"anullment" of sainthood
#1
Has anyone ever been canonized and then something was found out about them that would make them "unsainted"?

Just curious.
Reply
#2
I thought canonization was considered infallible?  ???
Reply
#3
The quasi-consensus of pre-Conciliar theologians is that canonisation is, as such, subject to Papal infallibility, and can therefore not be "annulled". I refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia's "Beatification and Canonization" article, under the header "Papal infallibility and canonization".
Reply
#4
How does this apply to saints who are deemed to have been "fabulous"?
Reply
#5
(07-28-2009, 11:58 AM)DrBombay Wrote: I thought canonization was considered infallible?  ???

It is usually, but not all canonisations are really canonisations. Right now there is a process for it, but in the past, it was more or less a local thing.
Reply
#6
(07-28-2009, 12:02 PM)Melita Wrote: How does this apply to saints who are deemed to have been "fabulous"?

"It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints, that is to say, when canonization takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century." (CE, "Infallibility")

As far as I know, no "fabulous" saints have been canonised; rather, they are generally the result of a syncretic development or confusion in the minds of newly evangelised pagans.
Reply
#7
(07-28-2009, 11:58 AM)DrBombay Wrote: I thought canonization was considered infallible?  ???

I have heard that the process of canonization has changed after Vatican II that makes it no longer infallible. It is not as meticulous as it once was and it is fast tracked. I have heard that Opus Dei saved the Vatican from bankruptcy during the scandal crisis and Pope John Paul II canonized their founder not long after. I have not checked the aforementioned information that I heard (which was from a priest) but if anyone wants to correct me feel free to do so.
Reply
#8
(07-28-2009, 12:02 PM)Melita Wrote: How does this apply to saints who are deemed to have been "fabulous"?

Oh dear, time to turn off the Bravo channel. At first I thought you meant something else entirely by "fabulous."  :laughing:
Reply
#9
(07-28-2009, 05:48 PM)flannerywannabe Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 12:02 PM)Melita Wrote: How does this apply to saints who are deemed to have been "fabulous"?

Oh dear, time to turn off the Bravo channel. At first I thought you meant something else entirely by "fabulous."  :laughing:

:laughing:
Reply
#10
(07-28-2009, 12:06 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 12:02 PM)Melita Wrote: How does this apply to saints who are deemed to have been "fabulous"?

"It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints, that is to say, when canonization takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century." (CE, "Infallibility")

As far as I know, no "fabulous" saints have been canonised; rather, they are generally the result of a syncretic development or confusion in the minds of newly evangelised pagans.

True. Most saints who were later taken off the calendar were taken off because their cult formed before the ninth century, before the solemn process, and their true history was so garlanded around with unverifiable stories that it wasn't possible to say what was true of them, what was not.

It annoys me, though, when people say "oh, there was no St Christopher" or "St Philomena never existed," because that's not the case at all. They are probably historical persons, just persons of whom we know very little for sure. Some of the stories surrounding them may be more myth than fact. But when we pray for their intercession, someone in Heaven is certainly answering the phone anyway.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)