I propose that the scope of this category should be explicitly restricted to persons. Not just any kind of persons. Just those persons that are in the species homo sapiens sapiens. This would have the effect of excluding angels and archangels, who while having being, intellect, will and other trappings of personality, are not members of the above species. This would also have the effect of excluding dogs, who while having being, intellect, will and other trappings of personality, not to mention stick-fetching skills, are not members of the above species. This creates problems for some editors because they point out that 3 archangels feature on the liturgical calendar of the RC Church (and probably of others as well) as saints (Sept 29th to be precise). Such veneration may have been going on for 1500 years or more. We have an apparent contradiction then. It would appear that the RC admits beings who are not in the above species to the category "saint". It is my contention that the contradiction is more apparent than real. I have a source that says that such archangels are saints only in a very strained sense of the word. It is my contention that categories in Wiki should not be strained. You either fit snugly or not at all. If a new category is required to contain the wider sense of saintliness that archangels occupy, so be it. Wiki has enough bytes to spare for 1 more category such as Category:Saints and angelic beings venerated by Christians. It is my contention that the RC Church (among others) recognises this distinction but chooses to also live with a degree of ambiguity. In all practical purposes, it recognises that only members of the above species are saints. For example SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM of 1964 states: "104. The Church has also included in the annual cycle days devoted to the memory of the martyrs and the other saints. Raised up to perfection by the manifold grace of God, and already in possession of eternal salvation, they sing God's perfect praise in heaven and offer prayers for us. By celebrating the passage of these saints from earth to heaven the Church proclaims the paschal mystery achieved in the saints who have suffered and been glorified with Christ; she proposes them to the faithful as examples drawing all to the Father through Christ, and through their merits she pleads for God's favors." Note "raised up to perfection" - as angels are created perfect, there is no question of them rising to perfection. Only humans need rise up. Note "from earth to heaven" - heaven is the eternal home of angels. Only humans leave their home to go from earth. Note "saints who have suffered" - angels do not suffer. I commend this modest proposal to the house. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Absolutely oppose The proposal is a blanket proposal for multiple denominations, with multiple approaches, and a blanket assertion such as this will just lead to contradictions. As discussed at great length here the Roman Catholic approach (a few popes indeed, as well as the Roman calendar of saints) do not fit into this blanket categorization from a theological perspective. While some denominations may only have human saints, some do not, as discussed at great length here, where the distinction between the theological terms persons and people (going all the way back to the 5th century) was carefully explained in detail. Hence this is an inherently error plagued suggestion on theological grounds, as discussed on that talk page at length History2007 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I agree with History2007. This proposal effects "multiple denominations" (all Christians denominations actually). That's a good thing. I also agree that "some denominations may only have human saints", so they will not be in the least bit aggrieved by the proposal. Where we disagree is with the corollory (i.e. for those denominations that do not have only human saints). We disagree because I contend that no such denominations exist (per rationale above). And even if theyu do exist, it would not be theologically erroneous to place the non-human saints (angelic, canine or otherwise) into the wider newly proposed category. They would sit snugly there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- No, I am sorry, your rational that no such denominations exist was soundly rejected on theological grounds with sources, on the St. Michael talk page by a number of users, as I am sure can be recalled. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose Although this is a category, Wikipedia principles still apply. Unless it can be demonstrated from reliable sources—which in this case would be theological sources—why the term must be restricted to deceased humans, then there is no clear reason for excluding 'persons' that even the Vatican would include. The one source that has been provided above does not state that saints must be human or that all saints were human, and the same source (the Vatican) includes archangels as saints.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose Proponent states that "heaven is the eternal home of saints". If angels are not in heaven, pray where are they? "To be in heaven is to be a saint. St. Michael is in heaven and is therefore a saint." (Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.,Catholic Answers on 8/29/2007)...The word "saint" refers, in Catholic tradition, to those who are with God in eternity. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, they are joined with God forever in a life free from decay, and share in his life and happiness. Thus, there's nothing that would deny applying the title to angels, and Christians have done so for centuries. Part of Christian tradition is the belief that God created these spiritual beings with the power of reason and with freedom to make personal moral decisions. Certain of them sinned by defying God in some way, others did not. Those who remained faithful are, of course, with God their creator, share his life and blessedness, and are therefore deserving of the title saint. The angels, therefore, are like thousands of others on the roll of saints who came to have this distinction by popular acclaim of the people, through their especially distinguished witness to Christian life and teaching, or because of their extraordinary service to the church or humanity. (Fr. John Dietzen, Catholic News Service, 6/8/2011) ...Proponent's suggestion is an overly restrictive use of the term, largely OR, and ignores centuries of practical application by various denominations. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51Reply
- I fixed the typo about "eternal home" that Mannanan has noted above. In the previous discussion, a definition of saint was produced. Nobody disagreed with it. "a common definition is: A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth. (A secondary description mentions a person who has died and gone to heaven.)". Mannanan now seems to have abandoned it in favour of Tradition. That's a tricky thing to prove, especially as common piety is rarely concerned with the niceties of theology. At no time have I said that saints are not "with God in eternity" - quite the opposite. I assume that the bit in italics is Fr Serpa's opinion and not the teaching of V2. The centuries of popular piety has involved the Church closing its eyes to the illogicality of the inclusion of angels among saints, while in all its other pronouncements making it clear that it only applies to actual people. Only in the loosest sense are they saints, in the sense that they enjoy the beatific vision. They do not fit Mannanan's definition not do they fit Sacrosanctum Concilium. But the church ignores this because of popular acclaim & piety, all the time knowing that it is illogical. It would be more honest to admit that they are not like men in their holiness but have their own kind of holiness. But the Church doesn't do apologies or admit to turning a blind eye to convenient ambivalences. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- So flawed logic is now chalked up to a "typo"? Angels were not "created perfect", else we would not have Milton's "Paradise Lost". I have by no means abandoned the common definition in favor of Tradition; I cite both. The problem lies in the proponent's entirely ideosyncratic view of the term "person". (Only last year the American Supreme Court reiterated the point that corporations are persons -'though unlikely to be saints.) -Note the italicized portion of my last post is the statement of Fr. Dietzen -who supports Fr. Serpa's position. "Angels are real and they are persons. They are simply a different order of creature than humans. Humans are human persons; angels are angelic persons. Those angels who are in heaven are called saints by virtue of being in heaven." (Michelle Arnold, Apologist at Catholic Answers, Dec.16, 2010) There is nothing illogical in the Roman Catholic Church's position; proponent simply refuses to accept the RC ( and Anglican, and Lutheran) interpretation of the words "saint" and "person". To expand on the proponent's own tortuous reasoning on a previous page: Apples and oranges are to fruits as holy people and angels are to saints -different but the same. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51Reply
- Whether it's logical is a matter of opinion, but hardly relevant. It is what they believe, which is satisfactory for a category about a theological belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The proponent's argument is almost entirely taken from the source which speaks of a "stretched" sense of the word "saint". This, however, was in response to a question that noted that "Sometimes people refer to those who have died, especially children, as angels.." It is important to know the question in order to understand the answer. In this case Fr. Evans was careful to draw a distinction between humans and angels, to demonstrate that people do not become angels. But even he acknowledges that "over the centuries ...archangels came to be listed among the catalogue of saints....Doing such important work for God, their holiness has been presumed." --- and that is what "saint" means. Mannanan51 (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51Reply
- Strongest possible oppose: I honestly cannot see any just cause for this proposal. So far as I can determine, at least some of the angelic hosts, particularly those who have received individual names, like Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael, have been regarded as "saints" from the earliest days of Christianity. The single source proposed to substantiate this proposal is, has been indicated above, made in response to a very specific question regarding another subject. Granted, most of the angels who have never been named are not called "saints", because they have not been given a specific name to refer to them by. However, even within the Catholic Church, saints are considered to be individual souls who have displayed heroic virtue, and it is really hard for me to think that the likes of Michael, who was we are told one of the primary figures in the defeat of the first of the fallen, who is now generally considered the leader of the opposition, does not meet that criterion. It seems to me that this proposal itself can be seen as violating to some degree OR and POV requirements, given the numerous sources that refer to the named archangels as "saints," and I cannot see how that would be of benefit to building a truly neutral encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, this is a very strange proposal, given that the issues have been repeatedly explained to this user with sources on the other talk page, yet the user looks through SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM (of all things) which is about the liturgy and picks a paragraph, performs WP:OR to generate this suggestion. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Can I change my !vote to "Really really strong oppose"? :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
