Why Do Roman Catholics Pray to Saints?

Question: Why Do Roman Catholics Pray to Saints?

Like all Christians, Catholics believe in life after death, but they also believe that our relationship with other Christians does not end with death. Catholic prayer to saints is a recognition of this communion.

• Do Catholics believe that saints should be worshiped?
• Why do they pray to saints?
• Is there a difference between prayer and worship?

Answer:

The Communion of Saints

Like all Christians, Catholics believe in life after death. Those who have lived good lives and died in the faith of Christ will, as the Bible tells us, share in his resurrection.
While we live together on earth as Christians, we are in communion, or unity, with one another. But that communion doesn’t end when one of us dies. We believe that Christians in heaven, the saints, remain in communion with those of us on earth.
So, just as we might ask a friend or family member to pray for us, we can approach a saint with our prayers, too.

The Difference Between Prayer and Worship

Many non-Catholic Christians believe that it is wrong to pray to the saints, claiming that our prayers should be directed to God alone. Some Catholics, responding to this criticism, have argued that we do not pray to the saints but with them.
Both groups, however, are confusing prayer with worship. True worship (as opposed to veneration or honor) does indeed belong to God alone, and we should never worship man or any other creature as we worship God. But while worship may take the form of prayer, as in the Mass and other liturgies of the Church, not all prayer is worship. When we pray to the saints, we’re simply asking them to help us, by praying to God on our behalf, or thanking them for having already done so.

Mary's cooperation in the redemption

Sciptural Foundation
Many Protestants claim that the more advanced doctrines of the Catholic Church about Mary are unscriptural. They say this especially about our teaching concerning her cooperation in the redemption.
First, we want to notice that in the very earliest Fathers of the Church, such as St. Justin Martyr (c. 145-150), we find the New Eve doctrine, i.e., that just as the first Eve really contributed to the damage of original sin, so Mary, the New Eve, really contributed to removing it. They had in mind her obedient acceptance, in faith, to be the Mother of the Messiah.
But today the Church has considerably developed that early teaching. We quote a very official text, the Constitution on the Church of Vatican II, P61: "... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls." This same doctrine is found in every Pope from Leo XIII up to and including John Paul II.
So Vatican II was merely restating a repeated teaching. But the way it expressed it is very helpful. It said her role on Calvary was one of obedience. Earlier, in # 56, it had pointed out that obedience twice, in citing St. Irenaeus (late second century): "By obeying, she became a cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Then (we first recall the comparison St. Irenaeus made of all sin to a complex knot, in which the Saint said that to untie a knot, one must take the end of the rope backwards through every turn taken in tying it) it added, from St. Irenaeus: "Thus then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied through the obedience of Mary."
At first sight this teaching seems to have no basis in Scripture. But if we look more closely, we will see something quite obvious. First, at the Annunciation, she was asked to consent, in faith, to be the Mother of the Messiah. She knew this perfectly clearly, for as soon as the Archangel said, "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever," she knew that only the Messiah could reign forever. So she knew it was the Messiah. Then there would begin to crowd into her thoughts all the ancient prophecies of the Messiah, especially Isaiah 53, of His dreadful sufferings and death. She was asked to consent to be the Mother of such a Messiah.
She did consent, as St. Luke tells us, saying: "Be it done to me according to your word. "She gave her fiat, her obedience to the will of God, as the angel told her of His will. Did she later retract this acceptance of God's will? Of course not. Any soul either falls back or goes ahead in holiness. Holiness really consists in the alignment of our wills, through grace, with the will of God--for the free will is the only thing free we have. So Mary faithfully stood by Him, keeping in the background when the crowds gave Him praise, but moving out into the dark blackness that hung over Calvary. There she stood.
What was her reaction? Of course, she grieved, as any Mother would, seeing her Son suffering so horribly. And she saw that suffering as our crucifixes do not generally let us see it--they contain no trace at all of the horrid scourging, leaving Him bloody all over.
But now we can begin to realize something tremendous. As we said, spiritual perfection consists in the alignment of our will with the will of the Father. Further, when we know what He positively wills, it is not enough for us to say, as it were: "Let it go". No, we are called on to positively will what He wills. But what did He will in that dread hour? She knew from Isaiah 53:10: "It was the will of the Lord to crush Him with pain." So the Father willed that His Son should die, die then, die so horribly. So did the Son will it. So she was then called upon to will what the Father willed, what her Son willed, in other words, she was called on to will positively that He die, die then, die horribly.
We must add: the redemption was, under one aspect, the making of the New Covenant, foretold by Jeremiah 31:31 ff: "I will make a New covenant. It will not be like the covenant I made with your Fathers, for they broke my covenant, and I had to show myself their master. But this is the Covenant. I will write my law on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people."
In the Covenant of Sinai, the essential condition had been the obedience of the people (Ex 19:5): "If you really hearken to my voice, and keep my covenant, you will be my special people." So the New Covenant would have again as its essential condition obedience, which Jeremiah expressed by speaking of a law written on hearts. Perhaps Jeremiah did not see it fully, but that obedience was to be the obedience of Christ.
What did that law of the Father, written on her heart call for? It called for what we have just said: That she positively will that her Son die, die then, die so horribly. In that, she was joining in the fulfillment of the Covenant condition. He, in Gethsemani, had said: "If it be possible, let this chalice pass ... but nonetheless, not what I will, but what you will." In other words, He obeyed. St. Paul stressed that too in Rom 5:19: "Just as by the disobedience of the one man [the first Adam] the many were made sinners [original sin] so by the obedience of the one man [the New Adam] the many will be constituted just."
In fact, had His death taken place without obedience, it would not have been a redemption, it would have been merely a tragedy. So it was obedience that was the covenant condition, it was that which gave the value to His death.
To look at the same reality from a different perspective, His death was a sacrifice. God had once complained through Isaiah 29:13: "This people honors me with their lips ... their hearts are far from me." The ancient Jews were very adept at what is sometimes, simplistically, called "participation." They loved to make the responses, to sing, to join in processions. But too often it was all empty, for their hearts were far from Him: their hearts did not act in obedience.
But Jesus did offer His sacrifice in obedience. So just as obedience is the covenant condition, so too, it is that without which His sacrifice would be as worthless as those of which God complained through Isaiah.
From a third perspective, the redemption was an act of reparation to make up for sin. Since sin is disobedience of God's will, it was, once again, Christ's obedience which gave his death value to make up for sin. But we return to Our Lady. At the annunciation, she obeyed, she said her fiat. She knew too much for comfort even then, of what that entailed, as we explained above. But now in the blackness of Calvary, she was called on to continue to obey the will of the Father. That she did. As we said, we know this since any soul is required to conform its will to that of the Father. But then, she knew that will of the Father, knew it all too well. It was that He should die then, die horribly. So what she had to do, unless she would break with the Father, was to will what He willed, to will the terrible death of her Son.
All this is, of course, entirely Scriptural. It merely points out that at the start, she obeyed in saying her fiat, as St. Luke tells us. At the Cross, as any soul that loves the will of the Father must do, she had to continue her fiat, to continue to obey. Isaiah 53 had said that, "by His stripes we are healed", that, "it was the will of the Lord to crush Him in pain." Even the Targum knew Isaiah spoke of the Messiah, although in the stiff-necks of many, the message was even inverted. But she was not such, she understood, and yet she did not take back her fiat, she obeyed the will of the Lord. That obedience of hers was a joining in the essential condition of the New Covenant, it was a joining in the necessary interior of His sacrifice.
Her love of Him would multiply the difficulty. It was the love of the best of Mothers for the best of Sons, a Son whom she understood as no other person could. We cannot really calculate the terrible difficulty of her obedience, going counter to such love.
Would the Father accept her obedience as part of the covenant obedience? In the old covenant, He accepted the obedience of even very ordinary, sinful people--how much more hers! Would He put her in such straits, call on her to obey when it was so incredibly hard, and then not accept her obedience as part of the covenant condition even as He had accepted the obedience of very ordinary, sinful people, as we said, in the old covenant.
He could have redeemed us with something immeasurably less painful--the mere fact of the incarnation, even without so much as a short prayer added, would have been superabundant. Yet in His love of all goodness, in His love of us, He would not stop short when there was any way to make it all richer. It was in that attitude that He called for the death of His Son, that He called for her immeasurably difficult obedience.
So, Vatican II in its teaching, merely unfolded, by pondering in hearts, what the Scripture contains, and what the Church over the course of the centuries has gradually come to understand: "In suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior"--in the essential requirement of the New Covenant, in the essential interior of the Great Sacrifice--"by obedience, faith, hope and burning love."
Objection
Now about the objection that since she had to be redeemed, she could not cooperate in the redemption, which would include her own redemption, we have two replies:
1) the Magisterium has taught repeatedly, so often as to constitute an infallible teaching, that she did so cooperate. We see in the collection of papal teachings how precise and clear this teaching is. It cannot be taken as something merely loose or vague, especially since LG ## 56, 61 had said three times that she shared by obedience, the covenant condition, and that which gave its value even to His sacrifice. Pius XII, in the constitution solemnly defining the assumption, had even gone so far as to speak of her role on Calvary as a work "in common" with Him. Even if we could not explain the how, we should still believe an infallible teaching. The saying is very true: a thousand difficulties do not add up to one doubt, when the assurance of the truth is full.
2) We have said that one major aspect of the redemption is that it is a new covenant. Two comments on that:
a) He who makes a covenant does not ask, need not ask of a proposed covenantor: Are you worthy to fulfil this condition, so that if you do this, I will do that? No, the one who makes the covenant has the sovereign right to set whatever terms and conditions He wishes, and to choose whoever he wishes as a covenant partner, especially when the originator of the covenant is God Himself. Really, He could have set as a condition for the whole of redemption an animal sacrifice by any ordinary human, and have even bound Himself by advance promise to accept it.
b) There are two levels within the new covenant, so that if we ask why God gives good things under it, there are two answers, on the two levels. First, on the most basic level, everything He gives is unmerited, unmeritable, for no creature by its own power can establish a claim on God. And He cannot be moved at all. But then, on the secondary level, that is, given the fact that the Father has freely created and entered into a covenant, then if the human fulfills the condition set, the Father owes it to Himself to give what He has promised. Really, even the death of Jesus was on this secondary level. It did not move the Father: He could not be moved, did not need to be moved. It was because the Father always loved us that Jesus came, not that Jesus came and then the Father dropped His anger.
The old language on this subject often spoke much of meriting redemption on a basis of justice. But we must never forget that no creature at all can ever establish any kind of claim on God, whether in justice or on a lesser level, by its own power. It can establish any sort of claim only if God as it were says: "If you do this, I will do that." So St. Augustine wrote well in saying to God (Confessions 9. 5): "You deign to even become a debtor by your promises to those to whom you forgive their debts."
So there is no need to think of Mary as if she had to earn on a primary, basic level. No, as we saw, even the work of Jesus, infinite though it was, was on the secondary level. It was, to borrow an expression from St. Thomas, a hoc propter hoc (ST I. 19. 5. c) "Vult hoc esse propter hoc, sed non propter hoc vult hoc. That is: God in His love of good order, of all that is right, loves to have one thing in place to serve as a reason or title for giving the second thing, even though that title does not at all move Him. Again, we must not forget that He cannot be moved, and needed not to be moved to love us.
When we finally grasp this perspective, when we realize that even the merits of His Son did not move the Father, who did not need to be moved, who could not be moved, but who made a setup suited to His own purpose--we already saw that that purpose entailed two things: His desire to fully satisfy everything that was right, i.e. , to rebalance the scales of the objective order, and, secondly to provide a means of giving to us, of making us open to receive.
Within, then, such a framework, with such an attitude on the part of Our Father, if He, the supreme master who makes the covenant, wants to set whatever condition it pleases Him to set, then if any human, even if it were a mere, an ordinary human, if that human fulfills the covenant condition, then the human is providing the Father with a reason for giving, which the Father did not need, but yet willed for the two reasons just reviewed. So if Our Lady joins in the condition set by the Father, there is no problem at all: she is meeting the condition which His excessive generosity liked to set, as a means of giving us abundant life.
"Corredemptrix"
Mary's cooperation in the work of redemption is sometimes expressed by giving her the title "Corredemptrix." The Popes have used this title, but more rarely and in documents of lesser weight, because it easily admits of misunderstanding. The first extant use of the title is in a fourtheenth century liturgical book from Salzburg. The prefix "co-" signifies that Mary does not contribute independently to the redemption, but only as associated with her divine Son.
What Next?
Now that all graces have been earned, once for all (cf. Hebrews 9:29), is there further role for Our Lady? The mere fact that she shared in earning all graces--for Calvary did not earn just some graces, but all graces--would all by itself warrant our calling her the Mediatrix of all graces. But more about this title in the section on Mary, Mediatrix of all graces.

St. Catherine of Alexandria

Dates: 290s C.E. (??) - 305 C.E. (?)
Known for: legends vary, but usually known for her torture on a wheel before her martyrdom
Feast Day: November 25
Also known as: Katherine of Alexandria, Saint Catherine of the Wheel, Great Martyr Catherine

How We Know About Saint Catherine of Alexandria:

Eusebius writes about 320 of a Christian woman of Alexandria who refused the advances of the Roman emperor and, as a consequence of her refusal, lost her estates and was banished.

Popular stories add more details, some of which conflict with each other. The following summarizes the life of Saint Catherine of Alexandria depicted in those popular stories. The story is found in the Golden Legend and also in an "Acts" of her life.

Legendary Life of Saint Catherine of Alexandria:

Catherine of Alexandria is said to have been born the daughter of Cestus, wealthy man of Alexandria in Egypt. She was noted for her wealth, intelligence, and beauty. She is said to have learned philosophy, languages, science (natural philosophy), and medicine. She refused to marry, not finding any man who was her equal. Either her mother or her reading introduced her to the Christian religion.

She is said to have challenged the emperor (Maximinus or Maximian or his son Maxentius are variously thought to be the anti-Christian emperor in question) when she was eighteen years old. The emperor brought in some 50 philosophers to dispute her Christian ideas -- but she convinced them all to convert, at which point the emperor burned them all to death. She then is said to have converted others, even the empress.

Then the emperor is said to have tried to make her his empress or mistress, and when she refused, she was tortured on a spiked wheel, which miraculously fell apart and the parts killed some who were watching the torture. Finally, the emperor had her beheaded.

Veneration of Saint Catherine of Alexandria:

In about the 8th or 9th century, a story became popular that after she died, St. Catherine's body was carried by angels to Mount Sinai, and that the monastery there was built in honor of this event.

In medieval times, St. Catherine of Alexandria was among the most popular saints, and was often depicted in statues, paintings, and other art in churches and chapels. She has been included as one of the fourteen "holy helpers," or important saints to pray to for healing. She was considered a protector of young girls and especially of those who were students or in cloisters. She was also considered the patroness of wheelwrights, mechanics, millers, philosophers, scribes, and preachers.

St. Catherine was especially popular in France, and she was one of the saints whose voices were heard by Joan of Arc. The popularity of the name "Catherine" (in various spellings) is likely based on Catherine of Alexandria's popularity.
In Orthodox Churches Catherine of Alexandria is known as a "great martyr."
There is no real historical evidence for the details of St. Catherine's life story outside these legends. Writings of visitors to the Mt. Sinai monastery do not mention her legend for the first few centuries after her death.

The feast day of Catherine of Alexandria, November 25, was removed from the Roman Catholic Church's official calendar of saints in 1969, and restored as an optional memorial on that calendar in 2002.

Abstinence as siritual discipline

The Difference Between Fasting and Abstinence:

Fasting and abstinence are closely related, but there are some differences in these spiritual practices. In general, fasting refers to restrictions on the quantity of the food we eat and on when we consume it, while abstinence refers to the avoidance of particular foods. The most common form of abstinence is the avoidance of meat, a spiritual practice that goes back to the earliest days of the Church.

Depriving Ourselves of Something Good:

Until the Second Vatican Council, Catholics were required to abstain from meat every Friday, as a form of penance in honor of the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross on Good Friday. Since Catholics are normally allowed to eat meat, this prohibition is very different from the dietary laws of the Old Testament or of other religions (such as Islam) today.
In the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 10:9-16), St. Peter has a vision in which God reveals that Christians can eat any food. So, when we abstain, it's not because the food is impure; we're voluntarily giving up something good, for our spiritual benefit.

Current Church Law Regarding Abstinence:

That's why, under current Church law, the days of abstinence fall during Lent, the season of spiritual preparation for Easter. On Ash Wednesday and all of the Fridays of Lent, Catholics over the age of 14 are required to abstain from meat and from foods made with meat.
Many Catholics don't realize that Church still recommends abstinence on all Fridays of the year, not just during Lent. In fact, if we don't abstain from meat on non-Lenten Fridays, we're required to substitute some other form of penance.

Going Beyond What's Required:

If you would like to make abstinence a bigger part of your spiritual discipline, a good place to start is to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. During Lent, you might consider following the traditional rules for Lenten abstinence, which include eating meat at only one meal per day (in addition to strict abstinence on Ash Wednesday and Fridays).
Unlike fasting, abstinence is less likely to be harmful if taken to extremes, but, if you want to extend your discipline beyond what the Church currently prescribes (or beyond what it has prescribed in the past), you should consult your priest.

Canadian saints

The Canadian Saints

The Saint Canadian Martyrs:

Saint Isaac Jogues, Jesuit priest,

(Born in 1608, martyred in 1646).

Saint Jean de Brébeuf, Jesuit priest,

(Born in 1593, martyred in 1649).

Saint Charles Garnier, Jesuit priest,

(Born in 1606, martyred in 1649).

Saint Antoine Daniel, Jesuit priest,

(Born in 1600, martyred in 1648).

Saint Gabriel Lalemant, Jesuit priest,

(Born in 1610, martyred in 1649).

Saint Noel Chabanel, Jesuit priest,

(Born in 1613, martyred in 1649).

Saint René Goupil, Jesuit Novice,

(Born in 1608, martyred in 1642).

Saint Jean de La Lande, layperson,

(Born in 160?, martyred in 1646).

The eight Canadian Martyrs lived in Canada from 1625 to 1649. Canonized on June 29, 1930. Celebrated on September 26 in Canada. Feast celebrated on October 19 in the Universal Church.

Other Canadian Saints...

Saint Marguerite Bourgeoys

(Born in 1620, died in 1700).

Co-founded Montréal.

Founder of the Congregation of Notre-Dame.

Canonized on October 31, 1982.

Feast celebrated on January 12.

Saint Marguerite d'Youville

(Born in 1701, died in 1771).

Founder of the Sisters of Charity,

known as the "Grey Nuns."

Canonized in 1990.

Feast celebrated on October 16.

---

The Canadian Blessed

Blessed André Grasset, Sulpician,

(Born in 1758, died in 1792).

Born in Montréal.

Martyred in Paris on September 2, 1792

during the French Revolution.

Beatified on October 17, 1926.

Feast celebrated on September 2.

Will be raised to sainthood in January, 2002.

Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, layperson,

(Born in 1656, died in 1680).

Beatified on June 22, 1980.

Feast celebrated on April 17.

Blessed Marie de l'Incarnation,

(Born in 1599, died in 1672).

Founder of the Urselines Sisters in Québec.

Beatified on June 22, 1980.

Feast celebrated on April 30.

Blessed François de Laval,

(Born in 1623, died in 1708).

First Bishop of Québec.

Beatified on June 22, 1980.

Feast celebrated on May 6.

Blessed Marie-Rose Durocher,

(Born in 1811, died in 1849).

Founder of the Sisters

of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary.

Beatified on May 23, 1982.

Feast celebrated on October 6.

Blessed Brother André,

(Born in 1845, died in 1937).

(Also known as "Alfred Bessette")

Brother of the religious Order

of the Holy Cross.

Built the Saint-Joseph Oratory

of Mont-Royal at Montréal.

Beatified on May 23, 1982.

Feast celebrated on January 6.

Blessed Marie-Léonie Paradis,

(Born in 1840, died in 1912).

Founder of the Little Sisters of the Holy Family.

Beatified on September 11, 1984 in Montréal.

Feast celebrated on May 4.

Blessed Louis-Zéphirin Moreau,

(Born in 1824, died in 1901).

Fourth Bishop of Saint Hyacinthe.

Beatified on May 10, 1987.

Feast celebrated on May 24.

Blessed Frédéric Janssoone, Franciscan

(Born in 1838, died in 1916).

Beatified on September 25, 1988.

Feast celebrated on August 5.

Blessed Catherine de Saint-Augustin,

(Born in 1632, Died in 1668).

Founder of the "Hôtel-Dieu" of Québec.

Beatified on April 23, 1989.

Feast celebrated on May 8.

Blessed Dina Bélanger,

(Born in 1897, Died in 1929).

Sister of Jesus-Mary, Sillery.

Beatified on March 20, 1993.

Feast celebrated on September 4.

Blessed Marie-Anne Blondin,

(Born in 1809, Died in 1890).

Founder of the Sisters of Saint Anne.

Beatified on April 29, 2001.

Feast celebrated on April 18.

Blessed Émilie Tavernier-Gamelin,

(Born in 1800, Died in 1851).

Founder of the Sisters of Providence

Beatified on October 7, 2001

Feast celebrated on September 23.

Blessed Bishop Vasyl Velychkovsky, C.Ss.R., Bishop and Martyr (Ukrainian)

(Born June 1, 1903, Died June 30, 1973).

Appointed as bishop of this underground church in Lviv, Ukraine.

Secretly ordained as Bishop in 1963.

Beatified on June 27, 2001.

Blessed Bishop Nykyta Budka (Greek-Ukrainian)

(Born June 7, 1877 [Poland], Died October 1, 1949 Soviet concentration camp]).

Ordained on October 25, 1905.

First bishop for Ukrainian Catholics on July 15, 1912 in Canada.

Beatified June 27, 2001 in Ukraine.

---

The Canadian Venerable

Venerable Vital Grandin,

Oblate of Mary Immaculate,

(Born in 1829, died in 1902).

Bishop of Saint Albert, Alberta.

Declared Venerable on December 15, 1966.

Venerable Alfred Pampalon, Redemptorist,

(Born in 1867, died in 1896).

Declared Venerable on May 14, 1991.

Venerable Élisabeth Bergeron,

(Born in 1851, died in 1936).

Founder of the Sisters of

Saint Joseph, Saint Hyacinthe.

Declared Venerable on January 12, 1996.

Venerable Délia Tétreault,

(Born in 1865, died in 1941).

Founder of the Missionary Sisters

of the Immaculate Conception.

Declared Venerable on December 18, 1997.

---

Causes Introduced To The Vatican
For Elevation To Sainthood

Jérôme Le Royer de la Dauversière, layperson,

(Born in 1597, died in 1659).

Founder of Montréal and

the welcoming religious of Saint Joseph.

Jeanne Mance, layperson,

(Born in 1606, died in 1673).

Co-founded Montréal and

founder of the "Hôtel-Dieu" of Québec.

Pierre-Joseph-Marie Chaumonot, Jesuit,

(Born in 1611, died in 1693).

Companion of the Canadian Martyrs.

Didace Pelletier, religious brother,

(Born in 1657, died in 1699).

Carpenter and Church builder.

Jeanne LeBer, layperson in seclusion,

(Born in 1662, died in 1714).

Rosalie Cadron-Jetté,

(Born in 1794, died in 1864).

Founder of the Sisters of Mercy.

Marcelle Mallet,

(Born in 1805, died in 1871).

Founder of the Sisters of Charity of Québec.

Élisabeth Bruyère,

(Born in 1818, died in 1876).

Founder of the Sisters of Charity of Ottawa.

Élisabeth Turgeon,

(Born in 1840, died in 1881).

Founder of the Sisters of the Holy Rosary, Rimouski.

Marie Fitzbach,

(Born in 1806, died in 1885).

Founder of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd of Québec.

Éléonore Potvin,

(Born in 1865, died in 1903).

Co-founded the Servants of Jesus-Mary, Hull,

with Father Alexis-Louis Mangin.

Catherine-Aurélie Caouette,

(Born in 1833, died in 1905).

Founder of the Sisters of Adoration

of the Precious Blood, Saint-Hyacinthe.

Alexis-Louis Mangin, priest,

(Born in 1856, died in 1920).

Co-founded the Servants of Jesus-Mary,

Hull with Éléonore Potvin.

Théophanius-Léo (Adolphe Chatillon),

Brother of the Christian Schools,

(Born in 1871, died in 1929).

Gérard Raymond,

(Born in 1912, died in 1932).

Student in the Little Seminary,

(Petit Séminaire) of Québec.

Ovide Charlebois,

Oblate of Mary Immaculate,

(Born in 1862, died in 1933).

Bishop of Keewatin, Manitoba.

Marie-Clément Staub, Assumptionist,

(Born in 1876, died in 1936).

Founder of the Sisters of

Saint Joan of Arc and of the Canadian Montmartre.

Eugène Prévost, priest,

(Born in 1860, died in 1946).

Founder of the Sacerdotal Fraternity

and of the Oblates of Bethany.

Antoine Kowalczyk,

brother of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate,

(Born in 1866, died in 1947). 

Louis Émond, layperson,

(Born in 1876, died in 1949).

Co-founded the House of Jesus Carpenter

in Québec with Father Lelièvre of.

Victor Lelièvre,

Oblate of Mary Immaculate,

(Born in 1876, died in 1956).

Apostle of the Sacred Heart.

Catherine de Hueck Doherty,

(Born in 1896, died in 1985). 

Founder of the Madonna House in Combermere, Ontario.

Pauline Archer-Vanier,

(Born in 1898, died in 1991).

"Mamie" of the Arch founded

by her son John (Jean) in Trosly-Breuil, France.

Georges Vanier,

(Born in 1888, died in 1967).

Governor-General of Canada from 1959 to 1967.