Made up Saints in Litany?

[TAS2000]

Several times over the years I have heard Litanies done for confirmations, baptisms, weddings, etc. where the preist inserts names into the Litany of “saints” to reflect the obviously NON-saint names of the people involved. Now, I can’t claim that I know every saint there is, but some of these are unmistakable. I can’t think of an actual example right now, but it would go something like “Saint Brandon, and Saint Vidalia, Pray for us.” I cringe every time I hear this sort of thing. What do you all think? Is this fairly widespread, or do I just have bad luck with this?

 

[Spooky7272]

This also happens at our parish during Baptisms and Easter Vigil when new members come into the Church… It does sorta bother me, but, there very well might be someone in Heaven named “Hunter”… or “Taylor”…

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I don’t know about a St. Brandon, but there IS a St. Brendan.

 

[Shiann]

We are all saints in Christ as members of the Faithfull.

We beseech the prayers of the Saints in Heaven for our trials here on Earth.
Perhaps those priests were including those parishoners and naming them specifically as a member of the communion of saints and not trying to beseech a particular cannonized Saint.

 

[TAS2000]

 Perhaps those priests were including those parishoners and naming them specifically as a member of the communion of saints and not trying to beseech a particular cannonized Saint.

Well, this makes sense, but I think it assumes a lot more than these preists must know about the people involved. I think it is assumed today that all go to heaven, regardless of the life they lead by too many people, and I think this sort of thing just contributes to it. I also think it lessens the perception of Sainthood in general. I don’t think that just being a member of the church (and even saying THAT is a stretch for some of these people) qualifies the definition of saintly, even with a small s. Doesn’t it imply exceptional holiness, virtue, etc?

Where did you get the idea that we (living beings) are saints? I thought only those who had died and gone to heaven were saints? Is this a common teaching?

 

[Shiann]

newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm

This should help.

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (I Cor., i, 2-Greek Text). The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints. The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church. St. Thomas teaches (III:8:4) that the angels, though not redeemed, enter the communion of saints because they come under Christ’s power and receive of His gratia capitis. The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions; between the Church on earth on the one hand, and purgatory and heaven on the other, suffrages, invocation, intercession, veneration. These connotations belong here only in so far as they integrate the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thus understood, the communion of saints, though formally defined only in its particular bearings (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, decrees on purgatory; on the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints and of sacred images; on indulgences), is, nevertheless, dogma commonly taught and accepted in the Church. It is true that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pt. I, ch. x) seems at first sight to limit to the living the bearing of the phrase contained in the Creed, but by making the communion of saints an exponent and function, as it were, of the preceding clause, “the Holy Catholic Church”, it really extends to what it calls the Church’s “constituent parts, one gone before, the other following every day”; the broad principle it enunciates thus: **“every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own”. **

 

[deaconswife]

As the person who sings the Litany of the Saints when my husband is doing baptisms, we try to include a saint for each child in the litany but unfortunately, if you don’t give your child a saint’s name we can’t include it. A great site to find out if it is a saint’s name is www.catholic.org - they have an extensive list. If a child has a variation of a name then we include that saint’s name in the liturgy. You would be amazed at some of the names that you think must be made up are actual canonized saints - my favorite one on the list is Dogfan.

 

[Shiann]

TAS2000:

Well, this makes sense, but I think it assumes a lot more than these preists must know about the people involved.

Truly, we cannot know the state of another’s soul, but if we are celebrating Mass (and other Sacraments) together it would be reasonable for the priest to assume that those involved could be considered part of the Church Militant.

I think it is assumed today that all go to heaven, regardless of the life they lead by too many people, and I think this sort of thing just contributes to it.

:: I guess I never thought of it that way. I would say though, that we tread on very shaky ground when we presume to know the status of anyone’s soul- other than by Church proclaimation.

I also think it lessens the perception of Sainthood in general.

I don’t think that just being a member of the church (and even saying THAT is a stretch for some of these people) qualifies the definition of saintly, even with a small s. Doesn’t it imply exceptional holiness, virtue, etc?

It implies FAMILY. A spiritual FAMILY in Christ.

Where did you get the idea that we (living beings) are saints? I thought only those who had died and gone to heaven were saints? Is this a common teaching?

See previous post.

Saints (small s) are those members of the Church on Earth.

And it is a very common teaching… dogma in fact.

 

[TAS2000]

We must be interpreting things differently then, because what I read there says that we contribute to, and can call on the communion of saints, (share in it) but doesn’t say that WE are saints. Perhaps you can explain your point using simpler words?

Not to attack you personnaly, but can i just say i HATE it when people grab the ole “we can’t and shouldn’t judge others” arguement? We can, do, and MUST judge others. Their actions, not their intent. If someone murders another, we judge them and put them in jail to limit their ability to harm others. Our society would be chaos without judgement. How can we carry out our mission to admonish sinners, if we couldn’t tell who they were?

Having said that, I can say that in at least one case I personally witnessed, the two people standing up as godparents (in as much as they stood up when the preist said “godparents, come here”) one was a practicing homosexual non-cathoilic whose partner was also in attendance. I KNOW that this person doesn’t qualitfy to be a godparent, only a “witness”. But this is just one example. I don’t think I’d be on shakey ground at all to presume that this person is NOT a member of the church militant. (The other was a divorced catholic that doesn’t regulalry attend mass, by the way)
So I think to presume saintliness may be nice, but unrealistic. The church herself doesn’t assume someone is a saint until it is proven (cannonization). Why should we practice less stringent standards just to make someone feel good during probably the only time they set foot in a church during the year?

 

[TAS2000]

I have to say I like the idea that there is just a Saint Hunter up in heaven already that we just haven’t heard about thorugh official connonization a whole lot better.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

These are variant spellings and pronunciations of real saints’ names. Brandon is a variant of Brendan. Vidalia is a feminine form of Vidal, which is a variant of Vitalis.

One is no more “making up” a Saint Brandon or Saint Vidalia when one uses one of these variants than one would be making up a Saint Juan (or Saint Jean, Jan, Sean, Jon, Johann, Giovani, Ian, Iones, Ivan, etc.), if one referred to Saint John by any of these variant names.

 

[Shiann]

TAS2000:

We must be interpreting things differently then, because what I read there says that we contribute to, and can call on the communion of saints, (share in it) but doesn’t say that WE are saints. Perhaps you can explain your point using simpler words?

As we are members of the Church here on Earth, we are members de facto of the communion of saints. Again:

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (I Cor., i, 2-Greek Text).

Not to attack you personnaly, but can i just say i HATE it when people grab the ole “we can’t and shouldn’t judge others” arguement? We can, do, and MUST judge others. Their actions, not their intent. If someone murders another, we judge them and put them in jail to limit their ability to harm others. Our society would be chaos without judgement. How can we carry out our mission to admonish sinners, if we couldn’t tell who they were?

I in no way said anything about judging other’s action- did I?

I said we are FORBIDDEN to judge the state of another’s soul in relation to his destination of Heaven or Hell. We cannot assume based on that person’s actions alone, that he or she is destined to either Heaven or Hell FOR SURE.

I agree, too often people refrain from righteous judgment for no good reason. We should admonish those actions who are detrimental to our Faith and the solidarity of the Communion of Saints which we are all a part of (as Faithful members of the Church).

Having said that, I can say that in at least one case I personally witnessed, the two people standing up as godparents (in as much as they stood up when the preist said “godparents, come here”) one was a practicing homosexual non-cathoilic whose partner was also in attendance. I KNOW that this person doesn’t qualitfy to be a godparent, only a “witness”. But this is just one example. I don’t think I’d be on shakey ground at all to presume that this person is NOT a member of the church militant. (The other was a divorced catholic that doesn’t regulalry attend mass, by the way)

In all of these situations we do NOT know the actual status of their soul in relation to God so we must assume that they are a part of the communion of saints- and should welcome them to the Church as brother’s and sisters.

Does this mean we do not stand up for the Church? Absolutely NOT! But there is a proper time and place to address these issues. My first stop would be my parish priest to discern his attitude about Faith matters. Obviously if he feels that a non-Christian “godparent” is the equivalent of a faithfull practicing Catholic “godparent” then the issue is there.

The divorced Catholic may not regularly attend YOUR Church. I happen to travel a lot through the summer months, but attend Mass regularly.

I do not intend to besmirch your comments. I only wish to remind that not all things are clear to us- in such a way to make us fully equipped to know the status of someone’s soul, and their membership in the communion of saints. We can defend our Faith, and still welcome our Baptised Catholic brothers and sisters.

So I think to presume saintliness may be nice, but unrealistic. The church herself doesn’t assume someone is a saint until it is proven (cannonization).

The Church proves cannonization for Saints not saints. You may consider this mincing words, but if the Church makes this distinction, who am I to argue?

Why should we practice less stringent standards just to make someone feel good during probably the only time they set foot in a church during the year?

Because God calls us to.

We are talking about the issue of wether someone IS or IS NOT a member of the communion of saints.

Someone is not a member if their souls are not destined for Heaven.

Only God can make this discernment.

It follows that we are to treat everyone with welcome, as if they are members of the communion of saints.

Remember:“every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own”

 

[TAS2000]

I think your side arguement boils down to assertion that living people can be called saints on the basis that they will one day be Saints? Is that correct? (“by reason of their destination”)
So only those who will ultimately go to heaven, not just all those who call themselves members of the family, are actually saints? And all members of the church, and apparently even non-Catholic, practicing homosexuals, should be assumed to be saints by us currently because we can’t know for certain that they won’t end up Saints in heaven before they are through? Is that a fair summation of your position?

 

[TAS2000]

But there is a proper time and place to address these issues.

I don’t recall saying I confronted anyone about this.

The divorced Catholic may not regularly attend YOUR Church. I happen to travel a lot through the summer months, but attend Mass regularly

Good for you. And you would be right. My church is the universal Catholic church, and he doesn’t regularly attend. The parish I currently belong to is about 100 miles away from where this guy lives, so I wouldn’t expect him to attend. But he also doesn’t attend any churches in his area. He would be the first to tell you so if you asked him. So am I still unfairly judging his actions?

I understand that you want to be fair to everyone and include them all, but that just ain’t realistic. Some are chaff, others wheat. God will decide when he judges us. To me, saying that we are all saints just lowers the bar for people who really need examples to look up to. If all examples are the same, what difference the choice I make? Moral relativism.

The Church proves cannonization for Saints not saints. You may consider this mincing words, but if the Church makes this distinction, who am I to argue?

I still don’t think I grasp your difference between the big and little s. Without quoteing the same phrase from newadvent again, can you explain it to me?

 

[Shiann]

TAS2000:

I don’t recall saying I confronted anyone about this.

You didn’t. I was only commenting that if you had a question as to the validity or the “rightness” of the ceremony it is certainly your duty to make sure everything was correct. I advised to begin with the person in charge of the ceremony- the priest.

Good for you. And you would be right. My church is the universal Catholic church, and he doesn’t regularly attend. The parish I currently belong to is about 100 miles away from where this guy lives, so I wouldn’t expect him to attend. But he also doesn’t attend any churches in his area. He would be the first to tell you so if you asked him. So am I still unfairly judging his actions?

I wasn’t looking for your praise for going to Mass, I was only offering an example where we believe we have enough information to discern our position- when in reality there are many things that we may not know. This is why we do not decide who is and who is not bound for Heaven.

I understand that you want to be fair to everyone and include them all, but that just ain’t realistic. Some are chaff, others wheat.

I do wish to include everyone who is destined for Heaven, into the communion of saints. Who those people are- cannot be determined by you or I here on Earth.

God will decide when he judges us. To me, saying that we are all saints just lowers the bar for people who really need examples to look up to. If all examples are the same, what difference the choice I make? Moral relativism.

Please do not accuse me of moral relativism. Please read the following:

The word in the Bible for “saint” or “saints” is the word (hagios) also translated “sanctified” or “holy ones.” The root word hazo, means “to venerate.” Hagios means to be separated from sin and therefore consecrated to God.

It is Paul who calls all his fellow believers “saints,” and not just the notably holy ones. Paul also uses the term for both those who are living and for those who are dead. 2 Thess 1:9-10 These (who do not acknowledge God nor heed the good news) will pay the penalty of eternal ruin, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power, when he comes to be glorified among his holy ones (hagiois) and to be marveled at on that day among all who have believed, for our testimony to you was believed. Jude 14-15 Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied also about them when he said, "Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones (hagiais) to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed …"catholicapologetics.org/ap070100.htm

I still don’t think I grasp your difference between the big and little s. Without quoteing the same phrase from newadvent again, can you explain it to me?

All Faithfull believers (dead and alive) are “saints”. We are, in fact, the Communion of Saints.

“Saints” are those people in our spiritual family who showed heroic dedication to our Faith. The Church explores their lives and declares them worthy of our veneration through canonization.

The Communion of Saints includes not only St. John and St. Elizabeth Seton, but my dearly departed Catholic grandfather Bob who is, I pray, finding respite in Heaven or being cleansed in purgatory.

 

[Shiann]

TAS2000:

I think your side arguement boils down to assertion that living people can be called saints on the basis that they will one day be Saints? Is that correct? (“by reason of their destination”)

Living FAITHFUL (people who have Faith) can be called saints on the basis that they are a member in the Communion of Saints. Our dearly departed relatives should be asked to interceed for us, and we should pray for them if they are in purgatory.

So only those who will ultimately go to heaven, not just all those who call themselves members of the family, are actually saints?

How can we rightfully discern the prior from the later? Only God has the tools to make those decisions. Therefore we ask for the prayers from EVEN THOSE who we feel are not “good Catholics”. They are working toward Heaven just as you or I. Who knows what dark thoughts might hide in the most pious of individuals? We pray for all who are members of the Church, and we assist eachother in acheiving Heaven.

And all members of the church, and apparently even non-Catholic, practicing homosexuals, should be assumed to be saints by us currently because we can’t know for certain that they won’t end up Saints in heaven before they are through? Is that a fair summation of your position?

Not really. All members of the Church (including Baptised and Confirmed Catholics) should be assumed to be a member of the Communion of Saints and worthy of our prayers and us worthy of theirs.

Take for instance the venerable Matthew Talbot. This man was a raging Irish alcoholic. I’m sure there were many in his parish who would not wish to include him as a member of the Communion of Saints based on his actions. Matthew was eventually able to overcome drinking alcohol, but the desire persisted in him to his death.

So do you or I have the power to say today “ok, you are a practicing homosexual, or a person who doesn’t attend Mass, so you are not welcome into the Communion of Saints”? When tomorrow, they may repent, but then fall into sin the next day?

The point is we do not have the information needed to say wether or not someone is worthy of being considered a member of the spiritual family.

I guess, we all have family members who are less connected to the rest of the family, and some who are at every family function. Does that make one person “more family” than the other? We certainly know one person better… but we try to invite the “black sheep” back to the family- we do not disown them. Only God can judge the worthiness of one of our family members. We can only work to make sure our brothers and sisters in Christ, and ourselves remain worthy.

Some of the members of the Communion of Saints will have been a pristine example of living the Faith, and the Church names them Saints.