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

Dear brother Nelson,

I didn't say that a local Church does not have the fullness of the Universal Church, did I? I stated specifically that a local act does not always reflect the fullness of the Universal Church. Glorification/beatification/canonization does not make one a Saint. It is an authoritative recognition that authoritatively permits a Church (whether local or universal) to include a Saint in its diptychs for public veneration. When Orthodox Church A glorifies a local Saint, it by no means authoritatively permits a local parish in Orthodox Church B to include that Saint in its diptychs. I am at a loss to understand your position that it does so. I suspect a possible reason, which I will explain below.

Again, I don't understand how an authoritative permission to include a Saint in the diptychs of Orthodox Church A is an automatic authoritative permission to include a Saint in the diptychs of Orthodox Church B. Can you explain it another way?

.
I believe the individual Orthodox and Catholic Churches to posses the fullness of the Universal Church at all times and if they were to glorify/canonize a new Saint then yes this Saint is Universal. How can Saints not be Universal? Its like saying that a Saint is only good for your local Church but not mine.

Does that the Latin Catholic Church has to add all locally glorified/canonized Saints of the East (or vis versa) to their calendar? No, but the Latin Church as a Sister Church can celebrate the new Saint with her Sister Churches and the Pope as Protos of the Catholic Communion can celebrate with his brother Patriarchs.[/quote]
Glorification/beatification/canonization is not only about declaring someone a Saint. It is more importantly an authoritative permission to include that Saint in the Church's public worship. You simply can't separate those two things. I don't know how a bishop with only local authority can authoritatively do that for another jurisdicition, much less the entire Church.

You state, "Its like saying that a Saint is only good for your local Church but not mine." But, brother, isn't that the reality of it? Would you ever venerate St. Dioscorus or St. Severus or a local Saint of the Chaldeans? Your position does not take into account the spirituality and concerns of other local Churches. This is why the option of the formal process of universal recognition in the Catholic Church is deliberately slow.

I think you disagree with my position because you think that the formal process is imposed, and is not actually a choice for our bishops. Would that be correct? I've asked two or three times in this thread, "why are you blaming Rome for a decision of your local bishop (and Synod)?" No one seems able or willing to respond. That's why I find no merit in these complaints.

I disagree with your position because I don't understand how an authoritative permission to include a Saint in the diptychs of Orthodox Church A automatically permits a local parish in Orthodox Church B to do so. I don't understand how an authoritative act meant for a local Church is somehow authoritative for any jurisdiction outside that local Church, much less the universal Church.

I think the reason this is so hard for me to understand is because of our different Traditions. I come from an OO background, where we have three distinct Traditions/Churches. A glorification in one Church in the OO communion is by no means authoritative in another Church in the OO communion. But there is only one Tradition among the Eastern Churches. It would theoretically be much easier to "swap Saints" within only one Tradition. What do you think?

In any case, that is why I found your suggestion insulting. It would be like a bishop in the Syriac Church telling a priest in the Coptic Church - "go ahead and venerate St. X in your diptychs. I already said he's a saint, and you don't have to worry about what your own bishop says."

As stated before, you simply can't separate the recognition of Sainthood from the authoritative permission to publicly venerate a Saint.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh, come on, Marduk. The reason Rome centralized the process of canonization in the West was to deal with the proliferation of counterfeit relics and relic-mongering. It also happened to fit in well with the Bishop of Rome's self-perception as Bishop of Bishops, and the ever-expanding centralizing impulse of the Curia Romana. It was devised at a time when Rome conceived of itself as the only true Church, thus Roman practices were considered normative for all Christians.

Those days are past, and the canonization process is just a relic in itself of that particular ecclesiology. The only reason to continue it is bureaucratic inertia, and a return to the practice of the undivided Church, in which the cultus of the saints developed organically and through reception is long overdue.

I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything. Canonization (in its universal sense) is an option. Sanctorum Mater itself does not establish any censures for extant local cultus. I think you are right that there is still a vestige of improper submissiveness (I use the the adjective "improper" purposefully because I don't think all submissiveness is improper) in our hierarchies which causes them to choose that process. But if our bishops choose it, I'm not going to complain, much less take unjustified pot shots at the Holy Father.

I can agree with that. Personally, though, as an Oriental, I would not mind at all if the bishop of Rome as Pope made a formal recognition of the Sainthood of several of the OO Saints. Indeed, this wouldn't make them any more a Saint in my eyes than they already are (and complaints from some Easterns here that a papal recognition somehow makes a local Saint a Saint or makes them more of a Saint makes absolutely no sense to me), but it would make me feel really good if I did not have to deal with Latin or Eastern Catholics question my own veneration of OO Saints. And I think that highlights a feature of this debate that no one has yet considered. When the Pope recognizes the Sainthood of a controversial Saint - let's use as an example St. Dioscorus - the Pope is in no way making a pronouncement to Orientals, "It's OK for you to venerate him now because I said so." I look at such universal recognition as a pronouncement to all others, "Don't bother the Orientals because I said so." He is (or would be) defending my right as a Catholic to venerate him, not giving me permission to do so.

You can disagree with me, but I'm just not going to give in to all the cynicism about the papacy that goes on too often from non-Latins (I guess you can say it's sort of my own penance for about 3 decades of mocking the bishop of Rome ).

Blessings,
Marduk

I'm not cynical, just realistic in light of the history of the past 1900 years.

The pope is free to do whatever he wants in connection with his own patriarchal Church, but his recognition of the glorification of a saint from one of the Eastern Churches has absolutely no impact outside of his own patriarchate on that particular person's sainthood.

As I have said before, every Church is both local and universal, because every single Church (and every grouping of Churches, i.e., every patriarchate) is the full realization of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Roman Church has no singular or unique ability to act in a "universal" sense, and to hold that it does harms ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

My own position has nothing to do with being cynical about Rome; instead, I hold the position I do because I gave up being a Roman Catholic when I became an Eastern Catholic in 2005.

Mardukm, you need to stop reading things into the theological positions of others.

Is anything connected with the Papal prerogatives actually "theological"? The literally meaning of "words appropriate to God" would seem to exclude matters of Church governance, which is "ecclesiology", or "words appropriate to the Church". Even then, it would fall into the realm of secondary or tertiary matters that the Greeks would term "theoria".

Dear brother Todd,

I'm the one who keeps saying this is an option. You're the one trying to impose your Byzantine view as the only possible standard.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

I disagree with you that the papal prerogatives are not theological in nature, but as it relates to this topic, that's actually a good point. It was actually debated at V1 whether canonizations should be included within the scope of infallibility, and the Fathers said "no." It is still very popular among the Latin theologians, however. I guess some Easterns here agree with the Latins that canonizations are theological and thus naturally universal in nature. How ironic!!!

I personally can't separate the recognition from the ecclesiastical (i.e., authoritative) permission to publicly venerate. To me, canonizations/glorifications are ecclesiastical in nature first and foremost and is connected with the authority of the ordinary. If the ordinary wields local authority, then the canonization/glorification is only local. If the ordinary wields plenary authorty, then the canonization/glorificaiton has plenary relevance for the metropolitan or patriarchal see. If the ordinary wields universal authority, then the canonization/glorification has universal scope. We have these options in the Catholic Church. And I thank God that we have that freedom.

But there are some here who wish to impose only one option on others.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is only in English that we have coined this special term "saint". I think we need to be mindful that the Latin word "sanctus" and the Greek "agios" simply mean holy, and that the individuals so described reflect the Holiness of God and are worthy models of the Christian life to which we are all called.

A blessed and joyous Nativity to all!