Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
we believe that through the Church as a whole God reveals things. so a saint is one whose veneration grows, usually locally to universally. the Church then looks at the saint's life and usually miracles happen. folks start making unofficial hymns and icons to the person. the saint is often called saint or blessed even before they are officially glorified, and the Church just formally recognizes the holiness that had always been there.
Again, that could be applied to anything. I've had Gnostics tell me that the reason there is no evidence of Gnosticism in the scripture is because there was a conspiracy to shut them out, led mainly by John who slandered Thomas in his Gospel. Uh huh. If there is no evidence of it among the Apostles - no evidence, it appears, until roughly the time of Constantine - then I find it very suspect.
yeah, it's a very organic way to approach it, but basically God makes saints in their lives, and the recognizes them in His Church
Just to make sure we are on the same page:Thanks. That gives me quite a list of texts to chase. I imagine I'll be busy for quite some time.
[edit] I guess I would ask, though, what you make of the argument given in the Confessions that no one prior to Gregory ever asked for an intercession, and, therefore, that it appears to be a later invention.
Defense of the Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord
I was going to just let this go, but I couldn't sleep. The biggest thing that bothers me about this "organic" approach is that the Church has assumed the ability to discern the eternal fate of people - something clearly reserved for God alone.
Another thing I find odd about this is that the Jews never canonized saints, whereas all other aspects of the Church (at least all the ones I can think of) have clear precendents in the OT.
Next, I understand the Orthodox to believe the church in Rome to have been within the fold at one time and that is has fallen away ... the point being that the Orthodox do seem to believe a church can fall away.
As such, has there ever been a "bad" Patriarch? From my readings of history, I certainly think there were a few bad eggs among the lot, but I don't know what you think. If so, did one of these bad Patriarchs ever canonize a saint? Has this ever been rescinded? It seems a system much too open to human abuse, much too much like (pardon my saying it) the Papacy.
Hmm. And of those who were represented at both, why the flip-flop? Again, too subject to human politics and the abuse of power.
So how is this experience to be differentiated from Orthodoxy such that one knows the one is false and the other is true?
we don't decide anything. whether St Tikhon is in heaven or hell has nothing to do with whether or not his name is on a calendar.
officially no ... but, if you look how guys like Moses and David are referred to, it's very much alike even though the title was not there.
no, the Church cannot fall away, people fall away from the Church.
yes, there have been many bad Patriarchs. and they don't canonize saints, the Church as a whole does.
because it's only valid when accepted by the whole Church. there have been many councils that have been wrong because it was the laity that said no.
because humans can deceive themselves. only God can erase all doubt as to nature of reality,
yes God must speak through some earthly authority. so yes, the Church can discern thatI try to choose my words carefully. I did not say "decide." I said "discern." You have ascribed to the Church an ability to discern if someone is in heaven.
well, if you are looking for a date I could not tell you when it was instituted.Somewhere in between the practice must have been instituted. However, the explanation I've gotten so far is that it was just kind of an accidental thing and nobody really knows when it started.
forgive me then, I did not mean to play any games with you. I musta read something wrong.Despite my efforts, maybe I have not been careful enough with my words, but it does seem like you're starting to play word games with me. I expect you know what I meant. I used church with a lower case "c", not Church with an upper case "C." To my knowledge, the bishop of Rome has basically not been in communion with the eastern patriarchs since 1054 (though I think there have been some brief interludes in there). Despite that, the Orthodox have not, to my knowledge, appointed an Orthodox bishop to the Roman See. Therefore, it seems the position of the Orthodox is that the Roman Catholic congregants (the church of Rome as I said) have fallen away.
Let's not do this, OK?
it's the Synod of the person who is a saint. so like a Greek monk who is canonized would be officially canonized by the Greeks for general veneration, and then the other Synods would accept the saint and add them to the calendar.I doubt every congregant of the Orthodox church attends the canonization of every saint. When that ceremony is performed, who are the required attendants? Is it acceptable for an Orthodox congregant to pray to whomever they wish before the canonization ceremony occurs? If not, from where do they obtain confirmation that the person to whom they wish to pray is indeed canonized?
forgive me again. as for the first question, no. I don't think any canonization has been revoked. as for the second, yes. there are some who might be officially recognized by certain jurisdictions and not others. one would be St Basil Martycz, who was a martyr and glorified by the Polish Church a few years ago and only officially recognized by the OCA earlier this year. some jurisdictions are slow at times.And, if you could, I would still like an answer to question I originally asked in this section of the discussion. Do you know if a canonization has ever been revoked? Or one Patriarch denied the canonization done by another (as I expect has been done with Rome)?
well, to my knowledge, it takes time. the veneration of the saint is usually across the board before the canonization. but if one congregant objects, if he is in the right, then God will work through him and the person will not be glorified.How is it determined that the whole Church accepts this? If one congregant objects, does that stop a saint from being canonized?
no Buddhism does not teach of an eternal and unchanging God. so the Buddhist can not. he might use the same words, but the theology points differently. so while the Buddhist can say it, it only works with a God, eternal and unchanging, which Buddhists reject.This doesn't answer the question. The Buddhist can answer with exactly the same words as to why he is correct.
Paul tells us that our authority is not only the Holy Scriptures, but also oral tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). How can we trust the Church to faithfully tradition the truth to us? Because Jesus came to establish His Church, not just a book. He promised that His Church would be led by the Holy Spirit, into all Truth (John 16:13). This Church still exists, with a historical, visible, unbroken lineage to the Apostles, Pentecost, and to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself. This Church still teaches All Truth as promised by Jesus Christ, and the gates of Hades has not overcome her (Matthew 16:18).So, let me pose a question this way. Let's pick something we can both agree is in error, say the meditative experiences of a Buddhist. I'm sure there has been at least one Buddhist who was convinced that Samatha meditation taught him the ultimate nature of reality and thereby released him from all suffering. So how is this experience to be differentiated from Orthodoxy such that one knows the one is false and the other is true?
yeah, I think as well in the oldest areas of the Christ's Tomb, they found old rolled pieces of parchment that were the prayers of the pilgrims, not only given to Christ but to all the saints involved with His PassionThe Church met where the graves of the martyrs were, and held services there, over their bones, seeing it as a holy place. Christians also inscribed things similar to this statement: Name, pray for your parents, name and name on the tombs.
and again, please forgive my misreading what you wrote. I was not trying to cause any problems.
What I would add to that is that the authority is outside of ourselves, and consistently knows more than we do, and is consistently right, especially when we are wrong.
I re-read my response later and fretted about what fireworks it might produce. So, it seems Proverbs 29:23b applies to how you handled it
... but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor.
All I can really say about the details of your reply, though, is that I find them a bit disturbing. Your answer comes across as saying, yes, the Orthodox allow people to pray to whomever they wish. A local parish could canonize someone. If that is truly the case, that bothers me. If it is not true, you are playing down the role of authority within the Orthodox church.
I could put together bits and pieces of what people have said (like Rus' comment above) to assemble an answer in the way I would give it. But none is as explicit as I would have liked.
I have a friend who converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism who once said something that seems to apply. He said the RCC is like a person who is given a picture of Jesus and it is a dear treasure to him. He doesn't want it to be damaged so he puts it under glass and into a frame. But his friends don't seem to understand how dear it is to him, so he puts garland on the frame to try to make it look better ... and then lights and flowers and other baubles ... until the picture is completely covered and no one can see it. None of the things that was added to the picture is inately bad, but by covering the picture they become bad because they obsure what was important in the first place.
The answer to the question about the Buddhist, IMO, is Christ and only Christ. Christ is what differentiates us. Without Christ, we are no different than the Buddhist, and so if we cover up Christ with other things, we eventually become no different than a Buddhist.
The Church must keep that the focus. Baptism points to Christ because he instituted it (Matt 28:16-20, 1 Cor 1:10-17), and he gives the living water (John 4:13). The Eucharist points to Christ because it is his body and blood (Mark 14:22-24). Scripture points to Christ because he is the Word (John 1:14). A Buddhist may "accept" Jesus as a great teacher or because of some silly mystical teaching, but if all of that were stripped away so that nothing stood between the Buddhist and Christ, that person would no longer be a Buddhist.
It may seem like I'm just preaching to the choir, but moving on from that point, no saint who truly is a saint would want to do anything but point to Christ. Veneration of a saint can give courage to the faithful, but we must always remember John 15:5 ... apart from him we can do nothing. As soon as we think a saint has some special power that we can access through that saint apart from Christ, then we have let something come between us and Christ. To say that the Church can discern the eternal fate of a dead saint is to say the Church knows what God knew when he judged that person - it is to give the Church a divine power. You can disagree with that by saying it was God who revealed this to the Church, but if you follow your own rule about taking lessons away from the story of Lazarus and the rich man (as I pointed out earlier), then you will hear what is said in Luke 16:31. God doesn't do that. No where in scripture does God ever explicitly reveal the eternal fate of anyone. It is something people infer from passages such as that of the Transfiguration.
Anyway, my answer is Christ, and for whatever its worth, I'll end my sermon there.
The Church must keep that the focus. Baptism points to Christ because he instituted it (Matt 28:16-20, 1 Cor 1:10-17), and he gives the living water (John 4:13). The Eucharist points to Christ because it is his body and blood (Mark 14:22-24). Scripture points to Christ because he is the Word (John 1:14). A Buddhist may "accept" Jesus as a great teacher or because of some silly mystical teaching, but if all of that were stripped away so that nothing stood between the Buddhist and Christ, that person would no longer be a Buddhist.
The answer to the question about the Buddhist, IMO, is Christ and only Christ. Christ is what differentiates us. Without Christ, we are no different than the Buddhist, and so if we cover up Christ with other things, we eventually become no different than a Buddhist.
No where in scripture does God ever explicitly reveal the eternal fate of anyone.
I guess I would ask, though, what you make of the argument given in the Confessions that no one prior to Gregory ever asked for an intercession, and, therefore, that it appears to be a later invention.
Defense of the Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord
Well, since Resha appears to be ignoring my posts after I exposed him using straw-man arguments, I'll go ahead and finish the point I brought up in my above post, for others who may be reading.Just to make sure we are on the same page:
The best I can tell, Pope Gregory I was the most likely "Gregory" who was being mentioned here, as he is the "Gregory" mentioned in the Augsburg Confession: "And this custom is not new in the Church; for the Fathers before Gregory make no mention of any private Mass, but of the common Mass [the Communion] they speak very much."
In "Luther's First Front: The Eucharist as Sacrifice", Robert C. Croken quotes Martin Luther claiming that Pope Gregory the Great (Gregory I) was the inventor of Private Mass. Private Masses are indeed dated to around his lifetime as well, so it does make sense. So it's pretty clear that at least here in the Augsburg Confession, this must me the Gregory being mentioned.
I can't see any reason to assume that Melanchthon was referring to a different Gregory in the portion of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession you are referencing, can you?
Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.
Without quoting a post or using a name, I'm not exactly sure who or what you are responding to, although I have a strong suspicion... And if i'm right, I totally agree with you.It's only because you are relating the saints to Christ and distorting the actual truth. The saints have run the race and finished. But all are subject to Christ as He is our Head.
We join in prayer with the saints as we do our Mom and we take those prayers to Christ.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?