www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Canonizing our own saints

Dear Friends,

This topic has come up from time to time already.

Just as the local Orthodox Churches glorify their own saints, should not the Eastern Catholic Churches do the same?

Should this not be a part of the overall expression of our Churches' Particularity as real Churches in communion with Rome?

And how would the "process" of such canonizations look like in our Churches?

Alex

Dear Alex and friends,

Canonization of saints in jurisdictions not in communion with Rome requires autocephalous status. In the United States, the OCA is the only jurisidiction that claims the right. Saints they have canonized are usually recognized by Russia forthwith. Of course, the OCAs autocephaly is not officially recognized by all orthodox jurisdictions, because it was granted by Moscow, not Constantinople. The ecumenical patriarch claims the exclusive right to grant autocephaly within the orthodox jurisdictions in communion with His See.

It is my understanding that eastern catholic churches are considered autonomous, but not autocephalous, which means that they must regard the pope as head of their church, not their local patriarch. In the case of the OCA, their Metropolitan is the head of the church itself, but in the case of the Greeks the head is not the American Archbishop, but the Ecumenical Patriarch. As far as I know, all orthodox jurisdictions outside Rome answer to overseas patriarchs except the OCA, and get their saints recognized from there.

Hope that helps. Criteria for canonization also vary between jurisdictions.

Dear Jim,

However, the local Orthodox bishops in Europe and Russia, as well as Orthodox monasteries, DO glorify their own local saints who are then eventually confirmed for wider veneration by the Patriarchs.

Was not St Raphael Hawaweeny glorified locally by the Antiochian Orthodox here in the U.S.?

The Saints of the Kyivan Caves, for instance, were venerated only by the Monastery/Lavra and it was only in the time of St Peter Mohyla that their veneration was extended to the Kyivan Church and still later to all of Orthodoxy.

For Orthodoxy, the level of ecclesial authority does not imply "power to canonize" but only the geographical extent of the veneration of the saint canonized.

When you say that the Pope must be considered the head of the Eastern Catholic Churches - I don't know about that phraseology.

At least, I don't see what that has to do with the right to glorify saints.

It was only in the time of Pope Urban VIII that canonization AND beatification were reserved to Rome alone. But even after that Pope, many local Latin bishops continued to beatify their own saints for their dioceses. Rome later approved their placement in the Roman calendar, without, however, approving their cult.

For example, Bl. Duns Scotus was only recently beatified by the Pope. But he was locally venerated as a Beatus in Italy for a few hundred years, beatified by a local Italian bishop.

Rome certainly has the power to canonize saints for the universal Church.

But surely our Patriarchs have the inalienable right, in accordance with long-standing Eastern tradition, to glorify saints for their own Churches, to be venerated by their local Churches?

Isn't it time for our Churches to go ahead and reclaim that right?

Alex

Dear Alex,

No. He was glorified by the OCA.

Here are some links:

http://www.antiochian.org/News/Bishop_RAPHAEL.html

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/feasts-and-saints/oca/st-raphael-hawaweeny/P roclamation.html [oca.org]

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/saints/peter_archbishop_ canonization_raphael.htm [orthodoxresearchinstitute.org]

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/straphaelcanonized/notes.html

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/straphaelcanonized/glor_photos.html

Tony

Dear Tony,

O.K., O.K. - point taken .

It's good that they glorified him!

At which point during the Liturgy of glorification is the Saint considered canonized in Orthodoxy?

Is it when the first prayers at the Vespers service invoke him?

Alex

After the last memorial service, the first vigil service for the righteous one glorifies him or her as a saint. The high point, in the Russian Tradition at least, is the first time the magnification/velichanye of matins is sung in great solemnity. The icon, which has just been brought from the holy table held aloft with the fans over it, is unveiled and is placed on the tetrapod or analogion and the saint is solemnly invoked for the first time whilst the icon is censed. It is surrounded by the people who, with lit tapers, pay respect to their newly proclaimed intercessor before God.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

To add to what Tony said a little, it was even regarded as a diplomatic, unifying act to canonize St. Raphael of Brooklyn, because both the Antiocheans and the OCA worked on it, but the official canonization came from the OCA due to its autocephaly. In all probability, the Patriarch of Antioch must have recognized him, too, which would necessitate recognition by the EP.

People can venerate who they please unofficially, but not as part of a public statement of the Faith unless tradition is followed. However, even though Constantinople doesn't recognize the OCAs autocephaly, you'll still find a Greek priest here and there who will respect the saints of the OCA in an effort to better represent the Church in America. They may not remember them at the altar, but they might include them in catechism studies, for example. And if another "approved" autocephalous jurisdiction recognizes the saint, no problem.

But, Alex, don't you want do be infallibly sure your "saint" is in Heaven?

ChristTeen287

Is the infallibility of the Church not enough for you Latins? :p

What do you think?

ChristTeen287

P.S.- And I am NOT a Latin!

You coulda fooled me. If you're not a Latin, then you are the nuttiest Methodist I've ever known. :p

Here's an interesting read:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

So, ISTM, in the general sense particular churches have not only the right but the duty to "canonize". Archbishop Kociscko did just that in establishing the cause of our Bishop Martyrs. In the specific technical sense, however, they cannot, as their proclamations are not preceptive for the universal church.

In principle, beatification would fall within the realm of a particular church. If you read through the encyclopedia entry, however, you will find the the process has become amazingly elaborate. (I suppose we need to have all the unvarnished facts before the Boston Globe.) If the level of rigorous scrutiny were to be maintained it would probably be impossible for most particular churches to carry out the process; only if the process were considerably simplified would it be feasible, ISTM, for all of the particular churches.

At the level of declaring an individual "venerable" - this seems a much simpler preliminary step in which documentation provided by the advocates (e.g., Archbishop Kociscko) is reviewed, accepted, and shipped off to the beatification bureacracy. If we can put venerables on the calendar (can we?), then it seems to that the development of a "cultus" of veneration is pretty much in our own hands.

As to infallibility, the article makes some interesting points. While it is said that most theologians consider canonizations (strictly defined) as infallible, the scope is argued to be restricted only to the declaration of Sainthood per se, and not to specifics of the case. Moreover, beatifications are not infallible, as they are not "final" teachings, nor are they universally binding.

Just a couple of points. First, a the glorification of a true martyr is a mere recognition of fact, the act of martyrdom is a glorification unto itself. Of course, this goes back to the Acts of he Apostles and the Protomartyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts Chapters 6 through 8). Of course, Chapter 7 tells us that St. Stephen saw the glory of God and the Son of Man standing at His right hand, before he even gave up his spirit (and was still alive). Chapter 8 begins with St. Paul concurring with the Act and starting a great persecution. But it also says that (verse 2) "Devout men buried Stephen, bewailing him loudly as they did so". The mere recognition that one is indeed martyred for their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is a glorification unto itself. The act of martyrdom (as attested to in Acts) sends their spirit strait to the glorious thrown of God. See also the souls in Revelation.

Regarding St. Raphael, he was glorified by the OCA in coordination with the Antiochian Archdiocese. His Biography "Good Shepherd of the Lost Sheep in America" with Akolouthia, Akathist and Byzantine Tonal Music are published by Antakya Press (as well as the short Service of Supplication).

Virtually every jurisdiction in North America (at least de facto if not de jure) recognizes Raphael Hawaweeney and the man for he served as auxilliary for, Tikhon Bellavin, as Saints. There was no ethnicjurisdictionalism in North America atthe time, they were the bishops of all Orthodox. At the Antiochian Village (where the uncorrupted remains are now buried), all Orthodox studying at the House of Studies venerate him (he is special to the Ecumenical Patriarchate Greeks as a product of their Theological School at Halki). Even the monastics of the ROCOR (as well as other non-SCOBA groups) venerate both Sts. Tikhon and Raphael (at least piously, if not formally). The Saintly Bishops of North America were the Bishops of what is now the ROCOR, too.

Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Was, Is and Ever Shall Be!

Three Cents

Yes, well, my mother would most certainly agree!

ChristTeen287

Well... our Moms (usually) keep us on the straight and narrow! and when you become Byzantine Catholic, Christteen (or maybe Orthodox , you will find that the Babushkas keep the entire faithful on the straight and narrow!!! Wonderfully strong women with an unconquerable faith! Learn from them!