Non-saints

[bbbbbbb]

I have wondered for some time about what happens when an individual is de-beatified. This happen, I believe, in the RCC in the 1970's when the Church decided to clean up its roll of saints and determined that many of them had never even existed. Thus, not only were they not saints, but they just never were. The vast majority of these were really obscure saints, but the list also included Saint Christopher, the patron saint of travelers. In the light the mutltitude of miracles attributed to his intercession, it strikes me as a great conundrum if, in fact, he never even existed. Recently I saw a fellow wearing a Saint Christopher medal and wondered why, although I did not ask him. So, how does one account for the "miracles" performed by a saint who never existed?

On a personal level, one of my ancestors from the Middle Ages was declared a saint and even has a small church dedicated to him. I am now concerned that he might have ended up on the list, although I am living proof that he existed, being a descendant of his.

 

[Macarius]

I can't speak for the RCC, but to my knowledge the EO has never "de-sainted" someone, and I, like you, do not understand how the RCC behavior fits into their ecclesiology or claims.

I'm eager to hear a reply, so this is somewhat a "bump" reply...

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can't speak for the RCC, but to my knowledge the EO has never "de-sainted" someone, and I, like you, do not understand how the RCC behavior fits into their ecclesiology or claims.

I'm eager to hear a reply, so this is somewhat a "bump" reply...

Thank you. I agree that I have never heard of such a practice in the EO, either, but it did happen in the RCC. Thanks for the "bump."

 

[MamaZ]

Wow

 

[lionroar0]

I have wondered for some time about what happens when an individual is de-beatified. This happen, I believe, in the RCC in the 1970's when the Church decided to clean up its roll of saints and determined that many of them had never even existed. Thus, not only were they not saints, but they just never were. The vast majority of these were really obscure saints, but the list also included Saint Christopher, the patron saint of travelers. In the light the mutltitude of miracles attributed to his intercession, it strikes me as a great conundrum if, in fact, he never even existed. Recently I saw a fellow wearing a Saint Christopher medal and wondered why, although I did not ask him. So, how does one account for the "miracles" performed by a saint who never existed?

On a personal level, one of my ancestors from the Middle Ages was declared a saint and even has a small church dedicated to him. I am now concerned that he might have ended up on the list, although I am living proof that he existed, being a descendant of his.

I think first one has to understand the dynamics of the middle ages and people being beatified.

Having a Saint in a town or village was akin to having a football team. Yes they would lie to have a person beatified in their town. It was a way to have their town recognized.

Who is your ancestor who is a Saint?

Peace

 

[bbbbbbb]

I understand the concept of having a local saint. My ancestor was Saint Arbogast.

What I don't understand is, if the magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church went through all the particulars of canonization of these saints, and as we all know it is neither an easy nor a rapid process, then why would a twentieth-century Pope suddenly determine that these individuals never existed, much less that they are saints? As in the case of Saint Christopher, to whom many miraculous acts have been attributed, were those acts mere coincidences>

 

[foxsta]

The guidelines weren't formed when many of the medieval saints were canonized...the 'guidelines' are a more recent method of determining sainthood. I think anyways...

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, does that mean that the Church was in error when it canonized these non-existant individuals?

 

[narnia59]

I have wondered for some time about what happens when an individual is de-beatified. This happen, I believe, in the RCC in the 1970's when the Church decided to clean up its roll of saints and determined that many of them had never even existed. Thus, not only were they not saints, but they just never were. The vast majority of these were really obscure saints, but the list also included Saint Christopher, the patron saint of travelers. In the light the mutltitude of miracles attributed to his intercession, it strikes me as a great conundrum if, in fact, he never even existed. Recently I saw a fellow wearing a Saint Christopher medal and wondered why, although I did not ask him. So, how does one account for the "miracles" performed by a saint who never existed?

On a personal level, one of my ancestors from the Middle Ages was declared a saint and even has a small church dedicated to him. I am now concerned that he might have ended up on the list, although I am living proof that he existed, being a descendant of his.

I believe you're speaking about removing the celebration of a saint from the church calendar, meaning they no longer have a specific feast day set aside in their memory. This is nothing close to saying they never existed. Limited room on the church calendar is all. Some saints never made it to having their own feast day. Others have been removed over time to allow newer ones to be added. All still saints.

 

[CathNancy]

Thank you Narnia, this is also my understanding.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[bbbbbbb]

Unfortunately, that is not my understanding. There are far more saints' feast days, not to mention saints themselves, than there are days in a year (even a leap year like this one), plus there is always October 31, All Saints' Day, which is specifically for each and every saint. I am unaware of any church law that requires masses to be said for each saint on their day (especially All Saints' Day). Even today, the obscure saints which remain on the list rarely are known, much less venerated.

I do remember specifically that, following the action, Catholics in general stopped venerating St. Christopher, so his medals disappeared from arouond necks and his statues disappeared from car dashboards.

Our of curiosity, who is now the patron saint of travellers?

 

[narnia59]

Unfortunately, that is not my understanding. There are far more saints' feast days, not to mention saints themselves, than there are days in a year (even a leap year like this one), plus there is always October 31, All Saints' Day, which is specifically for each and every saint. I am unaware of any church law that requires masses to be said for each saint on their day (especially All Saints' Day). Even today, the obscure saints which remain on the list rarely are known, much less venerated.

I do remember specifically that, following the action, Catholics in general stopped venerating St. Christopher, so his medals disappeared from arouond necks and his statues disappeared from car dashboards.

Our of curiosity, who is now the patron saint of travellers?

I believe you have been mis-informed. People over-reacted to the removal from the universal calendar. He is still a saint and is still the patron saint of travellers.

 

[E.C.]

I believe you're speaking about removing the celebration of a saint from the church calendar, meaning they no longer have a specific feast day set aside in their memory. This is nothing close to saying they never existed. Limited room on the church calendar is all. Some saints never made it to having their own feast day. Others have been removed over time to allow newer ones to be added. All still saints.

Some are commemorated more than once!

St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, for example, has his feast day on May 7. However, there is a day in the year when we commemorate all the saints of North America and on that day St. Alexis is one of those commemorated.

And some are commemorated en masse.

During WWII when the Independent State of Croatia (Fascist puppet government under the Axis Powers) went about a genocide of the Serbs, there were many Serbian Orthodox martyrs as a result of it. I know that there are many whose names we may not know and so there is one day when many are commemorated. Something like "New Martyrs of *insert camp name or city here* ".

 

[bbbbbbb]

Some are commemorated more than once!

St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, for example, has his feast day on May 7. However, there is a day in the year when we commemorate all the saints of North America and on that day St. Alexis is one of those commemorated.

And some are commemorated en masse.

During WWII when the Independent State of Croatia (Fascist puppet government under the Axis Powers) went about a genocide of the Serbs, there were many Serbian Orthodox martyrs as a result of it. I know that there are many whose names we may not know and so there is one day when many are commemorated. Something like "New Martyrs of *insert camp name or city here* ".

It occured to me, after my post, that some, indeed, are commemorated more than once a year, which is not a bad thing. There is no doubt in my mind that there are multitudes of saints in heaven whose names we will not know until we get there. Thus, to isolate a handful of them and lower them to a lesser level (if not removal entirely) strikes me as establishing degrees of sainthood. As I understand the Bible, all saints are equal in the sight of God, who is no respecter of persons. Should we not attempt to do likewise?

 

[E.C.]

It occured to me, after my post, that some, indeed, are commemorated more than once a year, which is not a bad thing. There is no doubt in my mind that there are multitudes of saints in heaven whose names we will not know until we get there. Thus, to isolate a handful of them and lower them to a lesser level (if not removal entirely) strikes me as establishing degrees of sainthood. As I understand the Bible, all saints are equal in the sight of God, who is no respecter of persons. Should we not attempt to do likewise?

I think we do, but human nature kicks in and the saints that are a little closer to home (such as St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco) would be a little more on people's minds in the US than possibly St. Nino, Enlightener of Georgia (republic, not state ).

 

[bbbbbbb]

I believe you have been mis-informed. People over-reacted to the removal from the universal calendar. He is still a saint and is still the patron saint of travellers.

I just returned from an educational pilgrimage to catholic.org. I was relieved to find that my family ancestor, St. Arbogast, is still listed and has his day, July 21. As for Christopher, et. al., the description is a tidy little summary stating that in 1969 further research into the lives of these individuals revealed nothing at all. Hence, it is doubtful that they ever even existed. Their canonization was done during a period where standards were considerably lower. Thus, their feast days were removed from the calendar (not because the calendar was already too full).

You may wish to check the information out yourselves. The bottom line is that the RCC neither admits nor denies that these saints existed, but just has no evidence that they ever existed.

Now, if saints such as Christopher, have proven their existence in heaven by answering prayer and enabling miracles to occur, would that not be enough evidence to prove their existence? Otherwise, that means that these miracles might not have been genuine, either.

Interestingly, the site also stated that St. Ursula, who was very popular at one time, had to have her following repressed because no evidence of her existence could be found. That seems like peculiar treatment for a saint.