"anullment" of sainthood
#11
(07-28-2009, 11:53 AM)spera Wrote: Has anyone ever been canonized and then something was found out about them that would make them "unsainted"?

Just curious.

In the first millenia there was no canonization process, people started to give reverence to certain deceased, first to the martyrs later to confessors, virgins, widows and some of them get universal recognition. Some of this Saints were removed from the Martyrology on the basis that there is no sufficient proof for their existence

The canonization means that the reverence of the individual is appropriate anywhere in the universal Church. It could be revoked, although I never heard any such case.
Reply
#12
(07-28-2009, 10:16 PM)glgas Wrote: The canonization means that the reverence of the individual is appropriate anywhere in the universal Church. It could be revoked, although I never heard any such case.

Was the veneration of St Simon of Trent not restricted to the Diocese of Trent in the aftermath of Vatican II?
Reply
#13
(07-28-2009, 10:16 PM)glgas Wrote: Some of this Saints were removed from the Martyrology on the basis that there is no sufficient proof for their existence

Laszlo,

Were they actually removed from the Martyrology or simply from the Universal Calendar? I don't have access to the latest edition to check.
Reply
#14
We are all saints by default! St Paul calls us saints.  :)

But seriously, the saints during the early church (the time of the Church fathers) were mainly martyrs. Thereafter, for several centuries many saints were made by popular and local demands till the 6th and 7th century when the bishops made sainthood their concern. During those earlier times there could be some obscure saints. Around 1200, Pope Alexander IV stepped in to say only the papal office could decide. By 1700, the Church formalized canonization. In the 20th century, pope JP II reduced the process to two-miracles requirement instead of four, and abolished the 'Devil Advocacy". No matter if we do not recognize or know all of them; they are saints by default now. :) But those whom we honored with feastdays are surely worthy of us.
Reply
#15
(07-28-2009, 12:07 PM)Slayer Wrote:
(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.

It was the general consensus of nearly all theologians before Vatican II that the declaration of a person as a Saint was an infallible act of the Magisterium because it concerned faith and morals (public dulia) and because it was an authoritative judgment of the Church declaring with certainty, that the person canonized enjoys the beatific vision and can intercede on our behalf.

It is not a matter of the process and how thorough it is. It is a question of whether the act of Canonization itself is infallible. If it was, it still is. If it was not, then it is not now.

What is a problem is not that people have been made Saints who are not actually in heaven, but that while many more than just the declared Saints enjoy the beatific vision, the Church canonized only those who were outstanding examples of Christian Virtue. The less restrictive process now does not cast doubt (and if we believe the pre-Vatican II theologians, cannot cast doubt) on whether the person is truly in heaven, but it allows for the canonization of people who, while they might have saved their souls would not have been canonized under a more thorough process, because they were not outstanding examples of Virtue, only adequate or perhaps questionable examples. If a man lives a horrid life, but converts on his deathbed he may get to heaven, but we're not going to hold him up as a model of Virtue.

Understood this way: The Roman Emperor Constantine, for as much as he did to Christianize the Empire and the world, even considering that eventually he became a very devout man, partially because of his deathbed baptism he has never been Canonized by the Universal Church. Some in the East hold him up to be a Saint, but the Universal Church does not consider him to be so. That does not mean that he is very likely enjoying the Beatific Vision. It means that there is enough to question whether we should endorse his life as a model of Virtue.

There are, I am sure, political reasons for beatifying or canonizing certain figures, but, truth be told, there have always been political reasons for doing so. That does not mean that the declaration is not infallible. God can use a fallible instrument for infallible purposes.

Beatifications, however, have never been considered infallible, so while the cult of the person is permitted in a place, it is not a universal declaration, and thus is not infallible.

The Church does not rescind the Beatification or Canonization of any person, but it can and has removed certain names from the Martyrology and the Liturgy. The Church may also not promulgate a universal feast for a Blessed or Saint, most new Saints are given Commemorations (otherwise known as Optional Memorials) not major feasts.


Edited to add: The only way one could question a "Canonization" is if the form were not correct -- that is the Pope did not intend or actually invoke or make an authoritative judgment. If instead of the usual form he said, "I wish you to treat this man as a Saint" in his official "Canonization" then it would most likely not be a true infallible act. As far as I know that has not happened in any case.
Reply
#16
St. Christopher is my father's patron and one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers. I have always been especially fond of this saint, and have several times prayed for his intercession with favorable results. For a saint held in such universal esteem, both East and West, and for one of such abiding and perennial devotion through the eras, even into our own time, the removal of his Feast Day is nothing less than scandalous. Can there be any doubt that many great miracles occurred through his intercession, and that he came to the succor of even those struck with the Black Death? This is setting aside all those modern travelers and others who in their faith go about with his medals and earnestly pray for his intercession.

I am usually not one to be vocal in criticism, and even less to indulge in idle suspicions, but I do wonder if the decision of the removal wasn't so much one of fidelity to history, expurgating the inauthentic, but rather cold, modern skepticism and an appeasement of the irreligious. We might as well be so callous to ask why we believe in miracles at all and what limits modern reason and historical criticism can impose on miracles, identifying that of which God is plainly incapable. Along with resurrections and apparitions of the Infant Christ, we might just as easily discard miraculous rains, springs, and the birds listening with rapt attention to St. Francis.
Reply
#17
St Francis and the birds is one of my favourites :)

[Image: 33525-CT~St-Francis-of-Assisi-Preaching-...osters.jpg]
Reply
#18
If I can find someone that can handle significant color work, here's some ink I've been wanting, speaking of saints:

[Image: St_Philomena.gif]
Reply
#19
(07-28-2009, 11:59 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: 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".

The infallibility of canonizations was confirmed and further explained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the [url=http://"http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei[/url].
Reply
#20
(07-29-2009, 02:10 AM)Cyriacus Wrote: St. Christopher is my father's patron and one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers. I have always been especially fond of this saint, and have several times prayed for his intercession with favorable results. For a saint held in such universal esteem, both East and West, and for one of such abiding and perennial devotion through the eras, even into our own time, the removal of his Feast Day is nothing less than scandalous.

His feast was removed from the universal calendar, but may still be observed in local calendars. It's worth mentioning that Christopher had only been incorporated into the universal Roman calendar in the year 1550....
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)