Non-Catholic Saints

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tracyms1974
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tracyms1974

Guest
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
 
All worthy servants of God are, we can be sure, fully recognised and honoured by the One they serve, which is the only thing any of us should truly desire.

As for canonisation - well, not all saintly Catholics get canonised either! Only about 10,000 in 2,000 years. Five a year average. So there are many who don’t achieve the distinction of canonisation in spite of being worthy of it.

This can happen for many reasons. Perhaps they have lived their lives in obscurity, their virtues unrecognised by the world. Perhaps God has simpy not singled them out to us by the necessary verifiable miracles performed through their intercession. Who knows 🤷
 
Tracyms1974 said:
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
Click to expand...
No a person doesn’t have to be RC to be recognized as a saint. In the Anglican church, there are many recognized saints including Martin Luther King Jr. among many others. It all boils down to how you believe. For myself, there are many saints from many denominations.
 
Nella said:
No a person doesn’t have to be RC to be recognized as a saint. In the Anglican church, there are many recognized saints including Martin Luther King Jr. among many others. It all boils down to how you believe. For myself, there are many saints from many denominations.
Click to expand...
St. Thomas More is recognized as a Saint by both the Catholic and Anglican churches. From Wikipedia:
In 1935, four hundred years after his death, More was canonized in the Catholic Church by Pope Pius XI, and was later declared the patron saint of lawyers and statesmen. He shares his feast day, 22 June on the Catholic calendar of saints, with Saint John Fisher, the only Bishop during the English Reformation to maintain his allegiance to the Pope. More was added to the Anglican Churches’ calendar of saints in 1980.
Click to expand...
 
Nella said:
this is a good point.
Click to expand...
The OP was clearly talking about the Catholic Church formally canonising saintly people of other faiths (which is the only ‘recognition’ we offer), not the Anglicans recognising Catholics or persons of other denominations.
 
LilyM said:
The OP was clearly talking about the Catholic Church formally canonising saintly people of other faiths (which is the only ‘recognition’ we offer), not the Anglicans recognising Catholics or persons of other denominations.
Click to expand...
ok… So why should the latter be considered less valuable?
 
Tracyms1974 said:
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
Click to expand...
Yes, a person must be Catholic in order to be a canonized Saint. That doesn’t mean that non-Catholics can’t become saints. I know I can think of one person in particular who I think could very well be a saint. But no, they are not recognized officially by the Catholic Church. But then again, I’m also the person who used to think that the only way one could be canonized was if he or she was a priest or nun.
 
Nella said:
ok… So why should the latter be considered less valuable?
Click to expand...
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!

And the Catholic Church don’t hand out no honorary doctorates (or canonisations) to people of other faiths! Although the Vatican has different honours they hand out such as the Order of St Sylvester - I’d imagine at least some of those are open to people of other faiths :yup:
 
THutch04 said:
Yes, a person must be Catholic in order to be a canonized Saint. That doesn’t mean that non-Catholics can’t become saints. I know I can think of one person in particular who I think could very well be a saint. But no, they are not recognized officially by the Catholic Church. But then again, I’m also the person who used to think that the only way one could be canonized was if he or she was a priest or nun.
Click to expand...
That is simply not so. The Anglican church canonizes saints that the catholic church does not. Does this mean that they are really not saints? You may agree but I would say certainly not. Again, God is neither Catholic nor Protestant. His word is sharper than any double edged sword.
 
Nella said:
No a person doesn’t have to be RC to be recognized as a saint. In the Anglican church, there are many recognized saints including Martin Luther King Jr. among many others. It all boils down to how you believe. For myself, there are many saints from many denominations.
Click to expand...
Nella said:
ok… So why should the latter be considered less valuable?
Click to expand...
Without regard to value, it is not the topic of this discussion.
Nella said:
That is simply not so. The Anglican church canonizes saints that the catholic church does not. Does this mean that they are really not saints? You may agree but I would say certainly not. Again, God is neither Catholic nor Protestant. His word is sharper than any double edged sword.
Click to expand...
I’d say it means they are not necessarily saints. It is possible that Dr. King is in heaven, but not necessarily true.
God may not “be” Catholic or Protestant, but He did institute ONE Church.
 
Spirithound said:
Without regard to value, it is not the topic of this discussion.

I’d say it means they are not necessarily saints. It is possible that Dr. King is in heaven, but not necessarily true.
God may not “be” Catholic or Protestant, but He did institute ONE Church.
Click to expand...
show me proof that the Roman Catholic church is that one church.
 
Is this why the RC has to raise the magisterium to the same authority as scripture? Is it because scripture does not say that the church in Rome is the one true church of Christ founded upon Peter, so the magisterium now level in authority will make that claim? This seems to be extreme fabrication and very debatable.
 
Nella said:
Is this why the RC has to raise the magisterium to the same authority as scripture? Is it because scripture does not say that the church in Rome is the one true church of Christ founded upon Peter, so the magisterium now level in authority will make that claim? This seems to be extreme fabrication and very debatable.
Click to expand...
The RC does not have to raise the mgisterium to the same authority of Scripture seeings it is the authority of Christ which created the magistrium so that it IS of the SAME authority of Scripture.

Scripture is subordinate to the authority of Christ and teachings of the Apostles.

The RC gave you the teachings of Christ, then they gave you the traditions of the apostles, then they gave you the Scripture.

Why do the scriptures have to declare that which is obvious?The scriptures only profess that which is less obvious in the teachings of Christ, not that which is in everyday use, custom and practice.

You cannot use the Scripture against the Church whose scriptures they are.
 
Sixtus said:
The RC does not have to raise the mgisterium to the same authority of Scripture seeings it is the authority of Christ which created the magistrium so that it IS of the SAME authority of Scripture.

Scripture is subordinate to the authority of Christ and teachings of the Apostles.

The RC gave you the teachings of Christ, then they gave you the traditions of the apostles, then they gave you the Scripture.

Why do the scriptures have to declare that which is obvious?The scriptures only profess that which is less obvious in the teachings of Christ, not that which is in everyday use, custom and practice.

You cannot use the Scripture against the Church whose scriptures they are.
Click to expand...
If your claim is that the RC created the Bible, then why isn’t the RC mentioned in the Bible??
 
Nella said:
If your claim is that the RC created the Bible, then why isn’t the RC mentioned in the Bible??
Click to expand...
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.

This IS the Church founded by Christ. All else are apostacy and devil worship.

The RCC does not exist. There is no such church called ‘RCC’. That is only a label put upon the Church that has remained faithful to the teachings of the Apostles.

RCC is an invention of yours, that is why your invention is not mentioned in the bible. So you are asking me why your invention is not mentioned in the bible? I do not know, perhaps you are the best one to answer that question. 😛

If JK Rowlands created Harry Potter then why isn’ t JK Rowlands mentioned in Harry potter?
 
Nella said:
ok… So why should the latter be considered less valuable?
Click to expand...
Nella,

Lily didn’t write or infer that “the latter be considered less valuable.”

Anglicans, of course, like the Swedes and Lutherans of Germany, are going to recognize those canonized as saints from their respective countries PRIOR to the split from Rome.

Robert
 
Nella said:
That is simply not so. The Anglican church canonizes saints that the catholic church does not. Does this mean that they are really not saints? You may agree but I would say certainly not. Again, God is neither Catholic nor Protestant. His word is sharper than any double edged sword.
Click to expand...
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
 
Sixtus said “If JK Rowlands created Harry Potter then why isn’ t JK Rowlands mentioned in Harry potter?”

Maybe because Harry Potter is fiction.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top