What does this boil down?
ShortLayman's answer
: the canonization process is series of formal steps by church authorities, beginning with the local bishop and finishing with the pope (with a couple of intermediate steps). The process involves studying the candidate's life and writings for evidence of heroic virtue -- basically saying that yes, they are worthy to be held up as role models of the Christian life -- and then, once that's established, looking for verifiable miracles attributed to the candidate's intercession. If everything falls into place the pope makes an official declaration, after which the person is known as Saint _____. (Each of the previous steps has titles associated with it -- Servant of God, Venerable, Blessed.) (Trivia for the day: this process is where the term "devil's advocate" comes from, though it's not used any more.)
Public acclamation isn't a formal process; it's just what it sounds like. What makes it confusing is that the root word of "saint" isn't as specific as the current usage; it just means "holy" -- that's how you get San Croix (Holy Cross), Santa Fe (Holy Faith), etc., in other languages. (Or, for that matter, St. Michael the Archangel -- how exactly does one study the life and writings of an angel?
I think there are other examples in English, but I can't think of them.) So what tended to happen in the past is that people would refer to a certain person as holy, using the word they were familiar with, and the person would be established in the popular vernacular as St. _____ without having gone through any of the formal process. It doesn't happen as much any more, and actually sometimes gets officially un-done, when a legendary saint is studied & not enough evidence is found to uphold the title. Or, as looks like in this case, no official scrutiny is done (because it's a long labor-intensive process) and the popular usage continues to hang around unofficially.
She'll probably want to dig up something a bit more scholarly-sounding if she wants to use that in the assignment.
Akk who are these you speak of o wise one?
Should I claim this is the short answer again? I'd probably be lying...
Basically: Henry VIII had gotten a dispensation from the pope to marry his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. When no male heir was born, he petitioned to have the first marriage annulled, but the pope refused to dispense with the first dispensation, if that makes sense. The result was Henry's excommunication & decision to declare himself head of the church in England. His subjects were required to swear to the resulting Act of Succession, which included a clause repudiating "any foreign authority, prince or potentate"; dissenters were imprisoned or executed. Thomas More was the Lord Chancellor at the time; he resigned rather than take the oath, but did not speak out publically against the king. He was still charged with treason and finally executed.
(Side note: Thomas More is just plain awesome.
Intelligent, witty, etc. Well worth looking up his writings & sayings.)
Hope that's helpful...
[edit: RT's source is a good one.]
