A question, and thoughts about, "saints".

reply to post by backcase

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

This makes me think about the fact that this person ("saint") was in my dream, not "on Earth" in my physical world. Perhaps in dreams they are known to us -- or make themselves known.

I don't know. Thanks for your input!

reply to post by wildtimes


did the saint give you a name?

reply to post by backcase


I don't recall exactly, but it seems like it was a mundane name like Steve or Bob or Jim ....Nothing exotic.
He was just a rather usual young man - seated in a chair in the room - not extraordinarily shiny; no one was "flocked around him", he was of smallish stature, I didn't converse with him from what I recall.

reply to post by wildtimes


It may have just been a subconscious thought manifesting itself. Usually when there is a saint introduced in any type of situation it is for a reason like a briefing or reproach of some sort.

I would interpret the dream to mean that you should view each person as being dear to God, no matter how plain or dull he may seem. All have souls and all people should be loved by others based on that fact, it is what brings us together. God loves souls of all people and we would do well if we could fully understand that.

reply to post by backcase


I could not agree with you more!!

Yes, we must "recognize the divine" within one another -
Namaste is a word for that: The divine in me recognizes the divine in you, and I honor you. Basically.

Originally posted by Akragon

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...

Regin of Emperor Diocletian: 284-305AD (he died in 311AD)

Historical examination of the legends suggests Reprobus (Christopher) lived during the Christian persecutions of the Roman emperor Decius, and that he was captured and martyred by the governor of Antioch. Historian David Woods has proposed that St. Christopher's remains were possibly taken to Alexandria by Peter of Attalia where he may have become identified with the Egyptian martyr Saint Menas.

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)

It says there (and you can track it back to the textual sources, as well as the link I posted earlier here: The Origin of the Cult of St. Christopher) that he was recruited by Diocletian, it doesn't say anything about his being martyred during his reign.

As St. Menas died in 309AD, four years after the end of the reign of Diocletian, but while he was still alive, it is plausible that Christopher was Menas.

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

Yes, you've done a superficial job of trying to undercut a Saint who has brought comfort and relief to thousands, if not millions, of people over the centuries, by psychological means in their own mind, if nothing else. Congratulations on puffing yourself up by ridiculing the faith of others.

As I said, you have done nothing to actually demonstrate the fictional nature of the martyr behind the legend, you've just belittled the legend and said "an 18 foot person couldn't have existed." Until you've gone to the Vatican archives, read the book by Nicholas Serarius and reviewed the sources that he's cited, you've done nothing to refute the existence of an actual human being, who died for his faith, 1700 years ago, legends about him notwithstanding.

reply to post by wildtimes


It is a strong word to those who understand, but many, too many people do not recognize the Divine.
I think a reason for such would be that we cannot control or possess Divinity in this life. It is not tangible for possessive and materialist people. Therefore they tread who have what they cannot even perceive. Nor do they want to perceive it, as it prescribes virtue, and virtue is a hindrance to the selfish.

peace to you.

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?

You only need to dig as deep as Saint Brigid to find one of many examples. The Catholic church used sainthood as a way to allow various pagan religions to keep their gods and goddesses while also attending mass. Many saints (and holidays, of course) are actually pagan deities. This is how paths like Santeria are justified since there is very little adjustment needed to adopt Catholicism to witchcraft.

The Abrahamic faiths have their own pantheon of gods/goddesses and always have since their construction.

reply to post by Cuervo


I disagree, the saints are canonized because their life correspond to Christian lifestyle, and it widens the scope of church doctrines with their teachings or examples.

I am a Catholic and know from first hand experience that there is no worship of any saint at all going on in any mass, because the mass I hear at my catholic church is the same one as in others

We pay the souls of saints respect and hope to live as saints ourselves.

let me ask you a simple question. Pretend for a moment you are a prayerful person if you are not.
If your mother caught a deadly sickness, would you ask a friend anyone to pray for her?

Originally posted by Akragon

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

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

In that case then George Washington never existed, he was just a made up character. Same for Julius Caesar, or anyone not born in our lifetimes for us to see and hear. Which would lead to a huge paradox because none of us should exist if existence hinged on having empirical proof of said existence. You say theyre real, and anyone else can say they never existed. What rubbish.

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by Cuervo

 

I disagree, the saints are canonized because their life correspond to Christian lifestyle, and it widens the scope of church doctrines with their teachings or examples.

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with. I understand the stated intent for sainthood but it is obvious that the concept has been used to leverage various pagan cultures into the Catholic fold. In fact, the example I gave (since her holiday's coming up in February) is a great place to start when looking up deities-turned-saints. It's not a bash on Catholicism; simply a historical trend when subjugating cultures. It was certainly preferable to their alternative method of torture and death.

Originally posted by backcase
I am a Catholic and know from first hand experience that there is no worship of any saint at all going on in any mass, because the mass I hear at my catholic church is the same one as in others

We pay the souls of saints respect and hope to live as saints ourselves.

I understand this. The concept behind the saints are quite beautiful and is something that most pagan traditions can relate to. You don't worship them but they are prayed to so they can arbitrate on your behalf. Again, I'm not bashing your religion for this. I think it's really cool. But you must admit that this is also something that, when combined with adopting various gods and goddesses and personifying them as saints, you win the hearts and minds of surrounding folk religio-magic cultures.

Originally posted by backcase
let me ask you a simple question. Pretend for a moment you are a prayerful person if you are not.
If your mother caught a deadly sickness, would you ask a friend anyone to pray for her?

I wouldn't turn it down, no. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't attacking the idea behind the Catholic sainthood at all.

Originally posted by Cuervo
In fact, the example I gave (since her holiday's coming up in February) is a great place to start when looking up deities-turned-saints.

St. Brigid?

In the controversy about the historical existence of Brigit that erupted in the last third of the 20th century, it was noted that eleven people with whom Brigit is associated in her Lives are independently attested in annalistic sources, sources that place her death at 523 AD (in the Annals of Tigernach and Chronicon Scotorum) and her birth at 451 AD (calculated from the alleged age of 72 at death).

The differing biographies written by different authors, giving conflicting accounts of her life, are regarded of considerable literary merit in themselves. Three of those biographies agreed that she had a slave mother in the court of her father, Dubhthach, a king of Leinster. (Source)

Along with that, there's also the Catholic Encyclopedia, neither of which give any indication that she was anything but a Fifth Century nun.

Again, taking legendary stories of these poorly documented people who died 1600-1700 years ago, and thinking that crazy attributes assigned to them invalidates them as real people is not a valid assumption.

reply to post by Cuervo


You wrote that the intent of the Catholic church was to allow idolatry for large church numbers. This was not the case and accuses the church of double dealing. The church has and will always be stern with the commandments of God. Even if some priests will hurt church reputation, the church will always have its celestial doctrine and spirit in which the saints exemplify.

Even if you meant only to show a point, you should think before you speak and remember humility before exhibiting imperfect human judgement. Do not despair, we are all guilty of such more or less.

That is why God has infinite mercy, peace to you

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by Cuervo

 

You wrote that the intent of the Catholic church was to allow idolatry for large church numbers. This was not the case and accuses the church of double dealing. The church has and will always be stern with the commandments of God. Even if some priests will hurt church reputation, the church will always have its celestial doctrine and spirit in which the saints exemplify.

Even if you meant only to show a point, you should think before you speak and remember humility before exhibiting imperfect human judgement. Do not despair, we are all guilty of such more or less.

That is why God has infinite mercy, peace to you

I wasn't "accusing" the Catholics of "double dealing". I was crediting them for their flexibility and peaceful inclusionism. The simple fact is that you cannot ignore the vast amount of instances where the church adopted pagan practices in order to peacefully gain members. It's where nearly every Christian holiday came from and where many saints came from. There is no wrong-doing in this practice. The Persians did the same thing and it's why they were successful.

The difference is that I find it admirable and you are ashamed of it.

Originally posted by Cuervo
The difference is that I find it admirable and you are ashamed of it.

Again, where is your conclusive evidence that St. Brigid wasn't a Fifth Century Catholic nun?

Originally posted by adjensen
Again, taking legendary stories of these poorly documented people who died 1600-1700 years ago, and thinking that crazy attributes assigned to them invalidates them as real people is not a valid assumption.

Oh, she totally existed as a person! I didn't mean to imply she wasn't real. What I'm saying is that the Catholic church often rolled a person's actions with powers and miracles attributed to particular deities worshiped by the locals. There are several instances of this. It's like saying "Hey, what a coincidence, peasants! We also have a so-and-so who does this-and-that! You can worship here!" And it worked. It worked so well that many paths of contemporary western and Latin witchcraft has Catholic groundwork.

Like I told the other guy, this is all an admirable thing. If you are Catholic, just embrace it as part of your rich and colorful history.

reply to post by Cuervo


The holidays which have pagan idols are americanized. Do you thiink Catholics like replacing the virtue of poverty and birth of God with materialism and a gluttonous idol?

Even the pope has stated that Christmas has taken the form of paganism.

My church has never displayed a "easter bunny" either. The saints carry teachings and examples.
You do not know the intent of the early church, and whether you find it good or bad I do not care, but it is false.

reply to post by adjensen


Can you think of any reason why none of the names I've mentioned appear in the book of Martyrs?

Considering he was one of the more popular "saints"... I would think someone of his status would be mentioned in such a book...

IF he existed...

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Akragon

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

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

In that case then George Washington never existed, he was just a made up character. Same for Julius Caesar, or anyone not born in our lifetimes for us to see and hear. Which would lead to a huge paradox because none of us should exist if existence hinged on having empirical proof of said existence. You say theyre real, and anyone else can say they never existed. What rubbish.

edit on 8-1-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

As per usual your logic blows my mind... And makes my head hurt :bnghd:

There is plenty of evidence that the people you mentioned existed...

There is absolutely no evidence that St.Christopher existed... IF said person existed he would have been mentioned somewhere.

And as far as "St. Menas" is concerned... Why is the church giving sainthood to soldiers?

Perhaps they might give said title to the guy that shot Bin ladin next?

The NT is full of salutations to saints in different churches in different cities while they were all living people.. Everyone who comes to know Christ is a saint in the biblical view from the NT letters.

Originally posted by adjensen
In Christianity, there are two types of saints.

The first, which is held by both Protestants and Catholics, is the whole community of believers -- this description is derived from Paul, and anyone who is a Christian is a saint.

The second references particularly devout people, and is largely limited to the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican religions. In the case of Catholics, for example, there are specific criteria for being considered for the title "Saint", and such people are not "made" by the church, they're just recognized for their piety.