Posted on 03/19/2024 1:22:32 PM PDT by ebb tide
Honoring the Saints
A saint is a person who held the true Faith, exercised heroic virtue in accordance with their state in life, and lived a life of holiness in union with God on earth. The Church honors such a person by “raising them to the altar.” The culmination of an ecclesial process of acknowledging a person’s sanctity is “canonization.” This means they are declared to be in Heaven and the Church presents the individual as one we are called to imitate. The Church does not canonize every soul in Heaven (even if known) but only those whom the faithful are called to imitate.
The term “saint” is from the Latin word sanctus, meaning “hallowed” or “consecrated.” The first person honored individually as a saint was Stephen, the first martyr. For nearly four centuries, praying to St. Stephen was incredibly popular. Beginning at the end of the second century, there were special celebrations on anniversaries of the martyrs’ deaths. These martyrs were witnesses of Christ. They gave their lives for Him.
By the fourth century, sainthood was not just considered for martyrs. It was also for confessors and virgins. Saints could be monks, nuns, bishops, or any of the lay faithful.
When we preface the name of a person with a capitalized “Saint” it indicates they have been canonized. However, lowercase “saints” are a way of referring to anyone in Heaven, not merely the ones who have been canonized. (Given how the term “saint” is at times used in the New Testament, it could even refer to all those who are in the state of grace; for example, see Acts 9:32, 26:18, Rom 15:25, and 1 Cor 16:1. However, such a use of the term is no longer common in Catholic parlance.)
There is a special process involved with officially determining that someone is a saint. The Catholic Church determines that a person is definitely in Heaven when they canonize someone. But the process for canonization has changed over time.
In the process towards sainthood, there are four steps the person must attain:
Thus, a canonization procedure, either as done in ancient times or since the Middle Ages, consists of two main aspects – namely, both investigation and declaration. In the early Church, investigation was carried out by various members of the local church community and the declaration that a particular person was worthy of veneration was done by the bishop.
Unfortunately, drastic changes to the canonization process began in 1969 and culminated in the changes implemented in 1983, which attacked both the investigation and the declaration component of canonizations. Even though the process gradually improved over time, making it more exact and objective, those two principles remained paramount to the infallibility of canonizations.
The changes after Vatican II made the process far more subjective, less rigorous, and opinion-based. Famously among these changes, [1] the role of “devil’s advocate” was removed and [2] the number of miracles for beatification and for canonization was cut in half. But there were also many other changes, as seen in the side-by-side chart in Unam Sanctam Catholicam. And with these changes, some modern canonizations have been done not necessarily to verify and declare that a soul is in Heaven and worthy of Christian imitation, but rather for political purposes.
Some years ago, John Vennari’s article, “The New Canonizations – Doubt and Confusion” raised some of the issues with the new process.[1] He quoted the eminent Catholic historian William Thomas Walsh (†1949), who wrote the following regarding the rigorous pre-Vatican procedure for beatifications,
“No secular court trying a man for his life is more thorough and scrupulous than the Congregation of Rites in seeking to establish whether or not the servant of God practiced virtues both theological and cardinal, and to a heroic degree. If that is established, the advocate of the cause must next prove that his presence in Heaven has been indicated by at least two miracles, while a cardinal who is an expert theologian does all he can to discredit the evidence – hence his popular title of advocatus diaboli, or Devil’s Advocate. If the evidence survives every attempt to destroy it after months, years and sometimes centuries of discussion, he is then beatified, that is, he is declared to be blessed.”
John Vennari also noted that the new 1983 canonization process dispenses with the Devil’s Advocate and eliminates the “thorough and scrupulous” procedure praised by Dr. Walsh, in favor of an academic approach which is open to opinion and can be motivated by political agendas. Such changes introduce doubt into the integrity of the entirely novel process. This is especially the case for “fast-track” canonizations.
Mr. Vennari continued with a further quote from Professor Walsh regarding the traditional process.
“The final stage of canonization, the last of twenty distinct steps, may take even more years or centuries. It must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that two additional miracles have been performed through the instance of the servant of God, since the beatification. When and if this is done, the Pope issues a bull of canonization.”
Similar concerns were expressed by Christopher Ferrara in a 2018 article on the topic:
“What can one say about a ‘canonization’ that appears to have been based upon scrounging around for two distinctly non-miraculous ‘miracles’ – reduced from the traditionally required four by John Paul II, who benefitted from his own loosening of the requirement? Neither purported ‘miracle of Paul VI’ involved a scientifically inexplicable, instantaneous cure of a disease or disorder but only the good outcome of aggressive medical treatment related to a problem pregnancy. These ‘miracles’ were no different from cases in which no purported saint was invoked, such as this one, where the neonate was in even greater danger from the same sorts of conditions that Paul VI’s intercession is supposed to have ‘cured.’
“As one observer has noted, the ‘miracles’ attributed to Paul VI would never have survived the scrutiny of the medical commission at Lourdes. Apparently, where Popes associated with Vatican II are concerned, anything that can be passed off as ‘miraculous’ suffices.
“And what can one say about the canonization of Oscar Romero, a social justice warrior who injected himself into a civil war between the government of El Salvador and communist guerillas by making politically-charged speeches from the pulpit? No one has ever been prosecuted or even identified definitively as a suspect in his murder, which took place while he was saying Mass. For all we know, his killer was a Catholic in that Catholic country, whose motive was hatred for a political opponent in the midst of a war, not hatred of the Faith.”
These changes have led many serious Catholic scholars to question the infallibility of new canonizations. While former canonizations were considered infallible, the same cannot be said for canonizations since 1983.[2] This is seen in the grave doubts on the validity of modern canonizations, including those of Popes John Paul II and Paul VI.
As a result of the changes in the canonization process following Vatican II, there is reasonable concern to believe that modern beatifications and canonizations are not infallible. Since the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law (1983) radically altered the procedures for the beatification and canonization of blessed and saints, serious doubts have arisen concerning the legitimacy of these new processes that favor speed, quantity, opinion, popularity, and agendas over the reliability of immutable Catholic doctrine and God’s positive Divine Will. These concerns have only been exasperated by further changes in practice under John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis.[3]
Regardless of the theological debate over the infallibility of canonizations, the process has been altered so radically that the debate prior to the changes was about something entirely different from the current state of affairs. Although some of the individuals purportedly canonized by the past three popes may have merited being honored for heroic virtue under the former juridically reliable process, it is certainly not within the competence of any individual Catholic to sort out the cases. We will need to wait until the restoration of normalcy in the Church for the proper authorities to sort out this morass.
Let us beseech the powerful intercession of Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces and Queen of All Saints, that the Catholic restoration may happen soon.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
ENDNOTES:
[1] John Vennari’s article was originally published in the August 2013 edition of the Catholic Family News periodical. Recognizing its excellence and necessity, the Angelus blog then republished the article (February 21, 2014).
[2] It is important to note that a canonization was not considered infallible simply because “the Pope said so.” After all, in defining the power of papal infallibility, Vatican I clearly taught: “For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles.”
The canonization of a particular person is necessarily something new and cannot be part of the Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles. However, the process of canonization – which was already observed in the case of St. Stephen, the proto-martyr – can indeed be rooted in Apostolic authority and Catholic Tradition.,
It was the rigorous process, refined over centuries to better convey the same reality, which made Catholics understand canonizations to be “infallible.” The Devil’s Advocate did everything he could to disprove the candidate’s heroic virtue and sanctity. He combed through all the writings of the candidate to make sure there was nothing impious or contrary to Catholic doctrine. Even more importantly, we know only God can work a true miracle. Therefore, four bona fide miracles established by science and ecclesial authority were viewed as a powerful testament that God Himself was revealing that this person was in Heaven and worthy of our imitation.
Yet if there is no Devil’s Advocate (employing all the powers of human reason) and we lack bona fide miracles (manifesting divine power), then on what basis can a modern canonization claim infallibility?
[3] A recently published book and good resource on this topic is Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s Are Canonizations Infallible: Revisiting a Disputed Question (Arouca Press, 2021). Although a majority of theologians have held that canonizations are infallible, a minority group has always existed that disputes this view. Clearly, it is not settled and this question has not been answered infallibly by Church authority. Perennial difficulties with the nature and extension of papal infallibility as well as problems peculiar to recent decades in the Church make it timely to reexamine this debate which has lain dormant for too long.
Ping
God in Scripture declares ALL true believers to be saints.
No canonization required.
No miracles required.
Yes theres supposed to be 3 miracles but this pope does it different
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=saints&begin=47&end=73
If you read the context of how that word is used, most often it's talking about believers in Christ. Often the specifics are that they are sure 'nuff believers even during hard times, so we're not talking about Christians in name only. But it's a stretch to say that the "saints" were to the level like we think of as canonized saints.
The Church does not canonize every soul in Heaven (even if known) but only those whom the faithful are called to imitate.
There is NO canonizing in Scripture.
Made up.
There is no “sola scriptura” in Scripture, only in Luther’s demented mind and the various cults who believe his lies.
—> There is no “sola scriptura”
Nor any sola ecclesa.
Let's see if we can find someone before Luther who believed in sola scriptura. Maybe the early church fathers?
Hippolytus (170-235) -- “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source."(Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
Irenaeus (175) -- “They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (Against Heresies)
Ambrose (330-397) -- “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
Should I continue?
Do you believe Judas Iscariot to be a saint? He was a believer in Christ; yet he betrayed Him.
How about Lucifer? Is he a saint? He was believer in Christ; yet he rebelled against Him and even tried to tempt Him in the desert.
Taking things out of context is what I'd expect from the left, not a fellow FReeper. Below are two sentences back-to-back I typed, only the first of which you used in your reply. Look at the second sentence. I agree with you that "saints" in the Bible isn't talking about wishy-washy Christians.
"If you read the context of how that word is used, most often it's talking about believers in Christ. Often the specifics are that they are sure 'nuff believers even during hard times, so we're not talking about Christians in name only."
—-> He was a believer in Christ; yet he betrayed Him.
He was never a true believer.
—> How about Lucifer? Is he a saint?
Fallen angel.
Do you even lift bro?
There is no “sola ecclesia” in Scripture either. Both are wrong to use “sola” (only). What should be used is “prima” (primarily).
In support of Prima Scriptura - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
In support of Prima Ecclesia - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
Both have their place for a Christian. What a Christian needs to decide for themselves, is which is to be followed should a conflict between the two arise.
All believers are saints in The Lord.
—-> What a Christian needs to decide for themselves, is which is to be followed should a conflict between the two arise.
If any church opposes a clear statement in Scripture by substituting its own, it is an apostate church and the true believer must leave.
Mat 12:29
Mat 24:24
2 Thes 2:9
Mark 13:22
Rev 16:14
See post #11.
And there we go. That was quick.
Read what canonization is before commenting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.