The infallibility of canonizations?

[Andrew James]

I want to pose a question about the canonization of saints. Is once a person been canonized by a local church, is the case closed? Is that person without a doubt a saint? Or does this have to go through higher churches such as the Moscow Patriarchate or the Patriarchate of Constantinople?

[Andreas Moran]

I'm just thinking of the local pre-schism (obviously) saints of the British Isles who have just been taken into the Moscow Patriarchate calendar of saints without any further procedure.

[Misha]

A holy and miracleworker elder who reposed in 1991 and had the gift against the evil spirits,fr Iakovos Tsalikis said that there are some persons in the synaxars who are not really saints.

Unfortunately ,sometimes, political and personal matters intervene to "sanctify" people who don't deserve this honour.

[Dimitris]

As far as I know, there is no formal canonization of saints in the Orthodox Church as it is in the Roman Catholic Church.

[Andreas Moran]

Dimitris As far as I know, there is no formal canonization of saints in the Orthodox Church as it is in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is my understanding that there is. For example, my copy of 'We shall see Him as He is' by Archimandrite Sophrony is prefaced with the Protocol (No 823 of 1987) issued by Patriarch Demetrios and the Holy Synod of Constantinople which says (inter alia), 'Wherefore we decree synodically, and do ordain, and in the Holy Spirit direct that from this day forth and for ever more Staretz Silouan of Mount Athos be reckoned with the holy men and saints of the Church; and that he be entered in the Calendar of Saints, and venerated with hymns of praise, on the twenty-fourth day of September, on the which day he departed gloriously to the Lord. In witness thereto, and confirmation, this our present Patriarchal and Synodical Act is made, drawn up and signed in the Sacred Codex of our Great Church of Christ'.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Canonization is nothing more than a formal recognition of what God has done in the life of a particular individual that the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit, lifts up as an example to us all.

There are many saints who have never and may never be canonized, but they are nonetheless still saints, even if they are recognized only by one or two of the people whose lives they have touched.

"We ain't go no infallibility, we don't need no infallibility, I don't have to show you any steenking infallibility!" (apologies to "Blazing Saddles" and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre")

Orthodoxy does not claim or need the mistaken concept of infallibility which would be nothing but a direct violation of our free will. If you can't be wrong, then free will has left the building. And as I understand it, God doesn't roll that way.

[Andreas Moran]

I think Andrew James was asking, in part, whether the Church could declare someone a saint who later turned out 'not to be'. In other words, if a local Church makes someone a saint, is that local Church's 'Synodical Act' infallible in so far as it cannot 'make a mistake' in canonising someone who shouldn't have been canonised? True, the word 'infallible' has a certain resonance for us but I think we have to believe that The Church is infallible because it is led by the Holy Spirit. This is because Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. If the Church could be wrong in matters of faith and dogma, it would mean, wouldn't it, that either Christ didn't keep His promise or the Holy Spirit didn't lead us into all truth - serious problem either way! We also have to believe that we cannot separate any local canonical Orthodox Church from the others and size doesn't matter - there's no qualitative difference between the Church of Cyprus and the Church of Russia. The Church is one because there is one Body of Christ. That Body, the Church, is holy and so cannot be in error. One God, one Church, one Body , one cup. It must follow that a local Church cannot be wrong in matters of faith and dogma because if it were it would break the communion it had with the rest of the Church. I would have that the canonisation of a person as a saint was a matter of faith so that a local Church could not wrongly canonise a person. Does that seem right?

(There are, of course, saints and saints. An example might be the canonisation of Emperor Nicholas II and his wife and children. Some, especially (as I understand it) in ROCOR, are enthusiastic about that. Some Russians I know, whilst not saying their canonisation by MP was wrong, do have a very muted acceptance of it.)

Local Churches can, however, be wrong (but remain part of the Church) in matters of governance and administration and in any matter where, though the local Church is wrong, such error would not breach communion with the rest of the Church. Individuals (including clergy) in the Church obviously can be wrong. (Herman's assertion that the individual's scope for being wrong is an aspect of free will is objectively true. A person has free will to hold to a belief in the face of overwhelming opinion that that belief is wrong, but he wouldn't believe himself to be wrong and so subjectively would not have used his free will to be wrong. It would be a very strange person who used his free will to choose to be wrong knowingly.)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andrew, Andreas, Misha, Herman and others,

I'm only just catching up on this thread, which is very interesting.

Perhaps the surprising response is that it's really the other way around: there essentially isn't such a thing as a formal, 'universal' canonisation in the Orthodox Church. In other words, what makes a saint 'universally commemorated' is not that there is some formal procedure whereby that universality is granted or recognised; rather, a saint is commemorated universally because the whole 'universe' of the Church recognises and cherishes his or her memory in living remembrance. As canonisation in Orthodoxy is not the approval or recognition given to sanctity, but instead the living manifestation of love experienced in the ongoing communion with the saint, it is a thing that spreads 'universally' as that love is manifested and lived throughout the Church as a whole.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Fabio Lins]

This issue has been brought up recently in another forum. A person pointed out the case of St. Anna of Kashin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_of_Kashin

She was glorified, later suspect of being an Old Believer, she was de-glorified and later again reglorified. Are there any other cases like that?

[Eric Peterson]

She couldn't have been a schismatic if she died before the date of the schism.

[D. W. Dickens]

I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm just trying to understand. (this entire post should be read as question)

Universal saints (I'm not trying to make any formal verbage here, just trying to tap in to what's been said) are universally commemorated because we are all blessed by them. Most folks would even say that an Orthodox home without an icon of the Theotokos isn't Orthodox. Every tiny corner of the Church should be, and is, filled with her blessing.

Saint Basil is commemorated in all Churches, but his presence isn't like that of the Theotokos because he doesn't permeate everything. I don't have an icon of him in my home. I love Saint Basil, but he's not really on my list (who knows how many icons I'll have 10 years from now).

Saint Herman of Alaska is a great American saint, but it wouldn't make much sense for
the Greeks in Greece to commemorate him as we do.

Some would make Seraphim Rose of Platina a saint. Perhapse it's just fine if they do in their diocese, but perhaps since his reach is not into my diocese it wouldn't make sense to commemorate him.

And what of private or informal "cannonizations". I've heard of folks asking their saintly relatives for prayer, but the Church doesn't put them on the calendar. Doesn't the author of Hebrews call us all saints? Perhaps we all have our own very small blessing to give?

[Father David Moser]

And what of private or informal "cannonizations". I've heard of folks asking their saintly relatives for prayer, ...

I do occasionally ask Fr Averky to pray for me.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This issue has been brought up recently in another forum. A person pointed out the case of St. Anna of Kashin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_of_Kashin

She was glorified, later suspect of being an Old Believer, she was de-glorified and later again reglorified. Are there any other cases like that?

In the Russian versions of her Life it doesn't say that she was an Old Believer. Rather it says that Old Believers were turning to her memory to try to justify some of their piety and actions.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

In the Russian versions of her Life it doesn't say that she was an Old Believer. Rather it says that Old Believers were turning to her memory to try to justify some of their piety and actions.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

St Anna reposed in 1368 and Old Believers didn't exist until after the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century and until then all Russians used the two-finger way of making the cross. My wife tells me that the Wikipedia article is correct. The Old Believers pointed to her as an example since however many times her fingers were re-arranged in the post-Nikonian manner they returned to the two-finger way. As part of the persecution of the Old Believers, her cult was suppressed - may be that's not the same as being 'de-canonised'. When Tsar Nicholas II granted religious toleration, St Anna was 're-habilitated'.

[Fabio Lins]

Thank you all and specially Andreas! Very informative. But I would like to go further on the issue of "de-canonization" of a person who would have been found not to be a saint. Even if that is not the case with St. Anna, is there any precedent about it, or any canon that forbids it, or any theology that would condemn it?

[Stuart Dunn]

Very interesting thread, and something I had always wondered since I am not Orthodox. I would have picked a better subject line though. The I word in Orthodoxy stirs up bad connotations.

[Rick H.]

The I word in Orthodoxy stirs up bad connotations.




Not Infallibility; but Christ.

[Andreas Moran]

The I word in Orthodoxy stirs up bad connotations.

So does the word, 'I'!

[Stuart Dunn]

Wasn't trying to throw rocks with my comment, so I apologize if it came off like that. I just mean we all have a prejudice when it comes to certain words be it religious, cultural, historical, politcal, social, etc. Some words people say and it sends a chill or a bristle up our back. I was just saying infallibilty even if it is meant in something not related to the Catholic idea/teaching of Papal Infallibility almost automatically envokes thoughts of just that...Papal Infallibility.