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.
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”.
Or maybe it is carried over from the earliest days of the church where many of the first Christians were Jews themselves and simply kept referring to these people as Moses or Elijah because saying Saint Moses or Saint Elijah was not really a “thing” yet. No need to call the Church anti-semetic when simpler, more likely, answers will do.
 
How do you decide who is a saint and who isn’t? Would you extend that courtesy to all the prophets, including St. Obadiah and St. Joel?

What about St. Samuel?
 
If they’re in the Roman Martyrology, they are officially saints.

Also, is there any reason to think particular patriarchs shown in the OT as living a holy life would not be saints? Answer: no.
 
Last edited:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
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”.
Or maybe it is carried over from the earliest days of the church where many of the first Christians were Jews themselves and simply kept referring to these people as Moses or Elijah because saying Saint Moses or Saint Elijah was not really a “thing” yet. No need to call the Church anti-semetic when simpler, more likely, answers will do.
I did not call the Church anti-Semitic. Clearly she is not. I just said that it “feels vaguely anti-Semitic to me”. I said “feels”, not “is”.

Sometimes words (or omission of words) have an unintended effect on the listener. For instance, I have never liked the phrase in the Mass “will become for us the Body and Blood of Christ”. This could be interpreted as saying “It only becomes the Body and Blood of Christ for us, because of our faith in It” , and/or “It is not really the Body and Blood of Christ, we just believe It is, and thus It only becomes the Body and Blood of Christ in our own minds”. It is the Body and Blood of Christ regardless of what you, or I, or anybody else, might “believe” or “not believe”.
 
I did not call the Church anti-Semitic. Clearly she is not. I just said that it “ feels vaguely anti-Semitic to me ”. I said “feels”, not “is”.

Sometimes words (or omission of words) have an unintended effect on the listener. For instance, I have never liked the phrase in the Mass “will become for us the Body and Blood of Christ”. This could be interpreted as saying “It only becomes the Body and Blood of Christ for us, because of our faith in It” , and/or “It is not really the Body and Blood of Christ, we just believe It is, and thus It only becomes the Body and Blood of Christ in our own minds”. It is the Body and Blood of Christ regardless of what you, or I, or anybody else, might “believe” or “not believe”.
I think you’re overthinking in both cases.
While the “feels like anti-semitic” stuff It makes no sense, even after a brief experience with the Catholic Church, a person should have the impression that the Saints of the Old Testament are extremely honoured and loved by us. As to the “will become for us” it means “us”, as a human species, whose redemption could only be done by human-God Jesus. Like: his Sacrifice was literally done for us. Not for any other purpose. It is also said this way to emphasise our gratitude. Now through His Body and Blood we partake in it. Simple as that, no need to complicating 😉
 
Last edited:
and “Saint” is from the Norman French word for “holy”. It is a linguistic curiosity.
Much like how like the term “Holy” in Spanish is “Santo” and in modern French is literally “Saint.”

The Norman conquest of England hugely shaped that English language.
 
Last edited:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
I did not call the Church anti-Semitic. Clearly she is not. I just said that it “ feels vaguely anti-Semitic to me ”. I said “feels”, not “is”.
Sometimes words (or omission of words) have an unintended effect on the listener. For instance, I have never liked the phrase in the Mass “will become for us the Body and Blood of Christ”. This could be interpreted as saying “It only becomes the Body and Blood of Christ for us, because of our faith in It” , and/or “It is not really the Body and Blood of Christ, we just believe It is, and thus It only becomes the Body and Blood of Christ in our own minds”. It is the Body and Blood of Christ regardless of what you, or I, or anybody else, might “believe” or “not believe”.
I think you’re overthinking in both cases.
While the “feels like anti-semitic” stuff It makes no sense, even after a brief experience with the Catholic Church, a person should have the impression that the Saints of the Old Testament are extremely honoured and loved by us. As to the “will become for us” it means “us”, as a human species, whose redemption could only be done by human-God Jesus. Like: his Sacrifice was literally done for us. Not for any other purpose. It is also said this way to emphasise our gratitude. Now through His Body and Blood we partake in it. Simple as that, no need to complicating 😉
Then perhaps I am the only person, since the introduction of the new liturgies (not sure, without running to look it up in the TLM missal I don’t have at hand right at the moment, whether the TLM says “pro nobis”), to hear these words and say “wait a minute — ‘for us’ — what’s that supposed to mean?”.
 
Then perhaps I am the only person… to hear these words and say “wait a minute — ‘ for us ’ — what’s that supposed to mean?”.
Hey do not worry, thinking about such things and reflecting on exactly what words we say is very good (to speak them as consciously/knowingly/wholeheartedly as possible).

But to think about such things they should be approached with humility and understanding that these words used during Mass and not others were used by inspiration of Holy Ghost; As the least likely possibility I would consider Holy Magisterium of the Church establishing particular wording for the ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘anti-inclusive’ (and any other ‘-anti’) purpose or consequently, any malicious purpose. Once again, Catholicism is characterised by beautiful simplicity. I would especially hesitate approaching that this way in our times, when many looks at the past through the lens of today’s social justice, and when present is the overwhelming desire to change everything to ‘more inclusive’ and outrage when someone does not want to do so.
 
Last edited:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Then perhaps I am the only person… to hear these words and say “wait a minute — ‘ for us ’ — what’s that supposed to mean?”.
Hey do not worry, thinking about such things and reflecting on exactly what words we say is very good (to speak them as consciously/knowingly/wholeheartedly as possible).

But to think about such things they should be approached with humility and understanding that these words used during Mass and not others were used by inspiration of Holy Ghost; As the least likely possibility I would consider Holy Magisterium of the Church establishing particular wording for the ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘anti-inclusive’ (and any other ‘-anti’) purpose or consequently, any malicious purpose. Once again, Catholicism is characterised by beautiful simplicity. I would especially hesitate approaching that this way in our times, when many looks at the past through the lens of today’s social justice, and when present is the overwhelming desire to change everything to ‘more inclusive’ and outrage when someone does not want to do so.
The corresponding prayer in the TLM is “ut nobis”, which Father Stedman translates as “for our good”. The Roman Canon of the post-1969 Mass is identical in the original Latin.

“For our good” is actually a freer translation than “for us”, so now that I know this, I am at peace with “for us”, in that I always prefer as slavish a translation from the Latin as possible. Doctrinal precision is more important than elegance.

We learn something new every day, and you can never know too much about the liturgy.
 
The question is about formal canonization.
That’s already been answered, though.

Formal canonization started quite a way into the history of the Church.

The Apostles and the martyrs of the early centuries have never been formally canonized, either, because they died and were venerated long before formal canonization was a thing.

It’s like asking if there was a conclave of cardinals with the white smoke and all to elect St. Linus as Pope. That process came later.
 
Some traditions do give them the title saint. And some of them have feast days… for the Carmelites, Saint Elijah gets a solemnity!
 
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
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”.
Or maybe it is carried over from the earliest days of the church where many of the first Christians were Jews themselves and simply kept referring to these people as Moses or Elijah because saying Saint Moses or Saint Elijah was not really a “thing” yet. No need to call the Church anti-semetic when simpler, more likely, answers will do.
No. It’s an English thing because many other languages refer to them as St Moses, St Elijah.

My guess is that it might have something to do with Protestantism. After all, most English speakers were always Protestant since the time of the Protestant Revolt in England.
 
When I think of the great Patriarch, the title that naturally comes to mind is “Father Abraham”. That strikes me as almost a great honorific than “Saint Abraham”.
 
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”.
Or maybe the other way around. They’re not called “saint” in Judaism, which (afaik) doesn’t have the idea of “sainthood”. Only God is holy, as in Isaiah 6:3, “Holy, holy, holy …”.

So for Christians to start saying (and writing) “St. Moses” and “St. Abraham” might appear to be telling the Jews, “Look, we’re correcting your mistake for you!”
 
Ok here is another question, if we say the reason is
Formal canonization started quite a way into the history of the Church.
What is the reason that canonization is not applicable to those who lived before the formal process of canonization was in place?
Afterall, what Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, what Peter looses on earth is loosed in heaven.

given
Also, is there any reason to think particular patriarchs shown in the OT as living a holy life would not be saints? Answer: no.
That is my real question. What is the official answer to this

Some good points have been raised so far.
 
Last edited:
hat is my real question. What is the official answer to this
Catechism (CCC 61)
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.
Wikipedia has a list of all the Old Covenant saints in the Roman Martyrology, and their feast days. I think all the OT prophets and patriarchs you’d expect to see are there. Except I think they forgot Elijah aka Elias, but he has a feast day on July 20 in both the Eastern Catholic Church and the Carmelite Order.

 
Last edited:
I understand about honouring of saints. Thats fine. I understand that there was no formal process for canonization before a certain date in the church. My question is (here is another way of putting it)
Could Old Testament peoples be retroactively canonized formally by the church or is there some reason they can not.
Maybe a Canon Lawyer would know the answer to this?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top