Talk:Saint/Archive 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saint/Archive 1 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comment

This sentence is illogical, IMO: "Though 'saints' here is a different Greek word (to be identified), which lends even further support to the word not referring to Christians in general," No, it doesn't. It's a different word. How can that lend support to 'the word' (presumably αγιος) not referring to Christians in general? That being said, I think we just need to recognize that the word saint has multiple meanings and move on, lest this article degenerate into a debate about semantics. ThePedanticPrick 00:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What do we want to say about saint-equivalents in other religions? (And on what page do we want to say it?)

I would say a mention of such equivalents at the bottom of the page with links to more complete articles would be appropriate. What would the equivalents be? Bhodisatvas? I think I may have heard of Hindu saints??

There are hindu saints and perhaps saints in other religions, certainly the term is not exclusive to christianity. This should be given coverage at the TOP of the article, though.

Regarding my above edits, I expanded the treatment of saints in Eastern Orthodoxy, and added more info that I think is common to both Western and Eastern traditions, esp. regarding relics and patron saints. But I must confess that I'm relatively new to the Eatern Orthodox traditions, and even less familiar with Roman Catholicism's practices, so please correct me if I mistakenly generalized any Eastern practices or beliefs to both East and West, or identified as strictly Eastern anything that the two have in common. Aside from the lists and dates, and maybe some local customs, I don't think there's that much difference. --Wesley

This difference does not necessarily mean that the Western and Eastern churches do not admit to the validity of holy individuals in the other parts of the Church, but that they are not interested in each other's lists or calendars.

There must be a better wording of this sentence. Is it supposed to mean that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have no statement on the validity of saints in the opposite church? If so, how about:

In spite of this difference, the Western and Eastern churches do not hold a position on the (in)validity of the other's lists and calendars of saints, and do not consider the other's lists as relevant.

Yes, it's supposed to mean that they (AFAIK) don't have an official statement or stance. And it could be worded better. Maybe instead of "... maintain that the other's lists are not relevant", "don't consider each other's lists relevant"? I think "maintain" might be too active a verb.

Have changed it

Reading back over this in light of what I learned recently on the confirmation article, we probably need to adjust the paragraph on when saint's names are given; for the Eastern Orthodox, it's at chrismation since that's right after baptism, but for Roman Catholics, it would probably be after baptism, since confirmation/chrismation doesn't come until many years later. Wesley

Yo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.63.92 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I removed this: Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all church members are called "Saints", and the membership of the church "The Saints". In that faith, there is no concept of a Saint in the sense used by other Christians, only in the sense of a faithful follower of Christ. The original 12 followers of Jesus are referred to simply as the Apostles, as are the church leadership.

Except for calling the church leadership apostles, which is irrelevant in this article, this is the same practice as in other Protestant denominations which is already established in the the beginning of the article. Plus it is strange to have an article that starts out saying that "the rest of this article will discuss the Catholic and Orthodox view" and then at the end tacking on one Protestant church view. Rmhermen 15:10 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

abbreviation

regarding St. and St -- checked Fowler, who says it is St for Saint, no dot (and he makes no mention of an alternative US usage). -- Tarquin 15:28 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really correct as noted. It may be claimed by some that St is the only correct abbreviation, but St. is very frequently used, both in common writing and in historical and theological writing, at least in the United States. Pick up any historical book on religion at a bookstore in the US, and you're likely to find St. much more often than St will be found. A similar phenomenon occurs with the usage of Mr. (with dot), which is more common than Mr (no dot). --Delirium 11:10, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

An added note -- St. is also in much more common usage on Wikipedia. Take a look at St. Peter's Basilica, St. John Lateran, List of popes, etc. To my eyes anyway St Somebody (along with Mr Somebody) actually looks wrong, and this is the first time I've ever encountered it. --Delirium 11:18, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Some further research indicates the universal usage of St. is not in fact confined to the US either. Among many other works, the well-known Miracle of Theism by Oxford University professor John Mackie (published by Oxford University Press, 1982) uses the dot consistently. I can cite dozens of other books, American and British, if you wish, but it seems to be generally considered correct usage to use the dot, and I have no evidence that it is considere correct usage to omit it by anyone actually publishing books dealing with saints (i.e. anyone other than publishers of style and usage manuals). --Delirium 11:30, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

I suspect most people who use St. have not considered it at all. I suppose it is a losing cause to point out that SS is not an English abbreviation, but Latin. Sts or Ss would be English (unless you insist on Sts. or Ss.) 140.184.192.117 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't wikipedia have a style guide? Sbwoodside 17:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The argument appears to be that because most people are ignorant of the correct usage (i.e. St not St.), that you should follow this widely adopted, incorrect usage rather than inform people of the gramatically correct form... Based on this approach, if the majority of people in the world started to refer to America as Russia one would logically deduce that you would follow suit!?

St. is not the abbreviation for saint.

This error is commonly made where people are unaware of the difference between an abbreviation (flagged by the full stop which signifies the missing letters) and a contraction (no full stop).

Consequently, stone (weight) is abbreviated to st. as follows:

stone >> st(one) >> st.

...and saint is contracted to st as follows:

saint >> s(ain)t >> st

Similarly:

Mr A. Smith

Mr is the contracted form of the title Mister and A. is the abbreviated form of his first name.

I can't tell whether the phrase "Rome's area" means the part of Italy near Rome or the entire former Roman empire, so I hope somebody rewrites that phrase. --JerryFriedman

christian saints vs. other religions

I think that this article probably should be clearly divided (or split into two articles) along the lines of Christian saints and religious saints in general. Right now it seems as though the two are interspersed a lot. The article begins by stating the subject as New Testament saints (a SUBSET of christian no less...) but then there are major sections on saints in other religions, saints in non-Roman Catholic christian denominations etc.

I am not qualified to write about it, but there was a usage in the past of "saint" in reference to someone in a non-religious manner, as in someone who was just widely admired. "Saint" Tammany is an example. 69.85.56.126 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Saints in "Voodoo"

Santeria, Vodoun, and other similar religions adopted the Roman Catholic Saints, or the images of the saints, as representations of their own spirits/deities or 'Orishas' in Santeria and 'Lwa' in Vodoun. Although there are many similarities between Vodoun and Santeria--which is why I think Vodoun should at least be mentioned--they are different in respect to origin and language (Vodou is French, Santeria is Spanish). I think it would be more accurate to at the least suggest that the adoption of Catholic Saints was fairly common in the religions that were adapted by the slaves in the New World--not just Santeria. Although Santeria is a great example because the etymology of the word appears to have everything to do with saints.

Also, I think an interesting point can be made about the way the 'Saints' system worked when Christianity was 'expanding' (as is mentioned in the article, the adoptionof pre-christian holy people and sites). The phenomenom of santeria and vodoun adapting/adopting the Catholic faith is a more recent example of the adsorbtion of pre-Christian elements into "Catholicism"--although with Santeria and Vodoun it seems a lot more one-sided. Although different regions of the world where catholicism is practiced have varying ways practicing their faith. The Catholic Church has not really condemned the practices of these "religions" or sub-sects (although there were brief local movements against Vodoun by the Church in Haiti). Perhaps the adoption of the Catholic saints is more of a testament to the duarbility and adaptability of religions like Vodoun. It is remarkable that Vodoun practionners can consider themselves Catholic and Vodounists at the same time--although it should not be that surprising considering that the Catholic God is made of three personalities--and the saints in the Spanish and French Catholic traditions were virtually worshipped too. Perhaps it is more realistic to say that elements of Catholicism were adapted into Vodoun and Santeria--anyway, as was mentionned on this discussion page, is this the article to talk about the history and relationship of Vodoun/Santeria and the Catholic faith?

Interesting.. Should a Saint be represented as a deity tho? Never understood why being a "saint" is so exalting..71.198.169.119 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Saints in Hinduism

In Hinduism there is no universally accepted, formal procedure to declare someone a saint. In this group of related religions called Hinduism each sect has its own saints. I believe that some medieval Tamil saints were officially declared to be so though. Almost every guru claims overtly or covertly to be a saint. Andries 17:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ive added Neem Karoli Baba as an Hindu Saint to this section Bill Ladd (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the "Saints Name" given at Chrismation - an Orthodox Perspective

One must wonder how far the west can influence ideas in the Orthodox Church to render as almost meaningless the most profound of transformations possible for humans. Baptism and Chrismation are not empty symbols; they are reality. When a person is baptized the person that enters the water dies and a new person is born. All sins from the previous life are gone. If the person reckoned himself married before, he is not afterward; nothing that existed before baptism is left. The New person is given a new name. Henceforth and forevermore he is that new person. So to simply shrug it off and go back to using the old name is pure impiety and denies the efficacy of Baptism. Orthodox are required to go by the name given them when they are Born into Christ. If they ignore it as custom then they deny the Truth of it. Phiddipus 00:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

October Anon edits questioned

Anon removed content from this paragraph. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Saint&diff=6286225&oldid=6271020

In the Catholic and Orthodox churches, a saint is more particularly a person who has been canonised (officially recognized) by a Christian church. This can only take place after their death; in Roman Catholicism, this is because even the holiest person alive may fall into mortal sin at the last moment; in Eastern Orthodoxy, it is more to avoid haste and allow ample time for sober reflection on the person's life. In addition, Orthodox doctrine on this matter is that lack of formal recognition should not be taken to mean that an individual is necessarily not a saint. In many Protestant churches, the word is used more generally to refer to anyone who is a Christian.

"In many Protestant churches..." not only in protestant, but also in the original christ's church that existed in the 1st cent. :) --charon 10:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this subject, but it seems odd, and I see that same IP also removed some odd stuff from LDS Church article. Tom - Talk 19:07, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure who did the original edit you are refering to, but I have fixed this paragraph to correctly reflect both churches perspective. Phiddipus 00:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Today is Dec. 2, 2004.

This entire article is doubled on itself, I will fix. Phiddipus 00:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, its me again, I have spent all evening reworking this article. there are some areas that could use some expanding and clarification. I will continue to work on this article. I do have a great deal of personal knowledge concerning the Christian aspect of "Saint" and I intend to offer that knowledge doing my best to remove my own POV. I feel this reworking was necessary because of the constant repetition of the original article and in some cases the long drawn out explanation concerning the etymology that could have been summed up in a few words. This is an encyclopedic treatment, not a thesis.

I welcome any comments or criticism. Phiddipus 14:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

meaning of "saint"

Aren't all christians called "saints" in the NT? Isn't the special meaning just created by some churches (eg. the catholic church)? Isn't the original meaning of "saint" "separated"? --charon 13:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The text of the New Testament is written in Greek. The term used to describe the members of the church is "Agios" which means "Holy". "Saint" is a direct latin translation: Agios = Sanctus/saint = Holy. The development of the term Saint which is used to describe people in heaven or very holy people was developed by the church long before there were any other churches. For well over a thousand years there was only one Christian denomination and they used the term Saint continually. You must understand that the revelations of Christ and the apostles required the creation of new terminology to describe what the Jews only vaguely understood; the prime example is the term "trinity". Also you must understand that the "Church" existed before the New Testament was Written. Phiddipus 01:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course the church (from greek ekklesia=communitiy or congregation) existed before the NT, but I suppose you mean the catholic church. I know from history books that the cat.ch. started to exist from around 5-7 century. It's a wide span, but the cat.ch. wasn't founded like some others were, it developed step by step. There existed other beliefs and sects before the cat.ch.: there were heresies even in the times when apostles taught. The first christians were saved without a "new terminology" and the truth was completely revealed to them, so we today don't need redefining what "saint" is. To the christian who wants to follow the teaching of Christ and apostles it means someone who is saved = a christian. To someone who wants to follow some teaching of men, it might be something else - eg. what the cat.ch. teaches. --charon 10:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You make a number of false points. First off history is by nature biased. I don't know what "history" books you are reading but "The Church" (A combination of both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) has a direct connection through apostolic succession to Christ and the Apostles. You may dispute this, but there are records (i.e. evidence) that this is true, while you have none. The first general council of the church occured in 324 AD and is heavily documented and, quite hoestly, there is no competent historian that would argue its validity. As to the revelation of truth to the early church, no doubt this happened, but it is one thing to understand intrinsically the truth, it is another thing to put it into words. There was a great explosion of new terminology that sprang from the early church. It developed as the need arose. But what is most espesially arrogant on the part of modern Christians is to deny the working of God in His church. In order to justify your own "Modern" and unconnected beliefs you must deny the truth of the original church and that God was not able to preserve it, even though he promised he would. Phiddipus 21:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

First off, the term "trinity" was created well after the Crucifixion of Christ because the idea of the "trinity" was

created well after the Crucifixion of Christ. If you did a bit more research, you would be suprised to find that Christ never taught the concept of the "trinity", because the concept of the "trinity" was invented later on by a Roman ruler named Constantine and a bunch of men during a little thing called the Council of Nicea. Secondly, (mainly directed at Phiddipus)you cannot say at the beginning of your paragraph that history is biased and therefore can't be trusted, and then turn around and say that you are right because history supports you. Also, I would say that you have no proof that your church has directly descended from Christ and the original twelve apostles, so don't spout about waving around nonexistant proof. And just so you know, throughout reading that thing that everyone else calls a Bible, you might find that each person's personal worthiness/holiness is dependent upon him/herself, and that the leaders of The Church were not always called through heiretical succession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Historicity

Hello, new here, I want to ask a few questions before I edit. Here is the first paragraph of the Historicity section of this article:

Because of the formal process that the Roman Catholic Church employs to verify the eligibility of a person for “Sainthood” it is now their belief that a number of people venerated as saints, may never have actually existed. The polite term for this is ahistorical. Sorting out exactly which saints are historical is difficult, because of the larger difficulty of proving a negative: the absence of independent records of a saint's existence doesn't prove she or he never existed, because there are no specific records of the existence of many people who lived before the 20th century. The Acta Sanctorum ( hagiographical work) of the Bollandists forms a major part of the historiography of named saints.

Comments/questions:

1. What is the causal connection alluded to between the formal process of canonization and the belief of some that certain Saints never existed? This is not explained.

2. The phrase, "it is now their belief..." implies that this is now the belief of the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. This is most certainly not the case. Were I to edit only this, I would change it to "some believe..."

3. The balance of the paragraph appears to contradict the notion that the Church believes these ahistorical Sainrs never really existed, since it states "the absence of records... doesn't prove he or she never existed," which appears to be a defense against the former implication.

4. As I've said, I am new here. Is it standard practice to discuss before editing?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Hello and welcome! Last question first, it isn't always necessary to discuss before editing, BUT it is encouraged if the edits are likely to be controversial, or if you just want to discuss with other editors the best way to improve part of an article. It's common to see something and say, "that needs to be a lot better than it is" but not have a clear idea right away of what should take the place of the current text.

I don't know the answer to your first question. Regarding the second, "some believe..." is probably better than the current text; even better would be to be more specific about who does and does not believe X, although that might mean just naming different groups that think one way or the other. Obviously, try to choose neutral names. :-)

I know I skipped a question, but I hope this helps. Now go ahead and edit boldly! Wesley 21:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WHHOOOOOO?

"This particular form of recognition formally allows the person so canonized to be listed in the official Litany of the Saints during Mass."

I'm not aware of an official Litany of the Saints during Mass. There is, however, a list of Saints called the Martyrology which is maintained by Rome (for the Roman church), which is the list of Saints who can be commemorated, inter alia in the Litany. 140.184.192.117 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Jones

Prayer to saints

"Saints are not prayed to, because this violates the Commandments, they are asked for help or to pray for a person." Perhaps my definition of 'prayer' is off, but if one is speaking to a saint and making a request, is that not a prayer in its most pure sense?

Ready for some serious semantic hair splitting? You might be able to say that this is prayer, for some definition of prayer. You might also be able to say that I'm praying to you if I say something like, "Pray tell, how is the weather in your part of the world?" In other words, is it prayer when a person makes a request of another living person? Of a judge or government official? The main thing here is that "prayer" to saints should be sharply distinguished from "worship" of saints, and often the concepts of prayer and worship go together naturally in people's minds. That's the confusion that the current text is trying to avoid. Wesley 16:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Actually we have gotten off using the wrong terminology from the beginning. The term prayer is not the problem. What the person meant is more correctly stated – we do not Adore or Worship the saints, Adoration/Worship is for God alone. We do Venerate and respect the saints and ask that they pray or intercede to God for us. If prayer is understood to be a conversation then we do pray to Saints, but we do not Worship them. In general the concept springs from an acceptance that death is an illusion, that the saints are members of the church, and that they are alive; therefore, we can ask them to intercede to God on our behalf the same way we ask each other. Phiddipus 18:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

saints outside of Saints

I've noticed that in this page, for Catholicism, it speaks of the venerated title of Saint, but not the other use of the word. Anyone who is in heaven, is by definition, considered a saint, and can be asked for prayers. That is not to say their life is worthy of veneration, or bestowing of a title, but that they can be asked for intercession:

Part 1: Section 2: Chapter 3: Article 9: Paragraph 5: Intercession of Saints (#) 956

"Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church moire firmly in holiness.... [T]hey do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.... So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped."

Do not weep, for I shall be more useful to you after my death and I shall help you then more effectively than during my life. I want to spend my heaven in doing good on earth.

I wouldn't dare modify any wikipedia page, as my grammar is horrible -- but I thought this was worth saying.

--Trgiaol 00:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bad grammar mars most important sentence

Surely the topic of sainthood should cover the Roman Catholic definition of Sainthood. It seems to me that this would be the most important part of an encyclopedic entry on sainthood. Yet Wikipedia has this sentence to define Roman Catholic Sainthood:

The individual is thoroughly investigated by the church and often a number of visions, miracles, or of the holiness and good deeds the person done while on earth in order to be declared a Saint.

This is not a sentence. It does not say anything meaningful. It is nonsense. Please, would someone who knows the Roman Catholic definition of sainthood fix this sentence. Nroose 20:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I just tried to fix this. In general, the section of Roman Catholic saints needs to be fleshed out a bit. Or, at least, some of the information which is true about both of the major churches that officially canonize (Orthodox and Catholic) ought to be combined somehow, yes? --Zerobot 04:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

so as you see this is good

Saints in Islam Section is Rubbish

Islam was revealed to stop people from worshipping anything other than Allah. Therefore, this section of the article is completely inaccurate. In addition, the article supposes that the worshipping of saints is widespread and, what's worse, that saints have the power of intercession with Allah.

The statement that saints are a popular part of Islam is also totally unfounded being as the majority of Muslims are Sunnis and the Sufis are more than a minority.

I cry lies to this.

Because of the three above posts, I took some time to make the section more accurate. Things to discuss: use of "popular Islam" in the last section, intercession ability of "saints," accuracy of depictions of other countries. Majiq00 21:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Saints in Scripture

This article shows a clear Protestant bias in many statements. For example, the statement, "...though many Protestant groups use the less formal, broader usage seen in Scripture to include all who are faithful." It would be more charitable and certainly more truthful to at least admit bias and edit it perhaps as follows, "...though many Protestant groups interpret the usage seen in Scripture to be less formal, including all who are faithful."

Protestant Chr-stian Generalizations Too Vague

.... The Chr-stians in the United Church of Canada are not called "Saints"; the good ones are.

Saint Julian

We have a problem with St Julian and Saint Julian. Both exist. How are we to proceed? Maltesedog 08:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest: moving existing Saint Julian to Julian the Hospitaller; making Saint Julian a disambig page for Julian the Hospitaller and Julian of Norwich; redirecting St Julian to Saint Julian. Is Julian of Toledo also venerated as a saint? Man vyi 12:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes he is. We have three St. Julians. Is there the need for a disambig page? Maltesedog 19:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Any new replies Maltesedog 20:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Corrections

1. Bishops's rings do not contain relics. They never have. They may contain a gemstone.

2. In the old law, ALTARS had relics.

3. The title Venerable goes with being declared a servant of God, just as saint goes with canonization. Someone who knows how to correct the table on the ariticle would do wiki a great service by correcting it.

DaveTroy

Unsourced anti-prayer-to-the-saints para

Opposition to praying to the saints

Some Christians make the argument that since Christ Jesus came to be our intercessor with God, supplanting Him with saints or even the mother of God, the Virgin Mary, is blasphemous. Praying to the saints, or the Virgin Mary would be considered blasphemy to those who hold this view. It is the argument of these Christians that *only* Jesus may represent us before God, because He was sent by God for that purpose, and only Jesus lived a sinless life, making Him worthy to intercede between God and man. To those who make this argument Jesus alone is worthy, no saints or the Virgin Mary should take the place of God's perfect sacrifice, Christ Jesus. The Christians who make this argument see praying to the saints, or to the Virgin Mary also as futile, nowhere in the Bible does it ever indicate that anyone should pray to anyone other than God. In this opinion, the saints and anyone else that someone might pray to would be offended by someone praying to them, rather than God. These Christians see people praying to anyone other that God as an offense to God, and a nullification of the work of Christ Jesus on our behalf.

Can sources please be cited? I know this is true, but it reads like an essay. --Mgreenbe 18:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If Christ is the only one who can pray for us, then we cannot possibly pray for each other. But if we can ask each other to pray for us to God then we can ask the Saints who are alive in heaven to pray for us also, as we are all members of the church. Saints are not prayed to, they are asked to pray for us. Examples:

From the Novena of St Thérèse, the little flower:

St. Thérèse…I lay before you my desires, and beg that through your intercession they may be realized…Intercede for us all the days of our life, but specially during this Novena and obtain for us from God the graces and favors we ask through your intercession. Amen

Or this one:

Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.

Old Testament examples of asking others to intercede with God on our behalf: 1 Samuel 7:5, 1 Kings 13:6, Jeremiah 42:2, Jeremiah 42:20

New Testament examples: 1 Thessalonians 5:25, 2 Thessalonians 3:1, Hebrews 13:18, Colossians 4:3 --Phiddipus 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for anti-prayer-to-the-saints para

Here are a couple of links, and one bibliographical citation verifying the claims made in this paragraph. I'm not really sure what "sources" you desire, as this is matter of opinion between Catholics and Protestants (among others). I only sourced links which provide the apologetical arguments *against* praying to the saints, as that was the crux of the paragraph's topic. If you are looking for some kind of poll, which states that some Christians agree with the rebuttal to praying to the saints that was presented in the paragraph, I suppose I could look for that, but it is my opinion that the links themselves provide the sources you desired. I'll leave it to you to re-instate this paragraph on the Saint page, as I assume it was you who deleted it. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have read and understand the rules for contributions. To avoid plagiarism, it is necessary to present original "essays" (as you labeled it) on the topic. I completely understand the need for verification and accuracy, but are we to provide links for *every* statement of other's opinions? If that is the case, I'll be sure to provide that in the future, but the evidence is readily available on the Net, therefore it is readily verifiable. It just seems as if it would get pretty cluttered to provide links for everything, especially when the info IS verifiable. Anyway, here are the links; I look forward to your opinion on this matter.

http://www.carm.org/catholic/prayertosaints.htm

http://www.probe.org/content/view/44/77/#text21

http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/romanism_and_ales_rarus_part_1/

Michael S. Horton, "What Still Keeps Us Apart?" in John Armstrong, ed., Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 251.

It was indeed me who removed the paragraph. I'll look at these sources and use quotes. Yes, it is necessary to provide a source for every statement of opinions, per WP:CITE. I entirely agree with you that others hold the opinion you mention (that prayer to the saints is "bad"), and the presence of ubiquitous opposition can be plainly stated without citation. On the other hand, explicit statements of the belief, and not the general idea that it is held, should be cited. For example:

In this opinion, the saints and anyone else that someone might pray to would be offended by someone praying to them, rather than God. These Christians see people praying to anyone other that God as an offense to God, and a nullification of the work of Christ Jesus on our behalf.

I'll eventually fix this up myself, but don't hold your breath. :) --Mgreenbe 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Of those three links, the third says nothing at all about prayer to saints, but only discusses whether Mary was without sin. The second barely makes a passing mention of it at all. The first link actually addresses the question, but appears to equate prayer with worship in order to make its case, calling it idolatry. If that's the strongest source, the article should mention that this is part of the basis of their objections. Wesley 00:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox

The previous statement:

"In the Eastern Orthodox Church a Saint is defined as anyone who is currently believed to be in Heaven"

This is technically incorrect. First of all the statement itself is telling us what the Eastern Orthodox believe. It is not an objective sentence. The Eastern Orthodox acknowledge that there are numerous saints who are not known and will never be known because God chooses not to reveal them. Never-the-less they are still saints. Therefore the correct statement is:

"In the Eastern Orthodox Church a Saint is defined as anyone who is in Heaven, whether recognized here on Earth or not."

Belief in their holiness by the living in not required.--Phiddipus 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Book dates

I removed the statement that The shepherd was written about the same time as II peter. The dates of both II peter and the Shepherd are disputed. We could either 1) state disputed information as fact, which is inappropriate, 2) explain the dispute in this artical, which isn't the topic of the artical, or 3) just put it in the II century and let the disputes be carried out where appropriate. Thanatosimii 23:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Discordianism?

Why is Discordianism mentioned in this page? As far as I am aware, Discordianism is a joke religion. Its just a bunch of humorous stories about sex and drunkeness, and jokes about religion. I don't think it belongs in a serious article about saints.

Alphabetic lists

When names are listed aphabetically (like in a phone book), you find names starting with 'St.' in the middle of the 'Sa...'s', which is where they would fall if they were spelt out (this confused me as a kid). I'm not sure where best to mention that, but at the end of the intro of this article where it mentions abreviations seems like a good spot. Suggestions? --Mr Minchin 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Saints" in other religions

A discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Saints got me thinking -- what we mean by "saint" is not quite what other religions mean by varies terms equated with "saint" in this article. It seems a little (unintentionally) disengenious to me to force those concepts to fit into our understanding of saint. Perhaps we could find another way to handle that? Something like a section entitled "Similar concepts" (or something less clunky) that explains that - while saint is a predominently Christian concept, other religions have concepts/persons that are somewhat analogous. I don't know, just thinking about it out loud. -- Pastordavid 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the term 'Saint' has two primary meanings:

• a person who has died and has been declared a saint by canonization
• a person of exceptional holiness

Obviously the first one is only really applicable within Christian churches, but the other meaning is more universal and could equally be used for both Christian and non-Christian persons who are deemed to be of 'exceptional holiness' within a religious tradition. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Following recent edits please note the below web definitions for 'Saint':

• wordnet
• answers.com
• thefreedictionary.com
• die.net

"a person of exceptional holiness" or "an example of virtuousness" is given not as a Catholic definition, but as a general (universal) dictionary definition. As such I feel strongly that this should be given first in the opening paragraph. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A saint is also a person who performs miracles and attracts followers. Source Lawrence Babb's article "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly play" in Saints and Virtues. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Hawley, John Stratton, ed. page 168 Andries 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection, Heaven

The following sentence is false and contains a weasel word:

"A number of Protestant groups believe that the dead will not rise until the Last Judgment, so they do not accept the Catholic/Orthodox belief that saints are in heaven."

The weasel word is "A number of." The sentence is quite strange. The Catholic/Orthodox belief, shared by all Christian groups that I know of, is that the souls of the dead are in Heaven (or wherever), but that their bodies are not, and will be reunited at the Last Judgement. This sentence must be removed, unless a source is found to support a statement that some Protestant group believes otherwise. In any case, it must be modified so that it makes sense. I will remove the sentence after waiting for a while to see if someone can repair it. Vegasprof 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea you are thinking of is called "soul sleep", the concept being that body and soul are connected, and the soul is asleep/dead along with the body until the day of resurrection, when both will be raised. Even though there is such a thing, that was not the best worded sentence. And, among modern theologians, the idea of "where" the saints are right now is not as simple as that: The kingdom of God is outside of space and time - which are both creatures of God - and so, although the dead will not be raised until the resurrection, they are still with God "now." Not an easy concept. -- Pastordavid 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. But the sentence still has to be fixed. From what I can determine, it is only the Restorationists who believe in soul sleep. They are not Protestants. They appear also to not believe in the Apostles' Creed. Vegasprof 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

However, the Seventh-day Adventists, who are Restorationists, are also on the Protestant page described as being within the range of groups called Protestant. So evidently, they qualify as Protestants. I am myself unaware of any particular "litmus test" to determine who qualifies as a Protestant, including belief in the Apostle's Creed, but if you can point one out to me that is generally accepted that disqualifies the Adventists then perhaps they can be dropped from the list of Protestants and the content of this page changed as per your statements above. John Carter 15:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Adventists are listed on the Protestant page, but it is also stated that some of these groups do not consider themselves to be protestant. The general tendency of Americans to lump everyone who follows Jesus Christ and who is not Cathloic or Orthodox as Protestant does not justify doing so in Wikipedia. I do not think that any religion that calls itself Protestant believes in soul sleep. Of course, I could be wrong. As far as the Apostle's Creed is concerned, I also do not know of any Protestant group that does not follow it, but once again, I could be wrong. The relevance of the Apostle's Creed to this discussion, BTW, is that soul sleep contradicts the doctrince of the Communion of saints mentioned in the Apostle's Creed, particular, that there are human beings who are currently in Heaven (i.e., saints) and can pray for us. Vegasprof 00:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The weak part of your argument, based on my own experience, is that there are virtually no groups which actually call themselves "Protestant". They almost all avoid using that word to describe themselves, as they see it as being somewhat "negative". I acknowledge your point about the Apostle's Creed, but again based on the extant content of wikipedia, that content agrees with the existing definitions. As implied by me above, I think your best recourse to change this phrasing is to contact either Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity to address the issue of the current categorization of these groups as Protestants on the Protestantism page and elsewhere. Also, personally, I have been adding a bit to this article, primarily in the new "History" section, and will try getting to the remainder of the article to provide sourcing and so on as time permits. That may take a few days however. And, in the meantime, if you can provide an idea for an alternative layout of the article, or somehow otherwise clarify how you would like the article to read, such suggestions would be quite welcome. John Carter 00:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on revising what you wrote, because I think it's a fair description of the situation. I know that Restorationists are "generally classified" to be Protestant, although I object to that classification. Vegasprof 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision Revision

OK Folks, time to revise this page. Having done a complete read through I must say it is pretty bad. We need complete rewrites, citations. Some of it is so POV its painful.--Phiddipus 06:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. I've tried adding a little to the history section, and intend to add a bit more regarding the development of the formalized process in Catholicism and the processes in the Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran communities (as I find sources), but am totally at a loss for sources or content on the others. If you know anyone who can help, it would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and think the whole article should probably be re-written from scratch. We need to accommodate other religions and NOT just Christianity. Sainthood is far from being just a Christian phenomenon. I would have a few additions on the subject of Sainthood which are universal and not related to a specific religion. Knowledge for All 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, this page should openly state that it deals with Saint (Christianity) and have links, as appropriate, to pages dealing with similar doctrines of other religions. Otherwise, it's too broad. Vegasprof 09:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the concept of sainthood is a specifically western, Christian concept. Other faiths and cultures do recognize persons who exhibit extraordinary holiness/righteousness/enlightenment - however, each of those concepts only have meaning within a given culture/faith and are not necessarily analogous to the Christian concept of sainthood. In fact, it is - in my opinion - an example of Cultural imperialism to insist that persons recognized by other faiths be identified with the Christian concept of "sainthood." Pastor David ^† _(Review) 10:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are people considered as Saints in the majority of religious groups around the world - it is given as a universal term in the dictionary. If we were to have the article covering only Christian saints then that would come under a different title (i.e Saint (Christianity)). Gouranga(UK) 12:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I'm not trying to be contrary, but do you have an example of the word saint being applied to another religion -- in a way that is authentic to that faith tradition, and not an attempt to "translate" a different concept into the Christian worldview? Pastor David ^† _(Review) 14:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a page called "Saints and Spiritual Masters." Hindus are using (on that site, at least) the word "saint" in a meaning that is theologically different from the Christian meaning. As Pastor David suspected, they appear to be using the Christian word "saint" for a concept that is properly defined in their religion. Thus, it makes sense to rename the WP page Saint (Christianity) and allow other pages such as Saint (Hindu), or whatever is appropriate. Vegasprof 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still disagree. The fundamental meaning of "saint" is the Christian one. The information you have brought to light would properly belong (as I read it) as a note in the article Swami, Sant, or perhaps Yogi - which is the standard terminology within that faith tradition. An article entitled Saint (Hinduism) would consist of "Saint is sometimes used in Western settings to refer to Swami ... etc". Pastor David ^† _(Review) 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm offline the rest of the day, but tomorrow I will post a note to WP:SAINTS and WP:Hinduism to get some outside opinions on this. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 17:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. One webpage using a specific word is not sufficient cause to believe that the practice is widespread. Also, the majority of other religions have specific words which they use to describe their holy people. It seems to me most appropriate that we use the least ambiguous word possible in describing each such group of holy people, and I have yet to see serious evidence that the word "saint" is used broadly enough in other religious traditions (or even in several Christian traditions) to justify that the word no longer be used in its most common and widespread way. I could certainly see links to those other pages here, but, considering those other religions generally have different specific terms and different meanings in general for those terms, trying to group all those variations in one article seems at least to me counterproductive. John Carter 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote myself above - please read the following definitions of saint:

• wordnet
• answers.com
• thefreedictionary.com
• die.net

The word has two primary usages - the second of which being - "a person of exceptional holiness" or "an example of virtuousness". This is given not as a sectarian definition, but as a universal one - thus this article should surely cover both areas, or be turned into a disambiguation page pointing to both Christian and universal application? In my opinion it would be a shame to segregate the term in this way, and I still feel the Christian and especially Catholic expressions of the term should make up at least 80% of the page content seeing as it is much more relevant in these instances. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 08:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have a point. Unfortunately, as I think you will probably acknowledge, the defintions of the words "holiness" and "virtuousness" are far from standard across religious lines. Maybe we could include those definitions in the intro or first section, with perhaps links to relevant other pages for religion-specific pages for the various types of individuals they describe as saints, or perhaps to the page on holiness and include the specific examples there? Personally, and I acknowledge bias here, I think the most common use of the word may well be in terms of the Catholic/Orthodox/etc. usage of the word, and the other usage, while still common, is probably not so common. Certainly, all the churches bearing the name of St. Whoever may well be the best example of the commonality of the Christian usage of the word. John Carter 14:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "Other religions" deals with any other meaning of the word saint just fine. 99.9 people who type in the word "saint" want this article and most people who wikilink [[saint]] intend this article as well. There is no reason to change the title. see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic for more on how to deal with title with multiple meanings. Jon513 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments

The three of us seem to have gotten into a little bit of a rut, stating the same things repeatedly. I have posted invitations to this conversation at WP:Countering systematic bias in religion, WP:Saints, WP:Hinduism, WP:Judaism, and WP:Religion. Hopefully these will bring in some additional voices and opinions to get us out of our current stalemate. (And thank you to all involved for having the back and forth here, instead of edit warring on the article). Pastor David ^† 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what John and Pastordavid say above. The term is essentially Christian; other religions have their own terms. Majoreditor 06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The term is used in Hinduism. There's even a category, Category:Hindu saints. Also see List of Hindu gurus and saints, List of lower-caste Hindu saints. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The following book that is mentioned in the bibilography treats saints in a mainly non-Christian context. I have it at home.

Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.

Andries 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I also know of another book regarding non-Christian saints. Regarding usage in Hinduism, as has been said before, there it appears to be an adaptation of the word "sant", which is more commonly used in Hinduism. I know that there are several articles relating to holy people of various faiths, and have no objections to seeing all of them improved. I'm just not at all sure that most of that content should be placed on this particular page. If you want help finding any of the other pages on non-Christian holy people, let me know and I'll try to find them or maybe start them myself if they don't exist yet. John Carter 17:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat similar titles and names in other religions that I think should be explicitly mentioned in this article are

Buddhism: Arahant

Hinduism: Alvars, mahatma, Nayanars, paramahamsa, Sant, satguru, the prefixes Sri or Srila, swami,

Islam: Hadrat, Pir (Sufism)

Judaism: tzadik

Sikkhism: bhagat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Andries 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the concept is mainly Christian and that this article should hence mainly treat sainthood in Christianity. Andries 17:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, attempts at generalizations of the concepts for other religions should be treated here too. The concept has been defined as someone being a moral teacher by example, or moral teacher by word, or miracle monger or a combination of all these. Andries 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Generalizations in general can get really dicey, as many might qualify as some degree of WP:OR. I personally think that maybe just linking to the direct articles, indicating that those articles relate to similar concepts, might be the best way to go. Otherwise, we'll face the inevitable problem of having saints of religions with virtually opposing philosophies being grouped together by the same generalization, which begins to become almost less than useless. John Carter 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The book by Hawley contains articles that make generalizations about the concept, so it is not WP:OR to include them. Andries 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but as per the section above, we then get into the big problem of being NPOV if we don't include members of all religions, even those who have fundamentally dissimilar conceptions of holiness. Personally, my thought of the best way to handle this sort of thing would be to add content relative to any given religion's definition of holiness to the Sacred (comparative religion) page, or maybe create a distinct Holiness page, which would allow for greater discussion of the specific parameters of holiness of any given religion, and then maybe link to whatever other article might be appropriate. Otherwise, the article itself would be likely overrun with both theological content relating to every specific groups definition of holiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordjohncarter (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point and I do not know yet how to solve it. Again, I think some generalizations about the concept should go into this article and the somewhat similar names and titles for other religions that I made here above should be listed. Andries 18:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that with the exception of Pir, they all are already included. I have reservations regarding "pir", because it seems to me at least closer to "Guru" than "Saint". "Gurus" can, and often are, just the closest available spiritual leader, not the best, in that way being maybe more equivalent to a spiritual guide at a monastery than a saint per se. Based on the content of the article Pir, there is no explicit indication of great "holiness" in it, just evidence that the person involved is a sort of spiritual director. John Carter 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the following that is sourced to Hawley's book, but I think it interrupts the flow now.

"It has been asserted that the generalized characteristics of a saint, apart from being a moral examplar are the ability to attract followers and frequently the belief of the followers that the saint has the ability to perform miracles."

Andries (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

i forgot the characeristic that saints have the ability to perfom a spiritual transformation. I have re-read the text which is quite complex. Andries (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gnostic saints

I believe the link to this article should be put in. The individuals referenced are described as saints by the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which is a religious group founded in 1913. While they may not be new enough in the eyes of some to qualify as an "official" NRM, they do have saints, and some of them were clearly not Christians. Maybe they could be placed in a separate section, but I believe the information is significant enought to be included in some way. John Carter 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"In accordance to dictionary based definitions"

While this opening line may be the result of some kind of dispute resolution, it's poor grammar and also really weird looking, particularly as an opening phrase. I'm going to adjust it CredoFromStart ^talk 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

what skills does a saint have?

Why use the word 'Saint' anyway?

I was looking at the page of the Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas and I saw a Saint before his name. For a minute, I thought I was looking at Encyclopaedia Vaticana...

Seriously, is it proper to write Saint before the name of a person? This would mean that the people who are writing articles on wikipedia are Roman Catholics. If not, and this is a non-denominational encyclopaedia, then please either, refer to Krishna as Lord Krishna and Mohammed as the Holy Prophet Mohammed or remove the word saint... This is outrageously inappropriate.

Casimiri 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, no, unless, as in some cases, they are either primarily known and referred to as "Saint (fill in the blank)" or that's the only reasonable way to differentiate them from others of the same name. What probably happened there was that the page used to be named "Saint Thomas Aquinas", and then later was moved to "Thomas Aquinas" to meet the naming conventions. Whoever did that, however, seems to have either forgotten to change the start of the article itself, or opted to let it remain the same. Also, some people, particularly Catholics and Orthodox, might expect to see the "Saint" before the name, as that's the way that they are most used to seeing the name, and they're the ones most likely (in some of those cases) to be looking for the article. I'm personally kinda new around here, so I can't say what specifically happened in this case, though. John Carter 00:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it would make more sense to ask on the Thomas Aquinas page? Or to simply change it? 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think for many "Saints", especially later Roman Catholic Saints like Thomas Aquinas it is possible to use simply their names, however the vast majority of Saints come from a period where they have no lst name or designation - we simply know them as Saint Anthony, Saint George, St Pachomios, etc. It would be confusing to refer to them simply as Anthony or George.--Phiddipus 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that there is a way to identify them by their first names i.e. John (Known as Saint John the Pious by Catholics Worldwide...) would be a good way of doing. If anyone is searching for Saint John the Pious, then it could be redirected to that page. That is not an excuse for venerating some an not venerating others. 69.62.184.25 04:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of "venerating" some and not others. Veneration of any figure has no place here. This is more a matter of naming conventions, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). As per that page we "don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)", except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation." So, in the case of Saint Anthony, the addition of the word "Saint" is one of the few ways to differentiate him from all the other "Anthony"s out there. There is only one Thomas Aquinas, so it isn't necessary in his case. However, this refers strictly to titles of articles. John Carter 14:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that this conversation has been stale for a few months, but it is worth pointing out that all naming conventions refer to the title of the article. Thus, our article is titled (for example) Bill Clinton because it is the most commonly used name, while the article itself begins with his full name William Jefferson Clinton... For saints, as I read the naming conventions and manual of style, it is to be avoided to use the title "saint" in the article title itself, but it is acceptable in the opening of the lead paragraph. Pastordavid (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Saints in Anglicanism

This topic appears to be the subject of some debate concerning the role of saintly intercession in Anglicanism. A section of the old text reads as follows:

"The saints are seen as elder brothers and sisters in Christ, and it is reasoned by some Anglicans that just as believers may ask their living brothers and sisters on earth for intercessory [prayer], the prayers of the saints thought to be in Heaven can be requested as well... Although Article XXII of Anglicanism's Articles of Religion "Of Purgatory" condemns "the Romish Doctrine concerning...(the) Invocation of Saints"; in practice, some Anglicans, particularly Anglo-Catholics, ask the prayers of the saints, and seek to live with them in the communion of saints."

Not only does this delete a relevant section of Art XXII ("grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God"), it is unsupported by any source or reference material.

While asking for saintly intercession may be practised personally by some Anglicans (particularly those who have a Roman Catholic background), it is not widely practiced in Anglicanism and indeed is contrary to the Articles, which set out the doctrinal bases of Anglicanism and particularly highlight divergences from Roman Catholicism. Indeed, the offical position of Art XXII is much closer to that set out in the section on Saints in Protestantism - namely that asking for saintly intercession is idolatory.

The personal practices of a minority members of a religion, particularly when incompatible with the official teachings of that religion, should not be represented to be a mainstream or widely-accepted practice, as to do so causes the encyclopedia to be misleading. The article mentions "particularly Anglo-Catholics" as asking for saintly intercession but, as this writer has worshipped in the Anglo-Catholic style for over thirty years without a singly prayer being asked of or through a saint, that statement could not be applied to Anglo-Catholicism (let alone Anglicanism) in general.

The statement "just as believers may ask their living brothers and sisters on earth for intercessory [prayer]" is disingenuous because such prayers are requested in addition to, or with, prayer from the requestor direct to God, whereas the practice of saintly intercession is that prayer is asked by the requestor of a saint in lieu of direct prayer to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilcasey (talk • contribs) 12:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What Are Saints?

I'll Tell You What They Are!!! GODS!!! Fracking Demi-Gods that can't be called gods because of the monotheistic nature of Christianity and it's sub-orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.182.50 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

God within the Judeo/Christian context is considered by believers to be all-powerful; anything good comes directly or indirectly from God. The Christian Saints are not believed to have personal powers of any kind, nor do they channel Gods power to the living world, rather, they are seen as people just like us, who, because they have already entered God’s kingdom, are close to Him and so are powerful intercessors.

Demigods, in the classical pagan sense are either humans elevated to the level of a minor deity (such as Heracles) or the offspring of one of the gods (such as Eros). Each of the pagan gods and demigods control or oversee some limited aspect of the material world. They are almost always limited in some way – demigods even more so than gods. Demigods themselves dispose of personal power not the power of some other god.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the clerical error of calling them demi-gods I agree with 70.145.182.50 entirely. they should be called unglorified gods. Adolph172 (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)adolph172Adolph172 (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Then again, come to think of it, they were all mortals raised to the positions of minor gods, so doesn't that qualify them as demi-gods? KudosAdolph172 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)adolph172

Lead

I have removed this:

It has been asserted that the generalized characteristics of a saint, apart from being a moral examplar are not only the ability to attract followers, but also the ability to touch and transform the inner lives of others, and frequently the belief of the followers that the saint can perform miracles. ^[1] While not all saints have actively had followers, evidence of miracles is certainly a factor in the Christian usage of the word.

I do not see this to be a sufficiently prominent viewpoint to be place on the lead. Sainthood is unrelated to "followers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The word that the source used is "following". But a generalized definition is needed and you should not have removed one of the few well-sourced statements out of the article but moved it. Andries (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A saint does not exist if there is no one who recognize him as such i.e. if s/he has no followers. Andries (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an extraordinary statement, and basically an ungrounded opinion. As for that source, I do not have access to it, but I would argue that using the form "It has been asserted" is misleading. If someone has asserted that, you need to name it, as it is most definitively not a widely made claim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any other generalized definition of a saint. Have you? Andries (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that text, for the simple reason that you have totally misquoted the source. To make such a summary from this, is indeed extraordinary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

what do you think is inaccurate? I do not think that I have significantly changed the meaning of what Babb wrote. I cannot see the link. Andries (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See my edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Namely the use of "attract followers" and "the belief of the followers that the saint can perform miracles", is your invention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC

Page 78 168 "Saints do attract following and we frequently associate saintliness with with the possesion of miraculous powers." Andries (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The pages you cited were 168-170. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Compare: frequently the belief of the followers that the saint can perform miracles. with what Babbs says. Babb says we. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no difference in meaning. Andries (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Andries: frequently the belief of the followers that the saint can perform miracles

Babb: we frequently associate saintliness with with the possesion of miraculous powers

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In practice only followers believe that a saint has miraculous powers. Andries (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not what the author meant. Compare your edit:

It has been asserted that the generalized characteristics of a saint, apart from being a moral examplar are not only the ability to attract followers, but also the ability to touch and transform the inner lives of others, and frequently the belief of the followers that the saint can perform miracles. ^[2] While not all saints have actively had followers, evidence of miracles is certainly a factor in the Christian usage of the word.

with this:

Lawrence Babb in an article about Sathya Sai Baba that appeared in the book Saints and Virtues, asks the question "Who is a saint?", and responds by saying that in the symbolic infrastructure of some religions, there is the image of certain extraordinary spiritual persons who are commonly believed to possess miraculous powers, and about which a certain moral presence is attributed. These saintly figures, he asserts, are "the focal points of spiritual force-fields," exerting powerful influence on followers and transforming their the inner lives of others.^[3]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did and I still think that the summary that I made of pages 168-169 was accurate and did not significantly changed the meaning of what Babb wrote. Andries (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your summary contains a mistake that changed its meaning. Babb wrote "but touch the lives of others in transforming ways." Andries (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh? but touch the lives of others in transforming ways is the same as saying and transforming their inner lives of others, no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think what Babb meant to say, was that a saint not only attracts and influences followers, but that the saint transforms the lives of others who are non-followers too. Andries (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... These saintly figures, he asserts, are "the focal points of spiritual force-fields," exerting powerful influence on followers and transforming the inner lives of others ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that transforming lives is stronger worded than Babb meant it: Babb wrote touching the lives in transforming ways. I corrected that. Also the grammar that you strikes me as incorrect and "about which frequently a certain moral presence is attributed." should be "to whom frequently a certain moral presence is attributed", I believe. Andries (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A saint... Is´t that the same as a human person gone to heaven? According to the scriptures, John the Baptist did not go to heaven. Did Elvis? Who did/ Does?

Judaism

Do Jews have any notion of what in means to be a saint within their own religion, other than just among nations ? I am asking this because of the uproar noticed during the Pius XII beatification process, where many Jews felt that he was not a saint, and some later responded that Jews were Wannabe Roman Catholics. ADM (talk) (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Unmessianic Jews are certainly not wannabe Roman Catholics. For the Jews (Judaism-following, not ethnic), there is still confusion over this really. The Torah-reading lot get bothered by the lack of sacrifices in a temple, which makes it rather hard to see how they can go to heaven, and the most of them have a very loose idea (understandable from the OT alone) exactly what heaven is, but think that if there is a general resurrection, they all go end up there. To my knowledge, Jews do not use the term saint for themselves, and surely have far greater objections to the pope (including the whole idea about Jesus...) than about who the RCs think get special treatment.— Kan8eDie (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Saint" article

I have read trough the article about the word "Saint" an nowhere it is mentioned about the scent or perfume that these saints do have (the ones that are realy saint) their body odor has a scent of cinamon, pine, mirh, etc. a specificaly natural scent, believed within the church to be God's gift. I one didn't have to go to church to met a such person :) In orthodoxy it is believed that after a time of repentance, God will send trough The Spirit: happines, joy and harmony with the all-around, where the final "seal" is the body's odor of a natural scent, basicaly stating, he is of ME. I one sugest that there should be an empasis on the noted matter in the article about "Saint" Marius :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.7.139 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

saints are very powerful people but in a good way and they puit others before them

If you can produce a source which states that saints scent changes, then it will certainly be included. Based on my own limited study of the subject, it is only said to happen in some cases, like many other things not mentioned in the article. If you can find a source which says that it happens more frequently, though, then it would certainly be included. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play" in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. pp 168-170
2. Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play" in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. pp 168-170
3. Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play" in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. pp 168-170