www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Beatification of Ven. Archbp. Fulton Sheen "on hold"

Could you explain what you mean by "wiggle room"? Thanks.

The west has a way of solemnly defining and proclaiming that doesn't lend itself to retractions or re-evaluations at a later time. They tend to cast things in concrete. The east doesn't do that so much. They tend to agree, rather than define.

OK, but the issue of time lapse is a modern thing - not an historical, traditional thing.

This was also partly because sainthood wasn't solely in the hands of Rome as a canonization centre. Rome was concerned with canonizing saints for the universal Church while the vast majority of saints were of a local or regional relevance. There were saints declared so by local bishops and who were honoured by a town or city and perhaps by its neighbouring town or city. But that was when the veneration stopped.

There were also saints which Rome canonized within five years of their deaths because of their immense popularity among the people. Some of these were so renowned for their sanctity that they were called "saints" while still alive.

The long wait periods for canonizations essentially disconnected the saint candidate from the people's devotion and made the canonization a solely bureaucratic, Roman affair.

In fact, it came as a great shock to Eastern Catholics to learn that their outpouring of public devotion to Blessed Josaphat, prior to his canonization, had to stop as this could be detrimental to his canonization process. Thus, public votives were simply removed from the future saint's resting place etc. (this is described in the book on St Josaphat, published by the Basilian Press).

That disconnecting of public devotion from the bureaucratic process of canonization is what is not traditional, not historical.

Rome has simply returned to the practice of "saint-making" as it obtained in the first millennium and a half of the Church's history, with a focus on the local cult of the saint. The pope no longer beatifies (although he could as in the case of Bl. John Henry Newman) but prefers to have the local Ordinary of the place do it.

That is much closer to the original way in which Beati were declared throughout the entire Church of the West (although, truth be told, there was actually no distinction between the titles "Blessed" and "Saint" in the West until Rome took the process over in the 16th century).

As for popes, the vast majority of the early popes were martyrs and they were put in the calendar just as soon as they were killed.

Other traditions, like the Alexandrian, have ALL of their Coptic popes in the calendar as saints, beginning with St Mark the Evangelist (that was the Apostolic tradition to begin with).

Primates of Particular Churches bore the responsibility to pray for their flocks. That continual prayer lay at the root of their holiness and it was believed, how could one not, that after death they continued to intercede for their flocks - thus practically instant canonization.

Your reticence on the matter does have to do, I will repeat in a less radical way, with your own personal dislike of aspects of the pontificates of the post-Vatican II popes.

YOu are entitled to that view, but the majority of Catholics wouldn't probably share it at all.

Alex

Some who could or should seek canonization for a holy person do not because of the expense. I remember seeing holy cards in a church in Chevy Chase, Md. of a woman who founded some kind of CatholicJunior League type of organization. The reoresentatives if this organization decided not to seek her canonization because the money would be better spent on their works.

Not ten, I believe, Roman popes have been canonized since the schism. Whereas most pre-schism popes are saints.

You are making assumptions again. Dangerous - LOL. I am afraid it is your own enthusiasm for certain popes that mirrors the problem. As I mentioned, some of the post-Vatican II popes were saintly, but certain ones were horrible administrators and either ignored or enhanced problems from a management standpoint. I remember JP II stating that he wasn't an effective manager. True! He used the talents he was given, but administration wasn't one of them. I am only advocating letting the media hype and popular hysteria die down before making canonization decisions. You are correct about the difference between local saints and universal saints. Some should be local rather than universal instead of the current tendency to elevate all of them to universal status.

Something curious to me is why Pius XII hasn't been canonized. I think he is more deserving of the honor. I don't think Pius IX has been either. I remember one of the objectives of John XXIII in calling the council was to canonize Pius IX, which didn't happen. A case of good intentions going astray, I suppose. Although I do seem to remember Pius IX being beatified in 2000. The historians here can correct that if I am wrong.

What do managerial and administrative abilities have to do with whether one should be recognized as a Saint?

Depends on position. If you are a holy hermit responsible for no one but yourself, nothing. If you are responsible for the entire church, maybe you are accountable for your effectiveness, or lack thereof.

In reality, it doesn't matter since JP II has already been canonized. I thought the canonizations of both JP II and John XXIII resulted heavily from their media presence and popularity at this time. Fifty years from now, their causes could have been based more on reason than emotion - perhaps with the same result. Then again, who can know what anyone will think of either of them in fifty years? That "saint factory" seems to have become something of a monster that has to be fed - kind of like the news media. Bring back the "good old days!" LOL.

As I stated, it's a done deal so it no longer matters. I am sure this thread has probably drifted into "Town Hall" territory.

Dear Charles,

Yes, I do have enthusiasm for popes, guilty as charged - it's the Catholic thing to do!

The Ven. Pius XII was going to be beatified by St John Paul II - but this was stopped in its tracks because of the "controversy" over what he did or did not to to save Jews during WWII.

(In fact, Pinchas Lapide, who died an Orthodox Rabbi but who was an American soldier during the second world war, wrote the book "The Last Three Popes and the Jews" where he affirms Pius XII saved over 800,000 Jews . . )

Christopher Columbus too was about to be beatified when that was stopped because of the movement in the Caribbean and elsewhere against him as someone who "brought slavery" to the new world. I remember seeing religious medals of him that were struck in lieu of his impending Beatification.

Finally, a pope need not be a good administrator or manager. I think history shows that popes who are good managers tend to be too absorbed in worldly affairs.

St John Paul II was called to spread the Gospel and that he did in spades. He brought thousands upon thousands closer to God and Christ and His Most Holy Mother. Two of my unchurched relatives converted to the UGCC after his visit to Ukraine, as but one example. Accountants and managers are very useful - but I can't see them being effective Vicars of Christ.

And Piux IX was beatified even though there were critics who said he was a "lunatic."

There are, I believe, ten popes throughout history who await canonization as well as several who are only venerated as saints locally.

Again, unless the pope was someone like Alexander VI of sorry memory, there is no reason why he could not be in the calendar of saints - following the tradition of the Churches of the East and especially the Alexandrian tradition.

Alex

Dear Charles,

The "good old days" in reality were when saints were acclaimed by the people who knew and loved their witness to Christ. What you are referring to is the administrative process of Roman canonnization that was so onerous, costly and time-consuming that people tended to lose interest in such.

The former way was how canonizations were always had and this is how the Eastern Churches continue to canonize.

If anything, the Church of Rome has moved closer not only to the EAstern Churches in this respect, but also closer to its own traditions re: the canonization of saints before Roman curial bureaucracy took hold of it in the 17th century onwards.

The majority of beatifications done by St John Paul were highly localized in nature.

When he travelled to Ukraine with the intention to beatify the 25 martyrs done in by the Russian communists, he actually did so on the basis of the completed UGCC review and conclusions of their martyrdom ALONE.

Normally, the UGCC would have had to submit its report and recommendations to yet another bureaucratic process at Rome where the whole thing could have disappeared amidst the flurry of flying papers etc.

But St John Paul didn't allow that to happen. The saints he beatified had strong local cults in Ukraine (something I also learned about from my grandparents who especially venerated Bl. Pavel Gojdicz and Bl. Theodore Romzha).

If these were not true martyrs of Christ - then who can be?

Thank God for St John Paul, I will say, "the Great" precisely because he emphasized the needs of the local Church and the right of the local Church to its saints which are very important to it, reflect its local life in Christ and which embody the struggles and martyrdom of the local Church which may or may not be relevant to North Americans, for example.

Again, it is an exaggeration to call this a "saint-maing machiine" but a return to the right of the local Churches, throughout the world, to honour their own local saints withoyut going through all sorts of recent, bureaucratic hoola-hoops to get approved what is so very obvious to their members.

One can go so far as to say that perhaps Rome could return fully to that earlier tradition to have locall Primates control the local beatification process entirely. Local Bishops in the RC Church can still canonize miraculous images in this way (even though St John Paul also canonized/crowned miraculous images of the Mother of God many times over and did so to two miraculous icons when he was in Ukraine).

Alex

If I may ask, how many times (roughly) have you seen/heard the Orthodox Churches do that?

Canonizations, in and by whatever church, are never without their "difficulties" in one way or another.

Amigo Griego mentioned some Orthodox saints who were noted for being against union with Rome. Well, that is something that a good thing in Orthodoxy - just as the canonization of St Andrew Bobola, a martyr by Orthodox kozaks for his preaching of union with Rome was and is seen as a positive value within Catholicism.

And the akathist to St Volodymyr the Great in its Orthodox rendition actually contains a barb aimed at Rome (just one which was changed in its EC rendition) and this even though St Volodymyr is in the Roman Canon.

I think that the Orthodox views on things like Catholic canonizations is fair ball. Let's remember that such canonizations have been stalled by more secular interests in recent history.

Alex

Not going to happen! I think the various churches tend to accept each others saints, and if they don't, they should. As for any unity among the Orthodox, I don't expect that to happen. In Ukraine alone, I believe there are three major Orthodox churches that I am aware of. Perhaps there are others that are too minor to be listed. I don't know. In addition, there is a Catholic church. A perfect laboratory to study the effects of discord and disunity, it would seem.

Would you mind posting the two versions, just for comparisons sake?

Dear Michael Thoma,

I don't know if there is an English translation of the two, but I will give you my rendering of the particular line in question:

This is at theh point when the Akathist sings about why St Volodymyr chose the faith from Byzantium, rather than anywhere else:

Orthodox version:

"You accepted the Light of the true faith of Orthodoxy."

Catholic version:

"You came to know the liturgy of the Eastern Church as the most beautiful of all . . ."

Alex

how did this go from Sheen, to the Ukraine - mind-bloggling. But, I digress. Either way, blessed feast to those celebrating the nativity.