A Couple of Friendly History Questions

[Maximus]

Here are a couple of questions I would be interested in seeing intelligently answered. I have posted them in TAW and will probably post them in a couple of other forums, as well.

1. In the New Testament, all Christians are referred to as "saints." Later, that title was reserved only for those Christians renowned for their sanctity, their wonderworking, or for having perished as martyrs. When did this change occur? Which of the Fathers was the first to refer to famous Christians as "Saint This" and "Saint That"?

2. Why is it, since Christianity places such a high value on humility and identifies pride as the primal sin of Satan, that certain Christian leaders allow themselves to be referred to as "holiness" and "eminence," dress in ornate robes and crowns, and receive prostrations and other acts of proskynesis?

I have been interested in good, thoughtful answers to these questions for awhile. Source citations, particularly primary source citations, would be greatly appreciated.

I have no hidden agenda in asking these questions and do not desire to engage in debate.

I really am interested in your answers, especially if you can offer some authoritative support for them.

 

[Antman_05]

i would have to look up my Church History books again but i know i have studied it before, sorry i'm not much help sure the others will be able to help though i will look into it for you.

 

[Jon_]

1. In the New Testament, all Christians are referred to as "saints." Later, that title was reserved only for those Christians renowned for their sanctity, their wonderworking, or for having perished as martyrs. When did this change occur? Which of the Fathers was the first to refer to famous Christians as "Saint This" and "Saint That"?

That's a great question. I've wondered that for a while myself. Now I'll have to go look it up!

2. Why is it, since Christianity places such a high value on humility and identifies pride as the primal sin of Satan, that certain Christian leaders allow themselves to be referred to as "holiness" and "eminence," dress in ornate robes and crowns, and receive prostrations and other acts of proskynesis?

That's something I have frequently wondered myself. I do not know what reasons are given for these practices.

I have no hidden agenda in asking these questions and do not desire to engage in debate.

I've noticed that when other denominations come to this forum to ask questions, they frequently say things like this. I wonder if we've become so cynical and unapproachable as to virtually force people to explicitly state their intentions for their posts before they make them.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ClementofRome]

Thanks Jon. I am certainly guilty of cynicism with respect to motive. I can spot a troller a mile away and resent them. On the other hand, I also appreciate folks stating their motives, esp when coming in to Semper from other areas. It helps to place the question in context.

 

[Jon_]

Thanks Jon. I am certainly guilty of cynicism with respect to motive. I can spot a troller a mile away and resent them. On the other hand, I also appreciate folks stating their motives, esp when coming in to Semper from other areas. It helps to place the question in context.

And make no mistake, if anyone is guilty of this, I am. There was even a time when I would look at a person's denominational icon before even reading what they had to say. If they weren't a certain denomination, I wouldn't even read what they posted.

That's just awful on my part. God-willing, I am desirous to overcome this bias.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Antman_05]

i would have to look up my Church History books again but i know i have studied it before, sorry i'm not much help sure the others will be able to help though i will look into it for you.

I think i found the answer to your 1st question, it happend in the "Christian Middle Ages 90AD - 1517AD" and its my limited understanding that it most likely started with Gregory The Great (540-604) Well this is when and whom Penance started with.

Pardon my gramma/spelling.

 

[StAnselm]

it happend in the "Christian Middle Ages 90AD - 1517AD".

That's a v-e-r-y long middle ages. But I don't know the answer myself.

Anyway, it's going to be really hard to explain why someone would allow himself to be called "Your Holiness" without criticising Roman Catholics...

Of course, the answer to the second question is sin - even the Pope himself is a wicked, hell-deserving sinner...

 

[Antman_05]

Wow so one could say the Pope is just like any other human.

 

[Jon_]

Wow so one could say the Pope is just like any other human.

*Gasp!* Scandalous!! You better watch out! The Protestant-Catholic Review Committee is going to nail you for that one!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ClementofRome]

*Gasp!* Scandalous!! You better watch out! The Protestant-Catholic Review Committee is going to nail you for that one!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I think that for a Protestant pastor to be called "Reverand" is equally problematic. They are pastors>shephards>ministers....but they are no more "reverand" than I (and both of my parents have Rev. in front of their names, so I can criticize!). If I ever elected (or better, if God ever elected me to ordination, I would reject the Rev.)

OK...now the Protestant-Protestant Review Committee will be nailing me for that one.

 

[Jon_]

I think that for a Protestant pastor to be called "Reverand" is equally problematic. They are pastors>shephards>ministers....but they are no more "reverand" than I (and both of my parents have Rev. in front of their names, so I can criticize!). If I ever elected (or better, if God ever elected me to ordination, I would reject the Rev.)

I'm with you on that count. Personally, I'm not much for titles of distinction. I've sort of made it a personal practice that, if I should be so blessed as to receive degrees of merit, I will not be tacking on a bunch of letters at the end of my name. (Or in front of it!)

OK...now the Protestant-Protestant Review Committee will be nailing me for that one.

We're just getting in all kinds of trouble today, aren't we!?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Maximus]

Thank you all for your answers.

My motives in this case - but not in all cases - are pure.

I honestly want good answers to those two questions.

 

[erin74]

I think that for a Protestant pastor to be called "Reverand" is equally problematic. They are pastors>shephards>ministers....but they are no more "reverand" than I (and both of my parents have Rev. in front of their names, so I can criticize!). If I ever elected (or better, if God ever elected me to ordination, I would reject the Rev.)

OK...now the Protestant-Protestant Review Committee will be nailing me for that one.

DH doesn't use the rev bit - he just uses Mr like everyone else. Not sure if it was possible to officially reject it - not sure he wanted to make those kinds of waves at his ordination! We'd probably end up ministering in the parish of Come-By-Chance for the next decade... not that the people there aren't lovely and worthy of good teaching...