What are the Church’s reasons for not formally canonizing Old Testament figures as Saints?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jredden92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jredden92

Guest
“The patriarchs, prophets, and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions” - Catechism of the Catholic Church #61

They are honored as saints but why haven’t they been formally canonized as Saints? Thanks in advance 🙂
 
Last edited:
Because the Church already recognizes the Saints who were already considered Saints before the official process was created.

Before the Canonization process was created and granted solely to the Pope, it used to be granted to the people of the Church. If the people overwhelmingly considered someone to be a Saint, they were granted the status of Saint.

Every single Saint mentioned in the Roman Canon of the Mass was considered a Saint BEFORE the Canonization process was created.

For example The Twelve Apostles, Saint Cecilia, St Lucy, St. Perpetua, St. Felicity, etc. were never canonized via the official canonization process.

Now a few of them were, like St Agatha, were later confirmed to be a Saint by a future Pope, but most of them listed in the Roman Canon of the Mass were never “canonized” by the Pope. This is because the process used to be up to the people, not limited to His Holiness.

Furthermore, Old Testament Saints like Moses and Elijah are both listed in the official Roman Martyrology as Saints. So they are officially considered Saints. Plus, the Maccabees had a feast day (commemoration) has late as the 1962 Missal. So the Maccabee brothers (who are from the Book of Maccabees) are considered Saints.
 
Last edited:
I see. So there was no need to canonize people who were already accepted as Saints by the people. I read canonization being reserved to the Pope in law wasn’t until the 1200s
 
I really feel we need an official answer to this. I am still looking for such.
 
umamibella said:
I really feel we need an official answer to this. I am still looking for such.
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say in No. 61: “The patriarchs, prophets, and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions.”
 
Jbrady said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say in No. 61: “The patriarchs, prophets, and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions.”
Click to expand...
The question is about formal canonization.
 
But we never call them “St. Isaiah” or “St. Elijah.”
 
BartholomewB said:
But we never call them “St. Isaiah” or “St. Elijah.
Click to expand...
In English, not usually. In Latin, yes. Just like any other saint.

Sancte Abraham,
R. ora pro nobis.

Sancte Moyses,
R. ora pro nobis.

Sancte Elia,
R. ora pro nobis.

Sancte Ioannes Baptista,
R. ora pro nobis.

Sancte Ioseph,
R. ora pro nobis.

And in other languages, as well. Polish, German, French and Dutch, for sure. It seems to be a specific of the English language, and it has always puzzled me.
 
Last edited:
Good point, @Jbrady!

A possible explanation that occurs to me is this. In Latin, and in at least some other languages, there is only one word for both “saint” and “holy”. So we can read that as “Holy Abraham, holy Moses (!),” etc., rather than as “saint”.

Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus, Deus exercituum;
plena est omnis terra gloria ejus. (Isaiah 6:3)
https://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa006.htm
 
BartholomewB said:
n Latin, and in at least some other languages, there is only one word for both “saint” and “holy”.
Click to expand...
The odd thing is that English somehow ended up using two different words, both of which originally meant “holy”. “Holy” is Anglo-Saxon, and “Saint” is from the Norman French word for “holy”. It is a linguistic curiosity.
 
As a Latin Catholic, I’m most familiar with St. Elijah aka St. Elias, because as the founder of the Carmelite order he’s celebrated on Carmelite order calendars which I follow.
Like this one where his feast day of July 20 is IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS.

In the Latin Church, the OT patriarchs are more likely to be called names like “Elisha the Prophet”. It doesn’t mean Elisha is somehow less saintly (he wouldn’t have a feast day if he wasn’t a saint), but rather it’s just what he’s called.

In the Eastern Church, the OT prophets are more likely to be called “St. Abraham”, “St. Elisha” etc. It’s just a naming convention, the person is regarded equally as a saint in both Eastern and Western Church as Western Catholics accept all Eastern Catholic saints, although Eastern Church may be more likely to actually commemorate the feast by having it on the official current liturgical calendar. I would note that there are hundreds of saint feast days in the Catholic Church that are not on an official calendar at present, so again that doesn’t mean the person is not considered a saint, or is considered less saintly.
 
Last edited:
Jbrady said:
The odd thing is that English somehow ended up using two different words, both of which originally meant “holy”. “Holy” is Anglo-Saxon, and “Saint” is from the Norman French word for “holy”. It is a linguistic curiosity.
Click to expand...
 
umamibella said:
40.png
Jbrady:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say in No. 61: “The patriarchs, prophets, and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions.”
Click to expand...
The question is about formal canonization.
Click to expand...
I have answered this many times, but you are ignoring my answer.

None of the Apostles ever went through the “formal canonization process.”

None of the Saints mentioned in the Roman Canon of the Mass ever went through the “formal canonization process” either.

So if you have an issue with the Saints who were named Saints before the formal canonization process was created, then you have an issue with the Apostles, St. Lucy, St. Perpetua, St. Cecilia, St. Felicity, etc.

When the “formal canonization process” went into play, the Church continued to recognize the Saints already considered Saints. They didn’t re-canonize them, however a few (like St. Agatha) were confirmed by the Pope if people doubted their Sainthood.
 
Last edited:
Jbrady said:
40.png
BartholomewB:
But we never call them “St. Isaiah” or “St. Elijah.
Click to expand...
In English, not usually. In Latin, yes. Just like any other saint.

Sancte Abraham,
R. ora pro nobis.

Sancte Moyses,
R. ora pro nobis.

Sancte Elia,
R. ora pro nobis.

Sancte Ioannes Baptista,
R. ora pro nobis.

Sancte Ioseph,
R. ora pro nobis.

And in other languages, as well. Polish, German, French and Dutch, for sure. It seems to be a specific of the English language, and it has always puzzled me.
Click to expand...
I’ve always wondered about this myself.

I hate to say it — and maybe this is “just me” — but not to speak of Old Testament figures as “Saint” feels vaguely anti-Semitic to me, or at the very least, “they’re not really ‘saints’, or at least we won’t call them that, because they were never Christians”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top