Could Jesus and the Buddha be friends?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jredden92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe we should create a separate thread it seems weve gone off topic. lol
 
Good idea, we might attract a good theologian who can answer the question well 🙂
 
umamibella said:
I will spam a few links that attempt to answer this question as to why there are no Old Testament figures that are formerly canonized saints.

Are holy men and women of the Old Testament considered saints?

We are talking about a formal process of the Catholic Church here. Bear that in mind as that is the question to be answered. There is a formal process to becoming a saint that must be adherered too in the Church.

We must define a difference between a formal canonization and a person honoured as a saint. This is relevant to the statement made by rossum.

Why Don’t We Call Moses and Elijah “Saint”? – Jimmy Akin

Invoking Old Testament Figures | EWTN
Click to expand...
Jimmy Amun’s article is perfect. This is really an English thing.

The Roman Martyrology (which Priests sometimes use when praying the Divine Office) refers to Moses as Saint Moses.

Also, I would like to point out that in the Baronius Press 1962 missal, the Saint Michael prayer starts out as “Holy Michael the Archangel” instead of “Saint Michael…” So this most likely is tally just an English issue.

Finally, in the Latin Mass, the Machabees have a Commemoration on August 1st - do we have at least one Feast as late as 1962 where Old Testament Saints had their own feast in the Mass
 
I created a new thread with this question here:
40.png
What are the Church’s reasons for not formally canonizing Old Testament figures as Saints? Spirituality
“The patriarchs, prophets, and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions” - Catechism of the Catholic Church #61 They are honored as saints but why haven’t they been formally canonized as Saints? Thanks in advance
slight_smile
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
The Catholic Encyclopedia is fiction? Look at the bottom of the page, this particular fiction has an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat .
Click to expand...
Just because it appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t mean it is true! It is in the Catholic Encyclopedia because it was a popular legend in the medieval age. Thus it has historical value regarding the history of Catholics but it doesn’t change the fact that it is just a story. That’s all.

You seem to want to imply that this somehow proves that Buddha was canonized as a saint. Which is ridiculous.
 
Duke12VonFalkenburg said:
You seem to want to imply that this somehow proves that Buddha was canonized as a saint. Which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Canonized? No. Barlaam and Josaphat were added before the process was systematised. Their feast day was in November, and IIRC they were listed with the legendary saints in 1969 when the calendar was cleaned up.
 
rossum said:
Canonized? No. Barlaam and Josaphat were added before the process was systematised. Their feast day was in November, and IIRC they were listed with the legendary saints in 1969 when the calendar was cleaned up.
Click to expand...
Where is your proof these saints are the human person Buddha
 
rossum said:
Canonized? No. Barlaam and Josaphat were added before the process was systematised. Their feast day was in November, and IIRC they were listed with the legendary saints in 1969 when the calendar was cleaned up.
Click to expand...
umamibella said:
Where is your proof these saints are the human person Buddha
Click to expand...
Are you a chess player? I think there is a word I am looking for… 🤔
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top