Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawg

There was no formal canonization process for Saints, as we have today, in this early period. A person just needed to be locally known as a godly Christian example to be regarded as a “Saint.”

If you look up other Celtic Christian notables, virtually all of them are called “Saints” and are folks generally we’ve never heard of (thought about St. Willibald recently, or raised a glass to St. Briget?) unless you’re an historian of Celtic Christianity.

Patrick is regarded as a Saint in the traditional sense...but, he went through no formal canonization (the 2 miracles, and other requirements to be approved of by Rome) which is what Driscoll was referring to.


20 posted on 03/18/2011 2:59:22 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: AnalogReigns
Patrick is regarded as a Saint in the traditional sense...but, he went through no formal canonization (the 2 miracles, and other requirements to be approved of by Rome) which is what Driscoll was referring to.

And indeed Patrick was a saint in the biblical sense ...

25 posted on 03/18/2011 5:20:06 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: AnalogReigns

Yeah. That was kind of my point. A canonization process wasn’t always the way to be “official”.


26 posted on 03/18/2011 5:21:57 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson