A Saint is a Saint

[LilyM]

O.K then what exactly is the deciding factor for canonization? I remember that it is another miracle (which you state may not be from that person’s intercession but by the mercy of God and His eternal will) is necessary. What allows the Church to be certain that this person is indeed in heaven and can now be referred to as a saint that differs from the beatification process?

Your introduction to your post indicates that intercessory prayer really bears no part in whether or not God will perform a miracle since in His infinite love and goodness He will not need any intercessory prayer.

I think that there is a kink somewhere in either my understanding of your expression or in your understanding of saints, miracles and intercessory prayer. But, I do thank you for your fervent effort and I am truly sorry for being so . God Bless you!

Partly the second miracle, which being more significant is, I imagine, much more thoroughly investigated than the first one, partly (I imagine) further investigation of the Saint’s life as well.

And the SECOND miracle, being the one that matters so much more (the one that plays a part in the infallible teaching) is the one God would deny if the person were not actually in Heaven.

Have you ever heard the story of the Pope who produced an erroneous (not to say heretical) translation of the scriptures and was within a whisker of making it the official version used by the Church when he up and died very suddenly?

Note that nothing similar has happened with other translations of the Bible - particularly there is a so-called adulterer’s bible (through a typo it seriously says ‘thou shalt commit adultery’ ) - the person who produced THAT Bible suffered nothing. Why? One occasion was important, in that the translation was about to become THE official version the Church relied upon. The second translation was not, so the intervention of the Holy Spirit to prevent error was unnecessary.

As for intercessory prayer - no, God doesn’t need it, though He certainly likes it. I deny that it plays NO part, but I DO deny that it’s quite as critical as ou seem to make out.

Do you not believe that God will answer prayers addressed directly to Him, on occasions where the intercession of saints is not sought at all for those prayers? Peter doubtless prayed for Tabitha to be raised from the dead - he didn’t beseech the help of any saint and God nonetheless heard his prayer, no? If He answers prayers addressed directly to Him and through NO saints at all, then He can certainly answer a prayer addressed mistakenly through a soul who is not in heaven, no?

Intercession of saints is helpful, but not a necessity for each individual prayer. In fact most of the prayers of the Mass are direct to God and not through the intercession of any saint, so we’d all be in a lot of trouble if God weren’t able to answer prayers absent the intercession of the saints!

 

[teachccd]

Partly the second miracle, which being more significant is, I imagine, much more thoroughly investigated than the first one, partly (I imagine) further investigation of the Saint’s life as well.

And where is it documented that the second miracle is more significant than the first? Wouldn’t one think that if the Church attributes a miracle to the intercession of a particular person that that is significant rather than haphazard?

And the SECOND miracle, being the one that matters so much more (the one that plays a part in the infallible teaching) is the one God would deny if the person were not actually in Heaven.

Where do you get this from? Can you document or refer me to this Church teaching? I have yet to learn that the Church teaches that God would set conditions for His miracles.

Have you ever heard the story of the Pope who produced an erroneous (not to say heretical) translation of the scriptures and was within a whisker of making it the official version used by the Church when he up and died very suddenly?

Note that nothing similar has happened with other translations of the Bible - particularly there is a so-called adulterer’s bible (through a typo it seriously says ‘thou shalt commit adultery’ ) - the person who produced THAT Bible suffered nothing. Why? One occasion was important, in that the translation was about to become THE official version the Church relied upon. The second translation was not, so the intervention of the Holy Spirit to prevent error was unnecessary.

Your reasoning here is very confusing since many scandals were not “blocked” by God. Martin Luther never up and died and he did more than introduce a heretical version of the Scripture. He introduced a heretical version of the Church.

As for intercessory prayer - no, God doesn’t need it, though He certainly likes it. I deny that it plays NO part, but I DO deny that it’s quite as critical as ou seem to make out.

You mean as the Church teaches that it is…Intercessory prayer has been taught since the time of Saint Paul and is done not just because God “likes” it but because somehow it is a necessary part of our relationship with Him.

Do you not believe that God will answer prayers addressed directly to Him, on occasions where the intercession of saints is not sought at all for those prayers? Peter doubtless prayed for Tabitha to be raised from the dead - he didn’t beseech the help of any saint and God nonetheless heard his prayer, no? If He answers prayers addressed directly to Him and through NO saints at all, then He can certainly answer a prayer addressed mistakenly through a soul who is not in heaven, no?

Intercession of saints is helpful, but not a necessity for each individual prayer. In fact most of the prayers of the Mass are direct to God and not through the intercession of any saint, so we’d all be in a lot of trouble if God weren’t able to answer prayers absent the intercession of the saints!

The confeitor utilizes intercessory prayer during the penitential part of the Mass. Sure prayer can be directed right to God. I do not feel that the Church would recognize the necessity of this for beatification and canonization if it should be taken as lightly as you suggest.

In this post I do not mean to undermine your intentions but I still have not received the answer that I am looking for, only perspectives. I was hoping for a more direct, concise and backed up answer but I thank you sincerely for your contribution and your fervency. God Bless…teachccd

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Thank you to all for all of the information. So, just for clarity, would it be correct to say that a beatified individual is in heaven and can be recognized as such but just not fully or officially recognized by the Holy See? In other words, is it just a process which still acknowledges that the person is in heaven and can be prayed to for their intercession?

Can I pray to Mother Teresa? She is beatified so does the Church recognize her as being in heaven? teachccd

To break it down into fuzzy language but more practically applicable descriptions, a

• venerable is someone whom the Church has approved for private requests of intercession. The Church has verified, to the best of her ability, the individual’s life of “heroic virtue,” so basically says “We can’t see anything to indicate this person wouldn’t be in heaven, so there’s no harm in asking so long as you remember we’re not sure the person is there.”
• blessed is someone whom the Church has approved for public (and corporate) veneration by the Church and requests for intercession. On top of their heroic virtue, the Church has either confirmed a miracle or the person’s martyrdom. What we’re saying here is more akin to “We now have some positive reasons for thinking this person is in heaven, so we’ll allow you to treat them a like a saint - but remember, we’re not making anyone treat this person like a saint (i.e. we’re not mandating his/her cult as part of the universal calendar), so we’re not putting our authority behind it, but if local churches want to we don’t see any problem with it.”
• saint is someone whom the Church has authoritatively declared to be in heaven, thus not just allowing the same public veneration and intercession as a blessed but proposing it for the whole Church. Only now do we finally get “We know without a doubt that this person is in heaven.”

Does that help? Don’t forget to check out some of the good links posted above, too.

 

[teachccd]

To break it down into fuzzy language but more practically applicable descriptions, a

• venerable is someone whom the Church has approved for private requests of intercession. The Church has verified, to the best of her ability, the individual’s life of “heroic virtue,” so basically says “We can’t see anything to indicate this person wouldn’t be in heaven, so there’s no harm in asking so long as you remember we’re not sure the person is there.”
• blessed is someone whom the Church has approved for public (and corporate) veneration by the Church and requests for intercession. On top of their heroic virtue, the Church has either confirmed a miracle or the person’s martyrdom. What we’re saying here is more akin to “We now have some positive reasons for thinking this person is in heaven, so we’ll allow you to treat them a like a saint - but remember, we’re not making anyone treat this person like a saint (i.e. we’re not mandating his/her cult as part of the universal calendar), so we’re not putting our authority behind it, but if local churches want to we don’t see any problem with it.”
• saint is someone whom the Church has authoritatively declared to be in heaven, thus not just allowing the same public veneration and intercession as a blessed but proposing it for the whole Church. Only now do we finally get “We know without a doubt that this person is in heaven.”

Does that help? Don’t forget to check out some of the good links posted above, too.

You have made it very clear. I do believe that LilyM was trying to give me the same information but your clarification nailed it for me. I did refer to the links and they helped, as well. Thank you all for your time and answers…God Bless…teachccd

 

[LilyM]

Your reasoning here is very confusing since many scandals were not “blocked” by God. Martin Luther never up and died and he did more than introduce a heretical version of the Scripture. He introduced a heretical version of the Church.

It’s not the same situation - Luther was already recognised, by the Church and faithful Catholics everywhere, as a heretic before he even attempted to change scripture. His heresies WERE ‘blocked’ in as far as the Holy Spirit ever ‘blocks’ heresy - meaning that there was never any danger of them becoming official Church teaching.

Remember it is the Church’s magisterium and its official teachings that are protected by infallibility, not individual Catholics such as Luther and his believers, or their private opinions.

Now if Luther had become Pope, as the bad scripture translator did, and tried in his official capacity as Pope to make his mutilation of the scriptures binding on all Catholics, as in my example, you would have seen intervention by the Holy Spirit in one way or another.

You mean as the Church teaches that it is…Intercessory prayer has been taught since the time of Saint Paul and is done not just because God “likes” it but because somehow it is a necessary part of our relationship with Him.

Sure prayer can be directed right to God. I do not feel that the Church would recognize the necessity of this for beatification and canonization if it should be taken as lightly as you suggest.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand you’ve said we can address prayer directly to God, in which case God accepts that prayer on its own merits - or ours - and having a powerful saint interceding for us is an added bonus.

If you don’t accept this, then logically it is not only NECESSARY to always address Him through some saint or other, but moreover our prayer is lessened or nullified if we choose the wrong candidate - someone who is in Hell. Now if James says ‘the prayer of a righteous man avails much’, what’s to say that that righteous man is not you or I? And that OUR prayers, absent those of any other saint or soul, might not ‘avail much’???

Now it is NOT Church teaching that the status of the soul we choose to pray through matters as much as you seem to think, since the Church CLEARLY allows us to pray through certain people (venerables and beati), while at the same time making it abundantly clear that such permission does NOT constitute a declaration that they are in heaven.

In this post I do not mean to undermine your intentions but I still have not received the answer that I am looking for, only perspectives. I was hoping for a more direct, concise and backed up answer but I thank you sincerely for your contribution and your fervency. God Bless…teachccd

Yowch! That’s the worst case of a backhanded slapdown I’ve ever seen.

 

[KestrelRose]

My understanding is that anyone who is in Heaven with God is a saint. When a person is cannonized, the Church is formally acknowledging that this individual is “known” to be in Heaven.

 

[teachccd]

Yowch! That’s the worst case of a backhanded slapdown I’ve ever seen.

Wow, I’m sorry… All I did was thank you for your opinion. HHMMM …I can appreciate your sensitivity and I apologize if my confusion insulted you. I do have my answer now so this thread is pretty much completed. I do thank you for your time (as I have previously mentioned) and I know that my initial frustration resulted in more questions. I truly am sorry if our discussion hurt your feelings, as that was not my intention…God Bless…teachccd :hug1:

 

[LilyM]

Wow, I’m sorry… All I did was thank you for your opinion. HHMMM …I can appreciate your sensitivity and I apologize if my confusion insulted you. I do have my answer now so this thread is pretty much completed. I do thank you for your time (as I have previously mentioned) and I know that my initial frustration resulted in more questions. I truly am sorry if our discussion hurt your feelings, as that was not my intention…God Bless…teachccd :hug1:

I think you know that you did more than just thank me for my opinion. You made comments about the quality of my answers, and more or less said outright that they were inadequate (not concise, not backed up etc etc). Hardly a compliment in anyone’s book, so it would be wise not to repeat those sort of comments to other posters in future.

Regardless, you’re right, the thread is pretty much done. Glad you have an answer that satisfies you.

 

[teachccd]

I think you know that you did more than just thank me for my opinion. You made comments about the quality of my answers, and more or less said outright that they were inadequate (not concise, not backed up etc etc). Hardly a compliment in anyone’s book, so it would be wise not to repeat those sort of comments to other posters in future.

Regardless, you’re right, the thread is pretty much done. Glad you have an answer that satisfies you.

Again, I am sorry if I hurt you with my comments.:imsorry: I simply could not find my answer in your posts even though I know that your intentions were there. I am sorry and again I apologize for upsetting you. That was never my intention and with only the typewritten word many times my emotions are misconstrued. I really am sorry…God bless…teachccd