The Roman Centurion's faith in Jesus - a question

  • Thread starter Thread starter DexUK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DexUK

Guest
We all know the story of the Centurion who asked Jesus to cure his servant… after all we remember him at every Mass when we say “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”

My question is… How does the Church view this gentleman? Is he considered a saint or a blessed? After all, he is remembered, indirectly, at every single Mass that’s ever celebrated. That’s an incredible impact for one man who had great faith in Our Lord to make.

Does anyone know the answer?
 
DexUK said:
We all know the story of the Centurion who asked Jesus to cure his servant… after all we remember him at every Mass when we say “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”

My question is… How does the Church view this gentleman? Is he considered a saint or a blessed? After all, he is remembered, indirectly, at every single Mass that’s ever celebrated. That’s an incredible impact for one man who had great faith in Our Lord to make.

Does anyone know the answer?
Click to expand...
I don’t think I have ever seen anything one way or the other. However, IMHO, anyone who is mentioned in the Gospels especially by name, or as in this case with a memorable story, was probably held in very high esteem by the Apostolic Church. This would be a VERY good indicator that this person is probably a saint -though no guarantee of course, like a canonized saint. I.E. Simon of Cyrene, Zechaius, Lazarus, the Jairus household, The Magi, Simeon and Anna in the Temple, etc.
 
DUK said:
We all know the story of the Centurion who asked Jesus to cure his servant… after all we remember him at every Mass when we say “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”

My question is… How does the Church view this gentleman? Is he considered a saint or a blessed? After all, he is remembered, indirectly, at every single Mass that’s ever celebrated. That’s an incredible impact for one man who had great faith in Our Lord to make.

Does anyone know the answer?
Click to expand...
Are not all believers with this great faith called saints?
 
bmullins said:
Longinus was not the Centurion who asked to have his servant healed, he was the one who pierced Jesus side with the lance at the crucifixion.
Click to expand...
Traditions place them to be the same man.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Traditions place them to be the same man.
Click to expand...
The wiki article makes no mention of this.

Doesn’t make sense to me, that the first gentile man recorded to worship Jesus would then go on to participate in His execution…
 
Longinus was not the Centurion who asked to have his servant healed, he was the one who pierced Jesus side with the lance at the crucifixion.
Click to expand...
ConstantineTG said:
Traditions place them to be the same man.
Click to expand...
It cannot be. Longinus was an ordinary foot soldier, who was ordered, as far as I can recall the gospel accounts…to pierce the side of Jesus to make sure he was dead.

A centurion is in command of soldiers…83 as I recall (not 100)…so he was akin to a lieutenant in today’s army. He would not do the piercing himself, but would order someone to do it.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Traditions place them to be the same man.
Click to expand...
Scripture says there was a centurion and soldiers at the cross. I think tradition might suggest the centurion who had faith in Jesus to heal his servant and the centurion at the cross who said at the end “he truly is the son of God” might be the same person.
However, Scripture clearly states it was one of the soldiers (not the centurion) who pierced the side of Jesus.
 
The centurion who acknowledged his unworthiness before Christ may just have been the first gentile convert.

Clearly he was a sign of authority, and not just any authority, but the authority of the most powerful nation on earth at the time. He acknowledges Christ’s kingship yet goes about his job failfully, in obedience to the Roman Emperor to whom he would have sworn an oath broken only under the penalty of death.

“Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar"s and render unto God what is God’s” comes to mind.

I think he is a symbol of the nations, and how military and civil authorities are to act, going about their duties but making decisions based on the light of faith and teaching of the Church. And Jesus healing his servant is a sign of God blessing the people over whom those civil authorities govern.

Just some random thoughts…

-Tim-
 
Isn’t it wonderful that those words, as you say, of the first gentile convert, should be heard every day in every part of the world at every Mass celebrated?

We hear them more often than we hear the Gospels and in equal numbers of times as the words of Christ Himself at the Last Supper.

It is a wonderful affirmation of the trust that we can place in Our Lord.
 
runningdude said:
The wiki article makes no mention of this.

Doesn’t make sense to me, that the first gentile man recorded to worship Jesus would then go on to participate in His execution…
Click to expand...
The tradition is based on what the early Christians believed, not some wiki article 😉

Besides, soldiers do not do so as they please. They do so as they are commanded.
bmullins said:
I’ve never read that, not saying it’s not true, but I can’t seem to find anything about that particular tradition. Have any links?
Click to expand...
Understanding traditions is a bit complicated. Its not straight forward historical facts all the time.

I’m trying to look for links. I did read about this some while ago. I’ll post them when I find it.
thistle said:
Scripture says there was a centurion and soldiers at the cross. I think tradition might suggest the centurion who had faith in Jesus to heal his servant and the centurion at the cross who said at the end “he truly is the son of God” might be the same person.
However, Scripture clearly states it was one of the soldiers (not the centurion) who pierced the side of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Can you point this out? Because the piercing is recounted by John where the centurion is not mentioned. John just said “soldier” without making distinction between soldier and centurion. Matthew and Mark recounted the testimony of the centurion, but not the piercing. So its not as clear as you would claim.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The tradition is based on what the early Christians believed, not some wiki article 😉
Click to expand...
I agree, and I don’t get my answers from wikipedia anymore than I get them from you. The problem is you’ve made a claim to something that I can find no evidence in. In the few books that I have that mention Longinus none of them substantiate the claim that anyone has ever held it as tradition that he was both of the men you mention.
ConstantineTG said:
Understanding traditions is a bit complicated. Its not straight forward historical facts all the time.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about historical facts. I understand perfectly that we have traditions that have no historical basis. For instance, we believe that Mary’s parents were St. Joachim and St. Anne. I understand full well that there is no real historical evidence, or even biblical evidence of that. But there are reasons why we believe it.

The differences seems to be that you expect me to believe it simply because you said it. I don’t do that. I have no reason to do that. I doubt I will ever come to that point either, where any other Catholic telling me it’s tradition with no evidence to be found will convince me it is. That’s why we have a Catechism and many, many books on Saints and Tradition.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Can you point this out? Because the piercing is recounted by John where the centurion is not mentioned. John just said “soldier” without making distinction between soldier and centurion. Matthew and Mark recounted the testimony of the centurion, but not the piercing. So its not as clear as you would claim.
Click to expand...
Frankly, when soldier is stated I do not believe that includes centurion. The soldiers were the centurions’ men and were there with him. If the centurion had done the piercing I believe that would be stated. It says “one soldier”. Seems clear to to me. You may have a different view.

Matthew 27: 54

The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”

John 19:31-35

31 Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down.
32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus.
33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs,
34 but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out.
35 An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may (come to) believe.

Mark 15:39

39 When the centurion who stood facing him saw how he breathed his last he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
 
thistle said:
Scripture says there was a centurion and soldiers at the cross. I think tradition might suggest the centurion who had faith in Jesus to heal his servant and the centurion at the cross who said at the end “he truly is the son of God” might be the same person.
However, Scripture clearly states it was one of the soldiers (not the centurion) who pierced the side of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that they were the same person. The quote in Matt 27:54 does not sound like someone who ALREADY believed and knew that Jesus was the Son of God. It sounds more like someone who HEARD this claim, but just now believed it. Secondly, Jesus said that his passion would scandalize and scatter his flock. I think this includes the good Centurion. Thirdly, the good Centurion was not in Jerusalem, in fact he seemed remotely located, which is why his Faith prevented him from desiring that Jesus would make the trip to his house. Fourthly, if it was the same Centurion, then his name, or some other clue might have been included in Scripture by at least one of the Synoptics. Surely it is not too much of a stretch to believe that there was more than one Centurion in old 2nd temple Israel. 😉
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that they were the same person. The quote in Matt 27:54 does not sound like someone who ALREADY believed and knew that Jesus was the Son of God. It sounds more like someone who HEARD this claim, but just now believed it. Secondly, Jesus said that his passion would scandalize and scatter his flock. I think this includes the good Centurion. Thirdly, the good Centurion was not in Jerusalem, in fact he seemed remotely located, which is why his Faith prevented him from desiring that Jesus would make the trip to his house. Fourthly, if it was the same Centurion, then his name, or some other clue might have been included in Scripture by at least one of the Synoptics. Surely it is not too much of a stretch to believe that there was more than one Centurion in old 2nd temple Israel. 😉
Click to expand...
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying the two centurions are the same person. They may or may not be. I’m saying at the Cross it was not the centurion who pierced the side of Jesus but one of his soldiers.
 
thistle said:
Frankly, when soldier is stated I do not believe that includes centurion. The soldiers were the centurions’ men and were there with him. If the centurion had done the piercing I believe that would be stated. It says “one soldier”. Seems clear to to me. You may have a different view.

Matthew 27: 54

The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”

John 19:31-35

31 Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down.
32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus.
33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs,
34 but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out.
35 An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may (come to) believe.

Mark 15:39

39 When the centurion who stood facing him saw how he breathed his last he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
Click to expand...
As I said, its not as clear as you state them to be. Matthew and Mark differentiated centurion from solider yet never made mention of the piercing. You can’t assume John’s context is the same as Matthew and Mark’s.
 
ConstantineTG said:
As I said, its not as clear as you state them to be. Matthew and Mark differentiated centurion from solider yet never made mention of the piercing. You can’t assume John’s context is the same as Matthew and Mark’s.
Click to expand...
I’m simply saying I do not believe the centurion did the piercing. I believe one of his soldiers did that. I think scripture leans more to that but of course that is not definitive. Everyone will have their own view.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The tradition is based on what the early Christians believed, not some wiki article 😉
Click to expand...
Well, you pointed to the Wikipedia article to support your claim that there is a tradition that Saint Longinus and the Centurian are the same man. However, the article does not offer evidence of this as an early Christian belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top