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’m really not sure what is being debated or asked as a question. There was certainly formal canonization in the early Church. St Augustine details the canonical committees established by local ordinaries for investigating causes for saints. But I think this might have been the exception, and I would imagine most cults of saints largely persisted as popular acclamation.

We do have examples of ‘equipollent papal canonisations’, that is, an act of the Pope that confirms (or authenticates) the sainthood of those who were already widely venerated on a local basis. For example, Pope Leo XIII ‘equipollently’ (what a word!) canonised St Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) by introducing his commemoration into the Roman Martyrology in 1882.
 
umamibella said:
You are negating my question. It is nothing like what you are proposing.

Have a nice day
Click to expand...
Do you actually understand the canonization process?

Two miracles are required. Miracles under the canonization process are thoroughly and extensively investigated.
How would anyone today be able to investigate two alleged miracles prior to 993 AD.
 
Bithynian said:
We do have examples of ‘equipollent papal canonisations’
Click to expand...
I am attempting to make a clear question , obviously not well.
I did read of those canonisations. Equipollent being equal in force, power or validity. I dont think thats really covering it, but would need further research as to the limitations of that form. This form, from my understanding, is authenticating those in local culture already venerated and well known.
They , as saints, could already equate to those honoured as saints (per the cc entry) strictly speaking perhaps.Thats my sticking point with equipollent canonisation.

But this form Equipollent could well have no cut off date, no use by date, and potentially contain the power to investigate all comers.

Thankyou for not dismissing this.
Montrose said:
Do you actually understand the canonization process?

Two miracles are required. Miracles under the canonization process are thoroughly and extensively investigated.
How would anyone today be able to investigate two alleged miracles prior to 993 AD.
Click to expand...

I direct you to the last paragraph and Pope John XXIII. Saint Pope John XXIII and Saint Pope John Paul II were both canonised on Divine Mercy Sunday, 2014.
The entire article is a good read though.
 
Last edited:
umamibella said:
I am attempting to make a clear question
Click to expand...
Is your question whether there is a certain date at which point the Church will not utilise the current judicial methodology for canonisation? If that is your question, then I would not think there is a de jure timeframe, but de facto there probably is as the present judicial requirements are likely unfeasible for the majority of pre-modern saints whose lives are otherwise attested only sparsely by contemporaries.

I imagine that the Holy See avails itself of equipollent canonisation where the cult of the saint is sufficiently longstanding, as it was for St Cyril of Alexandria and St Hildegard of Bingen: the latter died in 1179 and was canonised some 900 years later in 2012. Yet you have a figure like St Amato Ranconi, who died in 1279 but underwent the present judicial process for canonisation in 2014 . Although St Ranconi was previously declared beatus some three centuries prior.
 
Look. What does “canonization” actually mean?

It means “a process for putting people into commemoration in the Masses of the Church.” Another way to put this is “raised to the altars.” People who are formally known as saints are included in the calendar of Masses and the Mass prayers on their days.

Well, are the patriarchs and matriarchs already included in the calendar and the Mass prayers?

Yes. Yes, they are. Heck, guys like Abel, Abraham, Methusaleh, et al, are mentioned all the time in the prayers of the Mass.

Well, then, they are already canon-ed, and do not need to be canon-ized.
 
Oh, and to respond to another question:

If, say, we suddenly found out a whole bunch of stuff about a known or unknown early Christian figure, it would be possible to canonize that person.

For example, my dude Apponius. All we know about him is that he wrote a wonderful commentary on Song of Songs.

If it turned out that he was an awesome martyr, etc., it wouldn’t be necessary to canonize him, because he’d be a pre-conciliar martyr. It would be very likely that he would already be included in one of the feasts for whole batches of martyrs (like “Martyrs of Nicomedia,” which is probably thousands of people).

If it turned out that he lived a long and holy life, again he might already be included in some group of saints that we know about. If not, the historical information would probably include “and this is when we celebrate him”, if it came from a Christian source. And again, that would count as being a pre-conciliar saint.

If information came from a purely pagan source, and we had no reason to believe that the Christian community ever found out about his sainthood, and if he wasn’t a martyr, that’s when you would get into equipollent canonization, etc.
 
Bithynian said:
Is your question whether there is a certain date at which point the Church will not utilise the current judicial methodology for canonisation? If that is your question, then I would not think there is a de jure timeframe, but de facto there probably is as the present judicial requirements are likely unfeasible for the majority of pre-modern saints whose lives are otherwise attested only sparsely by contemporaries.
Click to expand...
Yes! Thankyou for getting what I am asking.

I found this an interesting read from the point of correcting the situation on Philomena.


Especially this " when the former Congregation for Rites granted permission for local commemoration in 1837 of Philomena on a set feast day this did not constitute canonisation (or with a z canonization)"

“Only the Holy Father has the personal authority to canonise…
the mere insertion of a feast day , (as used to happen) into the liturgical calendar does not equal sainthood”

The feast day argument was raised earlier on this thread. I went looking for verified evidence that all people with feast days are automatically to be considered canonised saints, under the ‘honoured’ thematic.
Tis_Bearself said:
Yes we do. St. Elijah has a feast day on some calendars and he is called St. Elijah.
Click to expand...
My question is purely approachable from the legal and official aspects of the church. The example in the link in this post and in your link about equipollent papal canonisation is on point rather then links posted on a less official thematic shall we say. This link on Philomena makes the word ‘papal’ in your link quite crucial.

Maybe my question ( different from the OP) is simply put as is there a set time or date in history before which a Holy Father loses his authority to canonize, and the requirement to answer this question is to look into whats found in canon law and different Constitution documents and authority.

Thankyou too @Mintaka for responding to the questions on equipollent papal canonization that Bithynian raised.
 
Last edited:
umamibella said:
40.png
Montrose:
You have been given the answers to your question.
Click to expand...
I seek a yes or no answer , a time period, a date, to a simple question.
Is there legally (Canon law) a date/time period in history
before which, a person cannot be formerly canonized. As of the time of posting this, it has not been answered in any link posted. I do appreciate all the links being posted

It seems to be, in retrospect, a very difficult question for which to find a concrete answer.

If I have missed it, feel free to quote the section I missed.
Click to expand...
What you are asking for doesn’t exists. Canon Law doesn’t work that way. It’s based on Roman Law, which is VERY different from English Law (and the descendants of English Law: American, Canadian, Australian, etc)

As vast as Canon Law is, its not all encompassing
 
umamibella said:
What about people who have not been honored as saints, could they be formally canonized , those who lived prior to 993 AD
Click to expand...
People who lived before 993 and who were not considered Saints would need to go though the formal canonization process.

Origen is a great example. He was never considered a Saint, even though he has some great writings. If he were to be considered a Saint in the future (which is doubtful) he would need go though the formal process.
 
I would say that people who were well-known in history, but not venerated as saints, would have a marked uphill climb to be canonized through a formal process. (That formal process includes steps: Servant of God, Venerable, Blessed, Saint.) I think at some point in the formal process, a lot of rational people would question: why was this person never popularly acclaimed as a saint before 993? What did we know then, what do we know now, and how has it substantively changed?

Saint Philomena is a very special case - she is a martyr unknown to the world until her discovery in the 19th century. Her life is only known through visionaries. There just wouldn’t be many martyrs like her that the Church could subject to a formal process.

35 Popes were canonized in the Church until Liberius was not. I can see a case being made for some more early Popes being canonized for whatever reason. That might be the most likely scenario of “well known person, pre-993, formal canonization process.” But I would say that the Church, in her prudence, simply won’t do anything like this. It is illogical and unecumenical.
 
Anesti33 said:
I would say that people who were well-known in history, but not venerated as saints, would have a marked uphill climb to be canonized through a formal process. (That formal process includes steps: Servant of God, Venerable, Blessed, Saint.) I think at some point in the formal process, a lot of rational people would question: why was this person never popularly acclaimed as a saint before 993? What did we know then, what do we know now, and how has it substantively changed?

Saint Philomena is a very special case - she is a martyr unknown to the world until her discovery in the 19th century. Her life is only known through visionaries. There just wouldn’t be many martyrs like her that the Church could subject to a formal process.

35 Popes were canonized in the Church until Liberius was not. I can see a case being made for some more early Popes being canonized for whatever reason. That might be the most likely scenario of “well known person, pre-993, formal canonization process.” But I would say that the Church, in her prudence, simply won’t do anything like this. It is illogical and unecumenical.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this
 
phil19034 said:
What you are asking for doesn’t exists. Canon Law doesn’t work that way. It’s based on Roman Law, which is VERY different from English Law (and the descendants of English Law: American, Canadian, Australian, etc)

As vast as Canon Law is, its not all encompassing
Click to expand...
Please read my links .
 
umamibella said:
40.png
Anesti33:
Saint Philomena is a very special case
Click to expand...
The Vatican has been pretty explicit on her case, please read my link.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I am quite familiar; our parish has a statue in the sanctuary, a 1st-class relic, and thrice-yearly Masses in her honor. In fact we’ve hosted the rector of her Italian shrine.
 
Anesti33 said:
Thanks, I am quite familiar; our parish has a statue in the sanctuary, a 1st-class relic, and thrice-yearly Masses in her honor. In fact we’ve hosted the rector of her Italian shrine.
Click to expand...
Yes, that does not negate the Vatican officialdom on this case though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top