Monday, November 1, 2010

All Saints

In commemoration of the great feast today, I'd like to point out some of the following resources for catalogs of saints and martyrs both officially canonized (by the unfortunate centralized bureaucratic process) and otherwise, both Western and Eastern:

The Roman Martyrology
The Coptic Synaxarium
The Ethiopian Synaxarium
Greek Orthodox Name-Days Project
Byzantine Saints Calendar

The Roman martyrology is quite comprehensive, at least up until the point the process became bureaucratized. The Eastern synaxaria tend to have fewer entries, but the ones they have are generally longer acta of the saints in question.

I don't particularly like the current canonization process. While it may make sense to have the Pope teach universally (and thus infallibly) the "dogmatic fact" that certain people are in heaven, as models for the whole Church...requiring this for each and every Saint in order to be publicly venerated is ridiculous. It also poses problems for the question of post-schism Orthodox saints after a reunion. These could not be canonized in the "dogmatic fact" sort of way (and the East would probably balk if the Pope tried!) and yet surely their local veneration could and should continue.

There are something like 10,000 saints in the Roman Martyrology, and yet since the process was centralized in around the 12th century, there have been, of course, much much fewer. I could see making the distinction between canonization on the universal level, and beatification at the local (which veneration could then spread to other calendars and become de facto universal, as happened with all the saints of the First Millennium). But the fact that Rome has centralized even just beatification (which allows only for "local" venerations anyway) makes no sense at all!


The process has likely stopped many, especially martyrs, from ever entering the rolls of the saints (which, prior to it, would have been basically automatic for martyrs). I have often thought one of the grand projects following upon East-West reunion would be the compilation of some sort of definitive unified martyrology, adding all the saints from both sides, from all the different ritual churches (though without altering their own calendars, of course). So if you know any more unique sources or catalogs from the East, I would love to see and might add them to the list.

I'd also like to point out the book El Martirologio del Japón by Juan Ruiz-de-Medina. It's not in English, and it isn't really available online except in snippets, but I believe it contains a comprehensive catalog of all the known documented Christian martyrdoms in Japan, whether those martyrs have entered the "official" Vatican vetting process or not. As Catholic Encyclopedia says, "There is not in the whole history of the Church a single people who can offer to the admiration of the Christian world annals as glorious, and a martyrology as lengthy, as those of the people of Japan."

It annoys me when a group of martyrs is taken as "representative" of all the country's martyrs, as if the rest are thus covered. There are enough undocumented martyrs throughout history already (though they have their anonymous feast today); the least we could do is remember and enroll all the ones we do actually know about. Even if it means (gasp) a less bureaucratic process...

6 comments:

A Sinner said...

The modern Roman Martyrology is actually, arguably, a higher quality book than the pre-Vatican-II version, in several respects, which is an unusual thing for me to say as a liturgical traditionalist. Of course, it has not been published in English yet, and the last edition was in 2004, but it greatly expanded the number of entries in several ways (the older Roman Martyrology was sort of an ad hoc job, cobbled together of previous medieval versions, and Cardinal Baronius's editing after Trent was really not that thorough or critical).

First, of course, were all the new canonizations under John Paul II, which are not just of "modern" people, but include mostly people whose whole lives took place before Vatican II and so should not be poo-pooed even by trads.

But also, the authors also seemed to make a real effort to include all the saints they felt were worthy of public veneration among Latin Rite Catholics, and so greatly expanded the inclusions even of ancient and "local" saints that the Old Martyrology had left out, not merely "new" canonizations.

The Old Martyrology had some strange exclusions; if you read it, you note that most of the Saints included were Italian, North African, Gaulish/French, German, and Spanish, with some (but less comprehensively) from Constantinople, Asia Minor, and the regions of Armenia and Persia.

Of course, this was pretty much the extend of the old Christian World, especially as far as the Latins were concerned. Nevertheless, there is a distinct absence of more of the saints from, for example, the Brittano-Celtic Christian world; even figures as famous as St Dunstan or St Aelred or St Erconwald (patron of London) or St Etheldreda did not find a place in the pre-Vatican-II martyrology. These and many more are all found in the new.

The new also made the, I think favorable, choice to include Beati as well as formally canonized Saints, which also enriches the martyrology. Here, of course, some historical definitions must be laid out:

We must firstly consider that "canonization" has, since the start of the "formal" centralized papal canonization process, come to have both a doctrinal meaning, and a liturgical meaning, and that the two are not necessarily equivalent.

The doctrinal content of canonizations now are as a "dogmatic fact." Formal canonizations are considered an infallible act by the pope declaring that a given Christian is in heaven, and can be considered an example of martyrdom and/or heroic virtue (and/or heroic final sacrifice, per the new sort of in-between category introduced by Pope Francis) in their life. This generally is held to only apply to formal canonizations, and not to "equipollent" canonizations.

A Sinner said...

From a liturgical perspective, the distinction between canonization and beatification is much more straightforward: canonization (whether formal or equipollent) is the extension of potential public veneration universally, whereas beatification allows for public cultus only in certain locations or among a given religious order or group, etc.

(Whether the "universal" vs "local" here applies only to the Latin Rite, or if in some sense represents potential approbation even for the Eastern churches is an interesting question that I'm not sure has been fully resolved; I will discuss more later as regards saints and the Eastern Catholics. I think this issue touches on the longstanding confusion of the Latin Rite, being the pope's, being treated wrongly as a sort of "universal rite.")

Canonization and beatification in this sense are reversible or suppressible, theoretically, in a way that the "dogmatic fact" aspect of formal canonizations are not. A Saint can have their public cultus suppressed or restricted back to just local calendars (this is theoretically true even for formally canonized Saints, but almost always has been done for ancient saints whose liturgical canonization was merely something like equipollent).

Of course, the pre-congregation saints were not distinguished in quite so neat a way. They were all called Saint (which just means "Holy" remember, in Latin, but which has taken on the distinct meaning of a title, at least when "capitalized") but really most of their status is really more like a beatification. Or started that way, at least; arguably, inclusion in the Roman Martyrology is a sort of implicit equipollent canonization, since priests traditionally could say a votive Mass for any saint listed in the Martyrology on a given day.

The new Martyrology did make deletions of entries from the old Martyrology. This is perhaps what is most known by traditionalists: that not only were some saints removed from the general calendar, but some were even removed outright from the martyrology, such that a priest can't say Mass (at least, not a Novus Ordo Mass) in their honor anymore. There were hundreds of such deletions (in addition to certain entries having much "legendary" content or descriptions of tortures excised).

I personally am not terribly comfortable with the volume of deletions, and would personally err on the side of restoring them, and am personally grateful that the continued approbation of the "Extraordinary Form" liturgical books actually means that these Saints haven't really been deleted from public veneration in the Latin Rite after all, as they remain in the Old Rite martyrology, and thus read at Old Rite Prime, and also may thus theoretically still be honored at Old Rite votive masses (though not New, apparently, for better or worse; though the implications of approving the Old Rite books including the martyrology, for continued use...I'm not sure have been fully thought out or addressed formally in any way. And that's a good thing right now).

Nevertheless, I will say two things in defense of the new Roman Martyrology in this regard: a) the quality additions far outnumber the deletions, and b) the deletions were based on an attempt at critical scholarship and history.

A Sinner said...

In some cases it was manifestly clear that certain entries or saints in the Martyrology were pure erroneous duplications (there never was a Pope Anacletus, that was just another name for Cletus). I think removing or consolidating obvious duplications is okay (but I wouldn't be inclined to remove seeming duplicates merely because it "seems like these two might have been the same"...better to leave a saint in twice than risk removing a real martyr from our treasured memory).

And certainly removing some fabulous stories from dubious acta was something many ecumenical councils have called for. Though sometimes there is value in the stories themselves, and there's nothing wrong with including such stories when discussing a saint but prefacing with something like "a popular medieval legend about him/her said..." Though, of course, martyrology entries are not full acta; they are short summaries basically giving just enough historic and geographic identifying information to distinguish the saint, which could otherwise be a problem when there are so many ancient saints with the same names.

Still, just because the source in which a Saint is mentioned or found is not considered historically reliable...I don't personally think means the entire name should be struck out of the book. It could be just included without any further description, as many entries in the martyrology already are.

And as I've heard traditionalists say about such cases "Well, somebody was answering those calls in heaven all those years," and I believe there is a pious truth to that sentiment. If a cultus has developed around a saint, God surely referred it to somebody. In many cases there was a historical kernel in a forgotten holy personage even if the stories that survive *about* them are totally fabricated.

Or even in cases where it seems like the person themselves was invented whole cloth as part of a legend or fable...there are many anonymous Saints throughout history, and I'm sure God accepted the sincere cultus towards a fictional saint and "assigned it" to a real but unknown saint, and keeping a name in the martyrology (even something like Barlaam and Josephat, who seem to just be the Buddha story Christianized) commemorates that phenomenon and preserves that reference.

Nevertheless, saints can have their cultus suppressed or restricted to local public veneration only. This doesn't mean they didn't exist for certain, or that private veneration cannot continue. It just means that they have been, as it were, *liturgically* demoted back to the status of a beati, a venerable, or a servant of God, etc.

A Sinner said...

The new martyrology includes Beati, but indicates them with an asterisk. There seems to be some debate about whether that means that martyrology entry should be read or not in other locales, but certainly it means that Mass cannot be said in honor of those saints except in the associated locales or groups. What's interesting, is that even some ancient pre-congregation "saints" (ie, before the Saint/Blessed distinction) have been given the asterisk in the new martyrology. So for example the famous case of St Christopher. He was only ever a Commemoration on the old rite calendar, and his feast was certainly removed from the new. Nevertheless, despite rumors, he was not removed from the martyrology (as some were). He was kept, but with an asterisk limiting him to certain locales in terms of public cultus (ie, Mass being said in his honor or the potential to include him on the diocesan or national calendar). In addition to such demotions of entries previously already in the martyrology, certain pre-congregation saints were actually ADDED to the new martyrology who weren't in it previously, but with this asterisk. This includes, for example, saints that were "equipollently beatified" (ie, they had their cultus confirmed, but only in a given locale, not universally). I actually take it as a positive sign that they were liberal about including these rather than excluding them.

So the question remains, which saints should a Catholic (I'm assuming here: a Western Catholic) venerate in a "liturgical" way? (Obviously, we're allowed to venerate anyone we want privately; its why the category of Venerable and Servant of God exist). Who should be on the calendars for our domestic church, etc.

Well, I've been thinking a lot about that, and I've come to conclude that the answer is basically anyone included in "The Book of Saints: A Comprehensive Biographical Dictionary." This may seem an odd answer. Why is this my choice? Because this dictionary uses both the old and the new martyrology as its basis. Basically, it includes all the saints in the old martyrology (indicates if they were later deleted, with explanation), all the saints and beati in the new, plus any canonized or beatified since the new one was last updated in 2004, lists in an appendix of all the individual names of the saints and beati who make up the "large groups of national martyrs" who might not otherwise be listed as separate entries, plus a handful of important saints that never made it into either martyrology.

This last category includes saints such as Philomena, Botulph, and various other cases where local public cultus was confirmed or tolerated in the 19th-century or earlier (but then, it seems, implicitly suppressed, for the new rite at least, by not being included even with an asterisk in the new martyrology). We can think of this category as saints/beati who WOULD have been included with an asterisk (ie, local public cultus) in the old martyrology IF the old martyrology HAD included beati/"asterisked local saints" (but it didn't).

So basically, it is a complete catalog (up to 2015) of anyway who has been approved for public veneration (universal or local) in the Roman Rite in either the traditional liturgy or the new. (And since the traditional liturgy is still approved as the Extraordinary Form, really all these saints and beati, from under the aegis of either martyrology, even those deleted in the new, are part of patrimony of potential public veneration, universal or at least in some locales).

A Sinner said...

What to make of "Saints" who aren't in this book then? There are many called "Saint" throughout history who didn't make it into either martyrology's approbation. The Bollandist's Acta Sanctorum contains many tens of thousands, and the "Bibliotecha Sanctorum" based off their work (very rare and expensive now, but at least it could fit on a shelf at home unlike the actual Acta; someday I hope to obtain a set of the Bibliotecha).

Well, I think these are not really for Roman Catholics to worry about right now. If you have one you want to privately venerate, go ahead, especially if they are officially Servant of God or Venerable and your veneration could contribute towards their public Cause. But we are never going to be able to comprehensively catalog these or honor them all even by a simple "martyrology reading" on a single day.

Certainly, it is not even clear that we'd want to. Many are probably controversial (which is why they weren't in either martyrology). For example, as alluded to above...there is the question of Eastern Catholic calendars, which I think the Vatican has basically preferred to leave an unanswered and ambiguous point. The new Roman Martyrology includes a very small handful of Saints who are historically post-schism (but all of whom arguably wouldn't have viewed themselves explicitly as in Schism from Rome in their own historic context). But on Eastern ("uniate") calendars...the inclusion of post-schism saints "brought back" with them from their own historic tradition...is a sticky one. Most Eastern churches have more and more conformed their calendars to their corresponding Orthodox church in the name of ecumenism and removing Latinizations, and Eastern Catholic discussion boards frequently bring up, for example, the rehabilitation of Gregory Palamas, etc.

As a Latin Catholic, all I can say is that I don't have an opinion, trust the Church to resolve the question in the future at a more opportune moment (after reunion, perhaps), and in the meantime am glad I don't have to grapple with the question myself. Post-Schism Orthodox Saints aren't in my martyrologies or tradition. If one moved me or inspired me, I could venerate him or her privately, but not with any sense of liturgical or para-liturgical cultus.

A Sinner said...

I'd say this principle even extends to pre-Schism saints of the East who never made it into any public cultus in the West. They're less controversial, to be sure, but for me as a Latin, I must think of them at most as like Venerables; they're objects of potential private devotion for Westerns, not public (even if my Eastern Catholic brethren may publicly venerate them). Many, but certainly not all, of these were brought over into the new Martyrology (with or without an "asterisk") and I am grateful for that enrichment, and would be open to even more of it (as it seems odd to have someone, with no complicating question of schism, publicly venerated in one rite who isn't even mentioned, not even with an asterisk, in the other rite's martyrology). Nevertheless, for various reasons, if they were not so included for Romans, I have no authority on my own to bring them over to my tradition in any public way, nor do I feel much need to go looking for them for private veneration when I have almost 10,000 of my own tradition's saints to choose from first (who include many Easterners already).

This likewise extends to the many saints who appear on the Irish/Celtic calendars, even though these were Western. If you look at something like "The Martyrology of Donegal" it contains many hundreds or thousands of obscure Irish saints that you've never heard of, but which were apparently at one point celebrated locally in Ireland. But to me they are of dubious quality and historicity in general. Few ever made it into the old Roman Martyrology, nor even received official local confirmation of cultus during that period, and a few more may have made it in (with or without asterisk) to the new Roman Martyrology...but any beyond those...well, those celtic rites and calendars are suppressed now, so I'm not going to worry about them. They're like Venerables, at best, to me as a Roman Catholic; one of the many tens of thousands of holy people I might venerate, but who do not have, and never had, any approbation for universal public veneration, and no longer even have any for local (though they might have on a diocesan level at some point before papal centralization).