*Saint George is one of Christianity’s most popular saints, and is highly honored by both the Western and Eastern Churches.[1] *
Even St Christopher, the most doubtful: While canonization involves the addition of the saint’s name to the Roman Martyrology, it does not necessarily involve insertion of the saint’s name also into the General Roman Calendar, which mentions only a very limited selection of canonized saints. There is a common misconception that certain saints, e.g., Saint Christopher, were “unsainted” in 1969 or that veneration of them was “suppressed”. In fact, Saint Christopher is recognized as a saint of the Catholic Church, being listed as a martyr in the Roman Martyrology under 25 July.[3] In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued the motu proprio Mysterii Paschalis. In it, he recognized that, while the written Acts of Saint Christopher are merely legendary, attestations to veneration of the martyr date from ancient times. His change in the calendar of saints included “leaving the memorial of Saint Christopher to local calendars” because of the relatively late date of its insertion into the Roman calendar.[4]
All three of those are still mentioned as Saints in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
IANA catholic, so pardon my confusion. If everyone in heaven is a saint, is a canonized saint something different? Or to put it another way; is the canonization process intended to show that some saints are qualified to a higher level, or is it just supposed to provide definitive proof that the person did make it to heaven?
It’s pretty much the second thing. You may note that the word canonization incorporates the word “canon.” “Canon” (more or less) means “The Roman Catholic Church has declared this to be a matter of accepted fact.”
“Accepted” on faith, that is, not as a matter of definitive proof.
I think the recognition part just means that a person is publicly recognized as important or significant in human history, and the canonization is to provide definitive assertion that the person did make it to heaven.
I wouldn’t say that the process of canonization into a saint is automated, though, as your statement seems to imply.
Although the modern popular image of Santa Claus is a plump, jolly old man in a red suit that is inspired by the original St. Nicholas, they are two separate entities. Just because something is inspired from something does not make something that something.
The canonization of saints isn’t just to state that the Church considers canonized saints as definitely being in Heaven. It’s also to provide a kind of superhero team to inspire Catholics (and non-Catholics, I suppose) to live life as the saints did, being holy before God.
Not at all; in the early days, sainthood was something that was handled more by the local bishops, archbishops and the like, not straight from Rome. Only in the papacy of Innocent III did the Pope assert the sole right to declare saints.
So early on, there was a tradition where people widely thought to be saints were more or less rubber-stamped as saints by the local bishops- that’s how a lot of early Medieval saints were canonized.
The modern-day fast-tracking is merely a shout-out to the prior way of doing it, while still maintaining Papal control of the process.
Yeah, but it’s usually a mundane miracle, like recovering from an illness after praying to the prospective saint as an intercessor. For modern saints, they set the bar pretty low.
It’s got to be “something that current science cannot explain”. Some miracles weren’t explainable by then-current medical science but would rate “wow, you were lucky that iron bar didn’t hit any vital organs” and a tetanus shot nowadays.
Sloppy reporting, there… They list one of his major accomplishments as creating a Web page documenting Eucharistic miracles… but the article doesn’t include a link to that webpage.
“He is credited with helping homeless people and defending victims of bullying during his lifetime, and having a hand in two healing miracles after his death — the requisite number for all Catholic saints.”
I want to know about “internet miracles”. Also, he spread the word about the Catholic Church via computer in the '80s? Spread it to who? What areas of the world was he reaching via computer that had yet to find out about the Catholic Church?
The last bit of the article was unexpected. Is this usual practice?
"Acutis’ body was exhumed in 2019 and transferred to a shrine at the Church of St. Mary Major, the very spot where Saint Francis is said to have shed his luxurious clothing for a habit by way of renouncing his wealth.
It remains on display in a glass case, wearing blue jeans, an athletic zip-up and Nike sneakers."