Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Question for discussion: Does the Orthodox Church enjoy infallibility when recognizing/glorifying saints in their own tradition? The example that I have in mind is the last generation of the Romanovs, i.e. Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei, who are called passion bearers in the Russian Orthodox Church, and certain others associated with them, i.e. "their court physician, Yevgeny Botkin; their footman Alexei Trupp; their cook, Ivan Kharitonov; and Alexandra's maid, Anna Demidova[...], two servants killed in September 1918, lady in waiting Anastasia Hendrikova and tutor Catherine Adolphovna Schneider." Have fun. This is an interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I have always wondered about this too!!!! I was a Romanov-phile for a long time during high school and I thought it was so cool they were "saints." And my inner monarchist is pleased too. But my brain doesn't really agree that just being murdered by the Soviets counts for sainthood.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 [quote name='Maggie' date='08 December 2009 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1260292601' post='2016121'] I have always wondered about this too!!!! I was a Romanov-phile for a long time during high school and I thought it was so cool they were "saints." And my inner monarchist is pleased too. But my brain doesn't really agree that just being murdered by the Soviets counts for sainthood.... [/quote] There was apparently some controversy for the same reason. Anyway, it was an interesting example to illustrate the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1260289308' post='2016106'] Question for discussion: Does the Orthodox Church enjoy infallibility when recognizing/glorifying saints in their own tradition? The example that I have in mind is the last generation of the Romanovs, i.e. Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei, who are called passion bearers in the Russian Orthodox Church, and certain others associated with them, i.e. "their court physician, Yevgeny Botkin; their footman Alexei Trupp; their cook, Ivan Kharitonov; and Alexandra's maid, Anna Demidova[...], two servants killed in September 1918, lady in waiting Anastasia Hendrikova and tutor Catherine Adolphovna Schneider." Have fun. This is an interesting topic. [/quote] Of course not. For a canonization to be infallible it has to be an act of the Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium of the Church can only be exercised by the Roman Pontiff and those bishops in communion with him. I would just like to add that there are many Catholic saints have never been infallibly canonized. Most of the saints from the first millennium simply had cults that arose on a grassroots level, after which they became recognized as saints. Not until the Holy See took it upon itself to canonize saints did they become infallible. I would also like to note that the formula used in canonizing the saints is very important in determining whether a saint has been infallibly canonized. The formula is (with the essential part in bold): "For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the fostering of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayers for the divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of our Brother Bishops, [b]we declare and define that the blessed N. is a saint[/b] and we enroll her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated in the whole Church as one of the saints. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Beatifications do not use this formula, and for that reason beatifications are not considered infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 I've read some literature that indicates that even commonly recognized saints before the official process was in place are considered infallibly 'canonized.' Have you heard something like that before? Lol, it might have been Jergens actually, because that's all I've read in the last 24 hours. Probably in his forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Found it. Page x of Volume 1. "No doubt the early Church venerated many as saints who could never have escaped the barbs of a devil's advocate. But it was an infallible Church which initiated their veneration; and they are saints as certainly as those who attained the honors of the altar only after due canonical process. In general we may say that those to whom ecclesial tradition has accorded the title of saint fulfill the requirement of sanctity of life. Love this book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1260300056' post='2016175'] I've read some literature that indicates that even commonly recognized saints before the official process was in place are considered infallibly 'canonized.' Have you heard something like that before?[/quote] I'd disagree with that. Except maybe in the case of the a few saints (e.g. Peter and Paul) whom we would consider infallibly canonized by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, I don't think that it would be correct consider as canonized those who have not been canonized by a definitive act of the Roman Pontiff. In any case, those persons "glorified" by the Eastern Orthodox Churches are definitely not infallibly canonized by any means since the Eastern Orthodox bishops have absolutely no teaching authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1260300409' post='2016179'] Found it. Page x of Volume 1. "No doubt the early Church venerated many as saints who could never have escaped the barbs of a devil's advocate. But it was an infallible Church which initiated their veneration; and they are saints as certainly as those who attained the honors of the altar only after due canonical process. In general we may say that those to whom ecclesial tradition has accorded the title of saint fulfill the requirement of sanctity of life. Love this book. [/quote] I would think about most saints who were not canonized by a definitive infallible act of the Roman Pontiff (i.e., those who were glorified before the institution of the canonization process) in the same way we think about Beati (i.e. those who have been beatified). We consider them holy and in heaven, indeed the Church considers them holy and in heaven, and they are venerated in the Liturgy of the Church, but they have not been infallibly declared to be holy and in heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Resurrexi' date='08 December 2009 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1260300518' post='2016182'] I'd disagree with that. Except maybe in the case of the a few saints (e.g. Peter and Paul) whom we would consider infallibly canonized by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, I don't think that it would be correct consider as canonized those who have not been canonized by a definitive act of the Roman Pontiff. In any case, those persons "glorified" by the Eastern Orthodox Churches are definitely not infallibly canonized by any means since the Eastern Orthodox bishops have absolutely no teaching authority. [/quote] [quote name='Resurrexi' date='08 December 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1260300736' post='2016186'] I would think about most saints who were not canonized by a definitive infallible act of the Roman Pontiff (i.e., those who were glorified before the institution of the canonization process) in the same way we think about Beati (i.e. those who have been beatified). We consider them holy and in heaven, indeed the Church considers them holy and in heaven, and they are venerated in the Liturgy of the Church, but they have not been infallibly declared to be holy and in heaven. [/quote] For the sake of argument I'll accept that part about the Eastern Orthodox, but couldn't we consider "pre-process" saints to have been canonized by a sort of "College of Bishops" acting in concert? Certainly if every bishop were to agree on a point, we consider it an infallible act of the Magisterium, do we not? Edited December 8, 2009 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1260300807' post='2016187'] For the sake of argument I'll accept that part about the Eastern Orthodox, but couldn't we consider "pre-process" saints to have been canonized by a sort of "College of Bishops" acting in concert? Certainly if every bishop were to agree on a point, we consider it an infallible act of the Magisterium, do we not? [/quote] I think the argument could be made for a few "pre-process" saints that they have been infallibly canonized by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. I would include in this number, as I stated before, saints like John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul, saints whose cults can doubtless be said to have universal status. They have always been venerated in every church that is in communion with Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Interesting idea... Obviously it accounts for 'saints' who may not technically be real, or who may not have done what we traditionally say they have done, like St. George and St. Christopher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1260301437' post='2016201'] Interesting idea... Obviously it accounts for 'saints' who may not technically be real, or who may not have done what we traditionally say they have done, like St. George and St. Christopher. [/quote] I wouldn't say that St. George and St. Christopher were not real. I would say that all we know about them is that they existed, they were Catholic, they were holy, and (if I recall correctly) they were martyred. That said, I definitely wouldn't consider them to have been infallibly declared saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 I can't wait to see what Apotheoun says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1260306304' post='2016289'] I can't wait to see what Apotheoun says. [/quote] @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 I plan on stepping back and letting you two duke it out; I learn a lot that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now