John XXIII became an anti-pope on 14 Feb. 1961 when he un-sainted St. Philomena?

[Geremia]

PHILOMENA, ST., THE LEGEND OF

In 1802 archeologists unearthed a tomb in the Catacomb of St. Priscilla. The remains appeared to belong to a young woman of the second or third century. Nearby were tiles painted in red: LUMENA PAXTE CUM FI, with images of a whip, arrows, anchors, a lily, and palm. They reconstructed this as PAX TECUM FIILUMENA, "Peace [be] with you, Filumena." The tiles were thought to have sealed the original tomb. The images were taken to be instruments of a martyr's suffering and emblems of her purity and heavenly victory.

Nothing was known of any historical Philomena. Eminent archeologists insisted that the tiles came from a nearby tomb. Despite these efforts to dampen the enthusiasm of those who declared these the bones of a martyr, within two decades there was a flourishing cult of Philomena, a detailed biography, and reports of many miracles. In 1961 the Congregation of Rites struck her feast from the Roman Calendar for lack of historical evidence of her existence, along with that of St. Christopher. The rise of Philomena's cult and her continuing veneration into the twenty-first century need to be read against the background of the duel between traditional religiosity and modern rationalism.

The cult of St. Philomena arose and spread in this environment. Religious orders including the newly reestablished Jesuits appreciated Philomena as model of Christian perseverance in a time not unlike the period of persecution by the ancient Roman empire. Bishops who visited Rome in the 19th century often brought home relics as this was a period when many catacombs were being excavated. In 1805, Father Francesco di Lucia of Mugnano del Cardenale petitioned for the relics. After being denied them, he was cured of a fever. He attributed his cure to Philomena. After much persistence he was granted the relics and enshrined them in his home town in 1832.

Reports of miracles during and after the relics were brought to the shrine advanced the cult. Sister Maria Louisa, Superior General of the Sisters of Sorrow of Mary (d.1875), recorded visions of Philomena whose biography stressed chastity and resistence to persecution. In 1832 di Lucia recorded the biography, the story of the discovery of the relics, and many miracles, along with an essay on chastity. Eminent Catholics supported her cause including John Vianney, Madeleine Sophie Barat, Pierre-Julien Eymard, and Pauline Jaricot. In 1855 the Congregation of Rites established a feast day (Sept. 9), Mass, and Office for her.

Even when her feast was officially suppressed, her devotees continued to ask for and attribute cures to her intercession. Her omission from the calendar was not a prohibition of private devotion, but it does mean that the [Conciliar Church] Congregation of Rites found insufficient evidence regarding her to mandate a place in the calendar or to allow the naming of official Catholic institutions for her.

Bibliography: F. DI LUCIA, Relazione istorica della translazione del sacro corpo e miracoli di santa Filomena vergine e martire da Roma a Mugnano del Cardenale (1834). A. BUTLER, The Lives of the Saints, rev. ed. H. THURSTON and D. ATTWATER, 4 v. (New York 1956) 3:299–301. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 53 (1961) 174. S. LA SALVIA, "L'inventione di un culto: S. Filomena de taumaturga a guerriera della fede," in Culto de santi e classi sociali in età preindustriale (1984).

[M. A. TILLEY]

(source)

On February 14, 1961, Roncalli, the visible head of the Robber Church, aided by his hit men, attempted to "unperson" St. Philomena by means of a single sentence that appeared on p. 174 of Vol. LIII of Acta Apostasticae[sic*] Sedis: "Festum autem S. Philumenae V. et M. (11 augusti) e quolibet calendario expungatur." "On the other hand, the feast of St. Philomena Virgin and Martyr (August 11th) is expunged from every calendar."

The forgoing is the final sentence in a section of Chapter V (of a decree of S.R.C.).  The heading of this section reads: "De festis quae communiter <<devotionis>> vocantur": "Regarding feasts commonly called 'devotional'."  Next follows a list of fourteen feasts which could accurately be described as being purely "devotional" (for example, "The Crown of Thorns" and "The Flight into Egypt").  A concession is then made: "Such are feasts that can be retained if they are connected with a special necessity in certain places."

Not so lenient is what comes next: "On the other hand, the feast of St. Philomena Virgin and Martyr (August 11th) is expunged from every calendar."  What's wrong with this picture?  In the first place, St. Philomena's feast on August 11th is not in any sense "devotional," as the very heading of the section purports to be discussing.  It is the feast of a Virgin Martyr in the Church's sanctoral cycle to be celebrated with the Mass Loquebar.

In the second place, in the section "Proprium Sanctorum pro Aliquibus Locis" of altar missals, in which the Masses for the aforesaid fourteen "devotional" feasts appear, we also find the propers of the Mass for the feasts of twenty-three saints including St. Philomena, all of which feasts are by no means "devotional," for they have their place in the sanctoral cycle of the Church's liturgy.  Twenty-two of the twenty-three feast days of saints escaped "expunging," the sole exception being that of St. Philomena.

There's plenty wrong with this picture!  The gangsters' hit on St. Philomena was clumsy.  Their intention was clearly to eliminate her.  But how and where?  In a separate section?  No, that would have been too obvious.  And so, as a last resort it was done by inappropriately slapping on her condemnation as the final sentence of a section devoted to a totally unrelated matter: Regarding feasts commonly called 'DEVOTIONAL'.

Although expunging St. Philomena's feast "from every calendar" was a serious matter, it was not the same as striking her name from the list of saints; that is, an attempt to "de-canonize" her.  Nevertheless it was widely interpreted as such (a result that was probably intended).  For example, it merited a mention in the "Britannica Book of the Year 1962".  On p. 588 there was also a photo by Ted Polumbaum that originally appeared in Life, depicting a worker smashing a 5-foot casting used for making statues of the Saint.

The striking from the Church's list of saints the name of a saint already canonized, by its denial of the infallibility of the Church in Her canonizations would be an heretical action, and it would also thereby deny Her indefectibility.  After the February 14th St. Valentine's Day Massacre, The Robber Church's "Ministry of Truth" waited two months before doing exactly this, namely, in effect declaring to the world that the Sovereign Pontiff Gregory XVI erred in canonizing St. Philomena: "On April 18, 1961, the Congregation of Rites struck Philomena's name from the list of saints for lack of historical evidence."(95)  (There is no recording of this in AAS.)

...
95 PHILOMENA, ST., LEGEND OF, the article by E. Day on p. 292 in Vol. 11 of the NEW Catholic Encyclopedia.

(source)

Saint Philomena, pray for us!

[Angelorum]

Clement of Alexandria was considered a saint for a thousand years, until Sixtus V struck his name from the Roman Martyrology for similar reasons.

[Geremia]

Clement of Alexandria was considered a saint for a thousand years, until Sixtus V struck his name from the Roman Martyrology for similar reasons.

But was he canonized?

[GloriaPatri]

Pope John XXIII didn't "uncanonize" St. Philomena. He simply removed her feast from the Calendar. There are plenty of saints that do not have their own feast days (a la All Saints Day), but we wouldn't say that they aren't saints.

Furthermore, her name has never been found in the Roman Martyrology (within which are found all of the saints officially recognized by the Church, papally canonized or otherwise), and the authorized liturgical celebrations in her honor were of a purely local type, they were never universal.


This is hardly a good argument for John XXIII being an antipope. In fact, it seems to be an argument of someone who is misinformed about the matter entirely. 

[Geremia]

the authorized liturgical celebrations in her honor were of a purely local type, they were never universal.

Far more than one solitary papal act by Pope Gregory XVI, the papal Magisterium has repeatedly encouraged the nature and growth of ecclesial devotion to Saint Philomena, in official recognition of her status as a Saint, in public liturgical and devotional sanctions which extended to the universal faith and life of the Church, and thereby manifesting official and essential liturgical and devotional characteristics of her status as a Saint as defined by the Church.

(source)
Also, when Pope St. Pius X, on May 21, 1912, established the Universal Archconfraternity of St. Philomena, she was still just a "local saint"? (source)

In 1912, Pope St. Pius X said (source):

To discredit the present decisions and declarations concerning St. Philomena as not being permanent, stable, valid and effective, necessary for obedience, and in full-effect for all eternity, proceeds from an element that is null and void and without merit or authority.

He wasn't alone among the saints and blesseds who knew St. Philomena to be a saint (St. John Vianney, Bl. Maria Anna Taigi, St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, Bl. Pope Pius IX, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, et al.)

What is absurd is that archeological excavations, which should deepen one's devotion to St. Philomena, made John XXIII, like a good Modernist, indeed consider it a "duel between traditional religiosity and modern rationalism."

[The Harlequin King]

Popes can licitly remove saints from the general calendar for any reason. Pius V removed Saints Anthony of Padua, Elizabeth of Hungary, and Patrick of Ireland, among many others; each of those had a cultus far larger than Philomena's. Most were soon restored by his successor.

[GloriaPatri]

the authorized liturgical celebrations in her honor were of a purely local type, they were never universal.

Far more than one solitary papal act by Pope Gregory XVI, the papal Magisterium has repeatedly encouraged the nature and growth of ecclesial devotion to Saint Philomena, in official recognition of her status as a Saint, in public liturgical and devotional sanctions which extended to the universal faith and life of the Church, and thereby manifesting official and essential liturgical and devotional characteristics of her status as a Saint as defined by the Church.

(source)
Also, when Pope St. Pius X, on May 21, 1912, established the Universal Archconfraternity of St. Philomena, she was still just a "local saint"? (source)

In 1912, Pope St. Pius X said (source):

To discredit the present decisions and declarations concerning St. Philomena as not being permanent, stable, valid and effective, necessary for obedience, and in full-effect for all eternity, proceeds from an element that is null and void and without merit or authority.

He wasn't alone among the saints and blesseds who knew St. Philomena to be a saint (St. John Vianney, Bl. Maria Anna Taigi, St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, Bl. Pope Pius IX, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, et al.)

What is absurd is that archeological excavations, which should deepen one's devotion to St. Philomena, made John XXIII, like a good Modernist, indeed consider it a "duel between traditional religiosity and modern rationalism."

Again, her liturgical celebrations were never made universal. They remained local until her removal from the calendar. Furthermore, St. Philomena was never entered into the Roman Martyrology. She was never officially canonized. And, as HK has said, the Holy Father is well within his right to suppress liturgical celebrations of any saint. To assert that that makes John XXIII an antipope is the height of absurdity.   

[Older Salt]

Clement of Alexandria was considered a saint for a thousand years, until Sixtus V struck his name from the Roman Martyrology for similar reasons.

But was he canonized?

No.
Canonizations are infallible.

[moneil]

I was surprised by this post as I thought that the OP was more erudite about these matters.

There are, more or less, around 10,000 saints recognized by the Catholic Church (this includes saints in the Eastern and the Latin churches).  Obviously they are not all on the calendar as that would average out to about 27 saints a day, or more if commemorations were not observed on major feasts such as the Nativity, Easter, and Pentecost.  I have seen

Pontiffs have been adding and removing recognized saints from the Roman Calendar since the beginning of the formal liturgical calendar.  If this is cause for one to become an "anti-pope" then Saint Pius V is in big trouble.  In addition to the examples that The Harlequin King gave in reply #5, His Holiness also whacked off Saints Joachim, and Anne and the Feast of the Precious Blood, as well as abolished the proper's for the Immaculate Conception (the later restored by Saint Pius X).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Calendar

The General Roman Calendar includes those saints to be commemorated by the whole Latin Rite.  In addition to these, there are saints who are liturgically commemorated in some areas, but not others, and it has always been this way, in my understanding.  The Offices (breviary) of Religious Orders may include commemoration of saints significant to that order, but who are not on the General Roman Calendar.

It needs to be remembered also that not all saints went through a formal canonization process, and the process itself has evolved over several centuries.  As one example, St. Peter was never formally canonized, he was just recognized as a saint and martyr from the outset. 

Though a particular saint is not listed on the Roman Calendar, or on a regional calendar, or on the calendar of a particular order, they are STILL a recognized saint and may be venerated by the faithful.  I believe that a priest may also commemorate any saint in his Office and Mass on days when Votive offices and masses are permitted, but I am not an expert on that.  This was indeed a point of confusion for some (especially the secular press) when Pope John XIII issued a new Roman Calendar in "1961" (it was actually July 23, 1960).  I'm surprised that an educated Catholic would be confused by this.  IN NO WAY did His Holiness "un-saint" St. Philomena, nor any of the others removed from the Calendar at the time, including St. Christopher. 

[Geremia]

Again, her liturgical celebrations were never made universal.

Source?

They remained local until her removal from the calendar.

Source?

Furthermore, St. Philomena was never entered into the Roman Martyrology. She was never officially canonized.

Source?

And, as HK has said, the Holy Father is well within his right to suppress liturgical celebrations of any saint.

Source?

[Geremia]

Pontiffs have been adding and removing recognized saints from the Roman Calendar since the beginning of the formal liturgical calendar.

Yes, but what makes this case different is that John XXIII considered, contrary to previous popes, that St. Philomena's feast was just a devotional feast, even though on January 1, 1841, Pope Gregory XVI raised it to a double of the second class and Pope St. Pius X established a Universal Archconfraternity of St. Philomena.

[Geremia]

It needs to be remembered also that not all saints went through a formal canonization process

So?

Here's a simple question: Is St. Philomena a saint?

If so, then how could, as the New "Catholic" Encyclopedia article above says, the Congregation of Rites not "allow the naming of official Catholic institutions for her"? What saints can't we name official Catholic institutions after?

If you do not consider St. Philomena a saint, then of course you have incurred the wrath of Pope Gregory XVI, Pope St. Pius X, et al.,

[GloriaPatri]

Again, her liturgical celebrations were never made universal.

Source?
http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/missale-romanum.pdf 1920 Roman Missal. Her feast, under those for 11 August, is under the section "Masses for some places"

They remained local until her removal from the calendar.

Source?
See above

Furthermore, St. Philomena was never entered into the Roman Martyrology. She was never officially canonized.

Source}
http://www.liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/35.htm  the martyrology from the time of Benedict XIV. St. Philomena is nowhere to be found

And, as HK has said, the Holy Father is well within his right to suppress liturgical celebrations of any saint.

Source?

Hello? Did HK's posts about St. Pius V suppressing the feasts of Saints with far larger cults than that of Philomena go over your head? The Pope has supreme liturgical authority over everything that is not tied with the doctrine of the Church. That includes what feasts are celebrated

Good grief Geremia, I thought you were better than this. John XXIII suppressing Philomela's feast in no way means he "de-canonized" her (amongst other things she never went through a formal canonization process and can thus not be de-canonized) anymore than St. Pius V's suppression of the feasts of Sts. Patrick, Anthony of Padua, and Elizabeth of Hungary means that he "de-canonized" them.

If you're honestly going to consider John XXIII an antipope for this, you're going to have to consider St. Pius V an antipope as well.

[Geremia]

And, as HK has said, the Holy Father is well within his right to suppress liturgical celebrations of any saint.

Source?

Hello? Did HK's posts about St. Pius V suppressing the feasts of Saints with far larger cults than that of Philomena go over your head? The Pope has supreme liturgical authority over everything that is not tied with the doctrine of the Church. That includes what feasts are celebrated

John XXIII did not simply suppress a feast. And even if he did, he did it falsely considering her feast as devotional.

John XXIII suppressing Philomela's feast in no way means he "de-canonized" her

Then why, if she is a saint, did, on April 18, 1961, the Congregation of Rites under John XXIII's watch not "allow the naming of official Catholic institutions for her"? What saints can't we name official Catholic institutions after?

[GloriaPatri]

And, as HK has said, the Holy Father is well within his right to suppress liturgical celebrations of any saint.

Source?

Hello? Did HK's posts about St. Pius V suppressing the feasts of Saints with far larger cults than that of Philomena go over your head? The Pope has supreme liturgical authority over everything that is not tied with the doctrine of the Church. That includes what feasts are celebrated

John XXIII did not simply suppress a feast. And even if he did, he did it falsely considering her feast as devotional.

John XXIII suppressing Philomela's feast in no way means he "de-canonized" her

Then why, if she is a saint, did, on April 18, 1961, the Congregation of Rites under John XXIII's watch not "allow the naming of official Catholic institutions for her"? What saints can't we name official Catholic institutions after?

The feast were purely devotional feasts, celebrated in areas associated with her (relatively) small following. And, again, the Holy Father is within his rights to suppress feasts as he pleases. Why does St. Pius V get a pass from you for suppressing the feasts of St. Patrick or St. Anthony of Padua, saints who had and have far larger and more universal followings than St. Philomena ever did, but John XXIII is an antipope for it?

And the Holy Father is well within his rights to decide which saints have official confraternities and other Catholic institutions named after them. I mean, c'mob, the vast majority of the ~10,000 saints who are actually listed in the Roman Martyrology don't have Catholic institutions named for them. So John XXIII withdrew approval for those named after Philomela. Big deal. The decisions of John XXIII's predecessors do not bind him. He, as Pope, can overturn their non-doctrinal decisions.