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

I was being consistent, by showing the way in which ecclesiastical politics and the interests of the Roman Church largely determine who is canonized and when. Personally, I would not only glorify Metropolitan Andrij, I would carve out a day to be his exclusive feast, and to heck with the rest of the Catholic communion.

Dear brother Nelson,

How can you say this and then later admit that "the Eastern practice is for a local particular Church." Yes, canonization and glorification are the same only insofar as both are official public recognitions. It is the scope of the recognition wherein lies the difference. True enough that the Orthodox will use "canonization" and "glorification" interchangeably. But that is because in the Orthodox context, "canonization" is really only a local recognition, not a universal one. In the Catholic Church, it is universal in scope, not merely local. In the Catholic Church, the Orthodox "glorification" would be more equivalent to the Catholic "Beatification."


But the EP still needs to confirm the veneration of that Saint in his own jurisdiction, correct? So, what's the difference?


Believe it or not, I agree with you. But you don't seem to have even fully read my original response to you if you think this is forbidden in the Catholic Church. Let me attempt to explain this again, with some additional matter. There are three forms of official public recognition of Saints in the Catholic Church:
(1) Glorification. This is a local action relevant for the local Church, and is available to Eastern and Oriental CC's according to our own Customs. Here, a local bishop positively allows or does not object to the local public veneration of a local Saint.
(2) Beatification. This is a universal action relevant for the local Church, and is available to all Catholic Churches. Beatification can only occur if (1) can be shown to not have occurred (known as a "Declaration on the Absence of Cult") during the formal process.
(3) Canonization. This is a universal action relevant for the universal Church. It is part of the same process that has caused Beatification to come about, so it is actually the same process.

The choice of method depends on your local bishop.

Not in this particular circumstance, brother. As stated to brother Todd, and which has been expressed even by our Moderator brother Michael, there are some Saints in one Church who it would be rather inconceivable to be accepted and venerated in another Church. The local act of glorification/beatification does not in fact reflect the fullness of the Universal Church.

The way you put it is rather insulting. It sounds like one Patriarch is imposing veneration of their own local Saint on others, and the other Patriarchs did not even have a say in whether or not this person is deserving of the recognition. The process of canonization in the Catholic Church is much more slow and deliberate, and it normally takes a very long time for a Saint to get universal recognition. Your notion of the Orthodox idea that "local glorification automatically equals universal recognition" (and I disagree that this is the actual Orthodox idea) is fraught with potential problems.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

Yes, you were being consistently sensationalistic. Beatification has only local relevance. It means that a bishop in the Latin Catholic Church can include Bl. Pius XII in his local diocese's diptychs. There's no reason to throw around insinuations that he will be canonized before SoG Andrij.

I'm at least glad you recognize that there was an immediate reason for Bl. Pius XII's beatification. But there's no reason to holler "SoG Andrij is being passed over." Do you suppose the Pope has anything against SoG Andrij? Show us proof of such a notion, then I'll admit that you were right to say he was "passed over." Remember, neither glorification, beatification or Canonization makes a Saint any more a Saint than he or she already is.

The bishop who initiated the cause of Servant of God Andrij chose to go through the formal process. He could have chosen to glorify him locally. Why not complain about him?

Blessings,
Marduk

So then at certain times Eastern Catholic Churches have the fullness of the Universal Church and at other times they don't?



This is perfectly correct. Since the local Church has the fullness of the Universal Church. In the East glorification/canonization comes from the individual Local Orthodox Churches. This is the practice of the East as I have been taught and seen lived out.

.

I don't know how one Patriarch informing another one that His Church has glorified/canonized a new Saint is Insulting. Is it insulting then for a newly elected Patriarch to inform that he has been elected by his Synod to other Patriarchs? But if it came off sounding insulting I apologize.

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.

But it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, my brother in Christ.

Nelson

From Orthodox perspective, how is universal recognition of saints being done?

As far as I see, brother Marduk description is accurate. It is done via osmosis.

Moscow Patriarchate glorified St. Seraphim of Sarov in 1903. Thus his cultus was approved and commemorated in the Russian Orthodox Calendar. But not yet, for instance, Ecumenical Patriarchate calendar. I don't know when he was inserted to the calendar in EP jurisdiction. Someone may help me here.

Thus, privately, the faithful in EP jurisdiction might have devotion to him, but no formal liturgies, no feast, can be celebrated in EP jurisdiction before his feast was formally inserted into calendar for EP jurisdiction.

As my understanding, the EP might or might not insert his feast in the calendar for his jurisdiction. He was not obligated to do so.


Here comes the question that brother Nelson ask.
Was by not commemorating St. Seraphim in his jurisdiction, the EP questioning (or denying) the universality of Moscow Patriarchate?

In glorifying St. Seraphim did the Moscow Patriarchate speak for the whole Orthodox church thus establishing his feast and glorifying his sainthood for the whole Orthodox church?

Were other jurisdictions bound to commemorate him, put his feast in calendar and attribute sainthood to him?

Could the EP contest St. Seraphim sainthood? Was he bounded to acknowledge St. Seraphim sainthood although did not put him in his jurisdiction calendar?

I simply do not agree with your imperialist ecclesiology. The pope is only the head of his patriarchal Church, and as a consequence there is no need for him to glorify saints in the other self-governing Churches .

I do not agree with your Western categorization of the liturgical commemoration of the saints.

The term glorification is the Eastern equivalent of the Western term canonization. The pope has no special role in the proclamation of saints within the universal Church.

Clearly we do not agree on this issue. The pope acts as the head of his local Church and nothing more. He is not a "super" bishop, and so there is no need for him to confirm the glorification of saints in the Eastern Churches.

Alas, we see the Church differently, because from my perspective your viewpoint leads to the supremacy of the Latin Church over the other self-governing Churches. Thankfully the days of Latinization are over, and Roman Church (and bishop) must act as a sister Church (and brother bishop) and not as a lord and master over the Churches within the Catholic communion.

In the final analysis, a patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith during the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the late medieval Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome.

Yeah--he was Pope, and, apparently, all recent Popes are by virtue of being Pope worthy of canonization. But, as I said, Pius XII was a decent man, but nothing out of the ordinary. "He tried hard"--is that really all it takes these days?

Unless I missed something Pope Pius XII has yet to be beatified.

From the outside, I really find this argument fascinating. Those of you who are Eastern in orientation are frustrated by the legalistic methodology of the Western approach and those of you who are Western seem to view the Eastern approach as being, shall we say, somewhat chaotic. I don't have particular insight on Sainthood other than what I previously posted, but this discussion is reminiscent of other disputes within the Eastern Catholic community and it does remind me of some of the rhetorical exchanges that I read that went on between those who supported +Bishop Basil Takach and those who did not during the turbulence of the 1930's.

Not trying to hijack this thread, but I have a question somewhat related to this topic.

I've found a couple of threads where a member of this forum stated as a fact that Rome has officially recognized Seraphim of Sarov as a saint and that he is even on the Roman calendar, but I can't seem to find any mention of this anywhere on the web except this forum. Can anyone ptovide a definite source for this?

Here are the threads where this is mentioned:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/45022/St%20Seraphim%20of%20Sarov

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/231151/Re:%20St.%20Photios

Shlomo Neil,

Thank you for the list of Eastern Catholic that are on the path to sainthood. I will include them all in my daily prayers, as I hope they will include me.

Shlomo Apotheoun,


How is the See of Alexandria a Peterine See? As for the special nature of Rome, not only was Peter matyred there, but so to St. Paul.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

The see of Alexandria is an historic petrine see because it was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was also known as the "interpreter of Peter." Moreover, Pope St. Gregory the Great himself went so far as to speak of the See of St. Peter as being one see that exists in three places (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), and over which - as he claimed - three bishops now preside in the principality, i.e., in the primacy (see St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, 7:40).

The late medieval and modern claims of the Roman Church to holding exclusively the See of Peter were not accepted during the first millennium by the Roman bishops (or by the bishops of the East for that matter), so as far as I am concerned there is no reason to accept the claims made in that regard today.