The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Friends,

Blessed Mary of Jesus Crucified, a Melkite Greek-Catholic Carmelite nun, together with Blessed Mary-Alphonsine, foundress of the Sisters of the Most Holy Rosary, will be canonized as saints.

Both were Palestinians. What I personally find special about this great event is that, in both cases, the two wonderful sacramentals of the Scapular and the Rosary are highlighted through the lives of these saints.

May they pray for us!

Alex

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 10
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 10
This will make Blessed Mary of Jesus Crucified the second Byzantine Catholic to be canonized, the first being Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych.

It's about time! smile

I am surprised that no mention has been made of that in the Catholic press.

Don't get me started though on why Blessed Nicholas Charnetsky and Companions and Blessed Theodore Romzha and other ByzCath martyrs aren't yet canonized. smile

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Griego,

Actually, "Beatification" is simply a local saint whose cultus is limited to a Church or nation etc.

The Eastern Churches have always called such "Saints" and then their cultus expands over time until they become universal.

Thus, the EC Martyrs "beatified" by Rome are really "Saints" in the UGCC.

And even though St Josaphat was canonized in 1875, he was still venerated ONLY in the Catholic Eastern Churches until 1886 when his cultus was extended to the West.

And although Josaphat was beatified, many areas of the Ruthenian Catholic Church (i.e. Ukrainian and Belorusyan Church of Kiev) referred to him simply as "St Josaphat" even prior to his canonization in 1875.

We should also remember that the cultus of Josaphat was in direct competition among Eastern Catholics with that of the Orthodox saint and martyr, St Athanasius of Brest who was killed by RC's for disparaging the Union of Brest.

He was tortured for several days to get him to abjure his views until he was taken to a forest by soldiers, ordered to dig his own grave and then shot twice before he was buried while still alive. Canonized by the Ruthenian Orthodox Church, he became very popular among Eastern Catholics because he stood up to the RC authorities at the time.

To make a long story short(er), it is high time for the EC Churches to reclaim their historic right to canonize their own Saints by themselves for veneration in their own Churches - and then simply inform Rome of this.

If Rome would like to extend their cultus to the Latin Church - fine. But the term "Beatification" is an entirely modern Latin affair that has no place in the Eastern Catholic tradition.

For example, in the medieval RC Church, "Blessed" and "Saint" as titles were used interchangeably and many western saints have local veneration only.

Anyway, a great day tomorrow.

Alex

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Alex,

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
it is high time for the EC Churches to reclaim their historic right to canonize their own Saints by themselves for veneration in their own Churches - and then simply inform Rome of this.

This statement might confuse some. The fact is that the term "canonization" has two different meanings.

To Eastern and Orientals, "canonization" is the OFFICIAL, LOCAL veneration of a saint. and there is no intermediate "beatification" process.

To Westerns, "canonization" is the OFFICIAL, UNIVERSAL veneration of a saint, while "beatification" is the OFFICIAL, LOCAL veneration of a saint recognized as such by the Church universal.

If we understand "canonization" according to the Eastern/Oriental sense, then the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches already canonize our own saints. If we understand "canonization" according to the Western sense, then not only do Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches NOT do this, but we CAN NOT do it, because no local Church or its bishop/ head bishop has the authority to make a pronouncement for the Church universal, but only for the Church local.

As Catholics, we have the option of utilizing (1) the very, very slow process of diffusion for local saints to be recognized universally, or (2) the slow (potentially quick) process of canonization for local saints to be recognized universally. It is possible, brother Alex, that there are Westerns/Easterns/Orientals all who forget that these two options exist for every local Church, and think that only option (2) exists.

I think what confuses people is that the two options are mutually exclusive (which IMO is unfortunate). If a local Church chooses to use option (1), then it cannot use option (2); if a local Church chooses to use option (2), it cannot use option (1). FORMERLY, the problem was that when a local bishop chose to submit a locally venerated Saint for universal canonization (option 2), the local Church would need to stop publicly venerating the Saint until the beatification/canonization process was completed. According to the NEW norms, if official local, public veneration already exists, it will not be allowed to go to the official universal canonization process; in other words, according to the NEW norms, a cause will only go to the official, universal canonization process if no official, local public veneration yet exists.

The upside of this new norm is that it does not interfere with offical, public veneration in the local Church; the local Church will continue with its official, public veneration, while official, universal veneration can proceed through the traditional, very, very slow process of option (1) above. The downside is that if official, local public veneration does not yet exist, it cannot exist until Rome approves it through the "beatification" process. Keep in mind that the process depends on the local bishop, and there is much room for public lobbying by the laypeople on which process they want their bishop to implement.

More traditionally minded Easterns/Orientals will not have a problem with the current norm, since it does not interfere with the official local public veneration instituted by the bishop. However, those Easterns/Orientals with a more universal cognizance of the Church might have cause to complain that their local Saints are not getting the universal recognition they deserve quickly enough.

Blessings

P.S. No capitalizations are intended as shouts. smile

Last edited by mardukm; 05/17/15 08:56 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Brother Marduk,

OK, I'm now thoroughly confused too! smile

When has an Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church EVER glorified its own saints for local veneration? I would be so gratified if this occurred - but where does it occur?

Certainly not in the UGCC. Have I been missing these local E/OC Church glorifications all these years? The simple fact is that they don't occur and have never occurred.

So I await your explanation with respect to this point.

Also, two points with respect to the RC canonization. The Pope of Rome canonizes saints for the universal LATIN Church (just as the Russian Orthodox Church glorifies saints for the universal ROC and any other EO Church - also sometimes EC and even RC - which cares to include them in their calendars).

When Rome canonized St Josaphat, it did this ONLY for the Eastern Catholic Churches. It only extended his cultus to the West 11 years later.

Conversely, EC and OC Churches don't have the majority of RC canonized Saints in their respective calendars and don't venerate the vast majority of these Western saints - unless their respective Synods decide to. The EC and OC Churches certainly acknowledge the sanctity of those canonized - but there is no rule that we have to venerate them, as the Pope certainly commands the uniersal Church to do so. In actual practice, "universal" with respect to canonizations here means "universal Latin Church." The same is true of feastdays like Our Lady of Fatima and Divine Mercy Sunday - these have to do with the Latin Church and only those EC and OC churches that decide to include them into their calendars.

Secondly, your point about EC and OC Churches not having the ability to canonize universally is not so either, given the above.

Our Churches in union with Rome have NO power to canonize anyone - period. Unless you have your own unique take on the matter - and I'm all ears - that just won't happen any time soon.

But if our Churches DID glorify their own Saints, then the cultus of such would not necessarily only be "local."

For example, if the UGCC decided to reclaim its right to canonize its own saints and did so next week, then that Saint would not only be venerated "locally" in Ukraine by Ukrainian Greco-Catholics, but also "universally" by the same Catholics in North America, Europe, Japan, Australia and indeed wherever Ukrainian Greco-Catholics are to be found around the world. So "local" in this context would mean that the cultus of that saint would be bounded by his or her veneration within the Particular UGCC which would, by no means, be simply "local."

Also, any such canonization by an EC Church would be, as a matter of historic practice, shared with other Churches, with Rome and with Orthodox Churches not only to inform them that such an event has occurred, but also to allow these other Particular Churches to consider whether they wished to include the new saint in question in their calendars. Again, in the case of the UGCC, it is almost certain that there would be other EC Churches that would want to include their new saint in their own calendar - especially if that saint had an impact on other EC Churches in his or her life. Again, such recognition would go beyond the definition of "local."

And what is "universal" in Christian history has less to do with actual numbers, but simply with the presence of Christians around the world. Thus, even the UGCC is a "universal" Church as are many others, including the Coptic Orthodox Church (we have 35 Coptic Orthodox parishes in the Greater Toronto Area alone!) even though numerically smaller than the Latin Church.

So there . . . smile

Alex

Last edited by Orthodox Catholic; 05/17/15 09:51 PM.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear Brother Alex,

Quote
OK, I'm now thoroughly confused too!
Sorry!

Quote
When has an Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church EVER glorified its own saints for local veneration? I would be so gratified if this occurred - but where does it occur?

Certainly not in the UGCC. Have I been missing these local E/OC Church glorifications all these years? The simple fact is that they don't occur and have never occurred.
My statement was with regards to the authority to do so, not whether or not it happens. I believe our bishops (and to a lesser degree, even Western bishops) do certain things out of sheer love and respect for the Pope of Rome and love for the unity of the Church, not because of a law dictating them to do so. Such is the case, I sincerely believe, with the matter of glorifications/canonizations (among other things). There is no ecclesiastical censure against bishops for local glorification in any Catholic Magisterial document of which I am aware – iow, nothing legally forbids our bishops and head bishops from sanctioning local glorifications (even the wording of the non-cultus declaration seems to presuppose that local bishops have the authority to approve a local cultus). The current state of affairs exists, imo, because our bishops and head bishops sincerely see the practical necessity of the process proposed by the Romans for recognition of Sainthood. Even our Orthodox brethren have, over the course of centuries, established certain guidlelines for canonizations (though certainly nowhere as extensive as that of the Vatican’s).

Quote
Also, two points with respect to the RC canonization. The Pope of Rome canonizes saints for the universal LATIN Church (just as the Russian Orthodox Church glorifies saints for the universal ROC and any other EO Church - also sometimes EC and even RC - which cares to include them in their calendars).

When Rome canonized St Josaphat, it did this ONLY for the Eastern Catholic Churches. It only extended his cultus to the West 11 years later.
I have to disagree, a canonization by the Pope of Rome is universal in scope (for all under his omophor); that by a Patriarch is patriarchal in scope (for all under his omophor); that by a Metropolitan is metropolitan in scope (for all under his omophor), and that by a local bishop is diocesan in scope (for all under his omophor). One of the reasons why canonizations by the Pope of Rome are considered by many to be infallible is because they are counted as acts of the Church universal, whereas beatifications, even those approved by the Pope of Rome, are not, because they are primarily local in scope.

Quote
Conversely, EC and OC Churches don't have the majority of RC canonized Saints in their respective calendars and don't venerate the vast majority of these Western saints - unless their respective Synods decide to.
Not surprising in the least. Confirmation of sainthood by any head bishop is a decree approving public veneration of a Saint, not a decree imposing it. It is (and always has been) the apostolic authority of a local episcopal ordinary that actually permits the public veneration in his own diocese/Metropolitan See/ Patriarchal See.

Quote
The EC and OC Churches certainly acknowledge the sanctity of those canonized - but there is no rule that we have to venerate them, as the Pope certainly commands the universal Church to do so. In actual practice, "universal" with respect to canonizations here means "universal Latin Church." The same is true of feastdays like Our Lady of Fatima and Divine Mercy Sunday - these have to do with the Latin Church and only those EC and OC churches that decide to include them into their calendars.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. As noted, the real reason that local Churches (Eastern, Oriental OR even Western) may not have a Saint who has been canonized by the Pope of Rome on their calendar is because the local episcopal authority (the bishop in Latin Churches, the synod in Eastern and Oriental Churches) have always had the primary say in liturgical matters for their local Church.

Quote
Secondly, your point about EC and OC Churches not having the ability to canonize universally is not so either, given the above.
By “universal,” I mean inter-patriarchal, not geographical.

Quote
Our Churches in union with Rome have NO power to canonize anyone - period. Unless you have your own unique take on the matter - and I'm all ears - that just won't happen any time soon.
I’d agree it won’t happen any time soon. My point is that if it doesn’t happen, it is because of a willful decision on the part of our bishops, not because some law has taken away that authority from them.

Quote
But if our Churches DID glorify their own Saints, then the cultus of such would not necessarily only be "local."
When I use the terms “local” or “universal” (or “patriarchal” or “metropolitan,” for that matter) I refer primarily to personal jurisdiction, not territorial jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction extends beyond geographical limits, since it refers to persons, not land. In that sense, the jurisdiction of your patriarch over Ukrainian Catholics outside of Ukraine does not make his jurisdiction actually “universal” in scope. It is still patriarchal, but extends to all under his patriarchal omophor, even to those outside of his territorial jurisdiction. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

My main point is that every bishop has the authority to approve the public cultus of a locally venerated person. He does not have to submit it to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The purpose of the Congregation is to examine the causes of saints that a bishop believes deserve universal recognition.. If a local bishop chooses to approve only a local veneration, that is well within his prerogative (at some remote local parish that 99% of the world has not even heard of), but he would know that such local approval means that it will thenceforth not be eligible to be brought up to the said Congregation for universal recognition, short of a personal indult from the Pope of Rome (and the spread of the cultus will simply depend on the slow process of diffusion). The rules were initially set up (1) as a way for the local laity to obtain approval for public veneration if the local episcopal authorities were not amenable; (2) to overcome the problem of local episcopal authorities disagreeing about the merits of a locally venerated person. This latter reason has been particularly pressing in certain locales, and I think our bishops generally understand and accept the practicality of the Roman process.

Blessings

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Brother Marduk,

Very good explanations as per your usual!

With respect to your first point, I hope you don't mind if I point out to you that you have it all completely wrong . . .

Pope Urban VIII decreed that canonizations and beatifications etc. etc. were all to be relegated to Rome, thus stripping all bishops of their power (and ancient rights) to canonize saints for their own dioceses (and also the rights of abbots to canonize saints for their own monasteries).

It was a completely top-down command by papal authority which has obtained ever since.

Despite this papal order, many Italian, French and Spanish bishops continued to canonize/beatify their own diocesan saints notwithstanding (in fact, at that time the titles "Blessed" and "Saint" were interchangeable and were sometimes used to differentiate between saints from a given locale who had the same first name e.g. Saint Anthony of Padua and Blessed Anthony the Pilgrim of Padua).

My alma mater's library has a large four-volume collection of photographs of images of such saints, glorified after Pope Urban's edict - quite a fascinating study.

Also, our bishops have historically felt the canonization/beatification process to be something of a straight-jacket. St John Paul the Great tried to liberate that process by emphasizing local Church saints, as you know, to a great degree. When he beatified the UGCC New Martyrs, he based his decision on the completion of the diocesan process alone without having it referred to Rome to be entangled in that horrendously bureaucratic and costly canonization process which has been widely considered to be something of a scandal.

Long story short, our bishops, any Catholic bishop, would not have the authority to canonize/beatify anyone today due to a papal decision to strip them of that ancient right. And when bishops of the time of Urban VIII continued to beatify saints in their dioceses, they did so by simply ignoring what Urban had decreed.

Your points about every local bishop having the authority to approve the public cultus of this or that holy person today is simply, well, nonsense. That only obtained until the time of Urban VIII. No Catholic bishop or episcopal conference today would dare try to beatify anyone on their own. That would be an act of open defiance of Rome - sad but that is the reality.

As for the jurisdiction of the UGCC Patriarch (he is Patriarch for us and I know there are EC bishops and primates who also refer to him as such, at least when they meet him), his jurisdiction for us is universal in every sense, very much like a "Catholicos." He and his Patriarchal Synod administer all UGCC internal affairs around the world, wherever we are to be found. Today when Rome goes over the Synod and appoints a bishop for an Eparchy outside of Ukraine, the Synod regards this as an anomaly. Usually such candidates will travel to the Patriarch and ask if HE blesses Rome's appointment before accepting it.

Also, how does referring local beatifications to Rome constitute a "practicality?" The opposite is surely the case! And even with what recent popes have done with the canonization process, the majority of saints still tend to be from the three main Latin countries. Rome's authority is universal, but it tends to act very much like a Particular Church of the Latin West.

Finally, your point regarding how saints canonized by Rome are not liturgically commemorated in the East demonstrates precisely my point.

The Pope may declare a saint for the city of Rome ONLY as Bishop of Rome and St John Paul did this with a married couple whose names I would have to look up. St Thomas More was canonized in the same way, together with St John Fisher, for the city of Rome ONLY in 1575 - they were canonized and their cultus was extended to the entire Church in 1935.

When a pope canonizes "universally" he commands the entire Church not only to recognize the saint, but to venerate him or her as well. As that is the case, then his canonization is really one for the universal Latin Church. The vast majority of these Saints are completely unknown in the East and they are not on Eastern Catholic calendars (except for a very select few). So the papal order to acknowledge and venerate the new saints stops short at the doors of the EC Churches.

But your point about the "willful decision" of the bishops not to canonize etc. is unfortunate since the bishops would not have such a will in the first place and are forbidden from doing so by Rome itself.

Alex

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Alex,

Quote
With respect to your first point, I hope you don't mind if I point out to you that you have it all completely wrong . . .
Don’t mind at all.

Quote
Pope Urban VIII decreed that canonizations and beatifications etc. etc. were all to be relegated to Rome, thus stripping all bishops of their power (and ancient rights) to canonize saints for their own dioceses (and also the rights of abbots to canonize saints for their own monasteries).

It was a completely top-down command by papal authority which has obtained ever since… Long story short, our bishops, any Catholic bishop, would not have the authority to canonize/beatify anyone today due to a papal decision to strip them of that ancient right. And when bishops of the time of Urban VIII continued to beatify saints in their dioceses, they did so by simply ignoring what Urban had decreed.

Urban VIII’s decrees are normally cited as the source of the norms for the canonization/glorification process, which apparently grants to the bishop of Rome SOLE hegemony over canonization/glorification Actually, Urban VIII’s decree was not “completely top-down.” His Bulla did not actually reserve to Rome everything regarding canonizations and beatifications, but excepted those cases wherein “the objects of a cultus” arose out of (1) the general consent of the Church, or (2) a custom of which the memory of man ran not to the contrary, or (3) the writings of the Fathers, or (4) the long and intentional tolerance of the Apostolic See OR THE ORDINARY."

The situation I proposed in my last post – a bishop approving a local cultus at a parish, the cultus spreading slowly and inexorably by diffusion, after perhaps many years spreading outside the borders of the diocese, and after many, many more years perhaps spreading even to much of the world – is not prohibited by Pope Urban’s decree. Commentaries I’ve read on the matter focus entirely on criterion number (2) (thereafter concluding the arbitrary “100 years before Pope Urban’s declaration” limit), but always fail to mention criteria (1) and (4).

From where the idea came that ONLY the Pope of Rome has the authority to approve the glorification of deceased persons, I cannot say, but it is certainly not from Urban VIII. Most likely, this is another Absolutist Petrine propaganda that managed to imprint itself into the consciousness of many Catholics, but with no real justification except for repeated claims by popular Catholic sources/ I don’t mean for this to be an insult, but I sometimes think it was fortunate I did not grow up Catholic, since it gives me a perspective that is not immediately influenced by the “Catholic” status quo. That might be refreshing to some, annoying to others. 

Quote
Despite this papal order, many Italian, French and Spanish bishops continued to canonize/beatify their own diocesan saints notwithstanding
Or, rather, simply because they knew that Urban VIII did not actually and absolutely take that prerogative away from them.

Quote
My alma mater's library has a large four-volume collection of photographs of images of such saints, glorified after Pope Urban's edict - quite a fascinating study.
I recall reading several years ago about a sociologist named Pierre Delooz who, during Vatican 2, did a study of the local cultus of saints. He found a great number of saints and blesseds venerated in Catholic Churches around the world that have never even come to Rome’s attention. From my Oriental perspective, that’s a very proper reality. As mentioned in my previous post, there is a distinction between veneration intended for universal acceptance, and veneration that is intended only to be local. The norms established by Popes are for deceased persons intended for universal approbation. It appears bishops after Urban VIII’s decrees readily made this distinction.

Quote
Also, our bishops have historically felt the canonization/beatification process to be something of a straight-jacket. St John Paul the Great tried to liberate that process by emphasizing local Church saints, as you know, to a great degree. When he beatified the UGCC New Martyrs, he based his decision on the completion of the diocesan process alone without having it referred to Rome to be entangled in that horrendously bureaucratic and costly canonization process which has been widely considered to be something of a scandal.
Agreed. I said they accepted the practical purpose of it, not that it was efficient. biggrin

Quote
Your points about every local bishop having the authority to approve the public cultus of this or that holy person today is simply, well, nonsense. That only obtained until the time of Urban VIII. No Catholic bishop or episcopal conference today would dare try to beatify anyone on their own. That would be an act of open defiance of Rome - sad but that is the reality.
(1) I don’t see anything from Urban VIII’s decree supporting the claim that local episcopal authorities have completely lost the power to approve local cultus;
(2) There are no ecclesiastical censures for a bishop actually approving a local cultus. The only repercussions of such an action, according to the magisterial documents on the canonization process, is that such a locally venerated person will never go through the Vatican process.

Quote
As for the jurisdiction of the UGCC Patriarch (he is Patriarch for us and I know there are EC bishops and primates who also refer to him as such, at least when they meet him), his jurisdiction for us is universal in every sense, very much like a "Catholicos." He and his Patriarchal Synod administer all UGCC internal affairs around the world, wherever we are to be found. Today when Rome goes over the Synod and appoints a bishop for an Eparchy outside of Ukraine, the Synod regards this as an anomaly. Usually such candidates will travel to the Patriarch and ask if HE blesses Rome's appointment before accepting it.
That’s good. The CCEO affirms that if Rome appoints a bishop that was not nominated by the Synod, the Synod can challenge it. I wasn’t aware of this action done by the appointees.

Quote
Also, how does referring local beatifications to Rome constitute a "practicality?" The opposite is surely the case! And even with what recent popes have done with the canonization process, the majority of saints still tend to be from the three main Latin countries. Rome's authority is universal, but it tends to act very much like a Particular Church of the Latin West.
I’m not sure about your point here. Can you please elaborate?

Quote
Finally, your point regarding how saints canonized by Rome are not liturgically commemorated in the East demonstrates precisely my point.

The Pope may declare a saint for the city of Rome ONLY as Bishop of Rome and St John Paul did this with a married couple whose names I would have to look up. St Thomas More was canonized in the same way, together with St John Fisher, for the city of Rome ONLY in 1575 - they were canonized and their cultus was extended to the entire Church in 1935.

When a pope canonizes "universally" he commands the entire Church not only to recognize the saint, but to venerate him or her as well. As that is the case, then his canonization is really one for the universal Latin Church. The vast majority of these Saints are completely unknown in the East and they are not on Eastern Catholic calendars (except for a very select few). So the papal order to acknowledge and venerate the new saints stops short at the doors of the EC Churches.
The practical outcomes of our respective viewpoints are obviously the same, but I perceive the following difference – let me know if I’ve interpreted you correctly.
You are saying that when the Pope canonizes, it is only for a particular Church, and not for the Church universal. The public veneration that follows in the form of a feast day in that particular Church’s calendar is due to the Pope’s authority to institute a feast day for the Saint in that particular Church.
I’m saying that when the Pope canonizes, it is for the Church universal, but it is the local episcopal authority that institutes the feast day for the Saint in that particular Church’s calendar.

I believe I am correct because the norms say that public veneration can only occur with the permission of the Pope and the local ordinary. It is not the authority of the Pope of Rome alone that establishes a feast day for a particular Church.

Quote
But your point about the "willful decision" of the bishops not to canonize etc. is unfortunate since the bishops would not have such a will in the first place and are forbidden from doing so by Rome itself.
Yes, I agree it is unfortunate, though I don’t believe our bishops are forbidden by Rome from doing so (EDIT: "canonize" according to the Eastern/Oriental understanding of the concept].

Blessings

Last edited by mardukm; 05/20/15 12:41 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Hello sir!

You've obviously analyzed Urban's decree in-depth - but I spoke to a bishop today who affirmed that it was Urban's decree that prevents any Catholic bishop from beatifying any one locally.

Don't shoot the messenger . . .

Also, he indicated to me that in the last 200 years, local bishops in the Latin Church have instituted what he called a "local cultus" in honour of a holy person esteemed in a diocese and that this happened in London, Ontario with a Catholic military man who spent hours in Eucharistic Adoration and died while ministering to a very ill woman.

He said that this was akin to the private cultus of a "Servant of God" although his cultus was never introduced at Rome. (We also have a holy Irish priest who is similarly venerated by the people and without episcopal approval - there is a school named for him - Father Francis McSpiritt and people visit his grave near Brampton to get soil from it for its curative powers. ).

But these instances tend to be "of the people" - which is not to say that that isn't valid.

The closest thing to what you are suggesting (and sometimes, it's not clear if you are proposing something or else saying that it already exists - it's just not clear to me and this isn't a criticism because I definitely WOULD want what you say to be true!), the closest thing would be when our former Patriarch Lubomyr Huzar translated the relics of Bl. New Hieromartyr Nicholas Charnetsky and instituted a liturgical feast for this without first conferring with anyone at Rome or the Oriental Congregation. That was something new and even "radical" for us.

But getting back to your point on Pope Urban, even if it can be shown that what was written in his decree did not forbid local bishops from beatifying their local worthies, and even if one wished to interpret in this same light the ongoing beatifications of such by bishops afterwards, the overall impact of Urban's decree was to centralize all "saint-making" within Rome itself.

In "pith and substance," no Catholic bishop would, today, dream of establishing a local liturgical cultus (in effect, what local beatification in years past entailed) for anyone without Rome's approval.

There are, of course, a plethora of local saints in various places in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Some of these are included in the Roman calendar over time such as Blessed Joachim of Florence. "Blessed Jerome Savonarola" was and is venerated even liturgically by the Dominicans and his cause has been reintroduced at Rome. And when an Anglican minister met St John XXIII, he showed him a picture of "Blessed King Henry VI" with a halo, indicating the former local veneration of the holy king in England prior to the Reformation. St John XXIII ordered the opening of the king's Cause right there and then!

Certainly, Rome has tried to decentralize the Beatification process, especially under Benedict XVI who reinstituted the practice of having local Bishops beatify those approved by Rome.

So my only reall point in this is that no bishop will again attempt to beatify anyone locally (certainly those local saints beatified in bygone centuries will have their cults maintained) until such time as Rome moves to decentralize the process further and return to the way things were.

In the Orthodox Churches, there are many, many local Saints whose feast-days are celebrated by one village and perhaps by a few neighbouring villages, but that is where it stops.

Local beatifications make eminent sense as the local people who knew the saint are in the best position to witness as to the person's holiness.

Also, the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches do not institute liturgical feasts for western Saints canonized by the Pope indicates that the EC Churches do not venerate these saints, do not have them in their calendars and, for the most part, have never heard (and have nothing to do) with the vast majority of them. And this despite the fact that the canonization decree is an order by the Pope that the entire Church honour him or her. The EC Churches will not dispute that so and so is a saint - it is just that he or she is outside our liturgical praxis. Thus, Rome's canonization is, in this way, defined within the context of the Latin Church for the most part.

When I met our Patriarch last year, I asked him about the inclusion of St John Paul into our liturgical calendar (following upon the Patriarch's warm words about the holy Pontiff at the time). The Patriarch said that "that's a good idea, we should talk about it at our next Synod."

Yes, St John Paul is a Saint of the entire Church. But until such time as he is on our EC and OC calendars and we have liturgical veneration of him - he is a saint of the Western Church only.

Cheers, Alex

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Hi brother Alex,

Quote
You've obviously analyzed Urban's decree in-depth
I had a heck of a time finding the actual quote, and not some paraphrase of the decree! biggrin

Quote
but I spoke to a bishop today who affirmed that it was Urban's decree that prevents any Catholic bishop from beatifying any one locally.

Don't shoot the messenger . . .
Don’t worry. I admitted in my last post that Urban’s decree is indeed the rationale behind the norms, I just couldn’t understand nor accept some of the claims put forth because of the decree.

Quote
Also, he indicated to me that in the last 200 years, local bishops in the Latin Church have instituted what he called a "local cultus" in honour of a holy person esteemed in a diocese and that this happened in London, Ontario with a Catholic military man who spent hours in Eucharistic Adoration and died while ministering to a very ill woman.

He said that this was akin to the private cultus of a "Servant of God" although his cultus was never introduced at Rome. (We also have a holy Irish priest who is similarly venerated by the people and without episcopal approval - there is a school named for him - Father Francis McSpiritt and people visit his grave near Brampton to get soil from it for its curative powers. ).
A rather common phenomenon based on Pierre Delooz’s study. This is exactly what I meant - the “private” veneration at some local chapel or parish, approved or tolerated by a bishop (or head bishop), with the cultus possibly spreading out over time. These local acts of veneration are permitted/approved by local episcopal authorities, without which they cannot exist. This is the very basis for glorification, according to the Eastern/Oriental understanding. This is not forbidden by Pope Urban’s decree.

Quote
But getting back to your point on Pope Urban, even if it can be shown that what was written in his decree did not forbid local bishops from beatifying their local worthies, and even if one wished to interpret in this same light the ongoing beatifications of such by bishops afterwards, the overall impact of Urban's decree was to centralize all "saint-making" within Rome itself.
Agreed. Also read my further comments below.

Quote
In "pith and substance," no Catholic bishop would, today, dream of establishing a local liturgical cultus (in effect, what local beatification in years past entailed) for anyone without Rome's approval.
The distinction between the primordial concept of glorification and the developed canonization process cannot be forgotten. The primordial concept sees beatification/glorification as a very informal process, and is an end in and of itself. In distinction, the developed understanding of the matter in the West sees beatification as simply a step towards formal, universal canonization. This distinction explains the centralization of beatification/glorification (i.e., it is simply considered an integral part of formal, universal canonization), but can also explain the persistence of local cultus in many places around the world (i.e., the primordial concept has never been lost, even in the Latin Church).

My position, as already intimated in my previous posts, is that the current formal process of canonization/beatification is specifically intended for those glorifications that a bishop/head bishop (of whatever Church) willfully submits for formal and universal canonization. However, this formal process (which counts beatification as merely a part of that formal process) does not cancel or diminish the reality or value of the primordial, informal process via local glorification, as evidenced not only by the continued existence of local cultus, but by the very wording of Pope Urban VIII’s decree itself.

Case in point. Let’s say there is a liturgical veneration of some deceased holy person in a certain diocese from time immemorial. The bishop has the choice of submitting this holy person through the formal Vatican process of canonization, or not. In the latter case, universal recognition may still obtain through the long process of diffusion, bishops locally approving the cultus and perhaps the cultus spreading throughout the world. This ancient manner is expressly exempted from the strictures of Urban VIII’s decree.

Quote
Certainly, Rome has tried to decentralize the Beatification process, especially under Benedict XVI who reinstituted the practice of having local Bishops beatify those approved by Rome.
Well noted. Also worth noting is that prior to the reforms, a bishop had to ask permission from the Congregation of Rites to even initiate a cause. Now, the prerogative to initiate a cause is affirmed to reside in the episcopal office itself.

Quote
Also, the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches do not institute liturgical feasts for western Saints canonized by the Pope indicates that the EC Churches do not venerate these saints, do not have them in their calendars and, for the most part, have never heard (and have nothing to do) with the vast majority of them. And this despite the fact that the canonization decree is an order by the Pope that the entire Church honour him or her. The EC Churches will not dispute that so and so is a saint - it is just that he or she is outside our liturgical praxis. Thus, Rome's canonization is, in this way, defined within the context of the Latin Church for the most part.
I feel I have to inject something here related to the High Petrine understanding of the papacy. It’s common knowledge that Absolutist Petrine advocates believe the Pope can impose his will on any local Church unilaterally. However, Pastor Aeternus and the canons both affirm that the Pope can only exercise his primatial authority in response or according to the needs of the Church (nope-it does not say “according to what the Pope feels the needs of the Church are”). Thus, I don’t believe it is actually within his authority as supreme pastor to impose the liturgical veneration of a “Western” saint onto the Eastern and Oriental Churches, if there is no need for it expressed by the Eastern or Oriental Churches themselves.

Blessings


Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5