I found this interesting from 30 Giorni (http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=19264) of an interview with Portuguese Cardinal José Saraiva Martins who previously served as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints

Your Eminence, the prevailing theological view is that in canonizing a saint the Pope performs an act of infallible magisterium. But there’s no lack of authoritative theologians who do not think so. What is your opinion about it?


SARAIVA MARTINS: I am firmly convinced that canonization is a dogmatic fact involving the infallible magisterium of the Pope. A canonization has to do with universal devotion and therefore the faith of the Church. In recognizing a new saint, in fact, the Pope does not permit devotion at the local level, as is the case instead for the blesseds, but prescribes it for the whole universal Church.

I disagree - Canonizations can and have been recognized by Patriarchs, Universal Synods, and local Synods, both with and outside of the Pope's approval.. if infallibility is to be cited, why or how should/would any canonization be recognized without direct action of the Pope? There would be no point in any other body recognizing Saints, as they could later be denied.. it also calls into question the declaration of all the Saints who weren't "infallibly dogmatized" - the vast majority.

This is the formula of canonisation used by Pope John Paul II:
"In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define “x” to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Surprised this isn't getting more discussion vis a vis the much debated ex cathedra infallible discussions that seem to always include mention that the Pope of Rome "rarely" makes use of that authority.

Dear Friends,

Certainly today the Popes of Rome do indeed regard their canonizations as expressions of infallibility i.e. that the person being declared a saint for the universal Church is truly in heaven etc.

It is a kind of splitting hairs when beatifications come up - what do they mean? That the Church may err in saying that a Beatus is in heaven?

And, as Michael Thoma noted, what about the vast majority of saints that have been so declared by non-papal authority, even by local populaces and whose cults popes have not only have not opposed, but have also directed to be included in the Roman calendar of saints?

Also, if it what was the tacit will of previous popes in history to affirm the cultus of saints that have, in the previous century, been dropped from the calendar - what does that mean for the infallibility of canonization?

Alex

Alex, my friend,

Fascinating points that you raise - particularly that in the final paragraph!

Many years,

Neil

What is the purpose of making a distinction between those beatified and those that are saints? Is it still considered uncertain whether a "blessed" is in heaven?

Joe

The difference, to me, is merely a recognition of the acceptance of the people. A blessed is venerated "locally" - however that term may be a generalization; whereas a "canonized" is venerated either among multiple regions and eparchies or generally and "universally".