Discussion of the term "canonized"

It literally means that X has been added to the list.

If it is books of scripture, we say they were canonized when the church compiled them as the Bible and decreed that these are inspired. In the case of saints, it means that the church has formally added the name of someone to the list of official saints. Hardly any churches do this, it should be noted. Even the Eastern Orthodox, whom you would expect to follow a policy similar to the RCC simply considers as saints those whom the people think of as being in heaven.

Lämmchen said:

What does it mean that something is canonized like a saint or a book of the bible? Does the term make anything more valuable?

Click to expand...

For a sinful person, I don't know.


For a book, it means that that book is regarded as norma normans. A "Canon*" is a rule or measuring tape, used to determine if something is the claimed length. In epistemology, a "canon" is some objective standard completely OUTSIDE the control of all parties, that all look to as the standard or plumbline. Let's say you hired Bob the Builder to build a wall 6 feet tall. He's done, and he claims the wall is 6 feet tall but it seems shorter than that to you. So you both agree to use a Sears Measuring Tape (which you both have) to measure it, both agreeing that the Sears Measuring tape is reliable for this. In that case, you have made the Sears Measuring Tape your "canon" for this stage of arbitration as you resolve your dispute over the heighth of the wall. I suspect the verb "canonize" would mean to be so regarded.

So when we say the Bible is "canonical" we are embracing IT as our norma normans, it is the objective rule ("straight edge") and standard we look to. In my field (physics) we look (primarily) to math and repeatable laboratory evidence as our canon.



* That's "canon" with one "n", two "n's" is a big gun on land, a whole other enchilada, lol




.

Lämmchen said:

What does it mean that something is canonized like a saint or a book of the bible? Does the term make anything more valuable?

Click to expand...

I really have no idea. I've always been told there is nothing we can do that would make us more loved by God, so I don't see how canonizing anything would make it more valuable to Him.

Albion said:

Even the Eastern Orthodox, whom you would expect to follow a policy similar to the RCC simply considers as saints those whom the people think of as being in heaven.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting that from?

I really have no idea. I've always been told there is nothing we can do that would make us more loved by God, so I don't see how canonizing anything would make it more valuable to Him.

Click to expand...

Its true that being canonized as a saint does not make anyone a saint. It is simply a recognition by the church.

In the EO, the acclaim of the whole people of God is what, historically, has made anyone be recognized as a saint, but I suppose it could be argued that once the church puts these people on the church calendar or includes them in prayers, etc. the church itself has taken some formal action. That would still be after the fact and much different from the way the RCC goes about determining who are the saints.

Pedrito said:

The first is, is the whole concept of canonising dead people and praying to them, a mere human invention, or an act directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

Canonizing a saint does not require that you pray to them, nor is it an invitation to do so (depending upon ones denomination).

The third is, if different canonising churches canonise different people, does that not mean that those varying canonisations are not the result of direct Holy Spirit prompting?

Click to expand...

Why assume that the process is supposed to be in response to any direct prompting by the Holy Spirit?

The fifth is, if the canonisation of dead people is in fact a mere human invention after all, doesn’t that mean that canonising churches have introduced a practice that is contrary to God’s Holy Gospel and purpose?

Click to expand...

No--unless you can show us what it conflicts with.

Something is canonical (in Christianity) when it is recognised as part of the rule of faith or the rule of practise or both. Holy scripture has a canon of 73 books in the Catholic Church which means that the rule of faith and practise includes those 73 books as authoritative and normative in matters of faith/doctrine and practise. Saints are regarded as canonical when the Catholic Church recognises them as examples to be followed in life and teaching.

MoreCoffee said:

Holy scripture has a canon of 73 books in the Catholic Church which means that the rule of faith and practise includes those 73 books as authoritative and normative in matters of faith/doctrine and practise. Saints are regarded as canonical when the Catholic Church recognises them as examples to be followed in life and teaching.

Click to expand...

IMO, you are profoundly wrong. That is the exact opposite of the dogma of the RC Denomination.


IF that were true, the RCC would be the biggest champion of Sola Scripture on the planet (since what you posted IS Sola Scriptura). But of course, it (along with the LDS and additionally also all cults known to me) are the opposite: Passionate enemies of Sola Scriptura.


The RCC argues that the norm for faith and practice is itself (uniquely, solely, exclusively): if it itself agrees with it itself in the opinion of it itself at this moment (at least in official, formal matters) then it itself is correct and normed accordingly (and God Himself must agree with it itself or God would be wrong). The RCC looks to one place: the mirror.


The RCC teaches that there are 3 "sources" of the unique, ever-evolving dogmas of it itself - these are the "three streams" or "three legs of the stool" as it mentions constantly. And these 3 streams flow inseparately into one river - which is Revelation and the source and norm (canon). These are -

A) The "Tradition" if it itself exclusively, singularly and individually as it itself alone currently defines, accepts and interprets so that it affirms and agrees with the teachings of it itself alone, PLUS EQUALLY and INSEPARATELY:
B) The "Scriptures" of it itself exclusively, singularly, individually and uniquely defines, accepts and interprets so that it affirms and agrees with the teachings of it itself alone at that moment, PLUS EQUALLY and INSEPARATELY:
C) The "Magisterium" or leadership of it itself exclusively, singularly and individually as chosen by it itself alone from those who have pledged to uphold and affirm the teachings of it itself alone no matter what as interpreted by it itself alone.

These 3 form ONE unique source and norm (at that moment) and since all are equally and fully true and divine, what is in one MUST be in the other two (having formed ONE river) even if only by invisible words that only it itself uniquely can currently "see" or if only by IMPLICATION. Thus if the Magisterium said something in 1905, the exactly same MUST be in the Bible if only by invisible words that only the exclusive RCC can "see" or by pure "implication" so that the Bible teaches what the RCC teaches (or it would be wrong (and that's not possible).

Of course, anyone over the age of 5 can see that A, B and C are just.... well..... itself. Self looking at self alone. That didn't dawn on me until I was about 10 or so (not being the sharpest tool in the shed) but it sure did. My own Catholic teachers by no means denied this.



Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to all....


- Josiah





.

I've always thought the term is/was used when someone is deemed sainthood.