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

Thank you, Neil, for posting that quote. I think this helps to reinforce, although implicitly, my earlier point about canonizations being understood as an infallible act on the part of the Pope of Rome, which is why the Holy Father seeks to keep them reserved to himself.

This thread continues to reinforce my thoughts that the glorification of Saints should be the prerogative of each of the Catholic Churches sui juris and not just reserved to His Holiness, the Patriarch of Rome.

However, this brings up another topic, which would probably be best dealt with in another thread, but I will mention it here. It seems to me this is another one of those statements that make the Orthodox nervous, for lack of a better word. On the one hand, the Holy Father will say that he desires reconciliation with the Orthodox and wants them to maintain the integrity of their Churches, but then, he makes a statement like this, which can be read in a way that makes it sound like he is saying only the Pope of Rome can glorify saints. Whether or not he meant it that way doesn't really matter because I'm not sure how else to interpret it. I am sure that he probably meant to say that within the Roman Rite this is the way things have developed, and if pushed, he would probably clarify it in that way.

Am I mistaken about this? Am I misreading what the Pope has written? Perhaps within the context of the letter, it is understood differently. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I do not mean to be overly critical of the Pope and ask forgiveness if I have done so. I am open to correction on this, so please feel free to do so. I desire very much to be as faithful as I can to Eastern Christianity, and it bothers me when it seems as though we cannot do that within the Catholic Church.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Dear brother Scott,

I think at first glance, any Eastern or Oriental would look at HH's statement with some concern. I really do appreciate your open-mindedness on the matter. I think one has to remember that the Pope is speaking about universal recognition of saints. He is, after all, speaking of the formal process.

Blessings

Dear brother Todd,

I think you hit the whole issue on the nose. Others have written/complained of a "double" recognition of sainthood. The fact is there is absolutely no necessity for the Pope to canonize Eastern and Oriental saints. And there is no "double recognition" going on here.

First of all, canonization is an act of the universal Church, not the local Church. I don't know why people can't understand that. If local recognition of a Saint is enough for the local Church, then no one is forced to submit the name of that Saint for the formal process. As I have consistently stated, our own hierarchs have chosen to submit the names of certain holy men and women for universal recognition - no one has forced them to do this.

Secondly, that there is some sort of "double recognition" going on, as if the local hierarch's recognition was not enough, is an unjustified complaint. There is no such thing as a double recognition. It is either local or universal. If a particular saint has gained a formal local recognition with cultus, then that saint will not go through the formal process of canonization (which is an act of the universal Church). But if a local hierarch wishes the saint to receive universal recognition (not just local), then he will be sure that no formal local cultus exists, while initiating a formal process for universal recognition. So the Pope is not replacing the bishop in that bishop's own local sphere. The Pope's recognition is not for the local sphere, but for the universal sphere.

Thirdly, there are some exceptions to the "no double recognition rule," particularly with regards to controversal saints. There are some local saints whose popularity (or notoreity) has naturally/historically gone beyond the local sphere. In such cases, one part of the Church complains, and the Pope gets involved by the appeal of the laity through their bishops to make a formal decree. Some examples, I think, were St. Josaphat, St. Photius, and St. Palamas.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Neil,

I appreciate the explanation of the canonization process. Still, it does not really refute my points which are:
(1) Canonization is a formal process for universal recognition, not just local.
(2) Only a body of universal authority can grant such a recognition which has a universal scope - either an Ecumenical Council, the bishops spread throughout the world in union with their head bishop, or the Pope in a formal decree. The first two authorities are rather impractical for this matter (though they can theoretically happen - I think the second one has actually been utilized in the few cases of controversal Saints). The focus of the formal canonization process is the third universal authority, which, though promulgated by the singular authority of the Pope, is certainly a ground-up collegial action of the Church.
3) I am not aware of any censures for local bishops who permit formal and public cultus for a local Saint.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother chaldobyzantine,

I think you misunderstand the process of universal recognition as it occurs in the Orthodox Churches. I will explain this further below.


I think that is just because the canonization process is considered to have a universal scope for the Church as a whole, and no single bishop, no matter what grade, except for the Pope, has the ability to speak for the entire Church. An Ecumenical Council would also be able to grant this recognition, but it is rather impractical for the matter since Ecumenical Councils rarely meet.

This is in the EEOC (Canon 1507, Section 3) only for Catholic Churches. The Latins also have this option, but I think that since the Latins have (admittedly) a more explicit recognition of the universality of the Church, they always prefer recognition through the formal process, instead of recognition through Custom.

On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree. No Patriarch has the prerogative to speak for the entire Church - not even the bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the Latins speaks for the entire Church, but only in his specific capacity "from the Chair of Peter." In the Orthodox Churches, it is the same - no single Patriarch can speak for the entire Church on this matter. I think you are misunderstanding how the process works in the Orthodox Churches. When a Patriarch in synod of Orthodox Church A glorifies a Saint, it is done for that specific Orthodox Church only, not for the all the Orthodox Churches in that communion. If formal public veneration happens to spread to Orthodox Church B, it is not because Orthodox Church A has glorified the Saint for that entire communion of Churches - it is because local bishops in Orthodox Church B have formally recognized it.

Plenary recognition of Saints in the Orthodox Churches occurs through "osmosis" and Custom. In the Latin Catholic Church, it occurs through formal process. In the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, it occurs either through formal process or through "osmosis"/Custom. This is on the understanding that "formal process" refers to universal recognition, not just local.

So in this matter, that a Patriarch has the prerogative to be the voice of and for only his Patriarchal Church is no reflection of being "under" the Pope. To repeat, even in the Orthodox Churches, no Patriarch can speak for any of the other Churches but his own.

Finally, you have to realize that veneration of saints, even in the Catholic Church, is first and foremost a matter for the local bishop to decide. The universal recognition that the formal process affords is not an enforcement to venerate that particular saint. The choice to publicly venerate that saint always remains the prerogative of the local bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

I'm done with this circuitous discussion.

Many years,

Neil

It is frustrating when people continue to insist upon an exaggerated role for the bishop of Rome in the life of the sui juris Churches.

It is frustrating when people continue to insist upon absolutely no role whatsoever for the bishop of Rome in the life of the sui juris Churches.

I agree. I do not think that Marduk is insisting on an exaggerated role for the Bishop of Rome in the life of sui juris Churches. The universal Church always precedes the local churches, be they sui juris or not. The pope can and does act on behalf of the Catholic Church, and it is our challenge, east and west, to see the office in that light. It is refreshing to read Marduk's intelligent and catholic perspective.

Then there must be a middle way; one where the legitimate role of the Pope is respected and where the legitimate roles of Eastern Patriarchs as Fathers and heads of their Churches is also respected.

On the issue of saints. In my mind allowing the Eastern Churches to canonize their own saints without Rome’s approval is a good thing. I can't think of any examples from the early Church where Rome had to bless Eastern Saints.

If we Catholics really see each sui juris Church as just that- a full Church- then there should be no reason for the Eastern Patriarchs (and Major Archbishops) and their Synods not to canonize their own saints.

Why should we have to wait to venerate our Martyrs and Confessors as Saints until Rome approves?

Blessed (Saint!!) Theodore pray for us!

i would agree that there must be a middle way.
there are stiff-necked factions in BOTH east and west that are more comfortable this way rather than the hard work required to work this out.
This is a problem on both sides, IMHO.

Dear brother Nelson,

I'm thinking the current praxis that distinguishes between local and universal recognition of saints is already a good middle way.

Eastern Churches technically don't do canonizations. Canonization is a process for universal recognition. The Eastern term is (technically) "glorification." The process of glorification is for the local Church only. Canonizations can only be performed by a body that can speak for the universal Church (an Ecumenical Council, the body of bishops around the world united with their head bishop, or the Pope as protos and spokesman for the universal Church). Glorifications can and probably do take place in our Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. You nor I will probably never hear about it, though, because it is local. I don't know about you, but I seriously do not know what goes on, for example, in a particular Chaldean Catholic parish in the Middle East - has the local bishop permitted public veneration of local martyrs in a particular parish? So it would be hasty and foolish to claim, while being ignorant of all facts, that Rome does not allow local Churches to glorify saints. I think, given that the formal process for canonization includes an investigation that a particular person proposed for canonization does not already have a local public cultus, it is logical to assume that local glorification of saints can and do indeed take place in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. The important thing to realize is that this process of determining whether a saint has the status of non cultus contains no ecclesiastical censure. The only thing that happens according to the canonization procedure is that such a saint does not proceed further in the canonization process (brother Neil gave a link to documentation for the process earlier). So local public cultus proceeds, and Rome has in fact not deprived us of anything! So where is the justification for these baseless complaints(I'm not referring to you, brother)?

In short, canonization is (technically) a different animal than glorification. The Orthodox Churches don't have a formal process for canonization (which has a universal scope), though they have one for glorification (which has a local scope). Am I the only one who thinks it inconsistent to complain that we need to be more Orthodox, yet at the same time wish to grant to our local hierarchs a prerogative that not even their Orthodox counterparts possess. ????????

For glorification (local, public recognition), we don't. For canonization (universal, public recognition), we do. Seriously, let's be fair. If we're talking about universal public recognition, even without the involvement of the Pope, don't we have to wait anyway? How long do you suppose it would take for a local Saint to gain universal public recognition without the benefit of a pronouncement from a body that can speak for the universal Church? Hundreds of years perhaps? And people complain that there is a theoretically faster method for the whole Church to recognize one of our own local Saints?

To repeat, it is the decision of our own hierarchs to choose the canonization process by which a local saint will recieve universal recognition. This does not detract from their prerogative to permit local public veneration. They can do the latter, but it is with the knowledge that since he has already afforded a formal public recognition by his own authority for his local Church, then the Pope will not do it again for the universal Church - i.e., it will not proceed further in the canonization process (no double formal public recognition).

This is in no way a matter of Rome interfering in the affairs of local Churches. This is a matter of obedience to your own bishop, who made a decision to go through the formal canonization process of universal recognition. If anyone wants to complain, the complaint should not be "why do we have to wait for Rome?" Rather, the complaint should be, "why did my bishop have to choose the formal process of canonization (i.e.,universal recognition) instead of glorification (i.e., local recognition)?" Your bishop probably feels the saint(s) in question deserve universal recognition and has decided in his wisdom to suffer the waiting period for the sake of this greater honor for the saint. Your bishop probably feels the whole Church deserves the benefit of knowing this saint. If you don't agree with your bishop, that's between you and your bishop, not the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

THE VALUE OF UNIVERSAL FORMAL RECOGNITION AS DISTINCT FROM LOCAL FORMAL RECOGNITION

I would like to share my own experience on this matter. Perhaps it will strike a chord with some of my Eastern brethren.

When I was not yet in communion with Rome, I was very wary of "Byzantifications" intruding into the Oriental Tradition. When I joined the Catholic communion, I still had that attitude, and I still do. But my attitude has been mitigated over the past several years as a Catholic, and it is in large (if not greatest) measure due to the principle of universal recognition of Saints in the Catholic Church.

According to my former attitude, a sure sign that an Oriental had been infected by "Byzantifications" was whether an Oriental Christian called Gregory Palamas a "Saint." I'm not here to talk about my disagreements with so-called Palamism. It is sufficient to say that, according to my former attitude, I would never have considered Gregory Palamas a Saint.

When I joined the Catholic communion, I realized that Gregory Palamas was considered a Saint by my Eastern Catholic brethren. My initial reaction along time ago was "how can this be?" Then, after reading several threads on the matter of his status as Saint in the Catholic Church, I discovered that his Sainthood had formal universal recognition from the protos of the Church, the Pope. This is the one thing that forced me to read about Gregory Palamas. I figured that if the Pope can approve his status as Saint, I owe it to myself as a Catholic to investigate the matter.

So I started reading some of his works, and guess what? Today, I, as an Oriental, freely refer to him as Saint Gregory Palamas. I still do disagree with some of what he wrote, but I no longer have any reservations about calling him a Saint of the Catholic Church.

My present respect for St. Gregory Palamas could never have come about if we did not have the benefit of the universal formal recognition of saints afforded by the papacy within the Catholic Church. The normal process of universal recognition in the Eastern and Oriental Traditions is merely by "osmosis"/custom. It is an extremely slow process, and there is no guarantee that a Saint in one Church will ever reach the ears of those in another Church. Sure, one may hear about this or that Saint through the internet, but there is no authority attached with such hearsay.

And who knows how many of our Latin brethren have opened up their hearts and minds to the treasures of the Byzantine East by realizing that a Pope gave a formal universal recognition of the Sainthood of Gregory Palamas?

This issue is not all about the inclusion of Saints on a particular Church's diptychs. It is about the attitude of each individual person towards Saints that deserve to be venerated by the whole Church, even if only privately. I believe this is what is on the mind of our bishops who choose to go through the formal process of canonization for universal recognition, instead of "keeping a saint all to ourselves."

Blessings,
Marduk

Palamas would still be a saint of the Byzantine Churches whether or not the Pope "universalized" him. And why would you even care? But your respect for Palamas should not come because the Pope said we could commemorate him on the Second Sunday of Lent (like he could stop us from following our own liturgical books?), but because you find things of value in the writings of St. Gregory himself. I have no need to venerate the saints of the Latin Church to find value in their lives and works, and the Latin Church has no need to venerate the saints of the East to find value in them, either. As to why Eastern Catholic bishops go through all this forensic rigamarole, the answer is simple: old habits of inferiority are hard to break.

Dear brother Stuart,

Yes, and I don't know what I've stated that could be interpreted otherwise.???

About what?

Weren't you already doing that as part of the conditions of union?

What does this mean? Are you saying he did?

What did I write that could cause you to think otherwise?


But you can't deny the practical value of advertising that a universal recognition affords.

I partly agree. I still do believe that the main impetus for our bishops going through the formal canonization process for universal recognition is to afford the local saint exactly that honor. I asked brother Neil this before, but I always forget to record his answer somewhere that I can have ready access for the info. There was an exchange between a Pope and an Eastern hierarch in the early 20th century. I forget the content of the exchange, but the Pope eventually advised the Eastern hierarch, "Why don't you just exercise your rights?" There is no censure for local glorification. Our bishops should exercise that ancient prerogative more often. But if they choose the formal process of canonization, I'll submit to their decision all the same.

Blessings,
Marduk