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

Dear brother Chaldobyzantine,

That is a strange response. Why would anyone prefer a merely local veneration for a great and holy man, instead of the universal veneration that the Holy Father's recognition affords? I'm sure he already had local veneration from the Melkites - otherwise, he wouldn't have received recognition from HH.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is just the crux of the problem. I do know you have a pro-Western approach to this issue, but the main Eastern view is that the Pope should be "first among equals", not the Arch-Patriarch who universally controls everything, even canonizations. A canonization in any Eastern Catholic Church should be just as universal as a Roman Catholic one.

It is still sad that we do not have any Eastern services for Beatification or Canonization in the Catholic church. I remember watching Beatifications and Canonizations of Maronites and the Patriarch was never the one to celebrate it, its always a Latin Cardinal or the Pope.

Here is a link about Venerable Fr. Bechara
http://www.saintelias.org/beta/SaintsMain.html

God Bless.

Dear brother chaldobyzantine,

It's not a problem and it is not pro-Western. It is Catholic. If I would wish a local Saint in my Coptic Church to be universally recognized, then I would make an effort to initiate a process that would reach the protos of the Church universal, so he would make the proclamation.


I don't understand why this is an issue of "control" all of sudden. Please explain.

Why or how? No Eastern or Oriental Catholic Patriarch claims to be able to speak for the entire Church. Only the Pope has that honor and prerogative as protos, and every Eastern and Oriental Patriarch recognizes that. It's not about power. It's just the way the Church has always been constituted.

This comment I don't understand. The non-Latin "process" has always been one of acclamation on the local levels, not formal procedures. Why is that not enough for you?

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree heartily with the observations by my brother, chaldobyzantine. In addition, it is highly unlikely that, regardless of what future action is taken by Rome as regards the Venerable Hieromonk Bechara, that his cultus will ever be observed 'universally', if by that we mean outside the Eastern (specifically the Melkite Church sui iuris). In that regard, 'local' (Melkite) veneration is not 'all we can hope for', it is what will be and what we should have - just as I would not expect my Church or Marduk's to establish a feast for St Damien of Molokai or St Kateri Tekawitha, despite the fact that I have a personal devotion to both of them.

Dependency on the Latin Church to declare the heroic virtues of the holy men and women of our (Eastern and Oriental) Churches is a hold-over of the colonialist approach that sees our Churches as children to be superintended because we lack the maturity to take such actions on our own behalf. It is also no small part of the reason why there is so little recognition given to the modern-day (20th century) Saints of our Churches - several of which have no declared Saints, despite the martyr's blood that has been shed and the heroic virtues which have been exercised.

Many years,

Neil - waiting patiently for the canonization of: Servant of God Papa Josif Mihali (Albanian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Archbishop Ignatius Shoukrallah Maloyan, ICPB (Armenian Catholic Church); Servant of God Father Archimandrite Fabian Abrantovich, MIC (Belarusian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Father Kamen Vitchev, AA (Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church); Servants of God Father Ragheed Aziz Ganni & Subdeacons Basman Yousef Daud, Wahid Hanna Isho, & Gassan Isam Bidawed (Chaldean Catholic Church); Blessed Eparch Vasil Hopko (Czech Greek-Catholics); Blessed Abba Ghebre Michael, CM (Ethiopian Ge-ez Catholic Church); Servant of God Father Exarch Shio Batmalashvili (Georgian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Francis, Abd-el-Mo'ty, and Raphael Massabki (Maronite Catholic Church); Servant of God Eparch Juliu Cardinal Hossu (Romanian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Exarch Leonid Feodorov (Russian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Bishop Theodore Romzha (Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church); Blessed Bishop Pavel Gojdic, OSBM (Slovak Greek-Catholic Church); Servants of God Fathers Thair Sad-alla Abd-al & Waseem Sabeeh Al-kas Butros (Syriac Catholic Church); Servant of God Father Job Chittilappilly (Syro-Malabar Catholic Church); Blessed Bishop Nicholas Charnetsky, CSsR (Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church), all Martyrs of thrice-blessed memory, as well as so many others.

This is not true. The recent beatification of Blessed Estephan Nehme was celebrated by the Maronite Patriarch, witnessed by Cardinal Leonardo Sandri.

Dear brother Neil,

I find little merit in brother chaldobyzantine's complaint. I know of only one restriction on the establishment of local cultus in the Catholic Church - that recently deceased persons cannot be hastily raised to the status of public veneration without papal approval. The necessity for prudence in the matter is nothng more than the ancient rule on the practice, as witnessed in the writings of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, among others. A local Church has the right to establish local public veneration if no ordinary of the territory has demonstrated objection to the cultus after a long period of time (according to a Bull by Pope Urban VIII in 1634). I believe canon law assigns 30 years for a local tradition to become enshrined as law for that territory. And besides - there is no restriction on private veneration.

I respectfully disagree. Appealing to the bishop of Rome for a universal recognition of sainthood is not a matter of dependency on the Latin Church. In such an instance, the Pope is not acting as bishop of Rome, nor as Patriarch of the Latins, but as universal pastor, neither Western, Eastern or Oriental. As stated, there is no absolute restriction on the establishment of a local cultus by a local ordinary, but wanting that local saint to acquire universal recognition is not within the competence of any local bishop or head bishop. One can either petition the Pope, or wait for the next Ecumenical Council (which would probably take forever! )

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for that information (and correction)! Beatifications - which reflect the establishment of local public veneration - have Traditionally been in the competence of the local ordinary. It stands to reason that the beatification Mass should be celebrated by the head bishop of the Maronites.

Blessings

I stand in agreement with Chaldobyzantine and Irish Melkite. I see no reason why the canonization process should belong solely to the Bishop of Rome.

I don't have a 'pony in this race' but from the Orthodox point of view, Irish Melkite is quite correct in his observation about the particular veneration of Saints being primarily local in the east, with notable exceptions as the 'fame' (I hate that term, but it is descriptive, so I will use it) of a particular Saint grows beyond his or her original lands. Several contemporary examples in Orthodoxy illustrate my point.

The Ecumenical Patriarch elevated Bishop Nectarios of Pentapolis to 'formal' status as a Saint of the Church in the 1960's. For some time his veneration was primarily limited to local Greek faithful from the island of Aegina. However, as word of his miraculous intercessions began to spread across the Orthodox world, veneration of St. Nectarios became more and more commonplace, regardless of one's nationality. Today in ACROD we have regular Molebens to St. Nectarios seeking his aid for those who have cancer or other physical ailments. His oil has been distributed world-wide for these devotions which are well attended by Orthodox and Catholic alike.

In the 1980's and 1990's, the Orthodox Church in America, recognized the Sainthood of Father Alexis(Toth) of Wilkes-Barre, St. Herman of Alaska and several other North American Saints. While the veneration of St. Alexis has mostly been localized among the Rusyn and Galician peoples of both ACROD and the OCA, St. Herman has found a place in devotions across the world.

Separate actions by the Moscow Patriarch or the Ecumenical Patriarch or any other Orthodox Bishop were not needed for the veneration and recognition of these Saints by the universal Church (Orthodox that is). The degree and scope of that veneration is irrelevant from the eastern point of view.


That would be the factor distinguishing the western approach from that of the east - be the eastern Christian of Orthodox or Catholic heritage. (If I have misstated Neil's position, I apologize, but I think I have not done so.)

I wish I saw Bl. Estephan Nehme's beatification, I referred to the Beatification of Bl. Yacoub al-Kabbouchi in the earlier post. BTW Does someone from the Vatican need to observe the ceremony to see "if the Easterners are doing it right" or to concelebrate?

In agreement with DMD and Irish Melkite, I must respond to your posts brother Marduk. St. Raphael of Brooklyn was canonized in the OCA, and the Antiochian church commemorates him, and so do other Orthodox churches without needing another ceremony or personal recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarch. There is no solid reason to say that the same cannot happen in the Catholic Churches.

As Vatican II had promoted the return of Eastern Catholic Churches to their Orthodox ways, this is one issue in particular that is part of that reform. The Byzantine and Oriental Glorification rites are formal and should be restored in usage for at least a Beatification equivalent.

To say the Latin way of doing it is enough or arguing that "it's Catholic, its just the way it is" is not an argument that promotes our Eastern spirituality. To say the Pope is the protos and his recognition is more popular is not a good argument either. The Pope can announce that an Eastern Patriarch has canonized a Saint after his angelus address and the popularity would be just the same.

To this day, the Eastern Catholics still need to have Vatican approval to Beatify or Canonize people, meaning local cultus isn't even official as you imply it already is. There really is no reason for an Eastern Patriarch to even need any approval to beatify a martyr other than proof of that person's martyrdom.

I hope that this healthy dialogue will be read by someone who can promote some change

Looking forward to your response
God Bless.

As I am sure everyone knows, there is an elaborate vetting process in the Latin Church for naming someone a saint complete with a "devil's advocate." As with everything in the Vatican, this whole process can be highly politicized and a well funded candidate with a strong backing from a powerful organization can get to official sainthood faster some priests can say mass. I would hold up the founder of Opus Dei as a classic example. The Opus Dei generously gave my parish a 4' tall black and white photo of the good saint which hangs menacingly out of place on the back wall facing the altar.

The recent rash of saintly declarations have also been agenda driven. A husband and wife to show that married people can achieve heaven through living their married vocation. A young girl killed fighting off a rapist to show the value of purity and maybe even an Eastern Catholic priest to raise the awareness of the Latins to the East.

My impression is that the Eastern churches have neither the mechanism nor the stomach for such a process. In fact, I much prefer the Walmart brand of saint who is known to the people for his or her holiness, which in many cases is probably as great or greater than that of the Neiman-Marcus variety the Vatican favors.

As a Latin Catholic I guess my general impression is this is a lot of discussion about nothing. Being declared a saint by the Vatican or anyone else for that matter is more about marketing than sanctity. If a person's personal devotion to a deceased holy person aids that person's own journey toward sanctity then I believe that the object of that devotion is a saint. official or otherwise.

Well, there was the time when the OCA and ROCOR were doing double glorifications of American saints, such as Herman of Alaska, as well as the ROC and ROCOR doing the same for Russian saints.

Dear brother Athanasius,

It doesn't belong solely to the Bishop of Rome. Canonization is a ground-up process - it starts with the laity, then on through bishops. After a sufficient amount of time (with appropriate investigations), bishops can establish public veneration of a Saint in their local liturgy (in Latinese, this would be Beatification). If the bishop chooses to submit the Saint's name for universal recognition (and not just the local calendar), then he can submit the Saint's cause to Rome (in Latinese, this would be Canonization). Actually, a layperson (and not just a bishop) can initiate the cause for a Saint - which is the norm.

"Canonization" does not make one a saint any more than "beatification" does.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother DMD,

I think brothers Neil and chaldobyzantine are approaching the matter from different perspectives (though they can chime in and correct me). Brother Neil seems to be satisfied with the principle of local veneration - even universal recognition by the Pope will not really change the practice much (though I would add that it would be good advertising for Eastern and Oriental Saints). Brother Chaldobyzantine, on the other hand, seems to want to grant local bishops the ability to speak to the universal Church on this matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Chaldobyzantine,

Are Latin dignitaries present just to see "if the Easterners are doing it right?" I thought they were present simply to demonstrate the universality of the recognition. I'm not a cradle non-Latin Catholic, so I guess I'm just not that cynical about the matter.

Sure it can. In fact, if local veneration becomes universal by "osmosis," and not through the formal process of canonization, such recognition is valid in the Catholic Church. The benchmark ruling on the matter was given by Pope Urban VIII in 1638. He issued a Bulla stating that local public veneration of recently deceased persons will no longer be allowed without permission of the Holy See. The Bulla also clarififed that it does not "prejudice the case of those who were the objects of a cultus arising out of the general consent of the Church." I don't understand why the ceremony is so important to you. A Saint is a Saint is a Saint. Beatification or Canonization does not make one any more a Saint than that Saint already is. You criticize the Latin process, and then complain that the non-Latins are not being Latin enough on the matter. Very confusing.

The restoration needs to be done by our hierarchs, not the Pope, because Rome never took it away, except to insist that a sufficient period of time must attend the matter. That our hierarchs choose to use the formal canonization process (which can begin 5 years after the death of a Saint), instead of waiting 30 years for tradition to become official Custom according to law, is not the fault of the Holy Father. Practically speaking, the formal process will probably take longer, but there is always a hope, I surmise (and there's the added benefit of formal universal recognition).


You seem to be the only one arguing this, to the point that you have expressed the wish that the Eastern/Oriental Churches adopt a process similar to the Latins.


This has nothing to do with Eastern spirituality for the plain fact that Eastern spirituality is not affected by the formal canonization process. The Eastern paradigm on the matter has always been local, private veneration first and foremost.


I didn't say that his recognition is more "popular." I said his recognition has an offical universal stamp on it, not merely local. And I've never argued that this is the only, much less necessary, way. I'm only challenging your suggestion that this is a matter of "control." This process was not imposed. It is the formal means, but not the only means by which the Church can universally recognize Sainthood (as indicated in the quotation of the Bulla from Pope Urban VIII). Our hierarchs choose to use it.

That's a bit of an oxymoron. "Canonization" is not part of the Eastern paradigm, so an Eastern Patriarch would not be in the business of "Canonizing." The Eastern paradigm (AFAIK) on the matter is local first and foremost. In Latin terms, an Eastern Patriarch would only be involved in Beatification. Canonization, on the other hand, has a universal scope. It is not in the Eastern Tradition to assign its local bishops, even local head bishops, such a prerogative. An Eastern Catholic Patriarch can glorify a Saint via Custom. That Saint can then have local (not universal) public (not just private) veneration (i.e., included in the Diptychs of the Liturgy). If the Patriarch wishes universal recognition for the Saint, then he can submit his cause either to an Ecumenical Council, or to the Pope, who, as spokesman and protos of the Church, can speak for the Church on the matter.

That's probably because the Canonization process is the one being used by our local hierarchs. Simple as that. It's their choice. They were not forced to do it.

On paper, no change is needed. In practice, it is up to our own hierarchs, not Rome, to utilize recognition by Custom, a prerogative that has always been there.

Blessings,
Marduk