www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News OPUS DEI Founder 's Canonization

Hi Everyone!

Praised be Jesus Christ, the author of all holiness!

Just some additional stabs:

Obviously, in the Roman church although it appears does the canonization on his own, this is not the complete picture after all. The canonization process goes thorugh several steps before it reaches the pope. Obviously this is a prudent move:that they see to it that he, whom they put forth as a model & intercessor, is a true-blue and certified HOLY man or woman. TO make things even more certain, those involved in the process demands a miracle or two. I don't say nor imply that the Orthodox church is less prudent in declaring saints through popular clamor. I believe their holy synod is does the filtering job. NO question, they have an admirable tradition in canonizing saints. Infact, if you noticed, the cause for Mother Teresa started with a popular clamor, a VERY popular clamor. But she is also to prove that she has successfully gone on the other side of the fence with miracles atttributed through her intercesions. So, her canonization process is de facto a mixture of Eastern "clamor" & Western "process". I believe she will be one of the modern saints well taken by both the East and West, and even by Eastern Orthodox sister churches. Holiness really knows no bounds. As Mr. Dragani puts it:"There is no schism in heaven". Nothing wrong if they call for San Josemaria Escriva's intercessions.

To canonize doesn't simply mentions that holy person's name in the canon of the mass. Its root word is from the greek "Kaine" (reed, stick, standard). A person canonized is to be a standard, i.e. a good example worth emulating, worth imitating. It is the act, not just of proclaiming, but also of certifying a person's holiness. Hence, it does not follow that if a person has not been canonized, he or she is not a saint or holy. NO! absolutely NO! His or her holiness may not have been noticed during her lifetime. So, as someone mentioned earlier, there is nothing wrong with praying to your deceased relatives who lived and died in God's love and faith. They too are saints, holy men & women. The only difference in being canonized is that you are put out as a role model, an example, a template of sanctity. And, not just as an intercessor. After all, do we not all [believe in the communion of saints]? The Roman Church has a wonderful feast on 1 November, the Feast of ALL SAINTS. It is here where the Church remembers all those holy persons known and unknown,[yes, even those not canonized but have successfully made it through to God's presence].

In this regard, I DON'T THINK the Roman church would act so carelessly as to put San Josemaria Escriva in the pedestal of the altars without having first examined his virtues. Yes, Fr. Balaguer was human and may have had his share of faults like his 'bad temper'. But what the Church certifies with this canonization is that the grace of God freely accepted by the person has worked wonders in him. May it work that same wonder in all of us!

San Josemaria Escriva, pray for us all!

Pray for me, a sinner!
Antonio

Haven't had a chance to read everything yet, late to class, but I thought I'd post this, or else I might forget...

VATICAN CITY, SEP 12, 1997 (VIS) - Today the Holy See Press Office made public the following note on canonical
procedure for causes of beatification and canonization:

(after some were skipped)

"6. For canonization another miracle is needed, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed and having occurred after his
beatification. The methods for ascertainment of the affirmed miracle are the same as those followed for beatification.
Canonization is understood as the concession of public worship in the Universal Church. Pontifical infallibility is involved. With
canonization, the Blessed acquires the title of Saint."

Not sure, but I think pontifical and papal are the same thing in this context, and so papal infallibility extends to canonisations.

Dear Antonio Domenico,

As far as I know, "canonizate" or "canonizare" in Latin comes from Greek word "kanon" (list, catalogue) and mean "to include in the catalogue or list of Saints of the Church". Adjetive "Kainos-e-on" means "new". New Testament in Greek is "Kaine Diatheke". Abrazos cordiales,
Francisco

Dear ChristTeen,

You've heard from the rest, now hear from the best!

Proportionally very few of the saints in the Roman universal calendar were ever canonized by popes - and yet the saints are all equally honoured without distinction as to how they got to be in the calendar.

The doctrine that the charism of papal infallibility is invoked during a canonization is simply a statement about the Pope, rather than the canonization itself.

For example, St Bruno's Order actually FORBIDS anyone from being formally canonized - out of modesty etc. Bruno was simply placed into the calendar without a formal canonization.

Italian bishops continued to beatify their local saints even after Pope Urban VIII reserved this to Rome alone.

And all these saints have their feasts approved by Rome.

The only "canonizing" power that RC bishops still have available for them to exercise is the act of "canonizing" a miraculous image of Our Lady, for example. They can still do this without referring the decision to Rome.

In addition, we don't even need bishops, let alone the Pope, to declare a saint!

The voice of the people or "Vox Populi" is still invoked as proof positive that a certain individual was a saint - the fact that this was spontaneously recognized by the people.

When Rome beatified a group of English Martyrs, the Pope referenced the fact that their paintings were on the walls of the English College where they were privately venerated for years and years.

Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha was venerated by her people for three centuries plus - miracles were attested to but Rome relied solely on the strength of the popular "age-old" veneration as proof of her sanctity.

In the writings of St Louis de Montfort, the saint references one "Blessed Alan de la Roche."

In fact, Alan was never beatified by anyone, but this didn't prevent him from bearing that honorific - or from having Masses said in his honour by St Louis throughout his priestly life.

When St Philip Neri died, he wore a relic of Jerome Savonarola of Florence. Since Jerome was a controversial figure, the "Devil's Advocate" wanted to slow down Philip's canonization process because of this. But the Pope told the Cardinals to bypass the fact of Philip's veneration for "Il Beato Geronimo Savonarola praetermissus." The Dominicans around Florence said the "Mass of Blessed Savonarola" even though he was never beatified by anyone, not even a local bishop and wore his medal that also referred to him as "Beatus."

The fact that people honour someone privately, including one's parents etc. is something that no one calls into question - unless of course we are talking about someone who was formally excommunicated.

But even here, Meister Eckhart had his excommunication dropped. Savonarola was thought to have been excommunicated, but research has shown that Pope Alexander VI absolved him of any excommunication or ecclesial censure before his death (by hanging and burning in the city square).

Even Nestorius is being rehabilitated today - evidence was found that he agreed with ST Flavian of Constantinople etc.

Certainly, the Assyrian Church today has formally signed an agreement with the RC Church on Christology. And no one is clamoring for the Assyrians to stop venerating Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia or Diodore of Tarsus - that will always remain a local thing with the Assyrians.

The papal charism of infallibility in canonizations in fact has more to do with the issue of the extent of a saint's veneration. The pope beatified a married couple in Rome - and their cult is limited to Rome alone.

But when he canonized St Pio of Pietrelcina, this included a command for the ENTIRE Church to acknowledge him as a saint, as is also the case with St Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer and with St Juan Diego.

Latin bishops do attend Orthodox canonization ceremonies, kiss their icons and take copies home with them. Thus, the Catholic Church certainly does recognize the validity of Orthodox canonizations of its saints.

And, sporadically, the Roman Catholic Church receives Orthodox Saints into its own calendar. This is not intended in the sense of "Yes, he or she really is a saint now because Rome has acknowledged them," but "We also wish to join you in venerating this saint."

Thus, Gregory Palamas and Seraphim of Sarov are now in the universal Roman calendar of saints - check Catholic Saints Online.

I've attended an Orthodox liturgy in honour of a local saint - so honoured by the village in which he lived and recognized as well by the village down the road.

But that is where the veneration ends.

Is he a true saint? Absolutely. In life, he was a Roman Catholic crusader with the name of "John" and died fighting the Turks. He is honoured as a martyr by the Orthodox on Rhodes - but not by Roman Catholics.

Believe it or not . . .

Alex

An article that gives many specific and well documented criticisms of OD and the new "saint". Personally, I am convinced that his canonization was a political maneuver by OD members in the Vatican. Sorry Alex, this time I just can't agree with you....but I still love you Don

http://www.odan.org/leopards_in_the_temple.htm

Dear Steve,

Thanks for the quotes. It still confuses me, though.

If the Pope can declare something by himself exercising the Church's infallibility, then it seems to confuse things. It blurs the lines, seemingly equating "Church" with "Pope" and "Pope" with "Church". The Pope may not be infallible; he may only be exercising an ecclesial infallibility. But he is empowered to exercise it as a part of his office alone. The Archbishop of Cologne cannot exercise that ecclesial infallibility on his own. The entire episcopate cannot exercise that ecclesial infallibility on their own without the Pope. The Pope still is the necessary bishop. The Pope, with the episcopate, can infallibly declare something. But Pastor Aeternus and/or Vatican I would say that the Pope could infallibly declare something on his own, by virtue of his office, *without* the other bishops, but *still* exercising ecclesial infallibility. If I'm wrong, correct me. But if I'm right, then there seems to be something wrong when the one can act on the part of the whole without the whole, but the whole cannot act on the part of the whole without the one, and all of this can still be called "ecclesial" (from a Greek word meaning assembly or gathering, I think?).

Muchas Gracias, Francisco.

Yes, you are right "kaine" means new in greek. Thanks for pointing this out!

But where do you think the Latin "canonizare" came from???

I am aware that...
The Old Proven�al is "cana".
the Latin is "canna".
and there is the Greek "kanna".
the Semitic akin to Arabic "qanAh"
They all mean [hollow stick, reed]

In fact the present word "canonize" immediately comes from Latin "canonizare". You're right, but again, where does the latin "canonizare" comes from? Whether or not you agree with me - that's up to you... I rest my case here!

Oopps, I guess I am going overboard. Again, thanks, dear amigo for pointing this out. It is indeed a pleasure to meet a Spanish friend like you.

Antonio

(By the way, I actually have spanish name??? It was because madre Espa�a dictated that the names of all indios in our area be hispanized some 180 years ago. Being a former colony, we are very grateful to madre Espa�a for the Catholic Faith. Hence, we are equally happy that a spanish has been put to the honors of the altar, in as much as San Juan Diego was made a saint. VIVA!!!)

I look forward to the First Pilipino Orthodox Saint!!!

Thanks BRIAN!

After 400 years of Christianity, there are a lot of holy Filipinos in queue, whose cause has been introduced into the Holy See. Only 2 have been canonized so far: Sts. Pedro Calungsod and Lorenzo Ruiz, both died as martyrs in the Pacific islands and in Japan.

Pilipino Orthodox Saint? Yes, why not??? That woud be great! Unfortunately, we are 99% Latin Rite in this part of the globe courtesy of Madre Espa�a. I am aware there is an Eastern Orthodox parish (the only one I know) south of Manila. I really pray that the Eastern Church can make their presence felt here all the more. For the past years, there has been a proliferation of fundamentalist sects here, unfortunately. I'd rather see the Eastern Church, being of apostolic origin & carrier of the true faith, do the "proliferation" here rather that these fundamentalist christians. I guess the same phenomenon is happening in South America. I really would not mind if the Eastern Church would be an instrument of sanctity to the Filipinos or for any other nationality. If holiness knows no schism, it knows no nationality either.

Antonio

Antonio!

A Truly Beautiful Statement. May God grant that such sentiments increase between the Catholic people (Eastern and Western) and the Orthodox!

Brian

Dear Antonio Domenico,

I am not talking from my "cathedra" of professor of Latin and Greek (I have no dictionary with me at the moment) but I would say that Latin "cononizare" comes from Greeek "kakonizo"(put in order, ti put in a catalogue) with Latin sufix -izare, in the same way that Latin "baptizare" comes from Greek "baptizo" with the same Latin sufix. Believe me if I tell you that I have never heart the Greek word "kanna", in any case it does not seem to have any relationship with "canonizare".
Yes, Antonio Domenico (Domingo?) I know that almost all Filipinos use Spanish names. Well I suppose that Spanish names are nicer than American names, although I am sure that Tagalok names are much nicer than the Spanish ones (I am against any kind of colonialism, even name-colonialism). There are a lot of Filipinos in the Catholic parish in the town I live in Greece. A Philipine priest (my friend Bienvenido) is making an excellent work not only among Filipinos but among the Greek Catholics as well). As Spanish, I am not very proud, in fact not proud at all, of what our ancestors and, specially, the Spanish religious orders (Dominicans, Franciscans and Agustinians) did "or failed to do" in Philipines, but I suppose that the Gospel you received from the Spaniards is a very good thing (they gave you the Gospel and you "gave" them your lands...and everything else). Anyway! My the Lord have mercy of us the Spaniards!!! Did you know that Philipines Wedding ritual with the coins (How do you call them in your country?, in Spain we call them "arras") and the veil comes from the ancient Spanish Mozarabic or better Hispanian rite, an Western non Roman rite with a lot of Greek and Eastern elements? Un abrazo desde Grecia. Francisco.

Hi, Francisco!

OK, we [agree to disagree] on the rootword of 'canonizare'. Let's have a hearty laugh to that! ha ha ha!!! Muy Bien, Franky!

No, you don't have to apologize for the faults of the Spanish colonizers here. It's not your fault in the first place. We are well aware that Spain threw away the worst characters here during those days. Yes it is true that they did horrible things. I really wish you can get a copy of the 2 novels of Jose Rizal, our national hero [Noli Me Tangere and El Filibuterismo]. These novels depicts very well the abuses of the friars & the conquistadores during those days. But one thing that I really feel bad about is that the Spanish people residing here never really adopted the indios as their own. In fact, Jose Rizal's protest was never meant to secede from madre Espa�a, but rather, that Spain may treat las Islas Filipinas as one of her provincias. This could have enriched not just our faith, but our culture as well. You see, these days we don't even speak Spanish anymore despite the fact that at least 35% of our Tagalog vocabulary are either borrowed or derived from Spanish words, unlike what happened to Mexico where Spanish became the lingua franca. Yes, we love "paella" and many varieties of "arroz caldo" dishes very much. You are right, we use arras during weddings. I really wish we became a Spanish province as Rizal has envisioned. But as I have said, I am also thankful to madre Espa�a that we are members of the true Apostolic Church, despite the sad history.

Talking of saints, we have a lot of images in our churches as common in hispanic churches. The statues as sometime dressed with clothes and are wearing wigs, as is done in Spain. We have fiestas where these images are carried around town on colorfully lit carrozas during prayerful processions. And speaking futher of holy images, did you know that here, there is a great devotion to Our Lady of the Passion (Our Lady of Perpetual Help). This Byzantine icon is well venerated and the devotion is done weekly every Wednesday. Thanks to the CSSR fathers for this devotion. The Theotokos has a special place in the heart of Filipino Catholics.

May the Theotokos lead us all, East and West, to his Son!

Muchas Gracias, amigo!
Antonio Domingo

Companeros Antonio, Brian and Francisco:

I believe some clarifications are in order:

1. "Pilipino" used to denote the national language of the Filipinos. "Filipino" now also doubles as the common language in substitution of "Pilipino").

"Tagalog," one of the major regional languages in the Philippines, was "legislated" as the major component or source of a national language it being then the lingua franca in Manila, the capital city.

English is the other offical language (courtesy of almost 50 years as a Commonwealth of the U.S. after defeating Spain) and is the medium of communication. The medium of instruction from elementary schools (except in public elementary schools) to the university level is, also, in English.

Spanish was the 3rd official language until the 1960s when it was repealed by the Philippine Congress.

2. Antonio's remark that "99% of Filipinos are of the Latin rite" might be stretching too much, unless he is referring to the percentage of Catholics among Christian Filipinos.

This might present a clearer picture: 84% of the total population estimated at 84.5 million in 2002, or roughly 70 million Filipinos, are Roman Catholic, which in turn represents 2/3 of all Catholics throughout Asia! (We are the 3rd largest Catholic country in the world, behind Brazil and Mexico. The U.S. comes 4th and Italy 5th.)

There about about 4 million Filipino Muslims (4%-5%) mainly in the South and the remaining 11% are other Christian denominations and non-Christians.

The only Orthodox Church (parish) is in Paranaque, south of Manila, and was inaugurated and blessed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in January 2000, as a suffragan to the Orthodox Metropolitanate in Hong Kong.

3. Francisco, don't burden yourself with the faults of your forebears but I do appreciate your willingness to atone for their "sins," if they can be called that.

On the whole, we, excepting perhaps the ulra-nationalists among us, appreciate the Catholic faith as Spain's invaluable gift to the Philippines.

AmdG

Amado, thanks for your clarifications!

Yes, 99% of Filino Catholics belong to the Latin rite. I am not pertaining to other Filipinos belonging to other sects or religion.

Spanish was repealed because, aside from the dwindling population of those who spoke this language, our lawmakers thought it was useless to implement it in our education system. This is so pathetic! During the American time, our many of our legislators in congress switched from Spanish, to English, and to Tagalog with ease.

Instead of reading and believeing what the biased media has to say, or what the Opus Dei Awarness Network (the link posted by Don in Kansas) why don't we take a look at the writings of the saint himself.

http://www.escrivaworks.org/

As a side note, I wonder what the adgenda of a group that choses to identify itself as the Opus Dei Awarness Network is......hmmmmm

David