Dear brother Chaldobyzantine,

That is a strange response. Why would anyone prefer a merely local veneration for a great and holy man, instead of the universal veneration that the Holy Father's recognition affords? I'm sure he already had local veneration from the Melkites - otherwise, he wouldn't have received recognition from HH.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is just the crux of the problem. I do know you have a pro-Western approach to this issue, but the main Eastern view is that the Pope should be "first among equals", not the Arch-Patriarch who universally controls everything, even canonizations. A canonization in any Eastern Catholic Church should be just as universal as a Roman Catholic one.

It is still sad that we do not have any Eastern services for Beatification or Canonization in the Catholic church. I remember watching Beatifications and Canonizations of Maronites and the Patriarch was never the one to celebrate it, its always a Latin Cardinal or the Pope.

Here is a link about Venerable Fr. Bechara
http://www.saintelias.org/beta/SaintsMain.html

God Bless.

Dear brother chaldobyzantine,

It's not a problem and it is not pro-Western. It is Catholic. If I would wish a local Saint in my Coptic Church to be universally recognized, then I would make an effort to initiate a process that would reach the protos of the Church universal, so he would make the proclamation.


I don't understand why this is an issue of "control" all of sudden. Please explain.

Why or how? No Eastern or Oriental Catholic Patriarch claims to be able to speak for the entire Church. Only the Pope has that honor and prerogative as protos, and every Eastern and Oriental Patriarch recognizes that. It's not about power. It's just the way the Church has always been constituted.

This comment I don't understand. The non-Latin "process" has always been one of acclamation on the local levels, not formal procedures. Why is that not enough for you?

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree heartily with the observations by my brother, chaldobyzantine. In addition, it is highly unlikely that, regardless of what future action is taken by Rome as regards the Venerable Hieromonk Bechara, that his cultus will ever be observed 'universally', if by that we mean outside the Eastern (specifically the Melkite Church sui iuris). In that regard, 'local' (Melkite) veneration is not 'all we can hope for', it is what will be and what we should have - just as I would not expect my Church or Marduk's to establish a feast for St Damien of Molokai or St Kateri Tekawitha, despite the fact that I have a personal devotion to both of them.

Dependency on the Latin Church to declare the heroic virtues of the holy men and women of our (Eastern and Oriental) Churches is a hold-over of the colonialist approach that sees our Churches as children to be superintended because we lack the maturity to take such actions on our own behalf. It is also no small part of the reason why there is so little recognition given to the modern-day (20th century) Saints of our Churches - several of which have no declared Saints, despite the martyr's blood that has been shed and the heroic virtues which have been exercised.

Many years,

Neil - waiting patiently for the canonization of: Servant of God Papa Josif Mihali (Albanian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Archbishop Ignatius Shoukrallah Maloyan, ICPB (Armenian Catholic Church); Servant of God Father Archimandrite Fabian Abrantovich, MIC (Belarusian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Father Kamen Vitchev, AA (Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church); Servants of God Father Ragheed Aziz Ganni & Subdeacons Basman Yousef Daud, Wahid Hanna Isho, & Gassan Isam Bidawed (Chaldean Catholic Church); Blessed Eparch Vasil Hopko (Czech Greek-Catholics); Blessed Abba Ghebre Michael, CM (Ethiopian Ge-ez Catholic Church); Servant of God Father Exarch Shio Batmalashvili (Georgian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Francis, Abd-el-Mo'ty, and Raphael Massabki (Maronite Catholic Church); Servant of God Eparch Juliu Cardinal Hossu (Romanian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Exarch Leonid Feodorov (Russian Greek-Catholic Church); Blessed Bishop Theodore Romzha (Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church); Blessed Bishop Pavel Gojdic, OSBM (Slovak Greek-Catholic Church); Servants of God Fathers Thair Sad-alla Abd-al & Waseem Sabeeh Al-kas Butros (Syriac Catholic Church); Servant of God Father Job Chittilappilly (Syro-Malabar Catholic Church); Blessed Bishop Nicholas Charnetsky, CSsR (Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church), all Martyrs of thrice-blessed memory, as well as so many others.

This is not true. The recent beatification of Blessed Estephan Nehme was celebrated by the Maronite Patriarch, witnessed by Cardinal Leonardo Sandri.

Dear brother Neil,

I find little merit in brother chaldobyzantine's complaint. I know of only one restriction on the establishment of local cultus in the Catholic Church - that recently deceased persons cannot be hastily raised to the status of public veneration without papal approval. The necessity for prudence in the matter is nothng more than the ancient rule on the practice, as witnessed in the writings of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, among others. A local Church has the right to establish local public veneration if no ordinary of the territory has demonstrated objection to the cultus after a long period of time (according to a Bull by Pope Urban VIII in 1634). I believe canon law assigns 30 years for a local tradition to become enshrined as law for that territory. And besides - there is no restriction on private veneration.

I respectfully disagree. Appealing to the bishop of Rome for a universal recognition of sainthood is not a matter of dependency on the Latin Church. In such an instance, the Pope is not acting as bishop of Rome, nor as Patriarch of the Latins, but as universal pastor, neither Western, Eastern or Oriental. As stated, there is no absolute restriction on the establishment of a local cultus by a local ordinary, but wanting that local saint to acquire universal recognition is not within the competence of any local bishop or head bishop. One can either petition the Pope, or wait for the next Ecumenical Council (which would probably take forever! )

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for that information (and correction)! Beatifications - which reflect the establishment of local public veneration - have Traditionally been in the competence of the local ordinary. It stands to reason that the beatification Mass should be celebrated by the head bishop of the Maronites.

Blessings

I stand in agreement with Chaldobyzantine and Irish Melkite. I see no reason why the canonization process should belong solely to the Bishop of Rome.

I don't have a 'pony in this race' but from the Orthodox point of view, Irish Melkite is quite correct in his observation about the particular veneration of Saints being primarily local in the east, with notable exceptions as the 'fame' (I hate that term, but it is descriptive, so I will use it) of a particular Saint grows beyond his or her original lands. Several contemporary examples in Orthodoxy illustrate my point.

The Ecumenical Patriarch elevated Bishop Nectarios of Pentapolis to 'formal' status as a Saint of the Church in the 1960's. For some time his veneration was primarily limited to local Greek faithful from the island of Aegina. However, as word of his miraculous intercessions began to spread across the Orthodox world, veneration of St. Nectarios became more and more commonplace, regardless of one's nationality. Today in ACROD we have regular Molebens to St. Nectarios seeking his aid for those who have cancer or other physical ailments. His oil has been distributed world-wide for these devotions which are well attended by Orthodox and Catholic alike.

In the 1980's and 1990's, the Orthodox Church in America, recognized the Sainthood of Father Alexis(Toth) of Wilkes-Barre, St. Herman of Alaska and several other North American Saints. While the veneration of St. Alexis has mostly been localized among the Rusyn and Galician peoples of both ACROD and the OCA, St. Herman has found a place in devotions across the world.

Separate actions by the Moscow Patriarch or the Ecumenical Patriarch or any other Orthodox Bishop were not needed for the veneration and recognition of these Saints by the universal Church (Orthodox that is). The degree and scope of that veneration is irrelevant from the eastern point of view.


That would be the factor distinguishing the western approach from that of the east - be the eastern Christian of Orthodox or Catholic heritage. (If I have misstated Neil's position, I apologize, but I think I have not done so.)

I wish I saw Bl. Estephan Nehme's beatification, I referred to the Beatification of Bl. Yacoub al-Kabbouchi in the earlier post. BTW Does someone from the Vatican need to observe the ceremony to see "if the Easterners are doing it right" or to concelebrate?

In agreement with DMD and Irish Melkite, I must respond to your posts brother Marduk. St. Raphael of Brooklyn was canonized in the OCA, and the Antiochian church commemorates him, and so do other Orthodox churches without needing another ceremony or personal recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarch. There is no solid reason to say that the same cannot happen in the Catholic Churches.

As Vatican II had promoted the return of Eastern Catholic Churches to their Orthodox ways, this is one issue in particular that is part of that reform. The Byzantine and Oriental Glorification rites are formal and should be restored in usage for at least a Beatification equivalent.

To say the Latin way of doing it is enough or arguing that "it's Catholic, its just the way it is" is not an argument that promotes our Eastern spirituality. To say the Pope is the protos and his recognition is more popular is not a good argument either. The Pope can announce that an Eastern Patriarch has canonized a Saint after his angelus address and the popularity would be just the same.

To this day, the Eastern Catholics still need to have Vatican approval to Beatify or Canonize people, meaning local cultus isn't even official as you imply it already is. There really is no reason for an Eastern Patriarch to even need any approval to beatify a martyr other than proof of that person's martyrdom.

I hope that this healthy dialogue will be read by someone who can promote some change

Looking forward to your response
God Bless.

As I am sure everyone knows, there is an elaborate vetting process in the Latin Church for naming someone a saint complete with a "devil's advocate." As with everything in the Vatican, this whole process can be highly politicized and a well funded candidate with a strong backing from a powerful organization can get to official sainthood faster some priests can say mass. I would hold up the founder of Opus Dei as a classic example. The Opus Dei generously gave my parish a 4' tall black and white photo of the good saint which hangs menacingly out of place on the back wall facing the altar.

The recent rash of saintly declarations have also been agenda driven. A husband and wife to show that married people can achieve heaven through living their married vocation. A young girl killed fighting off a rapist to show the value of purity and maybe even an Eastern Catholic priest to raise the awareness of the Latins to the East.

My impression is that the Eastern churches have neither the mechanism nor the stomach for such a process. In fact, I much prefer the Walmart brand of saint who is known to the people for his or her holiness, which in many cases is probably as great or greater than that of the Neiman-Marcus variety the Vatican favors.

As a Latin Catholic I guess my general impression is this is a lot of discussion about nothing. Being declared a saint by the Vatican or anyone else for that matter is more about marketing than sanctity. If a person's personal devotion to a deceased holy person aids that person's own journey toward sanctity then I believe that the object of that devotion is a saint. official or otherwise.

Well, there was the time when the OCA and ROCOR were doing double glorifications of American saints, such as Herman of Alaska, as well as the ROC and ROCOR doing the same for Russian saints.

Dear brother Athanasius,

It doesn't belong solely to the Bishop of Rome. Canonization is a ground-up process - it starts with the laity, then on through bishops. After a sufficient amount of time (with appropriate investigations), bishops can establish public veneration of a Saint in their local liturgy (in Latinese, this would be Beatification). If the bishop chooses to submit the Saint's name for universal recognition (and not just the local calendar), then he can submit the Saint's cause to Rome (in Latinese, this would be Canonization). Actually, a layperson (and not just a bishop) can initiate the cause for a Saint - which is the norm.

"Canonization" does not make one a saint any more than "beatification" does.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother DMD,

I think brothers Neil and chaldobyzantine are approaching the matter from different perspectives (though they can chime in and correct me). Brother Neil seems to be satisfied with the principle of local veneration - even universal recognition by the Pope will not really change the practice much (though I would add that it would be good advertising for Eastern and Oriental Saints). Brother Chaldobyzantine, on the other hand, seems to want to grant local bishops the ability to speak to the universal Church on this matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Chaldobyzantine,

Are Latin dignitaries present just to see "if the Easterners are doing it right?" I thought they were present simply to demonstrate the universality of the recognition. I'm not a cradle non-Latin Catholic, so I guess I'm just not that cynical about the matter.

Sure it can. In fact, if local veneration becomes universal by "osmosis," and not through the formal process of canonization, such recognition is valid in the Catholic Church. The benchmark ruling on the matter was given by Pope Urban VIII in 1638. He issued a Bulla stating that local public veneration of recently deceased persons will no longer be allowed without permission of the Holy See. The Bulla also clarififed that it does not "prejudice the case of those who were the objects of a cultus arising out of the general consent of the Church." I don't understand why the ceremony is so important to you. A Saint is a Saint is a Saint. Beatification or Canonization does not make one any more a Saint than that Saint already is. You criticize the Latin process, and then complain that the non-Latins are not being Latin enough on the matter. Very confusing.

The restoration needs to be done by our hierarchs, not the Pope, because Rome never took it away, except to insist that a sufficient period of time must attend the matter. That our hierarchs choose to use the formal canonization process (which can begin 5 years after the death of a Saint), instead of waiting 30 years for tradition to become official Custom according to law, is not the fault of the Holy Father. Practically speaking, the formal process will probably take longer, but there is always a hope, I surmise (and there's the added benefit of formal universal recognition).


You seem to be the only one arguing this, to the point that you have expressed the wish that the Eastern/Oriental Churches adopt a process similar to the Latins.


This has nothing to do with Eastern spirituality for the plain fact that Eastern spirituality is not affected by the formal canonization process. The Eastern paradigm on the matter has always been local, private veneration first and foremost.


I didn't say that his recognition is more "popular." I said his recognition has an offical universal stamp on it, not merely local. And I've never argued that this is the only, much less necessary, way. I'm only challenging your suggestion that this is a matter of "control." This process was not imposed. It is the formal means, but not the only means by which the Church can universally recognize Sainthood (as indicated in the quotation of the Bulla from Pope Urban VIII). Our hierarchs choose to use it.

That's a bit of an oxymoron. "Canonization" is not part of the Eastern paradigm, so an Eastern Patriarch would not be in the business of "Canonizing." The Eastern paradigm (AFAIK) on the matter is local first and foremost. In Latin terms, an Eastern Patriarch would only be involved in Beatification. Canonization, on the other hand, has a universal scope. It is not in the Eastern Tradition to assign its local bishops, even local head bishops, such a prerogative. An Eastern Catholic Patriarch can glorify a Saint via Custom. That Saint can then have local (not universal) public (not just private) veneration (i.e., included in the Diptychs of the Liturgy). If the Patriarch wishes universal recognition for the Saint, then he can submit his cause either to an Ecumenical Council, or to the Pope, who, as spokesman and protos of the Church, can speak for the Church on the matter.

That's probably because the Canonization process is the one being used by our local hierarchs. Simple as that. It's their choice. They were not forced to do it.

On paper, no change is needed. In practice, it is up to our own hierarchs, not Rome, to utilize recognition by Custom, a prerogative that has always been there.

Blessings,
Marduk

David, my brother,

You have not misstated it in the least. Well put!


Marduk, my brother,

The initiation of a cause is rarely initiated by an individual who is not a bishop or a member of a religious congregation and I think you'd be hard pressed to identify an instance in which a layperson has done so. I certainly cannot and I follow the processes fairly closely.

Likewise, initiation of a cause or its approval by a hierarch, the competent bishop so-called, does not allow of public veneration or beatification. It does allow the individual to be termed 'Servant of God'. The title 'Venerable' is only conferred once the Congregation's theologians, historians, and prelates unanimously consent to the facts enunciated in the biography and witness testimony published by the collaborator named by the Congregation, based on the results of the diocesan tribunal's inquest into the life of the one considered, and present the decree for the pope's consideration and approval.

Beatification follows for martyrs, without requirement of a miracle. For those not martyred, a formally recognized miracle is required. Only after the fact of beatification, may the holy one be termed 'Blessed' - that process is distinctly removed from the authority of the local hierarch or other authority.

Canonization requires an additional miracle to be certified - regardless of whether the individual was martyred in odium fidei or is sought to be canonized by reason of heroic virtues.

A full discussion of the processes, as set forth in the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister and its subsequent Normae can be read at the Hagiography Circle [newsaints.faithweb.com].

Many years,

Neil

Marduk,

You seriously misread the decree of Urban, which effectively decreed that those already declared Saints by reason of local cultus and popular acclamation (those 'canonized pre-Congregation' in the common parlance) would continue to be so honored, but which reserved to Rome the canonization of all those considered for such thereafter.

For an Eastern hierarch to declare an individual to be Sainted and approve 'local' veneration means what? That such may be accorded him or her within the historical patriarchal territory? Do you honestly believe that HB Gregory could declare Venerable Bechera to be a Saint and that the Eparchy of Newton of the Melkites could then erect a temple under the patronage of Saint Bechara?

Your decidedly Latin outlook belies your historical religious heritage and the Church sui iuris to which you belong. I am mystified by how to characterize it. You don't adopt a strictly ultramontanist attitude in this regard - that would be more understandable and be easier to rebut. Instead, you have concocted and expound a scenario of circumstance that has no basis in the reality of how things are done within the Catholic Communion, in an apparent effort to make the relationship of Rome and the Eastern Churches much more collegial and even-handed than it is in reality.

No one, and I think chaldobyzantine would agree, cares whether the Western Church adopts universal veneration (within its territories, parishes, dioceses, etc) of Eastern Saints. Do we think such will happen? Not any more than we anticipate that the Eastern Churches will adopt wholesale interest in or veneration of Latin Saints. While we may, as individuals, have profound interest in or prayerful veneration for one or many such Saints, I certainly would not anticipate that we'd merge them into our liturgical calendars, add them to our litanies, write akathists to them, display icons of them, etc.

While I consider St Swithin an interesting individual, I don't see his heroic virtues as having particular relevance to Eastern or Oriental Catholics. I suppose that I might feel different if I were an Eastern Catholic farmer, hard-hit by drought, and looking for a patron to whom I might pray privately for intercession against it. Otoh, there are Latin Saints whose holiness is so notable that I could see devotion springing up to them, regardless of one's Church sui iuris. Personally, I have such devotion for St Damien, St Kateri, and St Katharine Mary Drexel - but, I'd be loath to see an Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church erect a temple under the patronage of any of the three.

Likewise, I'd be surprised (and loath) to see a Latin parish or the Slovak Greek-Catholic Church erect a temple under the patronage of Venerable Archbishop Geevarghese Mar Ivanios, OIC, Proto-Hierarch of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. His cultus is inherent to the latter and neither has nor needs a broader base to make him worthy of acclamation.

I invite you to gaze on the faces of those commemorated on this page and afford us a reasonable explanation of why Rome should stand between our Churches and the declaration of the holiness at the level of Sainthood of the martyrs pictured there. Or, peruse the list that I appended to my signature in an earlier post - or the even longer lists, primarily of martyrs, of Eastern and Oriental Churches that can be found on the Hagiography Circle site and tell me, honestly, that Rome serves the needs of our Churches and faithful in this matter.

Many years,

Neil

At that time ROCOR was not considered part of the canonical Orthodox Church, nor did ROCOR consider the MP or the OCA to be canonical. That anomaly has since been corrected so such 'double' actions would be unnecessary within the canonical Orthodox world.

For what it is worth, I know that many Eastern Catholic either venerate or hold in high esteem glorified Orthodox saints and that many Orthodox reciprocate particularly with respect to the martyrs of communism and fascism. (Many Orthodox in Slovakia the United State and Ukraine have familial or regional relationships with Blessed Theodore Romhza or Pavel Goidich or Basll Hopko and recognize their martyrdom.)

Dear brother Neil,

Here is a description of the ordinary process by an English professor Mgr. Hallett:
"Any Catholic may petition the bishop to begin the proceedings. The first step will be to appoint a postulator...But if a cause is to proceed in the ordinary method, a beginning will be made when a bishop, either spontaneously or at the request of the faithful, institutes three proceedings. They are called "de scriptis," "de fama sanctitatis et mirraculorum," and "de non cultu."

Do you find something incorrect in that description?

I never said it did. I clearly distinguished between recognition by the formal process and recognition by Custom. What you say only applies to the formal process.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Neil,

I'm not saying he would. I'm saying he could. You are probabaly aware that one of the steps of the process is to ensure that there is no existing public cultus for the Saint. Why do you suppose that is, brother? If public cultus before the official proclamation is an impossibility (as you seem to claim), then why is there a need for that step in the process? Obviously, there have been and are local bishops who have established public veneration for local Saints. There was a report published in 1969 (contained in the Curial records -http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070
517_sanctorum-mater_en.html) that included a list of many locally beatified Saints. Was there a wholesale excommunication of bishops during this period that I'm not aware of?

If a local Saint has already obtained local public veneration by Custom, then his cause cannot proceed further in the formal process. That's it. It's not like the local bishop is censured for allowing it. It's just that the formal process for universal recognition will not proceed.

This is why I find little merit in brother Chaldobyzantine's complaints. There is really nothing that prevents local public veneration. Nothing has been forced on our hierarchs. They have the option of instituting local public veneration. But if they do, the possibility of having official and formal universal recognition will no longer be possible (though it might still occur by "osmosis").

What you are sensing from me is my natural opposition against unjustified attempts to make the Pope out to be a dictator. If you think that is being Latin, then I'll submit to your judgment.

I think that's an understandable reaction - it's not true, but it is understandable. The reality is that our hierarchs choose to go through the formal process. And it is also a reality that local public veneration of local saints does exist in the Catholic Church. These will never go through the formal process of formal universal recognition. But so what? Isn't that your point? So I don't understand the complaints.

If this is so, in the context of what I've written (since local public veneration does in fact exist), then his complaints have no merit indeed.

I've yet to see any proof that Rome is "standing between" our Churches and the local veneration (public or private) of our respective Saints.

Blessings,
Marduk

Can some one please explain to me the different classes on the road to Sainthood. As an Orthodox Christian who came into Communion with Rome I still don't understand all these different steps.

Thanks!

Brother Marduk, I am admittedly less educated on the very formal rules of the Roman Catholic Church, and I thank you for your information and specifics on this case. Through your comments, and the legal terminology used by the RCC, I will try to make my case simpler and less confusing. I am humble in my knowledge of this issue but I will try to make my case the best I can.

My main issue here is to have the Eastern Catholic Churches have the ability to Glorify/Canonize Saints just as the Orthodox do. I am hoping for a Universal recognition process of Saints to exist in the patriarchal level, meaning that Eastern Patriarchates should have the ability to perform glorifications. Eastern Churches currently do not use their own services for recognizing a Holy person, but the Latin service. Local recognition should mean that person is particularly venerated in a local level, not that the person should be recognized as a holy person in something as large as a Patriarchate. In short, I want the churches to be more Orthodox.

I am encouraged by your remarks that it is the right of the Eastern churches to do their own process of recognizing holy people and their ability to do so is not being exercised. Though I am interested as to why the formal process that can begin 5 years after the person falls asleep is mainly geared toward a Papal recognition service instead of Patriarchal one. I am also interested as to where the figure of 30 years in the local process came from. I'm not if sure it exists in either
Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches.

I understand my definition of "local" level is different from yours. My understanding is that it is the level of an eparchy, archdiocese, or metropolitanate of a Patriarchate. Yours includes the Patriarchal level, this is where I see our confusion. I do not mind if only beatifications or veneration is at a non-patriarchal level. As Orthodox in communion with Rome, I think our Patriarchs should have just as much of the ability to glorify a Saint for "Universal" recognition just as the Pope does. After all the Pope himself is the Patriarch of Rome, not an infallible arch-Patriarch. To say that a something done by a Patriarch is at a local level and for the Pope it is at a universal one is unfair and brings the title of Patriarch down to nothing more than a bishop under Rome.

I hope that my original arguments and issues have been clarified. Please let me know if I forgot anything.

God Bless.

Hi Nelson,

Here's a list of the various steps together with an explanation that I found here [catholic-pages.com].


There's also a good article on Wikipedia about Canonization [en.wikipedia.org].


I hope that helps.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

I agree with Chaldobyzantine, Neil, David, and Athanasius.

It seems as though this is one area where we Eastern Catholics have not fully embraced our identity as Orthodox Christians in union with Rome. I think we should embrace fully the process of glorifying Saints in our Churches, and after doing so, we can inform Rome and ask that the Universal Church be informed of what has happened. I understand that the Pope would be able to speak to and for the universal Church and say that a particular Eastern Saint has been declared a Saint. In this scenario, it is just a matter of informing the Church Universal that a Saint has been declared and can now be venerated throughout the entire world.

The process of Glorifying Saints in the Orthodox Church seems to fit better the Eastern theological approach. It is less legalistic and less rigid. I understand that there are still the same requirements, i.e. a heroically holy life, no heresy, miracles, etc., but it fits the Eastern approach to the things of God so much better. I love how during the ceremonies in which someone is glorified that the Church moves from praying for that person to praying to that person.

Another thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is papal infallibility. There has been no mention about the role that papal infallibility plays in the canonization process. It is understood by many theologians that canonizations fall under the umbrella of papal infallibility because the Holy Father uses the same language when declaring a saint as he does when he speaks ex cathedra. This seems to be another reason why the entire process of canonizations is reserved to the Holy See. When someone is finally canonized, it is seen as an infallible proclamation, so in that way, it does go beyond the fact that the Pope is the Universal Pastor.

Plus, if an Eastern Catholic Patriarch conducts the ceremony of beatification only after approval has come from Rome, it gives the appearance that he must wait for permission from Rome to declare the holiness of such persons. It touches on an issue of ecclesiology as much as anything. I really do not understand why our bishops have chosen to be bound by the process of canonization in the Latin Church and wish they would consider making changes.

Also, I think Catholics, both East and West, tend to forget that the Church does not "make" someone a Saint, but rather the Church recognizes publicly the work that God has done. I think the process of glorifying a Saint in the East shows this more than the process in the West, but it is still the case.

Marduk, while the process of declaring a Saint may not theoretically be completely reserved to the Holy See, it is in practice. All one has to do is read the quote from the Holy See Press Office, which I just posted, to see that the Bishop of Rome wants to keep the process centralized. I know that you do not want to see the Pope as a dictator, but in this instance, it is difficult not to view the situation in that way. What is the danger of making explicit a change that will allow individual Churches sui juris to conduct their own process of canonization? I pray that one day this may change.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Marduk,

I did not state that it was an impossibility that a public cultus might arise prior to the initiation of the process. In fact, it well might and such is deemed presumptive and is to be abrogated prior to the initation of the process.

The phrasing as to the matter of a pre-existing local cultus suffers in most translations and is not as you have perceived it.

Title III of the Appendix to the 2007 Sanctorum Mater states:


This necessitates that the competent bishop assure that no public ecclesiastical veneration is accorded to the Servant of God prior to the time that he or she is elevated from the status of Venerable to that of Blessed. If such exists, the bishop must assure that such not be fostered and, if it exists, must act to terminate such. It does not follow that the process itself must end; effectively, the bishop may not allow public ecclesiastical veneration of the Venerable one (a bit of an oxymoron there) to occur unless and until he or she is elevated to the ranks of the Blessed.

Cf Article 88, Chapter 1, Title IV, Part V, of the same document, which further delineates the nature of the requirements to be fulfilled in assuring that no public cultus is allowed to result in ecclesiastical activity which would amount to presumtive veneration of the Servant of God:


and to Part VI of the same document, which requires that the competent bishop assure that there has been adherence to the prohibition against initiation of a public cultus in advance of the approval of same by a declaration of the Servant of God's Beatification:


Unstated, but clear to understanding, is that - if such are found to exist, the competent bishop, before proceeding further, must take whatever steps are required to terminate such public ecclesiastical cultus as presumptive.

Many years,

Neil

Marduk,

Can you give me a better citation to the referenced report. The link provided is to the 2007 SANCTORUM MATER and, although it is replete with references to the consideration of so-called Ancient Causes, I cannot find a link or reference to the report you cite. While I suspect that I know the nature of the listings and will be pleased to discuss these, I'd like to see the list to confirm what I believe to be the circumstances involved.

Many years,

Neil

By the way, I'd direct your attention to Benedict XVI's letter of 5/16/2006 to the Congregation


which rather clearly makes the points that I've stated above.

Many years,

Neil

Nelson,

I'd recommend that you look at the process as described on the Hagiography Circle page that I linked in an earlier post. On a quick read, Wikipedia's presentation has a few flaws in it.

Many years,

Neil

There are videos that contain footage of the beatification. As you will see, it was celebrated by His Beatitude, Mor Nasrallah Peter Sfeir with Cardinal Angelo Amato, Perfect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, representing His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.youtube.com/user/maronites#p/u/15/boGaePHTdrk

http://www.youtube.com/user/maronites#p/u/18/8XyqGbahcUI

http://www.youtube.com/user/maronites#p/u/16/AsIK-sX79FU

http://www.youtube.com/user/maronites#p/u/17/FxeJSWQs4QU

I am in agreement with you, and Chaldobyzantine and Irish Melkite, on this issue. The Melkite Church is fully Catholic, that is, it is the one and universal (i.e., the whole) Church in each of its local parishes, and when all of its parishes are grouped together as a patriarchate. It lacks nothing. Wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated and the Orthodox faith professed under the presidency of a bishop, or a priest appointed by a bishop, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is present. Thus there is no need for the pope to canonize saints in the other patriarchal Churches.

Thank you, Neil, for posting that quote. I think this helps to reinforce, although implicitly, my earlier point about canonizations being understood as an infallible act on the part of the Pope of Rome, which is why the Holy Father seeks to keep them reserved to himself.

This thread continues to reinforce my thoughts that the glorification of Saints should be the prerogative of each of the Catholic Churches sui juris and not just reserved to His Holiness, the Patriarch of Rome.

However, this brings up another topic, which would probably be best dealt with in another thread, but I will mention it here. It seems to me this is another one of those statements that make the Orthodox nervous, for lack of a better word. On the one hand, the Holy Father will say that he desires reconciliation with the Orthodox and wants them to maintain the integrity of their Churches, but then, he makes a statement like this, which can be read in a way that makes it sound like he is saying only the Pope of Rome can glorify saints. Whether or not he meant it that way doesn't really matter because I'm not sure how else to interpret it. I am sure that he probably meant to say that within the Roman Rite this is the way things have developed, and if pushed, he would probably clarify it in that way.

Am I mistaken about this? Am I misreading what the Pope has written? Perhaps within the context of the letter, it is understood differently. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I do not mean to be overly critical of the Pope and ask forgiveness if I have done so. I am open to correction on this, so please feel free to do so. I desire very much to be as faithful as I can to Eastern Christianity, and it bothers me when it seems as though we cannot do that within the Catholic Church.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Dear brother Scott,

I think at first glance, any Eastern or Oriental would look at HH's statement with some concern. I really do appreciate your open-mindedness on the matter. I think one has to remember that the Pope is speaking about universal recognition of saints. He is, after all, speaking of the formal process.

Blessings

Dear brother Todd,

I think you hit the whole issue on the nose. Others have written/complained of a "double" recognition of sainthood. The fact is there is absolutely no necessity for the Pope to canonize Eastern and Oriental saints. And there is no "double recognition" going on here.

First of all, canonization is an act of the universal Church, not the local Church. I don't know why people can't understand that. If local recognition of a Saint is enough for the local Church, then no one is forced to submit the name of that Saint for the formal process. As I have consistently stated, our own hierarchs have chosen to submit the names of certain holy men and women for universal recognition - no one has forced them to do this.

Secondly, that there is some sort of "double recognition" going on, as if the local hierarch's recognition was not enough, is an unjustified complaint. There is no such thing as a double recognition. It is either local or universal. If a particular saint has gained a formal local recognition with cultus, then that saint will not go through the formal process of canonization (which is an act of the universal Church). But if a local hierarch wishes the saint to receive universal recognition (not just local), then he will be sure that no formal local cultus exists, while initiating a formal process for universal recognition. So the Pope is not replacing the bishop in that bishop's own local sphere. The Pope's recognition is not for the local sphere, but for the universal sphere.

Thirdly, there are some exceptions to the "no double recognition rule," particularly with regards to controversal saints. There are some local saints whose popularity (or notoreity) has naturally/historically gone beyond the local sphere. In such cases, one part of the Church complains, and the Pope gets involved by the appeal of the laity through their bishops to make a formal decree. Some examples, I think, were St. Josaphat, St. Photius, and St. Palamas.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Neil,

I appreciate the explanation of the canonization process. Still, it does not really refute my points which are:
(1) Canonization is a formal process for universal recognition, not just local.
(2) Only a body of universal authority can grant such a recognition which has a universal scope - either an Ecumenical Council, the bishops spread throughout the world in union with their head bishop, or the Pope in a formal decree. The first two authorities are rather impractical for this matter (though they can theoretically happen - I think the second one has actually been utilized in the few cases of controversal Saints). The focus of the formal canonization process is the third universal authority, which, though promulgated by the singular authority of the Pope, is certainly a ground-up collegial action of the Church.
3) I am not aware of any censures for local bishops who permit formal and public cultus for a local Saint.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother chaldobyzantine,

I think you misunderstand the process of universal recognition as it occurs in the Orthodox Churches. I will explain this further below.


I think that is just because the canonization process is considered to have a universal scope for the Church as a whole, and no single bishop, no matter what grade, except for the Pope, has the ability to speak for the entire Church. An Ecumenical Council would also be able to grant this recognition, but it is rather impractical for the matter since Ecumenical Councils rarely meet.

This is in the EEOC (Canon 1507, Section 3) only for Catholic Churches. The Latins also have this option, but I think that since the Latins have (admittedly) a more explicit recognition of the universality of the Church, they always prefer recognition through the formal process, instead of recognition through Custom.

On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree. No Patriarch has the prerogative to speak for the entire Church - not even the bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the Latins speaks for the entire Church, but only in his specific capacity "from the Chair of Peter." In the Orthodox Churches, it is the same - no single Patriarch can speak for the entire Church on this matter. I think you are misunderstanding how the process works in the Orthodox Churches. When a Patriarch in synod of Orthodox Church A glorifies a Saint, it is done for that specific Orthodox Church only, not for the all the Orthodox Churches in that communion. If formal public veneration happens to spread to Orthodox Church B, it is not because Orthodox Church A has glorified the Saint for that entire communion of Churches - it is because local bishops in Orthodox Church B have formally recognized it.

Plenary recognition of Saints in the Orthodox Churches occurs through "osmosis" and Custom. In the Latin Catholic Church, it occurs through formal process. In the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, it occurs either through formal process or through "osmosis"/Custom. This is on the understanding that "formal process" refers to universal recognition, not just local.

So in this matter, that a Patriarch has the prerogative to be the voice of and for only his Patriarchal Church is no reflection of being "under" the Pope. To repeat, even in the Orthodox Churches, no Patriarch can speak for any of the other Churches but his own.

Finally, you have to realize that veneration of saints, even in the Catholic Church, is first and foremost a matter for the local bishop to decide. The universal recognition that the formal process affords is not an enforcement to venerate that particular saint. The choice to publicly venerate that saint always remains the prerogative of the local bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

I'm done with this circuitous discussion.

Many years,

Neil

It is frustrating when people continue to insist upon an exaggerated role for the bishop of Rome in the life of the sui juris Churches.

It is frustrating when people continue to insist upon absolutely no role whatsoever for the bishop of Rome in the life of the sui juris Churches.

I agree. I do not think that Marduk is insisting on an exaggerated role for the Bishop of Rome in the life of sui juris Churches. The universal Church always precedes the local churches, be they sui juris or not. The pope can and does act on behalf of the Catholic Church, and it is our challenge, east and west, to see the office in that light. It is refreshing to read Marduk's intelligent and catholic perspective.

Then there must be a middle way; one where the legitimate role of the Pope is respected and where the legitimate roles of Eastern Patriarchs as Fathers and heads of their Churches is also respected.

On the issue of saints. In my mind allowing the Eastern Churches to canonize their own saints without Rome’s approval is a good thing. I can't think of any examples from the early Church where Rome had to bless Eastern Saints.

If we Catholics really see each sui juris Church as just that- a full Church- then there should be no reason for the Eastern Patriarchs (and Major Archbishops) and their Synods not to canonize their own saints.

Why should we have to wait to venerate our Martyrs and Confessors as Saints until Rome approves?

Blessed (Saint!!) Theodore pray for us!

i would agree that there must be a middle way.
there are stiff-necked factions in BOTH east and west that are more comfortable this way rather than the hard work required to work this out.
This is a problem on both sides, IMHO.

Dear brother Nelson,

I'm thinking the current praxis that distinguishes between local and universal recognition of saints is already a good middle way.

Eastern Churches technically don't do canonizations. Canonization is a process for universal recognition. The Eastern term is (technically) "glorification." The process of glorification is for the local Church only. Canonizations can only be performed by a body that can speak for the universal Church (an Ecumenical Council, the body of bishops around the world united with their head bishop, or the Pope as protos and spokesman for the universal Church). Glorifications can and probably do take place in our Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. You nor I will probably never hear about it, though, because it is local. I don't know about you, but I seriously do not know what goes on, for example, in a particular Chaldean Catholic parish in the Middle East - has the local bishop permitted public veneration of local martyrs in a particular parish? So it would be hasty and foolish to claim, while being ignorant of all facts, that Rome does not allow local Churches to glorify saints. I think, given that the formal process for canonization includes an investigation that a particular person proposed for canonization does not already have a local public cultus, it is logical to assume that local glorification of saints can and do indeed take place in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. The important thing to realize is that this process of determining whether a saint has the status of non cultus contains no ecclesiastical censure. The only thing that happens according to the canonization procedure is that such a saint does not proceed further in the canonization process (brother Neil gave a link to documentation for the process earlier). So local public cultus proceeds, and Rome has in fact not deprived us of anything! So where is the justification for these baseless complaints(I'm not referring to you, brother)?

In short, canonization is (technically) a different animal than glorification. The Orthodox Churches don't have a formal process for canonization (which has a universal scope), though they have one for glorification (which has a local scope). Am I the only one who thinks it inconsistent to complain that we need to be more Orthodox, yet at the same time wish to grant to our local hierarchs a prerogative that not even their Orthodox counterparts possess. ????????

For glorification (local, public recognition), we don't. For canonization (universal, public recognition), we do. Seriously, let's be fair. If we're talking about universal public recognition, even without the involvement of the Pope, don't we have to wait anyway? How long do you suppose it would take for a local Saint to gain universal public recognition without the benefit of a pronouncement from a body that can speak for the universal Church? Hundreds of years perhaps? And people complain that there is a theoretically faster method for the whole Church to recognize one of our own local Saints?

To repeat, it is the decision of our own hierarchs to choose the canonization process by which a local saint will recieve universal recognition. This does not detract from their prerogative to permit local public veneration. They can do the latter, but it is with the knowledge that since he has already afforded a formal public recognition by his own authority for his local Church, then the Pope will not do it again for the universal Church - i.e., it will not proceed further in the canonization process (no double formal public recognition).

This is in no way a matter of Rome interfering in the affairs of local Churches. This is a matter of obedience to your own bishop, who made a decision to go through the formal canonization process of universal recognition. If anyone wants to complain, the complaint should not be "why do we have to wait for Rome?" Rather, the complaint should be, "why did my bishop have to choose the formal process of canonization (i.e.,universal recognition) instead of glorification (i.e., local recognition)?" Your bishop probably feels the saint(s) in question deserve universal recognition and has decided in his wisdom to suffer the waiting period for the sake of this greater honor for the saint. Your bishop probably feels the whole Church deserves the benefit of knowing this saint. If you don't agree with your bishop, that's between you and your bishop, not the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

THE VALUE OF UNIVERSAL FORMAL RECOGNITION AS DISTINCT FROM LOCAL FORMAL RECOGNITION

I would like to share my own experience on this matter. Perhaps it will strike a chord with some of my Eastern brethren.

When I was not yet in communion with Rome, I was very wary of "Byzantifications" intruding into the Oriental Tradition. When I joined the Catholic communion, I still had that attitude, and I still do. But my attitude has been mitigated over the past several years as a Catholic, and it is in large (if not greatest) measure due to the principle of universal recognition of Saints in the Catholic Church.

According to my former attitude, a sure sign that an Oriental had been infected by "Byzantifications" was whether an Oriental Christian called Gregory Palamas a "Saint." I'm not here to talk about my disagreements with so-called Palamism. It is sufficient to say that, according to my former attitude, I would never have considered Gregory Palamas a Saint.

When I joined the Catholic communion, I realized that Gregory Palamas was considered a Saint by my Eastern Catholic brethren. My initial reaction along time ago was "how can this be?" Then, after reading several threads on the matter of his status as Saint in the Catholic Church, I discovered that his Sainthood had formal universal recognition from the protos of the Church, the Pope. This is the one thing that forced me to read about Gregory Palamas. I figured that if the Pope can approve his status as Saint, I owe it to myself as a Catholic to investigate the matter.

So I started reading some of his works, and guess what? Today, I, as an Oriental, freely refer to him as Saint Gregory Palamas. I still do disagree with some of what he wrote, but I no longer have any reservations about calling him a Saint of the Catholic Church.

My present respect for St. Gregory Palamas could never have come about if we did not have the benefit of the universal formal recognition of saints afforded by the papacy within the Catholic Church. The normal process of universal recognition in the Eastern and Oriental Traditions is merely by "osmosis"/custom. It is an extremely slow process, and there is no guarantee that a Saint in one Church will ever reach the ears of those in another Church. Sure, one may hear about this or that Saint through the internet, but there is no authority attached with such hearsay.

And who knows how many of our Latin brethren have opened up their hearts and minds to the treasures of the Byzantine East by realizing that a Pope gave a formal universal recognition of the Sainthood of Gregory Palamas?

This issue is not all about the inclusion of Saints on a particular Church's diptychs. It is about the attitude of each individual person towards Saints that deserve to be venerated by the whole Church, even if only privately. I believe this is what is on the mind of our bishops who choose to go through the formal process of canonization for universal recognition, instead of "keeping a saint all to ourselves."

Blessings,
Marduk

Palamas would still be a saint of the Byzantine Churches whether or not the Pope "universalized" him. And why would you even care? But your respect for Palamas should not come because the Pope said we could commemorate him on the Second Sunday of Lent (like he could stop us from following our own liturgical books?), but because you find things of value in the writings of St. Gregory himself. I have no need to venerate the saints of the Latin Church to find value in their lives and works, and the Latin Church has no need to venerate the saints of the East to find value in them, either. As to why Eastern Catholic bishops go through all this forensic rigamarole, the answer is simple: old habits of inferiority are hard to break.

Dear brother Stuart,

Yes, and I don't know what I've stated that could be interpreted otherwise.???

About what?

Weren't you already doing that as part of the conditions of union?

What does this mean? Are you saying he did?

What did I write that could cause you to think otherwise?


But you can't deny the practical value of advertising that a universal recognition affords.

I partly agree. I still do believe that the main impetus for our bishops going through the formal canonization process for universal recognition is to afford the local saint exactly that honor. I asked brother Neil this before, but I always forget to record his answer somewhere that I can have ready access for the info. There was an exchange between a Pope and an Eastern hierarch in the early 20th century. I forget the content of the exchange, but the Pope eventually advised the Eastern hierarch, "Why don't you just exercise your rights?" There is no censure for local glorification. Our bishops should exercise that ancient prerogative more often. But if they choose the formal process of canonization, I'll submit to their decision all the same.

Blessings,
Marduk

Against all this, we have the disedifying sight of the Church of Rome micromanaging the inner life of other Churches, not to mention the entire canonization process as it now exists is highly offputting, a forensic and juridical process utterly alien to the spirit of Eastern Christianity. Also one politicized as all get-go, but that's another story.

For me the straw that breaks the camels back will be the canonization of Pope Pius XII (who doesn't deserve his bad rap for World War II, but who also was nothing much to write home about, as far as Popes go), while Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytskij is continually passed over.

I would disagree.I think the Glorification of a Saint is exactly the same as Canonization. To me the terms are interchangeable. For example the Orthodox Church in America has a Canonization Commission with a website. Clearly they use glorification and canonization interchangeably.OCA Canonization Commission [oca.org]

I think that the Eastern practice is for a local particular Church to glorify/canonize a Saint and then announce it to the other Sister Churches so the whole Universal Church can celebrate and honor the new Saint. They don't need the Protos (in the Orthodox Church the Ecumenical Patriarch)to confirm thenew Saint. In my opinion, we Easterns who recognize and are in Communion with the Roman Church and see the Pope as Protos don't need his permission to glorify/canonize our Saints. Just as the Roman Church doesn't need an Eastern Patriarchs permision. Each Local Church has the fullness of the Universal Church.

So really a local sui juirs Church should canonize her own Saints then inform the Pope of Rome and all other Eastern Patriarchs that then they may all celebrate with their Sister Church.

Excellent posts as always, Stuart and Nelson! I agree with you both.

I think this touches on the fact that none of the Eastern Churches are considered autocephalous churches but just autonomous churches. In his book, American Eastern Catholics, Father Fred Saato touches on this fact. He goes so far as to say that there really won't be any reconciliation between East and West until Rome treats the Eastern Churches as autocephalous churches. (This discussion seems to highlight that fact more than others.)

I have an Orthodox friend, who is constantly reminding me that Rome tends to speak out of both sides of her mouth when it comes to the Orthodox, and this is disturbing to them. I try to defend Rome, but sometimes Rome makes it very hard to do so.

We need to pray more for the Holy Father in this regard.

Which, of course, is the process that existed in the first millennium, which we are continually reminded should be considered normative for relations between Churches. The current canonization process originated within the Latin Church at a time when the Latin Church was not in communion with anyone (because it considered itself to be the one and only true Church of God, so there was no one else with whom to be in communion). Somehow, in its typically solipsistic manner, the Latin Church elevated its local practice to an "ecumenical" norm.

Excellent post, Stuart! I love it.

I think it is also important to note that much of the process for Canonization lies with a ROMAN Dicastery, not the Local Church.

I do not accept the separation that you propose between the local and the universal (or better, Catholic) Church. According to the ancient Eucharistic ecclesiology of the Fathers the local Church is fully Catholic, and so its act in glorifying a saint is by definition both local and universal, which means that no action on the part of the pope is necessary. In other words, when a local Catholic Church, i.e., the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a given location, glorifies a saint that act of glorification is complete (i.e., no further action is necessary by any other Church), and the saint in question can be glorified in any Church liturgically and by any member of the Christian faithful. Another thing to remember is that the glorification of a saint does not make the person in question a saint; instead, the liturgical act of glorification simply recognizes the fact that God has already made that person a saint.

Apotheoun,

I feel your point of view invites ecclesiastical chaos. A local church, autocepholous or sui juris or not, is not fully Catholic unless it is in communion with the See of Peter. This is a belief of the Catholic Church and is neither eastern or western. While one cannot separate the local church from the Catholic or universal church, one can and ought to, distinguish them. I think this is what Marduk has sought consistently to do. He is not separating the two, but pleading for a recognition that the two can and do work harmoniously, even in the process of recognizing saints. While I'd rather hear Marduk answer for himself, let me just say that I find it unfortunate that many on the forum let the historical accidents of the Latin character of the See of Peter get in the way of an objective search for the truth.

Dear brother Todd,

Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but that's a rather naive and very unrealistic point of view. The fact is there are Saints of one Church that it would rather be inconceivable for another Church to accept and venerate. It is utterly presumptuos to think that a local bishop who does not have the prerogative to speak for the entire Church can speak for other Churches on the matter. Only a body with a recognized universal authority can speak for the entire Church on this matter, and is competent to settle issues of controversal Saints when such issues arise - this is either an Ecumenical Council, the body of bishops around the world in union with its head bishop, or the Pope.

But let's turn this around. Why do you suppose that Synodal glorification occurs at all? Does not the East recognize that the local bishop has full authority in his local diocese to glorify a Saint? So the East has actually taken that prerogative away from the local bishop? Is that how we are to interpret the act of Synodal glorification at the Patriarchal level? If not, what justification do you have for thinking that the formal process of canonization for universal recognition somehow demeans the local Church's ability to venerate a local Saint?

This probably does not need to be said in this Forum. I think only the secular world and Protestants think that canonization or glorification "makes" one a saint.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you, brother Utroque. As others have noted, there needs to be a balance.

The whole Church is present in each local Church, just as the whole Christ is present in each and every Eucharistic celebration. If that causes confusion for you, I am sorry, but I can accept no other viewpoint as theologically orthodox.

P.S. - The sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome are all historically petrine sees, so I reject the Western notion that holds that the Bishop of Rome is the unique successor of St. Peter. Moreover, every bishop - through the mystery of episcopal consecration - is a successor of all the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter.

I do not see balance in the notion that the bishop of Rome alone can act universally. Every Church is both local and universal, for each and every Church is the local manifestation of the one universal Church.

IIRC, part of the process occurs in and is the responsibility of the Local eparchial Church. There is a certain point when the process passes over for consideration by universal authority, which would then naturally fall under the responsibility of Rome. The process cannot pass over to Rome without the approval of the highest Synod of the sui juris Church in question.

So this is by no means "all about Rome."

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd,

If you think the bishop of Rome is acting alone in the process of canonization, then you really don't know what you're talking about.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

You're not making any sense at all (like all the other complaints from others). Why do you complain about Metropolitan Sheptytskij being "passed over" while simultaneously complain that we should not "depend" on Rome at all? Why not be consistent? Who cares if the Metropolitan is "passed over?" Why doesn't some bishop in that Church just permit local public veneration in some or all his parishes? There is certainly no censure for it. That's the question that needs to be asked. All these complaints about what Rome is doing or not doing, yet no one willing to let a local Church have responsibility for its own actions.

Blessings,
Marduk

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.

Dear brother Nelson,

I didn't say that a local Church does not have the fullness of the Universal Church, did I? I stated specifically that a local act does not always reflect the fullness of the Universal Church. Glorification/beatification/canonization does not make one a Saint. It is an authoritative recognition that authoritatively permits a Church (whether local or universal) to include a Saint in its diptychs for public veneration. When Orthodox Church A glorifies a local Saint, it by no means authoritatively permits a local parish in Orthodox Church B to include that Saint in its diptychs. I am at a loss to understand your position that it does so. I suspect a possible reason, which I will explain below.

Again, I don't understand how an authoritative permission to include a Saint in the diptychs of Orthodox Church A is an automatic authoritative permission to include a Saint in the diptychs of Orthodox Church B. Can you explain it another way?

.
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.[/quote]
Glorification/beatification/canonization is not only about declaring someone a Saint. It is more importantly an authoritative permission to include that Saint in the Church's public worship. You simply can't separate those two things. I don't know how a bishop with only local authority can authoritatively do that for another jurisdicition, much less the entire Church.

You state, "Its like saying that a Saint is only good for your local Church but not mine." But, brother, isn't that the reality of it? Would you ever venerate St. Dioscorus or St. Severus or a local Saint of the Chaldeans? Your position does not take into account the spirituality and concerns of other local Churches. This is why the option of the formal process of universal recognition in the Catholic Church is deliberately slow.

I think you disagree with my position because you think that the formal process is imposed, and is not actually a choice for our bishops. Would that be correct? I've asked two or three times in this thread, "why are you blaming Rome for a decision of your local bishop (and Synod)?" No one seems able or willing to respond. That's why I find no merit in these complaints.

I disagree with your position because I don't understand how an authoritative permission to include a Saint in the diptychs of Orthodox Church A automatically permits a local parish in Orthodox Church B to do so. I don't understand how an authoritative act meant for a local Church is somehow authoritative for any jurisdiction outside that local Church, much less the universal Church.

I think the reason this is so hard for me to understand is because of our different Traditions. I come from an OO background, where we have three distinct Traditions/Churches. A glorification in one Church in the OO communion is by no means authoritative in another Church in the OO communion. But there is only one Tradition among the Eastern Churches. It would theoretically be much easier to "swap Saints" within only one Tradition. What do you think?

In any case, that is why I found your suggestion insulting. It would be like a bishop in the Syriac Church telling a priest in the Coptic Church - "go ahead and venerate St. X in your diptychs. I already said he's a saint, and you don't have to worry about what your own bishop says."

As stated before, you simply can't separate the recognition of Sainthood from the authoritative permission to publicly venerate a Saint.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh, come on, Marduk. The reason Rome centralized the process of canonization in the West was to deal with the proliferation of counterfeit relics and relic-mongering. It also happened to fit in well with the Bishop of Rome's self-perception as Bishop of Bishops, and the ever-expanding centralizing impulse of the Curia Romana. It was devised at a time when Rome conceived of itself as the only true Church, thus Roman practices were considered normative for all Christians.

Those days are past, and the canonization process is just a relic in itself of that particular ecclesiology. The only reason to continue it is bureaucratic inertia, and a return to the practice of the undivided Church, in which the cultus of the saints developed organically and through reception is long overdue.

I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything. Canonization (in its universal sense) is an option. Sanctorum Mater itself does not establish any censures for extant local cultus. I think you are right that there is still a vestige of improper submissiveness (I use the the adjective "improper" purposefully because I don't think all submissiveness is improper) in our hierarchies which causes them to choose that process. But if our bishops choose it, I'm not going to complain, much less take unjustified pot shots at the Holy Father.

I can agree with that. Personally, though, as an Oriental, I would not mind at all if the bishop of Rome as Pope made a formal recognition of the Sainthood of several of the OO Saints. Indeed, this wouldn't make them any more a Saint in my eyes than they already are (and complaints from some Easterns here that a papal recognition somehow makes a local Saint a Saint or makes them more of a Saint makes absolutely no sense to me), but it would make me feel really good if I did not have to deal with Latin or Eastern Catholics question my own veneration of OO Saints. And I think that highlights a feature of this debate that no one has yet considered. When the Pope recognizes the Sainthood of a controversial Saint - let's use as an example St. Dioscorus - the Pope is in no way making a pronouncement to Orientals, "It's OK for you to venerate him now because I said so." I look at such universal recognition as a pronouncement to all others, "Don't bother the Orientals because I said so." He is (or would be) defending my right as a Catholic to venerate him, not giving me permission to do so.

You can disagree with me, but I'm just not going to give in to all the cynicism about the papacy that goes on too often from non-Latins (I guess you can say it's sort of my own penance for about 3 decades of mocking the bishop of Rome ).

Blessings,
Marduk

I'm not cynical, just realistic in light of the history of the past 1900 years.

The pope is free to do whatever he wants in connection with his own patriarchal Church, but his recognition of the glorification of a saint from one of the Eastern Churches has absolutely no impact outside of his own patriarchate on that particular person's sainthood.

As I have said before, every Church is both local and universal, because every single Church (and every grouping of Churches, i.e., every patriarchate) is the full realization of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Roman Church has no singular or unique ability to act in a "universal" sense, and to hold that it does harms ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

My own position has nothing to do with being cynical about Rome; instead, I hold the position I do because I gave up being a Roman Catholic when I became an Eastern Catholic in 2005.

Mardukm, you need to stop reading things into the theological positions of others.

Is anything connected with the Papal prerogatives actually "theological"? The literally meaning of "words appropriate to God" would seem to exclude matters of Church governance, which is "ecclesiology", or "words appropriate to the Church". Even then, it would fall into the realm of secondary or tertiary matters that the Greeks would term "theoria".

Dear brother Todd,

I'm the one who keeps saying this is an option. You're the one trying to impose your Byzantine view as the only possible standard.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

I disagree with you that the papal prerogatives are not theological in nature, but as it relates to this topic, that's actually a good point. It was actually debated at V1 whether canonizations should be included within the scope of infallibility, and the Fathers said "no." It is still very popular among the Latin theologians, however. I guess some Easterns here agree with the Latins that canonizations are theological and thus naturally universal in nature. How ironic!!!

I personally can't separate the recognition from the ecclesiastical (i.e., authoritative) permission to publicly venerate. To me, canonizations/glorifications are ecclesiastical in nature first and foremost and is connected with the authority of the ordinary. If the ordinary wields local authority, then the canonization/glorification is only local. If the ordinary wields plenary authorty, then the canonization/glorificaiton has plenary relevance for the metropolitan or patriarchal see. If the ordinary wields universal authority, then the canonization/glorification has universal scope. We have these options in the Catholic Church. And I thank God that we have that freedom.

But there are some here who wish to impose only one option on others.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is only in English that we have coined this special term "saint". I think we need to be mindful that the Latin word "sanctus" and the Greek "agios" simply mean holy, and that the individuals so described reflect the Holiness of God and are worthy models of the Christian life to which we are all called.

A blessed and joyous Nativity to all!