In the Papal Bull, *Sanctissimus Dominus Noster,* of March 13, 1625, Pope Urban VIII instructed Catholics not to venerate the deceased or represent them in the manner of Saints without the sanction of the Catholic Church. I have not located a copy of this letter. I would like to read it, as well as determine what are the penalties on those who violate its dictates. QUESTION: (i) Where may I obtain (preferably online) a copy of the document; and, (ii) What are the penalties imposed for its violation? Thank you.

[*Fr. Frederick William Faber*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William_Faber) became a member of the Oxford Movement under the leadership of St. John Henry Newman et al. in the 1830s. Many of its members, as a result of the condemnations levied upon the group by the Church of England at the time, lost their status at Oxford (e.g., William G. Ward) and/or became Catholics---such as Ward, Newman and Faber (the latter two, of whom, had also previously taken Anglican orders.) Though Faber lived a relatively short life (49 years), he was a prolific writer and a zealous supporter of the Catholic Church. His writings, *e.g.*, [*The Precious Blood*](https://ia802701.us.archive.org/23/items/ThePreciousBlood/ThePreciousBlood_text.pdf) deal with topics most apropos to the confusion the Church is now suffering in the form of many clerics who promote ``gospels'' different from the *only one* preached by the Apostles. QUESTION: Has the cause for Sainthood of Fr. Frederick William Faber ever been formally proposed by someone (a group) devoted to the effort?

St. Maria Goretti was stabbed several times for her refusal to consent to sin against purity; Alessandro Serenelli, her "would-be rapist" (ch. 25 of *Modern Saints: Their Lives and Faces* vol. 1 ), was trying to seduce her. Certainly it is heroic that she would rather die than to consent to sin, but how is she a martyr? I thought martyrs had to die *in odium fidei* (because of hatred of the Faith).

As a generalization to the question posed in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62450/is-the-catholic-declaration-of-an-extra-biblical-saint-infallible , and in hope of obtaining, perhaps, more definitive answers from a Catholic perspective, I ask: Are Catholic canonizations infallible?

For example, in entry **(150)** of her *Diary*, St. Faustina relates the following from a mystical conversation she had with St. Therese of Lisieux: > "Dear sweet Therese, tell me, shall I go to heaven?" And she answered, "Yes, you will go to heaven, Sister." "And will I be a saint?" To which she replied, "Yes, you will be a saint." "But, little Therese, shall I be a saint as you are, raised to the altar?" And she answered, "Yes, you will be a saint just as I am, but you must trust in the Lord Jesus." In the Catholic Church, what exactly is meant by the term "raised to the altar"? Does it mean *canonization* by the Pope? Are those declared *Blessed* (also) *raised to the altar*?

According to [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_à_Kempis) Thomas à Kempis, the presumed author of *The Imitation of Christ*, is venerated in the Catholic Church. I surmise that his cause for canonization must have been brought up at least two hundred years after his death, as his body was (I am assuming the story is true) exhumed, upon which scratch marks on the wood of the coffin were discovered, as well as some remnants of the wood under his fingernails. Confusion purportedly arose and his cause for canonization seems to have been dropped. Question: **Was Thomas a Kempis ever officially declared a *Servant of God* in the Catholic Church? Was he ever officially declared *Venerable* or *Blessed*?** I am guessing that he must have been at least declared a Servant of God, but I am not sure.

If the pope is infallible, than what significance does beautifying and canonizing him have? They did both to Pope John Paul II, but it seems odd that the Church wants to make him a saint, unless I am misunderstanding the concept of saints.

Often quoted in the "Sayings or the Desert Fathers," St. Poeman is venerated in the Roman Catholic Church, as well as some of the Eastern Orthodox churches. QUESTION: Was St. Poeman ever formally canonized in the Roman Catholic Church; i.e., solemnly declared so by a Pope? If so, by whom? Also, how did the epithet, **"the great"**, get attributed to him?

We read in Mtt 19:12: > For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” Taking a cue from that, it is not one's fault for having been been born a eunuch or having developed a trans-gender personality after birth. But the society seldom attributed to the trans-gender person, the ability to grow in spirituality and attain holiness. A number of them lived and died with fake gender identity. It is possible that the list of saints contains at least a few trans-gender persons whose true gender identity was misunderstood. My question therefore is: **Has the Catholic Church ever canonized a trans-gender person with the full knowledge of his/her true gender identity?**

According to the [Catholic Encyclopedia](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01168b.htm) , the Devil's Advocate (_Advocatus Diaboli_) was: >[a] popular title given to one of the most important officers of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, established in 1587, by Sixtus V, to deal juridically with processes of beatification and canonization. Yet, toward the end, it says: >The first formal mention of such an officer is found in the canonization of St. Lawrence Justinian under Leo X (1513-21). I am struggling to find who was the **first** person to hold such title. Unfortunately, the above text does not provide a reference to _where_ such first formal mention is to be found. I have searched in texts related to the life of Leo X ([here](https://archive.org/details/TheLifeAndPontificateOfLeo10thV2) and [here](https://archive.org/details/TheLifeAndPontificateOfLeo10thV1)) without success. I have not found a compilation of the life of St. Lawrence either (which might mention something about his canonisation). Moving forward, I decided to look for any mention of such person in the life of Sixtus V (compilations also available in www.archive.org), also without success. According to [this book](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13807994-sixtus-v) , the first saint canonised by Sixtus V (which might have used the services of an _Advocatus Diaboli_) was [Didacus of Alcala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didacus_of_Alcal%C3%A1) . A book about the life of this saint (available [here](https://archive.org/details/SanDiegoMission)) does not mention much about it, except: > and quietly [Didacus] passed to his eternal reward. It was November 12, 1463. King Philip II, of Spain, joined the people in soliciting the canonization of the servant of God. Rome heeded the petition and the usual rigid examination into the life of the friar began. [...] Finally, unmistakable proof having been presented that through the intercession of Venerable Didacus at least two miracles, that is works such as only God can effect, had been wrought, Pope Sixtus V, in 1588, placed his name in the catalogue of saints. Not very helpful either. PS: the _Advocatus Diaboli_ title was later changed to that of _[Promotor Fidei](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454a.htm)_ .

To be specific, I am talking about numerous views recently circulated in different articles saying the Sainthood of Pope St. John Paul II is questionable in light of the findings stated in the McCarrick Vatican Report: [Report on the Holy See’s Institutional on the Decision-Making Relating to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (1930 - 2017)](http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_rapporto-card-mccarrick_20201110_en.pdf) . There are views that St. John Paul II had committed an "error in judgment", was deceived by McCarrick and had committed imprudent action in judging the case. Upon reviewing and analyzing the McCarrick Report, I saw that John Paul II had acted with prudence and prayerfully discerned and had judged correctly the allegations and anonymous accusations on Cardinal Theodore McCarrick when he was still a Bishop in the 80's. 1. Pope John Paul II had read the letter of Cardinal O'Connor summarizing the allegations and anonymous accusations. 2. Pope John Paul II even though the summarized letter had not presented a credible evidence, wisely instructed the US Nuncio and the Nuncio instructed four US Bishops to make an honest report on all the knowledge they know about the allegations on Cardinal McCarrick. 3. Pope John Paul II waited for the US Nuncio report to confirm if the allegations have foundation. 4. Pope John Paul II reflected on his own experienced in Poland where Priest and Bishops were victims of false accusations from communist group to destroy their reputation and weaken the Church. 5. Pope John Paul II in spirit of fairness also considered the letter of Cardinal McCarrick in defending his dignity. 6. Pope John Paul II after the failed assassination attempt boldly proclaimed his life was saved by Our Lady, and his new life from now on is totally consecrated to Our Lady, Totus Tuus. It follows that John Paul II discernment and judgment had seek the guidance of Our Lady to know the Truth behind McCarrick allegations. Will Our Lady allow Pope St. JOhn Paul II to be deceived? I don't think so. 7. Pope John Paul II as "anointed" Vicar of Christ enjoys the charisma of the Holy Spirit to guide him in all his judgment that may affect or even more scandalize the Church. Reviewing and analyzing carefully the McCarrick Vatican Report had shown that Pope John Paul II had prayerfully discerned and acted with prudence in judging the case, and John Paul II judgment had found that the allegations had no foundation and McCarrick was just a victim of character assassination. However, the McCarrick Vatican Report also stated that the four US Bishops had made an incomplete report and may have lied to John Paul II and concluded that it might have caused the wrong judgment on the part of Pope John Paul II. In light of this development, can the Church who had beatified and canonized not just a Saint but a Great Saint accept a petition to review his sainthood? The Tradition of the Church stated that the Church united to Peter is guided by the Holy Spirit it cannot err, how can it accept the circulating views coming from laity, clergy and prelates that Pope St. John Paul II might have committed an "error in judgment" and his path to Sainthood was done hastily. Thus my question: > **Can a lay person or a group of lay faithful petition the present pope (Vatican) to de-canonize a Saint in light of new findings?**

People can be canonized (declared to be saints) and these official declarations are held to be infallible. Some people might be considered saints because of popular devotion, without being actually canonized - they could be "grandfathered in," rather than going through the modern process. I am aware of instances where the Church has decided that some of these people are of dubious historicity and therefore are not actually saints. Examples: * [St Guinefort](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Guinefort) , who was not only fictional, but was also a dog. 1 * [St Josaphat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat) , whose story is a fanciful version of the life of Buddha (Josaphat = Boddhisatva). Yes, Buddha existed, but the Josaphat story is not historical. 2 **Has the Church ever declared "X should no longer be considered a saint" where the reason *isn't* "because X never existed"?** 1: It's like the end of *Lady and the Tramp*, but seven centuries ago.
2: Also, Wikipedia is wrong to say that he was canonized: he appeared in the Baronius *Martyrologium Romanum* but Benedict XVI's *De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione* says that doesn't imply canonization.

Normally, sainthood isn't formally considered for an individual until 5 years after the death of a person. If one was determined enough, how could they go about achieving becoming saints and perhaps even become recognized as such by the the Pope, after, and moreover, before one’s death?

Peter Lombard was allegedly one of the most important theologians of the Middle Ages. As Wikipedia states , he was: > Bishop of Paris, and author of Four Books of Sentences , which became the standard textbook of theology, for which he earned the accolade _Magister Sententiarum_. [...] > >From the 1220s until the 16th century, no work of Christian literature, except for the Bible itself, was commented upon more frequently. All the major medieval thinkers, from Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas to William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel, were influenced by it. Even the young Martin Luther still wrote glosses on the _Sentences_ , and John Calvin quoted from it over 100 times in his _Institutes_. Later on the article mention just one doctrines with seem to be relatively controversial, but yet far from being declared heretic. It is know that even St. Augustine wrote things which are not in line with current official teaching or dogmas. The [_Catholic Encyclopedia_](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11768d.htm) states about him: >On the whole and in spite of his connection with Abelard, **he is orthodox**; a proposition of his on "Christological nihilism" was condemned by Alexander III; other theses were abandoned in the century that followed; St. Bonaventure mentions eight of them and the University of Paris later added others. But the success of the book was incontestable; down to the sixteenth century it was the textbook in the university courses, upon which each future doctor had to lecture during two years. Later on, the article states: >[T]he success of Peter Lombard was not immediate. Attacked sometimes during his lifetime, as Maurice of Sully among others relates, after his death he was bitterly inveighed against, especially by Gautier of St. Victor and by Joachim of Flora. This opposition even went so far as to try to get his writings condemned. In 1215 at the Lateran Council these attempts were baffled, and the second canon began a profession of faith in these words: "**Credimus cum Petro [Lombardo]**". So he or his writings (except one or two points, it seems) were never really condemned. And yet, he seem to have never got ground for reverence among other great theologians of the Middle Ages. Is this the case? How can we explain this?

At first I was thinking the only requirement to be canonized was to be killed for your faith. Is this accurate? How is someone deemed a Saint as opposed to a martyr in Catholicism?

In the eyes of the Catholic Church how did Saint Paul become a saint? Was it the encounter with Jesus that made him a saint? Or was it something different? Please answer exactly where he became one, or what the process was.

Why was saint Stephen canonized? I know that you have to perform three miracles to be canonized, but I don't know what his were.

Famous Catholic saints are often surrounded by various popular beliefs. Or sometime there is little that is actually known about the life of a saint (e.g. we don't seem to know that much about Thomas Aquinas). Is there an official website where the Vatican provides the official canonization documents of saints (old or recent)?

Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize certain individuals as [saints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint)—particularly holy individuals who are believed to be in Heaven. The most famous saints become popular objects of veneration and are catalogued in extensive (but not exhaustive) official lists, such as the [Roman Martyrology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Martyrology) . The two churches have not been in communion for nearly a thousand years, and at the time they separated, they did not use today's more rigorous [canonization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization#Catholic_Church) and [glorification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorification#Eastern_Orthodox_Church) processes for officially recognizing saints. Many ancient and medieval figures are recognized as saints by both churches today because of traditions that long predate the schism. What I would like to know is, who is the most recently deceased individual who is officially recognized and venerated as a saint by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches? According to [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17044/23250) , [Vladimir the Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_the_Great) (956–1015) is one contender. I'd be particularly interested to learn whether there are any mutually recognized saints from *after* the Great Schism of 1054.

**What is the official status of the person of Philomena who at one time was *“liturgically canonized”* by Pope Gregory XVI and not officially canonized?** What are the physical, archeological and scientific historical supports that the Vatican used to suppress her status as a saint in 1961? She was never officially canonized by the Church. > 33. Ex his festis "devotionis" sequentia e calendariis expungantur, quare ut plurimum in aliis festis aut anni temporibus iam recoluntur, vel cum aliquo tantum loco particulari relationem habent, scilicet : > > > In translatione almae domus B. Mariae V. (10 decembris) ; In exspectatione partus B. Mariae V. (18 decembris) ; In desponsatione B. Mariae V. cum S. Ioseph (23 ianuarii) ; Fugae D. N. I. C. in Aegyptum (17 februarii) ; Orationis D. N. I. C. (fer. III post dom. Septuagesimae) ; In Commemoratione Passionis D. N. I. C. (fer. III post dom. Sexagesimae) ; S. Spineae Coronae D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post cineres) ; Ss. Lanceae et Clavorum D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. I Quadragesimae) ; S. Sindonis D. N. I. C. (fer VI post dom. II Quadragesimae) ; Ss. Quinque Vulnerum D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. III Quadragesimae) ; Pretiosissimi Sanguinis D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. IV Quadragesimae) ; Eucharistici Cordis Iesu (fer. V post octavam Corporis Christi) ; Humilitatis B. Mariae V. (17 iulii) ; Puritatis B. Mariae V. (16 octobris). > > Festum autem S. Philumenae V. et M. (11 augusti) e quolibet calendario expungatur. - Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Page 174) This subject may be the cause of some strong opinions one way or other as the following questions shows: - Can Patron Saints be “dethroned”? - Who is the oldest Blessed? In order to limit this question to a more historical nature, I prefer that personal opinions be limited to the interpretation of historical data. I also do not desire to have what any visionaries or Catholic mystics have said about the life of [St.] Philomena. Visions are not considered historical proofs. This is exactly how Rome approached the investigation into the beatification of Blessed Catherine Emmerich . > At the time of the Emmerich's beatification in 2004, the Vatican position on the authenticity of the Brentano books was elucidated by priest Peter Gumpel, who was involved in the study of the issues for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints: "It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this. There is a serious problem of authenticity". According to Gumpel, the writings attributed to Emmerich were "absolutely discarded" by the Vatican as part of her beatification process. Thus my question could be phrased as such: **What are the historical reasons that lead up to the Vatican’s decision to suppress the cult of [St.] Philomena and is her cult still permitted in our days?**