Category talk:Christian saints

message: I propose that the scope of this category should be explicitly restricted to persons. Not just any kind of persons. Just those persons that are in the species homo sapiens sapiens. This would have the effect of excluding angels and archangels, who while having being, intellect, will and other trappings of personality, are not members of the above species. This would also have the effect of excluding dogs, who while having being, intellect, will and other trappings of personality, not to mention stick-fetching skills, are not members of the above species. This creates problems for some editors because they point out that 3 archangels feature on the liturgical calendar of the RC Church (and probably of others as well) as saints (Sept 29th to be precise). Such veneration may have been going on for 1500 years or more. We have an apparent contradiction then. It would appear that the RC admits beings who are not in the above species to the category "saint". It is my contention that the contradiction is more apparent than real. I have a source that says that such archangels are saints only in a very strained sense of the word. It is my contention that categories in Wiki should not be strained. You either fit snugly or not at all. If a new category is required to contain the wider sense of saintliness that archangels occupy, so be it. Wiki has enough bytes to spare for 1 more category such as :Category:Saints and angelic beings venerated by Christians. It is my contention that the RC Church (among others) recognises this distinction but chooses to also live with a degree of ambiguity. In all practical purposes, it recognises that only members of the above species are saints. For example SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM of 1964 states: "104. The Church has also included in the annual cycle days devoted to the memory of the martyrs and the other saints. Raised up to perfection by the manifold grace of God, and already in possession of eternal salvation, they sing God's perfect praise in heaven and offer prayers for us. By celebrating the passage of these saints from earth to heaven the Church proclaims the paschal mystery achieved in the saints who have suffered and been glorified with Christ; she proposes them to the faithful as examples drawing all to the Father through Christ, and through their merits she pleads for God's favors." Note "raised up to perfection" - as angels are created perfect, there is no question of them rising to perfection. Only humans need rise up. Note "from earth to heaven" - heaven is the eternal home of angels. Only humans leave their home to go from earth. Note "saints who have suffered" - angels do not suffer. I commend this modest proposal to the house. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with History2007. This proposal effects "multiple denominations" (all Christians denominations actually). That's a good thing. I also agree that "some denominations may only have human saints", so they will not be in the least bit aggrieved by the proposal. Where we disagree is with the corollory (i.e. for those denominations that do not have only human saints). We disagree because I contend that no such denominations exist (per rationale above). And even if theyu do exist, it would not be theologically erroneous to place the non-human saints (angelic, canine or otherwise) into the wider newly proposed category. They would sit snugly there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am sorry, your rational that no such denominations exist was soundly rejected on theological grounds with sources, on the St. Michael talk page by a number of users, as I am sure can be recalled. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed the typo about "eternal home" that Mannanan has noted above. In the previous discussion, a definition of saint was produced. Nobody disagreed with it. "a common definition is: A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth. (A secondary description mentions a person who has died and gone to heaven.)". Mannanan now seems to have abandoned it in favour of Tradition. That's a tricky thing to prove, especially as common piety is rarely concerned with the niceties of theology. At no time have I said that saints are not "with God in eternity" - quite the opposite. I assume that the bit in italics is Fr Serpa's opinion and not the teaching of V2. The centuries of popular piety has involved the Church closing its eyes to the illogicality of the inclusion of angels among saints, while in all its other pronouncements making it clear that it only applies to actual people. Only in the loosest sense are they saints, in the sense that they enjoy the beatific vision. They do not fit Mannanan's definition not do they fit Sacrosanctum Concilium. But the church ignores this because of popular acclaim & piety, all the time knowing that it is illogical. It would be more honest to admit that they are not like men in their holiness but have their own kind of holiness. But the Church doesn't do apologies or admit to turning a blind eye to convenient ambivalences. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So flawed logic is now chalked up to a "typo"? Angels were not "created perfect", else we would not have Milton's "Paradise Lost". I have by no means abandoned the common definition in favor of Tradition; I cite both. The problem lies in the proponent's entirely ideosyncratic view of the term "person". (Only last year the American Supreme Court reiterated the point that corporations are persons -'though unlikely to be saints.) -Note the italicized portion of my last post is the statement of Fr. Dietzen -who supports Fr. Serpa's position. "Angels are real and they are persons. They are simply a different order of creature than humans. Humans are human persons; angels are angelic persons. Those angels who are in heaven are called saints by virtue of being in heaven." (Michelle Arnold, Apologist at Catholic Answers, Dec.16, 2010) There is nothing illogical in the Roman Catholic Church's position; proponent simply refuses to accept the RC ( and Anglican, and Lutheran) interpretation of the words "saint" and "person". To expand on the proponent's own tortuous reasoning on a previous page: Apples and oranges are to fruits as holy people and angels are to saints -different but the same. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it's logical is a matter of opinion, but hardly relevant. It is what they believe, which is satisfactory for a category about a theological belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

text: The proponent's argument is almost entirely taken from the source which speaks of a "stretched" sense of the word "saint". This, however, was in response to a question that noted that "Sometimes people refer to those who have died, especially children, as angels.." It is important to know the question in order to understand the answer. In this case Fr. Evans was careful to draw a distinction between humans and angels, to demonstrate that people do not become angels. But even he acknowledges that "over the centuries ...archangels came to be listed among the catalogue of saints....Doing such important work for God, their holiness has been presumed." --- and that is what "saint" means. Mannanan51 (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is a very strange proposal, given that the issues have been repeatedly explained to this user with sources on the other talk page, yet the user looks through SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM (of all things) which is about the liturgy and picks a paragraph, performs WP:OR to generate this suggestion. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Can I change my !vote to "Really really strong oppose"? :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to restrict the category to members of ''homo sapiens sapiens''.