Saints

[catzrfluffy]

Patron Saint of astronauts? St. David?
"If I go up to the heavens, you are there;" (Psalm 139:8)

 

[PaladinValer]

A patron Saint is a person who, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Church teaches to be the advocate of a particular matter, usually because of how that individual related to that matter on his or her life.

For example, St. Michael the Archangel is patron of the police because of his role as, effectively, a defender of God's Law in heaven.

We don't need "Saints" or Jesus to be our role model. It is not our job to act like them.

The very word "Christian" means "like Christ"

We better become more and more like Christ or else we will not be found worthy.

How ? & why would we honour the dead ?

They aren't dead. If they were, then our God is a failure.

He's the God of Life because He, by His Incarnation, defeated and depowered death, not just for Himself, but for all.

Death has no power; its realm's gates have been torn from their hinges and are cast aside, twisted and ruined. Instead, the Presence of the Holy Three-in-One radiates, allowing those who've passed on to experience a foretaste of heaven or hell.

 

[Shredhead]

A patron Saint is a person who, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Church teaches to be the advocate of a particular matter, usually because of how that individual related to that matter on his or her life.

Is this before,after or during their death ?

We better become more and more like Christ or else we will not be found worthy.

I agree one' salvation should produce Christ' likeness in a person , but a pilgrim' worthiness is dependent on the blood of Christ , not his/her works .

They aren't dead. If they were, then our God is a failure.

God is a failure because people die ?

He's the God of Life because He, by His Incarnation, defeated and depowered death, not just for Himself, but for all.

Death has no power; its realm's gates have been torn from their hinges and are cast aside, twisted and ruined. Instead, the Presence of the Holy Three-in-One radiates, allowing those who've passed on to experience a foretaste of heaven or hell.

Have a read of 1Cor 15:52 & 1Thess 4:15-17 & then read what you've written above .

 

[Dark_Lite]

Is this before,after or during their death ?

Human Saints are always canonized after their death.

God is a failure because people die ?

They are physically dead, obviously. However, what he refers to is that they are still alive in Christ.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I must ask all the fundies to stop with the dumb questions.

 

[Shredhead]

Human Saints are always canonized after their death.

by whom & why ? Is there scripture to back this practice up ?

They are physically dead, obviously. However, what he refers to is that they are still alive in Christ.

1Cor 15:52 & 1Thess 4:15-17

I must ask all the fundies to stop with the dumb questions.

I hope this isn't directed at me

 

[E.C.]

I don't see any implication in scripture that the intermediate state is "above time". Nor am I sure what you mean by this:

Alpha and Omega. Beginning and the End.

Once one has died, until the resurrection, "dead" seems a perfectly passable description of one's state to me. Of course, one might read implications into that aren't appropriate, but no term is perfect.

There are two different times.

There is "Chronos" which is man's time. We exist on "Chronos", our watches indicate "Chronos".

There is also "Kairos" which is God's time. God's time is above man's time and, for all intents and purposes, on the list of things that man may know about but probably never comprehend because man is not God.


When the body dies, the soul goes on ya? Well, the soul falls under "Kairos" because the soul is with God and thus what I meant by "above time" or more specifically above "Chronos".
The General Resurrection in man's time has not yet happened. Yet it probably has on God's time since God is above all things and since Jesus Christ, who is God, is the Alpha and the Omega, or, the Beginning and the End.


So, getting back to the thread.

This thread has once again manifested the differences in understanding anything between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. The bit about time here is one of them and I think in pointing that out the remaining discussion within the thread here shall (hopefully) be slightly smoother.

This little tid-bit about time is one of the many many many things which the earliest Christians wrote about, yet appears to have been lost in the West and consequently Catholicism and Protestantism.

 

[tansy]

Alpha and Omega. Beginning and the End.


There are two different times.

There is "Chronos" which is man's time. We exist on "Chronos", our watches indicate "Chronos".

There is also "Kairos" which is God's time. God's time is above man's time and, for all intents and purposes, on the list of things that man may know about but probably never comprehend because man is not God.


When the body dies, the soul goes on ya? Well, the soul falls under "Kairos" because the soul is with God and thus what I meant by "above time" or more specifically above "Chronos".
The General Resurrection in man's time has not yet happened. Yet it probably has on God's time since God is above all things and since Jesus Christ, who is God, is the Alpha and the Omega, or, the Beginning and the End.


So, getting back to the thread.

This thread has once again manifested the differences in understanding anything between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. The bit about time here is one of them and I think in pointing that out the remaining discussion within the thread here shall (hopefully) be slightly smoother.

This little tid-bit about time is one of the many many many things which the earliest Christians wrote about, yet appears to have been lost in the West and consequently Catholicism and Protestantism.

Well, I think the West does understand that more or less, though of course there are differing opinions.
Interesting though though what you say about The General Resurrection possibly already having occurred in 'God's time'. I've kind of wonderd about that sort of thing - because God is eternal, maybe everything else is kind of eternally there in 'His time'.
Because God can see the end from the beginning and dwells outside of time, I sometimes envisage that where we live (on the material level), is kind of like a time bubble that God views constantly from all places and times..sorry, difficult to explain what I mean, and is only an inadequate attempt to comprehend things that are beyond my ken.
WEll, I never thought that my OP would engender so much discussion

 

[tansy]

Patron Saint of astronauts? St. David?
"If I go up to the heavens, you are there;" (Psalm 139:8)

LOL

 

[Polycarp1]

I'm a great deal bothered by the theoretic basis being advanced for why not to observe saints, coupled with things brough up in other GT threads. Essentially people are taking an antinomian attitude without thinking it through: it doesn't matter what you do in this lifetime because, y'know, it's faith that saves ya, and there's no need to look at Mary or any of the other exemplary Christians of the past because, y'know, they're dead. Screw the Communion of Saints; when your body snuffs it, you're outa here!

And then people wonder why moral standards have (supposedly) dropped? Your theology says it doesn't matter what you do -- it makes no difference in this world or the next.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic -- but with a sharp point to it, I hope. There's a serious fault in what's being taught, in pieces, as the supposed evangelical sense of the Gospel. It needs to be flagged and fixed.

 

[Dark_Lite]

by whom & why ? Is there scripture to back this practice up ?

In the Catholic Church it is the Pope who makes the final pronouncements. However, it is a very long investigative process involving many people. The canonization process comes more from Sacred Tradition than Scripture alone. It is approached from a fundamentally different mindset than a Sola Scriptura PoV.

1Cor 15:52 & 1Thess 4:15-17

And?

 

[Polycarp1]

In the Catholic Church it is the Pope who makes the final pronouncements. However, it is a very long investigative process involving many people. The canonization process comes more from Sacred Tradition than Scripture alone. It is approached from a fundamentally different mindset than a Sola Scriptura PoV.

And?

For the record, both in Catholicism and in Orthodoxy/Anglicanism the impetus for canonization comes from the laity, who recognize and recall the 'saintliness' of the individual. ('Saintliness' in quotes since otherwise it would be begging the question, in a way.) The Vatican has a mechanism in place for such 'causes' -- the technical term for nomination for canonization is 'cause'. In Orthodoxy, the local bishop reviews such claims; I'm not clear on the process after that. In Anglicanism, the national church simply votes whether to add a proposed individual to the calendar, in its general meeting (American General Convention, General Synod in other churches, etc.) Catholics have an intermediate step called 'beatification' which awards the epithet 'Blessed" prior to recognizing full sainthood.

So it is not a 'top-down' decision, but one motivated by the people who knew the proposed saint.

 

[Dark_Lite]

For the record, both in Catholicism and in Orthodoxy/Anglicanism the impetus for canonization comes from the laity, who recognize and recall the 'saintliness' of the individual. ('Saintliness' in quotes since otherwise it would be begging the question, in a way.) The Vatican has a mechanism in place for such 'causes' -- the technical term for nomination for canonization is 'cause'. In Orthodoxy, the local bishop reviews such claims; I'm not clear on the process after that. In Anglicanism, the national church simply votes whether to add a proposed individual to the calendar, in its general meeting (American General Convention, General Synod in other churches, etc.) Catholics have an intermediate step called 'beatification' which awards the epithet 'Blessed" prior to recognizing full sainthood.

So it is not a 'top-down' decision, but one motivated by the people who knew the proposed saint.

The original impetus comes from the laity or people lower on the "totem pole," so to speak, yes. However, in Catholicism the final pronouncement of canonization does indeed come from the Pope.

 

[Polycarp1]

I thought that was important to say, because many non-Catholics mistake the Pope's reserving to himself formal announcements such as canonization for "He makes the decisions all by himself" -- which is of course not the case. It was the people of Ars, of Lisieux, pf Cracow who reconized the saintleness of the late Curé, St. Therese, etc. and pressed their cause to the Vatican, who put them through the review process and pronounced them saints.

To stress again something that's been said many times, the Pope, the Vatican, or whoever, doesn't "make someone a saint" -- God does that, by saving them and sanctifying them. What happens is that after their death their saintliness is recognized by those who knew them, and the canonization process is in place to set them as examples for other Christians.

 

[PaladinValer]

Is this before,after or during their death ?

1. Death has no power.
2. All Saints become so upon glorification, which can only occur after they pass on.

God is a failure because people die ?

No, people who think death has power believe in a powerless God, who is a failure.

The only orthodox and Christian theology is that God defeated and depowered death. Those who say otherwise may claim with their lips otherwise, but their belief and heart are contrary.

Have a read of 1Cor 15:52 & 1Thess 4:15-17 & then read what you've written above .

I have no interest in heterodox interpretations of the Holy Writ.

I'm a great deal bothered by the theoretic basis being advanced for why not to observe saints, coupled with things brough up in other GT threads. Essentially people are taking an antinomian attitude without thinking it through: it doesn't matter what you do in this lifetime because, y'know, it's faith that saves ya, and there's no need to look at Mary or any of the other exemplary Christians of the past because, y'know, they're dead. Screw the Communion of Saints; when your body snuffs it, you're outa here!

And then people wonder why moral standards have (supposedly) dropped? Your theology says it doesn't matter what you do -- it makes no difference in this world or the next.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic -- but with a sharp point to it, I hope. There's a serious fault in what's being taught, in pieces, as the supposed evangelical sense of the Gospel. It needs to be flagged and fixed.

Repeating the above because it needs to be repeated.

 

[boswd]

I must ask all the fundies to stop with the dumb questions.

Good luck with that!

 

[Chesterton]

Ephesians 2:19-22

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Ephesians 2:19-22

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Fellow citizens with the saints? Sounds good to me.

 

[E.C.]

For the record, both in Catholicism and in Orthodoxy/Anglicanism the impetus for canonization comes from the laity, who recognize and recall the 'saintliness' of the individual. ('Saintliness' in quotes since otherwise it would be begging the question, in a way.) The Vatican has a mechanism in place for such 'causes' -- the technical term for nomination for canonization is 'cause'. In Orthodoxy, the local bishop reviews such claims; I'm not clear on the process after that. In Anglicanism, the national church simply votes whether to add a proposed individual to the calendar, in its general meeting (American General Convention, General Synod in other churches, etc.) Catholics have an intermediate step called 'beatification' which awards the epithet 'Blessed" prior to recognizing full sainthood.

So it is not a 'top-down' decision, but one motivated by the people who knew the proposed saint.

In Orthodoxy, it begins locally and spreads from there.

Eventually when a jurisdiction canonizes a Saint than that person is "officially" a Saint and also icons of them may have a halo behind their head. The Saint is given a day (I believe it is typically the day they reposed in the Lord) and news of St. Joe-Bob of Springfield's canonization is given to the other jurisdictions and his day is added to the calendar.

Of course, the person must have been a good guy, ya know. Somebody may venerate Arius a lot, but I highly doubt Arius would be considered a Saint except within Arian circles.

I know that oca.org has a link or two under "Feasts and Saints" that explains the process with greater clarity and detail, but unfortunately I don't like to post links since very few people actually open them.

Oh, what the hay? OCA - The North American Saints

 

[namericanboy]

Interesting thread..Just curious, anybody know when this practice started..Obviously we don't have an example prayer of say Paul trying to petition Steven after he was martyred . Or rules how to chose a saint from a Saint and name what they specialize in..Grace and peace to you
Thanks..........nab