# Roman Catholicism/Saints Question



## Marrow Man (Dec 17, 2008)

OK, I halfway get the whole canonization of saints thing in Roman Catholicism. While it's terrible theology, I understand this when it comes to _humans_. Can someone please explain to me how Michael the Archangel qualifies for sainthood since he's not human?!?


----------



## turmeric (Dec 17, 2008)

Hmmm. Hadn't thought about it.


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 17, 2008)

The Church does not make any of us, including Angels, saints. Only God makes saints.

The papist have paganized the word "saints" into something other than what the bible says.


----------



## historyb (Dec 17, 2008)

This made me curious so I looked it up, looked like just because he was venerated early on. Mainly though the RCC thinks it can do as it wants I reckon


----------



## Zenas (Dec 18, 2008)

Can we even call Michael a "he"?


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 18, 2008)

The title is slightly misleading: he has not been canonized.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 18, 2008)

It just does not make any sense to canonize a non-human as a "saint." Canonizing humans doesn't make much sense either, but doing so to angels is just plain baffling.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 12:09:15 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> The title is slightly misleading: he has not been canonized.



Please explain. Is there a difference b/t bearing the title "saint" and canonization? I read on a website where there are different rules/traditions; e.g., martyrs get an automatic pass, during the first millennium there was no formal procedure, etc. But I still can't get past calling an angel a saint. What's next, bicycles?


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 18, 2008)

There was never a formal canonization of Michael.

1.) Technically, all angels are already saints.
2.) However, there are three which are given that title: Michale, Gabriel and Raphael. They are given special honor, are invoked, have feast days, etc., and are thus given the special honor of bearing the title.


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 18, 2008)

Where is Raphael mention in the Bible?


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 18, 2008)

Nowhere; just in Tobit.


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 18, 2008)

Thats correct. 

Are you a Papist or where you raise one, like me?


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 18, 2008)

No, I was raised in a Methodist church.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 12:54:44 EST-----

Ha, and No, I'm certainly not a Papist now either!


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 18, 2008)

Methodist are stilled papist.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 18, 2008)

*Do you think it would be interesting to have more debate and

dialogue about what really is the Catholic Church ?*

I call it the Roman Empire cult (in my opinion it is not catholic / universal neither it is a church)

The RCC is very different from country to country, when it is in minority behaves in a way, when it rules is completely different.

Reading

Charles Chiniquy - Fifty Years in the Church of Rome

book online

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, by Charles Chiniquy

Malachi Martin - Windswept House, the Jesuits, Keys of this Blood, ..

or the Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop

reveals the evil reality behind the moralistic veil.


A short example of God’s commandment on the Decalogue - *according to Rome*

the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, from their headquarters site.


"YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . ." 
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a *new "economy" *of images. 

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." 

*but there's much more to be discerned and understood in the RCC*


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Dec 18, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Methodist are stilled papist.



How are Methodists papists?


----------



## Staphlobob (Dec 18, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> The title is slightly misleading: he has not been canonized.



Correctomundo. But then neither has Mary ever been canonized. 

Bottom line: The papists do as they will.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 07:02:58 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Nowhere; just in Tobit.



Tobit! A fascinating book. I once did a study of it. Probably a "story teller's tale" for which a bored person would pay to hear. (They didn't have TV or internet then.)

Question: What's with the dog?
Question: What were Tobit and his new bride Sarah doing in the bridal chamber on their wedding night? (It's not what you'd normally expect.)
Question: What was Raguel (the father of Sarah) doing while his daughter and son-in-law were in the bridal chamber? Why?

Fascinatin' stuff.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 18, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Methodist are stilled papist.



huh????


----------



## discipulo (Dec 18, 2008)

Staphlobob said:


> Correctomundo. But then neither has Mary ever been canonized.
> 
> Bottom line: The papists do as they will.



The dogmas and papal encyclicals that make doctrine

concerning Mary are way beyond Canonization,

are appalling and an outrage, since

Mary is not even mentioned once in the Apostolic letters,

actually in Acts is only mentioned once, Acts 1:14


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 18, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> The Church does not make any of us, including  Angles, saints. Only God makes saints.



Yeah, Picts or Saxons, either!


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 18, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > The Church does not make any of us, including  Angles, saints. Only God makes saints.
> ...


----------



## Davidius (Dec 18, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> OK, I halfway get the whole canonization of saints thing in Roman Catholicism. While it's terrible theology, I understand this when it comes to _humans_. Can someone please explain to me how Michael the Archangel qualifies for sainthood since he's not human?!?





Marrow Man said:


> It just does not make any sense to canonize a non-human as a "saint." Canonizing humans doesn't make much sense either, but doing so to angels is just plain baffling.
> 
> -----Added 12/18/2008 at 12:09:15 EST-----
> 
> ...



Based on your own responses, I have to ask whether the OP was really meant to be a question, or were you just using it as a launching pad to rant? If you really are interested in knowing, you may want to ask an informed Catholic, since I doubt that any of us are qualified to give you an accurate answer.

I'll do the best I can, though, by saying that, leaving aside the silliness of your comment about the bicycles, "saint" simply means "holy one" (Latin _sanctus_). If you search for "holy angels" at Biblegateway.com, you will see that _sanctus_ (or, to keep with the original, ἅγιος) is indeed an epithet applied to angels. 

This link may also be helpful:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Beatification and Canonization

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 10:08:53 EST-----

I'll add that, as far as I know, the Catholic Church does recognize all believers as saints. It apparently doesn't "make saints" in the way intimated by some posters above, rather canonization simply singles out particular saints as models for the rest of the faithful and/or recognizes them as available for intercession on behalf of the Church and/or as patrons of a place/group of people.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 18, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Based on your own responses, I have to ask whether the OP was really meant to be a question, or were you just using it as a launching pad to rant? If you really are interested in knowing, you may want to ask an informed Catholic, since I doubt that any of us are qualified to give you an accurate answer.
> 
> I'll do the best I can, though, by saying that, leaving the silliness of your comment about the bicycles aside, "saint" simply means "holy one" (Latin _sanctus_). If you search for "holy angels" at Biblegateway.com, you will see that _sanctus_ (or, to keep with the original, ἅγιος) is indeed an epithet applied to angels.
> 
> ...



Ouch! That reply sounded a bit like a rant itself. While the tone of my original posts might have been a bit much (check the time stamp; it was posted a bit late, which is not exactly wise on my part), I'm not sure that my posts warranted such a response.

My question was exactly that -- a question. No need to impugn me or my comment simply because of a disagreement with the tone. I was researching a charitable agency in Louisville yesterday and noticed that a RC priest was on the board of the agency; his church was St. Michael the Archangel. I never thought about it before and was genuinely curious. It just seems odd that a non-human would qualify for such a status.

The "silliness" of the bicycle remark is based upon some RCC churches have bicycle blessing services (they even bless pets in this town, and not just the RCC). While admittedly that's not nearly the same thing as canonization, it probably merits the "silliness" label more so than my comment.

The allusion to _sanctus/hagios_ with reference to angels is actually very helpful. Thank you for pointing that out. But it is quite ironic that the terminology is also directed to believers in general in the NT epistles, but set aside for only certain individuals in the RCC. Given Prufrock's comments above, I would assume something similar might be true for angels: a general "saintness" applicable to all angels, but only a few recognized in an official capacity by the RCC. Would this be a true analysis?


----------



## Davidius (Dec 18, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Based on your own responses, I have to ask whether the OP was really meant to be a question, or were you just using it as a launching pad to rant? If you really are interested in knowing, you may want to ask an informed Catholic, since I doubt that any of us are qualified to give you an accurate answer.
> ...



Sorry.  After the OP you proceeded to refer to something about which you had yet to receive an explanation as "making no sense," "baffling," and implied that it was as silly as canonizing a bicycle. It sounded like an ignorant rant to me (I don't mean "ignorant" in the pejorative sense, but in its actual sense of simply not knowing). I guess I have just gotten used to people sharply criticizing things without trying to understand them. Obviously criticism is fine, but we must be intellectually honest in our criticisms. We wouldn't like to hear someone say, "I reject Calvinism, and think it implies that God is evil because I've read some books by Dave Hunt." But anyway, please forgive me for any overreaction in my tone. 



> The "silliness" of the bicycle remark is based upon some RCC churches have bicycle blessing services (they even bless pets in this town, and not just the RCC). While admittedly that's not nearly the same thing as canonization, it probably merits the "silliness" label more so than my comment.



Well, that does sound silly.



> The allusion to _sanctus/hagios_ with reference to angels is actually very helpful. Thank you for pointing that out. But it is quite ironic that the terminology is also directed to believers in general in the NT epistles, but set aside for only certain individuals in the RCC. Given Prufrock's comments above, I would assume something similar might be true for angels: a general "saintness" applicable to all angels, but only a few recognized in an official capacity by the RCC. Would this be a true analysis?



You may have posted this after I put the addendum on my last post, but see above for a clarification of your last point. They don't believe that only canonized saints are saints. The canonized ones can be called up for intercession and as patrons, and (I think) all have feast days.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 18, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Sorry.  After the OP you proceeded to refer to something about which you had yet to receive an explanation as "making no sense," "baffling," and implied that it was as silly as canonizing a bicycle. It sounded like an ignorant rant to me (I don't mean "ignorant" in the pejorative sense, but in its actual sense of simply not knowing). I guess I have just gotten used to people sharply criticizing things without trying to understand them. Obviously criticism is fine, but we must be intellectually honest in our criticisms. We wouldn't like to hear someone say, "I reject Calvinism, and think it implies that God is evil because I've read some books by Dave Hunt." But anyway, please forgive me for any overreaction in my tone.



No problems, brother. All is forgiven. 

Actually, my comments were quite ignorant, which is precisely why I asked them. I suppose it was a minor rant on my part (you should see me when I get going). I just really have a difficult time, though, understanding how a non-human qualifies for such a status.

If I remember correctly (please correct if wrong), neither Tertullian nor Origen have saint status (because of departure from orthodoxy, methinks). But angels do. 

The distinctions about "degrees of sainthood" (would it be properly to utilize this terminology?) is helpful. The feast day reference is also helpful in making a distinction.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 10:52:23 EST-----



Davidius said:


> I'll add that, as far as I know, the Catholic Church does recognize all believers as saints. It apparently doesn't "make saints" in the way intimated by some posters above, rather canonization simply singles out particular saints as models for the rest of the faithful and/or recognizes them as available for intercession on behalf of the Church and/or as patrons of a place/group of people.



Ah, I see. I actually misread this the first time I saw it (I thought it said "does *not* recognize" in the first sentence). This is extremely helpful in understanding.

I have an additional question along these lines. Does the RCC still teach the "treasury of merit" concept as in Reformation times? If so, would this also apply to Michael the archangel?


----------



## discipulo (Dec 18, 2008)

Davidius said:


> The canonized ones can be called up for intercession and as patrons, and (I think) all have feast days.



That is one terrible practice in the RCC concerning the «Saints» and Mary

Is declared in the Catechism of the RCC link below to the Vatican site

Part IV Section 1 Chapter 2 Article 3 


2683 *The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom*,41 especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. *When they entered into the joy of their Master*, they were "put in charge of many things."42 Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. *We can and should ask them to intercede for us *and for the whole world. 



Catechism of the Catholic Church - Guides for prayer


The RCC declares and encourages to call upon in prayer as a mediator or

intercessor a departed non omniscient and non omnipresent creature

this applies to Mary or any Saint.



God command us to do the opposite, and declares what kind of practice that is.



_And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who 

whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? 

*Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? *

To the law and to the testimony!

If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them._

Isaiah 8:19-20 NKJV

_For there is one God, and *one mediator *between God and men, the man Christ Jesus _

1 Timothy 2:5 KJV


.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 18, 2008)

Tim,

Sorry, I can't say I know anything about the treasury of merit.


Discipulo,

Those are examples of poor arguments against Catholicism I think we should steer clear of. Neither do the Catholics invoke the saints as mediums or wizards, nor do they pray to them as mediators. An intercessor is not the same as a mediator. Christ does intercede; he also mediates the grace of God and the forgiveness of sins. You and I intercede for each other; we don't mediate. No Roman Catholic who holds to their official teachings believes that a saint is his/her sin-forgiving link to God. This should be clear from your reference to the Roman catechism above. Let's stick to the solas.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 18, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Discipulo,
> 
> Those are examples of poor arguments against Catholicism I think we should steer clear of. Neither do the Catholics invoke the saints as mediums or wizards, nor do they pray to them as mediators.


So easy to use adjectives…

I have several friends and a cousin who are Catholic Priests, in the Society of 

Jesus and in the Franciscan Order.

I had hours of talks with Catholics, both lay people and priests.

Several Jesuit Professors.

A Professor of Hebrew in a Jesuit Institution, was happy telling me soon after 

a saintly catholic lady died, that now he was praying to her.

Most Catholics I know, and I know many, do that.

In my city, a particular Queen Elizabeth XIV century and called saint,

people pray to her all the time.

Her statue is taken around the city and the Bishop of the Diocese,

arrives at the statue and talks to her, loudly, in the midst of a crowd kneeling.

And there is still Fatima.

I read John of the Cross, Teresa of Jesus from Avila, Saint Francis,

Bonaventure, Francis of Sales, Ignatius of Loyola,

Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas à Kempis, and so much more

t's all there, it's in Karl Rahner, it's in the catechism.

*Can you tell me any Biblical basis for this?*

I call it an idolatry and an abomination.

Ps - no prayer to the first martyr Stephen or any other departed christian is found in Scripture


----------



## turmeric (Dec 18, 2008)

Obviously, to us at least, prayer to the saints is forbidden. They were not holy enough in this life to help us in death. All prayer should be directed to God on the basis of the merits of Christ's life and death.

I was taught about the "treasury of merit" in history, and I believe they still hold to this, as one can still obtain indulgences from Rome which are based on this idea. Again, if it needs to be stated here, no one on this board believes this or in praying to dead people. I doubt if the merits of angels were added to the "treasury", but they might have been.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 18, 2008)

Discipulo,

I understand where you are coming from. If you want to say that they are wrong for addressing prayers to the saints, such that the saints intercede for them, then by all means, argue that it is wrong for them to address requests for intercession to the saints, but don't accuse them of treating the saints like Christ by seeing them as mediators in the sense that Hebrews is talking about. It's just plain wrong. If I'm wrong, show me where it says in the Catechism that saints are more than intercessors. I will happily concede.

Meg,

The official Catholic teaching is that saints receive our prayers and intercede for us in the same way that you would receive my prayer and intercede on my behalf. They do not dispense salvation. As I mentioned above, this is my understanding. If it's wrong, I'd like someone to prove me wrong from their Catechism.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 18, 2008)

That's true, Davidus, I don't think the Roman church has ever taught that the saints can save anyone; however their "supererrogatory" merits can, per Rome, be applied to those less solvent in merit, so as to lessen time in purgatory. BTW, the RCC teaches that all who are in purgatory are "saved" already, they just need some cleaning up before entering Heaven. I was trying to answer the question about the "treasury of merit" as well as respond to other posts, sorry, Davidus.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 18, 2008)

David, dear Brother

I truly appreciate that you edited your post on those adjectives

and rephrased it.

Well I also try to understand that your view on the RCC is very different from 

mine.

We both have our own reasons to differ in that view.

I was twice in a Ecumenical Catholic Protestant - Centre in France 

for 2 weeks - Taizé - I personally met Frére Roger 

and I truly tried to understand the RCC in a brotherly way,


But I consider Doctrine the touchstone of a Church and

Doctrine must be evaluated by the Holy Scriptures.

I will be available to further more on this, I’ve been reading, observing

and interacting with the RCC for 20 years.

The doctrines related to Mary are in my opinion the RCC most revealing ones.

I intend to post more on this asap.

All God's Blessings (Ephesians 1:3)


----------



## turmeric (Dec 18, 2008)

I might add, however, that popular piety, especially where people are less literate than elsewhere, may involve praying to saints in ways the RCC does not sanction, e g praying to St. Anthony to help one find something. This is probably best classified as "folk Catholicism" and not official church teaching. I've heard of people doing this stuff.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 18, 2008)

Davidius said:


> but don't accuse them of treating the saints like Christ by seeing them as mediators in the sense that Hebrews is talking about. (...)
> 
> They do not dispense salvation. As I mentioned above, this is my understanding. If it's wrong, I'd like someone to prove me wrong from their Catechism.





not all Saints but Mary


Ad Caeli Reginam

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

This encyclical was issued by Pope Pius XII, on the feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 11th of October, 1954. The encyclical is an important element of the Mariology of Pope Pius XIIand established the feast Queenship of Mary.

It states that assumed into heaven, Mary is with Jesus Christ, her divine son. With the encyclical, Pope Pius XII institutes the feast Queenship of Mary. Mary should be called Queen, not only because of her Divine Motherhood of Jesus Christ, her only son, but also because God has willed her to have an *exceptional role in the work of our eternal salvation*.



Redemptoris Mater

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

John Paul II delivered this encyclical on March 25, 1987. It is subtitled On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the Pilgrim Church.

The encyclical *discusses the special place of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the plan of salvation* and continues to focus on Mary's role in the Mystery of Christ. In this encyclical Pope John Paul II confirmed the title, Mother of the Church, proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the Second Vatican Council on November 21, 1964.

The encyclical also refers to Maternal Mediation and the role of the Virgin Mary as a Mediatrix.

And there is more

Co-Redemptrix in Roman Catholic Mariology *refers to the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the redemption process.* It is a separate concept from Mediatrix.

not yet a dogma but on its way.

*I consider these mentions very serious heresy from the RCC*


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 18, 2008)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/prayer-saints-8954/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/worship-saints-6575/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/supererogation-6570/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/prayer-saints-23486/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/fuller-seminary-president-prayer-saints-22143/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/responding-co-redemptrix-claims-25959/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/praying-saints-37204/


----------



## Davidius (Dec 18, 2008)

Discipulo,

First of all, this thread was about saints in general, and angels - how the latter could be canonized - not about Mary. If you want to talk specifically about Mary, you are going to end up massively derailing the thread.

Second of all, I think you are injecting your own meaning into someone else's language. You just lifted little phrases out of very long documents and slapped them down before us in what I would call an "aha!" move. In actuality, "plan of salvation" and "redemptive process" are very broad terms. We use terms like "redemptive history" or "God's plan to bring salvation to the world" all the time. No one here calls Reformed theologians idolaters for saying how the Patriarchs or John the Baptist were used by God in those. When I read those documents, it looks like the terms are being used in the same way.



> 1. The Mother of the Redeemer has a precise place in the plan of salvation, for "when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (Gal. 4:4-6)






> The divine plan of salvation-which was fully revealed to us with the coming of Christ-is eternal. And according to the teaching contained in the Letter just quoted and in other Pauline Letters (cf. Col. 1:12- 14; Rom. 3:24; Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:18-29), it is also eternally linked to Christ. It includes everyone, but it reserves a special place for the "woman" who is the Mother of him to whom the Father has entrusted the work of salvation.



According to these, it does not appear that Mary is being held as one who brings about salvation, but as the most important non-redemptive figure in redemptive history. 

***

Andrew,

Thanks for those links. I had not seen the connection to the other catechism questions about merit. That's worth looking into.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 18, 2008)

Sorry, I wil change the paragraphs.

Andrew, we always have an hermeneutical approach to everything me, you and everybody.
In the words of our Lord Jesus: What is your reading of it? Luke 10:26

But I don't, I simply can’t inject in the texts, I can select and read, that's why your reading differs from mine, if I would/could inject - you wouldn't.
To select is only to highlight a specific formulation, emphasis, it's up to you to do the rest, and to me too.

I was consulting Salvation in History by Oscar Cullmann, not exactly an anthi catholic - Karl Barth said his epitaph would mention: adviser to 3 popes (now with Ratzinger 4)
Cullmann whom I highly respect in spite of a few things, one is his ecumenism with the RCC. He doesn’t mention Mary in his tome.
But above all he clearly states that Redemptive History is always pointing to Christ.

The Marian Doctrines, In my humble opinion are exactly taking away the focus on Christ.
And I clearly see those consequence in pastoral and praxis in the RCC here.

Karl Rahner - Les Fondements de la Foi – I read it in French – on the Immaculate Conception of Mary, doesn’t place Mary as non redemptive figure but quite on the contrary.

You mention Redemptive History, and I understand, what you mean. I truly do. But in all typological figures that contribute to the proper understanding of the Ordo Salutis, my question is why not a single mention of Mary in the Epistles, when so many others are?

Not necessarily as a typological figure but as a key figure in Redemptive History, then. Greatest or central as you may say Mary is, the apostles remain silent on Mary.

Why it became central in the RCC? That is an important question to be answered.

Jeremiah 7:18 – if you read the Scholar Alexander Hislop - Two Babylons or Malachi Martin – who was a Jesuit and worked in the Vatican for many years as advisor to Cardinal Bea, and actually never departed the RCC, you will never see the RCC in the same way again.

If you would live in Portugal and would go to our lady of Fátima you would understand how I see it better.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 18, 2008)

Discipulo,

Your posts are very hard to read. Can you perhaps reformat your writing into a paragraph?


----------

