Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

[It pleased God, for a threefold reason, that the saints who have finished this life and now reign in heaven with Christ be honored on earth with public worship : 1° that God, the author of grace and holiness, may be glorified in them; 2° that the saints may be an example to us and show us the way of salvation which they themselves followed; 3° that we may invoke them as protectors with God. The Church teaches us these things in her sacred liturgy; for it is read in the public prayers : O God, who art glorified in the assembly of thy holy martyrs¹ ... O God, who for the safeguarding of our weakness hast placed in thy saints an example and a protection for the way of salvation² ... But since public worship cannot lawfully be rendered except to those whose sanctity and glorification is certainly established, and since it belongs to the Church alone to pronounce upon these matters, it is not lawful to honor them thus before the Church has issued its solemn judgment upon their virtues and condition. And this judgment is called canonization, because by the force of this judgment certain dwellers of heaven are inscribed in the canon of the saints.

When the Church canonizes some deceased person, it issues a judgment properly so called, by which it pronounces that he reigns in heaven. But if it grants only the license to have and honor some servant of God as blessed in heaven, it is no longer canonization, but beatification only.

Canonization and beatification are either formal or equipollent.

Formal canonization, or canonization properly so called, is defined by Benedict XIV, book I de Canonizat. sanct., c. 39, n. 5 : « The definitive sentence of the supreme Pontiff, by which he decrees that some blessed is to be-[continuat in p. 237] numbered among the catalogue of the saints, and is to be venerated in the whole catholic world and in the universal Church with that cult which is rendered to the other canonized saints. » Canonization therefore is the public testimony of the Church concerning the true sanctity and glory of some deceased person. This testimony is given in the manner of a judgment, by which it is decreed for the canonized person the honors that are owed to those who reign with God, namely, that he be inscribed in the catalogue of the saints, that he be invoked in the public prayers of the Church, that temples be erected to God in his memory, that the sacrifice of the Mass be offered, that the canonical hours be recited, that his feast day be celebrated, that his image be painted with the aureole that denotes his glory, and that his relics be publicly honored.

Formal beatification is « the act by which the Roman Pontiff, by way of indulgence, permits some servant of God to be able to be venerated in some province, diocese, city, or religious family, with a cult that is determinate, limited, and proper to the blessed. » All the honors granted to the saints can be rendered to him, but within the prescribed limits.

In this canonization differs from beatification : 1° that canonization is the last and definitive sentence concerning someone's sanctity and glory, while beatification is not, since after it new inquiries are required in order to arrive at canonization. 2° As has already been said, beatification is not so much a sentence as an indulgence; hence Popes in bulls of canonization say : « We define, we decree, we command; » but in bulls of beatification : « We indulge, we grant, etc. » 3° Canonization looks to the whole Church, while the license expressed in beatification is granted only to some province, diocese, or place.

Equipollent canonization is the implicit judgment of the Church, consisting in the public worship rendered by the universal Church to some servant of God without any formal decree concerning his sanctity and felicity. Equipollent beatification is likewise the tacit license by which public worship is rendered to some servant of God in some territory, with the Church knowing and keeping silent.

Many canonizations and beatifications were equipollent, as will appear from what follows.

Although the canonization of saints, as to the manner now observed in the Church, has not always been in use, it nevertheless has always existed as to substance, so that no deceased person was venerated as a saint without a prior discussion and approval of his sanctity, as appears from Optatus of Milevis, book I contra Parmen., where he signifies that it was unlawful to venerate the relics of anyone « dead man, even though a martyr, but not yet vindicated, » that is, not yet approved and received. But if thus for martyrs, with stronger reason for the other saints. This discussion and approval, or canonization, was carried out by the bishop or primate for his own churches only, but the worship instituted in them, by the devotion of the peoples, with the consent, tacit or express, of the supreme Pontiff acceding, was often extended to other churches. Yet, since in this matter some bishops had at times exceeded due measure, or abuses had crept in from elsewhere into the cult of the saints, so that at times impious men were honored as saints in certain places, Alexander III, cap. Audivimus, lib. III Decretal., de relig. et venerat. sanct., reserved the right of canonizing saints to the Apostolic See, so that, « even if through him miracles were wrought, it would not be lawful for you to venerate him as a saint without the authority of the Roman Church. » And the same Pope canonized St. Bernard and St. Thomas of Canterbury.

How one is to proceed in order to obtain canonization, Benedict XIV sets forth most fully in the work praised above, de Beatificatione et Canonizatione sanctorum.

These things premised,

I say : The Church is infallible in the canonization of saints.

It is the common opinion, and it seems plainly to be that of St. Thomas, Quodlib. IX, a. 16. There the holy Doctor asks whether all the saints who have been canonized by the Church are in glory, or whether some of them are in hell. And when in the body of the article he had established, as certain, that the judgment of the universal Church in matters pertaining to faith cannot err, he adds : « In other judgments, however, which pertain to particular facts, as when the matter concerns possessions or crimes, or things of this sort, it is possible [continuat in p. 239] for the judgment to err on account of false witnesses. But the canonization of saints stands midway between these two. And yet, since the honor we show the saints is a kind of profession of faith, by which we believe their glory, it must piously be believed that not even in these matters can the judgment of the Church err. » Ad 1um : « The supreme Pontiff, whose office it is to canonize saints, can certify the state of someone... especially by the instinct of the Holy Spirit. » And ad 2um : « Divine providence preserves the Church, lest in such matters she be deceived by the fallible testimony of men. » Since then in these words the holy Doctor derives the certainty of the Church's judgment from divine providence and the instinct of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be deceived or deceive, it is evident that he holds the Church to be absolutely infallible in the canonization of saints. When, however, he says « this must piously be believed, » he does not mean to signify that it could happen otherwise, but that the infallibility of the Church in the canonization of saints is not certain in the same manner as is her infallibility in matters of faith, of which he had spoken shortly before; for the latter is certain with the certainty of faith, though not primary certainty, at least in the opinion of many. Of this below.

Proof. 1°. The Church is infallible in the common teaching of morals. Yet the canonization of saints seems to pertain to the common teaching of morals. Therefore. — Proof of min. The Church, by canonizing someone, obliges the faithful to hold him as a saint, and proposes him to them as to be venerated and imitated. Yet these things seem to regard morals. Therefore.

It is confirmed. The Church is holy. Yet, if she were to propose for veneration and imitation an impious man and one damned, and the faithful were to hold him as such, this would gravely detract from the holiness of the Church. Therefore.

Proof. 2°. If the Church were deceived in the canonization of saints, this would redound to her grave contempt and dishonor; for the demons would mock her, when they saw those who are companions of damnation venerated and invoked by the faithful as friends of God and sharers in his glory. Yet it is not probable that God would abandon his Church in such matters. Therefore.

It is confirmed. by the fact related by Sulpicius Severus in the Vita S. Martini, concerning a robber struck down for his crimes, who by the error of the common people was venerated as a martyr, and whom St. Martin, warned by God's revelation, cast down from the superstitious honors bestowed upon him.

What we say here of canonization seems also to be said of beatification, though not with the same certainty; because, although in beatification the Church does not define ultimately, she nevertheless grants and approves the worship of this or that person, in which granting and approval, if she erred, she would detract from her infallibility in moral doctrine, from her holiness, and from her honor, in almost the same manner as was said of canonization.

You will say 1° : No one can be so certain about the state of another as he is about himself; for what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? I Cor., II, 11. Yet no one can be certain about himself whether he is in the state of salvation; for man knows not whether he is worthy of love or hatred, Eccles., IX, 1.

I answer. I distinguish the major.³ That « no one can be so certain, etc., » apart from the assistance of the Holy Spirit, I concede; that being supposed, I deny. It must therefore be said that the supreme Pontiff, whose office it is to canonize saints, can be certified about the state of someone, not only through the inquiry into his life and the attestation of miracles, but especially through the instinct of the Holy Spirit, who searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God, I Cor., II, 10.

I insist : The Church in the canonization of saints relies on human testimony, which is fallible. Therefore.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent.⁴ That she relies on human testimony only, I deny. Where it must be observed that human testimonies suffice indeed for certifying historically the facts that morally demonstrate sanctity. She relies likewise and especially on divine providence, which preserves the Church lest she be deceived in such matters, I concede.

You will say 2° : The facts alleged by Sulpicius Severus and by Alexander III, to which must be added the inscription in the Martyrologio Usuardi, among the saints, of Eusebius of Caesarea, who is known [continuat in p. 241]

to have been an Arian, nay the prince of the Arians, as Hieron. testifies, lib. II adv. Rufin., c. 14, prove that error can fall into this matter; hence the infallibility of the Church is shaken.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. That many could falsely have been honored as saints in some particular church, through the error of those whose office it was not authoritatively to pass judgment on the sanctity of such men, I concede; that this could happen in the universal Church and by the definitive judgment of the Church herself, I deny. Consequently the conclusion falls.

You will ask whether it is of faith that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints.

I answer. It does not seem to be of faith that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints, and consequently neither that someone thus canonized by the Church is a saint and blessed.

Proof. of the first part, 1° from St. Thomas⁵, who places the judgment of the Church in the canonization of saints midway between the judgment of the Church concerning matters of faith and the judgment concerning particular facts, and says that it is not of faith, but that it is « piously to be believed that in these matters the judgment of the Church cannot err. »

2° Although it is certain of faith that the Church is infallible in the common teaching of morals, it is not nevertheless certain by the same faith that the canonization of saints pertains to the common teaching of morals, nor do all concede this. Therefore.

3° No definition exists of the Church concerning her own infallibility, as of divine faith, in the canonization of saints, nor can this be gathered from her practice.

Hence follows the second part. For if it is not of faith that the Church is infallible in canonizing someone; therefore, with stronger reason, that the one canonized is a saint, since this has not been revealed elsewhere, neither immediately, as is evident per se, nor mediately in the very infallibility of the Church, since, as was said, it is not certain of faith.

Nevertheless the infallibility of the Church in this matter is [continuat in p. 242] theologically certain, and perhaps proximate to faith, as follows from what Benedict XIV says, ubi supra, lib. I, c. 45, n. 28, namely that he who should assert that the supreme Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization would be rash, bringing scandal to the whole Church, injurious to the saints, favoring heretics, savoring of heresy, an assertor of an erroneous proposition, and liable to the most grave penalties.]