R
redrosetea
Guest
No they are not better…just more heroic…God loves us all…it is just an extra pat on the back to honor their sacrifices
- Status
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
There is a definite hierarchy in Heaven, just as there is here on Earth, but in Heaven, it is the hierarchy of perfection. Jesus said, “whoever would be greatest must be the servant of all.” This hierarchy isn’t about rank but unity with God. Some souls are closer to God than others. You can see that here on Earth easily, especially if you were going to go insane and compare Mother Teresa of Calcutta to Joseph Stalin. We don’t all suddenly change and become exactly the same as each other when we die, like clones. God is Just and rewards or punishes souls according to their merits.
I think you’re only here to mock Catholicism, not to have any question answered or to discuss any issues. Why are you on this thread?
Souls on Earth can be transformed from the worst sinner to the greatest saint. God embraces all repentant souls into His Kingdom. That’s the message of the Prodigal Son. It doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said in the least bit. What I was talking about is simply he heavenly reward.
P
pnewton
Guest
If this is what you learned, you learned incorrectly. No saint or prophet of old had or has any power except to the favors granted by God. And yes, he sinless…now.
J
JReducation
Guest
There are also many saints whom no one knows about. They have never been canonized, but that does not mean that they are not saints. That’s why twice a year the Church celebrates the Feast of All Saints.
On November 1 the Church celebrates all the saints
On November 29 the Church celebrates the feast of all Franciscan saints
There are other days to celebrate the uncanonized saints of the major orders of men.
We do venerate all the saints, the canonized ones and the unknown.
There is a hierarchy of saints, just as there is a hierarchy of angels. We’re just not sure what saint is at what level. There have been visions and private revelations made to saints and statements made by the Church about this. For example, the Church always refers to Francis of Assisi under several titles:
Seraphic Father – a Seraph is the highest ranking angel
Mirror of Perfection – if you look at Francis’ life you can see Christ, because Francis immitates it so well
Perfect Christian – self explanatory
And like these labels, there are other titles for different saints that imply a specific place among the list of saints, such as: martyr, virgin, confessor, other. The highest ranking is the martyr.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
On November 1 the Church celebrates all the saints
On November 29 the Church celebrates the feast of all Franciscan saints
There are other days to celebrate the uncanonized saints of the major orders of men.
We do venerate all the saints, the canonized ones and the unknown.
There is a hierarchy of saints, just as there is a hierarchy of angels. We’re just not sure what saint is at what level. There have been visions and private revelations made to saints and statements made by the Church about this. For example, the Church always refers to Francis of Assisi under several titles:
Seraphic Father – a Seraph is the highest ranking angel
Mirror of Perfection – if you look at Francis’ life you can see Christ, because Francis immitates it so well
Perfect Christian – self explanatory
And like these labels, there are other titles for different saints that imply a specific place among the list of saints, such as: martyr, virgin, confessor, other. The highest ranking is the martyr.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
redrosetea
Guest
Jr isn’t the Archangels the highest rank, or are they also called seraphs?
J
JReducation
Guest
Oops
My bad. I forgot them. Yes, they are the highest ranking angels. I hope they don’t get upset with me. LOL
The seraphim and cherabim are the ones whom we proclaim when we refer to the choirs of angels. I think the paintings of the cherubs make them look so cute with their baby faces.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
redrosetea
Guest
Well I am sure they love you just as the rest of us doOops
My bad. I forgot them. Yes, they are the highest ranking angels. I hope they don’t get upset with me. LOL
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Thank you. Though I know some who would like to see me hung from the highest tree, then quartered and served as dog food. Thank God the FDA does not allow us to feed junk to pets.
A blessed day to you.
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
A
Agripa
Guest
Yet is this not a rather midevil view of an afterlife? Of heaven? Does heaven ever “evolve” the way things evolve on earth? For example, I note the common bibles end usually with John or Revelation. That was written about 90 years, more or less, after Jesus died. I do not find in any bible such an hierarchy of angels, saints and souls as you describe, although certainly by the middle ages, such notions were common among followers.There are also many saints whom no one knows about. They have never been canonized, but that does not mean that they are not saints. That’s why twice a year the Church celebrates the Feast of All Saints.
On November 1 the Church celebrates all the saints
On November 29 the Church celebrates the feast of all Franciscan saints
There are other days to celebrate the uncanonized saints of the major orders of men.
We do venerate all the saints, the canonized ones and the unknown.
There is a hierarchy of saints, just as there is a hierarchy of angels. We’re just not sure what saint is at what level. There have been visions and private revelations made to saints and statements made by the Church about this. For example, the Church always refers to Francis of Assisi under several titles:
Seraphic Father – a Seraph is the highest ranking angel
Mirror of Perfection – if you look at Francis’ life you can see Christ, because Francis immitates it so well
Perfect Christian – self explanatory
And like these labels, there are other titles for different saints that imply a specific place among the list of saints, such as: martyr, virgin, confessor, other. The highest ranking is the martyr.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Yet once we evolve into the modern era, let us say the post-Renaissance epoch (1700’s), certainly by the dawn of the industrial age (1830’s), I note in literature the views of what its like in heaven remain static - it does not chage from that of a kingdom or great “mansion” or palace of God. It remains a midevil view with angels as soldiers, saints and martyrs, etc.
Why is this and why in a perfect place would there be hierarchy or those “better” than others? How is this justified in a perfect union with God when corporeal distinctions should be gone? (And how would a loving God allow for fire, hell and damnation of imperfect souls in what Chirstians call “hell”?)
J
JReducation
Guest
The scriptures to mention the hierarchy of angels. In fact, they are mentioned in John’s book of Revelation, Luke and in the OT. For example, there is mention of seven Archangels and three of them are given names that denote specific roles: Gabriel, Raphael and Michael.
In his preaching Christ speaks of those who sit at his left and right and says that those are not for hiim to assign when the mother of the two disciples asks him for this favor. There was a belief system in place that there were proximities to God in heaven and the most desired, by those who had a little understanding, were the right and left of God. Jesus also refers to John the Baptist as the greatest prophet. He doesn’t mean greatest as in the prophet who did the job better than others. He’s speaking of John’s holiness.
There are two reasons why the wording does not change much. First, it works. It is understandable. This is what the theologians wanted to do, to make it comprehensible. Second, heaven does not evolve, since it is outside of space and time. Heaven is a constan, an eternal present, because God has no past or future.
These are not corporeal distinctions. Even in the Trinity you have distinctions. Otherwise, you would not have a Trinity. But we do: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a distinction of persons, not bodies (corporeal). Humility and charity are part of the nature of a saint. A saint recognizes the holiness in himself and in others. The soul of the saint knows the measure of his love and humbly acknowledges his place before God. It is not God who imposes a place on the soul, it is the soul who chooses its rightful place based on its knowledge about itself in comparison to the perfection of God. Therefore, the soul is perfectly happy with the place he chooses. Because the soul is holy, it is honest. And because it is rewarded for its honesty, it is happy in its place in relation to God. It is not to say that the soul is not able to see God, but to say that the soul has its identity, just as each person in the Trinity has its identity. Therefore, no two souls share the same identity. When we speak about a hierarchy, we’re speaking about identities. A good way of understanding it is by explaining it as an order. There is an order in heaven. Everyone has his place in that order. Since heaven is a place for those who a just, they select their place in that order according to what they justly deserve.
In a very stange kind of way, hell is God’s last loving act for the soul who chooses not to spend eternity with him. God does not impose his love or his presence on any soul. Since the sould cannot be destroyed and put out of existence, it must have a place where it need not see God since it has chosen not to do so. You see, the God who created life will not take it away. Therefore, God will not take away the life of the soul by taking the soul out of existence. And he will not invade the soul’s free will. The only choice for God is to allow the soul to exist without him, thus there is a hell.(And how would a loving God allow for fire, hell and damnation of imperfect souls in what Chirstians call “hell”?)
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Agripa
Guest
All well defended points according to the practises of apologetics, but from a reasoned point not tied to dogma, I still cannot accept many of your assertions.The scriptures to mention the hierarchy of angels. . . .
In his preaching Christ speaks of those who sit at his left and right and says that those are not for him to assign when the mother of the two disciples asks him for this favor.
. . . . Heaven is a constant, an eternal present, because God has no past or future.
. . . Since heaven is a place for those who a just, they select their place in that order according to what they justly deserve.
In a very stange kind of way, hell is God’s last loving act for the soul who chooses not to spend eternity with him. . . . The only choice for God is to allow the soul to exist without him, thus there is a hell.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
First, Jews, Romans and other Mediterainien religious traditions held a notion of angels - messenges for various gods, and Christians were no different in accepting the device. In fact, Lucifer was the Roman male demi god of the Morning Star (the brightest of all creation), so he as an angel, a fallen one, already had a long tradition in religious life during and well after Jesus’s lifetime.
And that “left and right” business stems from an ancient superstition about left handed and right handed people. (All myth arises from the human experience.) Left handed people make up less than 10 percent of the population at any given time and as such, have always been seen as “other” or worse, as evil. Children in both Greek and Roman cultures were often left for dead if their left handedness was uncorrectable. (Note too that Greek and Roman traditions and thought in general are the predominant foundations of Christianity). The proper name for a left handed person is “sinistralist” from which we gain the term “sinister”.
People traditionally ate with and greeted others with the right hand. The left hand’s only proper use was for cleaning unclean things. In courts of Rome and later, in other complex social institutions, the right side of a table, room or hall was denoted as favored, the left as less favored. It is only reasonable that as man developed a concept of heaven, he would assign the whole left and right business there to!
And if heaven is a constant, meaning it always was and will be, I still don’t see how it gets assigned very human constructs that seem to be stuck in the 7th century. I think since no one has returned to tell us first hand what heaven is, then man is free to do what he has always done and that is to imagine heaven in terms of its closest proximity on earth, repleat with justice being finally served which was lacking on earth.
So if a typical peasant living in ancient times sees “heaven” as the life lived by brutal but wealthy rulers and kings, that is how the peasant will see heaven and to which he may aspire should he live the exemplary religious life.
I further think that if heaven is constant and unchanging, than we are fully free to assign it whatever characteristics we wish in our own age. This means our notions of heaven can evolve as we do.
I imagine it only in terms of a void of non-experience,total oblivion. Others would be free to imagine heaven as a huge, perfect suburb in the idylic temperate zone of western Florida and God as a beneficent Chief Executive of the universe’s most powerful and perfect corporation, and still others are free to imagine heaven as a “kingdom” with various relevant places for each soul and God as a fatherly, just, Spirit, dispensing justice in tiny, exact portions as we eternally deserve.
Finally, you will note too that even notions of “hell” have slowly changed of late. Broiling, eternal fire and pain - what I will call the most traditional notion - has now been slowly replaced with a more Judaic notion of heaven as simple “separation” from God. Not a great situation, but not the eternal third degree burn either.
J
JReducation
Guest
The previous post is long, so I thought I’d post separately, out of respect. I don’t want to clip the post. The images of heaven that we have come from two sources, which are equally authoritative. The one is from the scriptures themselves, especially from the Psalms and the Book of Revelation. The other source is Sacred Tradition. We cannot argue with those sources. They are infallible. At best, we can try to understand the nuance being used.
That being said, there have also been private revelations to many holy mystics and they coincide. Mystical ecstasies are private, not public. Public revelations stopped with the death of the last apostle, John. But the Church has ruled that many of these private revelations are worthy of belief, because they are consistent with Sacred Scripture. Jesus speaks about the fires of hell in his discourses on the last judgment. There was a question posed to Jesus by the mother of the twins who asked Jesus to promise her that her sons would be seated at his left and right sides. In this context, the left side had nothing to do with evil. It was the places of honor next to the king.
The prophets did refer to Jesus as King. Jesus referred to himself as a king when he announces that the Kingdom of God is at hand. He is the Kingdom of which he speaks. In other words, he’s talking about himself. He is both the King and the Kingdom. He refers to it again during his trial when he says to Pilate, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” The theme of heaven as a kingdom is a well established one in Sacred Scripture and it had nothing to do with the pagan notion of kings and kingdom. Just the opposite, the kingdom of which the scriptures speak is a transcendent one. The pagan kingdoms were nihilistic. They were filled with all of the failings and faults of human nature. Thus, they were destined for death.
As far as hell is concerned, the theme of fire is revealed in the scriptures by Jesus himself. It has also been revealed to mystics who have been proven to be mentally sound, holy men and women and whose visions are consistent with what scriptures describe. The absence of God does not take away from the fires of hell. Just the opposite, in heaven the soul enjoys the fire of eternal love. In hell, the soul suffers actual fire, because there is no love to tame the fire or to harness it. The absence of God is what allows the fires of hell to burn without an end in sight and to inflict actual suffering.
In the end, the greatest discussion should not be about fire or kingdoms, but about the perfection of charity toward the most vulnerable members of society. For when man sees Jesus in the vulnerable and responds to him, the language becomes irrelevant, because he will enjoy eternity with God. But this is not just a call to do social work. Though social work is good, it is not charity. Charity is love and love must have a living beneficiary. Jesus is the beneficiary, the Jesus who presents himself in our midst vulnerable and non-threatening.
Have a Blessed Christmas,
Br. JR, OSF
That being said, there have also been private revelations to many holy mystics and they coincide. Mystical ecstasies are private, not public. Public revelations stopped with the death of the last apostle, John. But the Church has ruled that many of these private revelations are worthy of belief, because they are consistent with Sacred Scripture. Jesus speaks about the fires of hell in his discourses on the last judgment. There was a question posed to Jesus by the mother of the twins who asked Jesus to promise her that her sons would be seated at his left and right sides. In this context, the left side had nothing to do with evil. It was the places of honor next to the king.
The prophets did refer to Jesus as King. Jesus referred to himself as a king when he announces that the Kingdom of God is at hand. He is the Kingdom of which he speaks. In other words, he’s talking about himself. He is both the King and the Kingdom. He refers to it again during his trial when he says to Pilate, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” The theme of heaven as a kingdom is a well established one in Sacred Scripture and it had nothing to do with the pagan notion of kings and kingdom. Just the opposite, the kingdom of which the scriptures speak is a transcendent one. The pagan kingdoms were nihilistic. They were filled with all of the failings and faults of human nature. Thus, they were destined for death.
As far as hell is concerned, the theme of fire is revealed in the scriptures by Jesus himself. It has also been revealed to mystics who have been proven to be mentally sound, holy men and women and whose visions are consistent with what scriptures describe. The absence of God does not take away from the fires of hell. Just the opposite, in heaven the soul enjoys the fire of eternal love. In hell, the soul suffers actual fire, because there is no love to tame the fire or to harness it. The absence of God is what allows the fires of hell to burn without an end in sight and to inflict actual suffering.
In the end, the greatest discussion should not be about fire or kingdoms, but about the perfection of charity toward the most vulnerable members of society. For when man sees Jesus in the vulnerable and responds to him, the language becomes irrelevant, because he will enjoy eternity with God. But this is not just a call to do social work. Though social work is good, it is not charity. Charity is love and love must have a living beneficiary. Jesus is the beneficiary, the Jesus who presents himself in our midst vulnerable and non-threatening.
Have a Blessed Christmas,
Br. JR, OSF
R
redrosetea
Guest
The Magi were pagans and they recognized Christ as Priest, Prophet, and , King as evidenced by the gifts they gave Him
M
majilla
Guest
Hai
Wish you all a Happy 2010
I am an Indian ,Catholic,Author.
I am so sorry about our canonization politics.Mass canonization have no use to any human being . It is only ridiculous.Remember,these popes are only leaders of a religion.They have done their duty. That’s all.
At the same time,Mother Teresa is a real Saint.She need not get our worldly certificates[canonization].But we don’t realize this.
gerard majilla , www.dontcanonize-mt.com
Wish you all a Happy 2010
I am an Indian ,Catholic,Author.
I am so sorry about our canonization politics.Mass canonization have no use to any human being . It is only ridiculous.Remember,these popes are only leaders of a religion.They have done their duty. That’s all.
At the same time,Mother Teresa is a real Saint.She need not get our worldly certificates[canonization].But we don’t realize this.
gerard majilla , www.dontcanonize-mt.com
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m confused. What part is ridiculous? Canonization has been around since the 12th century. It’s not politics. It’s an infallible decree of faith.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pnewton
Guest
Two people. This is not about a Mass canonization. I am sorry you feel this way, but I am excited and pleased to see this. One the other hand, I would never call the Catholic Church “crafty” as you did. If you do not like canonizations, you are under no obligation to have a devotion to any of the Saints. Catholics are to be instructed by the Church, not teach.
M
majilla
Guest
Hai,
Thank you for your reply.
Catholic Church has published Mother Teresa’s confession letters.This shows Pope’s infallibiblty is ridiculous.We should recognize Mother Teresa as a true Christian.
gerard majilla[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
Thank you for your reply.
Catholic Church has published Mother Teresa’s confession letters.This shows Pope’s infallibiblty is ridiculous.We should recognize Mother Teresa as a true Christian.
gerard majilla[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
M
majilla
Guest
Hai,
I used the word crafty because Catholic Church clergy are against Mother Teresa.That is why I am questioning about canonization .I agree many saints are true christian and we should try to follow them. But all canonized are not Saints.
gerard majilla
I used the word crafty because Catholic Church clergy are against Mother Teresa.That is why I am questioning about canonization .I agree many saints are true christian and we should try to follow them. But all canonized are not Saints.
gerard majilla
J
JReducation
Guest
Bold is mine.
A canonization is an infallible decree made from the Chair of Peter. Therefore, if the Pope says that they are saints, they are saints. A Catholic cannot deny that or he falls into heresy. You don’t need to have a devotion to a particular saint, but you are obligated to accept that the person is a saint.
I don’t know any priest who believes that Mother Teresa is not a saint. Who have you been talking to?
Br. JR, OSF
- Status