That is certainly true, but I cannot think of any saint who opposed the foundation of monasteries; sought to remove bishops from their sees without charge or consent; demanded honoraria comparable to a month's wages for a skilled worker and luxurious accommodations as a condition of paying a two day archpastoral visit to a parish; trampled the canons to permit a confidant to remarry while remaining in the priesthood (and to a divorcee at that) and adding excommunication to deposition when dealing with disobedient clergy; or whether through a bizarre combination of arrogance, naivite, and lack of spiritual discernment, or through just plain dishonesty, used fradulent documents to bolster his position in an ecclesiatical dispute.
All these Metropolitan Philip has most assuredly done, and I confine myself to charges provable as a matter of public record.
I pray that Met. Philip will be a saint in the really important sense of standing at the right hand of Christ on the Last Day, but his recent public acts are not supportive of his glorification ever being proclaimed before that day, and render him unfit to lead our Archdiocese.
You win.