According to
http://catholicism.about.com/:
http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/What_Is_A_Saint.htm
I can understand what compels any person to want to honour excellence. Protestants sometimes have their own denominational-specific "saints," even if they don't have an official title for it (Calvin, Luther, Menno Simons, Willam and Catherine Booth, etc). While I don't necessarily mind that these individuals are being honoured, I am a little uncomfortable with a title being used to officially distinguish them from other Christians...
When the NT believers tried to honour Paul, he simply told them:
1 Cor 4
I know some people will suggest that a denomination may officially name people with a title like "saint" simply to recognize that God has definitely judged them as worthy. But I think Paul's teaching here to "do not go on passing judgment before the time" is a healthier option: that we simply recognize that no one knows anyone's heart except for God, and no one speaks for God in terms of knowing how He has judged anyone. It's just the safer option for is to "learn not to exceed what is written" (v6).
I've been rolling with the Salvos crowd for a while now, and I've learned a lot from them, but there is this tendency to constantly eulogize the Booths... it gets a bit much for me sometimes. I think it's great if we have role models. But ultimately, I'd prefer it if we could simply regard "eminent examples of the moral virtues" simply "as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God," as Paul instructs (v1), and not seek out ways to officially
or unofficially class or title them separately from other believers.