FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Saints ignored by the Church
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
It has always bothered me the fact that a lot of martyrs or people of great virtue were simply left off without canonisation by the Church, I'd like to know your opinion on this.

And before you say "oh but there are many saints about that aren't canonised, the Church itself tell us this", know that I'm not referring to unknown saints, but about people that are clearly ignored, because are very known and many people know their lives.

I will give a few examples:

King Richard the Lionheart:

[Image: Richard_coeur_de_lion.jpg]

Richard was known to be a very pious and brave king, most of his reign he spent in the outremer fighting to defend the Christians in the Holy Lands at the Third Crusade, it is even said he once stood on the hill Christ was crucified and rose his shield above his face, said to his men "I refuse to look upon this Holy City until it is not Christianised". Returning to England, he was captured and imprisoned by Duke Leopold of Austria, who demanded a ransom from his brother John (whom later became King of England himself), John upon receiving the demand for ransom ignored it and hoped his brother would be executed, and tried to seize the throne. When Richard finally returned to England, he restored the throne and forgave his brother. One day when walking around a castle without armour in France, he was struck by a crossbow bolt and fatally wounded. His men brought the shooter to him, who happened to be a young boy. The boy claimed the "king's men had killed his father and now he was avenging him", the King then gave the boy 100 shillings and ordered the marshal that the boy should not be harmed and should be set free immediately, he died right after, the Marshal flayed and executed the boy, but you cannot blame that on the King.

Counter-argument:

He executed Saracen prisoners in the Third Crusade.

Well, he tried negotiating the prisoners with Saladin for the return of the relic of the True Cross, and Saladin refused to negotiate. The men were all soldiers, releasing them would be strengthening the enemies ranks, and keeping them imprisoned would slow the army down and they were short on rations and water, in the end he had no choice.

Charlemagne:

[Image: charlemagne.jpg]

Although Charlemagne is beatified, I find it astonishing such great saint is not completely canonised. Under Charlemagne, paganism was extremely weakened, he was one of the most pious monarchs of Europe in all history, he personally highly encouraged the study of theology, having founded and financed himself many seminaries and schools of early scholastics. Furthermore, he secured the protection of the See of Rome by creating the Papal States and giving the Pope means to defend the city against the Moors who were threatening Italia (I use the Roman name because we are not speaking of the modern country of Italy). He forbade paganism all across his empire and personally attended mass baptisms of new converts and dedicated his life to helping the Church and Christendom.

Counter-argument:

He executed 4000 Saxons in Verden.

Well, at the 8th century there was no such thing as "correctional facilities" or modern penitentiaries as we know. These men were marauders and plunderers, they sacked and looted and murdered their way across. He didn't "murder" them, he gave them their sentence according to the laws and customs of the time and place, if that is a sin, then does sin every judge in a court of law.

He had a son outside of his marriage, Pepin the Hunchback.

Well, it is debated even today if Himiltrude was really his concubine or an actual wife. However, even if he was not formally married, so did Saint Augustine sinned before his conversion, and this happened when Charlemagne was really young, so it is possible he repented later.

He divorced his first wife, Desiderata, daughter of the Lombard King Desiderius.

It was never a divorce, the Pope himself annulled the marriage. Are we to question the Vicar of Christ now?

The 200 Knights Templar and Hospitallers captured at the Battle of Hattin in 1187:

[Image: 619px-Saladin_and_Guy.jpg]

It is well documented and asserted by historians that every Crusader executed by Saladin was done so at the Islamic method, they were offered the chance to live as long as they renounced Christ and embraced the heathen faith of Mohammed. They all refused to do so. If that isn't being a martyr, I don't know what is.

Counter-argument:

They killed people.

Sure they did, but killing for justice and defence of the weak and the poor are virtues, not flaws.

So what are your opinions on this matter? Did the Church deliberately ignore these people and many others? Why? It is impossible that no Pope ever heard of these people, it is literally impossible.

Know any other person worthy of canonisation deliberately ignored by the Church?
King Richard the Lionheart:

In his day and age Richard the Lionheart was known as a libertine.
(01-18-2015, 12:23 AM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]King Richard the Lionheart:

In his day and age Richard the Lionheart was known as a libertine.

I doubt it. I mean, he had an illegitimate son, but being a saint is leading a virtuous life, being free of sin only Christ and Saint Mary are.

May he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Pope Pius XII
[Image: tumblr_lspp6iAf9k1qmdqi7o1_400.jpg]
It blows my mind that such a heroic figure has been thrown under the bus. I can only assume it has to do with the general downplaying of pre-conciliar Catholicism and a desire to appease to the slandering herd who frames him as a Nazi. Imagine the headlines. "Pope Francis to canonize Hitler's homophobic Pope!"


Francisco Franco
[Image: U9GHRQy.jpg]
Well, maybe not canonized because of some objective evils perpetrated by his regime, but the fact remains that he saved the Church from Freemasonry and the Bolshevik plague. He ought to be venerated as a hero and defender of the faith. Also, imagine the headlines. "Pope Francis to canonize fascist dictator who overthrew a democratic government and was also a homophobe!"

Gabrielle and René Lefebvre
[Image: GVXIRQ2.jpg]
Reading a short biography of them on the internet showed them to be tremendously holy and true icons of the Holy Family. I'm guessing it might have something to do with their somewhat controversial son.  Grin

Thomas à Kempis
[Image: Thomas_von_Kempen_JS.jpg]
Only a saint could write something like The Imitation of Christ. I understand it never happened because he fell victim to a common slanderous rumor that they found scratch marks in his coffin, which means he was still worldly instead of accepting his fate. I don't know about you, but I think if I woke up in a shut coffin, I'd try to escape too.
(01-18-2015, 01:06 AM)Ave Castitatis Lilium Wrote: [ -> ]Only a saint could write something like The Imitation of Christ. I understand it never happened because he fell victim to a common slanderous rumor that they found scratch marks in his coffin, which means he was still worldly instead of accepting his fate. I don't know about you, but I think if I woke up in a shut coffin, I'd try to escape too.

I always thought the same about Pius XII, I don't know why I left him out of this thread, maybe because the idea I was thinking when I created the thread was about middle ages and the fact that just because some people were involved in wars, they are not canonised, which is ludicrous. And surely Pope Pius XII is a victim of modernism, the modernists won't canonise him, but the examples I mentioned had centuries of Popes faithful to the tradition that could have canonised them without any repercussion from liberals and modernists, and yet none did.

Now what was that about Thomas von Kempen scratching his coffin? I didn't fully understand you, but you are saying he was never canonised because he was a suspect of vampiry (or is it vampirism?)? That is ludicrous.
I'm not sure where I heard it, but apparently he wasn't canonized because he was allegedly exhumed and they found that he scratched up the inside of his coffin, presumably to escape, which meant he was more devoted to living in the world than going to heaven. But so I've heard this is was a common slanderous rumor used by rival orders. I think that accusation might have also been made against William of Ockham, who deserves a profile in this thread now that I mention it. Perhaps his loyalty to an Antipope might be a factor, though.
In light of its attempts to recover the Anglican patrimony for the use of the universal Church, it seems to me the Church might do well to recognize the devotion to Charles the Martyr on the part of many Anglo-Catholics, just as it has recognized the validity of devotion to several post-schism Eastern saints amongst Eastern Catholics. James II would also be a good choice, and I suppose a less controversial one. 
(01-18-2015, 01:18 AM)Ave Castitatis Lilium Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure where I heard it, but apparently he wasn't canonized because he was allegedly exhumed and they found that he scratched up the inside of his coffin, presumably to escape, which meant he was more devoted to living in the world than going to heaven. But so I've heard this is was a common slanderous rumor used by rival orders. I think that accusation might have also been made against William of Ockham, who deserves a profile in this thread now that I mention it. Perhaps his loyalty to an Antipope might be a factor, though.

That is preposterous, "allowing" yourself to die without fighting to live is suicide nonetheless, and suicide is a sin.

(01-18-2015, 01:26 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]In light of its attempts to recover the Anglican patrimony for the use of the universal Church, it seems to me the Church might do well to recognize the devotion to Charles the Martyr on the part of many Anglo-Catholics, just as it has recognized the validity of devotion to several post-schism Eastern saints amongst Eastern Catholics. James II would also be a good choice, and I suppose a less controversial one.

The problem with King Charles is that he was a heretic. The Eastern orthodox  are only schismatic, and due to the fact they are apostolic in origin and are part of the Church of Christ. That same very reason is why ecumenism in its original sense is allowed towards the orthodox and towards heretics we are obliged to not involve ourselves with them, until the modernists took Rome, that is.

But I must admit nowadays we are closer than ever to returning the church of England to communion with Rome, after all, with all the liberal mentality their structures are falling apart, and such a move could prove to be very fruitful in helping restore the True Faith in England.

But how about the examples I mentioned, doesn't anyone has anything to add about them? Maybe some guess why they were never canonised?
I think the concern with Thomas à Kempis was that he might have despaired before his death. In general, my understanding is that the Church is hesitant about canonizing anyone whose death was not witnessed by others.

On Charlemagne, I wonder if the fact that he was at one point canonized by an anti-pope might have anything to do with it. More broadly, the political conflicts between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Papacy during the High Middle Ages, might have made medieval popes hesitant to canonize him, since such an action might strengthen the position of the Emperor.
(01-18-2015, 01:50 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]I think the concern with Thomas à Kempis was that he might have despaired before his death. In general, my understanding is that the Church is hesitant about canonizing anyone whose death was not witnessed by others.

On Charlemagne, I wonder if the fact that he was at one point canonized by an anti-pope might have anything to do with it. More broadly, the political conflicts between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Papacy during the High Middle Ages, might have made medieval popes hesitant to canonize him, since such an action might strengthen the position of the Emperor.

True! All the Investiture controversy made it difficult, however, at the point of the Thirty Year's War or the Age of Enlightenment remembering Charlemagne and strengthening the Kaiser would only make it good.

In fact, now that I think of it, it would have been the perfect time, if Charlemagne was canonised during the 16th century, we would perhaps still live in a very catholic society without protestantism and secularism. History could have taken a different course. Oh cruel world, thinking about this now only makes food for thought before sleep or when bored, such a rich content to day-dream at, how would the world be if Charlemagne was canonised.
Pages: 1 2 3