How can we call Thomas Moore a saint?

[StTommyMore]

Y

The saints have braved death because they knew that there is one sure path to salvation. You cannot avoid it: if there are other paths to salvation, being Catholic is not necessary.

I can agree to this statement with one caveat: all those who have been validly Baptized are indeed Catholic, but not in perfect communion.

 

[GEddie]

No apologies are needed, Seneca. You’re dead on message. Except your message is the message of Henry VIII, who also felt that he was still “Catholic.”

The key is the key of St. Peter, and the pope holds it.

St. Thomas was on one side of the door. Henry VIII was on the other. The saint is in heaven.

Where do you think the king is likely to be?

Hopefully in Purgatory!

Remember, he, too, faced death at a later time. And death is hideous and shameful, even if your head does stay on your body. Even if one is King of the country, their position avails them nought in the face of that final humiliation.

I would hope that the sheer hideousness of death drawing ahead, would drive all but the hardest of heart to repentance.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[Senecus]

Well said St.TommyMore. The Trinitarian formula for Baptism comes directly from the Holy Scriptures, and even lay Catholics (or non-Catholics) can provide the sacrament as a Proxy for the Holy Spirit, if conditions warrant. This is not my personal belief, but is used everyday by the RCC to determine if re-baptism is needed.

Further, according to according to the Franciscans, the Christian who honestly believes his “sect” is a valid Christian Church, is in “Spiritual Communion” with the Catholic Church, and “can receive Salvation”. However, that road is more challenging (see my previous link to Br.Joseph Mary’s VLOG).

Getting back to this thread topic, we are called to have faith and obedience to the integrity of the Church’s Sainthood process. The onus for it’s correctness is not on our shoulders in the end.

 

[Warrenton]

Hopefully in Purgatory!

Remember, he, too, faced death at a later time. And death is hideous and shameful, even if your head does stay on your body. Even if one is King of the country, their position avails them nought in the face of that final humiliation.

I would hope that the sheer hideousness of death drawing ahead, would drive all but the hardest of heart to repentance.

Listen, I am with you in the hope. It’s too awful to contemplate being in hell, or anyone else being there. However, the power of sin is great, and so is pride. People will absolutely go down to death claiming they are right, against other people, against God Himself.

It’s one thing to say “I hope no one is in hell.” It is quite another to say that our doctrine holds that no one is in hell.

Some of these posts come close to that.

Is there any scriptural authority for the idea that the heretic, the pagan, the unbeliever can be saved?

We need to ask, for what did St. Thomas, that most cultured and urbane of men, author of the Utopia, die?

He died for a faith. If he had believed the onion could have been skinned by apostasy and repentence, he would have lived. He believed heresy to be death to the soul. He was right.

 

[StTommyMore]

Is there any scriptural authority for the idea that the heretic, the pagan, the unbeliever can be saved?

The Scriptural Authority that we have is that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. The Holy Spirit will not allow her to error. And she teaches that “the Church” is not strictly the institutional Church.

 

[Warrenton]

The Scriptural Authority that we have is that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. The Holy Spirit will not allow her to error. And she teaches that “the Church” is not strictly the institutional Church.

I thought that might be the answer. And I do not mean to make light of that. I find the modern restatements of “no salvation outside the Church” rather vague, with good reason: they are hard to support.

The thing rolls around degree, perhaps. The basic rule is easy to understand, and most Catholics understood what it meant for most of our history. There is a reason we pray the creeds, and there is a reason why most Protestants do not. They are not, and do not wish to be, part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. St. Thomas knew the rule.

As long as the rule remains the rule, and this talk of people of good will remains the exception, it seems reasonable enough; who in fact, ever denied miracles?

When the exception swallows the rule, we have a problem, and one based on sentimentality, not scripture or tradition, and certainly not logic. If all that is needed for salvation is “good will” then there is no need for faith. It’s “anti Lutheranism.” Your namesake understood that. He was willing both to kill and die for that proposition. That is saintly, and instructive in this relativistic age.

 

[StTommyMore]

I thought that might be the answer. And I do not mean to make light of that. I find the modern restatements of “no salvation outside the Church” rather vague, with good reason: they are hard to support.

The thing rolls around degree, perhaps. The basic rule is easy to understand, and most Catholics understood what it meant for most of our history. There is a reason we pray the creeds, and there is a reason why most Protestants do not. They are not, and do not wish to be, part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. St. Thomas knew the rule.

As long as the rule remains the rule, and this talk of people of good will remains the exception, it seems reasonable enough; who in fact, ever denied miracles?

When the exception swallows the rule, we have a problem, and one based on sentimentality, not scripture or tradition, and certainly not logic. If all that is needed for salvation is “good will” then there is no need for faith. It’s “anti Lutheranism.” Your namesake understood that. He was willing both to kill and die for that proposition. That is saintly, and instructive in this relativistic age.

The idea that the Chrurch is not strictly institutional is based on St. Augustine actually. I have never said goodwill is enough. One cannot actively reject the Church. But one, if has never been truly educated in what the Church teaches in an accurate manner, but are searching for Truth, we can trust in God’s mercy.

 

[pnewton]

If bodiless heads nailed to London Bridge, etc, imply a lack pf civilization; who’s to say that our descendants, having finally gotten rid of the death penalty, won’t call Y2K Americans uncivilized?

The future may well result in Americans of this generation being considered uncivilized. The people of that time would likewise have to judge us based on our society, not theirs.

 

[Warrenton]

The future may well result in Americans of this generation being considered uncivilized. The people of that time would likewise have to judge us based on our society, not theirs.

The present considers us uncivilized because we are. When we produce our St. Thomas More, maybe we will be civilized.

And St Tommy, I am with you on the exception and the St. Augustine. One hesitates quite to say “trust” though. Perhaps, “hope” would be more better?

We are, after, all, discussing a martyr for the Church - our institutional Church.

 

[pnewton]

The present considers us uncivilized because we are.

You may. I don’t. Any culture that has super-sizing is by my definition civilized. It beats the heck out of MacBeth.

 

[StTommyMore]

The present considers us uncivilized because we are. When we produce our St. Thomas More, maybe we will be civilized.

And St Tommy, I am with you on the exception and the St. Augustine. One hesitates quite to say “trust” though. Perhaps, “hope” would be more better?

We are, after, all, discussing a martyr for the Church - our institutional Church.

I think 'trust" can work, as in we can trust God to be merciful and just to allow those into his Glory that are truly seeking Him.

 

[Senecus]

As a comment was made in a prior post by Mr. Warrenton, here is a short clarification on Protestant use of the creeds. In the Lutheran Churches (ELCA, LCMS, LCMC, WELS being the main ones in the United States) - - the use of the three historical creeds are a standard part of a “traditional” worship session.

About 4/5ths of the churches offer at least one traditional service per Sunday. About 1/15th offer “only” traditional/devine services, including the German High (sung) mass, and Gottesdienst.

The use of rite 3 of the liturgy is especially reverent and beautiful, I have heard nothing like it elsewhere (the new Catholic liturgy is will be very close to it, less the thees & thous). video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2940862931815796796#
The very sacred form of the Gloria starts at about 5 1/2 minutes into the video.

The standard use of creeds at these traditional services are to recite the Apostles Creed for non-Communion Services, and use the Nicene for the one or two services monthly that offer Communion (some do communion each service). Our church would also recite the Athanasian Creed at least once annually.

Sadly, there is a trend to modernize, that is resulting in fewer of these traditional liturgies. That’s one reason (by all means not the only one), why I’m on the RCIA journey.

 

[Warrenton]

Senecus: If you read my prior posts, you will see that I am in sympathy with the hope you and Tommy have expressed. The problem is expanding what is basically a miracle into a rule, such that it swallows all prior tradition going back to the Old Testament.

One thing St. Thomas More knew was scripture, probably in two languages.

He knew about Ecclesiasticus. That book contains a lengthy meditation on the salvation, or not, of the gentiles. The sentiment that “good people ought not suffer” is explored, and alas, rejected.

So fast forward to now. Yes, some sects use creeds, and yes, some sects are very reverent - more so than some RCs. Some even believe in transubstantiation, after a fashion. But not being in submission to the pope, who is the successor of St Peter, puts a person in the position of the man at the wedding feast who would not wear the wedding garment.

I am with you guys for a universal “hope and glory” mentioned in the old hymn. But in Christian charity, if a brother asks what will happen if he does not join the one, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, a Catholic is bound to answer “the same thing that happened to everyone who did not get in Noah’s ark.”

That is really what St Thomas More’s life was all about: it is his meaning. Most of the bishops of England equivocated, and figured they could stay a part of the Church and break from the pope. St. Thomas denied that “reasonable” proposition.

None of the Catholic mystics, or children of Fatima, for that matter, said “Don’t sweat it, everyone’s gonna make it.” Quite the opposite. Outer darkness. Gnashing of teeth. Sheep and goats. Stubble and chaff.

I leave the thread to you now, because I don’t think I can make a case that is likely to move you closer to this view of the thing. It is interesting that with so much agreement, our disagreement over this point is so extreme.

It is interesting that St. Thomas More brings this out, 500 years after his death. He remains a man for all seasons.

 

[JReducation]

Well, okay, I’ll answer, and I hopefully I won’t get in trouble by the mods for doing so. So here goes: Yes, IMOHO there are sins that can trump ‘that degree of love’. Hurting other people, like burning non-Catholics , or those who don’t want to be Catholic, at the stake, trumps laying down one’s life for one’s convictions, because you have still hurt other people. Not only that, you have disobeyed Jesus directive to, “shake the dust of that house off your feet”. So IMOHO, someone of authority who tortured or put someone to death beause they didn’t accept the word of the Catholic Church was disobeying Jesus in his/her own right.

In addition, IMOHO, if someone has had other lives put to death for those convictions, he/she wouldn’t think any better of his/her own life for those same convictions. So it would only be expected that his/her degree of stubbornness and lack of understanding for another person’s choices would be such that he/she’d be willing to lay his/her life on the line once s/he has taken other people’s lives. It’s only right: if you don’t care about another person’s life, why would you care about your own?

But I see where you’re coming from and I understand what you’re saying, but I’m just saying that for some people being martyred doesn’t make up for the wrongs done in life. Some might say that Thomas More made up for all his past transgressions by dying for his faith, and nothing else matters. But others might say it’s important to look at the whole picture. Others might even say that Thomas More was merely being stubborn in his resolve, and was trying to prove a point when martyred and couldn’t have possibly had remorse for the bad he was doing because he felt that his victims deserved what they got. The only fact in the matter is that no one can see into the head of Thomas More to know what exactly he was thinking at the time of his death except for God. And really, no one else matters but God, and what He thinks.

Personally, IMOHO, I wouldn’t think any highly of a person who terrorized non-Christians just because they died for their faith in the end. On the contrary, I think he should have died for his faith, since he took other people’s lives for not believing in his faith. Many people have died for their convictions: Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, etc… That doesn’t make Thomas More any more or less special than anyone else. He still had people (even a handful) put to death because they refused to believe in the Catholic Church. Of course he didn’t light the fire himself, but he was directly responsible. And is that a reason to die? Not to me. Not when direct instructions from the mouth of Jesus said, “shake the dust of that house off your feet”. Had Jesus instead said, “torture and burn them if they don’t believe”, maybe I’d concede, but he didn’t. But that’s just me.

And again, as I said in a previous post, nothing good came of these deaths. Killing non-believers just gave other people reason to hate the Catholic Church and turn to other religions. It made them hide and it made devout Catholics hide them. It forced people to lie so that they could make their choices. It made the Church look bad to those outside the Church as well as those who who are a part of the Church. That can’t be good. That can only be evil. Again just MOHO…

The problem here is that you would then have to deny infallibility and deny that the Holy Spirit speaks through the pope when he makes a statement of faith. A canonization is a formal statement of faith made by the Pontiff. The Pontiff cannot declare anything that is contrary to the faith when he speaks as Peter. When he speaks for himself, he can make many mistakes. But when he invokes the authority that he has inherited from the Apostle Peter, he is no longer speaking as a private Catholic. He is speaking for the Church. When he declared that Thomas More in in heaven, when he commands all Catholics to venerate him, and commands that his name be inscribed in the book of saints, he is stating that Thomas More is part of the Church Triumphant. That is not a little statement or a simple opinion that Thomas was a nice guy. He is commanding the Church to believe. He is not espousing something new. He is invoking the faith of the Church from the times of the Apostles that there are two ways in which a man wipes the soul clean of all sin: baptism and martyrdom.

The early Church celebrated the Eucharist over the tombs of the martyrs, because it believed that the martyrs were triumphantly in heaven, regardless of their sins.

So, if we espouse your thesis, we would have to say that the Pontiff is not infallible when he caonizes, that the Church does not have to venerate those whom he commands us to venerate, that the early Church was wrong in her belief that martyrdom and baptism had the same effect on the soul, and that worshipping over the tomb of the martyrs was sacrilegious.

You just brought down the house. The question now becomes, as Pope Benedict would say, why would you want to deprive men of the truth that has been handed down to us?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MtnDwellar]

He is invoking the faith of the Church from the times of the Apostles that there are two ways in which a man wipes the soul clean of all sin: baptism and martyrdom.

I was taught this about baptism and martyrdom. Where does the teaching regarding martyrdom come from? Bible, Catechism, Other?
Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

I was taught this about baptism and martyrdom. Where does the teaching regarding martyrdom come from? Bible, Catechism, Other?
Thanks.

It comes from Sacred Tradition. Bu tthen the Bible, Catechism and other also came from Sacred Tradition too. We often forget that.

That’s how we get the tradition that is still used today of inserting a relic inside an altar. The early Church had a cult to the martyrs by the end of the first century.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Senecus]

One final thing to remember, no-one but God can read someone’s heart. All I can believe is that, prior to his death, STM reconciled his known sins, and his “possible” sins (we all ask ourselves if we could have done something different or better; to reach a better outcome). That confession, along with the nature of his death, ultimately led the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, . . . that’s my take-away from this thread.

BTW, . . . do Catholics have a day of tribute to the “Unknown Saints” (like the Unknown Soldier Memorials)? . . . . There are many Saints and Righteous persons whose names will never be known this side of Eternity.

 

[JReducation]

One final thing to remember, no-one but God can read someone’s heart. All I can believe is that, prior to his death, STM reconciled his known sins, and his “possible” sins (we all ask ourselves if we could have done something different or better; to reach a better outcome). That confession, along with the nature of his death, ultimately led the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, . . . that’s my take-away from this thread.

BTW, . . . do Catholics have a day of tribute to the “Unknown Saints” (like the Unknown Soldier Memorials)? . . . . There are many Saints and Righteous persons whose names will never be known this side of Eternity.

We have several of these days.

The Roman Church has All Saints Day on November 1.

The Franciscans have Franciscan All Saints Day on November 26 (we have our own calendar and missal)

The Oriental Churches have their own days for the venertion of the unknown saints. Other religious orders of men have them too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

The problem here is that you would then have to deny infallibility and deny that the Holy Spirit speaks through the pope

I would only have to admit that men are only human and can make mistakes, even with the best of intentions.

He is invoking the faith of the Church from the times of the Apostles that there are two ways in which a man wipes the soul clean of all sin: baptism and martyrdom.

I’ve never heard that martyrdom automatically makes someone a saint. A martyr yes, but not a saint…that would mean that one could commit all kinds of sins under the sun (fornication, etc) without remorse, and if they die because they won’t deny Christ, that person automatically go to heaven and is a saint. I’ve never heard of that before…

You just brought down the house. The question now becomes, as Pope Benedict would say, why would you want to deprive men of the truth that has been handed down to us?

My intention would never be to deprive people of the truth handed down to us. By questioning particular teachings and/or opinions, I have no clue how I would be accomplishing depriving people of the truth handed down to us. You can’t learn or process without asking questions and getting understandible answers.

 

[JReducation]

I would only have to admit that men are only human and can make mistakes, even with the best of intentions.

It is a belief of the Church that the decree of canonization is error free, because it’s an infallible decree. There is no room for mistake. A pope, speaking from the Chair of Peter, is not “only human”. It is Christ speaking through him.

I’ve never heard that martyrdom automatically makes someone a saint. A martyr yes, but not a saint…that would mean that one could commit all kinds of sins under the sun (fornication, etc) without remorse, and if they die because they won’t deny Christ, that person automatically go to heaven and is a saint. I’ve never heard of that before…

This has been the faith of the Church since the time of the Apostles. A person who forfeits his life rather than deny his faith or who forfeits his life for the faith is absolved from all sin. It’s called “radical purification.”

1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."

As you can see, we believe that maryrdom has the same effects as Baptism. If your example above, the person who has committed all kinds of sins and has never expressed contrition is baptized, none of those sins can be held against him, because they cease to exist in the mind of God. I believe that it was Constantine who converted, but asked not to be baptized until he was on his deathbed.

My intention would never be to deprive people of the truth handed down to us. By questioning particular teachings and/or opinions, I have no clue how I would be accomplishing depriving people of the truth handed down to us. You can’t learn or process without asking questions and getting understandible answers.

Remember what Pope Benedict always says. There is a difference between asking questions and questioning. Questioning is casting doubt on the teachings and faith of the Church. Questions are an attempt to learn. People do not have the right to cast doubt on the teachings of the Church. The Church also teaches us this. In the book Light of The World Pope Benedict touches on this. The Church teaches only truth. When the teaching of the Church is called into question, the individual places himself or herself outside of the Church. He’s very emphatic about this.

On the other hand, questions are plenty and many of them we cannot answer until we get to heaven. We simply accept in faith. That’s why we say, faith is a gift.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF