Question for Catholics (Lutheran, women, church, believe)

[Katzpur]

This is not supposed to be a debate of any kind. I am simply looking for accurate information.

I have a small desk calendar that contains some interesting trivia every day of the year. Most of this trivia concerns odd customs, etc. from centuries ago. It seems like three-quarters of them start out by mentioning a Catholic saint who is a patron of some or other group of people. Some of them are really wild, like patron saint of washer women or patron saint of street cleaners. I know there are a lot of Catholic saints, even though I personally know the names of only a few. It seems like nowadays, though, when someone is officially made a "Saint," it's pretty big news. It's definitely not something that happens every day. I understand there are a lot of requirements, including the verification of miracles they were said to have performed. My question is, did all of these relatively unknown saints (literally hundreds of them) from centuries past become saints through this same arduous process? Or does the Church today have a higher standard when it comes to canonizing someone? And are most Catholics today knowledgable about all of these people, or just the really prominent ones?

[Oakback]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

This is not supposed to be a debate of any kind. I am simply looking for accurate information.

I have a small desk calendar that contains some interesting trivia every day of the year. Most of this trivia concerns odd customs, etc. from centuries ago. It seems like three-quarters of them start out by mentioning a Catholic saint who is a patron of some or other group of people. Some of them are really wild, like patron saint of washer women or patron saint of street cleaners. I know there are a lot of Catholic saints, even though I personally know the names of only a few. It seems like nowadays, though, when someone is officially made a "Saint," it's pretty big news. It's definitely not something that happens every day. I understand there are a lot of requirements, including the verification of miracles they were said to have performed. My question is, did all of these relatively unknown saints (literally hundreds of them) from centuries past become saints through this same arduous process? Or does the Church today have a higher standard when it comes to canonizing someone? And are most Catholics today knowledgable about all of these people, or just the really prominent ones?

I have a book of Saints in my library. Your right, there are HUNDREDS.

Frankly I don't know if the process has always been the same.

Good question though. Perhaps another papist will chime in.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Oakback

I have a book of Saints in my library. Your right, there are HUNDREDS.

In my church there are millions! They're all of the "latter-day" variety, though.

[Oakback]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

In my church there are millions! They're all of the "latter-day" variety, though.

It really is a matter of linguistics.
One could argue, we are all 'saints".

I think many misinterpret the whole canonization thing. I believe that the Church is merely holding certain humans up as an example for us all.

Not unlike any person of distinction. Be they great leaders, polititians, heros etc..

Frankly, there are many non-catholics who I'd vote in.
Martin Luther King would be a good example.

[SC122]

doesn't their deceased body have to be determined to be incorrupt? just wondering...

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

This is not supposed to be a debate of any kind. I am simply looking for accurate information.

I have a small desk calendar that contains some interesting trivia every day of the year. Most of this trivia concerns odd customs, etc. from centuries ago. It seems like three-quarters of them start out by mentioning a Catholic saint who is a patron of some or other group of people. Some of them are really wild, like patron saint of washer women or patron saint of street cleaners. I know there are a lot of Catholic saints, even though I personally know the names of only a few. It seems like nowadays, though, when someone is officially made a "Saint," it's pretty big news. It's definitely not something that happens every day. I understand there are a lot of requirements, including the verification of miracles they were said to have performed. My question is, did all of these relatively unknown saints (literally hundreds of them) from centuries past become saints through this same arduous process? Or does the Church today have a higher standard when it comes to canonizing someone? And are most Catholics today knowledgable about all of these people, or just the really prominent ones?

RESPONSE:

Formal canonization only began in 1234 AD. Saints before that were generally made by popular acclaim.

(Augustine probably wouldn't have nade it otherwise).

Pope John Paul II canonizated a heap of people.

[Oakback]

Originally Posted by SC122

doesn't their deceased body have to be determined to be incorrupt? just wondering...

incorrupt?

not sure what you mean.

[shrimpboat]

It's an interesting question of how the Catholic church determines sainthood that I have no information on. Other Christians also have saints day or holy days that are rarely observed unless a parish is large enough to have services during the week. On occasion a saint is the focus on Sundays though not often; recently St Mary, Mother of our Lord was the Sunday celebration in my church. A look at the Lutheran calendar shows lots of saints, most are very old but not all. It was great to see that Martin Luther King is celebrated on the church year but not necessarily called a saint.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

Formal canonization only began in 1234 AD. Saints before that were generally made by popular acclaim.

Yes exactly. There were a few who probably should not have been saints, but were kings who converted their country to Christianity so had the popular acclaim. Like I seem to recall St. Vladimir, or maybe Olga of Kiev, was really pretty brutal. I think sometimes nobles who funded church charities got deemed saints regardless of how they lived.

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

(Augustine probably wouldn't have made it otherwise).

Oh I disagree on this choice. Whatever Augustine's faults he was a theologian of enormous significance.

Technically speaking anyone in heaven is a saint. Declared saints, in our age, I think of as being about a process where God confirms someone is in Heaven. (As Orthodoxy believes in "soul sleep" until the Second Coming I guess it's more about role-models for them)

[SC122]

Oakback,here's the definition: Incorrupt Bodies