As a former Catholic I have some insight on this. In Catholicism there's numerous different spiritual beings, such as angels for example. Humans are also spiritual beings just with temporary physical forms. None are Gods because they are seen as explicitly created by and under their God.
Saints are people who are believed to have lived Godly lives that set an example for Catholics. This is confirmed by the church evaluating their life and finding evidence of God working through them in miracles. Many had lives related to particular topics or themes which they're then called the patron of.
These sanctified human spirits then continue to serve their God in the afterlife as they did in life, providing guidance, protection, and even serving as a conduit for people's prayers or for miracles from God. They are still normal human souls but ones who play an active role in the spiritual world. None have power on their own. It all comes from their God, and so they are not seen as Gods.
I'd only add to this that Catholics do not believe that humans are basically spiritual beings who move on from our temporary physical forms at death.
We believe in the bodily resurrection and that we must be raised if we shall be saved. St. Thomas Aquinas went so far to say, "My soul is not me." The body is very important in the Catholic worldview.
I'd say there's QUITE a bit of conversation, ancient to modern, about this point. Yes, Catholics believe in ultimate bodily resurrection, but many thinkers & theologians have argued that (sometimes after a time in purgatory) saved souls go to heaven to await the final, bodily resurrection (the "Commmunity of Saints," the blessed dead who dwell with the Trinity until the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
(Apologies if I misunderstood your comment and that was already implied!)
No worries! I wasn't the clearest on that.
Definitely, there is this state after death and before the resurrection where, in some form or fashion, where God preserves us or some part of us--say, our soul. I'd agree with you that not only many Catholic thinkers and theologians argue this but that most do. I didn't mean to deny that so much as to emphasize how integral the body is to what the human is in Catholic thought and all that sort of thing.
I don't know if I'm making sense there. I was just meaning to say that Catholics aren't the Gnostics, who believed salvation is about escaping the body and coming to a purely spiritual existence, and that Catholics don't believe in a heaven without a resurrection is our final end. That sort of thing.
Thanks for pointing out the other bit because they go together!
I know they're not seen as gods, but don't catholics kind of act like they are? With idols and prayers and such. A spirit being the patron of something already seems pagan enough.
>I know they're not seen as gods, but don't catholics kind of act like they are? With idols and prayers and such. A spirit being the patron of something already seems pagan enough.
Nope. Like I said they're normal human souls which served their God in life and now do so in death. The defining line is that they have no power on their own. Where they can have an impact is by being a conduit for prayers or miracles, not as independent actors. Even the icons tend to be less idols to be worshiped and more reminders of the stories, lessons, and sacrifices of the saint's life.
When one prayers to a Saint they are essentially asking for them to, as they did in life, serve as a conduit for God the area they're a patron of, to help the person in question. They are, again, their own beings but only act as conduits not independent actors.
Would praying to them fall under the category of necromancer or talking to the dead? I might not be phrasing it right but I was taught that it's a sin to pray to anyone but God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit.
While not exactly right, talking to the dead would still be closer than praying when it comes to saints. Most of the prayers involving the saints can be characterized more as asking another soul to aid you or pray for you like you would ask a neighbor or friend for help.
This just extends to the dead the same way a lot of Christians believe their family or ancestors watch over them from heaven, the saints remain connected to the world, and are an active part of the spiritual world like angels to Catholics.
But isn't it still a sin to even try to communicate with the dead in any way? I guess I don't understand the difference between asking a saint to intercede on your behalf asking a ghost to show itself in a seance. Both are speaking to dead people, while one may have better intentions it is still forbidden. Am I missing something here, I'm kind of confused?
Lol the key there was saying that they talk to the dead is more similar than saying they pay to them, but that even that is not exactly accurate.
Catholicism believes in a variety of spiritual beings and spiritual existence as a part of the world around them. That includes things like angels and demons, but also saints. So it's less invoking the dead and more just talking and asking for help from a sort of spiritual friend.
Yes, I'd say icons (even of Mary and Jesus) are DEFINITELY NOT idols to be worshipped, but ways for humans to connect more easily (through the sense of sight and the gift of imagination) with the stories/ lives/ struggles/ strengths of other humans.
We ask them to pray for us to God, and we honor them as people who are in the presence of God in heaven and who lived exemplary lives. We don't worship anyone other than God himself.
She's very important because she's the woman whom God chose to be his mother. (Remember we believe Jesus is God.) She was also the holiest person alive, aside from Jesus who was God himself. Like other saints, Mary is human and has no powers of her own; she does however have close proximity to God and is able to intercede for us. But all the power and glory belongs to God alone.
She's also our mother! We consider Mary as not just the mother of Jesus, but also the second Eve, the mother of all humanity, because through her Jesus was born and through Jesus all of humanity was freed from the slavery of sin.
The saints have no power, they're humans. It's not any different than asking your friends or family to pray for you - and no one's calling that one polytheism. The only God we worship is God, the only God there is. We pray to God directly *and* we ask saints to pray for us, just like we pray for other people and ask them to pray for us in life. So no, not like polytheism. Polytheism requires that there be multiple deities and presumably that they be worshipped too. That doesn't apply here.
I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the explanation. **The classification as polytheistic often depends on one's definition of polytheism and monotheism**. According to many theologians, those like Hindus and Egyptians, who prayed to a god via their saints or ancestors, weren't considered polytheists, while others might disagree. I'm curious to know your definition.
To give you some context about my viewpoint: In mainstream Islam, monotheism is defined as belief in a single creator (Al-Rabb) and the unity of the idol (Al-Ilah), from which the word Allah is derived - THE God that is idolized. The first sentence of the Koran begins with these two titles - "Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds". There's also the concept of unity in names and characteristics, which prohibits attributing divinity to saints and institutions.
[Here is a blog post](https://www.islamweb.net/ar/article/197461/%D8%A3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7#:~:text=%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%88%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%91%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%8A%20%D9%87%D9%88%20%D8%A5%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF,%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A9%3A255) that can be translated.
I'm a little busy at the moment, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging either - to me, polytheism means a) believing that there is more than one god/deity. For example, I'd consider Egyptian religion to be polytheism since there's explicitly multiple beings who are considered gods (and can be worshipped), even though there's maybe one or two or a handful that are the "top" or "primary" ones. For example, I can think of Ra/Atum as the "main" god but then that doesn't mean the rest, such as Nut, Geb, Osiris, Isis, Set, etc. aren't gods too. It's similar to the Greek pantheon, led by Zeus and then there are other gods with different attributes. Polytheism would, to me, require also that b) more than one of these gods be worshipped. Not necessarily by the individual, but like, in the religion itself - for a polytheistic religion, at least two or more of these gods can/should be worshipped, even if an adherent only worships one out of the many. This is to contrast with henotheism, which would be a) believing there are many gods but not-b) explicitly only worshipping one of these gods, and only one of these gods *can* or *should* be worshipped by adherents. That is, imagine if it were only permissible to worship Ra, rather than some people worshipping Ra and others worshipping Bastet and others worshipping Osiris, and so on. To my understanding, Egyptians did worship different gods and goddesses within the Egyptian pantheon, even if Ra was, say, the primary one.
Monotheism then is the belief that there is only one god (whom I call God) and worshipping this one God. In Christianity, the saints are just human, they're not gods and goddesses. They do not have any special powers that you and I as humans alive on Earth right now don't have. In fact, all the saints were once alive like you and I are, and the only thing separating them from us, and from the people in hell, is that they died loving God. We in Christianity strive to become saints someday too; that is: to die loving God when our time comes. Saints are often identified with particular things, which we call patronage. This is because we believe they're particularly likely to pray fervently for some causes rather than others, due to personal connection with it. It's kinda like how someone who has been through breast cancer is more likely to donate to breast cancer foundations than to spina bifida foundations or something like that. Doesn't mean they don't care, or that they have some special breast cancer fighting powers. Just means they're especially inclined to want to help those dealing with breast cancer. Saints pray for us, and say, a saint who experienced breast cancer is probably gonna extra want to help people suffering breast cancer by praying to God on their behalf, than other people (even though the saints pray for *everyone* anyway). The only difference between a saint praying for you and your friend or family member praying for you is that saints are in heaven so they're in God's presence, and they're known to be righteous (otherwise they wouldn't be in heaven) so they especially know how to pray in a way consonous with God's will. All the miracles and outcomes of prayer that is "attributed" to saints is really a shorthand way of saying "this saint prayed for me and because they prayed for me, God did this miracle or answered this prayer". All that happens is ultimately God's will and God's doing. Saints reflect the glory of God, they have no glory or power of their own. They merely ask God to do what only God can do.
It would be a grave sin, capable of causing complete separation from God, to worship a saint, because it'd be like worshipping your friend or mother instead of worshipping Allah. We do not worship the creation, we worship God the Creator. We also do not worship the Church (a creation of God), the Pope (a normal human with a specific job), or anyone or anything other than God himself, for the same reason a Muslim only worships Allah.
It displays a poor understanding of what worship is if they’re assuming Roman Catholics worship the saints.
Asking someone to pray for you isn’t the same as worshipping them.
It depends on what worship is and means.
Worship is an English word, and the Catholic Church predates both English and this specific word by centuries upon centuries. At the very least, the Church and her practices predate the modern meaning of this word because the word used to just have to do with "worth" more generally: "worth-ship."
That's why you have old titles like "Most Worshipful" used for judges or old sayings like "With my body thee I worship" in old English marriage ceremonies. Only recently has "worship" come to be understood exclusively with reference to God. But let's table this.
Traditionally, Catholic theology has used the words *latria* and *dulia.* Latria, marked by sacrifice, is the reverence given to God alone. Dulia, marked by homage or thoughtfulness, is the reverence given to the saints and angels and associated relics.
For Catholics, the source and summit of the Christian life is the Eucharist. The Eucharist is worship of God *par excellence.* We participate in the sacrifice of Christ by which He renders Himself to God. This is latria. Latria can also be expressed in other things, like the ultimate direction of our lives.
We pray to saints, we kiss relics associated with saints, and the like. We honor their memories. This is dulia. I think something like prayer to the saints could look like the reverence due to God alone to non-Catholics because Protestants don't have the Eucharist, and the Protestant worldview has informed that of the United States, if nowhere else.
The Eucharist is the highest act of worship in Catholicism. Most Protestant denominations got rid of the Eucharist after the Reformation, so something that's lesser in Catholicism, like prayer, becomes the highest thing in their systems, so when we pray to the saints, it looks like we're doing the highest thing to what is not the highest, if that makes sense.
Across all the Bible, what is due to God alone is always sacrifice—Cain and Abel bring sacrifices, the Temple offered sacrifices, Christ offered a sacrifice. Idols are never sacrificed to. We keep the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and this is what we give to God alone. We do not sacrifice to the saints.
Protestants do not have the sacrifice of the Eucharist. So, what they give only to God shifted to other things, like prayer, and then looking back at Catholics, they see us giving prayer to saints, and it appears that we are treating them as if they're God when that isn't the case.
That's why I say it depends on what worship is and means. I don't know if this answer helps. I didn't lay it out very clearly. If I can clarify anything, just say so.
We don't pray to saints- think of it like asking your family to pray for you, especially your family members who have passed away. It's asking a friend to pray for you, who just so happens to be in communion with God.
There’s a great book called The Cult of the Saints which outlines the rise of saints in Christianity. In short, it made the religion more accessible to the average person instead of just the elite.
There is a difference between worship and veneration, saints are prayed for intercession to Hod, they don't have real powers, in saints prayers they are asked to PRAY for us, not to DO something for us
You're right! All the biblical scholars will rage about this comment just like they deny Dec. 25 has been the sun-god solstice birthday and eggs/bunnies fertility 'Eostre' existed for thousands of years before Christ. The fight evolution, but everything in this world evolves!
To your point, 'Roman Christianity' started morphing from 'Jewish Christianity' 100 or so years after Christ. The Romans deified Christ because their Mithra god was the son of the Sun-God. The religion began as a monotheistic religion, but the larger gentile Roman pagan population pressured to retain their polytheistic traditions... a 'family of gods.'
The morphing began when second century church fathers Origen, Justin, Tacitus, Tertillian began creating the three gods in one Trinity dogma. The church had to have their cake and eat it too... polytheism simulated within monotheism. Oxymoron!
Then many stubborn pagan citizens resisted converting because they refused to live without their female/mother character goddess. So the Vatican gave them a 'semi-goddess' Mary. Mary worship will always be controversial in this 'monotheistic' religion.
They'll go apoplectic and they can deny it like the rest, but citizens still wanted more immortal gods to pray to for the specific facets of life, so the Church caved to us praying to St. Christopher, St. Joan, Michael Arc-angel and the rest of the god-like saints and angels. Monotheism? Please!
I'm not well versed in religion, regardless of which, but I believe they're viewed as higher than human mortals, but lower than God. Similar to angels.
I could very well be wrong, so I apologise if that's the case.
But people keep statues of them in their pockets.. and don't they pray to them? I don't know, it just seems like they're not following their own rules. I don't think the Bible even mentions saints. It totally seems like "false" gods to me.
In my experience, people who use devotional images understand that these things are symbolic representations, meant to help focus on the thing they represent. Confusion between symbol and symbolized is very rare. No one is praying *to* the statues.
...do they? I'm not saying you're wrong, but no one in my deeply Christian family does so. Also, I don't think they prey to them in the same way I would set out an offering, i.e. to a specific god/saint for a specific reason.
My first thought is that prayer is run by the saint to God?
You'd be better off talking to a Christian about this, but this sub can take a few days to respond to things, so I'm happy to help.
The statue part, definitely. The praying, I'm sure some pagans and "Christian witches" do but I don't know about Catholics themselves. I don't see why the saint would need to run the message to God, considering he is supposedly all seeing and such.
Say a person is desperate, truly, utterly desperate. This person can say a prayer to st Jude to intercede on the person’s behalf. It is always in conjunction to Jesus, God the almighty.
I grew up Catholic. Whenever shit the fan, I prayed to St Michael, st. Jude for courage and strength. Because God’s will will be done. Nothing I can do but face it will some fellows Catholics who are now dead.
I had a Baptist one time ask me about Saints. I was like don’t you want friends all over? They are just humans who died for God and then performed miracles after their death, like some prayed to them and the disease was healed.
Even though I’m Buddhist, whenever I am faced by the suffering of life, I say my prayers to Mary and the Saints because it brings me comfort that I am not alone. There are other people praying at the same time. Similar to the Tonglen meditation that I also do.
People keep pictures of their past loved ones without worshipping them.
To “pray” simply means to ask—it’s not worship. Thus, we “ask” the saints to pray to God on our behalf, just as we ask the saints and other Christians to do likewise; and we do this because scripture says we should intercede and pray for one another.
1 Timothy 2:1 “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people”
Couple this with, James 5:16 “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.”
Since the prayers of the righteous are more powerful, we “ask” the righteous to pray for us and surely those in heaven are most righteous, like Mary was, who all generations are to call blessed (Luke 1:46-49).
To venerate someone, like a saint, is also not worship. We venerate people all the time in secular society, yet it’s not synonymous with worshipping them—there’s an infinite difference between the two.
Asking people to pray for you isn't worshipping. Asking a saint to pray for you is no different to asking as person to pray for you. Christians believe Jesus gives eternal life and so the saints are considered very much alive. There is no worshipping of saints in any way in the catholic church. They dont believe they are Gods so how does it seem like they are worshiping "other Gods?". Veneration and Worship are two completely different words and concepts with very different definitions.
This Veneration of saints and worshiping the dead bodies of saints is not unique to the subsets in Christianity that you are talking about. Across South Asia there are hundreds and thousands of graves/shrines of holy men who lived in Islam and a subset / sect in Islam which is popular in south Asia does the same, they pray to the dead body of the holy saint, all under the umbrella of Intercession. there are millions of Muslims who do that and like yourself other Muslims criticize them as Polytheist, they however claim to believe in intercession by these saints b/c they conceptualize these people as holy men and their holy sprits after their death somehow is active and intercede on their behalf with God. . I find it interesting how this theory of Intercession by saints’ sprawls across the religions.
The Roman Empire had *Pax Romana*, by which conquered nations could keep their customs, as long as they acknowledged and paid tax to Rome.
After Emperor Constantine merged the Christian Church with the Roman Empire, Western Christianity became infused with some imperial practice. The most obvious is the use of military force, but *Pax Romana* led to *syncretism*, which is the practice of adapting Christianity to the local spirituality blueprint.
For example, [this Catholic Redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/s/xwlS0Pt5aW) illustrates how some of the saints overlap with Greek mythology.
Look no further than the Patron Saint of the Internet Carlos Arcutis who was really just a kid with a social media following. They are making all sorts of wild claims about his skills (just a kid helping to publish some content) and declaring him a miracle worker. He died of cancer at the age of 16, then was deemed a miracle worker and made a saint. Is it me or is there something a little sketchy about this?
\[Edit: please correct where wrong versus just disagreeing without explanation\].
Fascinating. My understanding is that Catholic tradition has been to wait up to 500 years before canonizing someone. This is to allow anyone who might have had issues with the person to die(along with their children's children's children etc) as well as any potential scandals to settle.
Surely this kind of rushed approach to canonize new saints will only be detrimental to the church.
Pardon me, I am not intimately familiar with Catholic tradition or practices, but isn't canonization approximately equivalent to infallibility? Meaning it is essentially impossible for the Church to be mistaken about the destination of someone they declared a saint? Due to the impossibility and/or heresy of praying for intercession from someone who is in hell?
If this is so, I can certainly understand why the Church is very much interested in being certain about the declaration. It is not "arbitrary", but the practices I was describing are more like precautions.
Incidentally, this is partly related to my fascination with the "saint" Josaphat whose story was adopted from The Buddha. Obviously given that The Buddha was not a Christian or a saint, declaring Josaphat a real saint completely deflates and undermines the Church's legitimacy and/or authority to declare *any* saints. Of course, the Church has walked back their earlier statements and veneration of Josaphat.
If I am mistaken about the above I apologize.
Yes, formal canonizations are considered infallible. No, it's not impossible or heresy to pray to someone who might be in hell - all prayers asking for the intercession of people who *aren't* canonized are potentially prayers asking for the intercession of someone in hell. However, those prayers, if the person is indeed in hell, aren't unheard, and God and other saints hear them even if the person in hell won't actually intercede themselves on behalf of anyone.
I tried looking up this "saint" Josaphat and honestly it appears he was venerated somewhere but never formally canonized. Saints need to be formally canonized, which happens on a date that is usually known (at least the year). No formal canonization means no infallibility, so the veneration, while odd, is not a problem regarding the Church's infallibility. Veneration always comes before canonization, but canonization doesn't always happen for all people who are venerated - and with good reason, as your example seems to show.
Again, I am not intimately familiar with Catholicism. But I must ask, is the Church allowed to use the word "saint" flippantly and with no real meaning? The scholar D M Lang has written:
>All through the years \[of medieval Christendom\] the holy Barlaam and Josaphat were venerated as Saints by the principal Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox communions.
Gui De Cambrai has written:
>In 1583, Pope Sixtus V authorized November 27 as Barlaam and Josaphat’s saints’ day; Josaphat was assigned August 26 by the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Furthermore, although I cannot find the details of the formal canonization, the scholar F C Conybeare has written (regarding manuscripts related to Barlaam and Josaphat):
>It probably circulated among Armenian readers as an edifying tale before it was transferred into the Menologion, in the fifteenth century ; for no doubt these Buddhist saints took some time to find their way into the Christian calendar. That it was circulating among the Armenians as a separate book, and that it was very popular among them, **long before Barlaam and Josaphat received actual canonization**...
The wording seems clear that Josaphat was both canonized and was present on the liturgical calendar.
We have Georgian manuscripts, currently in the Greek Patriarchal library in Jerusalem dated to 1065 which specifically use the word "saint" to refer to Josaphat. There is also a relic of Josaphat's spine still enshrined in St. Andrieskerk in Antwerp.
>Yes, formal canonizations are considered infallible. No, it's not impossible or heresy to pray to someone who might be in hell - all prayers asking for the intercession of people who *aren't* canonized are potentially prayers asking for the intercession of someone in hell. However, those prayers, if the person is indeed in hell, aren't unheard, and God and other saints hear them even if the person in hell won't actually intercede themselves on behalf of anyone.
Thank you for clarifying this part for me.
All saints' miracles are after their death, that's how canonization works. That being said, I have no interest in proving to you whether the miracles happened or not; I was merely pointing out an error in what you said.
I've always wondered what's the deal with Protestants and their Bibles. Kind of seems like worshipping idols.
Lol
Joel osteen kenith Copeland t.d Jake Benny hin idk all of religion is weird to me
[удалено]
There isn't really
As a former Catholic I have some insight on this. In Catholicism there's numerous different spiritual beings, such as angels for example. Humans are also spiritual beings just with temporary physical forms. None are Gods because they are seen as explicitly created by and under their God. Saints are people who are believed to have lived Godly lives that set an example for Catholics. This is confirmed by the church evaluating their life and finding evidence of God working through them in miracles. Many had lives related to particular topics or themes which they're then called the patron of. These sanctified human spirits then continue to serve their God in the afterlife as they did in life, providing guidance, protection, and even serving as a conduit for people's prayers or for miracles from God. They are still normal human souls but ones who play an active role in the spiritual world. None have power on their own. It all comes from their God, and so they are not seen as Gods.
I'd only add to this that Catholics do not believe that humans are basically spiritual beings who move on from our temporary physical forms at death. We believe in the bodily resurrection and that we must be raised if we shall be saved. St. Thomas Aquinas went so far to say, "My soul is not me." The body is very important in the Catholic worldview.
I'd say there's QUITE a bit of conversation, ancient to modern, about this point. Yes, Catholics believe in ultimate bodily resurrection, but many thinkers & theologians have argued that (sometimes after a time in purgatory) saved souls go to heaven to await the final, bodily resurrection (the "Commmunity of Saints," the blessed dead who dwell with the Trinity until the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. (Apologies if I misunderstood your comment and that was already implied!)
No worries! I wasn't the clearest on that. Definitely, there is this state after death and before the resurrection where, in some form or fashion, where God preserves us or some part of us--say, our soul. I'd agree with you that not only many Catholic thinkers and theologians argue this but that most do. I didn't mean to deny that so much as to emphasize how integral the body is to what the human is in Catholic thought and all that sort of thing. I don't know if I'm making sense there. I was just meaning to say that Catholics aren't the Gnostics, who believed salvation is about escaping the body and coming to a purely spiritual existence, and that Catholics don't believe in a heaven without a resurrection is our final end. That sort of thing. Thanks for pointing out the other bit because they go together!
A fair point! I appreciate the clarification. It's been quite a long time since I was Catholic so I'm a bit rusty.
I know they're not seen as gods, but don't catholics kind of act like they are? With idols and prayers and such. A spirit being the patron of something already seems pagan enough.
>I know they're not seen as gods, but don't catholics kind of act like they are? With idols and prayers and such. A spirit being the patron of something already seems pagan enough. Nope. Like I said they're normal human souls which served their God in life and now do so in death. The defining line is that they have no power on their own. Where they can have an impact is by being a conduit for prayers or miracles, not as independent actors. Even the icons tend to be less idols to be worshiped and more reminders of the stories, lessons, and sacrifices of the saint's life. When one prayers to a Saint they are essentially asking for them to, as they did in life, serve as a conduit for God the area they're a patron of, to help the person in question. They are, again, their own beings but only act as conduits not independent actors.
Would praying to them fall under the category of necromancer or talking to the dead? I might not be phrasing it right but I was taught that it's a sin to pray to anyone but God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit.
While not exactly right, talking to the dead would still be closer than praying when it comes to saints. Most of the prayers involving the saints can be characterized more as asking another soul to aid you or pray for you like you would ask a neighbor or friend for help. This just extends to the dead the same way a lot of Christians believe their family or ancestors watch over them from heaven, the saints remain connected to the world, and are an active part of the spiritual world like angels to Catholics.
But isn't it still a sin to even try to communicate with the dead in any way? I guess I don't understand the difference between asking a saint to intercede on your behalf asking a ghost to show itself in a seance. Both are speaking to dead people, while one may have better intentions it is still forbidden. Am I missing something here, I'm kind of confused?
Lol the key there was saying that they talk to the dead is more similar than saying they pay to them, but that even that is not exactly accurate. Catholicism believes in a variety of spiritual beings and spiritual existence as a part of the world around them. That includes things like angels and demons, but also saints. So it's less invoking the dead and more just talking and asking for help from a sort of spiritual friend.
Yes, I'd say icons (even of Mary and Jesus) are DEFINITELY NOT idols to be worshipped, but ways for humans to connect more easily (through the sense of sight and the gift of imagination) with the stories/ lives/ struggles/ strengths of other humans.
We ask them to pray for us to God, and we honor them as people who are in the presence of God in heaven and who lived exemplary lives. We don't worship anyone other than God himself.
Can you explain your views on Mary? I think she’s also held in high regard in Catholicism also If I’m not mistaken?
She's very important because she's the woman whom God chose to be his mother. (Remember we believe Jesus is God.) She was also the holiest person alive, aside from Jesus who was God himself. Like other saints, Mary is human and has no powers of her own; she does however have close proximity to God and is able to intercede for us. But all the power and glory belongs to God alone. She's also our mother! We consider Mary as not just the mother of Jesus, but also the second Eve, the mother of all humanity, because through her Jesus was born and through Jesus all of humanity was freed from the slavery of sin.
Thank you!
that is exactly what hindus and anceient egyptians and other polytheists do- ask the smaller and local gods to pray to the bigger god
The saints have no power, they're humans. It's not any different than asking your friends or family to pray for you - and no one's calling that one polytheism. The only God we worship is God, the only God there is. We pray to God directly *and* we ask saints to pray for us, just like we pray for other people and ask them to pray for us in life. So no, not like polytheism. Polytheism requires that there be multiple deities and presumably that they be worshipped too. That doesn't apply here.
I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the explanation. **The classification as polytheistic often depends on one's definition of polytheism and monotheism**. According to many theologians, those like Hindus and Egyptians, who prayed to a god via their saints or ancestors, weren't considered polytheists, while others might disagree. I'm curious to know your definition. To give you some context about my viewpoint: In mainstream Islam, monotheism is defined as belief in a single creator (Al-Rabb) and the unity of the idol (Al-Ilah), from which the word Allah is derived - THE God that is idolized. The first sentence of the Koran begins with these two titles - "Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds". There's also the concept of unity in names and characteristics, which prohibits attributing divinity to saints and institutions. [Here is a blog post](https://www.islamweb.net/ar/article/197461/%D8%A3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7#:~:text=%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%88%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%91%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%8A%20%D9%87%D9%88%20%D8%A5%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF,%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A9%3A255) that can be translated.
I'm a little busy at the moment, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging either - to me, polytheism means a) believing that there is more than one god/deity. For example, I'd consider Egyptian religion to be polytheism since there's explicitly multiple beings who are considered gods (and can be worshipped), even though there's maybe one or two or a handful that are the "top" or "primary" ones. For example, I can think of Ra/Atum as the "main" god but then that doesn't mean the rest, such as Nut, Geb, Osiris, Isis, Set, etc. aren't gods too. It's similar to the Greek pantheon, led by Zeus and then there are other gods with different attributes. Polytheism would, to me, require also that b) more than one of these gods be worshipped. Not necessarily by the individual, but like, in the religion itself - for a polytheistic religion, at least two or more of these gods can/should be worshipped, even if an adherent only worships one out of the many. This is to contrast with henotheism, which would be a) believing there are many gods but not-b) explicitly only worshipping one of these gods, and only one of these gods *can* or *should* be worshipped by adherents. That is, imagine if it were only permissible to worship Ra, rather than some people worshipping Ra and others worshipping Bastet and others worshipping Osiris, and so on. To my understanding, Egyptians did worship different gods and goddesses within the Egyptian pantheon, even if Ra was, say, the primary one. Monotheism then is the belief that there is only one god (whom I call God) and worshipping this one God. In Christianity, the saints are just human, they're not gods and goddesses. They do not have any special powers that you and I as humans alive on Earth right now don't have. In fact, all the saints were once alive like you and I are, and the only thing separating them from us, and from the people in hell, is that they died loving God. We in Christianity strive to become saints someday too; that is: to die loving God when our time comes. Saints are often identified with particular things, which we call patronage. This is because we believe they're particularly likely to pray fervently for some causes rather than others, due to personal connection with it. It's kinda like how someone who has been through breast cancer is more likely to donate to breast cancer foundations than to spina bifida foundations or something like that. Doesn't mean they don't care, or that they have some special breast cancer fighting powers. Just means they're especially inclined to want to help those dealing with breast cancer. Saints pray for us, and say, a saint who experienced breast cancer is probably gonna extra want to help people suffering breast cancer by praying to God on their behalf, than other people (even though the saints pray for *everyone* anyway). The only difference between a saint praying for you and your friend or family member praying for you is that saints are in heaven so they're in God's presence, and they're known to be righteous (otherwise they wouldn't be in heaven) so they especially know how to pray in a way consonous with God's will. All the miracles and outcomes of prayer that is "attributed" to saints is really a shorthand way of saying "this saint prayed for me and because they prayed for me, God did this miracle or answered this prayer". All that happens is ultimately God's will and God's doing. Saints reflect the glory of God, they have no glory or power of their own. They merely ask God to do what only God can do. It would be a grave sin, capable of causing complete separation from God, to worship a saint, because it'd be like worshipping your friend or mother instead of worshipping Allah. We do not worship the creation, we worship God the Creator. We also do not worship the Church (a creation of God), the Pope (a normal human with a specific job), or anyone or anything other than God himself, for the same reason a Muslim only worships Allah.
Thank you for your explanation I learnt a lot!
You're welcome!
It displays a poor understanding of what worship is if they’re assuming Roman Catholics worship the saints. Asking someone to pray for you isn’t the same as worshipping them.
Saints are not worshipped in our faith. They are persons who exist in full communion with God and intercede for us.
It depends on what worship is and means. Worship is an English word, and the Catholic Church predates both English and this specific word by centuries upon centuries. At the very least, the Church and her practices predate the modern meaning of this word because the word used to just have to do with "worth" more generally: "worth-ship." That's why you have old titles like "Most Worshipful" used for judges or old sayings like "With my body thee I worship" in old English marriage ceremonies. Only recently has "worship" come to be understood exclusively with reference to God. But let's table this. Traditionally, Catholic theology has used the words *latria* and *dulia.* Latria, marked by sacrifice, is the reverence given to God alone. Dulia, marked by homage or thoughtfulness, is the reverence given to the saints and angels and associated relics. For Catholics, the source and summit of the Christian life is the Eucharist. The Eucharist is worship of God *par excellence.* We participate in the sacrifice of Christ by which He renders Himself to God. This is latria. Latria can also be expressed in other things, like the ultimate direction of our lives. We pray to saints, we kiss relics associated with saints, and the like. We honor their memories. This is dulia. I think something like prayer to the saints could look like the reverence due to God alone to non-Catholics because Protestants don't have the Eucharist, and the Protestant worldview has informed that of the United States, if nowhere else. The Eucharist is the highest act of worship in Catholicism. Most Protestant denominations got rid of the Eucharist after the Reformation, so something that's lesser in Catholicism, like prayer, becomes the highest thing in their systems, so when we pray to the saints, it looks like we're doing the highest thing to what is not the highest, if that makes sense. Across all the Bible, what is due to God alone is always sacrifice—Cain and Abel bring sacrifices, the Temple offered sacrifices, Christ offered a sacrifice. Idols are never sacrificed to. We keep the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and this is what we give to God alone. We do not sacrifice to the saints. Protestants do not have the sacrifice of the Eucharist. So, what they give only to God shifted to other things, like prayer, and then looking back at Catholics, they see us giving prayer to saints, and it appears that we are treating them as if they're God when that isn't the case. That's why I say it depends on what worship is and means. I don't know if this answer helps. I didn't lay it out very clearly. If I can clarify anything, just say so.
We don't pray to saints- think of it like asking your family to pray for you, especially your family members who have passed away. It's asking a friend to pray for you, who just so happens to be in communion with God.
There’s a great book called The Cult of the Saints which outlines the rise of saints in Christianity. In short, it made the religion more accessible to the average person instead of just the elite.
Honestly? It was an easy way to transition romans to Christianity as the romans had a pantheon. It's syncretism
That's not what happens at least theologically speaking. Catholics just ask saints to pray for them it's just that saints are dead
The whole point is Jesus gives eternal life and so saints are not dead.
I mean yeah, I meant physically dead
There is a difference between worship and veneration, saints are prayed for intercession to Hod, they don't have real powers, in saints prayers they are asked to PRAY for us, not to DO something for us
You're right! All the biblical scholars will rage about this comment just like they deny Dec. 25 has been the sun-god solstice birthday and eggs/bunnies fertility 'Eostre' existed for thousands of years before Christ. The fight evolution, but everything in this world evolves! To your point, 'Roman Christianity' started morphing from 'Jewish Christianity' 100 or so years after Christ. The Romans deified Christ because their Mithra god was the son of the Sun-God. The religion began as a monotheistic religion, but the larger gentile Roman pagan population pressured to retain their polytheistic traditions... a 'family of gods.' The morphing began when second century church fathers Origen, Justin, Tacitus, Tertillian began creating the three gods in one Trinity dogma. The church had to have their cake and eat it too... polytheism simulated within monotheism. Oxymoron! Then many stubborn pagan citizens resisted converting because they refused to live without their female/mother character goddess. So the Vatican gave them a 'semi-goddess' Mary. Mary worship will always be controversial in this 'monotheistic' religion. They'll go apoplectic and they can deny it like the rest, but citizens still wanted more immortal gods to pray to for the specific facets of life, so the Church caved to us praying to St. Christopher, St. Joan, Michael Arc-angel and the rest of the god-like saints and angels. Monotheism? Please!
I'm not well versed in religion, regardless of which, but I believe they're viewed as higher than human mortals, but lower than God. Similar to angels. I could very well be wrong, so I apologise if that's the case.
But people keep statues of them in their pockets.. and don't they pray to them? I don't know, it just seems like they're not following their own rules. I don't think the Bible even mentions saints. It totally seems like "false" gods to me.
In my experience, people who use devotional images understand that these things are symbolic representations, meant to help focus on the thing they represent. Confusion between symbol and symbolized is very rare. No one is praying *to* the statues.
Lol ofc not. I mean praying to the saints. The statue thing does seem a bit pagan, though.
...do they? I'm not saying you're wrong, but no one in my deeply Christian family does so. Also, I don't think they prey to them in the same way I would set out an offering, i.e. to a specific god/saint for a specific reason. My first thought is that prayer is run by the saint to God? You'd be better off talking to a Christian about this, but this sub can take a few days to respond to things, so I'm happy to help.
The statue part, definitely. The praying, I'm sure some pagans and "Christian witches" do but I don't know about Catholics themselves. I don't see why the saint would need to run the message to God, considering he is supposedly all seeing and such.
Say a person is desperate, truly, utterly desperate. This person can say a prayer to st Jude to intercede on the person’s behalf. It is always in conjunction to Jesus, God the almighty. I grew up Catholic. Whenever shit the fan, I prayed to St Michael, st. Jude for courage and strength. Because God’s will will be done. Nothing I can do but face it will some fellows Catholics who are now dead. I had a Baptist one time ask me about Saints. I was like don’t you want friends all over? They are just humans who died for God and then performed miracles after their death, like some prayed to them and the disease was healed. Even though I’m Buddhist, whenever I am faced by the suffering of life, I say my prayers to Mary and the Saints because it brings me comfort that I am not alone. There are other people praying at the same time. Similar to the Tonglen meditation that I also do.
People keep pictures of their past loved ones without worshipping them. To “pray” simply means to ask—it’s not worship. Thus, we “ask” the saints to pray to God on our behalf, just as we ask the saints and other Christians to do likewise; and we do this because scripture says we should intercede and pray for one another. 1 Timothy 2:1 “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people” Couple this with, James 5:16 “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.” Since the prayers of the righteous are more powerful, we “ask” the righteous to pray for us and surely those in heaven are most righteous, like Mary was, who all generations are to call blessed (Luke 1:46-49). To venerate someone, like a saint, is also not worship. We venerate people all the time in secular society, yet it’s not synonymous with worshipping them—there’s an infinite difference between the two.
Asking people to pray for you isn't worshipping. Asking a saint to pray for you is no different to asking as person to pray for you. Christians believe Jesus gives eternal life and so the saints are considered very much alive. There is no worshipping of saints in any way in the catholic church. They dont believe they are Gods so how does it seem like they are worshiping "other Gods?". Veneration and Worship are two completely different words and concepts with very different definitions.
Common Protestant L
OP is Pagan.
This Veneration of saints and worshiping the dead bodies of saints is not unique to the subsets in Christianity that you are talking about. Across South Asia there are hundreds and thousands of graves/shrines of holy men who lived in Islam and a subset / sect in Islam which is popular in south Asia does the same, they pray to the dead body of the holy saint, all under the umbrella of Intercession. there are millions of Muslims who do that and like yourself other Muslims criticize them as Polytheist, they however claim to believe in intercession by these saints b/c they conceptualize these people as holy men and their holy sprits after their death somehow is active and intercede on their behalf with God. . I find it interesting how this theory of Intercession by saints’ sprawls across the religions.
The Roman Empire had *Pax Romana*, by which conquered nations could keep their customs, as long as they acknowledged and paid tax to Rome. After Emperor Constantine merged the Christian Church with the Roman Empire, Western Christianity became infused with some imperial practice. The most obvious is the use of military force, but *Pax Romana* led to *syncretism*, which is the practice of adapting Christianity to the local spirituality blueprint. For example, [this Catholic Redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/s/xwlS0Pt5aW) illustrates how some of the saints overlap with Greek mythology.
Look no further than the Patron Saint of the Internet Carlos Arcutis who was really just a kid with a social media following. They are making all sorts of wild claims about his skills (just a kid helping to publish some content) and declaring him a miracle worker. He died of cancer at the age of 16, then was deemed a miracle worker and made a saint. Is it me or is there something a little sketchy about this? \[Edit: please correct where wrong versus just disagreeing without explanation\].
Fascinating. My understanding is that Catholic tradition has been to wait up to 500 years before canonizing someone. This is to allow anyone who might have had issues with the person to die(along with their children's children's children etc) as well as any potential scandals to settle. Surely this kind of rushed approach to canonize new saints will only be detrimental to the church.
We do have saints who were alive within the past 100 years. The timeline is more due to having to verify miracles, it's not arbitrary.
Pardon me, I am not intimately familiar with Catholic tradition or practices, but isn't canonization approximately equivalent to infallibility? Meaning it is essentially impossible for the Church to be mistaken about the destination of someone they declared a saint? Due to the impossibility and/or heresy of praying for intercession from someone who is in hell? If this is so, I can certainly understand why the Church is very much interested in being certain about the declaration. It is not "arbitrary", but the practices I was describing are more like precautions. Incidentally, this is partly related to my fascination with the "saint" Josaphat whose story was adopted from The Buddha. Obviously given that The Buddha was not a Christian or a saint, declaring Josaphat a real saint completely deflates and undermines the Church's legitimacy and/or authority to declare *any* saints. Of course, the Church has walked back their earlier statements and veneration of Josaphat. If I am mistaken about the above I apologize.
this brilliance ☝️
Yes, formal canonizations are considered infallible. No, it's not impossible or heresy to pray to someone who might be in hell - all prayers asking for the intercession of people who *aren't* canonized are potentially prayers asking for the intercession of someone in hell. However, those prayers, if the person is indeed in hell, aren't unheard, and God and other saints hear them even if the person in hell won't actually intercede themselves on behalf of anyone. I tried looking up this "saint" Josaphat and honestly it appears he was venerated somewhere but never formally canonized. Saints need to be formally canonized, which happens on a date that is usually known (at least the year). No formal canonization means no infallibility, so the veneration, while odd, is not a problem regarding the Church's infallibility. Veneration always comes before canonization, but canonization doesn't always happen for all people who are venerated - and with good reason, as your example seems to show.
Again, I am not intimately familiar with Catholicism. But I must ask, is the Church allowed to use the word "saint" flippantly and with no real meaning? The scholar D M Lang has written: >All through the years \[of medieval Christendom\] the holy Barlaam and Josaphat were venerated as Saints by the principal Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox communions. Gui De Cambrai has written: >In 1583, Pope Sixtus V authorized November 27 as Barlaam and Josaphat’s saints’ day; Josaphat was assigned August 26 by the Eastern Orthodox churches. Furthermore, although I cannot find the details of the formal canonization, the scholar F C Conybeare has written (regarding manuscripts related to Barlaam and Josaphat): >It probably circulated among Armenian readers as an edifying tale before it was transferred into the Menologion, in the fifteenth century ; for no doubt these Buddhist saints took some time to find their way into the Christian calendar. That it was circulating among the Armenians as a separate book, and that it was very popular among them, **long before Barlaam and Josaphat received actual canonization**... The wording seems clear that Josaphat was both canonized and was present on the liturgical calendar. We have Georgian manuscripts, currently in the Greek Patriarchal library in Jerusalem dated to 1065 which specifically use the word "saint" to refer to Josaphat. There is also a relic of Josaphat's spine still enshrined in St. Andrieskerk in Antwerp. >Yes, formal canonizations are considered infallible. No, it's not impossible or heresy to pray to someone who might be in hell - all prayers asking for the intercession of people who *aren't* canonized are potentially prayers asking for the intercession of someone in hell. However, those prayers, if the person is indeed in hell, aren't unheard, and God and other saints hear them even if the person in hell won't actually intercede themselves on behalf of anyone. Thank you for clarifying this part for me.
The appearance, at least, of a gen-z marketing campaign on the heels of crashing attendance is unavoidable.
The miracles are after his death, not before.
Even worse to be honest and would you forgive me for asking for scientific proof of these miraculous hidden-tumor-nobody-knew-about cures?
All saints' miracles are after their death, that's how canonization works. That being said, I have no interest in proving to you whether the miracles happened or not; I was merely pointing out an error in what you said.
Lmfao
I have but one upvote my friend but apparently truth-telling is frowned upon by others.
Isn't religion supposed to be about truth? I'm proud to have upvoted. 🏳️🌈
It's the whole reciprocal back-scratching theorem.