SPLIT: Who is a saint/holy?

[avflf]

All members of the Church - “those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven” - are saints. Hence the phrase “the communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed. See the Catechism on the meaning of the phrase. Some saints like Mary and the Apostles are given special mention and honor on earth because the Church is sure they are in heaven united with God. They and all those in heaven are the “Church triumphant”. The members of the Church on earth are the “Church militant” since we are at war with Satan. Those who have died and have not been condemned but have not been united with God are the “Church suffering”, because they are being purged in Purgatory, which is likely the subject of another thread…

So, according to you

Some saints like Mary and the Apostles are given special mention and honor on earth because the Church is sure they are in heaven united with God.

the Church is only sure about some of the saints although she’s also sure when she canonizes someone. Are there saints in Heaven that are not, as you put it, “united with God”?

 

[davidv]

So, according to you

the Church is only sure about some of the saints although she’s also sure when she canonizes someone. Are there saints in Heaven that are not, as you put it, “united with God”?

No, for “united with God” is the definition of heaven.

 

[avflf]

No, for “united with God” is the definition of heaven.

Then I fail to see why you give preeminence to Mary and the Apostles

 

[davidv]

Then I fail to see why you give preeminence to Mary and the Apostles

They are and can be because their “heroic” virtue of the canonized Saints can be demonstrated with empirical evidence.

 

[avflf]

They are and can be because their “heroic” virtue of the canonized Saints can be demonstrated with empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence? And what is this “heroic” thing all about? Please explain.

 

[davidv]

What empirical evidence? And what is this “heroic” thing all about? Please explain.

The process the Church uses to declare someone a Saint is quite involved.
See this article for a summary of the process and a reference to a Vatican document that provides more detail. Here.

 

[FCEGM]

Along with the articles david has recommended to you, this article on virtue would also be helpful:

newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm

Keep in mind when reading it that any virtue we or any Saint has finds its source in Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit as He transforms the soul by grace into an image of the Savior. “Heroic virtue”, then, is mastery of the virtues over sin and self, by God’s grace.

 

[jpjd]

In time of extreme danger, as in time of war or disaster, any Catholic may make a good confession to anyone who is right there.

Not true. Well, I suppose a Catholic can confess to anyone he wants, but he can only receive absolution from a priest. A layperson does not have the power to absolve another’s sins, even in if their life is danger.

 

[avflf]

The process the Church uses to declare someone a Saint is quite involved.
See this article for a summary of the process and a reference to a Vatican document that provides more detail. Here.

My understanding of the process of canonization is that the rules were enacted in February 1983 following John Paul’s DIVINUS PERFECTIONIS MAGISTER published 25 January of the same year. In it he states that *"The Church, in turn, from the earliest beginnings of Christianity has always **believed *that the Apostles and Martyrs are more closely joined to us in Christ and has venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy Angels, with special devotion, devoutly imploring the aid of their intercession" .
He goes on to say that, to some extent or other, previous rules on this matter to be null and void - “Moreover, we wish that these Our statutes and rules should be, now and hereafter, binding and effective and, insofar as is necessary, we abrogate the Apostolic Constitutions and Regulations published by Our Predecessors and all other rules, including those which are worthy of special mention and derogation”
According to these new rules a miracle is required by the candidate for his/hers *beatification * - “5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his/her death, is necessary”.
A further miracle is required, after death, for the candidate to be elevated to sainthood
The New Testament does not record any miracles attributed to Mary nor to the majority of the Apostles, thus “belief” is the only criterion for the elevation of these people to sainthood and belief, per se, cannot be considered empirical evidence.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You do realize that we aren’t ‘sola scriptura’, right? That something is not ‘recorded in Scripture’ does not mean that it is not known through Sacred Tradition or becomes known through the guidance of the Holy Spirit–you know, the “one who is to LEAD US TO ALL TRUTH”.

Now, how can we be ‘led to’ all truth? Obviously we have ‘some truth’ but we are going to learn ‘more truth’. And if we’re going to learn it, that means we don’t already know it, or know it fully.

So to imply that if it’s not ‘written in the book’ it can’t be truth (as you just did) ignores the fact that the Holy Spirit is going to lead us to truths that aren’t ‘in the book’ , provided they don’t contradict the truth we already have ‘in the book’.

Nothing about saints, miracles, etc. ‘contradicts’ what’s in the book.

 

[davidv]

My understanding of the process of canonization is that the rules were enacted in February 1983 following John Paul’s DIVINUS PERFECTIONIS MAGISTER published 25 January of the same year.

These particular ones, yes. These were not the first rules to have been in place.

In it he states that *“The Church, in turn, from the earliest beginnings of Christianity has always **believed ***that the Apostles and Martyrs are more closely joined to us in Christ and has venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy Angels, with special devotion, devoutly imploring the aid of their intercession” .
He goes on to say that, to some extent or other, previous rules on this matter to be null and void - “Moreover, we wish that these Our statutes and rules should be, now and hereafter, binding and effective and, insofar as is necessary, we abrogate the Apostolic Constitutions and Regulations published by Our Predecessors and all other rules, including those which are worthy of special mention and derogation”
According to these new rules a miracle is required by the candidate for his/hers *beatification *- "5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his/her death, is necessary".
A further miracle is required, after death, for the candidate to be elevated to sainthood
The New Testament does not record any miracles attributed to Mary nor to the majority of the Apostles, thus “belief” is the only criterion for the elevation of these people to sainthood and belief, per se, cannot be considered empirical evidence.

I’d call giving birth as a virgin near the top of any list of miracles.

And, obviously, Mary’s sainthood was declared prior to 1983, so these specific rules do not apply.

 

[avflf]

These particular ones, yes. These were not the first rules to have been in place.

Granted, but does this mean that the previous ones were not up to scratch?

I’d call giving birth as a virgin near the top of any list of miracles.

It is true that all Miracles are viewed to derive from God but those required for canonization appear to be through the direct influence of the individual to be canonized and affecting a different person or thing. In Mary’s case it was different. God acted without being petitioned ie Mary did not pray to be made the vessel to produce Jesus.

And, obviously, Mary’s sainthood was declared prior to 1983, so these specific rules do not apply.

O K but then when was Mary first referred to as a Saint?

Tantum ergo wrote - You do realize that we aren’t ‘sola scriptura’, right? That something is not ‘recorded in Scripture’ does not mean that it is not known through Sacred Tradition or becomes known through the guidance of the Holy Spirit–you know, the “one who is to LEAD US TO ALL TRUTH”.

Now, how can we be ‘led to’ all truth? Obviously we have ‘some truth’ but we are going to learn ‘more truth’. And if we’re going to learn it, that means we don’t already know it, or know it fully.

So to imply that if it’s not ‘written in the book’ it can’t be truth (as you just did) ignores the fact that the Holy Spirit is going to lead us to truths that aren’t ‘in the book’ , provided they don’t contradict the truth we already have ‘in the book’.

Nothing about saints, miracles, etc. ‘contradicts’ what’s in the book

The various Traditions of the Church derive from written texts be they those of the Chuch Fathers or other texts that are labeled “non canonic” by the Church herself. For example, the idea of Mary’s prepetual virginity stems from the 2nd century work “The Nativity of Mary” later known as the “Protoevangelium of James” This idea developed and Origen categorically states the ever-virgin belief as undisputed fact. Although this was denied by Tertullian, by the 4th Century one finds this belief attested to by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Didymus, Jerome and other writers.
So, even if *sola scriptura *is not the be all and end all of the Church’s teachings she still had to draw from material she does not even recognize as inspired. Where does that leave us?

 

[FCEGM]

The various Traditions of the Church derive from written texts be they those of the Chuch Fathers or other texts that are labeled “non canonic” by the Church herself. For example, the idea of Mary’s prepetual virginity stems from the 2nd century work “The Nativity of Mary” later known as the “Protoevangelium of James” This idea developed and Origen categorically states the ever-virgin belief as undisputed fact. Although this was denied by Tertullian, by the 4th Century one finds this belief attested to by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Didymus, Jerome and other writers.
So, even if *sola scriptura *is not the be all and end all of the Church’s teachings she still had to draw from material she does not even recognize as inspired. Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with the Church that conserves through its teaching authority the revelation in Christ, held both in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Further, Sacred Tradition is not received from the Church Fathers, but rather attested to by them - a difference. This is why, e.g., the Church doesn’t depend on “The Nativity of Mary” or the “Protoevangelium of James” for its doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary; these writings simply reflect the already-held belief in Mary being perpetually virgin - which the Scriptures themselves help sustain. This article may help you better understand the Catholic teaching on Sacred Tradition and its authority:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a44.htm

An excerpt:

The grace of conservation is different from the grace of positive Inspiration and Revelation in that no new realities are revealed; but the grace of conservation is equally inerrant in the Church as a whole, since it is a grace, a supernatural gift preserving what was once revealed by positive Inspiration and now repeated substantially in non-inspired words, sacramental actions, authoritative decisions by the Apostles’ successors and in Scripture communally understood. There is thus a continuity in the Church between the time of the Apostles and the time after their deaths, a continuity that is maintained by the grace of conserving what has been positively revealed.

 

[LilyM]

It is true that all Miracles are viewed to derive from God but those required for canonization appear to be through the direct influence of the individual to be canonized and affecting a different person or thing. In Mary’s case it was different. God acted without being petitioned ie Mary did not pray to be made the vessel to produce Jesus.

‘Let it be/may it be done unto me according to your word’ are two translations of her response to the angel.

That ‘Let it be/May it be’ is arguably a petition - ie a request (hence a prayer) that God bring to pass what the angel has promised to Mary.

As in you could stick the word ‘please’ (a requesting word) in front of the sentence -
‘Please let it be/Please may it be’.

O K but then when was Mary first referred to as a Saint?

Quite possibly by Elizabeth - ‘Blessed (possible meaning: holy, sainted) are you among women’.

 

[avflf]

‘Let it be/may it be done unto me according to your word’ are two translations of her response to the angel.

That ‘Let it be/May it be’ is arguably a petition - ie a request (hence a prayer) that God bring to pass what the angel has promised to Mary.

As in you could stick the word ‘please’ (a requesting word) in front of the sentence -
‘Please let it be/Please may it be’.

I take it more as an acceptance than a petition.

Quite possibly by Elizabeth - ‘Blessed (possible meaning: holy, sainted) are you among women’.

Or the angel
(Luk 1:28) And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
I suppose all things are possible through the eyes of faith but I don’t see the connection

 

[avflf]

It leaves us with the Church that conserves through its teaching authority the revelation in Christ, held both in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Further, Sacred Tradition is not received from the Church Fathers, but rather attested to by them - a difference. This is why, e.g., the Church doesn’t depend on “The Nativity of Mary” or the “Protoevangelium of James” for its doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary; these writings simply reflect the already-held belief in Mary being perpetually virgin - which the Scriptures themselves help sustain. This article may help you better understand the Catholic teaching on Sacred Tradition and its authority:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a44.htm

So, as John Paul stated, your acceptance is really through **belief **only. The one concrete fact that exists on the subject of the ever-virgin is in the Protoevagelium of James. If he heard it from the apostles or thought it up himself we’ll never know and if the church does not acknowledge James’ writings as inspired we cannot be sure if it is the truth or just the product of an overactive mind. No good saying things like *“Sacred Tradition is not received from the Church Fathers, but rather attested to by them” *or that *“the Church doesn’t depend on ‘The Nativity of Mary’ or the ‘Protoevangelium of James’ for its doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary” *as wherever the idea had its genesis (apart from when it was first mentioned) is not readily proved. You don’t find it strange that the apostles themselves, who knew Mary far more intimately than the Church Fathers did not deemed it important enough to mention it either in the Gospels or the Epistles and that, in fact, they used very little ink on “the Mother of God”?

 

[FCEGM]

So, as John Paul stated, your acceptance is really through **belief **only.

That is not what he actually said, is it? He said, as you quoted him in an earlier post: The Church, in turn, from the earliest beginnings of Christianity has always believed that the Apostles and Martyrs are more closely joined to us in Christ and has venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy Angels, with special devotion, devoutly imploring the aid of their intercession." Where is the “only” in there? The same force of belief is at work in the Church’s attestation of the divinity of Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. Further, belief arises from the gift of Faith which allows one to believe as the Church, the Body of Christ, believes since Christ’s revelation comes to us in and through the living communion of the Church, i.e., the Apostolic visible Body of Christ, a definite communion of faith and charity.

The one concrete fact that exists on the subject of the ever-virgin is in the Protoevagelium of James. If he heard it from the apostles or thought it up himself we’ll never know and if the church does not acknowledge James’ writings as inspired we cannot be sure if it is the truth or just the product of an overactive mind. No good saying things like *“Sacred Tradition is not received from the Church Fathers, but rather attested to by them” *or that *“the Church doesn’t depend on ‘The Nativity of Mary’ or the ‘Protoevangelium of James’ for its doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary” *as wherever the idea had its genesis (apart from when it was first mentioned) is not readily proved. You don’t find it strange that the apostles themselves, who knew Mary far more intimately than the Church Fathers did not deemed it important enough to mention it either in the Gospels or the Epistles and that, in fact, they used very little ink on “the Mother of God”?

And you do not find it strange that those same Apostles weren’t explicit enough about the Most Holy Trinity as to prevent the rise of the Arians - and in more recent times the Latter-Day Saints and the Jehovah’s Witnesses? That the doctrine of the Trinity is not found clearly in Scripture by many, does not negate the apostolic witness to it, does it? Can that belief be “readily proved” with a “concrete fact” apart from the testimony of the Fathers later to be affirmed at Nicaea? Everything that orthodox Christians believe about the nature of God isn’t explicitly present within Sacred Scripture. The same with Marian beliefs. Only when reading the texts as the Church reads them can one understand what the sacred writers are saying. And in doing so one arrives at the same degree of certitude about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as one holds about the Most Holy Trinity. To present and conserve that understanding is the work of the teaching authority of the Church which is empowered by Christ through the Holy Spirit to teach in His Name. The Holy Spirit acts through the Church to fight against the various heresies that have arisen through the ages - including our own - and Sacred Scripture cannot be the sole instrument if everyone, including the enemies of Christ and His Church, can legitimately use it.

So, the notion that Scripture alone is the standard of Faith is not in Scripture. In fact, it is anti-Scripture; but the notion that the Church, the Body of Christ, is the bulwark of the Faith and that holding on to the tradition is scripturally taught. The fact is, you find yourself outside of any Apostolic Church. You are not in the visible Body of the Church of Christ which brought is the Scriptures in the first place. If you do not place faith in the Apostolic Tradition of the Church (and all Apostolic Churches agree on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) you place your faith in your understanding of the Bible, i.e., in yourself.

(Since you put quotes around Mother of God, do you take issue with Christ’s Divinity?)

 

[LilyM]

I take it more as an acceptance than a petition.

Not to put too fine a point on it, what you ‘take it as’ matters not the slightest. Not being Mary, neither of us knows whether it was a petition or mere acceptance, and we can’t presume to know, either.

Anyways, Jesus’ miracle at Cana certainly seems to have been a case of Mary petitioning.

I know plenty of mothers petition their children to do chores in exactly the same way - they simply say to the child ‘the dishes/trash/other chore needs doing’, which mother and child both well understand is a request for the child to do them.

This understanding is demonstrated by the common response from the child - ‘do I really have to?’ and the common response from the mother of ‘yes’.

Or the angel
(Luk 1:28) And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
I suppose all things are possible through the eyes of faith but I don’t see the connection

You don’t see the fact that calling a woman ‘blessed’ just might be the same thing as calling her a saint (ie holy)? The words potentially have the same meaning. Oh well, none so blind as those who will not see, I suppose.

 

[avflf]

Not to put too fine a point on it, what you ‘take it as’ matters not the slightest. Not being Mary, neither of us knows whether it was a petition or mere acceptance, and we can’t presume to know, either.

Exactly, you do not know. You presume, assume and accept but can never be 100% sure

Anyways, Jesus’ miracle at Cana certainly seems to have been a case of Mary petitioning.
I know plenty of mothers petition their children to do chores in exactly the same way - they simply say to the child ‘the dishes/trash/other chore needs doing’, which mother and child both well understand is a request for the child to do them.
This understanding is demonstrated by the common response from the child - ‘do I really have to?’ and the common response from the mother of ‘yes’.

The miracle at the wedding feast was performed by Jesus, through the Father, not Mary. Miracles for canonization must attributed to the person being considered for it.

You don’t see the fact that calling a woman ‘blessed’ just might be the same thing as calling her a saint (ie holy)? The words potentially have the same meaning. Oh well, none so blind as those who will not see, I suppose.

Do you also have Jael as a saint?
As for your remark I can also say that one can see too much where nothing exists.

 

[avflf]

That is not what he actually said, is it? He said, as you quoted him in an earlier post: The Church, in turn, from the earliest beginnings of Christianity has always believed that the Apostles and Martyrs are more closely joined to us in Christ and has venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy Angels, with special devotion, devoutly imploring the aid of their intercession." Where is the “only” in there? The same force of belief is at work in the Church’s attestation of the divinity of Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. Further, belief arises from the gift of Faith which allows one to believe as the Church, the Body of Christ, believes since Christ’s revelation comes to us in and through the living communion of the Church, i.e., the Apostolic visible Body of Christ, a definite communion of faith and charity.

You’re nit-picking now, the operative word here is “belief”. As there is no written proof that the doctrine started with the apostles “only” is not amiss here.

And you do not find it strange that those same Apostles weren’t explicit enough about the Most Holy Trinity as to prevent the rise of the Arians - and in more recent times the Latter-Day Saints and the Jehovah’s Witnesses? That the doctrine of the Trinity is not found clearly in Scripture by many, does not negate the apostolic witness to it, does it? Can that belief be “readily proved” with a “concrete fact” apart from the testimony of the Fathers later to be affirmed at Nicaea? Everything that orthodox Christians believe about the nature of God isn’t explicitly present within Sacred Scripture. The same with Marian beliefs. Only when reading the texts as the Church reads them can one understand what the sacred writers are saying. And in doing so one arrives at the same degree of certitude about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as one holds about the Most Holy Trinity. To present and conserve that understanding is the work of the teaching authority of the Church which is empowered by Christ through the Holy Spirit to teach in His Name. The Holy Spirit acts through the Church to fight against the various heresies that have arisen through the ages - including our own - and Sacred Scripture cannot be the sole instrument if everyone, including the enemies of Christ and His Church, can legitimately use it.

It didn’t prevent the rise of Arianism anyway. But what you say is conjecture. Perhaps the Bible does not mention “Trinity” because it was a concept repugnant to the Jews; the OT is replete with affirmations that “God is One”. Do you think they would go to so much trouble to emphasize the Oneness of God if there were three distinctive persons in the Godhead? You are clutching at straws when you bring up the “us” and “our” of Genesis. The Hebrews never associated them to a Trinity. Paul in his salutations to the churches
mentions God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, ignoring the Holy Spirit altogether. Strange to say the least. The only reference to the “three” is at the end of 2 Cor. and I have a sneaky feeling this was a bit of fiddling work by the Church. Same goes for 1 Jn 5:7… Revelation talks about the 7 Spirits of God and if we accept that they were all Holy we now have a 9 personality Godhead.

So, the notion that Scripture alone is the standard of Faith is not in Scripture. In fact, it is anti-Scripture; but the notion that the Church, the Body of Christ, is the bulwark of the Faith and that holding on to the tradition is scripturally taught. The fact is, you find yourself outside of any Apostolic Church. You are not in the visible Body of the Church of Christ which brought is the Scriptures in the first place. If you do not place faith in the Apostolic Tradition of the Church (and all Apostolic Churches agree on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) you place your faith in your understanding of the Bible, i.e., in yourself.

(Since you put quotes around Mother of God, do you take issue with Christ’s Divinity?)

Neither is tradition. I may even have a better foundation to defend “sola scripyura” from 2Ti 3:16
“Mother of God” was first brought out by Origen in the 3th century and it was only in the 5th century that the idea was officially decreed as acceptable by the Church.
Christ was human. As a human he continuously impressed on his followers that of himself he could do nothing but what the Father said, did or decreed. He did not know when his 2nd coming would be. Peter refers to him as a man and son of God. Nowhere in Scripture will you find the term “God the Son”. When Jesus says that the “Father and I are one” or “if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father” he was not espousing the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinity, in my view, is no different from paganism … but I suspect you are not particularly interested in my views