That only works if your perception is reality.
The reality is the Catholic and Orthodox Church recognizes holiness in a person.
No. The Catholic and Orthodox denominations recognize what they believe to be holiness in a person, and that measure of holiness is defined by works. Works based faith begets works based veneration. Nothing more, nothing less. It's all about the works for you guys.
This is so clearly laid in scripture when Jesus said by the fruits you are going to know and he gave us a list of fruits, they are called the beatitudes.
Who will you know Michelle? Did Jesus say, "Hey, if someone displays these attributes it would be appropriate if you give them the title of Saint and fall to your knees and kiss statues of their image? Yeah. Good luck with that.
A person is blessed if he is or does, X Y and Z.
Again, you rattle off things that are neither being debated nor support your denominations anthropocentric practices.
So our question to you is, what do you base you honoring them as a Saint on?
Well, I don't assume to make distinctions about holiness because, unlike your denomination, I
recognize that my ability to determine such things is only skin deep. And yes Michelle, that
does mean I'm saying they don't recognize that that is as much as they can do as well. I cannot read the heart of man any more than the leaders of the Catholic and EO denomination can so whatever way that I may "honor" them has more to do with the visible manifestations of their fiath, i.e., adherence to the Word of God, an unshakeable dedication to preserving the sanctity of God's Word from the corruption that is so prevalent in much of Christendom today, a clear endowment by God for the dispensation of His truth. All of these things, while edifying, speak of God's graciousness more than anything particular or inherent to the person.
Sainthood is about sanctity, thus the name, Saint. It is about being holy, reaching perfection of soul which is nothing more then holiness, sanctification.
You might as well say that it has to do with determining the number of hairs on your head as you'd have more luck with that than regarding something you have absolutely no ability to determine.
Our Saints who died with the mark of faith displayed the fruits of the Holy Spirit that Paul listed and we can look at their life and according to the beatitudes, we can see that they are "blessed"... blessed to us means you are walking in holiness, and after death, you are in heaven... that's why you are blessed, because you ran the race, kept your focus on Jesus, live the beatific life and you made it, you have your crown, heaven.
What we do when we believe we have a true Saint (one who reached full sanctification while on earth) is we ask God to hear their prayers for us and if God grants our prayers through their intersession, then God has given us confirmation, yes they are in heaven and not going through purgatory.
Michelle, your denomination has no ability to determine the level of someone's sanctification. The only thing I can say about such an assertion is that it is rubbish.
What y'all are doing is talking about what makes a person a doctor of the Church. That it totally separate from a martyr or Saint. Although Doctors can also be martyrs and Saints as well.
Being declared a doctor of the Church is recognizing that a certain person was endowed with an incredible gift and his theological expressions were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Oh. Okay.
The Catholic Church has made only a few Saints actual doctors of the Church. Augustine is one, St. Theresa of Avila is one, St. Theresa, Little Flower is another.
Well, one out of three ain't bad I guess.
If you guys want, I guess... you can recognize Calvin in your circle because you think he was a "doctor" endowed with a special gift of the Spirit where what he wrote was under the Holy Spirit's inspiration... just don't expect us to agree with you and don't go around making a case that he was holy because his actions said otherwise.
And here is revealed the spurious nature of your understanding of holiness. Add to that the fact that you felt inclined, for reasons beyond my comprehension, to qualify your concession by letting us know we shouldn't expect you to agree and that it is in our "circle" that we would recognize Calvin. To that I will simply say, whose "circle" would we seek Calvin to be recognized in if not ours? Yours? The only way Calvin, or anyone, could be recognized in your "circle" is if they espoused the unbiblical nonsense that your denomination peddles. And what in the name of all that is holy would make you feel the need to tell us to not expect you and yours to agree? You truly must think us insane if you think we would even desire recognition amongst those who have such little knowledge of the truth of Scripture and whose hopes rest as squarely on their own shoulders as on the Cross. No Michelle, you needn't worry. Any acceptance by your denomination would simply show that we had deviated from and compromised the Truth for a lie.
One can also validly argue that because his fruit was so off the mark of what it should have be, he could in no way have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write theology.
Which "fruit" is this of which you speak? Please, as you clearly fancy yourself an expert on the history of Calvin, enlighten us as to what it is that you know that disqualifies him.
I can respect that you believe he was guided by the HS to write all that he did, I don't agree with it but I do respect that is what you think.
Michelle, backhanded comments are not tokens of respect. The insults you have leveled are of no consequence to me so you needn't attempt to cloak them as anything less than what they are. Don't worry though. I place little value in the judgment you render about me and my views and such drivel would never incite me to request that you be banned. That's the tactic of
other people, self-righteous people that feel that their own behavior is beyond reproach.
But where we get defensie is, honoring with the title Saint as if his behavior is something we all should admire as Christian behavior. That is what we find blasphemous.
First, we are not presumptuous enough to expect anyone to believe Calvin was worthy of honor. You either believe he was, or you don't. We don't fall prey to the arrogant notion that a fallible inspection of someone's life justifies awarding them a title that indicates a level of sanctification we have no ability to validate. Secondly, doing so is no more insulting than your denomination presuming that their recognition of someone's holiness means anything more than that they fancy themselves in the place of God.