Who Really Is A Saint?

[Genesius]

I wasn’t sure if Philosophy was the correct forum for this question, but I couldn’t figure out where it would fit. Anyway, the question is this:

I know the Church teaches there are 2-3 different meanings for a Saint. One is the biblical sense; that all the faithful are saints (i.e. When the epistle writer opens his letters, “To the saints at…”). 2. is anyone in heaven, therefore, angels are saints as well (i.e. St. Michael, St. Gabriel, etc), and 3 - Catholics who live extraordinarily holy lives, and qualify through the process of canonization (which would put them also in category 2).

The 3rd option is what I have a questions about, 2 in particular:

1. Why does not the Church refer to the OT figures (i.e. Moses, Abraham, King David, etc.) as saints?
2. Why would not an exceptional protestant qualify (i.e. Billy Graham), considering that God’s grace extends to them and we know that many of them will probably be in heaven as well (and therefore, Catholic), dying in a state of grace, partially due to invincible ignorance?

I choose Billy Graham because he is known across the board as a great Christian man of integrity. He has done nothing but share the gospel to millions of people. He has never been involved in a scandal, even though the media has TRIED to find dirt on him. (even his taxes are clean), and he is certainly not ANTI-Catholic. In fact, I have heard that he is Catholic-friendly.

 

[Danuska]

Part of the answer to your question no 2 is in the CCC:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[JRKH]

I wasn’t sure if Philosophy was the correct forum for this question, but I couldn’t figure out where it would fit. Anyway, the question is this:

I know the Church teaches there are 2-3 different meanings for a Saint. One is the biblical sense; that all the faithful are saints (i.e. When the epistle writer opens his letters, “To the saints at…”). 2. is anyone in heaven, therefore, angels are saints as well (i.e. St. Michael, St. Gabriel, etc), and 3 - Catholics who live extraordinarily holy lives, and qualify through the process of canonization (which would put them also in category 2).

Actually I think you have this reversed. Those canonized saints are already in catagory 2. The canonization process merely gives specific recognition and thereby accords them the distinction of being a named saint. Sort of an “honorific title” rather than being something seperate.

The 3rd option is what I have a questions about, 2 in particular:

1. Why does not the Church refer to the OT figures (i.e. Moses, Abraham, King David, etc.) as saints?

This is a good question. I’d like to hear the answer on this one too.

1. Why would not an exceptional protestant qualify (i.e. Billy Graham), considering that God’s grace extends to them and we know that many of them will probably be in heaven as well (and therefore, Catholic), dying in a state of grace, partially due to invincible ignorance?

I choose Billy Graham because he is known across the board as a great Christian man of integrity. He has done nothing but share the gospel to millions of people. He has never been involved in a scandal, even though the media has TRIED to find dirt on him. (even his taxes are clean), and he is certainly not ANTI-Catholic. In fact, I have heard that he is Catholic-friendly.

While I am sure that there are many reasons for this one big one is that, during the canonization process, there needs to be evidence of at least 2 miraculous intercession. In other words. For example, Someone would need to pray for the intercession of Billy Graham for healing and then be miraculously healed. Such healing would then need to be investigated by the Church.
Given that most catholics aren’t going to pray to a Protestant for intercession, and most protestants don’t pray to the dead for intercession, it is unlikely that such a miraculous intervetnion will ever come up.

Peace
James

 

[Evan]

1. Why does not the Church refer to the OT figures (i.e. Moses, Abraham, King David, etc.) as saints?
2. Why would not an exceptional protestant qualify (i.e. Billy Graham), considering that God’s grace extends to them and we know that many of them will probably be in heaven as well (and therefore, Catholic), dying in a state of grace, partially due to invincible ignorance?

I know we just had the feast of St Elijah last week. Other OT saints also have feast days but it is usually localized to those who live near where they lived. Look to the Eastern Churches for their feast days. The reason Elijah was celebrated in my house is that my wife is Carmelite, and they come from a respect for what happened on Mt Carmel where Elijah faced the false prophets. So they celebrate his feast day.

As far as question 2… Just look at the process for getting someone canonized. Anyone outside the Church would have a lot of trouble getting the people inside the Church to engage in all the work it takes to finish the process.catholic-pages.com/saints/process.asp

 

[Lief_Erikson]

One of the requirements for qualification in sainthood is doctrinal orthodoxy, a means of protecting the process and encouraging believers to come into deeper union with Christ. Therefore people that die Protestants cannot meet this.

 

[Genesius]

One of the requirements for qualification in sainthood is doctrinal orthodoxy, a means of protecting the process and encouraging believers to come into deeper union with Christ. Therefore people that die Protestants cannot meet this.

First, I’m going to start w/ an assumption (and not of Mary…(- that may or may not be correct. If canonization is simply a declaration that a person lived an exceptionally holy life and is now in heaven, why would that exclude protestants? A lot of protestants believe many of the essentials of orthodoxy.

For instance, I know my earthly father was probably the closest example to Christ in my life. He would invite transients in for coffee and a meal sometimes, play his fiddle for them on the front porch, etc. Everyone who knew him adopted him. When he died I was still a protestant, and having taken courses in officiating funerals in bible college I officiated his and used the beatitudes as they described his life almost to a tee. You could ask anyone who knew him. He would give the shirt off his back for a stranger. He rarely ever went to church during my lifetime although he was raised Baptist because he had to work 2-3 jobs just to keep food in the mouths of 5 children he had to raise on his own after our mother left him. I’m sure he would have had no problem with ‘doctrinal orthodoxy’ had he known about it.

Now please don’t think I am easily offended about my father. My intention for the above example is mostly just to present you with an objective background. He was certainly no theologian or apologist. Far from it, but he did have a sense of decency and moral virtue that is very rare these days. I have no problem believing he is in God’s presence even as we speak. That is the reality.

Having said all that, yes, I do realize there are certain guidelines the Church has to have in the canonization process, and I’m sure one of them is VERIFICATION of doctrinal orthodoxy. Perhaps that is what you are getting at?

 

[Genesius]

Actually I think you have this reversed. Those canonized saints are already in catagory 2.

Isn’t that what I said? “(which would put them also in category 2).” In other words, I meant they are obviously already in heaven.

 

[JRKH]

Isn’t that what I said? “(which would put them also in category 2).” In other words, I meant they are obviously already in heaven.

My bad - Misunderstood you.

Peace
James

 

[chaunceygardner]

Until it was mentioned in this thread, I had not thought about what titles we have for the “saints” in the Old Testament. I recall that Abraham and a couple of others are called Patriarchs, but what title would be given to Moses? Probably not prophet. As to the requirements for Sainthood in the Church, I will defer to others who know best.

Genesius had an interesting post about his father. I can relate to that as I had a grandmother like him. Unfortunately I didn’t fully realize until after she died what a truly wonderful person she was.:sad_yes: She raised three children through the Great Depression after her husband died, accepting whatever life brought her without complaint. She gave from what little she had to others in need, she never said a bad word about any other person, and she was grounded in her faith until the day she died. I still have the pocket sized book containing the NT and Psalms that she kept with her always and read from frequently. She lived Christ better than anyone I ever personally knew. And she was Lutheran.

So like Genesius’ father, I have no doubt that my grandmother is at this moment in the embrace of God’s love in heaven.:heaven: Can either of them be Saints as defined by the Church? No. But they are certainly “saints” in the way they lived the Word, and like the official Saints can act as examples and guides for us in our journey of faith.

I pray that each one of us has had a saintly person like that in our lives.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

First, I’m going to start w/ an assumption (and not of Mary…(- that may or may not be correct. If canonization is simply a declaration that a person lived an exceptionally holy life and is now in heaven, why would that exclude protestants? A lot of protestants believe many of the essentials of orthodoxy.

They have to fully accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, though. Almost zero Protestants do, except those in the conversion process. Neither I nor the Church has any difficulty believing virtuous non-Catholics like your father may well be in Heaven. All I can do next is give my guess as to why the Church has its regulations set up the way it does. To me, they make sense, even though I haven’t heard their reasoning. Perhaps they set up their regulations as they did for different reasons than I see for it, but here’s my own thinking.

To me, the Church’s position makes sense because it is very hard to judge objectively whether someone would have accepted the truth of the Catholic Church eventually if they’d known about it. Friends and family are in a position to be more certain for themselves personally, which is good. For outside observers, though, how can the Church judge what someone might have believed had their circumstances and information been different? That’s an awfully hard call. The saints have a tremendous track record of faithfulness to the ecclesiastical hierarchy and often writings with doctrinal orthodoxy, or they left behind friends who knew about their beliefs, so the Church can judge there quite reasonably. When talking about someone who might have believed what the Church teaches if they weren’t ignorant of its truth, how can that be judged, though? It is necessary to be in the Church and fully assenting to its teachings in order to enter Heaven. I don’t see how the Church could judge this.

Furthermore, saints canonized by the Church are models for believers to follow. Declaring someone a saint who lived out his days believing in certain heresies would not be a good precedent, considering this. Can’t you imagine how that would propel the ignorant forward in their false belief that all religions are equal and lead to God? It would be lowering the Church’s standards for its models of Christian life that other believers should follow and possibly would open a door to further questioning of the Church’s doctrine. We live in an age where Catholics by the hundreds of millions are already living in unbelief of some of the basics of their faith. Making such a change would do many people’s faith damage. I far prefer to have high righteous standards on this.

People like your father are very likely in Heaven, so we don’t have to worry about that. But it is best not to start something new now and say highly virtuous people that aren’t Catholic are examples other believers can follow in how to live the most exemplary life according to God’s will. Now is the time to be making known the truth that the Church is the only way to salvation rather than risking further diluting of that truth in an age of unbelief.

Plus, like I said, I just don’t see how the Church could judge whether your father would have converted if he’d known more about the Church’s teaching.

 

[Genesius]

Can either of them be Saints as defined by the Church? No.

I’m sure your grandmother is in heaven as well (-:, however, I might disagree with your above statement. If you believe they are both in heaven it would be contradictory to say that neither of them can be saints as defined by the Church since both of them are probably in heaven and that is one usage; another usage being simply Christians (believers and followers of Christ), or the biblical sense, they would both fall into both those categories. However if you mean they cannot be defined as Saints w/ a capitol “S” (that is, canonized) then I would say your statement is sound.

 

[Genesius]

It is necessary to be in the Church and fully assenting to its teachings in order to enter Heaven…

People like your father are very likely in Heaven…

First, Lief, let me commend you for your honest, gracious, and very thorough answer. I would have to agree with you on most of it. However, you potentially opened a can of worms when you stated the following:

“It is necessary to be in the Church and fully assenting to its teachings in order to enter Heaven.”

and later followed it up by:

“People like your father are very likely in Heaven…”

Now, first off, I am really not trying to be over-scrupulous here. I am truly just trying to understand what you mean.

Having said that, this would almost seem contradictory, unless you are assuming that my father was in the Church (though not in full communion) in a universal sense by virtue of his belief in Christ, and by that same standard fully assenting to the teachings necessary for salvation, since obviously being in invincible ignorance he could not assent to ALL the teachings of the Church.

Again, thank you for your gracious response.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I’m sure your grandmother is in heaven as well (-:, however, I might disagree with your above statement. If you believe they are both in heaven it would be contradictory to say that neither of them can be saints as defined by the Church since both of them are probably in heaven and that is one usage; another usage being simply Christians (believers and followers of Christ), or the biblical sense, they would both fall into both those categories. However if you mean they cannot be defined as Saints w/ a capitol “S” (that is, canonized) then I would say your statement is sound.

Genesius: Yes, you got my meaning and my usage of terms. My grandmother and your father were “saints” or as I sometimes say, “saintly”. They were not and would not be Saints (with a capital S) as defined by the Catholic Church. That’s okay, nor would I expect a Baptist or Lutheran to be recognized as such. But we recognize them for who they were and for their faith, and so does God.

I too was confused by what Lief said in his post. Perhaps he can clarify his comments for us.

Keep the faith, and many blessings to you today and always.

 

[Des]

A Saint is anyone in Heaven. A ‘Catholic Saint’ are those who the Church has verified miracles in their names and who lived outstanding ‘Catholic’ lives. So they not only aid the Church Militant, but they are exceptional role models for the Catholic faithful in the full Catholic sense. (Though I read somewhere we do recognize some of Orthodox Saints but it’s still rare if this is the case)

Non Catholics who are in Heaven may very well be excellent role models in certain areas of their lives morally speaking, they still weren’t visible practising Catholics during their time on Earth which makes all of the difference to be investigated and declared a Saint by the Church.

 

[JRKH]

First, Lief, let me commend you for your honest, gracious, and very thorough answer. I would have to agree with you on most of it. However, you potentially opened a can of worms when you stated the following:

“It is necessary to be in the Church and fully assenting to its teachings in order to enter Heaven.”

and later followed it up by:

“People like your father are very likely in Heaven…”

Now, first off, I am really not trying to be over-scrupulous here. I am truly just trying to understand what you mean.

Having said that, this would almost seem contradictory, unless you are assuming that my father was in the Church (though not in full communion) in a universal sense by virtue of his belief in Christ, and by that same standard fully assenting to the teachings necessary for salvation, since obviously being in invincible ignorance he could not assent to ALL the teachings of the Church.

Again, thank you for your gracious response.

After reading through Lief’s post I think that you have understood him correctly.

In addition it all becomes highly complicated when we start talking about saints (small “s”) encompassing all in heaven and “Saints” (big “S”) those who have been accorded the honorific title by the Catholic Church.

Certainly in order to recieve the title by the Catholic Church the orthodoxy of ones beliefs in The Church would need to be established. Since it is unlikely that this can be accomplished for a non-catholic Christian under the current criteria used by The Church, it is unlikely that a non-catholic could ever recieve the Title of saint.
However, this does not deny or neglect that there are a great many souls in heaven from ALL ecclesial communities who, because they are in heaven, are members of the community of saints just as much as any named saint by the Church. So, while the Church may be unable to recognize them “offically” as such, it is entirely possible that your father, and others are in heaven. Or at the very least in Purgatory in preparation for entrance into heaven.

Peace
James

 

[Lief_Erikson]

"chaunceygardner:

I too was confused by what Lief said in his post. Perhaps he can clarify his comments for us.

First, Lief, let me commend you for your honest, gracious, and very thorough answer. I would have to agree with you on most of it. However, you potentially opened a can of worms when you stated the following:

“It is necessary to be in the Church and fully assenting to its teachings in order to enter Heaven.”

and later followed it up by:

“People like your father are very likely in Heaven…”

Now, first off, I am really not trying to be over-scrupulous here. I am truly just trying to understand what you mean.

Having said that, this would almost seem contradictory, unless you are assuming that my father was in the Church (though not in full communion) in a universal sense by virtue of his belief in Christ, and by that same standard fully assenting to the teachings necessary for salvation, since obviously being in invincible ignorance he could not assent to ALL the teachings of the Church.

Again, thank you for your gracious response.

Yes, that is what I meant. Even if someone dies without a perfect union with the Church, by the time they reach Heaven, they will have it. No one outside of the Church can be saved, but whether in Purgatory or at the hour of death, when God’s will become so much more plain to His followers, they will fully submit to His teachings and become fully a member of His Body before they enter Heaven.