Talk:Philomena

For Graham

Moved signature from initial article (Graham Pope BA Theology BTh (Hons)) here. You will find, Graham, that we generally don't sign articles, as they quickly move from one person's work to the work of many -- hopefully in an incrementally improving way. It will also be easier to have discussions with other users here if you set up a user name -- Someone else 09:28 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

==Deceptive texts in article Philomena was NEVER canonized by any pope. Permission to include a saint on local calendars is NOT canonization. She may have a popular cult among certain devoteees, but she has never been in the Roman Martyrology (which includes uncanonized saints) nor on the general Roman Calendar. These are the official documents of the Church identifying saints. All other mentions of her amount to permission of pious devotions, not official authorization. A real canonist needs to edit this entry. By the way, these facts do not "prove" that there was no women in what is known as "Philomena's tomb," nor that she might have been a martyr. This article needs to make these facts clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.38.41 (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Unclear points

There are some unclear points in the article:

"Her relationship with the Curé of Ars, through whom she is said to have performed miracles, is historically well-documented."

Is not the Curé of Ars a present-day priest? What "relationship" does/did he have with Philomena? Is it Roman-Catholic teaching that saints perform miracles? Are miracles not rather ascribed to the intercession of saints? Precisely what is historically well-documented?

S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.176 (talk • contribs)

Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007

Since no one responded to you last year when you first posed your question, please let me answer your questions.

1 – Saint John Vianney, most commonly know as the Curé d'Ars, was born in 1786 and died in 1859, so, no; he is not a contemporary priest.

2 – His “relationship” with Saint Philomena has been well documented as well as the many miracles attributed to his intercession (which he always attributed to Saint Philomena) in many books that have been written about him.

3 – Yes, you are absolutely correct; miracles are attributed by the intercession of saints.

4 – What she meant when the poster you were responding to is that the miracles attributed to both Saint John Vianney and Saint Philomena have been well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs)

---

Saint John Vianney, 1786-1859, (The Cure d'Ars)

He had a great devotion to Saint Philomena. He built a shrine in her honour. He relied on her intercession. A number of miracles are attributed to her at Ars at the behest of Saint John Vianney

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Rehabilitate"

"There are ongoing attempts to rehabilitate St. Philomena's position within the Catholic Church"

Only St. Catherine of Alexandria is as edifyingly fictional. The Roman Catholic Church has for more than a century now tried to rid itself of these pious fictions. Fictional tales of fictional saints is one thing, but the veneration of fictional saints is something entirely different. --FourthAve 14:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added the category for Christian mythology. As early as 1908 the Catholic Encyclopedia seemed to have been convinced that her life story was unknown, and that there was no particular proof of martyrdom or sanctity. I've added some quotes from there. Also, the Curé d'Ars is St Jean Vianney; mentioned his actual name, and the link. He played a big role in publicising the discovery of this fictional saint. It is interesting in that "St Philomena" sheds some light on the way legendary saints get invented, if only because it all happened in a time of widespread literacy, newspaper coverage, and within preserved records. Smerdis of Tlön 20:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Upon re-reading, I've decided to add the NPOV tag. The article gives no inkling that there unlikely was any such person as Saint Philomena, although statements like "(a)ll historical knowledge of St. Philomena's life has been revealed by divine revelation, there is no written record of her life or death, she was an unknown until her crypt in St. Priscilla was uncovered in 1802," and the fact that there apparently exists a movement to "rehabilitate" her, strongly suggests that this supposed saint is fictional. Smerdis of Tlön 11:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have thoroughly rewritten the page to address the problem I perceived here. Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why the word “rehabilitate” was chosen. I will tell you that there was an official, and still an ongoing unofficial, effort to petition the Congregation of Divine Worship to consider returning St. Philomena to the Universal Calendar.

Really there is nothing to “rehabilitate”. The devotion to Saint Philomena has been a part of the Catholic tradition for about two hundred years. Still, there are a number of churches around the world that still bear her name. A list can be seen at the website of the Sanctuary of Saint Philomena at: http://www.philomena.it

In reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, yes, certainly it is clear they had serious question as to the authenticity of Saint Philomena, and many churches around the world changed their names from St. Philomena after the decision to remove her from the Universal Calendar.

As in all subjects of faith, it is up to an individual to choose to believe or not to believe. To make such flat statements as “proof” that something does not exist, especially an object of faith, based on published articles in even a well established institution such as the Catholic Encyclopedia or by the actions taken by the Congregation of Divine Worship, alone, is, well, it is irresponsible.

The amount of churches, schools and other institutions around the world that choose to reject the notion that Saint Philomena is not, as you say, fictional, has as much a right to be considered as your opinion.

As I have stated here before, there are publications, and indeed leaders around the world today, who state flatly that the German Holocaust never happened. That certainly does not mean that, it did not happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs) 19 February 2009

Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion about this Saint

Padre Pio, who had a devotion to her, stated that he felt any confusion over her is the work of satan.

Several of the common miss-information about the Saint is that the Cultus was suppressed in 1961. This is not true.

The Vatican recognized Saint Philomena today as strongly as when she was first canonized. The Universal Archconfraternity of Saint Philomena is still recognized and promoted by the Vatican. She is still recognized as the Patron Saint of the Universal Living Rosary and the Propagation of the Faith. Both organizations are still strongly supported by the Vatican.

The truth is that she was removed from the liturgical calendar in 1961. She had never been placed on the calendar in the United States and there are no churches that have changed their name, anywhere in the world, because of her removal from the liturgical calendar in 1961.

Several churches that bore her name in the United States were torn down, but that was in the name of progress, not in reaction to her being removed from the liturgical calendar.

She was canonized by Pope Gregory XVI.

From the liturgical approval of Gregory XVI to the papal decrees of St. Pius X, Nineteen acts of the Holy See in the course of five successive pontificates were issued in positive promotion of popular devotion to St. Philomena expressed in the form of elevations in rank of liturgical cultus, the erection of confraternities and archconfraternities, and the granting of plenary and partial indulgences.

Several acts of the Holy See particularly display the Magisterium’s approval and encouragement of ecclesial devotion to this Christian saint and martyr. Beyond the elevation of the rank of the mass and office previously granted by Gregory XVI, Bl. Pius IX approved a proper mass and office dedicated to St. Philomena with the papal confirmation of the previously submitted decree, Etsi decimo on January 31, 1855, a significant liturgical elevation, even though her name was never entered into the Roman Martyrology. The granting of a proper mass and office to St. Philomena, which took place following the return of Bl. Pius IX from a papal pilgrimage to Mugnano during his forced exile from Rome, was an unprecedented act in honor of a Christian martyr known only by name and evidence of martyrdom. Bl. Pius IX also granted plenary and partial indulgences to devotions in honor of St. Philomena at the Sanctuary in Mugnano.

Pope Leo XIII granted papal approbation to the Cord of St. Philomena with several plenary indulgences in association with its wearing, and accorded the title and privilege of “archconfraternity” for the respective Philomenian devotion and work in France. Pope St. Pius X continued the papal succession of encouragement for public Church devotion by approving the extension of the Archconfraternity of St. Philomena to the universal Church.

Far more than one solitary papal act by Gregory XVI, the papal Magisterium has repeatedly encouraged the nature and growth of ecclesial devotion to St. 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.

The Great Devotees

Leo XII Declared Saint Philomena, The Great Thaumaturgist of the 18th century. Leo XII, over and over again, expressed the highest admiration for the extraordinary power confered by the Almighty on this hitherto unknown child Saint, and listened with delight to the accounts given him of the wonders she worked. So authentic did he account the information he received and so irrefutable the facts related to him that, notwithstanding the extreme care which the Church usually takes in such matters, he had no hesitation in allowing alters to be dedicated and chapels to be erected in her honor.

Gregory XVI. Named her Patroness of the Living Rosary and conceded to her the Universal cult.

Gregory XVI was himself a witness of the great miracle of Mugnano, the cure of Pauline Marie Jaricot. He visited her in Rome before her departure for Mugnano and verified for himself the desperate condition in which she lay.

On her return to Rome Miss Jaricot was received by the Sovereign Pontiff with the warmest affection. He did not conceal his amazement exclaiming: "Is this indeed, our daughter or is it a vision from the other world?"

Thought profoundly touched by what he himself declared to be a "miracle of the first class" he in nowise relaxed the rigorous laws of the Roman tribunals. On the contrary he commanded the Sacred Congregation of Rites to proceed at once to a thorough investigation of the cause. The difficulties that had arisen were carefully analyzed, the doubts that had been raised were sifted to the utmost. All the facts from the discovery of the relics in 1802 to the latest miracles worked by the Saint were subjected to the minutest scrutiny, and this by the most experienced and keenest experts in Rome. After a protracted examination the Sacred Congregation gave a full and favorable decision in favour of the cult of the Saint. Yet the Holy Father, notwithstanding his own personal love for St. Philomena, spent two more years in prayer and deliberation before making his final renouncement.

At last to the great delight of the Saint's devoted clients, among whom were numbered several distinguished Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals, the Solemn Approval of the Church was made public. This was so complete and conferred so much glory on the Saint that it most amply compensated for the delay which had occurred.

The Pope was not content that Saint Philomena should be resided to the honors of the altar, and that her feast be established and her office given to the Church, he went much further and declared her to be "the Great Wonder-Worker of the XIX century" thus giving the Church's solemn sanction to those marvelous prodigies alleged to have been worked by the Saint, and effectually silencing the self-constituted critics who had taken on themselves to ridicule her cult in face of overwhelming evidence.

Not long after the same Holy Father gave the Saint the new title of Patroness of the Living Rosary.

As a last act of devotion and with the object of manifesting his personal affection for the Holy Virgin, the Pontiff sent a magnificent gold and silver lamp to her Sanctuary in Mugnano.

Pius IX. Miraculously cured by the Saint. When he became Pope, he made a pilgrimage to her sanctuary on November 7, 1849.

Pius IX was, perhaps, of all the Popes, the one who showed most special devotion to the Saint. When Archbishop of Spoleto he was already her devout client and earnestly spread her devotion. Later on, when Archbishop of Imola he fell dangerously ill and the greatest fears were entertained for his life. Near his bedside stood a beautiful image of his dear Saint who was heard to rap distinctly as she sometimes does, when about to perform some great miracle. Immediately favorable symptoms were noticed in the patient and these speedily developed into rapid convalescence. Years rolled by and the Archbishop became the immortal Pontiff of the Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception.

Far from forgetting his dear patroness when raised to the throne of St. Peter, this great Pope availed himself of his supreme power to shed still greater lustre on the name of St. Philomena.

To the intense joy of the inhabitants of Mugnano, he went on a pilgrimage to the Shrine of his Benefactress where he was solemnly received by the Bishop of Nola, the King, Queen and all the members of the Royal Family of Naples. He said mass on the alter of the Saint and afterwards publicly venerated her relics. He also declared her to be secondary Patroness of the Kingdom of Naples. In the year 1849 he named St. Philomena Patroness of the Children of Mary.

He granted her, later on, a proper office, which is such an extraordinary privilege that rarely or never has it been granted to any other Saint under similar circumstances.

When dying the aged Pontiff sent a most beautiful offering to Mugnano, the last touching tribute of his love and gratitude.

Leo XIII While Cardinal, made two pilgrimages to the Sanctuary.

Leo XIII before becoming Pope made two pilgrimages to Mugnano. Later on when Vicar of Christ he sent a valuable cross to the Sanctuary. He approved the Confraternity of the Saint and raised it to the rank of an Arch confraternity, enriching it with important indulgences.

St. Pius X Elevated the Pious Archconfraternity of Saint Philomena on May 21, 1912, into a Universal Pious Archconfraternity.

St. Pius X was no less devout to the Little Saint, to whom he sent by special envoy a magnificent gold ring and other costly presents. He was always pleased to hear of the wonders she worked.

The Servant of God, Sister Maria Luisa of Jesus. A fervent devotee of the Saint. She founded in Naples the religious order of the Sisters of Our Lady of Sorrows and Saint Philomena.

The Holy Curé of Ars. A great devotee of Saint Philomena, he diffused devotion to her throughout France.

Ven. Pauline Jaricot. Foundress of the Living Rosary and Propagation of the Faith, she was miraculously cured by Saint Philomena on August 10, 1835, and put her forward as the Supporter of Missionary Priests.

Blessed Bartholomew Longo. A devotee of the Little Saint, he placed under her patronage, Opere Pompeane.

St. Peter Juilian Eymard, St. Peter Chanel, St. Anthony Mary Claret, St. Madeleine Sophie Barat, St. Euphrasia Pelletier, St Francis Xavier Cabrini, St. John Nepomucene Neumann, Blessed Anna Maria Taigi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs)

Response to Filumenae

I gather from your contributions that you are a devotee of Philomena's, and that she continues to attract devotees among some Roman Catholics. Every source I have consulted, from the extremely sceptical treatment in the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, to the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, also consulted, suggests that St Philomena has definitely been dropped from the roster. These sources may be wrong, but they are extant, and if you look you will find the statements in them confirm this present version.

By all means, add information about devotion to St Philomena to the article. If there is another side to the story about her continuing validity as an object of veneration for Roman Catholics, add that as well. I would point out, though, that it's bad form to simply delete all the comments from a talk page, and that I have taken care to preserve yours. Smerdis of Tlön 20:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am a devotee, but more importantly, I have done a lot of research and found that there is a lot of misunderstanding about this Saint, and Saints in general

First of all, once a Saint is canonized, they are canonized for eternity. They cannot be "uncanonized".

Secondly, Saint Philomena was removed from the Liturgical Calendar in 1961.

Thirdly, yes, there is a movement to petition the Vatican to reinstate her Liturgical Feast.

The removal of her Liturgical Feast from the Calendar was based on research done and presented at the first one hundred year anniversary conference of the discovery of her bones at the Catacombs of Pricilla.

A second conference was just held this past April to mark this year as the second hundred anniversary of the discovery of her bones.

Modern scientific methods were used to take a closer look at the evidence that was first looked at over a hundred years ago.

Including new modern technology unavailable a hundred years ago, new more precise conclusions were revealed disputing the conclusions resulting in the scientific research done a hundred years ago.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, and I respect that. What I do not respect is the conclusions of an individual who has not done the research to base their notions on.

It seems to me that you are basing your conclusions on information that was researched over a hundred years ago, the same information that was used to remove Saint Philomena from the Liturgical Calendar in 1961. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs)

Your text as it stands presents POV problems in that it vigorously advocates one position and seeks to dismiss contrary ones. We strive to make articles on controversial subjects as neutral as humans can make them; getting input from users with different viewpoints is one way this is done.

I would also point out that Wikipedia cannot use content "by permission." This is, as the main page indicates, an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", and that all Wikipedia content is licensed under the terms of the GDFL. These rules prohibit the wholesale importation of copyrighted materials, even with permission of the copyright owner, under any sort of license other than the GDFL. The GDFL permits anyone to revise and edit any text that is added to Wikipedia.

I will revert this page once more. You are once again invited to present your viewpoint within the article itself, but I would ask that you leave both viewpoints represented in the finished text, and that you revise the existing text rather than overwriting it with licensed, copyright materials that cannot be used here. Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Your sources have been disputed with new scientific research done on the slabs found on the tomb of Saint Philomena in the catacombs of Pricilla.

Your logic is similar to those that insist the Nazi Holocaust never happened. Anyone can base an opinion on published articles refuting the Holocaust. That does not mean it never happened. The sources you site, as well as the study the Congregation for Divine Worship based their removing Saint Philomena from the Liturgical Calendar have been dismissed as being based on flawed and extremely old research techniques. Both your sources and the study are no longer relevant.

The facts presented at the Philomenian conference demonstrate that the name on the tomb tiles is Filumenae, Philomena in today’s language. It also proves without any doubt that the slabs were placed on the tomb once. And only once. The study the Congregation for Divine Worship based its opinion on was done in the early part of the 19th century and was based on observation of photos of the slabs. The study which was done late last year was based on close inspeciton of the tomb in Pricilla and on the slabs using extremely sophisticated equipment that was not available last century. Also, current research methods prove that it is blood in the vial discovered with the bones.

I appreciate that Wikipedia strive to offer differing opinions, but it seems to me that they also wish that the opinions presented are based in accepted facts. And if modern research disputes old research they would welcome the truth being presented.

It is my opinion that the Holocaust did occur and that Saint Philomena does exist. Both are based in fact.

The study presented at the Saint Philomena Studies forum in Rome on April 9, 2005 will offer you the opportunity, when published, to base your opinion argued with facts.

In the mean time, I ask that you not insist on presenting your opinion that is misleading, based on the known facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs)

Response posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007

I recently purchased a copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Saints so that I could read for myself the passage to which you refer.

First of all, your statement “has definitely been dropped from the roster.” If you mean she has been removed from the Universal Calendar, you are absolutely correct. If you mean she has been “decanonized” then you are incorrect.

And, to make it clear what the meaning of removal from the Universal Calendar means in practical terms that Catholic churches around the world are no longer required to celebrate her feast, which is still recognized as August 11th. That does not mean that her feast of August 11th cannot be celebrated, as it is by hundreds of churches around the world, those named for her and many that are not, but, have a priest or congregation devoted to her. Again, it just means that they are not required to.

Now, as far as the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, I will choose one passage to illustrate the overall inconstancy of the author’s willingness to rely on fact, rather than his on imagination.

Here is a quote of one section:

“The fame of Philomena spread through Italy aided by a nun’s private revelation that Philomena was a Latin name meaning “daughter of light’ when in reality it is a Greek one meaning ‘beloved’.”

David Farmer, as I too have seen it incorrectly published, has seen reports that the name Philomena is has a Greek translation of “beloved”. That is flatly incorrect. But that is not the most egregious of Mr. Farmer’s laziness to do the work of his research.

Clearly he relied on what others have published on Saint Philomena rather than actually doing the research to confirm what he had read in other publications. Not a mark of a brilliant researcher or credible author.

If he had read a transcript of the nun’s “story”, he would have read that the nun believes that Saint Philomena told her that she was named Lumena. Which, doesn’t take a brain surgeon to recognize probably is a Latin word related to light, (luminous, illuminate, etc.) This nun’s story goes on to reveal that she believes Saint Philomena told her that she was baptized with the name Filumena. Latin for daughter is ‘filia’, and Latin for light is ‘lumena’.

The other fact that is important in getting to the truth is that the nun who had these “revelations” was illiterate. She could neither read nor write. It was her priest that transcribed her story. So, it is probably safe to guess that she was unaware or uneducated in Latin. And since the Italians have translated her name to Filomena, from Filumena and we English speakers have translated the name from Filumena to Philomena and the French to Philomène it is fair to see how the real “fiction” has developed.

One man, an archeologist named Marucchi, a highly regarded early twentieth century italian archeaologist, make a statement of his theory, after never seeing the tiles nor visiting the actual grave site. And the Caholic Encyclopedia picks up and chooses to use his thoery, even though his contemporaries disputed and dissragarded his theory and published it.

Year-after-year other publications, many of which instead of actually doing the research themselves have picked up that ball and expanded on it, until today, there are publicastion that have chosen to completely regard Saint Philomena as a myth rather than saint.

It is amazing to me to see the pattern. I am interested in the truth. Certainly, I personally have a devotion to Saint Philomena. However, I am a relatively new Catholic, so, I am not as married to the “visions” and “appiritions” as my fellow Catholic brothers and sister are. So, for me, the truth is more important to me, based on fact, not fantacy or laziness, or in some cases, down-right stupidity and ignorance of fact, than the “story of Saint Philomena.

I am the volunteer webmaster for the Sanctuary of Saint Philomena and you will see that I have specifically and intentionally split the site into “The Facts” and “The Story.”

The facts, if you take the time to research them, are astonishing. The story, yes charming, but not nearly as important as the facts surrounding the phenomena of Saint Philoemna.

I encorage you to, rather than take the easy-way-out, and “jump on the band wagon” to find out for yourself what the truth is, based on fact, not fiction.

Filumenae —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs)

3RR blocks

I've just blocked two users (User:Filumenae and User:68.228.225.187) for 24 hours for violating 3RR; there are a couple other users who are very close to a 3RR block. I don't care who started it, or who finished it: revert wars are bad, period.

The consensus on this article seems to be in favor of the version I have up now[1]. Changes may be appropriate, but wholesale replacement is not — especially with copyrighted content (you may have permission to reproduce, but do you have permission to relicense as GFDL?), and ESPECIALLY not when there's a "list of vandals" section at the bottom.

If either of the blocked users goes back to his/her old ways when their block expires tomorrow (at ~17:50 UTC), then I'm blocking them again for a longer period and/or protecting the article. However, if they can actually work with other users on original, NPOV content, then I'm willing to give them another chance. - jredmond 18:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Princess13

I see from your reaction to my email to you and the change of the web page after I changed it that you are not open to discussion about the truth of St Philomena. I also notice you did not display my comments on the discussion board.I also have just discovered that the one changing it to day is a fellow collegue of mine from the Sanctuary of St Philomena. Can you please tell me why you do not want to display the truth about St Philomena on this web page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess13 (talk • contribs)

Changes on Saturday, February 18, 2006.

Regarding the removal of the comment: “further analysis, what was thought to be blood contained in the glass vessel was proved to be only perfume”

The vial mentioned was translated with the rest of the relics from Rome to Mugnano del Cardinale Italy in 1805. It has been in the possession of the Sanctuary of Saint Philomena from that date. And no test, scientific or otherwise that has been performed on the vial to determine its contents has ever concluded that the contents were perfume. The published report on the St. Patrick website that it was determined that the content of the vial was perfume is not based in truth or fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs)

That website, Saint Patrick Church, Washington D.C., also publishes other "facts" which are not based in truth or reality.

The statement they published, "According to this fraudulent vision, Philomena was the daughter of converted, barren Greek……”

It is troubling that a seemingly credible Catholic church would publish something contrary to what the Universal Church has given an opinion on. Namely that the story they refer to as “fraudulent” was given official approval by the chruch. The locutions (or rather story, as Saint Patrick’s prefers to call them) received approval by the Holy Office, (presently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) on December 21, 1833.

Saint Patrick’s church further publishes additional incorrect information: “It was discovered that the phial was filled with perfume, not blood. The Benedictines of Ramsgate note that "further archeological investigation proved however that the disarrangement of stones was a regular habit of the sextons in the 4th century when they re-used materials already engraved, and intended to indicate that it was not the same person." Additionally, it was discovered that the bones were not that old; the bones originally entombed there may have been removed earlier. In 1961, her feast was abolished and her shrine dismantled.

As stated above, according to Monsignor Giovanni Braschi, the current Rector of the Sanctuary of Saint Philomena in Mugnano del Cardinale, after he reviewed the official record of the testing of the vial, “there has never been any such scientific or other examination of the blood that has ever stated the opinion that the contents is believed or proven to be perfume. Any publishing of that statement is pure fantasy in the mind of the author.”

Additionally, Monsignor Braschi reports that, “the statement saying that the Benedictines of Ramsgate note regarding scientific examination is also complete fantasy on the author’s part. The author may be referring to published reports based on the opinion of noted archaeologist Horacia Marucci in the early twentieth century, who published a similar opinion. That is, his opinion was that the three tiles were removed from another grave site and placed on to the one attributed to Saint Philomena. However, two facts that rarely accompany Marucci’s published opinion and those are that he was reputed by most of his contemporaries as being incorrect and that fact that Marucci had never visited the Sanctuary of Saint Philomena to inspect the actual tiles nor did he visit the site of the loculus in the catacombs of Pricilla. The Saint Patrick report goes on to state that the feast was abolished and her shrine dismantled. This is the most outrageous of all the fantasies because the Sanctuary of Saint Philomena has operated under the full authority of the church as the Sanctuary for more than two hundred years.”

Additionally, and this is my opinion, not Monsignor Braschi, one wonders what would motivate a Church in the United States to publish such outrageous and easily disproved information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs)

To quote Dr. Mark I. Miravalle, professor of theology, Franciscan University, Steubenville, Ohio, author of the Present Ecclesial Status of Devotion to St. Philomena:

Why was St. Philomena removed from the calendar? Ironically, the reason given was the supposed lack of historical evidence for the existence of Philomena, despite numerous documented miracles and the support of popes and saints. This argument against Philomena rested principally on the questionable conclusions of one early twentieth century archeologist, Oracio Marucchi. In 1903, he posited that the apparent mis-ordering of the 3 tiles on the grave alleged to be Philomena’s—starting with “Lumena” on first tile, instead of “Paxte”—proved that the tiles had come from another, earlier, grave and had been re-used in hers. Therefore, he argued, the grave and remains discovered in 1802 were not that of “Filumena” but of another, unknown person.

Marucchi’s claims have been comprehensively countered and overturned by many renowned European historians and archeologists. The Jesuit archeologist Guiseppe Bonavenia was one of the first to respond to Marucchi. In 1907 he reminded the archaeological world that it was a frequent custom in the catacombs to begin epigraphs on the second tile, beginning with “Peace to you.” Hence, when the Vatican’s official Custodian of Holy Relics, Msgr. Ponzetti, read the inscription beginning from the second tile as “PAX TECUM FILUMENA,” he read it correctly.

It was also very possible that the original maker of the tomb, finding himself unable to write the entire name of “Filumena” on the first tile, wrote the “FI” on the last tile and “LUMENA” on the first, allowing him to conserve artistic proportion. In any case, there were at least 12 graves in the Priscilla Catacombs that began with “PAX TECUM,” “PAX TIBI,” or “IN PACE.” Marucchi’s theory that the order of Philomena’s tiles argued against the grave being hers was shown to be groundless. Furthermore, the tiles used on Philomena’s grave date at least from the third century, precluding them from being those of an earlier second-century grave, as Marucchi alleged. The early Christians did not re-use brick tiles, only marble, because marble was very expensive and brick was not, and those of Philomena’s are of brick.

Two more contemporary archeologists, Prandi and Mustillo, after examining the actual tiles in 1963 also stated that the stance of Marucchi had no foundation. The evidence rested not only on tile position but on tile condition. The two archeologists pointed out that had the tiles been removed from another grave in order to be re-used for Philomena’s, damage would have been done to the outer edges of the tile where previously cemented. However, no damage was found on the tiles from St. Philomena’s loculus: “During the process of going from first to second usage, chips would have very likely been made to the edges of the brick tiles… [These tiles of Philomena] still have sound and undamaged matching edges along the line of fracture.”

Marucchi had never examined the gravesite nor the tiles themselves, but rather had made an abstract hypothesis without the necessary archeological investigation. Contemporary Austrian historian, George Markhof, strongly criticized Marucchi’s conclusions: “I hold the judgment of the Italian archeologist Marucchi to be superficial… something extremely surprising considering the excellent renown he enjoyed. Evidently he was prejudiced against Saint Philomena, and not disposed, as is suitable for a scientist, to investigate the merits of this affair in an objective manner.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs)

Removed copyrighted material from section about her removal from the liturgical calendar.

It came from here.-E. abu Filumena 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was Saint Philomena removed?

"Why was Saint Philomena removed from the list of Saints in February of 1961 ?"

From memory:

Saint Philomena was removed from the list of Saints at that time, as indeed there was not clear evidence that she ever existed.

At the time the Communist Party of Italy were expected to win a General Election in Italy and were using phrases such as The Church had invented Saint Philomena and Saint Christopher as there was no evidence that they ever existed.

Pope John XXIII removed them from the list of Saints.

However, evidence was produced that Saint Philomena existed and The Church viewed her resting place, so within the week she was formally replaced on the list of Saints.

Saint Christopher:

The Eastern Church produced the evidence of his existance and his execution under Decius and he was replaced on the list of Saints within the month.

The Communist Party lost the General Election in Italy at the time.

These events I am sure of and when I get the opportunity I will check the news items at The Vatican.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Saints / Liturgical Calendar list of Saints

I think that there are two different lists. In hindsight I should have been aware of this point.

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They were replaced on The List of Saints, but not on The Liturgical Calander List of Saints.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My I offer my impressions and thoughts:

With regard to the inscription and the mix-up of tiles:

I would imagine if it were I removing the remains of Saint Philomena from the sea / river. My concern would be for my safety as I would be doing something contrary to The Emporur. Also I would need to be worried if the oesophagus were discovered, so I would need to disguise it in such a way that the believers would recognise it but not the non-believers.

If you are under the impression that it is too unbelievable to accept that this could be the remains of Saint Philomena then I give you the study of another dicipline that of Ancient Irish History to consider:

It was said that Saint Brendan discovered America prior to Columbus and in a leather boat (currach). This was always concidered to be impossible hence the claim was discarded from the History Books. Tim Severin, a student of this study, attemped in 1978 to prove the possability that this was possible and re-constructed that voyage successfully. So, the History Books were rewritten, so to speak.

If you are of the impression that this is the grave of someone else:

Then it becomes even more difficult to believe as you would have to accept that someone lied to us, or acted in such a way that was aimed to deceive.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to argue someone to faith:

I give the words of (I think) Saint Catherine of Sienna:

For those who do not believe, no explination is possible - for thoes who do believe none is necessary.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Saints / Liturgical Calendar list of Saints

I think that there are two different lists. In hindsight I should have been aware of this point.

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To be placed on The List of Saints is a statement from The Church that that person is a Saint of God in Heaven to be honoured and to be part of The Creed that says: " I believe in The Communion of Saints". This is perhaps the greatest honour The Church (below) can bestow on a departed soul. Hence, The Church takes the process of Canonization very seriously.

The Liturgical Calander of Saints List is meant to be practical and relevent to the everyday life of The Church ( The People of God ) and practical and workable.

MacOfJesus (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For Saint Philomena to be possitively referred to as a Martyr, it would have to be certain that she died in defence of her faith not just merely as a rejection of the advances of the Emporer and as time and witnesses are against this assurance the Church concentrates on the fact that she is a Saint and has always been venerated as such.

MacOfJesus (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The official "list of saints" is the Roman Martyrology; for the Roman Rite, the "liturgical calendar of saints" is the Roman Catholic calendar of saints. Lima (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Church uses these terms, not necessarly in the literal sense. Quite a number of Saints are such because they lived a holy life, and were not martyred.

I refer you to an article page in Wikipedia entitled "Hermeneutics".

Trying to understand Saint Philomena outside the Church that formed her is a bit like studying Marine Biology from dry land! Sooner or later you'll make a mistake.

To understand these things better and particularly what the Church teaches you need to study Denzinger-Rahnar, (page reference on Wikipedia).

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Church has no official list of saints other than the Roman Martyrology; the Roman Rite on a worldwide level has no liturgical calendar of saints other than that indicated in Roman Catholic calendar of saints. Any hermeneutic that goes outside what the Church has thus decided goes outside the Church. The dogmatic declarations in Denzinger (all editions) agree. Lima (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to know what is meant by The Liturgical Calander of Saints and how it is used, how there is a significant difference in the honour given to the Saints in it and how they are classafied accordingly. Heremeneutics, is a study that can be taken up and is useful for all. It is a dicipline that is a Science of its own.

There is no short cut in dealing with the Sciences we are dealing with.

The Liturgical Calander of Saints is not a Dogma.

Yet this is something that we are totally familiar with, and is an everyday reality for us.

I ask you also to study Patrology. You may find a different list here.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please look up "Doctors of The Church" a very good site in Wikipedia, not exclusively a male list, and very few martyrs.

In fact, going through the list again, I cannot find one martyr. Correct me if you do.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Now look up the list of Patriarchs, you may find the word used in different ways to mean different people. It depends on the content of sentence in which it is used. Again we are back to heremeunics.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In site "harrowing of hell" in wikipedia, a famous painting of "Christ leads the patriarchs from hell" 1480. But I cannot see Saint Dismas, in the painting!

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes in reference to the cannonization of Saint Philomena

"...Pope Gregory XVI, on January 13, 1837, in a solemn decree based solely on power of her undeniable miracles, raised an unknown thirteen-year-old early martyr named Philomena to the altar of the Church, granting a Mass in her honor, and thereby giving official approval to public devotion to her. This liturgical honor constituted the only instance of a Proper Office being granted to a saint from the catacombs of whom nothing is known except her name and the bare fact that she was martyred for the Faith. “Filumena” was now officially St. Philomena, a canonized saint of the Catholic Church."

Quoted from the book, "It is Time to Meet St. Philomena", by Dr. Mark Miravalle, ISBN: 9781579183336, Page 6 - [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes in reference to the cannonization of Saint Philomena based on the Roman Martyrology

"The 2001 Roman Martyrology

A more recent resurgence of the controversy took place with the 2001 publication of the revised Roman Martyrology by the Congregation of Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The omission of St. Philomena was interpreted by various media sources to indicate that the Catholic Church no longer recognized her as a saint. This conclusion is inaccurate for several reasons.

St. Philomena had never been included in the Roman martyrologies in the first place, and therefore was not “removed.”

The Roman Martyrology does not, and never did, constitute a comprehensive compilation of every saint and martyr recognized by the Church, and was never introduced by the Congregation of Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as such. Because a saint is not in the Martyrology does not mean the Church does not recognize that person as a saint.

The Holy See continues to permit public devotion to St. Philomena, which obviously pre-supposes the Church’s continued belief in her existence. The universal shrine at Mugnano still operates with the blessing of the local Bishop of Nola, and the universal archconfraternity continues with ecclesiastical approval as well—and has experienced a significant worldwide renewal and promulgation of veneration to St. Philomena since the Second Vatican Council. It must also be kept in mind that historically the Papal Magisterium has granted many plenary and partial indulgences for devotion to her, supported and introduced liturgical veneration of St. Philomena, and granted universal approbation to her archconfraternity."

Quoted from the book, "It is Time to Meet St. Philomena", by Dr. Mark Miravalle, ISBN: 9781579183336, Pages 20,21 - [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filumenae (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration, however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or local. If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a decree of beatification. ... beatification, in the present discipline, differs from canonization in this: that the former implies (1) a locally restricted, not a universal, permission to venerate, which is (2) a mere permission, and no precept; while canonization implies a universal precept" (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Public veneration of Saint Philomena was authorized only locally.

"the Roman Martyrology ... contains ... many names which are reckoned amongst the blessed only, and not amongst the saints. Since, however, the reign of Pope Benedict XIV no new names, save those of canonized saints, have been added to it" (Mgr. P. E. Hallett, The Canonization of Saints).

Saint Philomena's was never added to the Martyrology. Lima (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you mean was she ever on the list of Martyrs? Or on the List of Saints? In using the term Martyrology here confusion occurs. Martyrology is the term used often in Rome, but there, it is precise in its meaning.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The word Martyrology follows not the English understanding of the word martyr, but rather the Greek: ( a witness). Following the Scripture: "With this great cloud of witnesses about us...." (Hebrews 12:1).

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Diocletian Persecution

"the body that had been found was of the fourth century, when the persecutions of Christians had ended."

This needs rephrasing. Diocletianic Persecution (303 - 311/313) is placed within the 4th century. Dimadick (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of sourced information with personal opinions

I invite Merk1333 to discuss these changes here.

1. At 13:19, Merk1333 replaced the statement given in Enciclopedia dei Santi about the circumstances that led to the exclusion of the feastday of Saint Philomena from the local calendars in which it was included (it was never in the General Calendar) and replaced it with the personal opinion, unsupported by any citation, that the only reason for its exclusion was "the revision of the 1961 calendar" (there was obviously some reason for all the changes in local calendars that the 1961 document ordered, including the removal of the feastday of Saint Philomena from all local calendars, while allowing some other feasts to continue in places specially linked with the feast in question). Merk1333 also added another unsourced and irrelevant personal comment that "A Saint of the Catholic Church cannot be de-sainted", when what is in question is not a "de-sainting" but the removal of a feastday from those local calendars in which it was inscribed.
2. Wikipedia naturally marked with the automatic tag "references removed" Merk1333's excision at 13:21 of the sourced statement that the feastday was suppressed in 1961 and of another referenced statement that the feastday had been inscribed only in local calendars, not in the General Roman Calendar.
3. At 13:23 Merk1333 added a further personal comment: "Saint Philomena is one of the glories of the Catholic Church. Saint Padre Pio Confirmed this!" If this comment is to be preserved, it must be supported by a verifiable external source, so as to show that it is not merely an editor's own opinion. It would also need to be expressed in more encyclopedic language. Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have such a dislike for a Great Saint of the Catholic Church that you post information that is incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.72.127 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You are new to Wikipedia and allowance must be made for your unfamiliarity with what is considered good manners here. One such rule of good manners is to assume good faith on the part of other editors and to take it that they are sincerely working to improve the articles.

It would obviously be good for you to avoid making personal attacks on other editors and to give consideration to the objections that have been raised, not against you, but against your edits. Have you read WP:OR, as I asked you to?

If you think what I posted is incorrect, please indicate what points are incorrect and quote one or more authoritative sources (not just your own opinion) that show that they are incorrect. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have such a dislike for a Great Saint of the Catholic Church ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.72.127 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you wish to exclude the statement from the Enciclopedia dei Santi? Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC).

Why do you have such a dislike for a Great Saint of the Catholic Church ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.72.127 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC) These people are posting wrong information about Saint Philomena...What can be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.72.127 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) A question please... in the article you not many qualified sources and opinions... Like the Popes and Dr. Mark Miravalle but then you dismiss theire opinions and form your own! And then delete my opinions.! but stand on your 'opinions' can you explain?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.72.127 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting to discuss the edits.

If I am to reply to your question about "the Popes and Dr. Mark Miraville", I need to know what statements by the Popes and Dr Miraville are being ignored in the article.

As indicated in WP:OR, neither your opinion nor mine may be put in Wikipedia: we can only put in Wikipedia what we can quote others for, such as Popes and Dr Miraville, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official bulletin of the Holy See) and the Enciclopedia dei Santi.

Since you have not restored the edits that I questioned above, there is now no need to respond to them. And I will not question your deleting today of the statement that the feastday of Saint Philomena on 11 August was officially authorized only for some places, not universally. Esoglou (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

HI.. under Problems you put "supposed saint". Saint Philomena is and has always been a Saint of the Catholic Church... I would request that the "supposed" be removed. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.72.127 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, according to one online dictionary, supposed means:

1. To assume to be true or real for the sake of argument or explanation: Suppose we win the lottery.

2.

a. To believe, especially on uncertain or tentative grounds: Scientists supposed that large dinosaurs lived in swamps.

b. To consider to be probable or likely: I suppose it will rain.

3. To imply as an antecedent condition; presuppose: "Patience must suppose pain" (Samuel Johnson)

In the sentence in question,

For many, the 1961 withdrawal of Pope Gregory XVI's 1837 authorization of liturgical veneration of Saint Philomena in a limited number of places merely means that the situation has returned to that existing before 1837, when in many places there was fervent devotion to the supposed saint, accompanied only by vague speculation about the circumstances of her life and death or by belief in the revelations of the Neapolitan nun.

, I read the word supposed as linking to the phrase before 1837. Elsewhere in the article, we say her "...liturgical celebration was never included in the General Roman Calendar for universal use, but, beginning in 1837, it was approved for some places". So, before 1837, Philomena was not yet celebrated as a saint, but in many places was believed or considered to be probable or likely. That is my own interpretation of the word in context, others may have other opinions. It may be possible to replace supposed with some phrase that clearly suggests futurity, rather than suggesting doubt to some readers. Again, just my opinion. Best, CliffC (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

CliffC Thanks for the kind reply...that is my point I feel the current way it is written suggests doubt to some readers.. I have been in touch with the Shrine in Italy as well as Dr Miraville and conclude that there is no doubt regarding Saint Philomena. Many past Popes and Saints of the Catholic Church have demonstrated devotion and recognition to this Saint. Also the article says..The removal of the name of Philomena even from local calendars was due to problems raised by scholars. From what I have been able to determine, it was only one 'scholar' and his 'opinion' has indeed been called into question....Can the 'supposed' be changed. AS well as a note added that Saint Philomena is still a Saint of the Church???? Thanks Merk1333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.72.127 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Merk1333. It was good of you to bring up a concrete point about the article and to explain why you thought it should be changed. In your opinion it breached Wikipedia's rule about neutral point of view. I have now removed the offending expression. Thank you for your contribution to improving the article.

Do continue to help. Remember too that the way to sign and date your contributions to a discussion page such as this is to type a tilde (~) four times. I think you will find the tilde at the top left in your keyboard. As an alternative, you can click on the group of four tildes given beneath the editing window, immediately after the words "Sign your posts on talk pages". Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much...I appreciate you explaination and kind help and comments...I do have one other point please..the article says, "The removal of the name of Philomena even from local calendars was due to problems raised by scholars". From the extensive research I have done, it appears that there was only one 'scholar' involved in raising questions and Dr Miraville in his paper has taken care of that scholars issues. There were a number of feast days removed from the calendar in the 1961 reorganization, not having a Saint on the Liturgical Calendar does not remove them from the communion of Saints. Saint Philomena is a great Saint, and that is not a personal opinion...since we have had several Popes and other Canonized Saints give her recognition, it really changes from opinion to factual. Thanks merk1333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merk1333 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing the section that you complain of was not as easy as putting a neutral word in place of "the supposed saint". The only neutral way of editing it is to present both views, and to present them as views, not as fact. Before I edited it, the text seemed to present what we might call the Marucchi view as fact. I have tried to present it instead as the view of that group, putting "According to the research that stirred up this controversy" in place of "It was discovered that". The sources indicate that Marucchi was not the only archaeologist to hold the view. I have inserted in the text your point that, if a saint is not in the liturgical calendar, that doesn't mean that he or she is not a saint. This is especially true of the General Roman Calendar, which has room only for very few of the saints officially recognized as saints by being included in the Roman Martyrology; but it holds also for local calendars, such as those in which Philomena was formerly included. (I have not inserted the fact that Philomena is not included in the Roman Martyrology. You probably wouldn't want that.) Your point about recognition given on a personal level by popes and by other people who, after death, were later canonized is well expressed by the Enciclopedia dei Santi; so I have inserted that too. (For inserting such a point in Wikipedia, we must give an outside source for it, not just our own belief.)

The next time you write something here, try signing it with the four tildes, as I indicated in my last comment, instead of typing "merk1333". Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciated!Merk1333 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And I appreciate your openness to collaboration. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

EAR requests

Members of the WP:EAR team have commented on this article and/or the pattern of editiing of its contributors. Please check out any advice and suggestions HERE. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Saints

There was confusion over The Church's list of Saints, what it is and where it is kept, etc. Apart from The Calender list and The Local Calender list and as list of Doctors of The Church, there is no written list! When a Saint is to be added a declaration of Canonization or a declaration is made. The Church will simply say that this person can be honoured as a Saint. It remains as an event in history.

The idea is that the real list is in Heaven.

I am aware that Saint Philomena was formally by Pope John XXIII, replaced on the list of Saints, but not on the General Calender.

This event is readily verafiable!

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The official list is the Roman Martyrology. Saint Philomena is not in that, and never has been. Esoglou (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither is Saint Dismas and many more! The list here below will always be a dim reflection. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The list you speak of is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather an official list to work from. Saint Dismas is perhaps the best example, as no one doubts his credentials. Made so by Jesus Himself! The many Canonized Saints that Pope John Paul II made are not included either, such as Saint Faustina of Krackov. The reason being that the seasonal Liturgy could not be celebrated if the calendar is filled-up with too many Saints! A priority has to be made! MacOfJesus (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right in saying that the Roman Martyrology does not claim to be an exhaustive list of the saints. It states so explicitly in its Praenotanda, 27: "Martyrologio Romano, quo liber liturgicus censendum, propositum est nec exhaustivum praebere elenchum omnium Sanctorum ac Beatorum, nec prolixa ipsorum elogia". There are, we trust, many millions more, who are saints in glory but are quite unknown to anyone now living, perhaps hundreds or more of Saint Bernards, perhaps several with the name Saint Bernard McNally. However, the Roman Martyrology does include all those who have been formally canonized, such as (in its latest edition only) Saint Faustina, canonized in 2000.

For the reason you mention, the General Roman Calendar can mention only very few saints. But there is no limit to those that the Roman Martyrology can mention: for some days of the year it has 20 or more entries, several of which are of groups of people, not just single individuals. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The point I am making is that Saint Philomena was formally replaced on the list of Saints by Pope John XXIII. There are approx. 11 Saint Bernards. The last was hacked to death in Japan! (This is not my opinion, the exact list can be found in Wikipedia. I too keep my opinions out of here.). MacOfJesus (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In the edition I have of the Roman Martyrology (the next to last one), exactly 21 Saint Bernards are listed. But there must surely be, as I said, thousands more, who are not in that list. I have no idea in what list of Saints you think Pope John XXIII "replaced" Saint Philomena. Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He in a formal ceremony, placed her on the list of Saints. That is; declared her a Saint to be honoured by all the faithful. This was within the week he formally removed her. This is not a mechanical list as a declaration. Evidenced, at the time, from news items from Rome. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know of no evidence that John XXIII either removed Philomena from some list of Saints (what list?) or that he put her back on some unspecified list of Saints. Esoglou (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"List of Saints" phrase is meant in its supplied sense not in its literal sense. It happened, by way of a public formal ceremony at the steps of Saint Peter's Square, (From memory). This is a declaration, rather than a "list". This confusion is the reason why many were annoyed on this site in the past. Now the article page reflects this confusion. The phrase: "List of Saints", is understood very differently within the Church as outside It. It is why many of us are reluctant to amend it, but now are amused at it! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Cult of St Philomena

Would like to see more history info on the cult of St. Philomena over the centuries, and the impact of symbolism attached to her. (And I mean "cult" only in the RC sense!).OttawaAC (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Still a saint

Please do not remove "Saint" from St. Philomena's title and do not use the term "formerly venerated". She is still venerated as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church. If you read the article it is plain to see. She was removed from the calendar for purpose of public veneration. But her shrine still exists, her cult is still active, and I can assure you that there are Masses held in her honor at various times of the year (discovery of her relics, etc.) Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

On a second look, this article is slanted to "not a saint" POV and ignores the Archconfraternity of Philomena as well as current popular piety.

Sources:

• http://www.philomena.us/include_archconfraternityhistory.asp
• http://www.philomena.org/archconfraternityhistory.asp
• http://stjosaphat.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/sunday-mass-and-devotions-to-st-philomena-1152012/
• http://vimeo.com/35069873

Elizium23 (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's rather more complicated. She was never officially declared a saint. Mass in her honour was officially allowed in some places and only in those places. The body that was found in the catacombs seems to have been of a later period than the inscription that mentioned a certain Filumena (Philomena). (Some do not accept this.) The story that a religious sister gave of her life has several historical implausibilities. (Some do not accept this.) Philomena (she of the body that was found or she of the inscription or both of them) may well be a saint, but she is rather one of the - it is hoped - many millions of uncanonized saints who have not been officially declared to be saints, although some of them are popularly venerated widely or not so widely. Esoglou (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

For the first thousand years of the Church, saints were canonized through popular acclamation of the faithful, and I know of no decree that said this is impossible anymore. In fact Philomena has the solid backing of several Popes in the past 200 years, who approved her veneration and Archconfraternity. It can certainly be said that she has not been formally canonized and that her cult is not universal. But just because she was removed from all calendars in 1961 does not mean she is no longer venerated as a saint. Many saints were removed from the calendar in 1969 by Mysterii Paschalis and their cults suppressed, but they remained saints and worthy of devotion by the faithful. Saint Christopher was among them, and I don't see any "formerly venerated" language in his article. Some saints have come back: Catherine of Alexandria was restored to the general calendar in 2002. As the article now shows, there was no suppression of her cult nor even a suspension of her Universal Archconfraternity. Churches and other organizations exist under her patronage. I have attended Masses in her honor and touched her relics and seen statues permanently installed in parishes. Yes, it is limited to certain places and groups of the faithful, but it is thriving. Elizium23 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The popular veneration in question came too late for the first thousand years of the Church. For the most recent thousand years of the Catholic Church, canonization is reserved to the Pope. Unlike Philomena, who was "expunged from any calendar whatever" ("e quolibet calendario expungatur"), Saint Christopher was only removed from the General Roman Calendar, and not from the official list of saints, the Roman Martyrology, the list that this Philomena never got into. Besides, Christopher's removal from the General Roman Calendar was explained as follows: "The memorial of Saint Christopher, which was added to the Roman Calendar in about 1550, is left to particular calendars. While the Acts of Saint Christopher is made up of legends, ancient records of veneration of him do exist but, on the other hand, the cult of this Saint is not part of the Roman tradition" ("Memoria S. Christophori, anno circiter 1550 in Calendario romano ascripta, Calendariis particularibus relinquitur: quamvis Acta S. Christophori fabulosa sint, antiqua inveniuntur monumenta eius venerationis; attamen cultus huius Sancti non pertinet ad traditionem romanam"). Esoglou (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the recent changes to the lede paragraph except that the infobox still makes it sound as if she is no longer honored by anyone after 1961. Perhaps we can add "by members of the Archconfraternity from 1876-present". Also, it has been brought to my attention that after the general abrogation of indulgences in 1967 and the publication of the Enchiridion, various grants were made by the Apostolic Penitentiary to confraternities and religious orders to uphold their traditional rights to indulgences. These grants have a protocol number attached and should be verifiable, but I have not found anything online that allows me to do this. That is why the Archconfraternity still claims their indulgences are in effect, because for members of the Archconfraternity, they are still granted to this day. So the claims in the article that they were merely abrogated is a little slanted still toward the not-a-saint POV. Unfortunately the only source I can find is the self-published websites of the Archconfraternity, and I do not know if these would be accepted as proof. Elizium23 (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Indulgences attached to the use of religious objects which are not mentioned above cease three months after the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

"The revisions mentioned in n. 14 and n. 15 must be submitted to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary within a year. Two years after the date of this constitution, indulgences which have not been confirmed will become null and void."

I think these words are clear enough. Norm 14 spoke of indulgences granted to pious associations of the faithful. The websites supporting devotion to Saint Philomena make no mention of the archconfraternity having submitted a revision either within the year or later. That is something they would surely have mentioned. The cord does not seem to have been a religious object mentioned in the norms - so no plenary indulgence, even if the archconfraternity's indulgences had been renewed.

What do you suggest to put about unofficial veneration? How distinguish it from - to give what you might consider a somewhat extreme example - the widespread popular devotion in Argentina to the Difunta Correa? Esoglou (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

But the Archconfraternity does prominently advertise that the indulgences attached to the cord and granted to members are still in force. It seems to me that if they were outright lying about such a serious matter in public, that the Holy See would soon have something to say about their continued existence. Are you actually suggesting that their claim about indulgences is untrue? I can certainly see this happening with sedevacantist or schismatic associations, but this one operates with full blessings from Rome, as we have documented right here. As for comparing this to veneration to the Difunta, I am not sure. The article does not mention any positive encouragement from Rome. Witness the positive encouragement offered to Philomena devotees by Gregory XVI, Pius XI and X. Witness the ongoing spread of the Archconfraternity and operation of her shrine in Italy. There are many cases where Rome takes no side at all, neither encouraging nor discouraging a particular stance, and it seems to me that the Difunta is one of these. The Difunta article is sadly lacking sources. Have any bishops or even priests spoken out for or against her devotion? I can assure you that I have met several priests with very positive things to say about Philomena. Just my own experience, WP:OR style. Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting, although I have yet to find reliable sources for this, that the tiles which were allegedly reused and purposely placed in jumbled order were examined by archeologists, who found two things. (1) The tiles were completely undamaged, whereas if they had indeed been removed and replaced they would have suffered considerable and noticeable damage, and (2) the opening of the tomb was of uneven size, and the tiles themselves were of non-uniform size as well; the tiles could not have been placed in order because the seal would have had gaps. Placing the tiles out of order was the only way to properly seal the tomb. Elizium23 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be right in what you say, but the problem I mentioned remains: how to express in what sense, if any, the Catholic Church venerates Saint Philomena now, i.e. since 1961. Esoglou (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

By whom?

I don't understand the purpose of tagging 'venerated' in the lede. St. Philomena is worthy of veneration by anyone in the Roman Catholic Church. Devotion at her shrine and by the Archconfraternity is documented in the lede and it would be redundant and limiting to clutter up the initial sentence with these qualifiers. Elizium23 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just use the active voice and say who venerates her as a saint. You can't say the Catholic Church does: only that certain Catholics do and have shrines and devotions in her honour. In that she is not alone. Esoglou (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Codex Buranus ?

There is a woman mentioned in the Tempus est Iocundum in "Codex Buranus, 179", with the same name. Given the age of things, is this the same woman ? 85.226.209.195 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Format of dates

The dates in this article variously used dmy and mdy formats, doubtless owing to the conflicts that seem at times to have arisen over editing. Given that there was no guidance at the head of the text, and that the birth and death dates in the infobox were in mdy format, I chose to standardize in that format, except where another format was given in a quotation. By all means, switch it around if it is felt I acted in error - but at least the article now has some added consistency! Harfarhs (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)