St. Patrick's Day history

Manach

An interesting article on some of the traditions associated with the day.

https://www.history.com/news/st-patricks-day-facts

Jellybaby_1

Well, I never knew Patrick was never canonised. I'm always learning.

Speedsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121905582#Comment_121905582

Canonisation wasn't really a thing until the eleventh century or so. So most early saints weren't canonised.

Jellybaby_1

I had assumed he had been canonised much later. I remember way back in my childhood hearing that someone can't be made a saint until they've been dead for so many years, then they're they're dug up and if they haven't decomposed, and if they had performed certain miracles, they could then be canonised! Might have been hogwash though. Well, he's had the title so long now I suppose it's stuck! We never go near the 'celebrations' for St. Patrick's Day but I'm sure Patrick wouldn't be amused by what we've done in his memory, particularly as he was a saintly man.

blackbox

Haven't they canonized mother Theresa.

It turns out she was a nasty piece of work.

At least nobody has a bad word to say about st. Patrick.

Manach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121905923#Comment_121905923

Thanks for provivding an excuse to post an example of Bad History engendered by the journalistic method historical analysis: https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/gcxpr5/saint_mother_teresa_was_documented_mass_murderer/

blackbox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121906109#Comment_121906109

Mass murderer? That's a bit extreme. A long way beyond nasty in my book.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121905912#Comment_121905912

Most of the saints that are most commonly encountered have never been formally canonised. Mary, Paul, the twelve apostles, most of the national patron saints, etc etc — none of them have been canonised.

As speedsie says, it wasn't really a thing until the 11th century. Prior to that, the practice of venerating a particular person as a saint was mostly a sort of bottom-up, popular thing. A local bishop might decide to try to squash the veneration of a particular saint, or he might decide to promote it, but in both cases he was reacting to something that was already happening on the ground. And, whichever of those he tried, he wouldn't necessarily succeed. Even if popular veneration was successfully established and was endorsed by the bishop, this was a matter of only local significance. Ireland is full of saints who became saints in this fashion, and all but a handful of them are wholly unknown and unvenerated outside Ireland.

From the 11th century onwards they were trying to formalise the process, and put it more in the hands of bishops and less in the hands of the people. Note that this wasn't an attempt to make more saints, but rather fewer; it was an attempt at quality control. It was still a local matter; bishops investigated and approved (or didn't approve) the causes of candidates from their territory, and their decisions one way or the other were of local signficance only. Over the next five centuries Rome gradually took more and more of an interest in the question, and since about the sixteenth century canonisations have been handled in Rome, and decisions made are applicable throughout the church. But they never retrospectively examined the pre-1th century saints with a view to formally canonising them; their veneration was already well-established and well-accepted, so what would be the point?

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121905923#Comment_121905923

Except the guy he knocked out in wicklow

Jellybaby_1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121907957#Comment_121907957

Many thanks for that explanation. Loved the 'quality control' bit!!