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

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).

So really a local sui juirs Church should canonize her own Saints then inform the Pope of Rome and all other Eastern Patriarchs that then they may all celebrate with their Sister Church.

Which, of course, is the process that existed in the first millennium, which we are continually reminded should be considered normative for relations between Churches. The current canonization process originated within the Latin Church at a time when the Latin Church was not in communion with anyone (because it considered itself to be the one and only true Church of God, so there was no one else with whom to be in communion). Somehow, in its typically solipsistic manner, the Latin Church elevated its local practice to an "ecumenical" norm.

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

I do not accept the separation that you propose between the local and the universal (or better, Catholic) Church. According to the ancient Eucharistic ecclesiology of the Fathers the local Church is fully Catholic, and so its act in glorifying a saint is by definition both local and universal, which means that no action on the part of the pope is necessary. In other words, when a local Catholic Church, i.e., the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a given location, glorifies a saint that act of glorification is complete (i.e., no further action is necessary by any other Church), and the saint in question can be glorified in any Church liturgically and by any member of the Christian faithful.

Another thing to remember is that the glorification of a saint does not make the person in question a saint; instead, the liturgical act of glorification simply recognizes the fact that God has already made that person a saint.

I feel your point of view invites ecclesiastical chaos. A local church, autocepholous or sui juris or not, is not fully Catholic unless it is in communion with the See of Peter. This is a belief of the Catholic Church and is neither eastern or western. While one cannot separate the local church from the Catholic or universal church, one can and ought to, distinguish them. I think this is what Marduk has sought consistently to do. He is not separating the two, but pleading for a recognition that the two can and do work harmoniously, even in the process of recognizing saints. While I'd rather hear Marduk answer for himself, let me just say that I find it unfortunate that many on the forum let the historical accidents of the Latin character of the See of Peter get in the way of an objective search for the truth.

Apotheoun,

I feel your point of view invites ecclesiastical chaos. A local church, autocepholous or sui juris or not, is not fully Catholic unless it is in communion with the See of Peter. This is a belief of the Catholic Church and is neither eastern or western. While one cannot separate the local church from the Catholic or universal church, one can and ought to, distinguish them. I think this is what Marduk has sought consistently to do. He is not separating the two, but pleading for a recognition that the two can and do work harmoniously, even in the process of recognizing saints. While I'd rather hear Marduk answer for himself, let me just say that I find it unfortunate that many on the forum let the historical accidents of the Latin character of the See of Peter get in the way of an objective search for the truth.

Thank you, brother Utroque. As others have noted, there needs to be a balance.

I think it is also important to note that much of the process for Canonization lies with a ROMAN Dicastery, not the Local Church.

I do not see balance in the notion that the bishop of Rome alone can act universally. Every Church is both local and universal, for each and every Church is the local manifestation of the one universal Church.

Against all this, we have the disedifying sight of the Church of Rome micromanaging the inner life of other Churches, not to mention the entire canonization process as it now exists is highly offputting, a forensic and juridical process utterly alien to the spirit of Eastern Christianity. Also one politicized as all get-go, but that's another story.

For me the straw that breaks the camels back will be the canonization of Pope Pius XII (who doesn't deserve his bad rap for World War II, but who also was nothing much to write home about, as far as Popes go), while Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytskij is continually passed over.