HistoricalChristian.Faith

Were Barlaam and Josaphat ever formally canonized?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — the narrow factual claim is right (no canonization decree or cause exists in either communion; the two entered veneration by martyrology and calendar inclusion), but “never formally canonized” presses a modern juridical category onto figures whose own era recognised sainthood precisely by that inclusion — so the popular “the Church canonized the Buddha” and the precise “they were only ever venerated, never canonized” are each partly right and partly anachronistic.

The claim

The arresting one-liner is that the Church canonized the Buddha. Against it, several writers advance a more careful thesis: Barlaam and Josaphat were venerated as saints but never formally canonized. On this reading the honour they received was real but informal — a line in the Roman Martyrology under 27 November, a place in the Eastern calendars (Greek 26 August; the Slavic churches 19 November), and a starring role in the best-selling Golden Legend — and none of that amounts to a canonization act. OrthodoxWiki, by contrast, states flatly that “Josaphat and Barlaam were canonized in the Roman Catholic Church … and are recognized among the Eastern Orthodox.”¹ The terms are genuinely at odds, which is what makes this an argument rather than a fact to be looked up.

The evidence for “venerated, never formally canonized”

There is no canonization decree, cause, or process for either figure — only inclusion in a martyrology. The route by which Barlaam and Josaphat reached the Western calendar is documented and quite prosaic. Their names were entered by Petrus de Natalibus in his Catalogus Sanctorum (c. 1380), a private compilation of saints’ lives, and from there Cardinal Caesar Baronius placed them — drawing on the life ascribed to John of Damascus — in the official Martyrologium Romanum of the 1580s, under 27 November.² The entry reads: “Apud Indos Persis finitimos, sanctorum Barlaam et Josaphat, quorum actus mirandos sanctus Joannes Damascenus conscripsit” (“Among the Indians, neighbours to the Persians, [the commemoration] of Saints Barlaam and Josaphat, whose wondrous deeds Saint John Damascene recorded”). A martyrology entry is a liturgical commemoration, not a juridical canonization: the Martyrologium carries many names of locally-venerated figures who were never the subject of a formal cause, and its inclusion of a name does not by itself pronounce a canonization sentence. So on the narrow point the careful writers are right — there is no bull, no cause, no processus for Barlaam or Josaphat.

The Eastern side is the same in substance. The Byzantine church commemorates the prince as Ioasaph on 26 August, and the Slavic churches keep “Barlaam, monk, Ioasaph, prince of India, and Abenner the King” on 19 November — but Orthodoxy has no juridical canonization apparatus of the Latin kind against which one could point to a dated act of glorification.³ Their sainthood there, too, rests on calendar inclusion and cultus, not on a canonization document.

Adversarial assessment

Where the thesis over-reads. “Never formally canonized” is true only if one measures by the modern, papally-reserved process — and that process did not exist when Barlaam and Josaphat entered the calendars. In the early and medieval church the recognition of a saint arose locally, by the cultus a bishop permitted; papal reservation of canonization came only gradually (asserted by Alexander III in the twelfth century, hardened by Gregory IX’s decretals in 1234), and exclusive papal control of both canonization and beatification was not fixed until Urban VIII’s legislation of 1634.⁴ For a figure whose veneration predates that machinery, the operative mechanism of sainthood was exactly what Barlaam and Josaphat have: an established cultus recorded in the martyrologies and calendars. Later canon law recognises this very situation as a category — the “cult from time immemorial,” confirmed by equivalent (equipollent) canonization — under which the pope ratifies an ancient veneration without a formal judicial cause. To say such saints are “not really canonized” imports a nineteenth-century test backward. That is why OrthodoxWiki’s blunt “were canonized” is not simply wrong: in the framework of its own tradition, and of the pre-modern West, entry into the church’s liturgical calendar of saints is the recognition of sainthood.

Where the thesis holds. Yet Barlaam and Josaphat never received even the modern ratifying act. There is no decree of equivalent canonization confirming their cultus for the universal church — nothing beyond Baronius’s editorial inclusion of two names he found in an earlier catalogue. So the precise claim survives in a qualified form: they were never the subject of any canonization act, formal or equivalent; their standing rests entirely on martyrology and calendar inclusion. The popular headline — “the Church canonized the Buddha” — is loose in the other direction: it dresses a liturgical commemoration inherited by scholarly accident as a deliberate juridical pronouncement. Both slogans mislead, and for opposite reasons.

Assessment

Contested. This is a terminological dispute in which both sides are partly right, and the honest description falls between them. As a matter of fact there is no canonization decree, cause, or process for Barlaam or Josaphat in either communion — they entered veneration through Petrus de Natalibus and Baronius in the West, and through the synaxaria in the East — so the careful thesis (“venerated, never formally canonized”) captures something true that the popular slogan obscures. But “never formally canonized” measures pre-modern saints by a process invented centuries after their cultus was fixed; by the operative standard of their own era — and of Orthodoxy still — inclusion in the church’s calendar of saints simply is the recognition of sainthood, which is why calling them “canonized” is defensible too. The accurate, un-sloganned statement: the Buddha, under a worn-down form of his own title, came to be commemorated as a Christian saint in both the Latin and the Greek churches through the ordinary medieval mechanism of martyrology and calendar inclusion — never by a formal canonization act, and never needing one to be venerated.

Sources