Talk:Saint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saint article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	Saint is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

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

---

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)

Contents 1 abbreviation 2 christian saints vs. other religions 3 Saints in "Voodoo" 4 Saints in Hinduism 5 Concerning the "Saints Name" given at Chrismation - an Orthodox Perspective 6 October Anon edits questioned 7 Today is Dec. 2, 2004. 8 meaning of "saint" 9 Historicity 10 Prayer to saints 11 saints outside of Saints 12 Bad grammar mars most important sentence 13 Saints in Islam Section is Rubbish 14 Saints in Scripture 15 Protestant Chr-stian Generalizations Too Vague 16 Saint Julian 17 Corrections 18 Unsourced anti-prayer-to-the-saints para 19 Sources for anti-prayer-to-the-saints para 20 Orthodox 21 Book dates 22 Discordianism? 23 Alphabetic lists

[edit] 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)

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

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

Hence:

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

[edit] 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. Ryan Is A Fat Pig.

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

Mike Jones

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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."

[edit] Protestant Chr-stian Generalizations Too Vague

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)