No less a "nut" than Pope Paul VI, the infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth, demoted him because he found no evidence that he had ever been "canonized"! Imagine the irony for us Orthodox that the Ustasha cardinal Stepanic, whose name is already called upon by Latins to intercede with Christ for them, is on the road to sainthood, while +Nicholas' sainthood is in doubt because a pope like Paul VI couldn't find any evidence that he had ever been canonized.
The Latin laity really ought to do something about that sort of nonsense.
A lot of things were going on in the last 8-9 years of Paul VI pontificate that lends credence to a theory that FR does not allow on the site. I'll FReepmail you. Like I said, somebody may say it. That doesn't make it true.
Desdemona, saints were not 'canonzied' in those days and are still not 'canonized' in the Eastern Church. Saints are saints if people spontaneously venerate them. The Eastern Church, as the early Church did, follows that practice. There is no formal 'beatification' based on innovations of the Latin side and unkown to the genuine Church.
This is why the Church cannot unite with papal primacy as it is understood in thre West. The Orthodox cannot allow some nut, sitting on the throne in the Vatican, not obligated to anyone, to make such decisions.