When the church canonizes a saint, is it considered an infallible action?

[peso73]

I am wondering with concern, if the church canonizes someone as a saint, is this action protected by papal infallibility? The reason I bring this up is because of the recent canonization of St. Juan Diego, the indigenous Mexican that recieved the visions and miraculous picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Because, apparantly, there is no historical proof that he even existed…Now, as a big fan of O.L.of G., I was distressed to read the skeptic section of the article about her on Winipe~whatever encyclopedia, it brought up letters from clegry of the region to one another, admitting the “miracle” was a fabrication, and the image in truth painted by some Indian whose name I cannot recall, but they allegedly knew who he was…the closest thing they seemed to have re: St. Juan Diego’s factual existance was some interviews of the people from the village where he lived, backing up his story and that he used to live there…
But if it is true that he never existed, and Pope J.P.II canonized him, what would that imply? Anything? Nothing? That he did exist even if he didn’t? Or that he must have existed since he was canonized?
I don’t know if this is the right thread, but…any thoughts?

 

[stbruno]

Then where did they get the tilma, the cloth with the impression of Our Lady on it? That seems to me to be very clear evidence.

 

[Apryl]

I am wondering with concern, if the church canonizes someone as a saint, is this action protected by papal infallibility?

I don’t think so. We have examples such as St. Christopher, where his designation as a saint (despite a lot of popularity) was removed. I don’t recall the reason why, but the point is, he had been named a saint, and now, he’s not.

I like to think that we are all CALLED to be saints, but only some of us get recognition of the acts we’ve performed in honor of God. This in no way suggests that acts that someone doesn’t know about doesn’t count!

Papal Infallibality, it is my understanding, relates to Catholic Dogma, and someone being named a saint is not dogma

 

[Miles_Mariae]

That’s a worrying theory, Apryl. So we can’t be sure we’re doing the right thing when we pray to saints? Whoever the Church looses is loosed in Heaven, so I would say that a canonized person is surely in Heaven.

 

[puzzleannie]

I The reason I bring this up is because of the recent canonization of St. Juan Diego, the indigenous Mexican that recieved the visions and miraculous picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Because, apparantly, there is no historical proof that he even existed…Now, as a big fan of O.L.of G., I was distressed to read the skeptic section of the article about her on Winipe~whatever encyclopedia, it brought up letters from clegry of the region to one another, admitting the “miracle” was a fabrication, and the image in truth painted by some Indian whose name I cannot recall, but they allegedly knew who he was…?

yes there has been a persistent effort in Mexico, even among clergy, usually among those of European descent, to deny the existence of Juan Diego, the apparitions, on the basis that our Lady would never have appeared to an Indian, even a recent convert. The skepticism runs as a vein through Mexican ecclesiastical history. Even the name ascribed to the Apparition of Our Lady is derived from Guadalupe, a holy site in Spain, through a misinterpretation of the Mexican name of the actual site, whether wilfull or in ignorance.
Wiki is not an authority on anything, you can do better in marshalling sources on both sides of this issue.

 

[Apryl]

That’s a worrying theory, Apryl. So we can’t be sure we’re doing the right thing when we pray to saints? Whoever the Church looses is loosed in Heaven, so I would say that a canonized person is surely in Heaven.

I never said that they aren’t in heaven (that’s just not a pond I dip my toes into). Just that one may be named a saint, and then, they may later be said to NOT be a saint.

Anything that the Pople makes an infallible proclamation about cannot fit that same pattern.

 

[AJV]

Yes, canonisation is an infallible act. All saints canonised since the formal canonisation process are infallibly declared

Re: St. Christopher, he was before the formal canonisation progress was instituted, by popular acclaim as it was then. Nonetheless, he is not de-canonised- it is merely that very little is known about him apart from his name and consequently he is restricted to veneration on the local, rather than the universal, calendar.

Canonisation does not oblige you to believe the writings of the saints, or any apparitions they received. It is a declaration on the person’s life and status. In fact, several saints, notable ones, have received false visions and things like that.

You can refuse to believe that OL Guadalupe appeared. It would be a bit rash, possibly, but you wouldn’t be a heretic or something like that.

 

[catharina]

I am wondering with concern, if the church canonizes someone as a saint, is this action protected by papal infallibility? The reason I bring this up is because of the recent canonization of St. Juan Diego, the indigenous Mexican that recieved the visions and miraculous picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Because, apparantly, there is no historical proof that he even existed…Now, as a big fan of O.L.of G., I was distressed to read the skeptic section of the article about her on Winipe~whatever encyclopedia, it brought up letters from clegry of the region to one another, admitting the “miracle” was a fabrication, and the image in truth painted by some Indian whose name I cannot recall, but they allegedly knew who he was…the closest thing they seemed to have re: St. Juan Diego’s factual existance was some interviews of the people from the village where he lived, backing up his story and that he used to live there…
But if it is true that he never existed, and Pope J.P.II canonized him, what would that imply? Anything? Nothing? That he did exist even if he didn’t? Or that he must have existed since he was canonized?
I don’t know if this is the right thread, but…any thoughts?

I hope you will suspend your disbelief long enough to read the Vatican link regarding Juan Diego and his fitness for canonization.

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20020731_juan-diego_en.html

Your objection (quoting others?) that no one spoke about him and his life while he lived could also be said of Jesus Christ. That Juan Diego’s neighbors were interviewed only a few years after his death speaks volumes - just as the Evangelists began to write about Jesus AFTER His death. It always saddens me to hear that people pursue the readins you’ve mentioned. I ask, to what end? To weaken your faith? To increase doubt in your life?

As puzzleannie said there was rampant Eurocentric prejudice against Juan Diego and against all Indian peoples, converts or not. Also the Mexican government itself became officially anti-Catholic for about 100 years and that situation began to ease only in the 1990s. It is best for all if we self-censor our readings. Where is a gain in reading the writings of those who speak against the Church, against the truth? Where/how/why is the source of the veneration of Our Lady of Guadalupe if not in the life of Juan Diego?

 

[peso73]

Then where did they get the tilma, the cloth with the impression of Our Lady on it? That seems to me to be very clear evidence.

well, the tilma when examined by a scientist fairly recently was found to be made of a fabric european in origin as opposed to popular belief that it was of agave fibers, and there is allegedly anyway, a letter from a clergy of the area at the time to another admitting it to have been painted by a certain other indiginous convert, whose name I cannot recall, but the point is they could have commisioned the painting as a help in converting the native people…there are all the similarities between her and the aztec mother goddess in appearance and with the imagery associated with her, sun, moon, stars, etc…anyway, the information was a bit disturbing.

 

[bear06]

Yes canonizations are considered infallible. AJV gave a great post on that. You can also read up here: newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

As far as Juan Diego goes, I’d do a little more research on that. Others who have examined the tilma have come to quite different conclusions. The science and the detail found in the tilma is quite convincing.

 

[peso73]

I hope you will suspend your disbelief long enough to read the Vatican link regarding Juan Diego and his fitness for canonization.

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20020731_juan-diego_en.html

Your objection (quoting others?) that no one spoke about him and his life while he lived could also be said of Jesus Christ. That Juan Diego’s neighbors were interviewed only a few years after his death speaks volumes - just as the Evangelists began to write about Jesus AFTER His death. It always saddens me to hear that people pursue the readins you’ve mentioned. I ask, to what end? To weaken your faith? To increase doubt in your life?

As puzzleannie said there was rampant Eurocentric prejudice against Juan Diego and against all Indian peoples, converts or not. Also the Mexican government itself became officially anti-Catholic for about 100 years and that situation began to ease only in the 1990s. It is best for all if we self-censor our readings. Where is a gain in reading the writings of those who speak against the Church, against the truth? Where/how/why is the source of the veneration of Our Lady of Guadalupe if not in the life of Juan Diego?

Well, I won’t say I am in disbelief, (not that we are required to believe in ANY apparitions no matter how popular, remember) just that these things were disturbing, and if true, what would that mean (i.e. we canonized someone who never lived) …I’m not saying he didn’t, I’m just saying what would it mean if it was not actually true, and there never was a Juan Diego that recieved the visions and whose tilma was miraculously painted with the blessed mother’s image as O.L.G…I will certainly read your link as soon as I get a chance!
As to my reasons for reading on the skeptical arguements against her apparition at Tepayac (?) I kind of happened upon them, I don’t remember why I looked her up on Wiki, but in their defense, they did also list the miracles and/or unusual facts of her history, like how the bomber who tried to destroy her image in the early 1900s, how the whole alter was blown up, even the crucifix in front of her image was bent back by the force of the blast, yet, the regular glass protecting her image on the tilma didn’t even break, and they have photos of that too, as well as the inexplicable fortitute of the cloth and image itself, which should have decayed much over the hundreds of years, yet has remained whole, plus more…
I agree sometimes it is unwise to read certain types of articles like you mention, especially if you are naturally skeptical and have a less than rock solid faith like myself.
But having said that, it is also important to examine points of view other than one’s own, for this can increase our convictions and inform us of our oppositions’ viewpoints and agruments. However it may not be best for everyone, I agree.
But even the bishop that was in charge of that region of Mexico at the time didn’t even mention her in a letter he wrote a number of years after the devotion had already spread to his superiors in Spain…
Again, I am not saying it’s all a lie or not, and I hope it’s not, but even if it was not miraculously imprinted on Juan Diego’s tilma, God has still used her image to convert millions, including myself, although in a more subtle way, and has apparently protected the image in a supernatural fashion throughout the centuries…I spent @ $350 custom framing my poster of the original image hanging on my living room wall, so don’t get me wrong, but that is why what I read was disturbing to me…
not the $350 obviously…
But the point was “what if” what would it mean? Like St. Christopher, who was previously mentioned…so popular but absolutly no evidence of his ever existing to the point of the church as a whole admitting it…

 

[drafdog]

Canonization is approval for the faithful to ask the saint to pray on their behalf. It is not a statement on faith or morals.

Matthew

 

[catharina]

I am wondering with concern, if the church canonizes someone as a saint, is this action protected by papal infallibility? The reason I bring this up is because of the recent canonization of St. Juan Diego, the indigenous Mexican that recieved the visions and miraculous picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Because, apparantly, there is no historical proof that he even existed…Now, as a big fan of O.L.of G., I was distressed to read the skeptic section of the article about her on Winipe~whatever encyclopedia, it brought up letters from clegry of the region to one another, admitting the “miracle” was a fabrication, and the image in truth painted by some Indian whose name I cannot recall, but they allegedly knew who he was

…

Again, because you were caused distress and had misgivings regarding YOUR devotion to Our Lady of G, I state (again) that uncovering rocks as you described, often reveals snakes. That’s all - snakes, those how would tempt the faith (and devotion) of others. No one of us need hold devotions to the many Marian devotions - or to any of them. Yet when we allow ourselves to consider the opinions of those who would deny the spiritual reality of miracles, well, why would we choose to submit to such notions?

Juan Diego is now a canonized saint. It might help you a lot to pray for his intercession. I’m sure no one else receives prayers addressed to Saint Juan Diego. (Also, incidentally, I’m extremely careful in never putting my faith to the test of those who hold to anti-Church agendas - and yes, they are easy to spot. Who else would speak against the canonization of a man whose history is so recent? He was alive only 500 years ago. You do understand that wikipedia is a collection of claims submitted by anyone at large: no credentials needed.)

 

[Kielbasi]

I don’t think so.

Dante placed the canonized St. Celestine V in hell in the Divine Comedy. If Celestine were “infallibly” a saint, that would be akin to heresy, yet the work has been studied in Catholic schools for centuries.

 

[catharina]

I don’t think so.

Dante placed the canonized St. Celestine V in hell in the Divine Comedy. If Celestine were “infallibly” a saint, that would be akin to heresy, yet the work has been studied in Catholic schools for centuries.

Hmmmmm.

Yet we have no Saint Dante.

 

[bear06]

I’d like to address the whole St. Christopher thing again. First of all, I don’t think you’ll find a document stating that he isn’t a saint. Secondly, there was a time in the history of the Church that record keeping was on the, how shall I say, fuzzy side. That is to say, we have no real knowledge of whether or not the Church actually declared a person in question to be a saint nor anything about the person’s life. This is not the case with the majority of saints. Nobody is declared in error who has a devotion to St. Christopher. That said, we know far more about other saints. Also, this has very little to do with St. Juan Diego. It would be comparing apples to oranges. There is great documentation on him.

 

[bear06]

Hmmmmm.

Yet we have no Saint Dante.

Besides that, I don’t think it actually places him in hell but near it. Many scholars have very many opinions on that one.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**We have examples such as St. Christopher, where his designation as a saint (despite a lot of popularity) was removed. **

Wrong.

He was removed as an obligatory commemoration on the Universal Roman Calendar.

He’s STILL on the Calendar of the Byzantine and Orthodox Churches.

 

[AJV]

I don’t think so.

Dante placed the canonized St. Celestine V in hell in the Divine Comedy. If Celestine were “infallibly” a saint, that would be akin to heresy, yet the work has been studied in Catholic schools for centuries.

I would answer by sayign that:
(1) St. Celestine V was canonised after.
(2) St Celestine was also recognized as a holy man, but Dante put him there because he resigned the Papacy.
(3) he may not have even been referring to St. Celestine V- the line is ambiguous (“After I recognized a few of these, I saw and knew the shade of him who, through cowardice, made the great refusal. At once with certainty I understood this was that worthless crew…”)

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium has not ruled on this question, as to whether or not canonizations fall under papal infallibility. But it is considered the opinion of the majority of theologians that it does.

In my opinion, canonizations canont fall under the Magisterium at all, because they involve a judgment of the prudential order concerning the evidence of the sanctity of the individual’s life. Therefore, they fall under the temporal authority, not the spiritual authority, of the Church.