Talk:Beatification

Beatified people

Is the list of partially Beatified people necessary, or could it be entirely replaced by the Beatified people category?

Now that the category exists and is populated, it is probably better and more maintainable than the list in the article. Maybe the article should have a few prominant examples, though. Mpolo 19:16, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

This isn't really unique to Catholicism, is it ? I mean, is there not some analog in the Eastern Orthodox Churches ?

Also, I think the article should mention the critical charge that beatification is a form of apotheosis, as that (charge) would probably have widespread support in modern Protestantism ?

---

It is pretty unique to Catholicism; the only other Church to have something similar is the Russian Orthodox - but it's less formal and goes by another name.

The background for the difference seems to be one that is encountered elsewhere too: The Catholic Church thinks in legalistic terms, and needs a process, while the Eastern/Oriental Churches are much less formal in their way of thinking. This can be seen in the attitude towards canon law, the administration of the sacraments etc.

As for the Protestant attitude, it seems like a good idea to cover that. But I suppose that the criticism is even stronger against canonization, so perhaps that is the best place to cover it in any depth.

Cnyborg 14:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

Come and join a new WikiProject: Saints (covers the Blessed as well). --Kpalion 11:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of beatified people

Following an edit comment by User:Michael Hardy, I think I should say something about my recent pruning of the list of beatified people. As noted before, comprehensiveness of this list has little value given the existence of the category Category:Beatified people. Instead,I thought the most value to wikiepedia users would be if the list were restricted to the few figures about whom most is said about here on Wikipedia. No doubt about the authenticity of the commented-out names was intended. ---- Charles Stewart 08:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really knowledgable about this sort of thing and this didn't really explain very much to me. Is there anyone who could dumb this down for me?

Greek usage

μακαριος needed to have the appropriate accents added. I added an accute accent over the second alpha according to the common usage found by doing a Google search of the term. I am changing it to μακάριος. --Bkcraft 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Typing Error?

For instance, veneration of John Duns Scotus is found in the diocese of Cologne, Germany and among the Franiscans, among other places. Shouldn't that read Franciscans? Thegoldpope 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is something missing in the first sentence of History: In earlier ages, local and passed from one diocese to another with the authorization of their bishops. after the comma, should there be "Saints were" or something similar? I would make the change myself, but I'm not sure what is intended here. OldBoar (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Greek

Does beatification come through the Greek μακάριος? A more natural etymology would seem to be ευλογητος. -- Pastordavid 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultus

If this cultus thing is different, and I am guessing the need to differentiate it makes it different, there should be a seperate article that explains it. The explanation in this article did not really clarify what it is for me, and just introduced questions I didn't have before I came here. 71.156.32.40 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• No need to split, at least until there is a whole lot more text, but even then I think they should stay together. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"scandalous"

"Some beatifications by bishops in the Middle Ages were almost scandalous by modern standards."
This sounds like POV to me. Could this be reworded? -- megA (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than make the conclusory allegation that the beatifications were scandalous, a few of them should be described, and the reader can then draw his own conclusions. John Paul Parks (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Beautification

Surely, as the bard said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Wouldn't it be more respectful to leave it at that rather than doing a sort of cosmetic makeover on a dead person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.108.81 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Greek

I removed the greek, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the etymology of the English word. It had no place there. 2:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egein (talk • contribs)

Miracle

"In this case, the miracle cannot be disproved by current scientific explanations, therefore it must be true. Which, of course, is totally wrong. The truth is there probably IS some potential physical, scientific, medical explanation for what happened – it’s just that there isn’t enough evidence to create and test a hypothesis. And that’s very different from saying 'it’s inexplicable therefore must be a miracle.'" Should be changed, it implies an intolerance for religion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beatification. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.catholic-forum.com/SAINTS/define81.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Singular

"Beati is the plural form." So what's the singular form? 71.235.184.247 (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"Beatus"?--Quisqualis (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020: Beatification is a process

Surely, beatification must have a number of "steps" or phases, which are not kept secret and are enumerated in reliable sources. I'm puzzled at their absence here in this article, without any links being given to other WP articles which contain them. As far as I can tell (as a non-Catholic, I find this article glaringly incomplete), the process of "postulation", among others, is neither mentioned nor described. I have enough on my plate atm; would another editor please add a section on the beatification process to this article? Many thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As beatification is part of canonization, the latter article contains much material. Will see to linking.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)