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.
No worries ebb!
If it was only up to me I never would be. Because it is up to Him entirely, I am saved. :-)
That for God to decide, not you. And that won't be until your death and final judgement.
You are not the judge. God is.
Already did.
Already sealed.
You’re not dead yet.
You can’t rush God on your judgement.
—> you’re not dead yet.
Like humanity, I was born spiritually dead in sin, but physically alive.
And yet I died spiritually with Chris that physical death could no longer rule over me and I will live with Him forever.
It is truly an indescribable gift.
Now's the time to amend one's life.
Sorry ebb, but you err not knowing the Scriptures, nor how to rightly divide the Word of Truth.
Everyone starts there.
Those who remain there die in their sins.
That's what Martin Luther did when he tossed books out of the Bible.
Luther did not toss books out.
It’s been explained to you previously.
No, that lie has never been explained. No lie can ever be "explained". But liars will tell lies; and other liars will believe those lies.
Here's the truth:
Your memory is failing.
Your faith is failing.
It is all a hoax, so don’t worry about it.
Who’s worried?
Oh no. Not at all …
“Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible
“An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books.
Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha.
The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”[9]
“Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”[10]Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated.
As Catholic writer John Todd observed, “The work was done with great method…”[11] Todd then relates this famous description:
“Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctor’s cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present…M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text…The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.”[12]
“Thus, Luther’s Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: “Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, ‘the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.’”[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
“Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.
"John Todd"? Are you serious.
All modernist heretics.
You best check your sources, AMPU, before publishing such garbage.
Ebb, it remains that Luther’s translation of Scripture included the non-biblical books… as other lists by Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem denied their inspiration . Nothing new with Luther.
These were later removed from most Christian Bibles.
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.