O papa e os 21 mártires coptas

Source: Article "44 shameful calumnies against Pope Francis" on "Archidiacre".

40. He [the pope] would have committed a heretical act by adding Copts to the martyrology.

First, let us note that the martyrology is a human work: there is nothing in this document that pertains to divine law. It is entirely subject to reform by the Church. These are liturgical and disciplinary matters that can be fully modified. There is no dogma of the Catholic Church that requires a visible catholicity for Christians included in the martyrology, which means that such a change does not imply any doctrinal "heresy."

Let us also note that inclusion in the martyrology is not an infallible judgment regarding its saints. This is why, for example, Saint Pius X had St. Expedit removed from the martyrology, even though he had long been venerated before. The martyrology, therefore, does not constitute a formal canonization but rather the acceptance of veneration for Christians who died in the odor of sanctity. However, an infallible sentence of canonization would have been proof of their implicit union with the Catholic Church and not a demonstrable "error," since canonization is assisted by the Holy Spirit.

One might argue, based on the indefectibility of the Church, that it is a matter of faith that the liturgical disciplines established by the Church cannot be inherently harmful to souls. This is true, but it is precisely such private judgments that the Church has prohibited: since the Church is indefectible, the act cannot be judged as intrinsically evil. To affirm the contrary is already to presume that the Church is not the true Church, which leads to a circular argument.

The addition to the martyrology, even if it may be criticized from a pastoral perspective, is therefore in no way capable of proving that the Church is "false" or "modernist." Since the Pope is the legitimate judge of the objective pastoral validity of this modification, no private judgment can outweigh his authority.

Moreover, it is objectively clear that this act is not harmful to souls and will contribute further to the gradual reconciliation of the Churches. It does not imply any relativism regarding the differences between Catholics and Orthodox Christians; rather, the need to resolve these differences is actually reaffirmed within the ecumenical context.

Those who cry out in scandal clearly already hold a negative bias against the Church or the Pope. There is, therefore, no concrete negative impact on the salvation of souls, since those who actively seek a harmful consequence or misinterpretation are the ones creating it themselves—and are thus entirely responsible for it.

As for the definition of martyr proposed by former theologians (such as Lambertini before becoming Benedict XIV), it is neither unchangeable nor a dogma. Neither the opinions of theologians nor past papal disciplines can be used against a reigning pope according to Tradition (see Paroles de Pape for citations that demonstrate this). Therefore, insisting on a strict definition of martyr has no binding force.

Moreover, if this definition had been denied to separated Christians in the past, it was because they were not presumed to be in good faith but were seen as willfully separated—something that is not the case here. The Church now employs the term martyr in a broader sense, applying it to all Christians killed not because of their specific "denomination" but for reasons common to all Catholics.

In short, there is simply no unchangeable law or opinion that prevents the pope from considering, on a pastoral level, the inclusion in the martyrology of martyrs presumed to be in good faith (and therefore implicitly members of the Church—formerly referred to as martyrs coram Deo), even if this constitutes a new practice.

However, this practice is only new if we limit our perspective to the Roman calendar— which is not the only liturgical calendar in use within the Catholic communion and is therefore not the sole officially approved one by the Church.

For instance, in 1940, the Catholic Church, through its Congregation for the Eastern Church, approved the inclusion in the liturgical calendar for Russian Catholics (in communion with Rome) of saints who originally belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church, such as Nicetas of Novgorod (d. 1108), Leontius of Rostov (d. 1077), Barlaam of Khutyn (d. 1192), and Sergius of Radonezh (d. 1392).

Father Alphonse Raes speculated that this expanded tolerance might have been justified by the fact that their historical period was less marked by anti-Latin sentiment or that monastic life at the time was not centered on the question of union with Rome (La première édition romaine de la liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome en staroslave, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 7 (1941), pp. 518–526).

In any case, the Church holds the authority to determine whether it is appropriate to tolerate the veneration of Christians who, through no fault of their own, were in error regarding Rome and the specific questions of primacy—presumably without personal guilt or obstinacy.

The facts reported by Fr. Congar are also relevant:

Many saintly monks of Egypt, as well as the great Simeon Stylites the Elder, were Monophysites, like the majority of their compatriots, including bishops. The martyr-priest Marcellus, mentioned in the Roman Martyrology on November 26, is in fact the Donatist pseudo-martyr Marculus. Strictly speaking, this is an error in the Martyrology, which contains other such inaccuracies.

However, there are less debatable and more compelling cases, such as that of St. Paschasius, a deacon and confessor (late 5th–early 6th century), listed in the Roman Martyrology on May 31, who supported the cause of the antipope Laurentius against Pope Symmachus. Another example is that of the bishops of Como.

For about a century (from the late 6th to the late 7th century), the See of Como was drawn into the so-called Schism of Aquileia, a consequence of the Three Chapters Controversy. Nevertheless, around ten bishops of Como from this period, who lived and died in schism, are considered saints. Notably, St. Agrippinus (feast day: June 17), whose sepulchral inscription confirms that he was appointed by the schismatic Patriarch of Aquileia and remained in schism throughout his life, as well as St. John III (feast day: October 20) and St. Octavian (feast day: October 23).

The veneration of these bishops in their local Church was never prohibited by the See of Rome and was, rather, tacitly acknowledged.

(1) In his commentary on the life of Blessed Arethas, Acta Sanctorum, October, vol. X, pp. 864 ff.; see also nn. 14 ff., pp. 868 ff.

(2) See H. D[elehaye], "Domnus Marculus," in Analecta Bollandiana, vol. LII (1935), pp. 81–89; see also pp. 87–88.

(3) This case is cited, along with that of St. Vincent Ferrer, by Benedict XIV, loc. cit. — Note that inclusion in the Roman Martyrology does not equate to canonization, not even to an equipollent canonization; see Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, article "Canonization," vol. II, col. 1639. [our emphasis]

(4) See Acta Sanctorum, October, vol. VIII, pp. 903–909, nn. 5–22.

(5) Acta Sanctorum, October, vol. X, pp. 100 ff.; p. 107, no. 4, see the list of bishops of Como recognized as saints, with the indication of their feast day.

(Source: "À propos des saints canonisés dans les Églises orthodoxes," Revue des Sciences Religieuses, vol. 22, issues 3-4, 1948, pp. 240-259.)