C
Corki
Guest
“kind of” is exactly right. It doesn’t make him a cannonized Saint.
- Status
J
JPUSC
Guest
I don’t think Blaskoman is gay.
W
Wesley7
Guest
Take the Buddha statue back to your friends in Tibet. 
A
adstrinity
Guest
Huh. You know, the thing is, there’s not one of my points where that isn’t appropriate. Well done!
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Politely return the idol and tell him you can’t keep it because you worship God.
If he will not accept it back, than destroy the idol. It is not a good object, so you may do so.
If he will not accept it back, than destroy the idol. It is not a good object, so you may do so.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I think you are objecting to the large photo of Keanu Reaves, which I admit surprised and puzzled me when I saw it. A google search shows the photo is from a 1993 film titled “Little Buddha.” In it, Reaves played Prince Siddhartha, who of course, became the Buddha.
Many modern statues of Buddha shows him as roly-poly. I think this is why Adstrinity included the photo and made the “before and after” comment - a bit of humor.
J
JPUSC
Guest
LOL, oh ok.
B
blaskoman
Guest
Its absurd to bring up comments relating to ones’ presumed sexuality in this thread, or any thread. And posting some retarded photo in this thread is something I dont find remotely humorous.
J
JPUSC
Guest
Lighten up, bro. It was a joke in reference to the dude who suggested that you “put up a pretty Keanu Reeves pic” in your house, hahaha. He must’ve thought the original poster was a chick.
A
adstrinity
Guest
I’m a female.Lighten up, bro. It was a joke in reference to the dude who suggested that you “put up a pretty Keanu Reeves pic” in your house, hahaha. He must’ve thought the original poster was a chick.
I guess I did feel that the OP was a female as well by the tone of the thread, but, really, it doesn’t matter. I mean, there’s really nothing to worry about about the statue and those who say give it away/throw it away/bury it are helping even less than I was.
And, incidentally, it’s the picture that the OP didn’t find humourous? All the other suggestions were fine, though?
J
JPUSC
Guest
LOL yeah, we play with troll dolls. Hahahaha.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I don’t respect witchcraft or satanism. I don’t see why I should.
I can show respect and common courtesy to people of other religions, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept gifts that reflect an impression contrary to my faith.
Surely you would not bring Chicken Bacon Wraps to a dinner party at a Muslim’s home??
Nor would you bring a cross as a house warming a yard ornament gift for the yard of a Christian African American!!!
Respect does not require acceptance of behavior, words or objects counter to one’s moral principles.
Ginger
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
As Fulton Sheen once said, tolerance is for the erring and intolerance for the error. 
G
Ginger2
Guest
Are you suggesting I am intolerant for not respecting witchcraft, satanism, buddhism, Islam, JW’s and a long list of other false religions as legitimate?As Fulton Sheen once said, tolerance is for the erring and intolerance for the error.
It’s not intolerance. I have invited JW’s into my home when they wanted to speak with me and treated them as well as any Christian guest or family member.
I asked a buddhist friend of my daughter to explain to me about his faith and listened without interruption or criticism.
Muslims I met offered to teach me about their religion and I accepted graciously. We are friends to this day.
They don’t find it offensive when I refuse gifts that are contrary to my faith - they respect it. Nor do I place them in an uncomfortable position by offering them inappropriate gifts.
What I find intolerant is people who insist I compromise my moral values and faith by accepting inappropriate gifts. I would not accept a gift of a buddha anymore than a ticket to see male strippers. If my friend is so closed minded not to understand, she probably isn’t a very good friend anyway.
And I would have serious questions as to why someone who respected me and was tolerant of my faith, would think to give me such a gift in the first place.
Ginger
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
I think you really need to reread what I was referring to. I said the intolerance is for error, tolerance for the erring - ie. you respect Jehovah’s Witnesses as people but reject what they teach.Are you suggesting I am intolerant for not respecting witchcraft, satanism, buddhism, Islam, JW’s and a long list of other false religions as legitimate?
It’s not intolerance. I have invited JW’s into my home when they wanted to speak with me and treated them as well as any Christian guest or family member.
I asked a buddhist friend of my daughter to explain to me about his faith and listened without interruption or criticism.
Muslims I met offered to teach me about their religion and I accepted graciously. We are friends to this day.
Although, I must admit I avoid satanists and find witches very comical. But I don’t insult them, nor criticize them.
AND UNLIKE YOU, they don’t find it offensive when I refuse gifts that are contrary to my faith - they respect it. Nor do I place them in an uncomfortable position by offering them inappropriate gifts.
What I find intolerant is people who insist I compromise my moral values and faith by accepting inappropriate gifts. I would not accept a gift of a buddha anymore than a ticket to see male strippers. If my friend is so closed minded not to understand, she probably isn’t a very good friend anyway.
And I would have serious questions as to why someone who respected me would think to give me such a gift in the first place.
Ginger
G
Ginger2
Guest
I guess my comprehension skills are not at best in the morning.
My apologies.
Ginger
My apologies.
Ginger
S
Siddhartha
Guest
Earlier versions of Roman Martyrology actually called Josaphat a “saint”. See November 27:
On the Roman Martyrology:
Published by Order of Gregory XIII
Revised by Authority of Urban VIII and Clement X
Augmented and Corrected in 1749 by Benedict XII
My understanding is that the current Roman Martyrology does not contain Barlaam and Josaphat.
The Orthodox, though, might still include Barlaam and Josaphat as saints. So, Eastern Catholics might still acknowledge them as saints, even if Latin Catholics don’t.
S
Siddhartha
Guest
According to Agakhan III in his memoir:
“All Islamic schools of thought accept it as a fundamental principle that for centuries, for thousands of years before the advent of Mohammed, there arose from time to time messengers, illumined by Divine Grace, for and among those races of the earth which had sufficiently advanced intellectually to comprehend such a message. Thus Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all the Prophets of Israel are universally accepted by Islam. Muslims indeed know no limitation merely to the Prophets of Israel; they are ready to admit that there were similar Divinely inspired messengers in other countries: Gautama Buddha, Shri Krishna and Shri Ram in India, Socrates in Greece, the wise man of China and many other sages and saints among peoples and civilizations, trace of which we have lost. Thus man’s soul has never been left without a specially inspired messenger from the soul that sustains, embraces and is the universe.”
C
Corki
Guest
:banghead::banghead:
abirdrrl made the assertion that he was a cannonized saint. The process of cannonization did not begin in the Church until the 10th century and was only established as the “only” way to be declared a Saint in the 13th century. Canonization involves the inquiry into the life and merit of the person and a papal declaration that is authoritative and, most would say, infallible. Prior to that, Saints were declared by tradition or affirmation. Since the early Josaphat lived and was allegedly martyred, according to the link abirdrrl provided, in the third or fourth century, he would not have gone through cannonization.
After Vatican II, the Church reviewed the cases of many saints on the calendar. Those whose stories seemed to be a mix of fact and ledgend or who could not be verified, were mostly removed from the calendar. In many cases, they retained their designation as a saint and sometimes were still on local calendar, though not on the universal calendar. St. Christopher is an example of this.
“St.” Josephat (the early one) seems to have been removed altogether from the Church calendar. Nov. 27 is the feat of our Lady of the Miraculous Medal. In any case, he was never canonized and even though he is supposed to have lived in the 3rd or 4th century, his story was popularized in the middle ages.
Now, back to the topic at hand…
S
Siddhartha
Guest
Thanks for clearing this up. Many Catholic apologetic sites define canonization as the process of declaring someone a saint, whether that process involves the people, the bishops, or the pope:
*The word “canon” comes from the Greek word kanon meaning a standard or measuring rod.
The custom of canonization began in the early church by popular acclamation. Hence the custom of calling all the apostles “Saint.” *
So, would it be fair to say that Barlaam and Josaphat (1) are not canonized saints (that is, they were not declared saints via the current process of canonization), but (2) were once popularly accepted to be saints by the Church?
- Status