Non-Catholic Saints

[Tracyms1974]

They’re not, any more than law students from Harvard University in the US are less valuable than law students from Oxford University in the UK.

Doesn’t mean that the one University can rightly mark the other’s papers or give exams (or prizes) to the other’s students!

:yup:

This answer makes a lot of sense to me. I didn’t even think about other faiths having their own “canonization” process, in which case, would ease a lot of our “responsibility” to recognize these holy people. I also wasn’t aware that only five people are canonized each year (thereabouts). That’s some stiff competition! Really, though, I think most of us will be doing good just to GET to heaven and have the higher Saints hand out our assignments when we get there. “Welcome to Heaven! Here is your prayer list today. Take your lunch hour whenever you’re ready. This is Dominic, your personal Angel. He will assist you in getting around since you have no wings. And he makes great coffee!”

 

[Nevarlander]

St. Thomas More is recognized as a Saint by both the Catholic and Anglican churches. From Wikipedia:

Stupid question: Anglicans, why did you canonize Thomas More? I think it’s kinda odd, seeing as the Anglicans’ martyring him is why he’s a Catholic saint.

 

[Nevarlander]

Nella,

Could you help me here. I can’t find any list of post-Henry VIII canonized saints for the Anglican Church.

Any link would be helpful, thanks

Robert

Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_in_Anglicanism
I’ve also been told that Charles I was canonized a saint, but dunno. Supposedly devotion to Charles I is proof that you’re a really high Anglican, like devotion to Tsar Nicholas II and his family is proof that you’re hard-core ROCOR.

 

[Nella]

Why should they be? Don’t see where you are coming from. There is plenty of evidence that Christ founded a Church. ‘On this rock I will build my Church’. At the time there was only ONE Church. Since then there have been many heretics who have gone away and created their own churches. But Christ founded ONE Church: that of the tradition of the Apostles.

The church Christ founded was what we know as the Early Christian Church. It is very debatable what that actually is today. Many would argue that Rome broke away from the original teachings of the early church which at the time resided in Constaninople. I can’t argue with that because the primacy of the Roman Pontiff didn’t come into being until after the great schism. And the Nicene Creed was actually altered by those who would align themselves with Rome. I’m not saying that the RCC doesn’t contain much of the early church, I’m saying that others do as well.

 

[Sixtus]

The church Christ founded was what we know as the Early Christian Church. It is very debatable what that actually is today. Many would argue that Rome broke away from the original teachings of the early church which at the time resided in Constaninople. I can’t argue with that because the primacy of the Roman Pontiff didn’t come into being until after the great schism. And the Nicene Creed was actually altered by those who would align themselves with Rome. I’m not saying that the RCC doesn’t contain much of the early church, I’m saying that others do as well.

I thought the successors to the early Church were the CCNIUWR

Now I do not see CCNIUNWR mentioned in the bible either. But then again ‘CCNIUNWR’ is another of your inventions so it is hardly surprising it is not mentioned in the bible. It is also interesting that you confess to inventing Churches and inventing names for Churches which by your own admission are not mentioned in the bible.

RCC is your OWN invention. It is not mine neither the abbreviaton of the Church where I worship

 

[Sixtus]

Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_in_Anglicanism
I’ve also been told that Charles I was canonized a saint, but dunno. Supposedly devotion to Charles I is proof that you’re a really high Anglican, like devotion to Tsar Nicholas II and his family is proof that you’re hard-core ROCOR.

Never heard of that one. Did Charles I live a life devoted to Christ?

 

[Nevarlander]

Never heard of that one. Did Charles I live a life devoted to Christ?

Not really, but the official Anglican church canonized him (according to WP). I’d guess they thought of him as a martyr to the Puritans with their weird republican ideas rather than the “traditional” idea of divine right, and there was a devotional book written during his imprisonment which everyone thought was written by him at the time (though it probably wasn’t). It’s like how the ROCOR canonized the family of Nicholas II as martyrs to atheist communists.

 

[Keikiolu]

The church Christ founded was what we know as the Early Christian Church. It is very debatable what that actually is today. Many would argue that Rome broke away from the original teachings of the early church which at the time resided in Constaninople. I can’t argue with that because the primacy of the Roman Pontiff didn’t come into being until after the great schism. And the Nicene Creed was actually altered by those who would align themselves with Rome. I’m not saying that the RCC doesn’t contain much of the early church, I’m saying that others do as well.

Okey doke, then,… obviously somebody’s not been here too terribly long…!

But,… DO have fun in your discussions.

NO. All Saints (Catholic definition thereof) must be Catholic, since if they’re non-Catholic, they can’t be declared Saints, as the only authority who CAN declare a Saint a Saint has no authority to call a non-Catholic anything other than a non-Catholic.

Non-Catholic institutions can call anyone they want a Saint, but they can’t declare anyone a Saint.

I can call you a cab,… but I can’t turn you into a cab.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Sixtus]

Okey doke, then,… obviously somebody’s not been here too terribly long…!

But,… DO have fun in your discussions.

NO. All Saints (Catholic definition thereof) must be Catholic, since if they’re non-Catholic, they can’t be declared Saints, as the only authority who CAN declare a Saint a Saint has no authority to call a non-Catholic anything other than a non-Catholic.

Non-Catholic institutions can call anyone they want a Saint, but they can’t declare anyone a Saint.

I can call you a cab,… but I can’t turn you into a cab.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

What’s a cab?

 

[lak611]

RCC is your OWN invention. It is not mine neither the abbreviaton of the Church where I worship

 

[Nevarlander]

What’s a cab?

A taxi.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The church Christ founded was what we know as the Early Christian Church. It is very debatable what that actually is today. Many would argue that Rome broke away from the original teachings of the early church which at the time resided in Constaninople. I can’t argue with that because the primacy of the Roman Pontiff didn’t come into being until after the great schism. And the Nicene Creed was actually altered by those who would align themselves with Rome. I’m not saying that the RCC doesn’t contain much of the early church, I’m saying that others do as well.

Nella,

All my research has shown only ONE saint in the Anglican tradition since the Reformation: Charles Stuart I.

The Church was NEVER called the “Early Christian Church.” But it was called the “Catholic Church” as early as 110-150 AD in various letters.

Constantinople was the FOURTH See after Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome.

And it didn’t happen until AFTER Constantine (who ran the Eastern Churches and Empire; and called himself the “Thirteenth Apostle” ) published his Edict in the 4th century (313 AD).

If by “great schism” you mean the West-East break of the 11th century, you are woefully wrong again. The Papacy was asserting itself within 150 years of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection and within 75 years of the last NT writings.

There was a well-attested tradition that the Church at Rome in the person of its bishop (whom we now call the Pope) was the most doctrinal bulwark against error and the final court of appeal for any ecclesial matter which could not be settled locally.

Look at the Bishops of Rome in the 2nd century: most of them were from other Churches in the empire: Pope Anicetus (a Syrian) from around 160 AD to Pope Eleutherius (c. 174- c. 189) a Greek and then Pope Victor, an African. A multicultural, CATHOLIC Church.

It was Pope Victor that tried to get all the Churches to observe Easter on the same date: those darn Eastern Churches kept their own tradition!

Robert

 

[Petergee]

I was wondering something.

Is there a way that people of other faiths are recognized for their outstanding service to God? It appears to me that a person MUST be Catholic in order to be canonized a saint. To me, this seems a bit unfair to those worthy of this honor who are not Catholic unless there is an alternative recognition of some sort. What can you fine people on this forum tell me?

Tracy

The MAIN reason why the Church officially canonises saints is to give its members role models to emulate and imitate and pray through, people they can relate to from their own culture, occupation, race etc. It would be a bit silly for the Church to tell Catholics they should imitate somebody who chose not to become a Catholic.

The list of canonised saints is not meant to be a list of all dead people who deserve honour. Nor is it a list of all the people in Heaven. There are undoubtedly thousands, probably millions, of people in Heaven other than officially canonised saints. Quite possibly there are some who were non-Catholic in this life who have higher rank in Heaven than some of the canonised saints. (Of course everyone is “Catholic” in the next life. Even the devil and his angels have a “Catholic” belief in that they know and believe the truth, though they choose to reject it.)

And no, St Joan of Arc was not a “dissident” nor was St Brigid “a pagan goddess”. These are 20th century inventions about two very real and very holy and orthodox Catholic women. In fact St Joan was executed precisely because the court which condemned her ignored her repeated requests to refer her case to the Pope’s jurisdiction.

 

[LilyM]

Nella,

All my research has shown only ONE saint in the Anglican tradition since the Reformation: Charles Stuart I.

The Church was NEVER called the “Early Christian Church.” But it was called the “Catholic Church” as early as 110-150 AD in various letters.

Constantinople was the FOURTH See after Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome.

And it didn’t happen until AFTER Constantine (who ran the Eastern Churches and Empire; and called himself the “Thirteenth Apostle” ) published his Edict in the 4th century (313 AD).

If by “great schism” you mean the West-East break of the 11th century, you are woefully wrong again. The Papacy was asserting itself within 150 years of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection and within 75 years of the last NT writings.

There was a well-attested tradition that the Church at Rome in the person of its bishop (whom we now call the Pope) was the most doctrinal bulwark against error and the final court of appeal for any ecclesial matter which could not be settled locally.

Look at the Bishops of Rome in the 2nd century: most of them were from other Churches in the empire: Pope Anicetus (a Syrian) from around 160 AD to Pope Eleutherius (c. 174- c. 189) a Greek and then Pope Victor, an African. A multicultural, CATHOLIC Church.

It was Pope Victor that tried to get all the Churches to observe Easter on the same date: those darn Eastern Churches kept their own tradition!

Robert

I find the multiculturality of the early Popes quite significant. If there was no real central authority in the Church then, why did all these priests and bishops from other areas flock to Rome in the first place??? Travel in those days certainly wasn’t easy at all. Yet they chose to come to Rome.

Why not stay in their local area, or at least their region, and reach the summit of their ambition by becoming the Patriarch of their area - instead of aspiring to a supposedly undistinguished Papacy???

 

[Zooey]

Nella,

Could you help me here. I can’t find any list of post-Henry VIII canonized saints for the Anglican Church.

Any link would be helpful, thanks

Robert

The Book of Common Prayer contains a calendar of saints. Much to my Methodist delight, they include:thumbsup: John Wesley.

Never heard of that one. Did Charles I live a life devoted to Christ?

I would say that he did. Only my opinion, but he seems to me to have been a man of deep faith & devotion to God. I have no doubts that he is among the saints in Heaven.

Not really, but the official Anglican church canonized him (according to WP). I’d guess they thought of him as a martyr to the Puritans with their weird republican ideas rather than the “traditional” idea of divine right, and there was a devotional book written during his imprisonment which everyone thought was written by him at the time (though it probably wasn’t). It’s like how the ROCOR canonized the family of Nicholas II as martyrs to atheist communists.

The canonization of the Romanoffs is troublesome to me. They were not, I would say, anything like saintly. (OK, the kids. But Nicholas & Alexandra??http://bestsmileys.com/nono/3.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/nono/3.gif)

OT, but has there ever been a move to canonize Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart?? (A “pet” of mine; the last true king of England, & by all accounts, a truly holy man)>

 

[Nella]

Nella,

All my research has shown only ONE saint in the Anglican tradition since the Reformation: Charles Stuart I.

The Church was NEVER called the “Early Christian Church.” But it was called the “Catholic Church” as early as 110-150 AD in various letters.

Constantinople was the FOURTH See after Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome.

And it didn’t happen until AFTER Constantine (who ran the Eastern Churches and Empire; and called himself the “Thirteenth Apostle” ) published his Edict in the 4th century (313 AD).

If by “great schism” you mean the West-East break of the 11th century, you are woefully wrong again. The Papacy was asserting itself within 150 years of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection and within 75 years of the last NT writings.

There was a well-attested tradition that the Church at Rome in the person of its bishop (whom we now call the Pope) was the most doctrinal bulwark against error and the final court of appeal for any ecclesial matter which could not be settled locally.

Look at the Bishops of Rome in the 2nd century: most of them were from other Churches in the empire: Pope Anicetus (a Syrian) from around 160 AD to Pope Eleutherius (c. 174- c. 189) a Greek and then Pope Victor, an African. A multicultural, CATHOLIC Church.

It was Pope Victor that tried to get all the Churches to observe Easter on the same date: those darn Eastern Churches kept their own tradition!

Robert

The authority in Rome was handed to the pope along with the title Pontificus Maximus when Rome fell into ruin. This proves nothing. The whole infallibility piece didn’t come into play until the late 19th century.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

QUOTE=Nella;2584330]The authority in Rome was handed to the pope along with the title Pontificus Maximus when Rome fell into ruin. This proves nothing. The whole infallibility piece didn’t come into play until the late 19th century.

Nella,

I am at a loss to understand how your post (above) has any bearing on my answer to your PRIOR post where you said:

“I can’t argue with that because the primacy of the Roman Pontiff didn’t come into being until after the great schism.”

I was asking for you to clarify “the great schism,” and pointing out some facts (pesky things those facts!) about the Church.

It seems you believe in some shadowy Protestant (Early Christian Church) origin in those early years? Am I correct?

Let’s focus on your questions and assertions before moving on to other tangental statements.

Thanks

Robert

 

[Subrosa]

I was wondering something.

Is there a way that people of other faiths are recognized for their outstanding service to God? It appears to me that a person MUST be Catholic in order to be canonized a saint. To me, this seems a bit unfair to those worthy of this honor who are not Catholic unless there is an alternative recognition of some sort. What can you fine people on this forum tell me?

Tracy

The Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Cyprian, Antiochian churches all have saints of thier own

Sub

 

[Nella]

Rbt_Southwell:
Nella,

I am at a loss to understand how your post (above) has any bearing on my answer to your PRIOR post where you said:

“I can’t argue with that because the primacy of the Roman Pontiff didn’t come into being until after the great schism.”

I was asking for you to clarify “the great schism,” and pointing out some facts (pesky things those facts!) about the Church.

It seems you believe in some shadowy Protestant (Early Christian Church) origin in those early years? Am I correct?

Let’s focus on your questions and assertions before moving on to other tangental statements.

Thanks

Robert
Well, if you would consider the real bonifide teachings of Christ Protestant than sure, thats what I believe. If Jesus came back today, I think most Catholics would consider him to be Protestant because in my decades of being a Catholic, not many really ever knew Jesus as he is.