When does a Blessed become a Saint?

[astroalbert]

Seeing that Popes John XXIII and John Paul II have had a second miracle approved, could they be considered Saints? Or is one a Saint when they are proclaimed to be one?

Peace,
Al

 

[Dorothy]

The Church gives titles to a very holy person along the way to sainthood being proclaimed.

Of course, they are already saints in the Presence of the Lord, it is just the proclamation we are waiting to celebrate.

 

[Avila123]

Is this helpful? The full version can be found by following the link to the online copy of Catholicism for Dummies

dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-become-a-saint-in-the-catholic-church.html

• Blessed: After the Church establishes one miracle, the venerable person’s cause is presented to the pope to see whether he deems her worthy of being called blessed. This step is called beatification and is the next-to-last step.
• *Saint: Another miracle and the blessed person’s cause is presented to the pope again for his judgment. If he determines that the evidence is clear and that contrary reports aren’t credible, he may initiate the canonization procedure. If all goes well, the candidate is publicly recognized as a saint.
The process
Only people whose existence can be verified and whose lives can be examined are possible candidates for canonization. Candidates for sainthood undergo an investigation:
• Informative inquiries are made into the person’s life, reputation, and activities while they lived on earth
• Proof that no one has proclaimed or is already proclaiming and honoring the person as a saint before it’s been officially declared
• A thorough examination of the person’s written and spoken (transcripts) works
If the thorough background check leads the investigators to declare the candidate venerable, evidence of miracles attributed to the candidate’s intercession with God is sought. Miracles need to be documented and authenticated, so eyewitnesses alone are considered insufficient. Medical, scientific, psychiatric, and theological experts are consulted, and evidence is given to them for their professional opinion. If a scientific, medical, or psychological explanation exists for what had only appeared to be a miracle, then it isn’t an authentic miracle. Only immediate, spontaneous, and inexplicable phenomena are up for consideration as authentic miracles.
A group of Italian doctors (Consulta Medica) examine the healing miracles. Some of the doctors aren’t Catholic and some are, but all are qualified and renowned physicians. They don’t declare a healing a miracle, but instead say, “We can find no scientific or medical explanation for the cure.”
Besides miraculous healings, the commission examines other phenomena:
• Incorruptibility: Long after the saint is dead, the body is found free of decay when exhumed from the grave.
• *Liquefaction: The dried blood of the saint, long dead, miraculously liquefies on the feast day.
• Odor of sanctity: The body of the saint exudes a sweet aroma, like roses, rather than the usual pungent stench of decay.

 

[Marie5890]

Seeing that Popes John XXIII and John Paul II have had a second miracle approved, could they be considered Saints? Or is one a Saint when they are proclaimed to be one?

Peace,
Al

There was no second miracle approved for JohnXXIII, just to be factual.

There is a typical process to the canonization process, but a pope is not bound by it…

 

[ServantPD]

There was no second miracle approved for JohnXXIII, just to be factual.

There is a typical process to the canonization process, but a pope is not bound by it…

Well, I’d be the first to disagree with this. Things like the saints should have boundaries in wheter they’re confirmed to be in Heaven or not.

And don’t get me wrong, I love John XXIII, but I think that canonizations shouldn’t be deliberately pushed forward, no matter how awesome the person was (he was already beatified nonetheless, could’ve just waited a little longer for the 2nd miracle).

 

[Marie5890]

Well, I’d be the first to disagree with this. Things like the saints should have boundaries in wheter they’re confirmed to be in Heaven or not.

And don’t get me wrong, I love John XXIII, but I think that canonizations shouldn’t be deliberately pushed forward, no matter how awesome the person was (he was already beatified nonetheless, could’ve just waited a little longer for the 2nd miracle).

Historically, the protocol for proclamation of saints has not been what it is today. Infact in the past, the miracles were never needed for someone to be raised to the alter…

The history of how people became saints is a fascinating one if any one wants to study up on it.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

They will be canonized saints when they are canonized.

 

[bben15]

I believe the title “Blessed” is the strong belief that they are in heaven. The title “Saint” is a confirmation that they are in heaven.

Usually, a second miracle is needed in order to proceed to canonization. But, the Pope can dispense with this. Don’t worry, canonization is infallible, so it’s impossible to “wrongly canonize” a saint.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I believe the title “Blessed” is the strong belief that they are in heaven. The title “Saint” is a confirmation that they are in heaven.

Usually, a second miracle is needed in order to proceed to canonization. But, the Pope can dispense with this. Don’t worry, canonization is infallible, so it’s impossible to “wrongly canonize” a saint.

The idea that canonization is infallible is a common but not universally held theological position.

 

[ServantPD]

Historically, the protocol for proclamation of saints has not been what it is today. Infact in the past, the miracles were never needed for someone to be raised to the alter…

The history of how people became saints is a fascinating one if any one wants to study up on it.

I’m a library rat when it comes to theology and Church matters, I’m going to look that up as soon as I have the time. Thanks for pointing it out.