Theology behind canonization?

[pretzeleater96]

Got into an interesting discussion with my (lapsed Catholic) friend last night. Really made me aware of how little I know about the theology behind saints, canonizations, etc. I did my best to defend the faith but would appreciate some (name removed by moderator)ut on the following questions:

1.) Biblical basis for the Church being able to identify saints in heaven specifically (or does this fall under the umbrella on overall Church authority, etc.)?

2.) Can someone be uncanonized, unbeatified, etc.?

3.) Is it possible that a holy person could have secretly committed mortal sin before death that was unknown to everyone but the person/God and their cause be advanced to the brink of beatification or something? Is the “only” safeguard against that the direction of the Holy Spirit?

4.) Why is it important to name people as saints and definitively in heaven? Why can’t they just be people who lived virtuous lives, are PROBABLY in heaven (though we don’t know for sure), but are still worth venerating and emulating? My understanding is the canonization process is an infallible statement that declares that they’re IN HEAVEN, not “just” that they led virtuous lives.

5.) Why can someone be said to be in heaven, but similarly nobody is said definitively to be in hell? What’s the difference in those statements?

You see how weak and unenlightened my faith is…any help will be appreciated. Pax.

 

[Vico]

…

We know because of revelation that heaven is not empty and hell is not empty (Matt 25, 46) for the determination is made at the particular judgment.

Catechism

828 By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors. 303 “The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church’s history.” 304 Indeed, “holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal.” 305

303 Cf. Lumen gentium 40; 48-51.
304 John Paul II, Christifideles laici 16,3.
305 Christifideles laici 17, 3.

Catholic Encyclopedia

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. … This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification,

Beccari, C. (1907). Beatification and Canonization. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

 

[InThePew]

1.) Biblical basis for the Church being able to identify saints in heaven specifically (or does this fall under the umbrella on overall Church authority, etc.)?

Generally Church authority as far as the declaration goes since the Church doesn’t “make saints” but instead declares an existing fact.

2 .) Can someone be uncanonized, unbeatified, etc.?

No.

3.) Is it possible that a holy person could have secretly committed mortal sin before death that was unknown to everyone but the person/God and their cause be advanced to the brink of beatification or something? Is the “only” safeguard against that the direction of the Holy Spirit?

The answer to your last question is yes. However, simply having committed a mortal sin isn’t what’s important, since every saint was a sinner, rather they key question is their reputation for holiness amongst the people of God.

4.) Why is it important to name people as saints and definitively in heaven? Why can’t they just be people who lived virtuous lives, are PROBABLY in heaven (though we don’t know for sure), but are still worth venerating and emulating? My understanding is the canonization process is an infallible statement that declares that they’re IN HEAVEN, not “just” that they led virtuous lives.

Canonisation (probably) isn’t infallible but the importance of the person being in heaven is their ability to intercede for us.

5.) Why can someone be said to be in heaven, but similarly nobody is said definitively to be in hell? What’s the difference in those statements?

The difference is that the second is a statement about the mercy of God - no one can ever be said to be beyond redemption (note though that that’s not the same as saying hell is empty).

 

[tafan2]

In addition to Father’s excellent answers, I will add one thought.

1.) Biblical basis for the Church being able to identify saints in heaven specifically (or does this fall under the umbrella on overall Church authority, etc.)?

Perhaps there is no biblical basis, but it has a basis in tradition that likely goes all the way back to the time of the apostles. Early Christians were know to generate the burial sites of holy people very early on.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Early Christians were know to generate the burial sites of holy people very early on

Yes the veneration of relics is reported in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (2nd century AD).

 

[po18guy]

The Apostles did not need “biblical texts” for anything. Theophilus did not. Luke wrote his Gospel for Theophilus only to confirm what had been taught orally.

However, look at Revelation 5:8, and Tobit 12. Both the Saints and the Archangels bear our prayers to the throne.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The early church’s first acclaimed saints worthy of veneration were martyrs such as the protomartyr St Stephen, all the early popes, apostles and thousands others who were martyred for their faith. The bishop decided the case of martyrs determining if they died for the faith and led the proper life, etc, etc. Bishops would disseminate the information to other churches for their veneration. In the language of the Church the birthday of the saint was the day they went to heaven. So you will see some early church fathers describe the day as birthday honors etc. The canonization process slowly grew out of that to be a more formalized process as time went on. The introduction of confessors who died peacefully but led a life of heroic virtue required even more discernment and only came later (if one doesn’t count St. John who is kind of a special case being an apostle who suffered poisoned wine and being dipped in boiling oil, and yet lived)

 

[OldCAFMember]

In addition to Father’s excellent answers, I will add one thought.

pretzeleater96:

1.) Biblical basis for the Church being able to identify saints in heaven specifically (or does this fall under the umbrella on overall Church authority, etc.)?

Perhaps there is no biblical basis, but it has a basis in tradition that likely goes all the way back to the time of the apostles. Early Christians were know to generate the burial sites of holy people very early on.

Of course there is a biblical basis. Our Lord gave Peter and his successors the right to bind and loose. Matthew 16:18-19

 

[tafan2]

I am not saying you are wrong, but I have never read a commentary that applies that verse to canonization. And it seems to come close to implying that when the Church canonizes a saint, it is performing the judgement on that particular soul reserved to God. Again, I could be off base. And perhaps there is just too much of a protestant mentality embedded in this cradle Catholic’s mind due to the surrounding culture of where I grew up.

 

[OldCAFMember]

I am not saying you are wrong, but I have never read a commentary that applies that verse to canonization. And it seems to come close to implying that when the Church canonizes a saint, it is performing the judgement on that particular soul reserved to God. Again, I could be off base. And perhaps there is just too much of a protestant mentality embedded in this cradle Catholic’s mind due to the surrounding culture of where I grew up.

Here is a citation from St. Thomas Aquinas: Are Canonizations Infallible? | Catholic Answers.

The Church is not making a judgment as to a soul’s final disposition, Rather, she is simply declaring that the soul is enjoying the beatific vision, and is worthy of veneration by the faithful. The Church has done so through various processes since almost the beginning, as part of her authority.

 

[pretzeleater96]

Thank you (and thanks to everyone else, too) for your feedback! I’d like to follow up on a couple points briefly to help my understanding. I never realized just how little I understood about this.

1.) It seems like it’s up for debate that a canonization is infallible, is that correct? Or maybe a better way to phrase it is a canonization is infallible, but ‘a canonization is infallible’ is not an infallible teaching/set dogma? Would that be accurate?

2.) I saw an article recently where the Bishop of Peoria, IL called for a novena for Venerable Sheen’s cause to continue.

What exactly is going on here? Fulton Sheen is either in Heaven or he’s not “already” (need to use temporal terms so I don’t know how else to phrase that). So the purpose of the novena isn’t for his soul to reach heaven. The purpose of the novena would be…asking the Lord for the Church and faithful to receive sufficient insight that lets them know he IS in Heaven so his cause can continue to be promoted and thus his example celebrated? Does that sound accurate?

I think what I’m especially having trouble wrapping my head around is how “political” canonizations can seem and to what extent worldly forces move them and to what extent spiritual forces do. Also I’ve been looking around online and have been having difficulty finding anything definitive and substantial on canonization as several things I’ve read seem contradictory (like the infallibility aspect, for example).

But thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[pretzeleater96]

Hi thank you for your response. Since I’m not very learned in the vocabulary, is what Aquinas saying when he says “a belief in the glory of the saints” = the part that says the soul is enjoying the beatific vision, but =/= they’re in Heaven? Could you please explain the difference or provide links? I’m unfamiliar with the phrase “beatific vision” and its significance.

Thank you!!!

 

[pretzeleater96]

I like your point about Theophilius. But actually (and I’m not trying to argue) as I was thinking about this I mentally stumbled onto a passage that actually kinda DOES support the concept of saints in Heaven at least interceding for us. I was reminded of Luke 16:22-31:

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

This sure sounds a lot like what we’d call the intercession of saints to me, doesn’t it? And note that Abraham does not say “Lazarus has not the power” he just sort of dismisses the rich man’s pleas. Am I stretching this passage too far or does this seem like it would support the Catholic concept of sainthood and the potential of intercession of saints? These were words of Christ Himself!

EDIT: Ok sorry, maybe not “dismisses” his pleas, but rebukes him maybe?

 

[InThePew]

1.) It seems like it’s up for debate that a canonization is infallible, is that correct? Or maybe a better way to phrase it is a canonization is infallible, but ‘a canonization is infallible’ is not an infallible teaching/set dogma? Would that be accurate?

I’m not sure I’d say it’s up for debate since, as Catholics, we’re not required to believe that St X is in heaven. The issue is more around whether the Church could be wrong when it declares X a saint - basically, what if it turns out later on that he was actually quite evil?

I saw an article recently where the Bishop of Peoria, IL called for a novena for Venerable Sheen’s cause to continue. What exactly is going on here? Fulton Sheen is either in Heaven or he’s not “already” (need to use temporal terms so I don’t know how else to phrase that).

Canonisation is declaratory - in other words, the Church doesn’t make saints she declares a pre-existing fact (that X is in heaven). So Sheen may well be in heaven (obviously we don’t know) but what being prayed for is that the process to formally declare and recognise his sanctity (i.e. holiness) will continue. Sainthood isn’t as much about where a person’s soul may or may not be as much as it is about veneration by the living - canonisation is intended to help the living not the dead!

I think what I’m especially having trouble wrapping my head around is how “political” canonizations can seem and to what extent worldly forces move them and to what extent spiritual forces do.

A bit of both to be honest. Any cause for canonisation has to pass through the process (which is itself not dogmatic - it can and has been altered significantly over the centuries) including, in particular recognition of miracles and those responsible for investigating causes at the Congregation for Causes of Saints take their job very seriously. At the same time, “political” interests can speed up or slow down the progress of a cause. For example, St Oscar Romero’s cause was delayed because of the political situation in El Salvador. On the other hand, a forthcoming Papal visit to X Land might see the case of Venerable Y from there moved up the list so that the Pope can (hopefully) beatify them while he’s there.

An excellent book on the subject is Making Saints by Kenneth Woodward

 

[pretzeleater96]

Thank you for this great response! I’m super interested in checking out this book now. One final question (I think…) per your first point:

I’m not sure I’d say it’s up for debate since, as Catholics, we’re not required to believe that St X is in heaven.

Hopefully I’m not splitting hairs, but is it possible for the pope to canonize St. X, yet some of the faithful reject the claim and disagree (for whatever reason) and still be in full communion with the Church? Would that not be a sin or a departure from the Church’s teachings, similar to someone engaging in birth control, etc.? Aren’t we bound to accept something like this? Sorry for all the questions, recipient of inadequate catechesis as a kid here (which I’m trying to now remedy as an adult).

Thanks again!!!

EDIT again: sorry I’m new to the forum and don’t think I originally posted this as a reply to your post.

 

[po18guy]

Quite right… That is a parable and, while there is zero evidence than any of the parables represented actual persons or situations - the principle our Lord teaches through this parable clearly shows that those who are “dead” can (and therefore do) intercede for us.

 

[InThePew]

Hopefully I’m not splitting hairs, but is it possible for the pope to canonize St. X, yet some of the faithful reject the claim and disagree (for whatever reason) and still be in full communion with the Church? Would that not be a sin or a departure from the Church’s teachings

Actually, having re-read my post I think I’m the one splitting hairs! Canonisation (but notably not beatification or the preceding miracle/s) is something which “negative infallibility” applies to - that is, the protection of the Church from falling into error and/or leading the faithful astray. So denial of a person’s sainthood runs up against this and would be a departure from the Church’s teaching as well as causing difficulties around celebration of that saint in the liturgy. Is it sinful - well yes, anything which sets us apart from the Church or fosters ill will towards it is sinful. Is it the same as something like birth control, no.