www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Process & Authority for Canonization of Eastern/Oriental Saints

David, my brother,

You have not misstated it in the least. Well put!


Marduk, my brother,

The initiation of a cause is rarely initiated by an individual who is not a bishop or a member of a religious congregation and I think you'd be hard pressed to identify an instance in which a layperson has done so. I certainly cannot and I follow the processes fairly closely.

Likewise, initiation of a cause or its approval by a hierarch, the competent bishop so-called, does not allow of public veneration or beatification. It does allow the individual to be termed 'Servant of God'. The title 'Venerable' is only conferred once the Congregation's theologians, historians, and prelates unanimously consent to the facts enunciated in the biography and witness testimony published by the collaborator named by the Congregation, based on the results of the diocesan tribunal's inquest into the life of the one considered, and present the decree for the pope's consideration and approval.

Beatification follows for martyrs, without requirement of a miracle. For those not martyred, a formally recognized miracle is required. Only after the fact of beatification, may the holy one be termed 'Blessed' - that process is distinctly removed from the authority of the local hierarch or other authority.

Canonization requires an additional miracle to be certified - regardless of whether the individual was martyred in odium fidei or is sought to be canonized by reason of heroic virtues.

A full discussion of the processes, as set forth in the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister and its subsequent Normae can be read at the Hagiography Circle [newsaints.faithweb.com].

Many years,

Neil

Marduk,

You seriously misread the decree of Urban, which effectively decreed that those already declared Saints by reason of local cultus and popular acclamation (those 'canonized pre-Congregation' in the common parlance) would continue to be so honored, but which reserved to Rome the canonization of all those considered for such thereafter.

For an Eastern hierarch to declare an individual to be Sainted and approve 'local' veneration means what? That such may be accorded him or her within the historical patriarchal territory? Do you honestly believe that HB Gregory could declare Venerable Bechera to be a Saint and that the Eparchy of Newton of the Melkites could then erect a temple under the patronage of Saint Bechara?

Your decidedly Latin outlook belies your historical religious heritage and the Church sui iuris to which you belong. I am mystified by how to characterize it. You don't adopt a strictly ultramontanist attitude in this regard - that would be more understandable and be easier to rebut. Instead, you have concocted and expound a scenario of circumstance that has no basis in the reality of how things are done within the Catholic Communion, in an apparent effort to make the relationship of Rome and the Eastern Churches much more collegial and even-handed than it is in reality.

No one, and I think chaldobyzantine would agree, cares whether the Western Church adopts universal veneration (within its territories, parishes, dioceses, etc) of Eastern Saints. Do we think such will happen? Not any more than we anticipate that the Eastern Churches will adopt wholesale interest in or veneration of Latin Saints. While we may, as individuals, have profound interest in or prayerful veneration for one or many such Saints, I certainly would not anticipate that we'd merge them into our liturgical calendars, add them to our litanies, write akathists to them, display icons of them, etc.

While I consider St Swithin an interesting individual, I don't see his heroic virtues as having particular relevance to Eastern or Oriental Catholics. I suppose that I might feel different if I were an Eastern Catholic farmer, hard-hit by drought, and looking for a patron to whom I might pray privately for intercession against it. Otoh, there are Latin Saints whose holiness is so notable that I could see devotion springing up to them, regardless of one's Church sui iuris. Personally, I have such devotion for St Damien, St Kateri, and St Katharine Mary Drexel - but, I'd be loath to see an Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church erect a temple under the patronage of any of the three.

Likewise, I'd be surprised (and loath) to see a Latin parish or the Slovak Greek-Catholic Church erect a temple under the patronage of Venerable Archbishop Geevarghese Mar Ivanios, OIC, Proto-Hierarch of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. His cultus is inherent to the latter and neither has nor needs a broader base to make him worthy of acclamation.

I invite you to gaze on the faces of those commemorated on this page and afford us a reasonable explanation of why Rome should stand between our Churches and the declaration of the holiness at the level of Sainthood of the martyrs pictured there. Or, peruse the list that I appended to my signature in an earlier post - or the even longer lists, primarily of martyrs, of Eastern and Oriental Churches that can be found on the Hagiography Circle site and tell me, honestly, that Rome serves the needs of our Churches and faithful in this matter.

Many years,

Neil

At that time ROCOR was not considered part of the canonical Orthodox Church, nor did ROCOR consider the MP or the OCA to be canonical. That anomaly has since been corrected so such 'double' actions would be unnecessary within the canonical Orthodox world.

For what it is worth, I know that many Eastern Catholic either venerate or hold in high esteem glorified Orthodox saints and that many Orthodox reciprocate particularly with respect to the martyrs of communism and fascism. (Many Orthodox in Slovakia the United State and Ukraine have familial or regional relationships with Blessed Theodore Romhza or Pavel Goidich or Basll Hopko and recognize their martyrdom.)

Dear brother Neil,

Here is a description of the ordinary process by an English professor Mgr. Hallett:
"Any Catholic may petition the bishop to begin the proceedings. The first step will be to appoint a postulator...But if a cause is to proceed in the ordinary method, a beginning will be made when a bishop, either spontaneously or at the request of the faithful, institutes three proceedings. They are called "de scriptis," "de fama sanctitatis et mirraculorum," and "de non cultu."

Do you find something incorrect in that description?

I never said it did. I clearly distinguished between recognition by the formal process and recognition by Custom. What you say only applies to the formal process.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Neil,

I'm not saying he would. I'm saying he could. You are probabaly aware that one of the steps of the process is to ensure that there is no existing public cultus for the Saint. Why do you suppose that is, brother? If public cultus before the official proclamation is an impossibility (as you seem to claim), then why is there a need for that step in the process? Obviously, there have been and are local bishops who have established public veneration for local Saints. There was a report published in 1969 (contained in the Curial records -http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070
517_sanctorum-mater_en.html) that included a list of many locally beatified Saints. Was there a wholesale excommunication of bishops during this period that I'm not aware of?

If a local Saint has already obtained local public veneration by Custom, then his cause cannot proceed further in the formal process. That's it. It's not like the local bishop is censured for allowing it. It's just that the formal process for universal recognition will not proceed.

This is why I find little merit in brother Chaldobyzantine's complaints. There is really nothing that prevents local public veneration. Nothing has been forced on our hierarchs. They have the option of instituting local public veneration. But if they do, the possibility of having official and formal universal recognition will no longer be possible (though it might still occur by "osmosis").

What you are sensing from me is my natural opposition against unjustified attempts to make the Pope out to be a dictator. If you think that is being Latin, then I'll submit to your judgment.

I think that's an understandable reaction - it's not true, but it is understandable. The reality is that our hierarchs choose to go through the formal process. And it is also a reality that local public veneration of local saints does exist in the Catholic Church. These will never go through the formal process of formal universal recognition. But so what? Isn't that your point? So I don't understand the complaints.

If this is so, in the context of what I've written (since local public veneration does in fact exist), then his complaints have no merit indeed.

I've yet to see any proof that Rome is "standing between" our Churches and the local veneration (public or private) of our respective Saints.

Blessings,
Marduk

Can some one please explain to me the different classes on the road to Sainthood. As an Orthodox Christian who came into Communion with Rome I still don't understand all these different steps.

Thanks!

Brother Marduk, I am admittedly less educated on the very formal rules of the Roman Catholic Church, and I thank you for your information and specifics on this case. Through your comments, and the legal terminology used by the RCC, I will try to make my case simpler and less confusing. I am humble in my knowledge of this issue but I will try to make my case the best I can.

My main issue here is to have the Eastern Catholic Churches have the ability to Glorify/Canonize Saints just as the Orthodox do. I am hoping for a Universal recognition process of Saints to exist in the patriarchal level, meaning that Eastern Patriarchates should have the ability to perform glorifications. Eastern Churches currently do not use their own services for recognizing a Holy person, but the Latin service. Local recognition should mean that person is particularly venerated in a local level, not that the person should be recognized as a holy person in something as large as a Patriarchate. In short, I want the churches to be more Orthodox.

I am encouraged by your remarks that it is the right of the Eastern churches to do their own process of recognizing holy people and their ability to do so is not being exercised. Though I am interested as to why the formal process that can begin 5 years after the person falls asleep is mainly geared toward a Papal recognition service instead of Patriarchal one. I am also interested as to where the figure of 30 years in the local process came from. I'm not if sure it exists in either
Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches.

I understand my definition of "local" level is different from yours. My understanding is that it is the level of an eparchy, archdiocese, or metropolitanate of a Patriarchate. Yours includes the Patriarchal level, this is where I see our confusion. I do not mind if only beatifications or veneration is at a non-patriarchal level. As Orthodox in communion with Rome, I think our Patriarchs should have just as much of the ability to glorify a Saint for "Universal" recognition just as the Pope does. After all the Pope himself is the Patriarch of Rome, not an infallible arch-Patriarch. To say that a something done by a Patriarch is at a local level and for the Pope it is at a universal one is unfair and brings the title of Patriarch down to nothing more than a bishop under Rome.

I hope that my original arguments and issues have been clarified. Please let me know if I forgot anything.

God Bless.

Hi Nelson,

Here's a list of the various steps together with an explanation that I found here [catholic-pages.com].


There's also a good article on Wikipedia about Canonization [en.wikipedia.org].


I hope that helps.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

I agree with Chaldobyzantine, Neil, David, and Athanasius.

It seems as though this is one area where we Eastern Catholics have not fully embraced our identity as Orthodox Christians in union with Rome. I think we should embrace fully the process of glorifying Saints in our Churches, and after doing so, we can inform Rome and ask that the Universal Church be informed of what has happened. I understand that the Pope would be able to speak to and for the universal Church and say that a particular Eastern Saint has been declared a Saint. In this scenario, it is just a matter of informing the Church Universal that a Saint has been declared and can now be venerated throughout the entire world.

The process of Glorifying Saints in the Orthodox Church seems to fit better the Eastern theological approach. It is less legalistic and less rigid. I understand that there are still the same requirements, i.e. a heroically holy life, no heresy, miracles, etc., but it fits the Eastern approach to the things of God so much better. I love how during the ceremonies in which someone is glorified that the Church moves from praying for that person to praying to that person.

Another thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is papal infallibility. There has been no mention about the role that papal infallibility plays in the canonization process. It is understood by many theologians that canonizations fall under the umbrella of papal infallibility because the Holy Father uses the same language when declaring a saint as he does when he speaks ex cathedra. This seems to be another reason why the entire process of canonizations is reserved to the Holy See. When someone is finally canonized, it is seen as an infallible proclamation, so in that way, it does go beyond the fact that the Pope is the Universal Pastor.

Plus, if an Eastern Catholic Patriarch conducts the ceremony of beatification only after approval has come from Rome, it gives the appearance that he must wait for permission from Rome to declare the holiness of such persons. It touches on an issue of ecclesiology as much as anything. I really do not understand why our bishops have chosen to be bound by the process of canonization in the Latin Church and wish they would consider making changes.

Also, I think Catholics, both East and West, tend to forget that the Church does not "make" someone a Saint, but rather the Church recognizes publicly the work that God has done. I think the process of glorifying a Saint in the East shows this more than the process in the West, but it is still the case.

Marduk, while the process of declaring a Saint may not theoretically be completely reserved to the Holy See, it is in practice. All one has to do is read the quote from the Holy See Press Office, which I just posted, to see that the Bishop of Rome wants to keep the process centralized. I know that you do not want to see the Pope as a dictator, but in this instance, it is difficult not to view the situation in that way. What is the danger of making explicit a change that will allow individual Churches sui juris to conduct their own process of canonization? I pray that one day this may change.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Marduk,

I did not state that it was an impossibility that a public cultus might arise prior to the initiation of the process. In fact, it well might and such is deemed presumptive and is to be abrogated prior to the initation of the process.

The phrasing as to the matter of a pre-existing local cultus suffers in most translations and is not as you have perceived it.

Title III of the Appendix to the 2007 Sanctorum Mater states:


This necessitates that the competent bishop assure that no public ecclesiastical veneration is accorded to the Servant of God prior to the time that he or she is elevated from the status of Venerable to that of Blessed. If such exists, the bishop must assure that such not be fostered and, if it exists, must act to terminate such. It does not follow that the process itself must end; effectively, the bishop may not allow public ecclesiastical veneration of the Venerable one (a bit of an oxymoron there) to occur unless and until he or she is elevated to the ranks of the Blessed.

Cf Article 88, Chapter 1, Title IV, Part V, of the same document, which further delineates the nature of the requirements to be fulfilled in assuring that no public cultus is allowed to result in ecclesiastical activity which would amount to presumtive veneration of the Servant of God:


and to Part VI of the same document, which requires that the competent bishop assure that there has been adherence to the prohibition against initiation of a public cultus in advance of the approval of same by a declaration of the Servant of God's Beatification:


Unstated, but clear to understanding, is that - if such are found to exist, the competent bishop, before proceeding further, must take whatever steps are required to terminate such public ecclesiastical cultus as presumptive.

Many years,

Neil

Marduk,

Can you give me a better citation to the referenced report. The link provided is to the 2007 SANCTORUM MATER and, although it is replete with references to the consideration of so-called Ancient Causes, I cannot find a link or reference to the report you cite. While I suspect that I know the nature of the listings and will be pleased to discuss these, I'd like to see the list to confirm what I believe to be the circumstances involved.

Many years,

Neil

By the way, I'd direct your attention to Benedict XVI's letter of 5/16/2006 to the Congregation


which rather clearly makes the points that I've stated above.

Many years,

Neil

Nelson,

I'd recommend that you look at the process as described on the Hagiography Circle page that I linked in an earlier post. On a quick read, Wikipedia's presentation has a few flaws in it.

Many years,

Neil

There are videos that contain footage of the beatification. As you will see, it was celebrated by His Beatitude, Mor Nasrallah Peter Sfeir with Cardinal Angelo Amato, Perfect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, representing His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.youtube.com/user/maronites#p/u/15/boGaePHTdrk

http://www.youtube.com/user/maronites#p/u/18/8XyqGbahcUI

http://www.youtube.com/user/maronites#p/u/16/AsIK-sX79FU

http://www.youtube.com/user/maronites#p/u/17/FxeJSWQs4QU

I am in agreement with you, and Chaldobyzantine and Irish Melkite, on this issue. The Melkite Church is fully Catholic, that is, it is the one and universal (i.e., the whole) Church in each of its local parishes, and when all of its parishes are grouped together as a patriarchate. It lacks nothing. Wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated and the Orthodox faith professed under the presidency of a bishop, or a priest appointed by a bishop, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is present. Thus there is no need for the pope to canonize saints in the other patriarchal Churches.