xjwsforChrist

I get what you're saying, dear P (good morning and peace to you!). I get that dear Augustine may not have been referring to ONLY those persecuted clergy as "saints", and I agree with him that, given Peter's display of weakness, banning folks from the church would have been wrong (although, I marvel that anyone thinks that banning someone from a church is tantamount to banning them from Christ's BODY... as only HE can do that... but some apparently do, via disfellowshipping, shunning, excommunicating, etc.). But I took him as saying that the Body was not a "museum of saints" meaning pristeen relics perfectly preserved (which is what is usually kept in museums).

He COULD, however, have been referring only to the CLERGY as "saints"... but not the LAITY... based on the definition of the term "saint" (usually, someone officially recognized by the church and taken through the process of canonization so as to be "rightly" venerated, most often after death... but not always). And I think that this definition is what dear Tec (peace, luv!) was speaking to.

In which case, I also get what dear tec is saying. She can correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but what I HEAR her saying is:

The Body IS a museum of saints... saints being ALL those of the Body and not just a sundry few "chosen" to be called such by another sundry few. Because the entire Body is chosen... and called to BE saints... by CHRIST... and no on else. So for some to call SOME "saints", versus recognizing them ALL as saints, regardless of their "position" (whether celebrated, lowly, or even totally unknown)... is ridiculous and "against" Christ himself... he, who called them ALL. It is a "museum" in that it is comprised of (and thus "houses") the ENTIRE Body... including those who have fallen asleep (in death)... and regardless of HOW (martyrdom or old age)... while awaiting our dear Lord's return.

And this is true. So, along with "Saint" Thomas... there is Saint little old lady who lives only God knows where. She may not have waged a successful war campaign... or saw some vision... or publicly fed/healed droves... such that she is venerated by the masses today... but if she belongs to Christ she is still a saint. HIS chosen one.

The commentator on this site actually explains it pretty well, IMHO, including the "evolution" of the term "saint":

http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesain ... _Saint.htm

The other links on the page are most interesting, as well, including this one:

http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesain ... Saints.htm

which really befuddles me, as I thought only Christ was our intercessor and so would be the ONLY One we would ask to plead to God FOR us. I guess it can be explained, as the page states, as with asking another to pray for one... but WHY... when we have Christ, our ADVOCATE, to ask? At least, that is what both Christ and John seem to suggest (John 14: 1 John 2:1).

Please note that this is NOT a shot at any particular group of folks but just a truthful statement of truly being befuddled, by what, and why... given where all of this "understanding" is supposed to have come from (I assume the Bible? Else... what/how? Holy spirit? How?).

Again, peace to you both!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama

I'm curious (peace to you all!): why is it "okay" to point out the fallacies, discrepancies, and failings of one particular religion... and that of its members... and not another/others? Seems a bit hypocritical to ME, though, that pointing the finger at others but not wanting fingers pointed at thing... and hypocrisy is something we are to "beware," yes?

Again, just curious. Very.

Peace!

A slave of Christ,

Shellama

Who decides who is a saint?

Indeed, the museum part to contrast the hospital part.



I don't think that, at the time, saints were "officially" anything since there was no official church per say, note like we know it to be now.
Saints were, according to some views, ALL those that were sealed by the HS, not just those that did something "extraordinary".

Canonization of saints came much later, around the 10th century.
Canonization is simply an "official statement" on the sainthood of an individual, usually do to some extraordinary circumstance or service to Christ.

What you are saying about the Church being filled with sinners (the sick who need Christ and who Christ came FOR), Paul, I totally agree. I understand that he was speaking according to the then-current understanding, to point out a different misunderstanding.

I was just quipping that it is not actually accurate, and it struck me as funny some of the saying that we take for granted.

Peace,
tammy

Christ.

Sorry, haven't read anything else yet, that just caught my eye. Going back to read from page two now, to see what's up that I started, lol.

Peace,
tammy

Catholics believe that the goal is for us ALL to become saints:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/becoming-saints

That some saints become "canonized" because of their deeds or their dedication to Christ just means they may have been "set apart for good works", above and beyond the "everyday" saint ( for lack of a better way of putting it).

That is what gives the "illusion" of "different" types of saints and that is what I was trying to show in the posts above.

Does this not imply a separate 'class' of Christian?

Peace,
tammy

RE" Praying to saints:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints

It should be noted that praying to the saints is NOT praying to them instead of God but asking them to pray for US.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Thank you.


Peace,
tammy

It can come off that way, sure.
But at the same time we have to admit that YES, certain Christians are indeed set apart, even from before they were born.
That "difference" does NOT mean better or worse than the rest, just chosen for specific "good works".
A person that is chosen by God to serve is no better or worse than one that God has not set aside for any "special task".

Forgive my... ummmmmm... bluntness, here, dear one (again, peace to you!)... but isn't asking CHRIST to plead for us enough? Shouldn't it be? I understand the verse where it says if one is sick to have the older men come and pray over them. But THAT was for such men to ask for the gift (of JAH's spirit) of HEALING so as to help/relieve/cure such one. And we are admonished by our dear Lord to pray "for" our "enemies."

But when WE need prayer for OURSELVES... who BETTER than Christ to do that? Who better than the ADVOCATE JAH GAVE us??

Just curious as to how some view this. To me, asking YOU to pray for ME... when I can ask CHRIST... would seem to ME to be an utter disrespect of and for HIM... when that is the very reason he was GIVEN us: to plead to God FOR me, intercede with God on my behalf, and provide whatever it is I ASK him for. Which YOU cannot do for me.

Yes?

And... NONE of the Body have been resurrected YET (contrary to the teaching of the WTBTS... and apparently at least one other religion... ALL are still sleeping [in death], albeit under the altar)... so who of them can HEAR me ask ANYTHING of them? In which case, is not praying to THEM the same as praying to spirits, something we are NOT supposed to do??

Really, I am trying to understand the... ummmmmmmm... basis... RATIONALE... for this, praying to members of Christ's Body who have preceded us in (death)... and so are now sleeping (while AWAITING the first resurrection, yes)... and so cannot even HEAR us.

Anything you... or anyone else... can offer to substantiate this would be greatly appreciated. Please note, though, that any such "substantiation" will have to stand up to the "test".

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama

Ah, i think i see my misunderstanding in what you were saying with regard to the quote, Paul. I put 'museum' in brackets, because I knew that word was not accurate. I was focusing on the saint part... as in "the Body of Christ is filled with sinners, not saints". <= that is what I was looking at, and that is inaccurate, since the saints are the members of the Body of Christ.


But you are explaining that the quote is meaning to focus on the hospital (healing) verses the museum (finished product right from the start/perfect) aspect, right?

Gotcha, and thanks!

Peace,
tammy

Set apart by WHOM, dear one, and so what, even if by God Himself (again, peace to you!)? We know that John the Baptizer was set apart by God. Directly. Yet, Christ said that a least one in the kingdom was greater than John. John wasn't even chosen as an APOSTLE!

My understanding is that, after Christ, then the Prophets and Apostles... everyone else is equal. Indeed, the one who is greatest must be the LEAST among us. So how can we lift ANY of us up... regardless of the "good works" they may have done? Peter was literally chosen as one of the 12. A primary apostle! Yet, he denied Christ (and denied TO Christ, who tried to TELL him that he would do it, that he would do it!). Even had to be checked for his hypocrisy.

But he wasn't CHOSEN for his righteousness... or his "works." He was chosen... due to his FAITH. Yet, John had GREAT faith, even to being put to death. As did Stephen!

Yet, neither of these are greater than a LEAST one in the kingdom!

This is quite confusing to me, this outlook that some [of the Body] can be canonized and so venerated over others [of the Body]. AND... that they ARE... due to their WORKS! What, then, of the UNdeserved kindness... and MERCY... that got one chosen in the FIRST place??

I truly don't get it. It seems to me that, yes, there IS an attempt to indicate a separate "class" of "chosen ones." Such that, in somes eyes, some are "saints" and some are not. When ALL are "chosen".

Sort of like the WTBTS' attempts to say one is more "spiritual" than another because of the FS hours they put in, or because they're a "pioneer", or a "Bethelite", or on the GB.

Dangerous stuff, that. And so I'll just keep my veneration limited to God and His Christ. Everyone else... puts their chonies on one leg at a time like everyone else. If they even wear chonies. Otherwise, they put their robes on one head at time. Like everyone else.

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama