Saint Michael/Talk

< Saint Michael

HomePage | Recent changes | View source | Discuss this page | Page history | Log in |

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

Well, damn. I wasn't logged in (how that happens I'll never know), so the summary is now incomprehensible. I was the one revising. --MichaelTinkler

Protestants would call him Michael or the Archangel Michael as an angel cannot be a saint, only a human can. --rmhermen

While I agree with Michael that we're probably better off leaving the "saint" out of the article title, I have to point out the Catholic/Orthodox rationale for calling an angel a saint. If we understand "saint" to simply mean "holy", as it does in most other languages, then unfallen angels who stand in the presence of God singing hymns and offering their prayers can surely be said to be holy. This broader understanding of the word "saint" is how Protestants understand the word when they say every Christian is a saint, so there shouldn't be a huge disagreement here. The more understandable difference is in using "Saint" as a title, and the whole canonization process. To me, it's much easier to understand why Protestants would be uncomfortable with recognizing a select few as capital-S saints. See also saint. --Wesley
While Protestant certainly dispute the idea behind capital S saints, saints does not just mean holy for all Protestant groups. Concepts like perserverance of the saints clearly only apply the term saints to fallen humans who have been redeemed. --rmhermen

I've declared myself in favor of calling all saints by their names rather than by 'saint so-and-so'. --MichaelTinkler