www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Canonization of Saints

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have a question that, to my knowledge, I have not seen addressed on this forum. Why do our Eastern Catholic Churches have to go to Rome to canonize our saints? This has really no historical foundation, and seems to go against the spirit of equality between all the particular churches within the Catholic Church. If we are really Churches in union with the Roman See, and not just Eastern Christian cublicles in the Latin juggernaut, why do we not have the same abilities as the Latin Church.

Some theological reflections: the canonization of saints was for most of the history of the Church not the exclusive property of the Roman Pontiff. (To my knowledge, St. John Chrysostom never had a devil's advocate or a Papal bull declaring him a saint.) However, it was explained to me that, since the canonization of a saint involved an infallible opinion (i.e. the person was indeed saved and before the throne of God, and therefore they can be venerated) it can only come from an infallible office (i.e. the Papacy). That is why, in the past, canonizations took hundreds of years: the infallible Papacy did not want to goof on a revered saint-to-be, and thus gazed into every nook and cranny of their life. But we know that this mentality is unsound, just from historical evidence, the Eastern Church has historically never went to Rome to see if so-and-so was virtuous enough to be revered as a saint. So why do we (supposedly Orthodox Churches in union with Rome) do so?
I am not confident that our Carpatho-Rusyn Church will be canonizing its own saints any time soon, but for me this just demonstrates how far we have to go to throw of the subservient mentality that unfortunately has come through communion with the Pope.

Arturo

Dear Arturo,

Well, you are right - when it comes to canonization especially we ARE Eastern cubicles in the Latin juggernaut.

But one important thing to remember here is that, as far as the Union of Brest-Litovsk was concerned, the canonization of Saints was something that was always done by another Orthodox centre.

It took forever to canonize Sts Volodymyr and Olha, for example,

It was only formally achieved after the victory of St Andrew Boholiubsky over the Volga Bulgars etc.

Even when the Kyivan Church began canonizing its own saints, like St Athanasius the Sitting Patriarch of Constantinople - it first politely asked permission of New Rome to do it.

And then later it was Moscow that controlled the saint-making store.

Those who signed the Union of Brest-Litovsk signed away their rights to canonization - because they never really had them to begin with while Orthodox.

Alex

the rite of cannonization is reserved for the Roman pontiff only.

Are you denying the Orthodox their rite to canonize their own saints? It certainly is not limited to the Bishop of Rome.

On the other hand, we must also remember Eastern devotion does not require "official canonization." We can be inspired by a spiritual father or leader, and venerate them in our own private devotions.

This topic is a bit complicated, but perhaps can be understood. The Roman Catholic Church does not, as a rule, object to canonizations celebrated by one or another of the Eastern Orthodox (or Oriental Orthodox) Churches [which is not to say that Rome might not object to a specific canonization for a specific reason]. There does not exist any process for Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole to canonize anyone; it can only be done by a given Local Church. This can be quite small - 20 or 30 years ago one monastery on the Holy Mountain celebrated the canonization of Saint Paisios Velychkovsky; so far as I am aware no one objected. And nothing prevents other Local Churches from extending recognition to the canonization and including the newly-glorified Saint in their commemorations as well, but nothing obliges the other Local Churches to do this. Sometimes it happens; sometimes it does not.
Nothing in particular prevents the Eastern Catholic Local Churches from celebrating a canonization of some suitable candidate if a Local Church should choose to do so. But they are unlikely to choose to do that, because they want the universal acceptance that comes with a canonization by the Pope. At the moment, to take an immediate example, the Roman Curia would probably utter a silent sigh of relief if the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Synod were to proclaim the glorification of Metropolitan Andrew among the Saints; that would obligate Rome to nothing at all, and Rome would be able to smile sweetly at the Poles and at the Moscow Patriarchate, saying, with truth "well, we didn't do it; don't complain to us!". But Metropolitan Andrew's significance goes far beyond the Ukrainian Church, so it is quite understandable that the Ukrainians want "the whole nine yards".
As to the specific rite of canonization, I do have a complaint: the Byzantine tradition of glorification is quite beautiful. One serves a complete round of requiem services, concluding with a final Panychida. As the strains of "Memory Eternal" are dying away, one immediately serves the complete Vigil for the new Saint, during which - just after the Polyeleos - the Church "receives" the icon of the new Saint. After the Divine Liturgy the next morning there is the first Moleben. So far as I can tell, there was little or nothing of this when John Paul II did those beatifications in 2001, and there is no reason at all for such wholesale mutilation of the tradition. In his present state of health and given the schedule of that trip, it might have been too much for the Pope himself to go through the Vigil, for example, but this could have been done at one or another of the large monasteries or pilgrimage centers, perhaps with the Pope unveiling the icons at the Polyeleos.
Incognitus

Dear Friends,

In fact, RC representatives often attend Orthodox canonizations, venerate the icons of the newly-glorified and take them home with them . . .

But the responsibility for the Local Church to canonize its own saints was never spelled in the articles of the Union of Brest-Litovske.

Not that such a spelling out would have had much effect on the final outcome following the union.

But when a given Eastern Catholic Church has the gumption to go ahead and fulfill the rite described by incognitus - I think Rome will simply sit back and say, "They have truly reached the age of Jesus Christ!"

Alex

I wouldn't call what the Pope did in Ukraine a "wholesale mutilation of the tradition." The canonization of the New Martyrs of Russia by the Moscow Patriarchate a few years back was done in almost the exact same way during the Divine Liturgy and not during a Vigil. The video is online at http://www.xxc.ru . See for yourself.

Dave