You are correct that saint is synonomous with Holy. Early Christians where probably called saints because when we accept Jesus, His Holy Spirit comes into us. In other words, we can be called holy because He, Jesus, is holy.
Here is a link which is a good source for the definition of saint/holy and where it is found.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G40&t=KJV&page=3
My point was more along the lines of the early, New Testament, Christian church doesn’t indicate any kind of post life meetings to confer a title of saint on people. In fact, when you look at the saint passages, they are primarily referencing living people.
But, like I mentioned before, there is no “skin off of my nose” if the Catholic church wishes to create extra hoops or ceremonies for people they respect.
I don’t concede that “saints.” means anything more in the New Testament than what it means to Catholics today, which is persons of heroic virtue. “Accepting Jesus Christ” requires totus tuus. The role of “living saint” is as the New England Puritans discovered a hard one to perform and even harder to pass on to one’s children. Which is why the martyrs were the first to be reverenced by the Church and featured by John in his Revelation. “Confessors,” which is what you all claim to be, were only gradually recognized as equally worthy.
Nevertheless, God does choose to point, by wonders, to some of His creatures whose blessedness in heaven is assured. For instance, the incident where a dead man was brought back to life upon making contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha 2_Kings/13-21 (Link) That is the sort of miracle that leads to canonization in the Catholic Church. It requires some manifestation of God's approal.
I think the customs for canonization were intended, paradoxically, both to promote one sort of popular acclaim, and to curb another sort. What I mean is, there is always the danger that popular zeal with "canonize" people who are really quite unsaintly. One thinks of the Soviet dictator Lenin's body pseudo-sanctified in its mausoleum, or Elvis Presley with his endless portraits on black velvet, or any rich guy you want to mention, named in countless memorial auditoriums, memorial libraries, even memorial highways.
To curb this sort of thing ---- canonization for power, fame, or wealth --- the Church developed a custom which sought both to gather testimony of a person's heroic virtue, and to collect documentation of actual miracles. The later are usually quite rigorously supported by evidence.
It's a good thing. It causes people to admire what is truly admirable, to honor the honorable, to love the lovable. To this we are called, ScubieNuc. "Blessed be God in His angels and in His saints!"
Well. people like Mother Teresa and and Padre Pio, and many others who live saintly lives are often pointed out as such during their lifetimes. I am sure that the early Church would have done the same, noticed persons of exceptional faith. Recognition after death is ratification of that opinion. But I guess your contention is that after death they are oblivious to the events of earth, have cut all earthly ties, and are asleep until Judgement Day. Nothing in the Bible demands that we believe this, but you are free to think so.