Talk:List of saints

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Saints List of saints is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Patrick

Patrick has never been officially canonized by any pope that I am aware of, he is properly regarded to the category of 'popular saints' (ie. people who have been widely recognized as saints but without given the proper papal permission recognized in Roman catholicism)


[edit] Canonization

Could someone who knows the procedure describe how someone gets to be canonised?

And perhaps standardise their nomenclature before we get too many more?

Good idea, Malcolm. This is what I suggested to MichaelTinkler a couple of days ago:

[edit] Wow, I got a warning This page is 35 gigabytes long.

Has it now come the time for us to order and summarize these discussion? KIZU

[edit] Who should we list on this article, and how?

Regarding names: I'm personally inclined to naming pages with the saint's name, and location or other description to distinguish between eg Augustine of Hippo and Augustine of Canterbury. Problem is that other Wikipedians may have already made a link to Saint XXX - that's how I found Saint Columba, for instance. It shouldn't be a *huge* problem, though.

The current Wikipedia pages with Saint at the start probably should be changed to just their name (and location if necessary) - must watch out for the backlinks too.

-- Claudine

Well, I'll probably be adding saints from time to time from the old encyclopedia, so I'll try to name them as you suggest -- Malcolm Farmer

I've removed Saint from those people in the list who had them before their name. I think the title of this page would imply that all the individuals listed are considered saints. 8-> If their canonicity is in doubt, this should be stated in the individual saint's biography. -- Claudine

Suggest we move the list of saints to a "Saints/Listing of saints" page and keep the "Saints" page itelf for definition, description.

Ok, done...

---

Uhhh sorry to break up the party, but the eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian churches recognise a completely different list of saints than the Catholic Church and the Anglicans have their own take on the subject too, I believe. Are we fgoing to lump them all together here?

Anyone know if Butlers Lives of the Saints is out of copyright yet? No.

this is just aiming at listing wikipedia-relevant saints, I thought, not an exclusive list. The canonization process, will, of necessity, be western since the Orthodox don't really have much of a process. If you mean the TITLE Hosios, that's just language, and means Saint. Feel free to add any Orthodox or Ethiopian saints, and to revise any current listings. Don't remove sainthood from anyone just because another group doesn't 'recognize' it, just mention the fact in a freestanding paragraph or sentence. This is part of why I favor calling people by their names rather than by the title 'saint,' by the way. --MichaelTinkler

Before you dismiss us Orthodox, perhaps you should redress your glaring ignorance of our methods. Dogface 22:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Using the table we can say which church recognises a particular saint and which doesn't.

looks good. Can we use "semi" besides yes and no in the mythical column? (for ones like Josaphat, who IIRC actually came from a garbled account of Buddha) No.

I have some nomenclature and category questions. First, for saints who are New Testament figures, such as the Apostles and Evangelists, would it be safe to assume they're in both the Catholic and Orthodox columns? I'm thinking no. NO.

Second, how should we handle saints with multiple apellations? For example, Eastern Orthodoxy refers to John the Baptist both by that title, and also as John the Forerunner. I think the author of the Gospel of John is called both John the Evangelist and John the Theologian. And then there's Mary, the Virgin Mary, the Holy Virgin Mary, Holy Mother of God and Queen of the Universe Mary, and on and on. A related problem comes with someone like Dionysius the Areopagite. He's remembered as a first-century saint in the Orthodox Church, and there are at least a couple different writings attributed to him. But many scholars think the works in question weren't written until the fourth or fifth century, and therefore refer to their author as Pseudo-Dionysius or Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.

Is there any reason not to link the biblical saints to their respective entries that got started from the list of Bible characters, or to include the full tradition of these saints on their respecive pages? The only reason not to I can think of is that Protestants would typically accept the Biblical accounts of what these people said and did, but not necessarily the full tradition of how and when they died, or even what they did that's not recorded in Scripture. Maybe just specify which parts are biblical and which parts of the story are extrabiblical? No.

--Wesley

[edit] alphabetical order

About the alphabetical order of the saints, this is not consistent. An inconsistent alphabetical ordering could result in saint a being added who is already in the table. I nearly did this with St Nicholas.

I suggest that they all be ordered, by Christian name (a.k.a First name), because most saints are known by that name. I've moved St Nicholas (or Myra) to Nicholas's place and find the Thomas More, could be moved to Thomas's place.

Also the table information of newly added saints may need to be checked by those in the know. Karl Palmen

I agree about the alphabetical ordering by first name; where these are the same, then we can go by the last name or attribute modifier ("of Mytown" or "the Great", etc.) This is about the only bit of information that every one of them has. I'll try to work on this as I can, but please don't wait for me. ;-) --Wesley

I've done this. Look at the cases of Thomas and Gregory. Karl Palmen

There are a lot of saints, here is a list gleaned from a web page. I'm sure I read that there are over three hundred (300) St Stephen's alone? No. Rjstott A

St. Adelaide St. Agatha St. Agnes St. Agnes of Montepulciano St. Aiden St. Albert Great St. Aloysius Gonzaga St. Alphonsus Liguori St. Alphonsus Rodriguez St. Ambrose Bl. Andre Bessette St. Andrew St. Andrew Dung-Lac and Companions St. Andrew Fournet St. Andrew Kim Taegon and St. Paul Chong Hasang St. Angela Merici Bl. Anne of Bartholomew Annunciation of Lord St. Anselm St. Anthony Claret St. Anthony Mary Zaccaria Bl. Anthony Neyrot St. Anthony of Egypt St. Anthony of Padua St. Antoninus St. Anysia St. Apollonia and Martyrs of Alexandria Assumption of Blessed Virgin Mary St. Athanasius St. Augustine St. Augustine of Canterbury


B

St. Barbatus St. Barnabas St. Bartholomew St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen St. Bathildis Venerable Bede Beheading of John Baptist St. Benedict St. Benedict Joseph Labre St. Berard and Companions St. Bernadette St. Bernard St. Bernardine of Siena St. Bertilla Bl. Bertrand St. Bibiana St. Blaise St. Bonaventure St. Boniface St. Boris and Gleb St. Botvid St. Bridget of Sweden St. Brigid of Ireland St. Bruno


C

St. Caesarius of Nazianzen St. Cajetan St. Callistus I St. Canute St. Casimir St. Catherine Laboure St. Catherine of Alexandria Bl. Catherine of Augustine St. Catherine of Ricci St. Catherine of Siena St. Cecilia St. Celestine V St. Chaeremon and Ischyrion Chair of Peter St. Charbel St. Charles Borromeo Bl. Charles Good St. Charles Lwanga and Companions Bl. Christina Christmas, Birthday of Jesus St. Clare St. Colette St. Columban Bl. Contardo Ferrini St. Cornelius and Cyprian St. Cosmas and Damian St. Cuthbert St. Cyril and Methodius St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Cyril of Jerusalem St. Cajuungumbo


D


Bl. Damien of Molokai St. David I of Scotland St. Denis and Companions St. Deogratias Bl. Didacus St. Dominic St. Dominic of Silos St. Dominic Savio


E

St. Eanswida St. Edmund St. Edmund Campion St. Edward Eleven Martyrs of Almeria, Spain St. Elizabeth Bichier St. Elizabeth of Hungary St. Elizabeth of Portugal St. Emily de Vialar St. Ephrem St. Eucherius Bl. Eugene de Mazenod Bl. Eugene III St. Eulogius of Spain St. Euphrasia St. Eusebius St. Evaristus


F

St. Fabian and Sebastian St. Faustinus and Jovita St. Felicity and Her Seven Sons St. Felix and Cyprian St. Felix II St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen St. Fina (Seraphina) First Martyrs of Church of Rome St. Flannan St. Flora of Beaulieu St. Foillan St. Frances of Rome St. Frances Xavier Cabrini Bl. Francis Anthony of Lucera St. Francis Caracciolo St. Francis de Sales St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Paola Bl. Francois de Montmorency Laval Bl. Frederic Janssoone St. Frederick


G

St. Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows St. Genevieve St. George St. Gerard of Brogne St. Germaine of Pibrac St. Gertrude St. Gildas St. Giles Bl. Giles Mary St. Godfrey Bl. Gregory Barbarigo St. Gregory Great St. Gregory VII


H

St. Henry II Bl. Henry of Treviso St. Hilarion St. Hilary of Poitiers The Holy Innocents St. Hugh of Grenoble


I

St. Ignatius of Antioch St. Ignatius of Laconi St. Irenaeus St. Isaac Jogues, John de Brebeuf St. Isidore Farmer St. Isidore of Seville


J

Bl. James Duckett St. James Greater St. James Intercisus St. Jane Frances de Chantal St. Jane Valois St. Januarius St. Jerome St. Jerome Emiliani St. Joachim and Anne Bl. Joan Delanoune St. Joan of Arc Bl. Joan of Toulouse St. John Almsgiver St. John Apostle St. John Baptist de la Salle St. John Baptist Rossi St. John Berchmans St. John Bosco St. John Capistrano St. John Chrysostom St. John Climacus St. John Damascene Bl. John Duckett and Ralph Corby St. John DuLau and September Martyrs St. John Eudes St. John Fisher St. John Francis Regis St. John Gaulbert St. John I St. John Joseph of Cross St. John Kanty St. John Leonardi St. John Neumann St. John of Cross St. John of Egypt St. John of God Bl. John of Rieti St. John of Sahagun St. John Roberts St. John Vianney St. Jonas and Barachisius St. Josaphat St. Joseph St. Joseph Barsabbas St. Joseph Cafasso St. Joseph Calasanz St. Joseph Cupertino St. Joseph Moscati St. Joseph Worker Bl. Juan Diego St. Judith of Prussia St. Julian and Basilissa St. Julie Billiart Bl. Junipero Serra St. Justin Timberlake


K

Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha Bl. Katharine Drexel St. Kenneth


L

St. Lawrence Bl. Lawrence Humphrey and other Martyrs St. Lawrence Justinian St. Lawrence O'Toole St. Lawrence of Brindisi St. Lawrence Ruiz and Companions St. Leo Great St. Leo IV Bl. Lidwina St. Louis of France Bl. Louis of Thuringia St. Lucy St. Ludger St. Luke St. Leeroy Jenkins


M

St. Macrina St. Macrina St. Marcellinus and Peter St. Margaret Mary St. Margaret of Scotland Bl. Margaret Pole St. Marguerite Bourgeoys St. Marguerite D'Youville St. Maria Goretti Bl. Marie Rose Durocher Bl. Marie-Leonie Paradis St. Mark Evangelist St. Martha St. Martin de Porres St. Martin I St. Martin of Tours The Martyrs of Orange The Martyrs of Vietnam and Companions St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi St. Mary Magdalene Bl. Mary of Incarnation Mary, Mother of God Mary, Our Queen St. Matilda St. Matthew St. Matthias St. Maximilian Kolbe St. Maximinius St. Meletius St. Methodius I St. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael Bl. Michelina Bl. Miguel Augustin Pro St. Monica St. Montanus, Lucius and Companions


N

St. Narcissus St. Nereus, Achilleus and Pancras St. Nersus St. Nicholas Bl. Nicholas Albergati St. Nicholas of Tolentino St. Nino St. Norbert Bl. Notker


O

St. Olympias St. Onesimus St. Otto Our Lady of Guadalupe Our Lady of Holy Rosary Our Lady of Lourdes Our Lady of Mount Carmel Our Lady of Sorrows


P

St. Pacificus St. Pammachius St. Pantaleon St. Paschal Baylon St. Paul Chong Hasang St. Paul Hermit St. Paul Miki and Companions St. Paul of Cross St. Paulinus of Nola St. Pelagius St. Perpetua and Felicity St. Peter and Paul St. Peter Canisius St. Peter Chanel St. Peter Chrysologus St. Peter Claver St. Peter Damian St. Peter Julian Eymard St. Philip and James St. Philip Neri St. Pius V St. Pius X St. Polycarp St. Pontian and Hippotypus St. Porcarius and Companions St. Porphyry


R

St. Radbertus St. Raymond of Penyafort Bl. Richard Gwyn St. Richard of Chichester St. Rita of Cascia St. Robert Bellarmine Bl. Roger Dickenson, Ralph Milner, St. Romanus and Lupicinus St. Romuald St. Rose of Lima St. Rose of Viterbo St. Rose Philippine Duchesne Bl. Rose Venerini


S

St. Sabas St. Scholastica St. Serapion St. Sergius Seven Founders of the Servite Order St. Simeon St. Simon and Jude St. Simplicius St. Sixtus II and Companions St. Soter and Caius St. Stanislaus St. Stephen St. Stephen Harding St. Stephen of Hungary St. Sylvester I



T

St. Teresa of Avila St. Thecla St. Theodore Tiro St. Theodosius St. Theophane Venard St. Theresa of Child Jesus St. Thomas St. St. Thomas Becket St. Thomas of Villanova St. Thorfinn St. Timothy and Titus Bl. Timothy Giaccardo Bl. Torello St. Turibius of Mongrovejo St. Tutilo


U

St. Ubald Bl. Urban V


V

St. Vincent de Paul St. Vincent Ferrer St. Vincent of Saragossa


W

St. Waldetrudis St. William St. William of Monte Vergine St. William of York St. Willibrord


Z

St. Zachary St. Zita


-- I've trimmed this list by removing other festivals that got included somehow, and a couple that we have entries on. Calistus I may be pope Calixtus I, I think. Some of thse are Bl. rather than St., which I suppose means they're not fully canonized as yet? No. -- Malcolm Farmer

In the Roman Catholic tradition, I think that "Blessed" means they've gone through Beatification, but are still one step away from being fully canonized saints. But I could be wrong. The above list still has a few entries that duplicate what we already have. It also includes some groups, like the "Holy Innocents" and "St. Apollonia and Martyrs of Alexandria". I wouldn't disput their sainthood, I'm just not sure whether we need to handle those entries any differently. Would "Holy Innocents" be alphabetized under the "H" or "I"? Also, aren't all the "Our Lady... " entries just different titles for the Virgin Mary? I would rather have just one entry per saint, and have that saint's page list all the different names and titles by which they're known. There could even be redirect pages from the other titles. No.

On an unrelated note, what the heck does the "mythological" column mean?? What's the criteria for checking it?? Given the context and without any definition, it almost suggests a "mythological" branch of Christianity with its own set of saints. --Wesley

trim & reorganise however you see fit: Be bold in updating pages!

On the "mythical" aspect, there's a large grey area here. St George was a real person, but the dragon story is mythical: St. Christopher never existed, Josaphat was a holy man in another religion, Uncumber and Wilgefortis were completely mythical, IIRC; and though there may have been a St. Ursula, the ten thousand virgin martyrs associated with her are mythical (some authors attributing them to a misreading of an abbreviation) So a "mythical" column would seem to be in order, even if the criteria are for inclusion are vague. No. --Malcolm Farmer

Wesley, I think it just means that they are people whose sainthood seems to be linked only tradition, but for whom there is no concrete proof. No. JHK
No proof that they existed, no proof that they are recognized as saints, or no proof that they actually did everything in the stories about them? This seems to be a somewhat arbitrary standard that can't quite be considered NPOV. The one that really brought up the question in my mind was Michael and the other prominent angels, who I believe are recognized as saints in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Most of them are mentioned in the Bible, all of them are believed to have done great things on behalf of us humans, but there would be understandable difficulty in trying to establish their existence independently of Scripture. That doesn't make them any less real to the traditions that honor them as saints. For humans whose existence may be in doubt, and simple checkmark may not do justice to the surrounding debate. Perhaps a general disclaimer at the top saying that not every person may be independently confirmed, with details of any doubts on the individual saint's page? No. --Wesley

The mythical column was my idea. When I made the table, I specifically added the column to record saints who have been officially declared mythical by some church which formerly recognised them as real. That is an objectively verifiable criterion and so perfectly NPOV. Using it, St Michael does not fall into the mythical category since he is still deemed real by all churches which recognise him. However St Christopher does fall into the mythical category since he is/was a Catholic saint who is mythical according to the Catholic Church. Therefore he should have an entry in the Catholic column and in the mythical column. Perhaps there are saints in other churches who fall into the same category. Of course there are other ways of laying out the table. For instance, the mythical column could be removed and instead of putting Yes or No into the cell, we could put Yes, No or Mythical, or we could use the cell to record dates between which the person was recognised by the church concerned as a real saint. No. -- Derek Ross

Ah. That makes perfect sense. If it's objectively verifiable as you say, then I agree the designation is NPOV. I'll have to see whether the Orthodox consider any saints mythical. I still think any detailed information about when a saint was considered real and when their status changed to mythical, should be reserved for that saint's page. I like the conciseness of the current table format, which will be increasingly valuable as the list grows. I'm going to add your definition to the top of the page, under the guidelines for alphabetizing, so that everyone can apply that criteria when adding entries and so that the column doesn't create any undue confusion to readers. Thanks for your explanation! No. --Wesley


Could someone add the story of St. Christopher and why he was declared mythical? I went back to the list after reading talk and he isn't there. --rmhermen

________________________________________________________________________________________

I've not been removed from the name of the danish heavy classical musician Y.J. Malmsteen-ePeen, that any nasty-ass son of a bird do us the great favor of put his fucking awesome name here. Good job on this addition. If anybody know if Malmsteen-ePeen, dead or alive man, really is a newbie saint please consider my intereferece and please DO NOT redo the list on the correct form. Tanks like panzers by your suppot.

Rodrigo Zauli, Belo Horizonte, MG - Brasil

[edit] Official Lists of Saints

I remember reading somewhere (unfortunately some time ago) that, although he is one of the most famous saints around, Saint Nicholas of Myra is not really a saint at all? Is there some official list somewhere?--branko


I don't think there's one official list anywhere, at least not in Eastern Orthodoxy, simply because some saints are more widely known than others. However, Nicholas of Myra has long been one of the most widely revered saints in both the East and West. You can find lots of information about him from the links at Dmoz: http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=saint+nicholas+of+myra. --Wesley

Hi Wesley, I don't agree with you. Japan Orthodox Church shares the list of saints of Russian Orthodox Church. So we commemorated St. Nikolai of Japan on February 16, but he isn't found in the list of saints in GOA site. On the other hand some Saints listed by GOA aren't refered on the ROC calender. So I guess Eastern Orthodoxy has not a sort of ecumenical saints list which Roman Catholic has(it is titled I Santi). KIZU

Anglicans and saints

Anglican attitudes to saints range from devotions similar to Catholic practices to rejection of the idea of sainthood. Mainstream Anglicans commmemorate saints inherited from Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well as significant post-Reformation individuals. As there is no procedure for canonization in Anglicanism, commemoration of modern individuals is more a matter of consensus and varies in different areas.

The Book of Common Prayer prescribes principal holy days for 20-odd saints, which I have added to the grid if necessary. I have also checked the 'Anglican' column for those saints who are listed in the calendar of the Anglican Church of Australia - the most convenient source for me. I may add more names as time permits.

--ClaudineChionh

Thanks for the updates, Claudine! Sounds like if any more Biblical figures are added, it would be safe to check the Anglican column as well, right? Also, I noticed that in the Anglican column, Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzus were checked, but Gregory of Nyssa was not. If I'm not mistaken, those three were the Three Holy Hierarchs, good friends, and Basil and one of the Gregory's were brothers. Wouldn't all three be recognized? Unless I'm confusing Gregory's again, of course. Anyway, thanks. Wesley
I'm going to check the Anglican list against the saints days in several prayer books I have in front of me here today; maybe some more ?? saints can be cleared up in that column. --Charleschuck 21:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wesley! Biblical figures definitely belong in the Anglican column. As for Gregory of Nyssa, he's not listed in the Australian prayer book, but that's no more authoritative than any other Anglican's opinion. My knowledge of that era is poor, but it sounds as if he should be held in the same regard as the other two. I could try to ask someone with better knowledge of Anglican-Orthodox relations. ClaudineChionh

The (Anglican) Church of England Calendar of Saints is currently defined in Common Worship, and has "Principal Feasts", "Festivals", "Lesser Festivals" and "Commemorations". A similar scheme worked during 1980-2000 when the Alternative Service Book was used. The Book of Common Prayer is still authorised, and thus its saints festivals are all still valid. I will try to go through CW fairly soon and add to the column of "Anglican Saints" as appropriate - but I won't subtract any that might be observed in other Provinces. Rcingham

Ok, I finally figured out who the Ethiopian Orthodox are. They're part of what might be called "Oriental Orthodox" or "monophysite", and they're in communion with the Coptic Orthodox, Jacobites in Syria, the Indian Orthodox Church (or Thomas Christians) and the Armenian Orthodox Church. They didn't split until 451 A.D., so all biblical saints and most pre-451 saints should be checked in their column. I just went through and think I got most of these, but I probably missed some.

[edit] Suggestions for Improvement

A couple of the names might be misleading. Joseph in this list is probably intended to mean the step-father of Jesus, but it links to Joseph the son of Jacob way back when. Saint David is the patron saint of Wales, but is this the same prophet David that wrote many of the Psalms, etc.? If so, he should be checked across the board, but if not, well, his article should say who he is.

That's all my nits for now. :-) Wesley

The Welsh Saint David aka Dewi lived in the 6th century. I've added Wales to his name in the table. (BTW, his Wikipedia page is pretty sparse - there's something for somebody's to-do list.) It's not common to think of Old Testament figures as 'saints', is it? --ClaudineChionh
Thanks for the clarification on David. The Orthodox do look at a number of Old Testament figures as saints, more or less; although many times they're called "prophets", they seem to be treated similarly. The ancestors of Christ are remembered together just a few Sundays before Christmas, for instance, and some people may adopt Ruth as their church name, adopting Holy Foremother Ruth (from the biblical Book of Ruth) as their patron saint. David and Moses (from the OT) are both very highly regarded; I would assume St. Moses the Black was named after the Bible's Moses. (I remember a 6th century A.D. story about a monastery on Mt. Sinai, perhaps St. Catherine's, about a young man showing up to help serve a large contingent of visiting priests. He disappeared afterwards, and the abbot said it had been Moses himself.) It's taught that when Christ rose from the dead, he also rescued from Hell/Hades/Sheol (not sure exactly) all the righteous who had died, including Adam and Eve. I know I've seen icons depicting Jonah and the Fish, the Three Youths, the Hospitality of Abraham, Creation, and many other Old Testament people and events. Wesley

[edit] SS.Denis

I just noticed that St. Denys doesn't have a "Yes" in any column. The spelling seems French, so I think it's probably a Catholic. I found a reference to Denys the Carthusian in the online New Catholic Encyclopedia; he was born in the 15th century. I also ran across a reference to another saint being at the St. Denys Monastery in about the ninth century, so I'm thinking there are at least two saints by this name. Anyone want to clear it up? Wesley

More than two. Dionysisus the Areopagite, Denis the Carthusian, and Denis (bip. of Paris). The spelling is wrong - no one in English since 1915 has used both an -e- and a -y-! I'd go with Denis.
I changed it to 'Denis', thinking it will ultimately point to 'Denis of Paris' or some such. Dionysius the Areopagite and Denis the Carthusian can have separate entries. I think there's already an article on Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite or something similarly named; not sure how best to handle that in connection with this. More suggestions? :-) Wesley

[edit] Mythological Saints

St. Chris was de-emphasisized by the catholic church (had his feast day taken out of the liturgical calander) because all that exists is a magical realist story of carrying the infant jesus over a dangerous river. Nice beautiful little story but entirely mythological. And still one of the best saints there ever was.

That may be all that exists in the West, but that story is a pure Western invention. Far more exists in the East, and it's far less fantasy. Dogface 13:42, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd be happy to hear it. I'm Catholic, but unhappy he was de-emphasized. One of the only areas where I think the Traditionalist types have a point.--T. Anthony 20:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
You can find what there is at Saint Christopher. Unfortunately, although he's more plainly historical and not allegorical -- specific historical referents are given -- he remains a somewhat shadowy figure as the analysis in the article explains. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ive got questions about st. jude the obscure Two16 04:13 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure Simon of Trent needs to be listed here, as he appears to be a former saint rather than a saint that anyone venerates today. Was St. Christopher made an ex-saint the same way Simon of Trent was, i.e. by actually forbidding that he be venerated at all? Wesley

I think he should be included, because he was venerated a saint for nearly four hundred years. A rather silly parallel is that we don't take people off list of entertainers when they're dead because dead people aren't entertaining. But I'm not absolutely certain, so remove if you're not convinced.
That's a very poor analogy. "Saint" is not an occupation or activity in the sense that "entertainer" is. Someone is a saint because a particular church calls them that. The primary Christian denominations that recognize or canonize saints are the ones listed. The only place to put Simon would be in a new "former saint" column; if the info about the Roman Catholics banning his veneration is correct, and no other group calls him a saint, then as far as anyone on earth can tell, he's not a saint as the word is being used in this article.
If you look up the article on Simon of Trent it'll give a sense why he is up there with William of Norwich as former saint. St. Simon of Trent was a two year old Christian boy allegedly killed by "the Jews." He was one of those people declared a saint in folk Catholicism for Anti-Semitic reasons. Cases like his is where I can see de-listing a saint. Even if the boy was a kindly two year old murder victim, by whoever, it would fit more as "latter day holy innocent" or something because there's no way a two year old did great acts of devotion or theology. Anyway in this case the traditionalists are very wrong, IMO, for still venerating him as his being a saint was seen as suspicious well before Vatican II. Hence he has no entry in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. Also understand that I'm not blaming this kid for being used by racists beyond his control.--T. Anthony 20:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think the table format of this entry isn't particularly helpful. Plus, I wonder if the list should be merged with the one in patron saint Martin

I added a disclaimer to the "non-historical" column since the Roman Catholic Church decided, I think in the 1960's, to declare a number of saints non-historical. Some of these it officially prohibited any Catholics from venerating, some are still allowed to be venerated if individual or regional groups of Catholics really want to. The Orthodox have not changed their mind about whether these saints are saints, or about whether they existed; this isn't however quite the same as insisting that every story about the saints is strictly historical. I'm not aware of the Anglicans or Oriental Orthodox taking an official position on this; any information in this regard would be helpful. Wesley 17:05, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Just adding to this. The Oriental Orthodox are "miaphysites" NOT "monophysites". St. Cyril the Pillar of Orthodoxy is amongst those who stressed this issue. Also, I believe the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has among its saints Saint Pontius Pilate (the same man who washed his hands of Christ's innocent blood). There's a long story behind this I'm told and I'm trying to find it. Please post a URL if you know where it is. Thanks. 14:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)203.129.144.215

I believe they have a tradition that he was martyred, or was at least converted by his wife who is herself a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy. Her feast day is October 27; his is June 25 according to most sources I've found. I can't find their exact tradition about him online ("Gospel of Gamaliel", perhaps?) but I'm confident enough to add him to the list. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canonization Processes and other differences between Churches

Do you understand the process of canonization, and the difference between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism? (no offense intended.) It is crucial to make those distinctions here. For instance, the Romans call Barlaam of Calabria a saint, the Easterns call Gregory Palamas a saint; these two were completely at odds with one other theologically and philosophically, and simply to list them both as saints would be very misleading. I think the Easterns may have gone so far as to anathematize Barlaam, I forget. In any case, the Patron saint concept is clearly Roman Catholic, so it wouldn't be appropriate to merge Eastern Orthodox saints into that mold or way of thinking about them. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, my patron saint is simply the saint that was "given" to me to pray for me when I was chrismated into the church. Wesley
I know nothing about the Orthodox process, I know some stuff about the Catholic process. AFAIK, the Anglicans don't have a formal process.
The thing is, while I can see that the question of which church deemed which person to be a saint is of interest to some, I feel that it's rather irrelevant to most people. To my mind, the purpose of a list of saints should be for people who ask questions like: "what was the name of that saint who slew the dragon?", so a portion of the list might read:
The information about who considers them a saint is important, and should be retained in the relevant entries, but I don't think it should go here. Martin
Putting someone's name on the list here, without qualification, is a statement that this or that person is a saint, as a statement of fact. Wikipedia should not make this claim, as wikipedia itself doesn't and probably shouldn't recognize the concept of sainthood, except as something that lots of Christians believe. The information about who considers which person a saint is vital. And it is perfectly neutral to say which church considers which person a saint; this makes it clear that Wikipedia is simply reporting on what various churches have decided through their various processes.
The summary of each person's life can also be subjective. For instance, I think St. John of Damascus is significant primarily because he defended icons during a period of iconoclasm. The miraculous restoration of his hand is incidental, and is itself important because it was a sign of God's favor of St. John's theology of icons; his hand was cut off to prevent him writing and to punish him for what he had written. So which details get included in such a brief summary depends on your own point of view.

I heard Russian Orthodox Church (and perhaps Greek too) has the concept of patron saint(patron saint for animal heap and so on). About the canonizasion system in Eastern Orthodox, it is not as strict as in the Roman Cathoric. I don't hear each of seven ancient councils discussed those matters, and after those Eastern Orthodox had no ecumenical council. On St. Nikolai of Japan he was canonified by the Russian Synod after His uncorrupt body was found in 1970. But the uncorrupt body is not a necessary condition like former Roman Cathoric canonization process, I believe. KIZU

You heard utterly wrong. Orthodoxy does not have "patron saints".

[edit] =Summary for this article

I suppose we could add summaries, but we shouldn't remove the tabular information from this page. Wesley 16:57 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

You raise a valid point - wikipedia should not be making statements about who does or does not have the ear of the Christian god (or whatever it is that saints do in whatever the reader's brand of xtianity is). However, I believe that would be best dealt with in a couple of paragraphs of introduction. Creating this complicated tabular structure to try to maintain unimpeachable NPOV is massive overkill.

[edit] Why we need this article?

Let me ask you a question: what is the purpose of this article? How do you expect it to be used? What questions that readers have will be answered by this article? Martin

If you're not familiar with what a saint is, please read the saint article so that you can make more informed edits. A "List of saints" article should answer the question "Who are the saints?", just as a List of famous Canadians article should answer the question "Who are famous Canadians?" The answer to that question should be qualified with which church or churches recognize a person's sainthood; that's part of the answer to that question. Ex-saints need not be listed here if no one considers them a saint; probably future saints also need not be listed even if they are 90% of the way through the canonization process (another article you should probably read). The tabular format, alphabetized as it is, was the most clear and compact way we could come up with at the time to present this information; if you'd like to suggest another format, go right ahead. Come to think of it, other useful information that might even fit in the table would be "When is this saint's feast day?" (so you can wish someone a happy Name Day and pray for them if you know who their patron saint is, or so you can include their troparion in your daily prayers). Of course, feast days would have to include two or more dates, since Western and Eastern calendars of saints often differ, and even in different Orthdox jurisdictions the dates can sometimes vary as well. Wesley 17:36 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
Aha - this would seem to be the root of the problem. You have a dramatically different idea of what the purpose of this page (and other similar ones) should be. I see it as a navigation page, so it would answer questions like:
  • "Where can I find an article about Saint George?"
  • "Where can I find an article about the saint who killed the dragon?"
  • "Where can I find an article about the patron saint of England?"
But I can see that the approach I've proposed wouldn't answer the question you want to answer here - it wouldn't answer "Who are the saints?". I'm not sure how best to resolve that. Martin

You're right, these are different goals. It seems to me the questions you're proposing would be better answered by searching existing articles by keyword. To make this entry answer those questions, you would basically just load each line with keywords next to the link. I think the search engine wikipedia has already does this adequately. Hmm. Perhaps this is also behind the debate about List of Christians? Wesley 18:10 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I guess it's the same debate as that between DMOZ and Google on the wider web. I think that a good human-maintained category system can complement a search engine, but obviously that's a matter of debate. Martin
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a category system or a search engine. I also think you'll find it very difficult to do this sort of categorization from a Neutral Point of View. Perhaps you're wanting to build a human-maintained encyclopedia index? Wesley 19:40 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but that's not an argument to get rid of the wikipedia search engine, so I'm not clear why it'd be an argument to get rid of the wikipedia category system?
Yeah, there are difficulties with NPOV, but I'm not convinced it's any worse than global warming... Martin
I haven't followed the evolution of the global warming topic, so that doesn't really say anything to me. In general, when a statement of fact is controversial, the standard way of NPOV'ing the statement is by saying that X asserts it is true, but Y disagrees, and concisely present reasons for both. The format you're proposing makes that difficult to do, though not necessarily impossible. Do you have another way to address NPOV concerns? Wesley 21:09 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
It's not reasonable to expect a summary, any summary, to be as rigorously NPOV as a full article. Such summaries have to represent instead a consensus point of view or a middle point of view. That doesn't just apply to lists - it applies whenever articles on one subject touch on a seperate subject. When September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Timeline summarises the important events on the day of the attack, it violates NPOV because some people consider the pennsylvanian crash to be relatively unimportant. But this isn't a problem because the full article is available at the click of a mouse, and the full article does not violate NPOV. I think readers will understand this. Martin
Ok, fine. Add summaries. Don't expect them to stay brief. And whatever you do, don't delete existing info about who is canonized by whom. Wesley 21:42 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is advocating paragraph-length summaries here. Some context would be nice for each saint, though. Dates, nationalities, and patronages would all fit within one line (assuming your monitor isn't set to a ridiculously low resolution or large font setting...). As it is, the only way anyone could use this list as anything more than just a list is to click links randomly. And, if this is merely a list of all the saints, why exclude ex-saints? Surely they would be of interest to anyone looking for a comprehensive list, assuming they were clearly labeled as no longer in the canon? --Tellybelly 02:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll add it to my to-do list... (un)fortunately, you've half-convinced me of the merits of the status quo, so I won't be in any rush... Martin

[edit] On other religions than Christianity

Question: Where would saints ( or the equivelent term )for non-christian religions go? For example: Bhuddism, Voudon, Eclesiastica Gnostica Catholica, Taoism, etc

If there's an equivalent term, perhaps we should use that. Something like List of bhodisattvas for instance (or whatever the correct spelling is, I think I messed that up.) Wesley 15:37 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

bodhisattvas

--Sophroniscus 7 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

I started a List of bodhisattvas, but it's apparently been ignored since I started it. Oh well.--T. Anthony 05:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki table markup

I'm sure it's been around a while, but I just recently stumbled across http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Using_tables. Any objections to converting this table to the wiki format? Looks like it would be easy, and make the table much easier to edit. Wesley 16:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Go for it! RCIngham 2004-05-07 17:36

I'd leave it in the current simplified wiki-<td>-format. If you convert it, it will be twice as long. -- User:Docu

[edit] Macrina

IMO, Saint Macrina the Younger and Saint Macrina the Elder should be 2 separate entries in the table. Do they both score 'Yes' in all 4 columns ? -- PFHLai 08:14, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

[edit] Saint arnold - patron saint of brewers?

Is Saint arnold a real saint? Should it be added to this list? Is he already on this list under a different name? - Tεxτurε 18:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone take a look at Saint Margaret Clitherow? Should she go on this page? Thanks 207.189.98.44 22:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm the author of the Margaret Clitherow page, and she should be here. She was canonized in 1970, so that might explain her absence. However, she has a feast day in the Roman Catholic Church. Needless to say, she's not an Anglican saint, as she's one of the "Forty Martyrs of England and Wales" who were martyred for their Roman Catholicism after Henry VIII. Geogre 01:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I looked under Margaret and Clitherow and noticed she's still not there, so I put her in.--DNicholls 09:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Ciara (Sometimes called "Kiara")

Has anyone heard of a Saint Ciara (Sometimes called "Kiara")? Or is this just a vanity attempt? No article in Wikipedia and can't find it elsewhere. - Tεxτurε 20:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • In Assisi Italy: Santa Chiara di Assisi (St. Clare of Assisi), where the word Chiara (Clara)sounds like kiara in italian.

[edit] Saint Cuthbert not canonized?

Hi. Could one of the authors of this list please tell me their source for the assertion that Saint Cuthbert of Lindisfarne has not been canonized by the Roman Catholic Church?

Thanks very much. -Zac.

  • I don't see this asserted except through it's lack in the table. As he's accepted in RC so far as I can see, I'll insert a yes in that column. (Technically, he never went through the canonization process per se, to my knowledge, because he became an accepted saint before that process was normalized.)--DNicholls 09:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks D. I assumed that 'Yes' in the Roman Catholic column meant 'canonized'. Bede was canonized (eventually) so I wondered why Cuthbert hasn't been, especially since there are Roman Catholic churches dedicated to him, in Durham for example. -Zac

[edit] Saint Didier Anglican rec?

I added Saint Didier of Cahors (aka Desiderius of Cahors) after coming upon a wikipedia page on him, but am completely unsure of his standing as regards non-RC lists. I suspect the Anglicans recognize him, but it's mere deduction.--DNicholls 09:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tarasius and Wilfrid

They are in my Catholic Dictionary of Saints which is from 1980. So unless we've undeclared them, something I wished we'd do rarely, I put them as a Yes for the Catholic column. --T. Anthony 20:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Neot

This saint is listed for Eastern Orthodox only. That's as may be, although I for one would have some trouble locating his feast on any Orthdox calendar. If he's venerated at all, it's likely due to the work of those such as St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco who did much to revive the memory of pre-Schism Western saints among the Orthodox. But surely he's remembered in the Roman Catholic church too? How about the Anglicans? Does anyone know? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A Saint Neot is mentioned in my dictionary of saints and at this Patron Saint Index. Although both seemed to indicate some skepticism that he existed. He was allegedly a fifteen inch tall English hermit. Still both sources did list him so I'll put him in "yes" for Catholic and let any Anglican poster handle that end.--T. Anthony 05:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I wonder how many times figurative descriptions of the saints, like the dog-headed St. Christopher, were mistakenly read as literal by later chroniclers? At least in St. Neot's case it's unlikely he was diminuitive at all, let alone that tiny (even if it were possible) since the Wiki article describes him as having been a soldier before he was a monk. I don't think they took them that small back then... TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe a really tiny soldier would be good for espionage or assassination work:) He was almost certainly not that small, no known person is.--T. Anthony 08:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

I was just thinking that it would be nice and more informative if instead of simplly saying when a person was cannonized we also added the year that it happened. (Lotu 04:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

That isn't always known, especially for those saints of mainly local veneration. A great many saints (perhaps even most saints all told) were never formally canonized anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree w/ Lotu. It would be nice to be able to see at a glance when each saint lived, and when they were canonized. There would need to be some approximations and exceptions of course (which would be noted as such), but it would at least be informative. As it is, this article is somewhat useless for research purposes in that no context is given to any of the saints. What are we readers to do? Click randomly? --Tellybelly 01:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There is some context. You can tell from the table who is venerated by whom. But I think canonization dates will be a lot of work for not much real benefit. The most salient points about a saint are his biographical details, and so if we're to include anything more I think we need to start with years of birth and death. As far as canonization goes, there are going to be numerous exceptions anyway, and prominent ones at that. When, for example, was St. Peter canonized? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Schism Saints

There seems to be a tendency here to list all pre-Schism saints under Eastern Orthodox. Although there would certainly be no objection to their veneration, I question whether most of them can actually be found on any Orthodox calendar. I suggest that unless they can be found there, they not be included in that column. Whether or not a particular saint can be venerated in any particular confession is, IMO, less interesting than whether he or she is venerated there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There are Orthodox groups following various Western rites, who commemorate the Western pre-schism saints according to the Western calendar, so for that reason, at least, I think they should still be listed under the EOx column, just as pre-schism Eastern saints should be listed under the Catholic column, if only because Eastern Rite Catholics venerate them. YBeayf 20:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, a great many pre-schism "Eastern saints" have always been venerated in both East and West. But I suppose we have to allow for Western Rite Orthodoxy, although I really don't think it's a particularly significant movement. How many parishes are there worldwide? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St Faith

Not sure why St Faith was left out, she's most definitely in the Book of Common Prayer (under October 6 http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/info/cal_1871/october.html )... AnonMoos 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lots of prominent saints are left out here. This list makes no claims of completeness. Anyone who's not here has simply been hitherto overlooked. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The article does make a claim of completeness with respect to those mentioned in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer... AnonMoos 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protestant/Anglican

I really don't think it's appropriate to label that column "Protestant" and gloss it parenthetically as "Anglican". Although it's difficult to express a consensus about anything in the Anglican communion, many of them don't consider themselves Protestants. There are elements of it that reflect the Reformation movement, but it was rather late to that way of thought. If asked, many would still consider themselves part of the Catholic church (in a broad sense) which is why it's the "Church of England" without any other qualifiers on the name. So I'm reverting. Such a change should really be discussed anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pontius Pilate

I know that some sources claim that the Copts venerate Pilate as well as the Ethiopians. That may be true, or not, or it may be confusion based on the fact that the Ethiopians used to be subject to the Coptic Pope. But I do know that this is not true of other Oriental Orthodox such as the Syrians or the Armenians. I'm therefore reverting until I or someone else can find clearer documentation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked my parish priest, who is well-acquainted with Oriental Orthodoxy, a few days ago and he confirmed that only the Ethioipians venerate Pilate. I'm afraid I can't supply any documentation for this other than the Catholic Encyclopedia (which states that he is venerated by the "Abyssinian Church"), and his utter absence from any Coptic Synaxarion I can find. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I can find dozens of search engine hits of other people's writings mentioning it, but not a one with a definitive reference as to where the information was documented. There were some mentioning it as "Coptic Ethiopians", so my view would be that your initial thought was correct and that it is merely literary confusion. -Dawson 02:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] page move

This page is used exclusively for saints in christianity. It should be moved. Otherwise its not NPOV. ems 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Name another religion that uses the term "saint" for those holy people whose memories it honors. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please review Saint, esp. this section. Tomertalk 08:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That more or less proves my point, that when "saint" is applied to other religions it's generally not so much a proper translation as a paraphrase for the benefit of Westerners who don't want to learn the correct word. So there's the Muslim wali and the Jewish tzadik, neither of which can be properly translated "saint". The Buddhist arhat could be translated "saint" but is most frequently an epithet of Gautama himself and doesn't appear to be used in an equivalent manner; that would be bodhisattva which does not translate to "saint" at all. The Hindu word is sant, but that article points out explicitly that "saint" is a "false cognate". Voodoo saints are Roman Catholic saints syncretized with pagan deities of West African origin, but I don't see a distinction useful for the purposes of this list. Finally, there's an unsourced claim that numerous religions honor "saints", but if the above is any indication it's dubious at best. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what it does is point out, contrary to your assertion, that "saint" is not a Christianity-exclusive concept. While the magisterial forms of Christianity have a methodology by which a person is declared sanctified, the fact of the matter is that the concept had a meaning long before this methodology was developed and that concept misappropriated as the only legitimate interpretation thereof. Just because the writers of the Gospels are called "Saints" happens to coïncide with the fact that they're all 4 canonized saints is really quite irrelevant. They were regarded as "saints" long before the the concept of canonization was required to be regarded, within certain Christian sects, as a legitimate saint. The problem here is that using the term "Saint" as an exclusively Christian concept is, in fact, a blatant expression of POV, i.e., that only Christians can be saints. While I generally prefer to not get involved in such issues, in this case I fully support a move of this list to, at the very least, List of canonized saints (or any variant capitalization thereof). Tomertalk 08:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If the page needs moving, I'd suggest care is needed with including the concept of canonisation in the title - not all denominations who venerate saints have such a formal canonisation process as the Roman Catholics - and many saints with a local cultus are venerated without a centralised canonisation process. List of saints in Christianity might do if necessary, or perhaps List of Christian saints - but personally I'm satisfied with the title as it is. Man vyi 08:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It may prove the concept is common to several religions (although it still does not seem to me that they are all equivalent theologically), but it also certainly proves that the word "saint" is not. That was my point. The holy people from non-Christain religions ought to be listed under the name those religions use for them. There's already a List of bodhisattvas. A Jewish equivalent would be List of tzaddikim; Muslim List of auliya'a; and so forth. Were someone to create these articles (and I really see no reason to be so worried about the name of this article if no one has) it would clearly be appropriate to have a set of dab links at the top. I'll add List of bodhisattvas now; the others can be added as they're written. List of canonized saints is patently inappropriate, as not even all those on the list as it stands were formally canonized. I have no idea where you got the impression that formal canonization was the issue here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggest moving this to List of Christian Saints and creating further lists of saints from other religions, which we must be able to obtain from somewhere. This article is already far too long to go adding all those others to it: in fact I'd be in favour of splitting it up. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the move for the reasons I gave above. How do you suggest the article should be split? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Latin word "sanctus" as a personal noun (and its descendants in Romance languages and its borrowings into Germanic languages etc.) is Christian terminology. The word "Saint" would simply not exist in the English language at all if it were not for the influence of medieval ecclesiastical Latin vocabulary. It's common-sensical to recognize that other religions have loose equivalents to Christian saints -- but pointless to try to make such resemblances obscure the original and primary meaning of the word "saint" in the English langauge... AnonMoos 22:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Do

Could be come a featured list if done right. As a start how about adding the Pope than canonized the Saint and the year they were canonized to the list. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

First, only those saints that are specifically Roman Catholic (and nothing else) will have been canonized by a Pope. Second, the date of canonization is often unclear. Third, some saints weren't canonized at all, especially the early Apostles and martyrs. Fourth, not all churches at all times even had formal canonization procedures where you could say that on a certain date a saint appeared on the calendar.
I see where you're coming from and all, and as a general principle I think some historical context to go with each name would be useful. (Year of death, perhaps?) But your specific suggestions really only work for the more recent Roman Catholic saints. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconcile list

Do we want to somehow reconcile this list with Category:Saints? --evrik 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine I

I am 99.9% sure Constantine I is not a saint in the Roman Catholic Church. Before I make a change does anyone have evidence of Constantine as a Roman Catholic Saint? MedievalScholar 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, he is not. But he is venerated by the Eastern Rite Catholic churches and so should be in that column if "Roman Catholic" is an umbrella term for all the churches in communion with the Pope of Rome. Perhaps it should be footnoted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but he is not recognized as a saint by the Pope in Rome. Also, venerating someone does not make them a saint, it simply suggests that he is honoured by Eastern Catholics. Does anyone have any examples of Constantine I as a Saint which were authorized by a Pope or Bishop of Rome? As far as i can tell he is not and never was a Saint due to his personal devotion to Sol. I agree with TCC about a footnote being added if Constantine is venerated by Eastern Catholics. MedievalScholar 16:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He's on the calendar for Byzantine Catholics, which means he's considered a saint. His feast day is May 21, same as for the Orthodox. I'll try to confirm this later, but I don't have time to dig the book out now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I say go for it. --evrik 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I already put the footnote in. I also added it for Gregory Palamas who is also on the Byzantine Catholic calendar, but who I am reasonably certain does not appear on the Latin rite calendar. There may be others where this is needed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have finished researching Constantine I's role in the Roman Catholic faith. He is not considered a saint. If accuracy is our main concern then he should be removed from the list of Roman Catholic Saints. It is a touchy subject, but official recognition is what should be considered. Any group of Catholics can proclaim someone to be a Saint. It is those who are official recognized by the Vatican, however, that actually are Saints. MedievalScholar 15:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism is a communion of local churches collectively headed by the Pope of Rome in his role as Vicar of Christ and successor to St. Peter. Here we use "Roman Catholic" to designate the entire communion, not just the Church of Rome itself. Although new saints of any of these local churches are confirmed by Rome, those saints who were placed on the calendars during a time when they were not in communion with Rome, or who were venerated in them by tradition not observed in Rome, are saints in those churches today. Constantine is one of the latter, and is correct as now footnoted. Gregory Palamas, now correct with the same footnote, is an example of the former. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright i give up. As usual opinion prevails over fact on Wikipedia.com. MedievalScholar 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving you facts. What's the problem? You're correct that the Latin Rite does not venerate Constantine as a saint. The same is not true for other rites in communion with Rome. It's true I forgot to look it up that evening in my available resources, but that's easily remedied. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

All I really see as inaccurate is that you don't seem to differenciate between those who are Saints and those who are simply venerated as Saints. But this is not worth arguing about further. On one level you are correct, as all those of the Catholic faith should be considered. But on another level, without Papal recognition Constantine's Sainthood is invalid, regardless of how Eastern Catholics view the former emperor. We could go back and forth for ages. Your footnote, if consulted by a wikipedia user, however, should get both our points across effectively. MedievalScholar 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference between those "venerated as Saints" and "Saints". They're two different expressions for the same thing. Sainthood is not a status awarded by the church, but is a recognition of a status already accorded in heaven. The difference in official acts of recognition (or in traditional recognition; many saints' cults predate the official canonization process) results in different calendars, but not in "un-sainthood" for a person present on one local church's calendar and not another's.
Here's the reference: (1976) in Inter-Diocesan Liturgical Commisison of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolitan Province (compiler): Byzantine Book of Prayer, Nihil Obstat: Reverend Alan Borsuk, Censor Liborum; Imprimatur: Stephen J. Kocisko, Metropolitan Archibshop of Munhall, Byzantine Seminary Press and Alleluia Press, 545.  The imprimatur is from the primate of the Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States at the time, an archeparchy in full communion with Rome. (The current Metropolitan is Basil Schott.) Constantine is simply called "Saint" with no comment except a very brief summary of his life along with that of his mother, whose feast is on the same day. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to be that despite the nihil obstat this may not answer your concerns about "Papal acceptance". That acceptance may be taken as implicit under the terms of the Union of Brest and the Union of Uzhhorod, and other similar agreements where Eastern-rite churches were brought into union with Rome. These all included guarantees that their local traditions would be retained unaltered. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are still a little bit confused. Yes many Saints predate the canonization process, but, all the same, if Constantine were a Saint the Pope would have canonized him. Since Popes are Infallible, Constantine is not a saint. I can easily provide you with a list of reasons why he is not a Saint including Pagan worship and Murder. There is a major difference between those venerated as Saints and those who are Saints. In the Roman Catholic church you absolutely need the church to grant Sainthood, otherwise a person simply is not a Saint. I have even consulted a good friend of mine who is a Scholar (PHD) of Late Antique/Mideval history, who verified that Constantine I is not a Catholic Saint. The citation you provide, unfortunately, does not illustrate Papal recognition and therefore does little to support your case.MedievalScholar 13:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is on your side. There are many, many saints neither the Pope nor anyone else has canonized. None of the early martyrs now on the calendar, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, or even Peter and Paul themselves, were ever canonized, yet they are unquestionably saints. Ask any priest.
I don't dispute what your friend says, but I suggest you ask him about the implications of the agreements I mentioned with regard to certain saints on the calendars of Eastern-rite Catholic churches. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes i know they are not technically canonized, but each of the saints you have listed is recognized by the Pope. "Canonized" was a bad choice of word and i apologize. I will take a closer look at the agreements you mentioned and post again in the near future. MedievalScholar 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you may be able to make an argument if "spiritual heritage" includes recognition of all Saints. This would certainly allow the Eastern Rite to venerate whatever "Saints" they pleased. This, however, does not necessarily mean that all the Eastern Saints are technically recognized. It just means the Pope will not interfere in the veneration of these people in order to maintain good diplomatic relations. But you are right, in a way it is a sort of indirect recognition. Maybe put the Union of Brest in the footnote so wikipedia users can draw their own conclusions?MedievalScholar 01:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite make out what you mean by "recognized by the Pope". You appear to mean it in the sense of "traditional in the Latin rite," since for the unquestioned saints I mentioned, there has never been any formal act of Papal recognition. What, therefore, is "technical recognition"? On the other hand, were the Pope to celebrate any services in a Byzantine rite church (as he has the right to do) and it happened to be May 21, he would certainly commemorate Constantine even though he would never do such a thing in one of his local Latin rite churches.
At the very least he can be accorded the status of a "local saint" in the Eastern rites. Would you say that no local saint can be listed here? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, he should be included. I was wondering what you think about putting the Union of Brest in the footnote? It might be nice to have a link which takes a user to the document, or Pope John Paul II's comments regarding the document. Are there many other Saints you know of which are venerated in the Eastern Rite exclusively? With your background in Greek Orthodoxy you would likely be more knowledgable on this topic than myself.MedievalScholar 14:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I already noted the only other case I know about, Gregory Palamas. He's fairly prominent because in the Byzantine rite one Sunday in Lent is devoted to him just as in Orthodoxy. There are a couple of other possibilities, but for political reasons they may have been dropped regardless. (I'm thinking of the other two "Pillars of Orthodoxy", Photius the Great and Mark of Ephesus.) But I have no idea of their status in Eastern-rite Catholicism.
I think that unless we're cautious, this will become more than the list it's intended to be. We can note here the bare fact that among the Catholics, these saints are venerated by the Eastern rites only, and explain why in their respective articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the link so it takes users to Constantine I and Christianity rather than Constantine, since this is the page which discusses his sainthood. Then either you, or I, or both of us, should perhaps research Constantine in the Eastern Catholic tradition and contribute to the page on Constantine I and Christianity. Would you prefer this over altering the footnote?MedievalScholar 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing the link is a good idea. I don't know that much needs to be done to the article than an adjustment to the infobox. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological order

I wanted to check the list in chronological order, I guess both ways would work for different purposes; by date of life or by date of cannonization... But I find I cannot... It would enrich the list a lot... I mean... How many saints are there in the last 50 years?

There has been some discussion about adding either dates the saints lived or dates of canonization. Both could be added, where the latter exists anyway, and we could make the table one with sortable columns. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of death

Seeing as saints are generally dead folks, I figured that the date of death would serve nicely as a dating index of reference. Nonetheless, it's a lot of work; I would hope that someone fill in the saints after the A's and add the column where it needs to be added (heading is "Date of death" and width is 100). — Rickyrab | Talk 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Can anyone conferm that Leroy Jenkins is a saint? IF he died in 2007 it seems very unlickely he is already cannonized

YA, IT IS NOT VANDALISM Arthasfleo

Can someone get rid of "Kyle of the Awesome" under K? I'd do it myself, but I haven't ever edited a Wikipedia article before, and I don't know what I'm doing. I just don't want to mess anything up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.109.84 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Guy Johnson who "died" in 1337 is really a saint. NecroAnubie (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Nuked, thanks! Hqb (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical tables a problem

The fact that the artcile includes 26 independent tables - one for each letter of the alphabet effectively makes the sorting mechanism provided useless. I tried sorting the table by "Anglicanism" and was surprised to find all anglican saints started with an A - until I looked more closely into things. What are the disadvantages of making this one large table without the lettered divides? -- SGBailey 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The current arrangement predates the sorted tables now in use, and I think even the introduction of that feature in Wikipedia. It's primarily a search aid, allowing readers to skip directly to the listings under a particular letter via the link in the TOC. You bring up a good point though. I'll think about alternatives. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sort keys

To get the sortable tables to work better, I have added invisible sort keys to those names that need it. As it was before, names such as "Pope Anacletus" would be sorted as "Pope" rather than "Anacletus". I have added a comment at the top of the set of tables showing how to do this.

This also needs to be done for the "date of death" column so that they sorts correctly even with "ca." in front. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are many cases of alphabetization that might be technically correct -- for example, ignoring "of" and "the" in the middle so that it's ordered only by the major terms -- but which will sort differently by the sortable table script. We should probably sort by default just as the script does. I did this in a few cases, but was not consistent. No one should hesitate to fix this where problems are noted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from List of saints by name:A

The first section of this article and the article List of saints by name:A seem to be redundant in purpose, though not in content. Since there is no "List of saints by name" for any other letter (see Special:Prefixindex/List of saints by name, I propose that the one list that does exist be merged into this article (trimmed before merging, if necessary). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

Why are some of the names listed with titles and others not? For example I notice people who served as popes have the title "Pope", but someone who served as a deacon is not listed with that title. Wouldn't it be better to be consistant. An earlier suggestion of a one sentnce summary of the saint's cliam to faimn was rejected but how about the shorter titles often used (doctor, pope, bishop, martyr, apostle, virgin, etc) they could be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.42.158 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes of Assisi

I am quite sure that Agnes of Assisi is not venerated in the Orthodox Church. From where does this listing originate? 99.235.203.124 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky87 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem created by improper term "Roman" Catholic

The article incorrectly categorizes "Roman Catholic" as the entire Catholic world. Fact is that the Western church (aka the Latin Rite) canonizes saints for that church (little "c") specifically and not the East. Eastern Catholicism (the 'c'hurch- the subcategory of the Catholic Church- not "Roman"- where Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy suceeded from directly) has its own designation of Saints and feast days. Thus, the Eastern/OrientalOrthodox Churches would represent the same saints as Eastern Catholicism right up to their particular Schisms...and differs henceforth. Thus the proper way do deal with this is to have presented saints canonized separately by its 2 subcategories - the Eastern and the Western churches within the heading (Petrine)"Catholic Church". Thus avoiding the confusion created with the "Roman"ism of churches that are not and never have been Latin(Roman) at all. The same Romanization which does not distinguish the Latin Rite from the Universal Church which includes 21 additional non-"Roman" rites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.134.74 (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more saints!!!

i've added more saints if no one minds. hopefully there aren't any mistakes... Budgie13 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)