What is the official RC explanation of the difference between the Bible calling all true believer's saints - Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1, I Cor. 1:1-2; 6:9-11; Heb. 10:10, Heb. 10:14
and their canonization process of calling some dead people saints?
Ken said... What is the official RC explanation of the difference between the Bible calling all true believer's saints - Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1, I Cor. 1:1-2; 6:9-11; Heb. 10:10, Heb. 10:14 and their canonization process of calling some dead people saints?
Canonized and Acclaimed Saints
Most of the saints whom we refer to by that title (for instance, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton) have gone through this process of canonization. Others, such as St. Peter and St. Paul, received the title through acclamation, or the universal recognition of their holiness.
Catholics believe that both types of saints (canonized and acclaimed) are already in Heaven, which is why one of the requirements for the canonization process is proof of miracles performed by the possible saint after his death. Canonized saints can be venerated anywhere and prayed to publicly, and their lives are held up to Christians still struggling here on earth as examples to be imitated.
James said..."1.5 Million Roman Catholics Ignore Robert Sungenis."
To "ignore" him - these 1.5 million Catholics would have to know what he's saying, you're not seriously saying that all of these 1.5 million Catholics have kept up with Robert Sungenis, are you?
Since Scripture calls the Church, and not itself, "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), the demand for "biblical justification" for the distinction between an aspiring saint and a canonized is ridiculous.
You really should check out the context of that little snippet. The whole reason for the letter from Paul was so that Timothy would know how to behave himself in the church. So, in context, the sense of "church" is one of a local church where people behave themselves. Besides that, Timothy wasn't going to be getting what Paul was giving from "the church," which is why Paul wrote his inspired letter.
Sometimes it's remarkable how out of context verses can be taken. Read more Bible, Kevin! It will show you the way of salvation: but it won't point you to a system of religion in which the pope is the head of the church.
How about a theological justification of any kind. Scripture uses "saint" one way, the Roman church uses "saint" another. How do you explain the change, beyond just saying "it changed"? It's really a simple question.
Kevin: the Church, and not itself, "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15),
Here is the larger text of that verse:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
L.T. Johnson, a Roman Catholic commentator, explicitly finds through his exegesis that in this statement, it is the "conduct" or the "behavior" which is the referent to "a pillar and buttress of the truth".
The phrase "church of the living God" is the referent for "the household of God". But in the Greek text, "pillar and buttress of the truth" refers to "how one ought to behave." It is the behavior that supports the truth (see James 2).
Rome uses a faulty understanding of the text in order to support its own authority.
John said: The phrase "church of the living God" is the referent for "the household of God". But in the Greek text, "pillar and buttress of the truth" refers to "how one ought to behave."
I must say, that's a rather novel approach...
John continues: It is the behavior that supports the truth (see James 2).
Oh yes, where sola fide is utterly smashed to bits. Where the truth is presented that a true, living, saving faith is never alone - never without "behavior" or "works."
Scott, you completely missed the significance of what I've said here. It's not a novel approach. It is what the text, grammatically says.
The official Roman Catholic position (LG8, for example) completely misses what the real meaning of that phrase is. Which is no surprise.
And it is "justification before men" according to the traditional Protestant understanding of James 2 -- the church supports the gospel not by any made-up concept of "infallibility," but by being seen to living in the purity to which Christ called his disciples to live.
...the rest are unaware that he even exists.
ReplyDeletesorry. Blogs, not "bloge"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Mr. Swan will delete the unwelcome comments when he has the opportunity. But please, EA, don't encourage our unwelcome guest.
ReplyDeleteOk - Sorry, TF.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the official RC explanation of the difference between the Bible calling all true believer's saints - Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1, I Cor. 1:1-2; 6:9-11; Heb. 10:10, Heb. 10:14
ReplyDeleteand their canonization process of calling some dead people saints?
Not to mention the Old Testament passages also.
ReplyDeleteKen said... What is the official RC explanation of the difference between the Bible calling all true believer's saints - Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1, I Cor. 1:1-2; 6:9-11; Heb. 10:10, Heb. 10:14
ReplyDeleteand their canonization process of calling some dead people saints?
Canonized and Acclaimed Saints
Most of the saints whom we refer to by that title (for instance, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton) have gone through this process of canonization. Others, such as St. Peter and St. Paul, received the title through acclamation, or the universal recognition of their holiness.
Catholics believe that both types of saints (canonized and acclaimed) are already in Heaven, which is why one of the requirements for the canonization process is proof of miracles performed by the possible saint after his death. Canonized saints can be venerated anywhere and prayed to publicly, and their lives are held up to Christians still struggling here on earth as examples to be imitated.
James said... "1.5 Million Roman Catholics Ignore Robert Sungenis."
To "ignore" him - these 1.5 million Catholics would have to know what he's saying, you're not seriously saying that all of these 1.5 million Catholics have kept up with Robert Sungenis, are you?
I meant to cite my source for Ken (above) ... while that's not an "official" source, it is a fairly good explanation.
ReplyDeletehttp://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/What_Is_A_Saint.htm
CathApol,
ReplyDeleteThat just says that the concept of "saint" (within Roman Catholicicm) changed from NT times; it doesn't offer a biblical justification for the change.
Since Scripture calls the Church, and not itself, "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), the demand for "biblical justification" for the distinction between an aspiring saint and a canonized is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteKevin:
ReplyDeleteYou really should check out the context of that little snippet. The whole reason for the letter from Paul was so that Timothy would know how to behave himself in the church. So, in context, the sense of "church" is one of a local church where people behave themselves. Besides that, Timothy wasn't going to be getting what Paul was giving from "the church," which is why Paul wrote his inspired letter.
Sometimes it's remarkable how out of context verses can be taken. Read more Bible, Kevin! It will show you the way of salvation: but it won't point you to a system of religion in which the pope is the head of the church.
-TurretinFan
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteHow about a theological justification of any kind. Scripture uses "saint" one way, the Roman church uses "saint" another. How do you explain the change, beyond just saying "it changed"? It's really a simple question.
Kevin: the Church, and not itself, "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15),
ReplyDeleteHere is the larger text of that verse:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
L.T. Johnson, a Roman Catholic commentator, explicitly finds through his exegesis that in this statement, it is the "conduct" or the "behavior" which is the referent to "a pillar and buttress of the truth".
The phrase "church of the living God" is the referent for "the household of God". But in the Greek text, "pillar and buttress of the truth" refers to "how one ought to behave." It is the behavior that supports the truth (see James 2).
Rome uses a faulty understanding of the text in order to support its own authority.
L.T. Johnson, a Roman Catholic commentator, explicitly finds through his exegesis
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing that, John.
Hi Carrie, I've written about this more extensively about it here.
ReplyDeleteJohn said: The phrase "church of the living God" is the referent for "the household of God". But in the Greek text, "pillar and buttress of the truth" refers to "how one ought to behave."
ReplyDeleteI must say, that's a rather novel approach...
John continues: It is the behavior that supports the truth (see James 2).
Oh yes, where sola fide is utterly smashed to bits. Where the truth is presented that a true, living, saving faith is never alone - never without "behavior" or "works."
Thanks John!
Scott<<<
Scott, you completely missed the significance of what I've said here. It's not a novel approach. It is what the text, grammatically says.
ReplyDeleteThe official Roman Catholic position (LG8, for example) completely misses what the real meaning of that phrase is. Which is no surprise.
And it is "justification before men" according to the traditional Protestant understanding of James 2 -- the church supports the gospel not by any made-up concept of "infallibility," but by being seen to living in the purity to which Christ called his disciples to live.