First Married couple to be Canonised.

ucseae1

Every Catholic knows who St. Therese of Lisieux. She as inspired millions of us. Great to see her parents made saints today. The First Married Couple to be Canonised.

Of course St. Louis and St. Therese were no strangers to the Vatican. Since it was a young Therese who pleaded with Pope Leo to let her enter the Carmel.

uck51js9zml2yt

Another example of how the RCC has erred in thinking it can "make saints"
The New testament refers again an again to the Saints in the city. They were the church, the called out ones.They were very much alive.

Not dead people who were given a title.

Manach

Lovely news and another exemplar of which the Church provides to provide guidance for a better community of families.

La Fenetre

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

Another example of how the RCC has erred in thinking it can "make saints"
The New testament refers again an again to the Saints in the city. They were the church, the called out ones.They were very much alive.

Not dead people who were given a title.

Again with another unchristian and in-factual post about fellow Christians. We are all called to be saints and to follow the example of the saints, and we can all be saints. All Christians in heaven are automatically and by definition, saints, they are not "dead people given a title" for you to slur their good name. A little Christian respect for fellow Christians, Saint Therese's Mother and Father, would go a long way.

pauldla

^^^^

Deceased fellow Christians. Not 'fellow deceased Christians'. Still warm is the blood that runs through tatranska's veins, I am sure (and long may it remain that way, may I add!).

Nit-pick over. You may return to your other nitpicking.

Delirium

La Fenetre wrote: »

Again with another unchristian and in-factual post about fellow Christians. We are all called to be saints and to follow the example of the saints, and we can all be saints. All Christians in heaven are automatically and by definition, saints, they are not "dead people given a title" for you to slur their good name. A little Christian respect for fellow Christians, Saint Therese's Mother and Father, would go a long way.

Is the RCC making people saints not somewhat redundant then?

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

Is the RCC making people saints not somewhat redundant then?

You beat me to it
If all are automatically saints in heaven why the process,declaration and giving of the title.
It seems LA Fenetre doesn't know what his denominations teaches regarding sainthood!

Still doesn't answer the biblical concept that those who are truely born of God are saints in this life.

Peregrinus

Tatranska, you're in grave danger of becoming the next hinault!

We know you're not a Catholic. That's fine. Catholics (with a very few exceptiosn, no names, no pack drill) are not bothered by the fact that some people aren't Catholic.

You really don't need to leap into every single thread, offer some crude distortion of Catholicism, and then denounce it as an error, unbiblical, or whatever. As a form of Christian witness, it's having very much the reverse outcome of the one you probably hope for.

Canonisation doesn't "make" anyone a saint. So the error your post calls attention to here is not the RCC's; it's yours. You should probably not accuse La Fenetre of not knowing what his denomination teaches about sainthood. As you yourself plainly have no idea what the RCC teaches on this subject, you are not well positioned to affirm or refute what others think.

What canonisation does is to provide authoritative (for Catholics) recognition the sanctity of the individual canonised. There is no claim, or pretence, that the only saints are those who have been formally canonised (and in fact a great many well-established saints have never been formally canonised). There is no claim that living people cannot be equally saintly, but it's not the practice to canonise anyone still living.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tatranska, you're in grave danger of becoming the next hinault!

We know you're not a Catholic. That's fine. Catholics (with a very few exceptiosn, no names, no pack drill) are not bothered by the fact that some people aren't Catholic.

You really don't need to leap into every single thread, offer some crude distortion of Catholicism, and then denounce it as an error, unbiblical, or whatever. As a form of Christian witness, it's having very much the reverse outcome of the one you probably hope for.

Canonisation doesn't "make" anyone a saint. So the error your post calls attention to here is not the RCC's; it's yours. You should probably not accuse La Fenetre of not knowing what his denomination teaches about sainthood. As you yourself plainly have no idea what the RCC teaches on this subject, you are not well positioned to affirm or refute what others think.

What canonisation does is to provide authoritative (for Catholics) recognition the sanctity of the individual canonised. There is no claim, or pretence, that the only saints are those who have been formally canonised (and in fact a great many well-established saints have never been formally canonised). There is no claim that living people cannot be equally saintly, but it's not the practice to canonise anyone still living.

I'm not sure whether I should be insulted by your insinuation that getting like hinault
Technically I'm still RC as there is no way of leaving but that's by the way.
A person is made a saint upon examination of their lives and by miracles being attributed to them.
After satisfying the criteria they are elevated to the position of sainthood.

The idea that a dead person can mediate between God and men is erroneous.
Even the parable of the rich man and Larazus makes this clear.
There is only One Mediator, Jesus Christ. To say anyone else can mediate is a lie.
In the Old Testament contacting the dead is expressly forbidden. I see nowhere that God changed His mind on this.

Thinkingaboutit

Delirium wrote: »

Is the RCC making people saints not somewhat redundant then?

A canonised Saint is someone the Church see as a model of Christian life. They could have given witness as martyrs or done the ordinary things of the Faith well. The idea is that a Catholic can learn something, be inspired by this member of the Church Triumphant.

uck51js9zml2yt

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

A canonised Saint is someone the Church see as a model of Christian life. They could have given witness as martyrs or done the ordinary things of the Faith well. The idea is that a Catholic can learn something, be inspired by this member of the Church Triumphant.

You're leaving out that people will have purported to pray to them and been healed.
As scripture says we can't contact the dead and there was only One Mediator for men with God that above is questionable.
Imagination is a great thing

hotmail.com

How does anyone believe this nonsense?

Delirium

hotmail.com wrote: »

How does anyone believe this nonsense?

MOD NOTE

Referring to Christian beliefs as nonsense is not appropriate language for this forum.

Please remember that in any future postings.

Thanks for your attention.

ucseae1

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

Another example of how the RCC has erred in thinking it can "make saints"
The New testament refers again an again to the Saints in the city. They were the church, the called out ones.They were very much alive.

Not dead people who were given a title.

The Catholic Church does not make saints. The canonisation process only says that the person is in Heaven.

Do you object to Catholics saying that someone is in heaven?

ucseae1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tatranska, you're in grave danger of becoming the next hinault!

We know you're not a Catholic. That's fine. Catholics (with a very few exceptiosn, no names, no pack drill) are not bothered by the fact that some people aren't Catholic.

You really don't need to leap into every single thread, offer some crude distortion of Catholicism, and then denounce it as an error, unbiblical, or whatever. As a form of Christian witness, it's having very much the reverse outcome of the one you probably hope for.

Canonisation doesn't "make" anyone a saint. So the error your post calls attention to here is not the RCC's; it's yours. You should probably not accuse La Fenetre of not knowing what his denomination teaches about sainthood. As you yourself plainly have no idea what the RCC teaches on this subject, you are not well positioned to affirm or refute what others think.

What canonisation does is to provide authoritative (for Catholics) recognition the sanctity of the individual canonised. There is no claim, or pretence, that the only saints are those who have been formally canonised (and in fact a great many well-established saints have never been formally canonised). There is no claim that living people cannot be equally saintly, but it's not the practice to canonise anyone still living.

Thanks, I was going to post something like that.. I was just too taken aback by the the posters attack. After all the thread is pretty innocent, I didn't expect to open a whole Catholic/Protestant debate on this.

The Martins lived a pretty simple life.

uck51js9zml2yt

ucseae1 wrote: »

Thanks, I was going to post something like that.. I was just too taken aback by the the posters attack. After all the thread is pretty innocent, I didn't expect to open a whole Catholic/Protestant debate on this.
A
The Martins lived a pretty simple life.

Firstly, I never opened any protestant/catholic debate . I'm not protestant so it would be an impossibility.
Secondly, I pointed towards Scripture and asked how this practice is justified by it...quiet simply, I don't see that it is.
If you want to justify it,please do so using the Word of God rather than catechism texts.

Peregrinus

Well, Christians ask other Christians to pray for them all the time. Do you not pray for one another in your own tradition, tatranska? And to you not ask others to pray for you, or for your intentions or desires or needs?

Right, so. Assuming you ask living Christians to pray for you, and to pray with you, is there any objection to asking dead Christians to do so? Are we to suppose that the dead cannot or will not pray? Or that they are not part of the same communion of saints as ourselves? The Catholic practice of invoking the saints reflects a belief that the saints are alive - more fully alive than we are, if the truth be told - and that they and we are part of the same church, and that we pray for one another and with one another.

keano_afc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, Christians ask other Christians to pray for them all the time. Do you not pray for one another in your own tradition, tatranska? And to you not ask others to pray for you, or for your intentions or desires or needs?

Right, so. Assuming you ask living Christians to pray for you, and to pray with you, is there any objection to asking dead Christians to do so? Are we to suppose that the dead cannot or will not pray? Or that they are not part of the same communion of saints as ourselves? The Catholic practice of invoking the saints reflects a belief that the saints are alive - more fully alive than we are, if the truth be told - and that they and we are part of the same church, and that we pray for one another and with one another.

Yes, as the dead cannot hear us. I know there are friends of mine who are in heaven, but I dont pray to them. They cant hear me.

Peregrinus

keano_afc wrote: »

Yes, as the dead cannot hear us. I know there are friends of mine who are in heaven, but I dont pray to them. They cant hear me.

You seem to know rather more about conditions in the afterlife than the rest of us would claim to! How do you know this?

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, Christians ask other Christians to pray for them all the time. Do you not pray for one another in your own tradition, tatranska? And to you not ask others to pray for you, or for your intentions or desires or needs?

Right, so. Assuming you ask living Christians to pray for you, and to pray with you, is there any objection to asking dead Christians to do so? Are we to suppose that the dead cannot or will not pray? Or that they are not part of the same communion of saints as ourselves? The Catholic practice of invoking the saints reflects a belief that the saints are alive - more fully alive than we are, if the truth be told - and that they and we are part of the same church, and that we pray for one another and with one another.

You ignore the parable Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus.in it he made it clear that there is no interaction between the living and the dead. The RCC seems to think it knows more.
Trying to Contact the dead is nothing more than necromancy and forbidden in scripture.

Peregrinus

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

You ignore the parable Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus.in it he made it clear that there is no interaction between the living and the dead. The RCC seems to think it knows more.

It's a parable, Tat. A parable is a fabricated tale told to illustrate a particular point. It's not a useful guide to anything other than the point it is fabricated to illustrate. The point of that parable is not the illustration of conditions in the afterlife, just like the point of the parable of the sower is not good agricultural practice.

Virtually all Christians affirm the communion of saints - it's right there in the creed. And communion does involve communication - there's a bit of a clue in the name. The notion that the saints in heaven can't know about, and don't care about, and don't participate in, the concerns of the saints on earth is not one that I find in scripture.

keano_afc

Peregrinus wrote: »

You seem to know rather more about conditions in the afterlife than the rest of us would claim to! How do you know this?

There is nothing in scripture to suggest the dead can hear us. Are you assuming they can?

We are told there is one advocate between us and God, His Son Jesus. Thats good enough for me. I dont feel the need to pray to anyone else.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a parable, Tat. A parable is a fabricated tale told to illustrate a particular point. It's not a useful guide to anything other than the point it is fabricated to illustrate. The point of that parable is not the illustration of conditions in the afterlife, just like the point of the parable of the sower is not good agricultural practice.

Virtually all Christians affirm the communion of saints - it's right there in the creed. And communion does involve communication - there's a bit of a clue in the name. The notion that the saints in heaven can't know about, and don't care about, and don't participate in, the concerns of the saints on earth is not one that I find in scripture.

Your getting your parables mixed up but it seems you care to ignore even the sayings of Jesus if they contradict your position on contacting the dead.

Peregrinus

keano_afc wrote: »

There is nothing in scripture to suggest the dead can hear us. Are you assuming they can?

No, I'm querying your assertion that they can't. How do you know this?

keano_afc wrote: »

We are told there is one advocate between us and God, His Son Jesus. Thats good enough for me. I dont feel the need to pray to anyone else.

You don't feel the need? That's fine; nobody is demanding that you pray to anyone else. That doesn't really answer the question I asked, though.

Peregrinus

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

Your getting your parables mixed up but it seems you care to ignore even the sayings of Jesus if they contradict your position on contacting the dead.

Forgive me, Pope Tatranska, I didn't realise it was you I was speaking to. I thought it was a different Tatranska of the same name. That Tatranska would never treat his own interpretation of scripture as something that all other Christians must accept with religious submission of will and intellect.

keano_afc

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I'm querying your assertion that they can't. How do you know this?

Scripture tells us we have one advocate, not hundreds. Thats good enough for me.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Forgive me, Pope Tatranska, I didn't realise it was you I was speaking to. I thought it was a different Tatranska of the same name. That Tatranska would never treat his own interpretation of scripture as something that all other Christians must accept with religious submission of will and intellect.

The use of the phrase "all other christians " is certainly presumptuous. Can you speak for them all ?

ucseae1

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

Firstly, I never opened any protestant/catholic debate . I'm not protestant so it would be an impossibility.
Secondly, I pointed towards Scripture and asked how this practice is justified by it...quiet simply, I don't see that it is.
If you want to justify it,please do so using the Word of God rather than catechism texts.

Tatranska.

You will need to accept that Catholics have 3 points of reference in our faith.

The Bible
Tradition (the biblical meaning of tradition)
Magisterium.

So I you are on some proselytism mission here. Please stop. There is not need to debate this here. Open your own thread.

uck51js9zml2yt

ucseae1 wrote: »

Tatranska.

You will need to accept that Catholics have 3 points of reference in our faith.

The Bible
Tradition (the biblical meaning of tradition)
Magisterium.

So I you are on some proselytism mission here. Please stop. There is not need to debate this here. Open your own thread.

It seems tradition and the magesterium take precedence over the bible as much of RCC dogma is not found in the bible.

Just a question for you
You said the canonisation of a person says they are in heaven?
Were they not in heaven since death? If they weren't and were in purgatory who has authority to say they are no longer there?

I'm not on any mission but as this is an open forum I'm always happy to debate an issue.
Do you think I shouldn't be posting on threads relating to the RCC?

Peregrinus

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

The use of the phrase "all other christians " is certainly presumptuous. Can you speak for them all ?

Well, you obviously think I should accept your interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as authoritative. And I can't imagine that you have singled me out from all Christians as uniquely bound to accept your interpretations of scripture. If you think this intepretation is authoritative for me, you must think it is equally authoritative for everyone else, no?

ucseae1

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

It seems tradition and the magesterium take precedence over the bible as much of RCC dogma is not found in the bible.

Just a question for you
You said the canonisation of a person says they are in heaven?
Were they not in heaven since death? If they weren't and were in purgatory who has authority to say they are no longer there?

I'm not on any mission but as this is an open forum I'm always happy to debate an issue.
Do you think I shouldn't be posting on threads relating to the RCC?

Where do you want to take the discussion? If its not about the parents of st. therese of lisieux then please open a new thread. Otherwise it goes off topic. The thread is only about The Married couple that were Canonised in the Catholic church.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you obviously think I should accept your interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as authoritative. And I can't imagine that you have singled me out from all Christians as uniquely bound to accept your interpretations of scripture. If you think this intepretation is authoritative for me, you must think it is equally authoritative for everyone else, no?

Please let us know your take on the passage.

uck51js9zml2yt

ucseae1 wrote: »

Where do you want to take the discussion? If its not about the parents of st. therese of lisieux then please open a new thread. Otherwise it goes off topic. The thread is only about The Married couple that were Canonised in the Catholic church.

I'd love you to answer my question from the last post you quoted.

Peregrinus

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

Please let us know your take on the passage.

Well, I don't think it has much relevance, one way or the other, to the practice of invoking the intercession of the saints in heaven. Nobody in the parable invokes the dead in any way, or attempts to do so. It seems to me that the parable points to:

1. The finality of judgment; the rich man cannot be relieved in his torment.

2. The blindness/hard-heartedness of those who will not heed Moses and the prophets (i.e. the scriptures) - even if God sent them a miraculous resurrection, they wouldn't heed that either. (Which, of course, happened.)

There are obviously other themes - justice, the obligations of wealth, solidarity with the poor, etc. And the reversal of the situations of the rich man and Lazarus echoes themes from the Sermon on the Mount.

hinault

ucseae1 wrote: »

Thanks, I was going to post something like that.. I was just too taken aback by the the posters attack. After all the thread is pretty innocent, I didn't expect to open a whole Catholic/Protestant debate on this.

The Martins lived a pretty simple life.

Tatranska is protestant.

I don't know why those here who say that they're Catholic insist on exchanging messages about issues which are dogmatic with protestants here.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Tatranska is protestant.

I don't know why those here who say that they're Catholic insist on exchanging messages about issues which are dogmatic with protestants here.

Tatraska is not a Protestant. He has said so repeatedly.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I don't think it has much relevance, one way or the other, to the practice of invoking the intercession of the saints in heaven. Nobody in the parable invokes the dead in any way, or attempts to do so. It seems to me that the parable points to:

1. The finality of judgment; the rich man cannot be relieved in his torment.

2. The blindness/hard-heartedness of those who will not heed Moses and the prophets (i.e. the scriptures) - even if God sent them a miraculous resurrection, they wouldn't heed that either. (Which, of course, happened.)

There are obviously other themes - justice, the obligations of wealth, solidarity with the poor, etc. And the reversal of the situations of the rich man and Lazarus echoes themes from the Sermon on the Mount.

You unsurprisingly ommitted any reference to verse 26 of that passage that a chasm existed between the dead and the living and there was no communication possible between either.
But then your understanding of the bible is doubtful considering you said this was the parable of the sower.

Thanks for clearing up hinault misconception of me.He obviously never read my posts

La Fenetre

ucseae1 wrote: »

Thanks, I was going to post something like that.. I was just too taken aback by the the posters attack. After all the thread is pretty innocent, I didn't expect to open a whole Catholic/Protestant debate on this.

The Martins lived a pretty simple life.

From what I've seen of the forum so far, some posters are encouraged in making sure the OP of every thread is ignored while, while packing in as many unchristian false criticisms as possible against their fellow Christians, while professing to be one of the few true Christians. About as far from Christianity as you can get if you ask me. Perhaps that's the plan.

La Fenetre

In the off chance someone is interested in the actual OP :

St. Thérèse of Lisieux (France), is one of the most popular saints because of the simplicity and practicality of her approach to the spiritual life. She is also listed as one of only 36 Doctors of the Catholic Church in history, due to her outstanding contribution to theology. She is co-patron saint of France along with Joan of Arc.
When asked why she wanted to enter the Carmelites, she answered "I came to save souls, and especially to pray for priests".

Her parents were, Louis Martin and Marie Guerin Martin.
Married in 1858, the couple had nine children, four died in infancy and five entered religious life. During their 19-year marriage, the couple was known to attend Mass daily, pray and fast, respect the Sabbath, visit the elderly and the sick, and welcome the poor into their home.

Most of the above details are from NCR (sorry, I can't do links)

Over the years, a number of prominent people have become devotees of St. Thérèse. These include:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio - Pope Francis
Albino Luciani – Pope John Paul I
Henri Bergson – Nobel prize winner
Padre Pio of Pietrelcina – Italian saint
Ada Negri – Italian poet
Giuseppe Moscati – Italian saint
Maria Valtorta – Catholic mystic
Paul James Francis Wattson - Founder of the Atonement Friars
Francis Bourne – British Cardinal
Thomas Merton – monk and writer
Dorothy Day – co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement
Georges Bernanos – French author
Fernando del Valle - Operatic Tenor
Jack Kerouac – American author
Maximilian Kolbe – Polish saint and martyr of Auschwitz
Jean Vanier – founder of l'Arche
Édith Piaf - French singer
Mother Teresa of Calcutta - Blessed and Foundress of the Missionaries of
Alphonsa - First Indian Saint
Anna Schaffer - German Saint
Alain Mimoun - Olympic marathon champion
Henri Bergson - Nobel prize winner

above list from wiki

ucseae1

“Then, overcome by joy, I cried, 'Jesus, my love. At last I have found my vocation. My vocation is love. In the heart of the Church, my mother, I will be love, and then I will be all things.”
― Thérèse de Lisieux

Peregrinus

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

You unsurprisingly ommitted any reference to verse 26 of that passage that a chasm existed between the dead and the living and there was no communication possible between either.

I omitted any reference to v. 26 because it doesn't say what you think it says. Read it again. The chasm mentioned in v. 26 is not between the dead and the living; it's between Dives in his torment, on the one hand, and Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, on the other. They're both dead. This is a chasm between the saved and the lost, not between the living and the dead. It ties in with the "finality of judgment" theme that I mentioned earlier.

And, furthermore, the chasm doesn't mean that "no communication is possible"; in that very verse Abraham and Dives are in fact communicating across the chasm. What it prevents is passage from the condition of the lost to the condition of the saved. (Finality, again.)

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

But then your understanding of the bible is doubtful considering you said this was the parable of the sower.

No, I didn't. I said that this parable wasn't about conditions in the afterlife, just as the parable of the sower is not about good agricultural practices. I was illustrating the nature of parables generally by offering more than one example.

Ridge Rich Gold wrote: »

Thanks for clearing up hinault misconception of me.He obviously never read my posts

I think you may be on his ignore list. I'm on it too, I believe, so presumably he won't see the correction. I posted it mainly for the benefit of other board users, to prevent them from being confused by hinault's misconconception.

hinault

La Fenetre wrote: »

In the off chance someone is interested in the actual OP :

St. Thérèse of Lisieux (France), is one of the most popular saints because of the simplicity and practicality of her approach to the spiritual life. She is also listed as one of only 36 Doctors of the Catholic Church in history, due to her outstanding contribution to theology. She is co-patron saint of France along with Joan of Arc.
When asked why she wanted to enter the Carmelites, she answered "I came to save souls, and especially to pray for priests".

Her parents were, Louis Martin and Marie Guerin Martin.
Married in 1858, the couple had nine children, four died in infancy and five entered religious life. During their 19-year marriage, the couple was known to attend Mass daily, pray and fast, respect the Sabbath, visit the elderly and the sick, and welcome the poor into their home.

Most of the above details are from NCR (sorry, I can't do links)

Over the years, a number of prominent people have become devotees of St. Thérèse. These include:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio - Pope Francis
Albino Luciani – Pope John Paul I
Henri Bergson – Nobel prize winner
Padre Pio of Pietrelcina – Italian saint
Ada Negri – Italian poet
Giuseppe Moscati – Italian saint
Maria Valtorta – Catholic mystic
Paul James Francis Wattson - Founder of the Atonement Friars
Francis Bourne – British Cardinal
Thomas Merton – monk and writer
Dorothy Day – co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement
Georges Bernanos – French author
Fernando del Valle - Operatic Tenor
Jack Kerouac – American author
Maximilian Kolbe – Polish saint and martyr of Auschwitz
Jean Vanier – founder of l'Arche
Édith Piaf - French singer
Mother Teresa of Calcutta - Blessed and Foundress of the Missionaries of
Alphonsa - First Indian Saint
Anna Schaffer - German Saint
Alain Mimoun - Olympic marathon champion
Henri Bergson - Nobel prize winner

above list from wiki

Very interesting post.

I didn't know that St. Thérèse of Lisieux is co-patron saint of France.

katydid

ucseae1 wrote: »

Every Catholic knows who St. Therese of Lisieux. She as inspired millions of us. Great to see her parents made saints today. The First Married Couple to be Canonised.

Of course St. Louis and St. Therese were no strangers to the Vatican. Since it was a young Therese who pleaded with Pope Leo to let her enter the Carmel.

They are made saints because their daughter was made a saint???? Seriously?

This whole canonisation thing is becoming more and more of a joke. First they fast track JPII, now this.

Ridiculous

katydid

Manach wrote: »

Lovely news and another exemplar of which the Church provides to provide guidance for a better community of families.

How does it do this? Surely all it does is show how silly the canonisation business is, not that family is good.

katydid

La Fenetre wrote: »

Again with another unchristian and in-factual post about fellow Christians. We are all called to be saints and to follow the example of the saints, and we can all be saints. All Christians in heaven are automatically and by definition, saints, they are not "dead people given a title" for you to slur their good name. A little Christian respect for fellow Christians, Saint Therese's Mother and Father, would go a long way.

But what makes these two people any more saintly than you or me? That they happened to be the parents of someone the church already considered a saint?

Does this mean that from now on, all the parents of all the saints will be canonised?

katydid

La Fenetre wrote: »

Her parents were, Louis Martin and Marie Guerin Martin.
Married in 1858, the couple had nine children, four died in infancy and five entered religious life. During their 19-year marriage, the couple was known to attend Mass daily, pray and fast, respect the Sabbath, visit the elderly and the sick, and welcome the poor into their home.

So, just like millions of other people. Are we now going to see millions of canonisations?

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

A canonised Saint is someone the Church see as a model of Christian life. They could have given witness as martyrs or done the ordinary things of the Faith well. The idea is that a Catholic can learn something, be inspired by this member of the Church Triumphant.

And what did these people do that millions of good people didn't do?

katydid

ucseae1 wrote: »

The Catholic Church does not make saints. The canonisation process only says that the person is in Heaven.

Do you object to Catholics saying that someone is in heaven?

How do they know they are in heaven? And does that mean that people who aren't canonised aren't in heaven?

All sounds very strange.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Tatranska is protestant.
.

He is not. He has told you this repeatedly. Why can you not respect him?

La Fenetre

katydid wrote: »

But what makes these two people any more saintly than you or me? That they happened to be the parents of someone the church already considered a saint?

katydid wrote: »

Does this mean that from now on, all the parents of all the saints will be canonised?

katydid wrote: »

So, just like millions of other people. Are we now going to see millions of canonisations?

katydid wrote: »

And what did these people do that millions of good people didn't do?

We're all called to be saints, everyone who is in heaven is a saint. I would have thought that's the whole point, that it's also very achievable for all of us, and we should aim for it. Canonisation is an acknowledgement, that here is an example of a faith, all types of lives, all types of situations, all walks of life, can be saints. I'm pretty sure other Christian denominations have their version of saints too , whether they use the same or different terms. I know the Anglican church has saints.

Peregrinus

Yup. There is no claim that only the canonised are saints, or that only the canonised are in heaven. People get canonised because they are exemplars; they only get to be exemplars because, for one reason or another, their exemplary lives become well-known. Being well-known is not in itself a virtue*, but it's a practically necessary condition for canonisation.

Canonisation started out as a control mechanism. In the early church people were venerated, had their tombs visited, had shrines erected, etc, out of local popular piety. (This is how most of the traditional Irish saints got "sainted".) Since popularity is not necessarily the same thing as virtue, this led to some controversial or embarrassing cults of saints, including some of saints that were entirely fictional. Hence, a canonisation process emerged whereby you weren't allowed to organise a cult, dedicate a church, fix a feast day, etc for somebody unless that person's heroic virtue and sanctity had been investigated and established in a formal process of scrutiny, initially by local bishops. Over a period between the 10th and 11th centuries, the canonisation process moved from the local bishops to Rome.

In the orthodox church the analogous process is called "glorification" but it's basically the same thing. It's done by bishops under the auspices of the synod.

Obviously, people only get canonised (or glorified) because other people want to venerate them, and that only happens because there is already recognition of their outstanding holiness and virtue. That doesn't mean that there aren't many millions of uncanonised saints. To quote George Eliot:

"The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”

* Except for the Kardashian sisters, obviously.