Umm… no, I don’t think that’s quite right. The full “Litany of the Saints” (which we typically don’t see, since we use abbreviated versions of the litany at the various liturgical occasions to which we are accustomed (e.g., Easter Vigil, baptisms, etc)) includes “patriarchs and prophets”. The particular saints that are included in the liturgy are:
You can’t read too much into that.
You shouldn’t read too little into that, either.
With all due respect, that’s a bad analogy. The Church has always used the appellation “holy ones” or “saints” – that is, part of the Body of Christ – to refer to humans who are associated with the Church (either on earth, in purgatory, or in heaven). In an analogous way, she has also referred to angels as ‘saints’, even though their participation in the Body of Christ differs in a particularly and fundamentally different way. For angels, the appellation ‘saint’ may be considered an ‘honorific’.
I would think that it’s more than reasonable to assert that, by including the patriarchs in a litany – which is expected to be used in public, liturgical situations – is ample evidence that they are considered to be members of the mystical Body of Christ.
That is bad theology. The Church permits (but does not teach as Doctrine) ALL SORTS of things in Her public worship, including the Rosary (the Rosary!), the Divine Mercy, and any number of devotions. The devotions I mentioned have FEAST DAYS on the Roman Calendar, but are not taught as Catholic Doctrine in any way, shape, or form whatsoever (and the Church actually teaches, as Doctrine, that no post-Apostolic private revelation can be imposed as Doctrine).I would think that it’s more than reasonable to assert that, by including the patriarchs in a litany – which is expected to be used in public, liturgical situations – is ample evidence that they are considered to be members of the mystical Body of Christ.
Please read this article from Catholic Answers: catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-ok-to-pray-to-old-testament-heroes-the-same-way-we-pray-to-christian-saints
You misunderstand me.
I’m not saying that it’s doctrine – that’s an assertion that you’ve added to the discussion here. Rather, it’s the presence of these saints in a liturgical context that gives witness to the fact that the Church recognizes them as saints.
I see. The Church doesn’t teach that the rosary is a valuable devotion. Boy, you sure got me there…
I’ve done no such thing. You seem to think I’m talking about doctrine; I’m just mentioning the Church’s witness to the recognition of certain saints.
Psst… do you really need me to cite the Gospels, demonstrating that Moses, Elijah, and Abraham are held in high regard by Jesus, in contexts that cannot be interpreted in any other than that they are saints?
If you mean “saint” (a person in heaven) then I agree. If you mean Saint (a member of the mystical Body of Christ) then you are stepping on doctrine.
Aah… now I see what it is that you’re asserting!
Actually, I’m not, but I see where you’re headed.
And yet, you’re proposing a distinction without a difference. As I think we’ve debated on these forums, one is justified through the graces which (normatively) come through baptism. Without these graces, one cannot be saved. The question the Church has wrestled with is how those who were not baptized may have been saved.
Am I reading too much into what you’ve written here? If you exclude the Patriarchs, then you’re also saying that no one who lived before the birth of the Church is part of the Mystical Body of Christ? Now that’s novel doctrine!