There are some saints I respect greatly, for sure.
There are others that I think need to have their names forgotten, or at least need to be removed as Saints, and the story of their sainthood and hagiographies be used as a cautionary tale for us all.
My go-to examples for saints that should be cautionary tales are Justinian, Louis XII, Peter Claver, Katharine Drexel, John Chrysostom.
Saint Philomena is a cautionary tale against the whole process, the idea of sacred tradition, and the notion that canonization is infallible (as most Catholic theologians accept).
Justinian had gay men castrated with spears in addition to all of the violent shit that every Roman Emperor does. None come even close to deserving Sainthood. Louis XII was quite a violent anti-Semite. His love for the Church was only matched by his hatred and oppression of Jews. Peter Claver baptized, he claimed, 300,000 slaves right after their trip to S. America. He was also a violent white-supremacist slave-owner. Katharine Drexel, in addition to opening Xavier university and using her riches for the church, ran a racist sisterhood of nuns and owned/operated residential schools for Native American kids with all the same problems as the ones we hear about in Canada. (These two are the patron saints of slavery and racial reconciliation, btw.) John Chrysostom's writings are foundational for the long oppression of Jews by the church.
Philomena is a saint "discovered" via dreams only after a relic was found of a supposed martyr in the 18th or 19th century. Loads of miracles. Canonized in the 19th century. Turns out there's no reason to think that what we found is associated with martyrdom at all, and the whole story is hinky as hell. The church can't de-canonize her, of course, but clearly recognizes the problems since it ordered that feast days to her be removed from every calendar of every sort in 1961.
I think because someone did something bad it doesn't cancel out the good they did. Louis XII and Justinian were in positions and worlds so foreign to us that we literally cannot understand them. Justinian built some of the most beautiful (former...) churches in the world and codified laws that benefitted the Christianization of Europe. St. Katherine Drexel openly worked with, cared for, and helped teach minorities in a time when literally no one else would....sure, maybe we look back on that and think it's bad (personally I don't....we can't blame someone for the problems of a system they worked in....), but any enemy of the KKK is probably a friend of mine (they threatened her religious order and her life in 1922).
"McGuinness cites the rationale of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament as documented in the order’s own records. If the sisters accepted women of color into the order, the racist attitudes among the public would make it difficult for the order to raise funds for its works. Further, such racial attitudes would discourage vocations to the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament because white sisters would object to living in community with sisters who were Black or Native women. Finally, accepting women of color would siphon off vocations from historically Black women’s congregations, such as the Oblate Sisters of Providence and the Sisters of the Holy Family."
"To do so as white women in the American South, however, would have imperiled their schools and convents."
"[She founded] Xavier University in New Orleans, the only Catholic institution in the nation dedicated to providing higher education for African Americans."
Hey man, you can look on google for about ten seconds and find this wonderful article. Almost like a complicated legacy exists that you're completely ignoring (this is from America magazine, too, probably the most liberal of Catholic magazines).
this is from America magazine, too, probably the most liberal of Catholic magazines
Yeah, the same one that still praises Claver with barely a mention of his problems. They're better, certainly, than others, but far from challenging to their own beliefs in the articles I've read on the saints.
The order has been caught in lies about their history with this, and this of course also doesn't justify the cruelty to Native Americans.
I'm not saying that she's entirely evil or anything even close. I'm saying that she absolutely should not be considered the patron saint of racial reconciliation, nor should she be lauded uncritically.
She is a great example of how those people who we think today may be justifiedly seen as very problematic in the future, and why saints don't deserve veneration.
You keep saying things about the order without providing any proof. I think if we're going to make claims like "caught in lies" and "cruelty to Native Americans" we should probably back that up with proof (those are very big claims). She worked very hard towards racial reconciliation in a way that seemed fitting to her and provided material and spiritual benefit to minorities. I think those actions are worthy of honor. Besides, sainthood is a multi-step process. She is associated with acts of miraculous healing! Those things happened!
I respect some saints, but I'm not praying to them or glorifying them in any way besides acknowledging them as great Christians that history has managed to remember
Protestants don't disrespect the saints, we just don't view them the same way you do. Many of them were great men of God, and they deserve respect, but they do not deserve the authority many give them.
In the commemoration of saints, the Church celebrates the victory of Christ in the lives of particular individuals. The Calendar of Saints’ Days varies considerably among Christian Churches and among the various churches of the Anglican Communion."
Who are the saints? Paul writes in his epistles: “To the saints in Corinth, To the saints in Ephesus etc” Paul is not writing to dead people who have been deemed saints by the Church. Paul writes to living people. All people who are “born again in Jesus are saints. “Saints by calling”. That is, those who have been called by God in Jesus Christ to be born again by faith in the risen Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:2. The word in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, is hagios. It means to be set apart. Set apart from sin and the world to God.
I do respect the Holy ones who have joined the Church Triumphant.
Worship, adoration, dulia, hyperdulia, or whatever you want to call it, is still both an abberation and wholly unnecessary when we already have a high priest who intercedes for us.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight" Proverbs 3:5-6
"Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered" Proverbs 28:26
"5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:5-7 KJV
So you’re telling me Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross and more were serving the Antichrist? Look I agree that there’s something sinister behind the Catholic Church maybe even the Antichrist behind it but at it’s core for the population of Catholics and likely most of it’s saints it is still worship and glorification of God specifically and might I also add whenever a real possession happens the Protestant preachers/exorcists always say to just get a Catholic priest.
They’ll know my respect on that day we are all made alive in Christ and resurrected from the dead. And they will be resipricating because as a fellow believer, I too am a Saint.
Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
So we could be considered to be such, but we can also lose such status. This is an ongoing process that is complete on the person's passing, making it fitting for saints to be reserved for the reposed. But is a calling for sainthood to those alive
It seems the canonization process recognizes evidence that strongly suggests that a person attained theosis, but it doesnt clearly state whether we know someone did or not. Seeing as how theosis is a personal mystical experience, we can't possibly know if someone else truly attained theosis, only ourselves.
Paul addressed those in the churches of Corinth and Ephesus as Saints.
Was he writing to dead people? 🤔
He was either calling them Saints in the present, or he was willing them to be Saints in eternity.
Either way, he calls them Saints. This is what we should be faithfully willing for each other.
It matters not whether it is in the present or eternity.
If the Bible is the inspired word of God, and Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and Paul referred to brothers who were alive in Christ as Saints, why should we not will that same God-given blessing to our brothers and sisters now?
No. It's because we can lose our salvation at any moment before our departure. It's an elevated status that is reserved for those already passed for a reason
A Saint is according to the bible, someone who follows Yeshua. Someone who is set apart, sanctified. Many have been conned into thinking saints were those people who are 'above the ordinary human'. No. It's you and me if we have been born again.
That's interesting the way you put that. I respect people. I have more respect for Mother Theresa than just about anybody. I'm not sure if she is a saint yet or not.
However, I believe in Ezekiel we are told that God is not a respecter of titles.
I'm curious why you care about the 'saint' part of it?
Many protestants talk about St. Francis, St. Augustine, and St. Patrick----just to name a few.
I think you might be wrong.
However, if you mean they don't respect 'sainthood' then I see what you mean.
I have a lot of time for Julian of Norwich and Hildegard von Bingen; their wisdom as mystics is timeless. However, I don't believe that they should be placed in a specific post-mortem category, and I find the process of cannonisation to be excessively politicised.
The New Testament tells us that all who have obeyed the gospel are saints, having been sanctified.
I think all people should start respecting Gods word more and not adding errant books to the scriptures and telling us to follow the teachings of men! We will be judged by God’s word on judgement day, and Satan is using the teachings of men to destroy us. Everyone would be wise to follow the example of Christian’s in the BIBLE, who searched the scriptures daily Acts 17:11
Protestants should at least respect, let us say, the literal mother of Jesus. I never get it why so many of them want to attack our lady. Like for sure we have theological disagreement about her, but why attack her?
Some people in my life have died. I believe that Mary is exactly the same kind-of-thing as them, i.e. a formerly mortal human now no longer on Earth who is almost certainly in Heaven. I certainly agree that giving birth to Jesus is an honor no other person has had or ever will have and certainly I respect her for that along with her character as described in the Bible.
I can speak to the people I've lost. I hope they hear me. I have no expectation they can do anything for me, but I keep an eye out. I don't consider my words to them praying, and it's certainly not worship. I don't ask them to put in a good word for me with God. If I want to speak to God, I simply do so.
Some people are concerned there are those who actually do worship Mary as more than human.
There are some saints I respect greatly, for sure.
There are others that I think need to have their names forgotten, or at least need to be removed as Saints, and the story of their sainthood and hagiographies be used as a cautionary tale for us all.
Such as?
My go-to examples for saints that should be cautionary tales are Justinian, Louis XII, Peter Claver, Katharine Drexel, John Chrysostom.
Saint Philomena is a cautionary tale against the whole process, the idea of sacred tradition, and the notion that canonization is infallible (as most Catholic theologians accept).
What about them gives you hesitation? I'm not familiar with their lives.
Justinian had gay men castrated with spears in addition to all of the violent shit that every Roman Emperor does. None come even close to deserving Sainthood. Louis XII was quite a violent anti-Semite. His love for the Church was only matched by his hatred and oppression of Jews. Peter Claver baptized, he claimed, 300,000 slaves right after their trip to S. America. He was also a violent white-supremacist slave-owner. Katharine Drexel, in addition to opening Xavier university and using her riches for the church, ran a racist sisterhood of nuns and owned/operated residential schools for Native American kids with all the same problems as the ones we hear about in Canada. (These two are the patron saints of slavery and racial reconciliation, btw.) John Chrysostom's writings are foundational for the long oppression of Jews by the church.
Philomena is a saint "discovered" via dreams only after a relic was found of a supposed martyr in the 18th or 19th century. Loads of miracles. Canonized in the 19th century. Turns out there's no reason to think that what we found is associated with martyrdom at all, and the whole story is hinky as hell. The church can't de-canonize her, of course, but clearly recognizes the problems since it ordered that feast days to her be removed from every calendar of every sort in 1961.
There were many saints as well as popes that owned slaves
Specifically, he killed 30,000 people to put down a rebellion.
https://catuk.org/massacre-at-the-hippodrome/
Justinian sounds like the perfect candidate for patron saint of this sub.
I think because someone did something bad it doesn't cancel out the good they did. Louis XII and Justinian were in positions and worlds so foreign to us that we literally cannot understand them. Justinian built some of the most beautiful (former...) churches in the world and codified laws that benefitted the Christianization of Europe. St. Katherine Drexel openly worked with, cared for, and helped teach minorities in a time when literally no one else would....sure, maybe we look back on that and think it's bad (personally I don't....we can't blame someone for the problems of a system they worked in....), but any enemy of the KKK is probably a friend of mine (they threatened her religious order and her life in 1922).
Yeah, it's exactly this kind of unthinking hagiography that destroys any witness that Christianity can have.
No, a different world doesn't justify voluntary religious persecution.
Drexel's order denied entry to black women who wanted to join. That's an entirely voluntary exercise of racism.
This is exactly why we shouldn't venerate people as saints. It is structured around unthinking adulation and ignoring the evil that they did.
And don't forget the vile misogyny of Church fathers like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas who viewed women as mere brood stock,
"McGuinness cites the rationale of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament as documented in the order’s own records. If the sisters accepted women of color into the order, the racist attitudes among the public would make it difficult for the order to raise funds for its works. Further, such racial attitudes would discourage vocations to the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament because white sisters would object to living in community with sisters who were Black or Native women. Finally, accepting women of color would siphon off vocations from historically Black women’s congregations, such as the Oblate Sisters of Providence and the Sisters of the Holy Family."
"To do so as white women in the American South, however, would have imperiled their schools and convents."
"[She founded] Xavier University in New Orleans, the only Catholic institution in the nation dedicated to providing higher education for African Americans."
Hey man, you can look on google for about ten seconds and find this wonderful article. Almost like a complicated legacy exists that you're completely ignoring (this is from America magazine, too, probably the most liberal of Catholic magazines).
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2023/12/08/review-katharine-drexel-mcguinness-246357
Yeah, the same one that still praises Claver with barely a mention of his problems. They're better, certainly, than others, but far from challenging to their own beliefs in the articles I've read on the saints.
The order has been caught in lies about their history with this, and this of course also doesn't justify the cruelty to Native Americans.
I'm not saying that she's entirely evil or anything even close. I'm saying that she absolutely should not be considered the patron saint of racial reconciliation, nor should she be lauded uncritically.
She is a great example of how those people who we think today may be justifiedly seen as very problematic in the future, and why saints don't deserve veneration.
In other words, a cautionary tale.
You keep saying things about the order without providing any proof. I think if we're going to make claims like "caught in lies" and "cruelty to Native Americans" we should probably back that up with proof (those are very big claims). She worked very hard towards racial reconciliation in a way that seemed fitting to her and provided material and spiritual benefit to minorities. I think those actions are worthy of honor. Besides, sainthood is a multi-step process. She is associated with acts of miraculous healing! Those things happened!
So cave to the world then, I mean that’s fine just don’t try and stand here and tell everyone. that Christians aren’t supposed to cave to the world.
Saint Patrick
Why?
I respect some saints, but I'm not praying to them or glorifying them in any way besides acknowledging them as great Christians that history has managed to remember
Protestants don't disrespect the saints, we just don't view them the same way you do. Many of them were great men of God, and they deserve respect, but they do not deserve the authority many give them.
I'm anglican. What do you mean?
I thought there was some disagreement among Anglicans as to veneration of saints.
The Church of England’s 39 Articles (specially Article 22) seems to discourage the invocation of the saints, calling it “repugnant.”
We don't invoke them, we hold them as examples and join our prayers with theirs in heaven without assuming they can hear or aid us.
We also don't do the magic bones stuff.
We don't invoke Saints, but we honour them as exemplary of Christian virtue and we prayer for their intercession in the form of prayer.
I'm Māori Anglican, this is what our canon and prayerbook says of honouring te Hunga Tapu/Saints.
"Of the Saints
In the commemoration of saints, the Church celebrates the victory of Christ in the lives of particular individuals. The Calendar of Saints’ Days varies considerably among Christian Churches and among the various churches of the Anglican Communion."
Who are the saints? Paul writes in his epistles: “To the saints in Corinth, To the saints in Ephesus etc” Paul is not writing to dead people who have been deemed saints by the Church. Paul writes to living people. All people who are “born again in Jesus are saints. “Saints by calling”. That is, those who have been called by God in Jesus Christ to be born again by faith in the risen Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:2. The word in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, is hagios. It means to be set apart. Set apart from sin and the world to God.
Protestants don't disrespect saints though...?
I do respect the Holy ones who have joined the Church Triumphant.
Worship, adoration, dulia, hyperdulia, or whatever you want to call it, is still both an abberation and wholly unnecessary when we already have a high priest who intercedes for us.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight" Proverbs 3:5-6
"Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered" Proverbs 28:26
"5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:5-7 KJV
My main focus will always be Jesus Christ my savior. He takes up all my attention and adoration. Amen
Protestant Christ followers ARE saints.
Some saints were murderers and war criminals. Should I ‘respect’ them simply because an ecclesiastical authority I don’t recognise has said I should?
No thanks
Why not?
[removed]
I don’t think that’s true
[removed]
So you’re telling me Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross and more were serving the Antichrist? Look I agree that there’s something sinister behind the Catholic Church maybe even the Antichrist behind it but at it’s core for the population of Catholics and likely most of it’s saints it is still worship and glorification of God specifically and might I also add whenever a real possession happens the Protestant preachers/exorcists always say to just get a Catholic priest.
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
That can be good advice in some situations but we are intelligent beings, without logic what is the difference between being Catholic and being JW?
😐
They’ll know my respect on that day we are all made alive in Christ and resurrected from the dead. And they will be resipricating because as a fellow believer, I too am a Saint.
"I too am a saint" no. Heretical.
In the Bible, "the Saints" refers to all believers
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209%3A41&version=NRSVCE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012%3A13&version=NRSVCE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2015%3A26&version=NRSVCE
(Deliberately chose the Catholic Edition)
Correct, and in Colossians 1:12 says:
Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
So we could be considered to be such, but we can also lose such status. This is an ongoing process that is complete on the person's passing, making it fitting for saints to be reserved for the reposed. But is a calling for sainthood to those alive
What's the context here? Prayer or just thought life in general?
What’s a saint though?
Someone who has attained theoisis. Through a life of repentance, prayer,humility, including love for God
How do you know when someone else attains theosis?
Great question! This is a quite long answer https://www.oca.org/fs/canonization if you are truly interested
It seems the canonization process recognizes evidence that strongly suggests that a person attained theosis, but it doesnt clearly state whether we know someone did or not. Seeing as how theosis is a personal mystical experience, we can't possibly know if someone else truly attained theosis, only ourselves.
I mean, I don't consider mysticism "wisdom" so that doesn't seem like much of an argument for respecting saints.
But more importantly, define "respecting."
We do.
My King 🙏🙏🙏
Sometimes you don't need all the knowledge and the "Why's" or "How's" (Not talking about Science, its great knowing that stuff and its awesome!)
i think a lot forget those who are followers of Jesus are called saints of heaven
Not while in the earthly relm
Paul addressed those in the churches of Corinth and Ephesus as Saints.
Was he writing to dead people? 🤔
He was either calling them Saints in the present, or he was willing them to be Saints in eternity.
Either way, he calls them Saints. This is what we should be faithfully willing for each other.
It matters not whether it is in the present or eternity.
If the Bible is the inspired word of God, and Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and Paul referred to brothers who were alive in Christ as Saints, why should we not will that same God-given blessing to our brothers and sisters now?
Is it because you think it has to be earned ..?
No. It's because we can lose our salvation at any moment before our departure. It's an elevated status that is reserved for those already passed for a reason
Not until some saints are rescinded
Everyone should give all fellow children of God equal respect, and God the greatest respect.
A Saint is according to the bible, someone who follows Yeshua. Someone who is set apart, sanctified. Many have been conned into thinking saints were those people who are 'above the ordinary human'. No. It's you and me if we have been born again.
That's interesting the way you put that. I respect people. I have more respect for Mother Theresa than just about anybody. I'm not sure if she is a saint yet or not.
However, I believe in Ezekiel we are told that God is not a respecter of titles.
I'm curious why you care about the 'saint' part of it?
Many protestants talk about St. Francis, St. Augustine, and St. Patrick----just to name a few.
I think you might be wrong.
However, if you mean they don't respect 'sainthood' then I see what you mean.
I have a lot of time for Julian of Norwich and Hildegard von Bingen; their wisdom as mystics is timeless. However, I don't believe that they should be placed in a specific post-mortem category, and I find the process of cannonisation to be excessively politicised.
The New Testament tells us that all who have obeyed the gospel are saints, having been sanctified. I think all people should start respecting Gods word more and not adding errant books to the scriptures and telling us to follow the teachings of men! We will be judged by God’s word on judgement day, and Satan is using the teachings of men to destroy us. Everyone would be wise to follow the example of Christian’s in the BIBLE, who searched the scriptures daily Acts 17:11
I'm new to the faith but as far as I understand we all respect the saints
"do not think too much" "do not use the logical mind"
Sounds like "Be stupid, otherwise you cannot see God" to me.
I think it’s perfectly fine to disagree about someone’s theology and still admire them for being holy
100%
Protestants should at least respect, let us say, the literal mother of Jesus. I never get it why so many of them want to attack our lady. Like for sure we have theological disagreement about her, but why attack her?
I don't see Protestants ever attacking Mary. What do you see? What constitutes an attack?
A lot, usually from online, and I believe words such as describing her as a devil is pretty offensive.
Some random people on the internet maybe, but normal Protestants don't call Mary a devil.
How do Protestants attack Mary ?
Some people in my life have died. I believe that Mary is exactly the same kind-of-thing as them, i.e. a formerly mortal human now no longer on Earth who is almost certainly in Heaven. I certainly agree that giving birth to Jesus is an honor no other person has had or ever will have and certainly I respect her for that along with her character as described in the Bible.
I can speak to the people I've lost. I hope they hear me. I have no expectation they can do anything for me, but I keep an eye out. I don't consider my words to them praying, and it's certainly not worship. I don't ask them to put in a good word for me with God. If I want to speak to God, I simply do so.
Some people are concerned there are those who actually do worship Mary as more than human.
[removed]
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry. That is a slur, don't use it here.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity