Are you sure about this? I thought beatification was the official recognition that person was in heaven. A saint would of course have to be beatified as a step in the process of sanctification but there were still steps beyond that. The main ones being miracles have to be credited to a beatified person’s intercession.
Yes. Technically, beatification means that it is worthy of belief that the person is in heaven.
What do you mean by “the church”? I know of at least one church where all members of that church are referred to by the membership as saints.
In this context, “the church” generally means the Roman Catholic Church, since it’s the only church that has a more or less codified and public process for declaring someone a saint. In fact, some Protestant denominations take a pretty dim view of the Catholic notion of sainthood, especially when it comes to praying to saints.
I suppose the various Orthodox churches may also have such a process – I just don’t know. Although, since the Orthodox churches lack the centralized structure of the RCC, the process, if there is one, would be somewhat different. Would, say, the Byelorussian Orthodox Church recognize the canonizations of the Greek Orthodox Church?
You knew exactly what he meant.
I totally agree. 
The Episcopal Church (the American offshoot of the Church of England) recognizes saints, but in recent years we’re more likely to recognize good people who are worthy of emulation without designating them saints, as such. They’re listed in the Book of Common Prayer. There is some overlap between those listed in the BCP and those recognized as saints by the Roman Catholic Church.
Not disagreeing as this is definitely NOT my area of expertise. Just looking for some more back story …
I thought the miracles were required to be performed while alive. Thereby demonstrating, as Patton put it, that the candidate “stands in good with the Lord.” IOW, if you demonstrate you’ve got that kind of clout while still down here, you’re definitely Hall of Fame material.
The obvious problem with attributing miracles to intercession by the dead is that folks wanting a miracle on their behalf tend to be pretty liberal in who all they ask for help. Or so I suppose.
IOW, I prayed to everybody I could think of, both all the listed Saints and my wonderful late next door neighbor alike. I was cured. So now the Church credits, say, John Paul II with the save. That seems more like crediting assists in NHL hockey: anybody who touched the puck in the preceding 15 seconds gets one.
Please enlighten this heathen.
Not quite. There are known to be at least three people in Hell, since Scripture speaks of “Satan and his angels” being there. But everyone else? Judas, Salome, Pol Pot, Hitler? All we can say is “we don’t know”.
This is wrong. It is not a requirement to have performed miracles while alive. The requirement is to be responsible for miracles after death to a person who has asked for intercession by the person. Read the link in my post above.
The definition of a saint is “holy person”, so a saint can be dead or alive. However, I can’t confirm whether this is a general Trinitarian Christian definition or exclusively Catholic definition, so don’t quote me on that. Anyway, the Roman Catholic Church does not make saints. It merely “recognizes” them by examining an individual’s life and contributions. Many saints are martyrs, presumably because martyrdom is a powerful, sincere way to show commitment to that church. The traditional process of beatification of saints is very long and involves a devil’s advocate (a Roman Catholic selected to play the devil’s advocate and make rebuttals against the individual’s beatification). From what I read, the process is changed during John Paul II’s papacy, resulting in his own relatively quick beatification after his death (along with several other newly canonized saints).
While Theresa of Calcutta and John Paul II are latter-day saints, they are NOT “Latter-Day Saints”, which everyone but you apparently understood.
The Church would only do that on your testimony. If you credited your late next door neighbor, then that’s the person the RCC would credit.
I don’t think according to Christian mythology that “Satan and his angels” are or ever were people.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Christian theology and Christian mythology are two separate things. Christian mythology is the body of narratives associated with Christianity. Christian theology is a set of beliefs and schools of thought in Christianity. A story about the Fall of Paradise that has Satan and his angels would probably fall under “Christian mythology”. A doctrinal claim about Satan and his angels not being people would fall under “Christian theology”.
The three named archangels of the Bible are styled as saints at times (St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael), so they’re considered people enough, I’d think.
For Protestants the Age of Miracles ceased with the Disciples. As far as I know it’s only the Roman Catholic Church which goes for this stuff and they still have the machinery for creating saints and in fact use it quite often. I guess they had to start filling the ranks up again after the demotion of hundreds of saints (like St George of dragon fame) by one of the mid-20th century Popes. 
Wait, what? Saints get unSainted?
In 1969, 93 saints, including St. George, St. Nicholas, and St. Christopher, had their saint’s days made optional rather than obligatory. In most cases this was because the church determined that there was insufficient evidence for their deeds or in some cases existence.
I can still remember a late-70s episode of “All In The Family” where Archie went to Edith’s pastor about some problem he was having. The “demotion” of certain saints was part of the background of the conversation. I remember Archie asking about St. Christopher…“Mr. Christopher”.