Would Today’s Saints Be Rejected in the Past?

Brief Overview

• The Church’s standards for recognizing saints have remained consistent since the early centuries, focusing on holiness, virtue, and evidence of God’s action in their lives through miracles.
• Different historical periods presented different challenges and contexts for living out the faith, yet the fundamental qualities that made someone holy stayed the same across all times.
• Modern saint candidates are evaluated using formal processes developed over centuries, including rigorous investigation of their lives, writings, and claimed miracles through scientific and theological examination.
• The personalities and circumstances of saints varied greatly throughout Church history, from martyrs in the first centuries to mystics in the medieval times to active workers in modern ages, showing that holiness takes many forms.
• Cultural and social differences between past and present affect how saints expressed their faith in practical ways, but their inner commitment to God and pursuit of virtue would have been recognizable to believers in any era.
• Saints from the past would face similar scrutiny today if they lived now, suggesting that true holiness transcends time and would be acknowledged regardless of whether someone was born in the third century or the twenty-first century.

Early Church Standards and Modern Recognition

The Church has always looked for certain marks of holiness when considering who should be honored as a saint. From the very beginning, Christians identified certain people as specially close to God based on their commitment to faith, their moral character, and sometimes miraculous events linked to their prayers. The early martyrs were recognized as saints through a process that was less formal than what exists today but relied on the same basic principle: these people showed extraordinary virtue and dedication to Christ. The local communities where they lived and died remembered them, prayed to them, and celebrated their memory each year. Over time, the Church developed more structured ways of examining claims about saints to make sure everything was genuine and accurate. The formal canonization process that exists now took shape gradually over many centuries and includes many checks and safeguards. Modern procedures require careful study of the person’s life, their writings if any exist, and evidence that God worked miracles through their intercession. Scientific investigation of claimed miracles happens in contemporary times, with medical doctors examining medical records and unexplained healings. Theological experts also review the person’s teachings to make sure they align with Catholic faith and practice. Despite the differences in how evidence is gathered and organized today, the underlying criteria for recognizing a saint remain the same as they always were.

Virtue and Moral Character Through the Ages

When the Church considers someone for sainthood, it examines their moral character and how consistently they lived virtuous lives. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and love form the foundation of what makes someone holy in the Catholic understanding. Practical virtues like prudence, courage, temperance, and justice show how people applied these deeper spiritual gifts to their actual behavior and choices. A saint in the third century demonstrated these virtues by refusing to deny Christ even facing death, showing tremendous courage and faith under extreme pressure. A saint in the thirteenth century showed these same virtues by giving up wealth and comfort to live in service to the poor, displaying love and temperance. A saint in the modern era shows these virtues by working for justice in social systems or by maintaining deep prayer and faithfulness while facing the doubts common to educated people today. The specific ways they acted out these virtues differed based on what their times demanded of them, but the virtues themselves were identical. If someone from the past lived with the same character today, that character would still be recognized as holy. If someone from today lived with their same virtues in the past, those virtues would have been recognized as holy then as well. The standard does not change because human nature and the nature of sin and virtue do not change across time. What changes is only the outward circumstances in which people must live out their commitment to becoming more like Christ.

The Role of Miracles and God’s Action

A key part of modern saint canonization involves miracles attributed to the person’s intercession after their death. The Church requires strong evidence that something medically impossible or extremely unlikely occurred and that it happened through prayer to the candidate for sainthood. Medical professionals examine records and conduct investigations to rule out natural explanations for the healing or event in question. Theological experts also study the case to confirm that the circumstances fit what we would expect if God was genuinely acting through the saint’s prayers. This careful process exists because the Church takes seriously its responsibility to teach people truthfully about who God has made holy. In past centuries, this kind of rigorous medical and scientific examination was not possible in the same way, yet the Church still sought evidence that God was working through a saint’s life and intercession. Early Christians knew when something miraculous had happened among their community even without modern medical technology. They preserved the memory and testimony of these events through writings and oral tradition. The form of evidence gathering has changed, but the basic principle remains the same: God acts in history, and we can recognize when He is doing so. If a saint from the past were subjected to modern investigation methods, either the miracles would still hold up under scrutiny or they would not. Either way, the conclusion would be just as valid as what the Church determined in its own time. The shift toward more rigorous scientific methods simply makes our modern judgments about these matters more defensible and clear.

Different Forms of Holiness Across History

One important fact to remember is that holiness has taken different forms at different times in the Church’s history. The early martyrs demonstrated holiness through their willingness to give their lives rather than deny Christ. When persecution stopped and the Church became established in the Roman Empire, monasticism grew as a way for people to dedicate themselves completely to prayer and spiritual life. Later, friars who walked among people in cities showed holiness through active preaching and ministry. In medieval times, many mystics received special spiritual experiences and visions that they described in their writings. Mystics like Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross experienced profound union with God through prayer and wrote about their spiritual insights. In more recent centuries, saints have often been known for their work in education, healthcare, or social justice as well as their deep prayer lives. Saint Mother Teresa of Kolkata worked with the poorest of the poor in Calcutta, showing that holiness could be expressed through direct service to the suffering. Saint John Paul II lived as a pope during times of tremendous social and political change, addressing modern problems through his teachings. These different expressions of holiness might look very different from one another on the surface, yet they all reflect the same fundamental response to God’s call: a person saying yes to following Christ completely. If a medieval contemplative were alive today, his or her way of being holy might look quite different, but the core commitment would be the same. If a modern social worker were alive in the medieval period, their actions would take different forms, but their dedication to serving God through serving others would still be evident. The forms change because the needs and opportunities of each era differ, but the substance of holiness itself does not.

Understanding the Context of Each Era

To fairly evaluate whether saints from the past would be accepted today or saints today would be accepted in the past, we must understand the specific circumstances of each time period. In the first few centuries, the biggest test of faith was whether someone would die rather than renounce Christ when persecution came. Many Christians chose martyrdom, and this choice was the clearest sign of complete dedication to God. These martyrs lived in a time when being Christian could result in torture and execution, so their sacrifice was a literal giving of life itself. In later periods when that immediate physical danger was no longer present, holiness expressed itself through other forms of commitment. Medieval monks who spent their lives in prayer in monasteries were responding to what they saw as God’s call for their particular time and situation. They believed that their prayers supported the Church and the world in important ways, and many people around them recognized the value of their dedication. When we look at the historical record, we see that these different expressions of holiness were recognized and honored by the communities in which they occurred. The question of whether past saints would be accepted today requires us to think about what makes someone holy. If a medieval contemplative moved to the modern world, their spiritual depth and commitment to God would still be real and recognizable. If a modern saint moved to the medieval world, their virtue and service would still shine through, even if the specific ways they could serve would be different. The real question is not whether the circumstances would be different, but whether the inner reality of their commitment to God would still be evident. The answer is yes; true holiness transcends the specific era in which it is lived out.

The Catechism on Holiness and Saints

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the Church recognizes in the lives of saints an authentic response to the word of God. The Catechism teaches that all Christians are called to holiness and that different people respond to this call in different ways according to their state in life. Some people are called to married life, some to religious communities, some to priestly ministry, and some to live as lay people engaged in the work of the world. Each of these paths can lead to genuine holiness if the person follows faithfully what God is asking of them. The standards for recognizing someone as officially blessed or canonized involve examining whether their life showed real conversion to Christ and real growth in virtue over time. The Catechism also notes that the Church looks for evidence of a person’s intercessory power, meaning that prayers directed to them seem to result in God’s actions in the world. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church throughout its history and remains so today. What the Catechism describes as the mark of a saint is not something that depends on the century in which that person lived. The virtues the Catechism identifies as necessary for holiness are timeless: faith, hope, love, and the practical virtues that flow from them. A person in any age who possessed these virtues in abundance and lived them out faithfully would be recognized as holy. The specific challenges someone faced or the particular circumstances of their time would only change the particular expressions of these virtues, not whether the virtues themselves were present.

Examining Claims from Different Periods

When we look at claims about saints throughout history, we can see that different eras had different ways of verifying and preserving information about holy people. In the early Church, before written records became common, communities passed down stories about martyrs and holy leaders through oral tradition. Some of these stories were eventually written down by people who compiled them from these oral sources. While this method might seem less reliable to us than modern investigation techniques, it actually preserved important information about the lives and deaths of early martyrs. When historians today study these ancient accounts, they can often verify details by checking them against historical records from Roman sources and other contemporary writings. Medieval saints were sometimes documented through chronicles kept by monks in their monasteries or through writings about their lives completed after their death by those who knew them. Some of these accounts include details that seem strange or hard to believe to modern readers, yet when scholars investigate carefully, they often find that the basic facts about the person’s life and accomplishments are accurate. Modern candidates for sainthood benefit from the existence of written records, official documents, medical records, and sometimes even recordings or photographs that can be studied. However, none of these differences in documentation methods changes what we are actually looking for: evidence of a person’s genuine holiness and virtue. If we applied modern standards to the early martyrs, we would have less physical documentation but we would still recognize their courage and commitment to Christ. If we applied early Church standards to modern saint candidates, we would recognize their virtue and dedication even without all our current investigative tools. The standards for recognizing holiness remain consistent even though the tools available for verification have changed considerably.

The Role of the Church’s Development in Understanding

The Church’s understanding of what makes someone holy has developed over time, but this development has been one of clarification and refinement rather than fundamental change. The early Church recognized holiness in the martyrs who died for Christ, and this recognition was based on straightforward observation of their courage and faith. As Christianity spread and persecution ended, the Church had to think more carefully about what counted as holiness in other contexts. The rise of monasticism led the Church to consider prayer and spiritual discipline as paths to holiness alongside martyrdom. The development of scholastic theology in the medieval period helped the Church think more systematically about virtue and how it related to grace and God’s action. The modern canonization process represents the refinement of these earlier understandings into a careful, systematic approach. However, the basics have remained the same from the very beginning: the Church looks for people who were genuinely close to God, who lived moral lives of real virtue, and whose prayers seem to help others. If we could bring someone from the early Church forward in time to observe modern canonization processes, they would recognize that we are looking for the same things their own communities looked for. If we could show someone from today how early communities recognized their saints, we would see that they used similar reasoning about what indicated genuine holiness. The methods have become more formal and organized, with more explicit theological and medical criteria, but the underlying realities that matter have not changed. What mattered then was a person’s real conversion and growth in virtue, and that is what matters now. A person who showed genuine conversion and growth in virtue in the first century would be recognized as holy by modern standards. A person who shows genuine conversion and growth in virtue today would have been recognized as holy by the standards of the early Church.

Social and Cultural Expressions of Faith

One reason people might think saints from the past would be rejected today is that they sometimes held or expressed ideas that seem strange or wrong to modern people. A medieval saint might have believed things about science that we now know are incorrect. A saint from the Renaissance might have expressed views about social matters that conflict with what we understand about justice today. However, the Church distinguishes between the core matters of faith and morals that never change and the cultural expressions of faith that do change with the times. When the Church canonizes someone, it is not saying that every idea they held was correct or that everything they did was the right way to do things. The Church is recognizing that this person responded wholeheartedly to God’s call as they understood it in their own time. A medieval woman who wore a hair shirt and fasted severely was not expressing something that we would recommend today, yet her extreme practices came from a genuine desire to unite herself with Christ’s suffering. By modern understanding of health and psychology, such practices would be seen as harmful rather than helpful. Yet the underlying motivation was real faith and love of God. If such a person were alive today, the Church would hope they would learn better ways to express their commitment to God that did not harm their health. But the fact that their specific practices were limited by the understanding of their time does not mean they were not genuinely holy. The same works the other way as well. A modern saint who works for social justice or uses modern technology to spread the faith is not doing something that would have been impossible in earlier times. If such a person lived in the past, they would have found other ways to serve God and help others that fit the circumstances of that era. The core commitment to God would still be present and recognizable.

Holiness and Personal Temperament

Some people might worry that certain types of personalities or temperaments would be rejected as candidates for sainthood in different eras. Someone who was very emotional or intuitive might seem strange in a highly rational age, or someone who was very intellectual might seem cold in an age that valued emotional expression. However, the Church has always recognized holy people with many different personality types. Saint Paul was intellectual and intense, arguing carefully for Christian truth. Saint John was contemplative and mystical, expressing deep spiritual insights through poetic language. Saint Peter was practical and straightforward, a fisherman who became a leader through his faithfulness rather than through scholarly learning. Saint Mary Magdalene was emotionally expressive and passionate in her response to Christ. This variety shows that the Church does not reject holiness simply because someone’s personality or natural temperament is different from another style. What matters is not whether someone is quiet or outgoing, intellectual or intuitive, but whether their particular way of being leads them closer to God. Throughout history, the Church has included saints of all these different temperament types. A contemplative person in any era would recognize and respect a contemplative saint. An active person in any era would recognize and respect an active saint. If a twenty-first-century person with a particular personality type went back to the third century, they would still be themselves. Their personality would not suddenly change, but neither would the possibility for them to live a holy life. If an ancient saint were brought forward in time, their fundamental personality would remain the same, even if how they expressed it might change. Holiness is not limited to any one personality type because God works in and through the full variety of human natures He created.

The Question of Supernatural Gifts and Mystical Experiences

Some saints throughout history reported extraordinary mystical experiences, visions, or other supernatural phenomena. In medieval times, many people seemed to accept reports of such experiences more readily than modern people do. Today, we require careful investigation to rule out natural explanations before accepting that something genuinely supernatural has occurred. A person in the past might have reported a vision of Christ, and their community might have accepted it based on the person’s reputation for holiness and the account’s consistency with Christian teaching. A modern saint candidate might report something similar, and the Church today would investigate it carefully to consider psychological explanations, neurological possibilities, and other natural causes before concluding that something truly supernatural occurred. Does this mean saints with mystical experiences today would be rejected if they lived in the past? The answer is no, because the real foundation for recognizing their holiness would not rest on whether we believe their mystical experiences were supernatural. The foundation would rest on their virtue, their genuine commitment to God, and the fruits of their spiritual life visible in how they treated others. A person whose interior prayer life was rich and whose outer life showed consistent virtue would be recognized as holy regardless of whether their mystical experiences were accepted as literally true. On the other hand, the caution and careful investigation that modern science and psychology allow us to do is actually a good thing. It protects against fraud or delusion and gives us more confidence that what we are recognizing as holy is genuinely real. If a medieval saint were subject to modern investigation, either their reported experiences would hold up under scrutiny or they would not. If they would not, we might still recognize their holiness based on their virtue and their genuine faith. If they would hold up, we would have all the more reason to recognize them as someone to whom God granted special graces. Either way, the judgment about their actual holiness would remain the same.

Doctrinal Development and Understanding of Faith

The Church’s understanding of Christian doctrine has developed and grown more precise over the centuries. Some things that were understood less clearly in the early Church became more clearly defined through Church teaching over time. The doctrine of the Trinity was understood from the beginning but was defined more precisely in the early councils. The nature of Christ and how His divinity and humanity relate was understood from the beginning but was clarified through definitions that came later. The role of Mary in the Church’s faith was honored from the beginning but was defined more formally in later centuries. When we consider whether a saint from one era would be accepted in another, we need to think about how doctrinal understanding relates to holiness. A saint is recognized for their personal holiness and their response to God, not for having complete theological precision. Saint Athanasius lived in a time when he had to defend the true nature of Christ against heresy; his holiness came from his courageous stand for truth rather than from possessing a perfectly complete systematic theology. Saint Augustine in his spiritual autobiography confessed his struggles and doubts before finding God; his holiness came from his genuine conversion and continuous growth rather than from having been born into perfect faith. A modern saint living in a time of much fuller theological development would not be expected to have beliefs about God identical to someone from fifteen hundred years ago. However, the basic stance of faith, hope, and love toward God is what matters. A saint from the early Church whose faith, though less systematically expressed, was genuine and total would be recognized as holy even by modern standards. A saint from today whose faith, though expressed in modern language and understanding, is genuine and total would have been recognized as holy by the standards of the early Church. The development of doctrine gives us more precise language and understanding, but it does not change what true faith and true devotion to God look like at their core.

Living Within Your Own Time

An important principle to remember is that saints are always meant to live within their own time and respond to the specific needs and situations of their era. A saint cannot live outside their time because that is the only time they actually exist. The great saints we honor became great precisely because they responded fully to what God was asking of them in their particular moment in history. Saint Francis responded to the spiritual needs of the medieval Church by stripping away the complications of wealth and status to return to living out the Gospel message with radical simplicity. Saint Ignatius of Loyola responded to the challenges the Church faced after the Protestant Reformation by founding a religious community dedicated to education and mission. Saint Joan of Arc responded to the military and spiritual crisis of France in her time by trusting God’s leading even at the cost of her life. Saint Vincent de Paul responded to the social crises of his age by organizing care for the poor and works of mercy. None of these saints would have been able to do what they did at a different time because the specific circumstances would have been different. Yet what they all shared was a willingness to hear what God was asking and to give themselves completely to answering that call. If a saint from the past lived today, they would still have the same spiritual depth and commitment, but they would have to work within the different circumstances of our time. They could not do exactly what they did before because the world is different. A saint from today living in the past would still have the same commitment to following Christ, but they too would have to work within the different circumstances of that era. The holiness itself is not time-bound; it is the ability to respond faithfully to God in whatever circumstances exist. A truly holy person in any age would be recognized as holy by sincere believers in any other age because the truth of their devotion to God would shine through regardless of external circumstances.

Historical Evidence of Cross-Era Recognition

We actually have evidence from history of the Church recognizing holiness across significant time gaps and different eras. When saints from the early Church became known to later generations through records that had been preserved, the Church recognized their holiness and incorporated them into its formal veneration. When ancient accounts of Christian martyrs were discovered in later centuries, the Church was able to recognize the holiness of people who had died centuries before. This happened because the accounts revealed genuine commitment to Christ, real virtue, and often miraculous events attributed to their intercession. None of these people would have undergone the modern canonization process, yet when their holiness was studied by people in much later times, the Church recognized them. On the other side, when we look at saints who were formally canonized in recent centuries or who were prominent in recent decades, theologians and historians now recognize that they would have been recognized as holy by the standards of any age. Their virtue, their genuine faith, and their service to God and others shine through clearly. If we could somehow know what a Christian from the first century would think about a saint from the twentieth century, we have strong reason to believe they would recognize genuine holiness because the fundamental marks would be the same. The capacity to see God’s truth and respond to it with faith, hope, and love is not a capacity that comes and goes across history. It is something that has been present in human beings throughout all of time because it relates to the deepest part of human nature and our relationship with our Creator. The fact that we can look back across centuries or millennia and still recognize genuine holiness in the lives of people long dead proves that these realities transcend their time periods.

The Universal Call to Holiness

A key teaching of the Second Vatican Council was that all Christians are called to holiness regardless of their station in life. This teaching actually represents a development in the Church’s understanding but not a change in the reality it describes. The Council taught that married people, workers, parents, businesspeople, and people in all walks of life can achieve genuine sanctity. Before the Council formally emphasized this point, the Church had actually recognized married saints and saints who lived active lives in the world. However, there was perhaps more emphasis in practice on monasticism and religious life as the primary paths to holiness. The Second Vatican Council helped the Church articulate more clearly that holiness is possible for everyone because the call to holiness comes from baptism and membership in Christ’s Body, not from a particular state in life. This truth about holiness being available to all people and all states in life in fact shows that holiness does not depend on particular circumstances or times. If holiness is genuinely open to all people regardless of their job or their family situation, then it is equally open to people regardless of the century in which they live. A merchant in the twenty-first century can be holy. A merchant in the fifteenth century could be holy. A nurse today can be holy. A nurse a hundred years ago could be holy. The circumstances of life change, but the possibility of responding to God with complete faith and love does not. This means that the question about whether today’s saints would be accepted in the past has a clear answer. Yes, they would, if they went and lived in that era with the same spiritual commitment and virtue, just as saints from the past would be recognized as holy if they lived today with the same commitment and virtue they actually possessed.

The Role of Grace and God’s Action

Ultimately, the recognition of holiness depends on God’s action in a person’s life rather than on external factors that vary by era. The Catechism teaches that holiness comes from God’s grace working through human cooperation with that grace. A person becomes holy by receiving God’s gracious gifts and choosing to respond by using them faithfully. This pattern of grace and human cooperation is not something that changes from one time to another. God offers His grace to people in all ages and all circumstances. People in all ages and all circumstances have the choice to accept or reject that grace. A person who receives grace and cooperates with it becomes holy, regardless of when that person lived. The specific works that flow from that cooperation with grace will look different in different times because different times have different needs and opportunities. But the core reality of a human being responding to God’s offer of grace by turning toward Him and allowing Him to shape their life into the image of Christ is something timeless. It is not something that belongs only to the early Church or only to modern times. It is something that has always been possible because it depends on God’s gracious offer and human freedom, both of which are constants across all of history. When we recognize someone as a saint, we are recognizing that God has worked in their life in a powerful way and that they have responded faithfully to His call. This recognition is valid in any age because it is based on realities that transcend any particular historical moment. God’s love is eternal. His grace is always being offered. Human freedom has always existed. The possibility of genuine response to God has always been there.

Modern Investigations and Ancient Virtues

The modern canonization process includes extensive investigation of a person’s life, their writings, their relationships with others, and their reputation for holiness. Investigators look at how they treated family members and others around them. They study their correspondence if any exists. They interview people who knew them. They examine the consistency of their choices and commitments over time. All of this investigation is meant to verify that the person truly lived a life of genuine virtue and that reports about their holiness are accurate. This careful, methodical investigation is possible in modern times because we have better record-keeping and communication systems. Yet the investigation is looking for virtues and patterns of behavior that are entirely recognizable to any age. Courage, honesty, love of God, love of neighbor, generosity, mercy, and all the other virtues are not modern inventions. A person in the early Church who talked to others about a potential saint was looking for these same virtues. When they asked whether this person had lived a life of courage and faith, honesty and love, they were doing the same basic investigation that the modern Church does, only in a less formal way. If a modern saint candidate were to be evaluated by the standards of the early Church, the investigation would find the same virtues. If an ancient saint were to be evaluated by modern methods, the investigation would find the same core realities of genuine commitment to God and real virtue. The tools of investigation have become more sophisticated, but what they are investigating is exactly the same. We are looking for the same evidence of God’s grace at work in a person’s life, the same fruits of the Spirit present in their character, the same consistent choices toward goodness over many years. These realities can be recognized by anyone, in any age, because they are real and not dependent on particular historical circumstances.

Conclusion: Holiness Beyond Time

After examining the question carefully from many angles, we can conclude that true holiness transcends any particular era. The saints who are recognized by the Church today would have been recognized as holy by sincere believers in the past. The saints who were recognized by the Church in past ages would be recognized as holy by sincere believers today. This is true because holiness consists of things that are fundamentally human and spiritual rather than culturally specific or time-bound. A person’s genuine response to God’s grace through faith, hope, and love is something that can be recognized by any faithful person in any age. The virtues that mark a holy life are virtues that have always been valued and always been possible. Courage, wisdom, justice, love, mercy, humility, and generosity are not modern virtues or ancient virtues. They are human virtues that reflect the image of God in which all people are created. The specific ways that people express these virtues will differ based on the circumstances of their time, but the virtues themselves are constant. God works through the lives of holy people to bring His grace to the world, and this pattern of God’s action has remained consistent throughout history. If we understand holiness correctly, then, we can see that the question itself rests on a misunderstanding. Holiness is not something that gets rejected or accepted based on the era or circumstances. It is something that shines through and is recognizable precisely because it is real and true. A truly holy person reflects something real about God and about the possibility of human response to God. That reality does not change from one century to another. The Church’s recognition of this reality, though it has become more formalized and systematic in modern times, has remained consistent in its basics from the very beginning. We can trust that the saints we honor today would have been honored in the past, and we can trust that the saints of the past remain worthy of honor today because their holiness came from their response to something that is eternal and unchanging.