Talk:Canonization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canonization is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Eastern Church 2 Infallibility 3 Waiving the waiting period 4 Death 5 "Fact" 6 wrong pope 7 History 8 OR?

[edit] Eastern Church

In Eastern Orthodoxy, who adds a person's name to the list of saints? Is it always the head bishop of an autocephalous church? Or maybe such a church's synod of bishops? Or someone else? Michael Hardy 00:32, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Infallibility

Several times in this article the claim is made that "it is considered" that canonization is an infalliable process. Besides the quotation of Aquinas, who considers this to be the case? Do popes and ecumenical councils consider this to be the case? Have there been other theologians who agree or disagree with Aquinas? If so, or if no one knows, the article should state that "Aquinas considers" the process to be infalliable until other evidence can be presented. Pmadrid 17:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

First, I would say that an Aquinas quote is sufficient enough, since he is considered one of the foremost Catholic theologians; one must remember that, in his time, the Catholic theologians argued according to the faith. Aquinas did not add initial ideas to the theology, he merely refined and explained them with Aristotlean (sp?) logic. We musn't forget that Pope Leo XIII pushed for the use of St. Thomas Aquinas as the basis of Catholic theology--see his encyclical letter entitled, "On the Restoration of the Christian Philosophy According to the Mind of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor." Plus Cannon 1366, issued by Pope Benedict XV: "The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by professors (in seminaries, etc) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of S. Thomas, which they are iviolately to hold."

Then, on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm "Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s. v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Suarez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church." I hope that that helps.

I appreciate your clarification. If you notice from the edits on the page, I came to that conclusion after adding this question once I examined the Catholic Encyclopedia and noticed the other citations. While Aquinas is an extremely respected theologian and doctor of the church, he is not infalliable, so my concern was whether this sentiment was from consensus among theologians, clarification from a pope or council, or only from Aquinas. After investigation, I realized it was the first and edited accordingly.

On Wikipedia, we need to be careful when we say something is infallible, because unless there is a definitive statement by the hierarchy, we only have theologians to go off of, and theologians can theoretically make mistakes. This is why "it is an infallible act" was changed to "most Catholic theologians hold it to be an infallible act" while keeping the remark from Aquinas. Pmadrid 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waiving the waiting period

Possible wrong sentence: "However, the pope has the authority to waive this waiting period, as was done for Mother Teresa by Pope John Paul II as well as John Paul II by his successor, Benedict XVI." - I dont seem to understand why the double "John Paul II" is there Barhom 11:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Late reply. The writer of that sentence was trying to convey both that Pope John Paul II had waived the waiting period for Mother Teresa's cause to be opened and that Pope Benedict XVI (JPII's immediate successor) had likewise waived the waiting period for John Paul II's own cause to be opened. Too much ellipsis. I have edited the sentence to make this clear. Stroika 22:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death

Does one have to be dead to be eligible for sainthood? What about the previous levels? — JIP | Talk 10:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church one is only eligible for canonization after death. TMS63112 17:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, in no church is a living person venerated as a saint. The other "levels" in the RC church are also only applied after the person has passed away. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fact"

I reverted this change because the replacement text was simply wrong. (If it were "untold" there would be nothing to discover.) Besides, the claim is not that a fact is discovered, only that the process "seeks to discover a fact." This is true whether or not what is discovered in the end is a fact by Wikipedia standards. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The article refers to Pope John Paul II as "the great", however, he was not officially been given the title, and the Vatican does not refer to him as such.

[edit] wrong pope

Urban the VII was not pope for the date given, in the 1600s. This must presumably be Urban VIII. Could someone pls check this, and correct it? I can easily find that Urban VIII was the correct pope for the date given, but I'd rather not adjust the article because it could have been a different pope and a different date. 203.221.126.21 08:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

It seems that a history of ancient pagan apotheosis might simply be referred to. This first paragraph, while interesting in its own right, really doesn't have anything to do with the history of Canonization. Phil 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{npov}} because of sentences like "The Catholic Church, on the other hand, canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments." Needless to say, this is Roman Catholic POV. Qwertyus 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would propose restructuring the page to begin with the history of Canonization up to the point of the Great Schism; then use a header for "Roman Catholic" that can have sub-headers for the older process and the newer process. A factual statement of the Roman Catholic Church's view under such headings might remove the POV problem. MishaPan 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal has my support. InfernoXV 17:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR?

It is thus a recognition that there are many more saints than there are canonized saints. (lifted from intro)

Sounds like synthesis of thought. Can anyone attest to this (is it an official church acknowledgement? author's opinion?). /Blaxthos 22:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not the author's opinion, but a teaching of the Church. In the Orthodox Church, the Synaxarion for All Saints Sunday explains:

Of course, we honour the known Saints especially on their own day of the year ... But since many Saints are unknown, and their number has increased with time, and will continue to increase until the end of time, the Church has appointed that once a year a common commemoration be made of all the Saints.

(Emphasis added) MishaPan 07:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)