Or is it possible that the person is not actually a saint, and that the Pope/Magisterium erred in their judgment? Thank you all and God bless.

I cannot say what the status of the modern canonization procedure is. The less formal processes used in the past were subject to error; witness all those saints removed or downgraded some years ago.

The most obvious example of an error in the old system is that the Catholic Church canonized the Buddha as Saint Josaphat. Good for ecumenical relations, certainly, and in many ways a good example to follow but not, I think, the kind of person normally thought of as a Catholic Saint.

rossum

 

[1ke]

witness all those saints removed or downgraded some years ago.

Since you are not Catholic, perhaps you do not understand that changes to the liturgical calendar to celebrate one Saint’s feast day over another is not a “removal” or a “downgrade”. Since there are only 365 days in a year, it is not possible to celebrate every Saint’s day liturgically. In the revision of the calendar, the Church chose to change certain feast days to celebrate different Saints. The Saints no longer celebrated on the liturgical calendar are still Saints. They are neither removed nor downgraded. Their feast day is not celebrated liturgically, that is all.

The most obvious example of an error in the old system is that the Catholic Church canonized the Buddha as Saint Josaphat.

Nonsense.

The real St. Josephat was archbishop in Lithuania in the 1500/1600s.

The legend/Christian story of Josephat and Balaam is just that, a legend/story.

 

[1ke]

The less formal processes used in the past

Also, keep in mind that where local bishops decreed the ability to venerate a person publically that was not confirmed by the Pope-- i.e. the “old method”-- these individuals should really be considered beatified rather than canonized.

 

[1ke]

If the Pope declares a deceased person to be canonized, to be considered a saint residing in Heavenly Beatitude, is this declaration infallible? Or is it possible that the person is not actually a saint, and that the Pope/Magisterium erred in their judgment? Thank you all and God bless.

That has not been definitively defined by the Church.

Most theologians agree “yes” it is infallible, others call it “theologically certain” as it does not deal with the Deposit of Faith (which would be the strict definition of infallibility).

And, there are mixed opinions on whether or not beatification is infallible or not.

 

[rossum]

Since you are not Catholic, perhaps you do not understand that changes to the liturgical calendar to celebrate one Saint’s feast day over another is not a “removal” or a “downgrade”. Since there are only 365 days in a year, it is not possible to celebrate every Saint’s day liturgically. In the revision of the calendar, the Church chose to change certain feast days to celebrate different Saints. The Saints no longer celebrated on the liturgical calendar are still Saints. They are neither removed nor downgraded. Their feast day is not celebrated liturgically, that is all.

Thank you for the correction.

The real St. Josephat was archbishop in Lithuania in the 1500/1600s.

The legend/Christian story of Josephat and Balaam is just that, a legend/story.

The Lithuanian Saint Josaphat, feast day around 12 November, was named after the earlier Saint Josaphat (= Bodhisattva), feast day 27 November. I suggest that you follow the link I gave to the Article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

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).

– Catholic Encyclopedia: Barlaam and Josaphat

rossum

 

[thistle]

If the Pope declares a deceased person to be canonized, to be considered a saint residing in Heavenly Beatitude, is this declaration infallible? Or is it possible that the person is not actually a saint, and that the Pope/Magisterium erred in their judgment? Thank you all and God bless.

Quote from a very good EWTN article on canonization:

“Canonization is the final and irreformable judgment of the Church, and therefore we are bound, as her dutiful children, to believe that saints duly canonized are in Heaven.”

ewtn.com/library/mary/canonize.htm

If canonization is “final and irreformable” then it is infallible.

 

[scameter18]

Thank you all for your help, I appreciate it. God bless.

 

[Genesis315]

Canonizations are considered dogmatic facts, which the Church teaches infallibly. Here is a good, brief, explanation of dogmatic facts: newadvent.org/cathen/05092a.htm

The canonization rite says this:

Most Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord’s promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the saints.

Also, this instruction by the CDF includes canonizations as infallible:

CDF:

1. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”.14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

1. The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth.
2. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).
   —[listing examples of things from the second paragraph]:

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …37

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

Also, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints describes it this way:
Congregation for the Causes of Saints:

Canonization is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

This is expressed unequivocally in the formula: “Ad honorem Sanctae et Individuae Trnitatis… auctoritate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra… Beatum N. N. Sanctum esse decernimus ac definimus, ac Sanctorum Catalogo adscribimus, statuentes eum in universa Ecclesia inter Sanctos pia devotione recoli debere”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20050929_saraiva-martins-beatif_en.html

It should be noted, that infalliblity only extends to whether the person is in Heaven, not to any particular facts of the persons life, etc. Likewise, infallbility is not tied to any particular procedure, but rather rests solely on a definitive act of the Supreme Authority (many different procedures have been used over history–Saints such as Thomas More and John Fisher, have even been canonized without evidence of miracles).

 

[scameter18]

Thank you for the elaboration, that is quite helpful and definitively answers my question. God bless.