Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[Walter]

You are correct. A lot can be solved by going to scripture. Scripture refers to all believers as saints, just as it refers to all believers as priests.

And the Catholic Church does not say that all believers are not saints. Perhaps re-reading the responses by Catholics to the OP would be beneficial.

TS posted:

"This is an often miscontrued view of Catholic thought. The wrong perception is that Catholics believe that a person is not a "saint" unless given that title by the Church. This is in fact wrong. Catholics believe all who believe in Jesus Christ and are conforming their life to that of Jesus Christ are indeed saints. The title Saints is significant in that the title (though not exclusive to just those people) applies to people who have extrodinarily followed in an exempliary form, Jesus teachings. They are people who's testimony are so exemplary that we should follow their example as Paul taught his students to follow his example. However, just because someone isn't afford the "Title" of "Saints" doesn't mean they are not a saint. One of the many Missions of the Church is to lead people to be Saints in all aspects of what that means."

 

[Thomas Helwys]

A lot can be, but not everything. Hence the need for Tradition.

WM

And if tradition contradicts scripture or cannot be confirmed by scripture, what then? Since scripture is the foundational written record of the apostles' teachings and those of Jesus, they must have the primacy of authority. Most non-Catholics hold this, while Catholics make tradition equal to or above scripture. The Roman variety of Catholicism adds continuing revelation to the mix and puts that above scripture, as well.

I value the writings of the early church fathers especially, but where they are not in accord with scripture, or contradict scripture, I disregard them.

A footnote: See, it is possible for even us to have a civil discussion.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And the Catholic Church does not say that all believers are not saints. Perhaps re-reading the responses by Catholics to the OP would be beneficial.

TS posted:

"This is an often miscontrued view of Catholic thought. The wrong perception is that Catholics believe that a person is not a "saint" unless given that title by the Church. This is in fact wrong. Catholics believe all who believe in Jesus Christ and are conforming their life to that of Jesus Christ are indeed saints. The title Saints is significant in that the title (though not exclusive to just those people) applies to people who have extrodinarily followed in an exempliary form, Jesus teachings. They are people who's testimony are so exemplary that we should follow their example as Paul taught his students to follow his example. However, just because someone isn't afford the "Title" of "Saints" doesn't mean they are not a saint. One of the many Missions of the Church is to lead people to be Saints in all aspects of what that means."

The whole thing is an exercise in futility. What man or organization can truly know the heart, mind, and motivation of another, so as to pronounce that person a saint?

 

[saturneptune]

In my opinon the denomination to which you belong - if indicative of your beliefs, "...is a cult and a puppet of the devil himself". Do you see the folly of your tatics? They do not advance the discussion in any meaningful way.

WM

When you decide to make a post that does not include me, TS, Walter, or TH, like the moderator said to do, then I will respond. The rest of us have done this. Focus on the beliefs of the two denominations.

 

[WestminsterMan]

When you decide to make a post that does not include me, TS, Walter, or TH, like the moderator said to do, then I will respond. The rest of us have done this. Focus on the beliefs of the two denominations.

DHK's post was basically a warning to keep it civil. I don't know what you are talking about. Besides, I responded to your post about Catholicism. And since I'm a Catholic then...

WM

 

[saturneptune]

DHK's post was basically a warning to keep it civil. I don't know what you are talking about. Besides, I responded to your post about Catholicism. And since I'm a Catholic then...

WM

And civil I will stay. You will never catch me off guard like that again.

 

[WestminsterMan]

The whole thing is an exercise in futility. What man or organization can truly know the heart, mind, and motivation of another, so as to pronounce that person a saint?

What gives a pastor the right to eulogize someone at their funeral? What man or organization can truly know the heart, mind, and motivation of another? No one can and that's that's not what the RCC does. They, like the pastor in my example, looks at the way that person lived their life and decides based upon a set of criteria (like the pastor, only codified over the centuries) and decides whether to set them up as an example to follow in structuring their lives or not. That's all. The RCC goes a little further and states that because this person meets a certain standard, then they are "most likely" a saint and in heaven. Do they state categorically that the Church knows for sure? No - that's not possible. The Church never says who is in heaven or even who is in hell for that matter.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

When you decide to make a post that does not include me, TS, Walter, or TH, like the moderator said to do, then I will respond. The rest of us have done this. Focus on the beliefs of the two denominations.

I would like for you to explain what you are talking about here. Seriously, I am confused.

WM

 

[saturneptune]

I would like for you to explain what you are talking about here. Seriously, I am confused.

WM

OK now focus. This quote by you was after the warning.

"In my opinon the denomination to which you belong - if indicative of your beliefs, "...is a cult and a puppet of the devil himself". Do you see the folly of your tatics? They do not advance the discussion in any meaningful way."

You did exactly what he said not to, put me or any individual in the post. The focus is on the denominations and the merits of each. Note the words you and your

 

[Zenas]

And if tradition contradicts scripture or cannot be confirmed by scripture, what then?

Tradition never contradicts scripture and it can always be confirmed by scripture, although not always in a way that you would find acceptable.

Since scripture is the foundational written record of the apostles' teachings and those of Jesus, they must have the primacy of authority.

TH, you have made a major point here without an iota of support for it. Indeed the only support you have is your Protestant/Evangelical tradition of sola scriptura. In fact the Church is the repository of the deposit of faith. Jude 3. Jesus said, "He [the Holy Spirit] will guide you into all truth." Jesus was at the time speaking privately to His disciples who were about to become His Church. Jesus did not say, "Write a New Testament so others behind you will have the gospel message." Rather, He told them to preach, teach and baptize.

The Roman variety of Catholicism adds continuing revelation to the mix and puts that above scripture, as well.

Unless I am mistaken this is the second time you have said this on this thread. Let me be emphatic here, Roman Catholics DO NOT believe in continuing revelation. Indeed it is Catholic dogma that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.

 

[WestminsterMan]

OK now focus. This quote by you was after the warning.

"In my opinon the denomination to which you belong - if indicative of your beliefs, "...is a cult and a puppet of the devil himself". Do you see the folly of your tatics? They do not advance the discussion in any meaningful way."

You did exactly what he said not to, put me or any individual in the post. The focus is on the denominations and the merits of each. Note the words you and your

First, you did not answer my question. Second... I was only quoting back to you your own words - you didn't even notice that did you. Perhaps you should focus on that.

WM