A question, and thoughts about, "saints".

reply to post by adjensen

Why would you assume that the church not recognize anyone who isn't Catholic?

I'm not assuming, adj, I'm asking.
Has the RC Church canonized anyone who was NOT a practicing Catholic, to your knowledge?

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why would you assume that the church not recognize anyone who isn't Catholic?

I'm not assuming, adj, I'm asking.
Has the RC Church canonized anyone who was NOT a practicing Catholic, to your knowledge?

Some of the very early Saints through martyrdom were not Catholics, otherwise, no.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If sainthood is based on what you do while alive then yes, I think you can be considered a saint while still alive.

Is there anyone alive now that you think of as 'saintly'?

(Thanks for chiming in here, btw)

reply to post by wildtimes


I think the word saint is a bit too "christianized" in my opinion, I don't think you have to be a christian to be considered a saint.

I consider myself a saint. Not trying to be self-centered or conceited but I believe anyone who works for the greater good and loves unconditionally can be considered a saint. I think I do those two things pretty well in my opinion.

There are lots of saints out there, name anyone who was/is selfless and I (personally) would consider them saints. Nelson Mandela and Jane Goodall come to mind right now. Maybe you're a saint too, from your post history and what I have read from you I would assume you are too, as are many others on this board.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I like your way of seeing things, 3NL!

I really perked up when you said Jane Goodall. What a tragic thing that whole story is....

But, in theory, I agree with you about the 'christianity' not being required.

(Thanks, btw...although I would never consider myself a 'saint' - but I sure do try to do what's right!)

reply to post by wildtimes


Which is exactly what a saint would do: what's right.

reply to post by wildtimes


Ever heard of St.Christopher?

Apparently certain governing bodies within the church give sainthoods to people that never even existed...

St.Christopher, the saint that never was...

reply to post by Akragon


Thanks for the thread link --
I'll look at it tomorrow ....
for now I'm in "study" mode;
reading 'The Dialogues of Plato'.


"There are no new ideas under the sun", eh??

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Ever heard of St.Christopher?

Apparently certain governing bodies within the church give sainthoods to people that never even existed...

Who says that he never existed?

Saint Christopher on Wikipedia. Perhaps you're assuming that, because there were goofy stories told about him, he didn't exist, which, of course, is an invalid assumption.

The existence of a martyr St. Christopher cannot be denied, as was sufficiently shown by the Jesuit Nicholas Serarius, in his treatise on litanies, "Litaneutici" (Cologne, 1609), and by Molanus in his history of sacred pictures, "De picturis et imaginibus sacris" (Louvain, 1570). (Source)

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Ever heard of St.Christopher?

Apparently certain governing bodies within the church give sainthoods to people that never even existed...

Who says that he never existed?

Saint Christopher on Wikipedia. Perhaps you're assuming that, because there were goofy stories told about him, he didn't exist, which, of course, is an invalid assumption.

The existence of a martyr St. Christopher cannot be denied, as was sufficiently shown by the Jesuit Nicholas Serarius, in his treatise on litanies, "Litaneutici" (Cologne, 1609), and by Molanus in his history of sacred pictures, "De picturis et imaginibus sacris" (Louvain, 1570). (Source)

I say he never existed.... so do many others

Your link says his existence can not be denied because he was in pictures... which makes little to no sense

IF you read about said stories you'll see why I believe he never existed.... nothing in his story adds up

reply to post by Akragon


To add: yes, I've heard of him.
He was the guy whose 'medallion' we gave to each other as teenagers back in the 1970s.....
the patron saint of travellers.

Right?

reply to post by wildtimes


Just some random thoughts for you. The definition of a Jewish saint. A Tzadik

The Talmud[6] says that at least 36 Tzadikim Nistarim—anonymous tzadikim—are living among us in all times; they are anonymous, and it is for their sake alone that the world is not destroyed. The Talmud and the Kabbalah offer various ideas about the nature and role of these 36 tzadikim. In Jewish folklore they are called "lamedvovniks", from the gematria numerical value for 36. In Hasidism, with its social institution of the Tzadik in the central role of the community, the 36 may not necessarily be unknown, therefore. However, a Hasidic aphorism describes a known Rebbe Tzadik as being among the 36, as their true greatness could be concealed beyond the perception of their devoted followers.

And i can include this Beit as a mark of a Tzidik.

Originally posted by Akragon
I say he never existed.... so do many others

Your link says his existence can not be denied because he was in pictures... which makes little to no sense

Actually, what it says is that historians went back to see if there was a real person behind these ridiculous legends and found that there was. They didn't validate the legends, just said that there really was a martyr recognized by the church at that time. If you're basing your argument that he didn't exist because of the legends, that's an invalid statement -- the best you can say is that the legends are of a person who didn't exist, which I would agree with.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
I say he never existed.... so do many others

Your link says his existence can not be denied because he was in pictures... which makes little to no sense

Actually, what it says is that historians went back to see if there was a real person behind these ridiculous legends and found that there was. They didn't validate the legends, just said that there really was a martyr recognized by the church at that time. If you're basing your argument that he didn't exist because of the legends, that's an invalid statement -- the best you can say is that the legends are of a person who didn't exist, which I would agree with.

actually your link doesn't say that at all...

A martyr, probably of the third century. Although St. Christopher is one of the most popular saints in the East and in the West, almost nothing certain is known about his life or death.

They only push the stories of someone they assume existed based on the mythologies....

The legend says: A heathen king (in Canaan or Arabia), through the prayers of his wife to the Blessed Virgin, had a son, whom he called Offerus (Offro, Adokimus, or Reprebus) and dedicated to the gods Machmet and Apollo. Acquiring in time extraordinary size and strength, Offerus resolved to serve only the strongest and the bravest. He bound himself successively to a mighty king and to Satan, but he found both lacking in courage, the former dreading even the name of the devil, and the latter frightened by the sight of a cross at the roadside.

For a time his search for a new master was in vain, but at last he found a hermit (Babylas?) who told him to offer his allegiance to Christ, instructed him in the Faith, and baptized him. Christopher, as he was now called, would not promise to do any fasting or praying, but willingly accepted the task of carrying people, for God's sake, across a raging stream. One day he was carrying a child who continually grew heavier, so that it seemed to him as if he had the whole world on his shoulders. The child, on inquiry, made himself known as the Creator and Redeemer of the world. To prove his statement the child ordered Christopher to fix his staff in the ground. The next morning it had grown into a palm-tree bearing fruit. The miracle converted many. This excited the rage of the king (prefect) of that region (Dagnus of Samos in Lycia?). Christopher was put into prison and, after many cruel torments, beheaded.

And there is no record of anyone by any of the names given including "Christopher"... being beheaded during the time they claim he lived...According to legend he was executed in approx. 251 AD... And a man which performed at least one miracle, that being turning a staff into a tree... would have at least been documented somewhere, but it wasn't.... Yet many Martyrs were documented during the time he lived that did not perform any miracles and were no where near as famous as St.Christopher...

He's said to have carried Christ across a raging river when he was a child.... but that was just another legend, there is absolutely no evidence of this encounter... Not to mention that would make him a few hundred years old if he was martyred anywhere within the second century.

The stories were fantastic, but nothing more then myth... and based on that myth St.Christopher got his sainthood... There is no reality to his actual existence

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
I say he never existed.... so do many others

Your link says his existence can not be denied because he was in pictures... which makes little to no sense

Actually, what it says is that historians went back to see if there was a real person behind these ridiculous legends and found that there was. They didn't validate the legends, just said that there really was a martyr recognized by the church at that time. If you're basing your argument that he didn't exist because of the legends, that's an invalid statement -- the best you can say is that the legends are of a person who didn't exist, which I would agree with.

actually your link doesn't say that at all...

A martyr, probably of the third century. Although St. Christopher is one of the most popular saints in the East and in the West, almost nothing certain is known about his life or death.

Note that it doesn't say "a fictitious martyr" -- they're citing it as through he was a real person, so, yes, my link does say that.

Someone else noted that "Christopher" may be just the title applied to another person, to wit:

The legend of Saint Christopher records two important historical facts that identify him with the historical Saint Menas. The first is that the Greek and Latin legends of Saint Christopher identify him as belonging to the Third Valerian Cohort of the Marmantae (Latin: Cohors tertia Valeria, at Marmantarum), a military unit of Northern Africa of Marmarica (between modern day Libya and Egypt), recruited by none other than the Emperor Diocletian.

The second is that Saint Christopher was martyred in Antioch…The martyrdom of Saint Menas corresponds to the details of the legend of Saint Christopher. The theory that identifies the two saints as one and the same concludes that the name “Christopher” meaning “Christ-bearer” was a title given to the name of the valiant Menas who died in Antioch. Since, he was not a native of that land, his name was not known and so he was simply revered by his generic title: “Christophoros” or “Christ-Bearer.” Saint Menas happens to be the patron of travelers in the Coptic tradition, which further supports an association with Saint Christopher who is the patron of travelers in the Greek and Latin traditions. (Source)

At any rate, St. Christopher has been "demoted" by having his feast day removed from the calendar, probably due to killjoys like you complaining, lol

reply to post by adjensen

Note that it doesn't say "a fictitious martyr" -- they're citing it as through he was a real person, so, yes, my link does say that.

And we all know that the church doesn't promote fiction to win over converts right?

The second is that Saint Christopher was martyred in Antioch…The martyrdom of Saint Menas corresponds to the details of the legend of Saint Christopher.

Yup... And there is no record of anyone named Christopher, Reprobus, Offero or Menas being martyred during the reign of Emperor Diocletian... And even further back, there is no record of any of these named people being martyred during the previous rulers either... including the time of Trajan Decius who reigned during the time of his supposed death...

At any rate, St. Christopher has been "demoted" by having his feast day removed from the calendar, probably due to killjoys like you complaining, lol

Well that's interesting... Likely because of killjoys like myself trying to expose the lies of the churches around the globe... *bows*

I'll take that as a compliment

Basically what im trying to say is, as far as actual historical evidence shows...

the reality of St.Christopher's existence is a kin to St.Flintstone of Bedrock...

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

You won't really know whose a saint until resurrection day, the Bride doesn't make that call, Christ does. We can make guesses but that's between them and God.

Does that mean that, even if they were/are non-Catholic, they WILL be recognized by Christ as having lived up to the standards required?

No, because works mean nothing to him without faith in him first. Prophet Isaiah mentions something about it here:

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.

There's nothing you can offer him to cleanse your soul, except the blood of the Lamb that covers your sins and causes his wrath to pass over you. Without the blood of the Lamb, his judgement still falls on you. Thats what Exodus 12 symbolizes, the Passover. No blood of the Lamb? Then the angel of Death (satan) takes you away and you are cut off from your people.

reply to post by wildtimes


its a paradox that someone who wants to be called a saint doesnt deserve it.
In islam there are no "officially" declared saints but people do make them up as people do like to have something tangible to idolise and its very contradictory to Qur'anic teachings.
However Qur'an gives a high status to martyrs and tells not to even call them dead as they are not and we just dont know about it.

(Qur'an 2:154)And say not of those who are slain in the way of God: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

Even John the Baptist is mentioned in present tense(alive) as he got martyred.

"(And it was said unto his son) 0' John! Hold fast the scripture. And We gave him wisdom when he was a child! And compassion from Our presence and punity, and he was devout. And dutiful towards his parents. And he was not arrogant, rebellious. Peace on him the day he was born and the day he dies and the day he shall be raised alive.'' (Qur'an-19: 12-15)

reply to post by ntech


Thanks so much for this!

When you say 'anonymous' - does that mean they just 'keep a low profile' - so no one knows who might be one?

I wonder if this is where the scripture comes from that says, "If a stranger knocks, let him in, and feed him, because you never know when you might be entertaining an angel." - (or something like that).

Do THEY know who they are?
Do they know who EACH OTHER are?

Do they have meetings, conferences, etc.?

Very interesting. 36 at all times isn't very many....are they found only among Jews?

Originally posted by wildtimes
Last night I dreamed I met someone - who was living, contemporaneous with myself - and was introduced to me as a "saint."

Is this possible, do you guys think?
Are there really "saints" who already know they are, or have been acknowledged as "saints"?

Do "martyrs" achieve "sainthood"?

We all know the phrase "he's a regular saint!" when speaking about someone who is very, very "good."

Are "martyrs" and "saints" purely Christian constructs?
Why is Jesus not called a "saint"?

Just my rambling thoughts. Anyone else have ideas about this?

edit on 7-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

People become Saints once they enter Heaven, no one is a Saint upon earth as we all fall short of the glory of God.

Jesus is never called a saint because He is the Christ.
A martyr may be a saint if he dies as Jesus died, not in the body but in spirit, for the love of others and the love of God.