medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
One problem with the discussion on "Has Gregory the Great been canonized?" is that the word "canonization" is anachronistic in Gregory's context. It is not in hagiological use until the eleventh century. When the verb "canonizare" first appears, it means to elevate the bones of a holy person to a more honorable place, where he/she could be more readily commemorated. Prior to the development of more elaborate legal procedures for canonization, the "shuffling" of the relics--presumably prompted by local popular interest and approved and normally carried out by the local bishop--was in fact THE "canonization." This was what made a "saint" for the first half of the Christian era, and, despite papal reservations asserted in the high medieval reform councils, was the de facto procedure for recognizing most saints up to the Reformation. Only then did popes secure a fully effective monopoly on "canonizing" saints.
--John Howe, Texas Tech
-----Original Message-----
From: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Briggs
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 4:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [M-R] saints of the day 3. September
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
John Dillon wrote:
> From: John Briggs
>> John Dillon wrote:
>>>
>>> Has Gregory the Great been canonized? If not, it's difficult to
>>> see how
>>> any of his translations at St. Peter's could commemorate his
>>> canonization.
>>
>> They don't. Which is why he didn't have a translation feast (he
>> is said to
>> have been canonised by popular acclamation at his death).
>
> I'm afraid you've lost me here. It seems quite possible to have a
> translation feast even if the latter does/did not commemorate a
> canonization. E.g., Cono (or Conus) of Naso (no formal canonization;
> cult confirmed in 1630 with principal feast on 3. June and feast of
> translation on 1. September).
>
A translation feast commemorates a translation (obviously). The usual
reason for a translation would be removal from original grave to a shrine
(or a removal to a more prestigious shrine). The usual occasion for this
would be consequential to canonisation. There are obviously exceptions,
e.g. Benedict. If Gregory was already regarded as a saint upon his burial,
and buried in St Peter's, there would be no obvious reason why a feast
should commemorate any of his subsequent shufflings around the church. I
would suggest that the very fact that there was no translation feast was the
reason why some other event in his life (ordination, consecration) was
celebrated for his "second" feast.
John Briggs
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|