Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

As Catholics, can we ask for the intercession of martyrs before they are officially recognized as saints? I was thinking about praying to the priest recently killed in France

I don't see why not. Sainthood is a recognition of their holiness not a proclamation.

[Narland]

What translation are you quoting from there?

The Message-- someThe Message Paraphrase by Petersen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible)
It is easily accessible at Bible Gateway and probably some other Bible sites.
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Message-MSG-Bible/ people don't like it because it is a Paraphrase, but it works.

[Coulee Croche]

As Catholics, can we ask for the intercession of martyrs before they are officially recognized as saints? I was thinking about praying to the priest recently killed in France

Yes you may. The canonisation process usually starts with a cult, called a "Fame of Sanctity" or "Fame of Martyrdom;" the members of the Cult call for the person(s) intercession, as well as to push and pray for the person(s) canonisation. In the process, Martyrs are usually automatically considered Blessed by the virtue martyrdom.

[Conscentia]

Traducianism doesn't say that God didn't create the human soul at all - it holds that God created Adam's soul directly, and therefore indirectly all human souls descended from it.
I don't know whether it's considered heretical by any Christian denomination. According to Wikipedia it had adherents amongst the Church Fathers: "Traducianism was developed initially by Tertullian and arguably propagated by Augustine of Hippo, the most influential theologian of Western Christianity. It has been endorsed by Church Fathers such as Sts. Gregory of Nyssa, Anastasius Sinaita, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, and other theological figures in the early centuries of the Orthodox Church."

It is likely that Augustine embraced it, as it would seemingly support his version of Original Sin. I would disagree that each soul descends from Adam. The Platonism inherent to Pauline Christianity suggests that our souls are not of substance, and created seperately but simultaneously at conception. Each soul is a unique entity, while the flesh is begotten of flesh

Could you elaborate on that?

[Auristania]

As Catholics, can we ask for the intercession of martyrs before they are officially recognized as saints? I was thinking about praying to the priest recently killed in France

I don't see why not. Sainthood is a recognition of their holiness not a proclamation.

IIRC the Roman rules for Sainthood includes asking for blessings from somebody who hasn't officially been made a Saint YET and then if the blessings are big enough, they get officially made a Saint

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It is likely that Augustine embraced it, as it would seemingly support his version of Original Sin. I would disagree that each soul descends from Adam. The Platonism inherent to Pauline Christianity suggests that our souls are not of substance, and created seperately but simultaneously at conception. Each soul is a unique entity, while the flesh is begotten of flesh

Could you elaborate on that?

well the mere existence of the soul is not theologically native to Christianity per se. It was imported via hellenization of Jews in the 2nd and 1st century BC. Contrasted with phariseeism of the time which rejected the notion of the "soul" instead believing in a complete resurrection of the dead.

IIRC correct Plato (along with Augustine) believed the soul to be the true source of knowlege and consciousness and the body being a physical tether for the soul which distracts it from its purpose.


It would then suggest, at least to me that the soul is created by God, or some ultimate force by God's command, at the moment of conception, and housed in the body begotten of the flesh of the parents.

[Constantinopolis]

As Catholics, can we ask for the intercession of martyrs before they are officially recognized as saints? I was thinking about praying to the priest recently killed in France

Yes you may. The canonisation process usually starts with a cult, called a "Fame of Sanctity" or "Fame of Martyrdom;" the members of the Cult call for the person(s) intercession, as well as to push and pray for the person(s) canonisation. In the process, Martyrs are usually automatically considered Blessed by the virtue martyrdom.

This is more-or-less how the canonisation process works in the Orthodox Church as well. First, there is a group of people that consider a certain (deceased) person to have been a saint; these people pray for that person's intercession, and may also compose hymns and paint icons of that person. They petition the bishops of the Church to canonise the person in question. The bishops are usually expected to be resistant in the beginning (unless the sainthood of the person in question is particularly self-evident), because it's part of their job to act as gatekeepers and ensure that canonisation never becomes too easy or routine.

Some people are never canonised at all, for various reasons, even while they continue to be considered saints by a strong group of followers. The Orthodox Church does not oppose such unofficial veneration, as long as it is done privately.

[Narland]

What translation are you quoting from there?

I'm actually quite curious, too. I've been required to read dozens of translations as part of my degree, and I've never seen one translated like that.

The Message Paraphrase by Petersen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible)
It is easily accessible at Bible Gateway and probably some other Bible sites.
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Message-MSG-Bible/

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So as some of you know, I've dedicated my professional career to work towards the reunification of the Western and Eastern Churches. I've been working on various compromises on issues that I think might be amiable to both sides, though admittedly my work is very much still in its infancy.


One issue that had me stumped was the Filoque: Orthodox will never accept it, and the Catholics will never admit to having a false creed for hundreds of years by letting it go.

And then an idea came to me, in the shower of all places, so I wanted to ask my orthodox brethren on here,

In your opinion, as Orthodox people, would the Orthodox people be amenable to a "clarification." instead of "et Filioque" it would be "per Filium"?

So instead of "from the Son,". "By the Son?"

[Cill Airne]

Yes you may. The canonisation process usually starts with a cult, called a "Fame of Sanctity" or "Fame of Martyrdom;" the members of the Cult call for the person(s) intercession, as well as to push and pray for the person(s) canonisation. In the process, Martyrs are usually automatically considered Blessed by the virtue martyrdom.

This is more-or-less how the canonisation process works in the Orthodox Church as well. First, there is a group of people that consider a certain (deceased) person to have been a saint; these people pray for that person's intercession, and may also compose hymns and paint icons of that person. They petition the bishops of the Church to canonise the person in question. The bishops are usually expected to be resistant in the beginning (unless the sainthood of the person in question is particularly self-evident), because it's part of their job to act as gatekeepers and ensure that canonisation never becomes too easy or routine.

Some people are never canonised at all, for various reasons, even while they continue to be considered saints by a strong group of followers. The Orthodox Church does not oppose such unofficial veneration, as long as it is done privately.

Anglicans have very rarely recognised anyone as a saint (in fact, we haven't in centuries. The last time, and only time, we have canonised a saint officially is King Charles the Martyr). Interestingly, we've evolved a new tradition of using the name Hero/Heroine for those a Synod has recognised as especially holy, but have not been made a Saint. Otherwise, we typically recognise martyrs as saints, and generally have gone along with the Catholic Church - when someone is recognised a Saint in the Catholic Church we typically agree (although we have not always agreed. There are some Canonised in the Catholic Church that are typically unrecognised in Anglicanism). Theoretically, Anglicanism could recognise a new Saint through a synod (as it had for King Charles the Martyr), or even a National Church Convention could recognise a saint for that National Church.

Although they have not been "officially recognised as saints" - the New Guinea Martyrs (eight Anglican clergy, teachers, and medical missionaries killed by the Japanese in 1942), English martyrs, and Ugandan Martyrs all typically have commemoration days and are treated as Saints by most Anglicans, many of whom have veneration cults (such as Lucian Tapiedi, one of the New Guinea Martyrs).

[Constantinopolis]

So as some of you know, I've dedicated my professional career to work towards the reunification of the Western and Eastern Churches. I've been working on various compromises on issues that I think might be amiable to both sides, though admittedly my work is very much still in its infancy.

That is an admirable goal, but... look, I have to be honest with you. The great majority of clergy and faithful of the Orthodox Church, myself included, are not interested in "reunification" and would not accept any compromise that involves any change in Orthodox theology or ecclesiology. The most that you can possibly hope to achieve is to break off a pro-compromise minority from the Orthodox Church and persuade that minority to submit to Rome as yet another Eastern Catholic Church.

To speak of "reunification" is to implicitly affirm a belief in branch theory. And we simply do not believe in branch theory. There is only one True Church. We believe we are that Church. We may be wrong; but if we are wrong that only means that some other group is the True Church, and we should join that group and accept its theology in its entirety. Under no circumstances is it possible that several groups with different theologies may ALL be the True Church.

In other words, it would be easier to persuade me to become a Roman Rite Catholic (i.e. to persuade me that Catholicism is right and Orthodoxy is wrong) than to persuade me that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are somehow both correct and need to be reunited.

One issue that had me stumped was the Filoque: Orthodox will never accept it, and the Catholics will never admit to having a false creed for hundreds of years by letting it go.

And then an idea came to me, in the shower of all places, so I wanted to ask my orthodox brethren on here,

In your opinion, as Orthodox people, would the Orthodox people be amenable to a "clarification." instead of "et Filioque" it would be "per Filium"?

So instead of "from the Son,". "By the Son?"

No.

In the Orthodox view, there cannot be two different but equally valid forms of the Creed. Whatever the correct form of the Creed is, that form needs to be adopted and confessed by all.

Compromise would be possible, but only as follows: the Roman Rite Catholics drop the Filioque, but do not admit that it was wrong to adopt it in the first place, do not condemn any historical figures that supported the Filioque, and we do not speak any more of it. Thus, Catholics remain free to believe (as they do now) that the Filioque makes no theological difference and that the Creed without it means the same thing as the Creed with it (since the Eastern Rite Catholics already say the Creed without the Filioque, so the only change would be that the Roman Rite adopts an Eastern practice). At the same time, the Orthodox remain free to believe (as we do now) that the Filioque was a heresy, but out of charity we do not speak of it any more since it has been dropped.

Of course, this compromise still leaves the two sides believing different things about Church history, and therein lies one of the fundamental problems with any proposal for "reunification": It's simply not possible to reconcile our different narratives of Church history. We can agree to sweep such disagreements under the rug since they are not theological, but is it really worth it to achieve "unity" if "unity" means each side thinking that it was right the whole time and the other was wrong for a large part of its history? Because that is the only kind of "unity" that is possible.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So as some of you know, I've dedicated my professional career to work towards the reunification of the Western and Eastern Churches. I've been working on various compromises on issues that I think might be amiable to both sides, though admittedly my work is very much still in its infancy.

That is an admirable goal, but... look, I have to be honest with you. The great majority of clergy and faithful of the Orthodox Church, myself included, are not interested in "reunification" and would not accept any compromise that involves any change in Orthodox theology or ecclesiology. The most that you can possibly hope to achieve is to break off a pro-compromise minority from the Orthodox Church and persuade that minority to submit to Rome as yet another Eastern Catholic Church.

To speak of "reunification" is to implicitly affirm a belief in branch theory. And we simply do not believe in branch theory. There is only one True Church. We believe we are that Church. We may be wrong; but if we are wrong that only means that some other group is the True Church, and we should join that group and accept its theology in its entirety. Under no circumstances is it possible that several groups with different theologies may ALL be the True Church.

In other words, it would be easier to persuade me to become a Roman Rite Catholic (i.e. to persuade me that Catholicism is right and Orthodoxy is wrong) than to persuade me that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are somehow both correct and need to be reunited.

And if you'll forgive me, that's a load of hogwash. If the Orthodox Church is not interested in seeking reunification with Rome it should stop playing footsie by doing all these joint Union Liturgies and meetings or what not.

So while you may not be interested, I'm forced to maintain faith that there are a great many on both sides that also would move to reunification, if such a path became visible. So I will continue, no matter what the obstructionists say.

One issue that had me stumped was the Filoque: Orthodox will never accept it, and the Catholics will never admit to having a false creed for hundreds of years by letting it go.

And then an idea came to me, in the shower of all places, so I wanted to ask my orthodox brethren on here,

In your opinion, as Orthodox people, would the Orthodox people be amenable to a "clarification." instead of "et Filioque" it would be "per Filium"?

So instead of "from the Son,". "By the Son?"

No.

In the Orthodox view, there cannot be two different but equally valid forms of the Creed. Whatever the correct form of the Creed is, that form needs to be adopted and confessed by all.

Compromise would be possible, but only as follows: the Roman Rite Catholics drop the Filioque, but do not admit that it was wrong to adopt it in the first place, do not condemn any historical figures that supported the Filioque, and we do not speak any more of it. Thus, Catholics remain free to believe (as they do now) that the Filioque makes no theological difference and that the Creed without it means the same thing as the Creed with it (since the Eastern Rite Catholics already say the Creed without the Filioque, so the only change would be that the Roman Rite adopts an Eastern practice). At the same time, the Orthodox remain free to believe (as we do now) that the Filioque was a heresy, but out of charity we do not speak of it any more since it has been dropped.

No, you don't understand. I'm not proposing to change just the Roman Rite, I'm proposing an amendment to the Creed, to be ratified by an ecumenical council, that all Churches would adopts encapsulating a theology we both agree upon, via the foundation of scripture and whole boatload of other works.

[Constantinopolis]

This is more-or-less how the canonisation process works in the Orthodox Church as well. First, there is a group of people that consider a certain (deceased) person to have been a saint; these people pray for that person's intercession, and may also compose hymns and paint icons of that person. They petition the bishops of the Church to canonise the person in question. The bishops are usually expected to be resistant in the beginning (unless the sainthood of the person in question is particularly self-evident), because it's part of their job to act as gatekeepers and ensure that canonisation never becomes too easy or routine.

Some people are never canonised at all, for various reasons, even while they continue to be considered saints by a strong group of followers. The Orthodox Church does not oppose such unofficial veneration, as long as it is done privately.

Anglicans have very rarely recognised anyone as a saint (in fact, we haven't in centuries. The last time, and only time, we have canonised a saint officially is King Charles the Martyr). Interestingly, we've evolved a new tradition of using the name Hero/Heroine for those a Synod has recognised as especially holy, but have not been made a Saint. Otherwise, we typically recognise martyrs as saints, and generally have gone along with the Catholic Church - when someone is recognised a Saint in the Catholic Church we typically agree (although we have not always agreed. There are some Canonised in the Catholic Church that are typically unrecognised in Anglicanism). Theoretically, Anglicanism could recognise a new Saint through a synod (as it had for King Charles the Martyr), or even a National Church Convention could recognise a saint for that National Church.

Although they have not been "officially recognised as saints" - the New Guinea Martyrs (eight Anglican clergy, teachers, and medical missionaries killed by the Japanese in 1942), English martyrs, and Ugandan Martyrs all typically have commemoration days and are treated as Saints by most Anglicans, many of whom have veneration cults (such as Lucian Tapiedi, one of the New Guinea Martyrs).

That's interesting. Am I correct in assuming that the reason why official canonisations do not take place any more is because of the impossibility in getting a majority of Anglicans to agree on a common meaning of "sainthood"? I mean, I assume that Anglo-Catholics would pretty much hold the same beliefs as Catholics regarding sainthood, while Reformed or low-church Anglicans probably do not believe in "saints" as a distinct category at all, and presumably accept the use of the title "saint" only as a historical tradition.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Of course, this compromise still leaves the two sides believing different things about Church history, and therein lies one of the fundamental problems with any proposal for "reunification": It's simply not possible to reconcile our different narratives of Church history. We can agree to sweep such disagreements under the rug since they are not theological, but is it really worth it to achieve "unity" if "unity" means each side thinking that it was right the whole time and the other was wrong for a large part of its history? Because that is the only kind of "unity" that is possible.

Do you have any idea how petty this sounds? You won't accept unity because one side won't be forced to, for lack of a better term, surrender?

You maybe find issue with it, and think it can't work, but I see it as his it went with the leavened vs un leavened bread debate: big deal immediately, but 500 years from now nobody will really care.


Come now, let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.

[Constantinopolis]

And if you'll forgive me, that's a load of hogwash. If the Orthodox Church is not interested in seeking reunification with Rome it should stop playing footsie by doing all these joint Union Liturgies and meetings or what not.

I agree. We should absolutely stop.

The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not stop, and continues to "play footsie" as you put it, is something that leads many Orthodox to be extremely critical of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and was the main reason why so many patriarchs boycotted the council held in Crete earlier this year.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is already on very thin ice because of his pro-union stance. If he pushed the issue any further, it is very likely that the rest of the Orthodox world would break communion and even hold a Council to formally depose him from his See. Mount Athos already openly dislikes him, for precisely this reason. A few small fundamentalist Orthodox groups have already schismed from the Church because they believe that Orthodox bishops who so much as pray together with the Pope are secretly heretics and automatically fall under anathema. The vast majority of Orthodox faithful regard such claims as paranoid conspiracy theories, but if there was a real possibility of union with Rome, the fundamentalists would be vindicated, and general opinion would shift to their side.

So while you may not be interested, I'm forced to maintain faith that there are a great many on both sides that also would move to reunification, if such a path became visible. So I will continue, no matter what the obstructionists say.

You know not what you do. All you can achieve is another schism.

No.

In the Orthodox view, there cannot be two different but equally valid forms of the Creed. Whatever the correct form of the Creed is, that form needs to be adopted and confessed by all.

Compromise would be possible, but only as follows: the Roman Rite Catholics drop the Filioque, but do not admit that it was wrong to adopt it in the first place, do not condemn any historical figures that supported the Filioque, and we do not speak any more of it. Thus, Catholics remain free to believe (as they do now) that the Filioque makes no theological difference and that the Creed without it means the same thing as the Creed with it (since the Eastern Rite Catholics already say the Creed without the Filioque, so the only change would be that the Roman Rite adopts an Eastern practice). At the same time, the Orthodox remain free to believe (as we do now) that the Filioque was a heresy, but out of charity we do not speak of it any more since it has been dropped.

No, you don't understand. I'm not proposing to change just the Roman Rite, I'm proposing an amendment to the Creed, to be ratified by an ecumenical council, that all Churches would adopts encapsulating a theology we both agree upon, via the foundation of scripture and whole boatload of other works.

Sure, that would be theoretically possible, but good luck getting together an Ecumenical Council that openly proposes to change the Creed.

I think you really do not understand the strength of traditionalism in the Orthodox Church. Earlier this year, Patriarch Bartholomew's attempt to bring together a general council (without even calling it "ecumenical") was boycotted by several major patriarchs in part because he wanted to use the word "Church" to refer to non-Orthodox groups. If there was even a rumor that some Orthodox bishop desired to change the Creed, there would be a storm of outrage the likes of which we've never seen.

[Constantinopolis]

Of course, this compromise still leaves the two sides believing different things about Church history, and therein lies one of the fundamental problems with any proposal for "reunification": It's simply not possible to reconcile our different narratives of Church history. We can agree to sweep such disagreements under the rug since they are not theological, but is it really worth it to achieve "unity" if "unity" means each side thinking that it was right the whole time and the other was wrong for a large part of its history? Because that is the only kind of "unity" that is possible.

Do you have any idea how petty this sounds? You won't accept unity because one side won't be forced to, for lack of a better term, surrender?

No, you misunderstand. I would in fact accept the kind of "unity" I described above - I'm just not seeing the point of it. If the two sides continue to believe different things, and basically just agree not to discuss those differences for the sake of "unity", I am asking what's the point.

We can already talk and be friends and help each other in various ways without having this "unity" that you seek. We don't have unity because we disagree on a number of things. So if we continued to disagree - so that no one has to "surrender" - but suddenly proclaimed "we are united now", despite nothing having actually changed in the beliefs or practices of either side... then what's the point?

You maybe find issue with it, and think it can't work, but I see it as his it went with the leavened vs un leavened bread debate: big deal immediately, but 500 years from now nobody will really care.

Well... actually, we still care. The use of leavened bread is mandatory for the Eucharist. Western Rite Orthodoxy, whose liturgy follows Catholic or Anglican practice in most respects, still has to use leavened bread.

So... yeah. We are stubborn traditionalists who simply never let a doctrinal issue slide, not even 1000 years later. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Orthodoxy is that branch of Christianity that plants its sword in the ground when buffeted by the winds of history and says "no, I shall not move". We've been doing this since Athanasius took his stand against Arius, 1700 years ago.

Come now, let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.

Oh, that is something that we can, in fact, just let slide. When it comes to historical wrongs, by all means, let bygones be bygones. We can forgive anyone for anything. But we cannot change our faith.

[Menassa]

The problem with that assertion, is that the Bible states that false prophets can do miracles, and even in the New Testament there are accounts of false prophets who preform miracles. It is clear then, that miracles are not a good barometer for which to measure divine origin/divine message

They perform at least what appear to be miracles.

Yea, no, the Bible says they can actually preform miracles in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy. But that's really splitting hairs since their is no way to no what is and isn't an *actual* miracle without going back to check and see if what is spouted by the prophet is in line with Orthodox theology.

[The Archregimancy]

One issue that had me stumped was the Filoque: Orthodox will never accept it, and the Catholics will never admit to having a false creed for hundreds of years by letting it go.

And then an idea came to me, in the shower of all places, so I wanted to ask my orthodox brethren on here,

In your opinion, as Orthodox people, would the Orthodox people be amenable to a "clarification." instead of "et Filioque" it would be "per Filium"?

So instead of "from the Son,". "By the Son?"

No.

In the Orthodox view, there cannot be two different but equally valid forms of the Creed. Whatever the correct form of the Creed is, that form needs to be adopted and confessed by all.

Compromise would be possible, but only as follows: the Roman Rite Catholics drop the Filioque, but do not admit that it was wrong to adopt it in the first place, do not condemn any historical figures that supported the Filioque, and we do not speak any more of it.

I would be willing to go a step further than you to accommodate the Catholics.

I agree that the only way we can ever resolve this is to use a filioque-free Creed. Tarsonis' well-intentioned suggestion of per Filium strikes me as functionally similar to Heraclius' attempt to resolve the split between Chalcedonian Christianity and Miaphysite Christianity by glossing over the issue of Christ's natures by instead focusing on His energies. Sidestepping the core issue does nothing to resolve it.

However, were we to hypothetically accept the Filioque-free Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils as the basis of this reunification, I wouldn't necessarily take the position that we should force former Catholics to subsequently ignore the Filioque. My compromise would be to accept the Filioque as a legitimate theologoumenon individually held by many Christians under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Rome so long as the latter Patriarchate accepts that it wasn't, isn't, and will never be formal Church doctrine.

In other words, former Roman Catholics could continue to acknowledge the double procession as a personal theological opinion, but would have to accept that it can't be formal Church dogma.

[Coulee Croche]

No.

In the Orthodox view, there cannot be two different but equally valid forms of the Creed. Whatever the correct form of the Creed is, that form needs to be adopted and confessed by all.

Compromise would be possible, but only as follows: the Roman Rite Catholics drop the Filioque, but do not admit that it was wrong to adopt it in the first place, do not condemn any historical figures that supported the Filioque, and we do not speak any more of it.

I would be willing to go a step further than you to accommodate the Catholics.

I agree that the only way we can ever resolve this is to use a filioque-free Creed. Tarsonis' well-intentioned suggestion of per Filium strikes me as functionally similar to Heraclius' attempt to resolve the split between Chalcedonian Christianity and Miaphysite Christianity by glossing over the issue of Christ's natures by instead focusing on His energies. Sidestepping the core issue does nothing to resolve it.

However, were we to hypothetically accept the Filioque-free Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils as the basis of this reunification, I wouldn't necessarily take the position that we should force former Catholics to subsequently ignore the Filioque. My compromise would be to accept the Filioque as a legitimate theologoumenon individually held by many Christians under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Rome so long as the latter Patriarchate accepts that it wasn't, isn't, and will never be formal Church doctrine.

In other words, former Roman Catholics could continue to acknowledge the double procession as a personal theological opinion, but would have to accept that it can't be formal Church dogma.

For many Catholics and Catholic Theologians, doing away with the filioque might not be a problem for the sake of unity. The problem is convincing these Catholics that they never believed "The Monarchy of the Father" and are accepting it as new doctrine by the omission of the filioque.

The Catechism says that the Father is the source and orgin of the whole divinity however the Holy Spirit is sent by both theFfather and the Son [i]in time[i]; sent by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father. The sending of the Spirit after Jesus' Glorification reveals in it's
fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity. CCC 243-245

If the Orthodox reject this, then yes, there'd be an unacceptable change in doctrine and If not, then a word.

But, this will probably go nowhere.

[Reverend Norv]

Anglicans have very rarely recognised anyone as a saint (in fact, we haven't in centuries. The last time, and only time, we have canonised a saint officially is King Charles the Martyr). Interestingly, we've evolved a new tradition of using the name Hero/Heroine for those a Synod has recognised as especially holy, but have not been made a Saint. Otherwise, we typically recognise martyrs as saints, and generally have gone along with the Catholic Church - when someone is recognised a Saint in the Catholic Church we typically agree (although we have not always agreed. There are some Canonised in the Catholic Church that are typically unrecognised in Anglicanism). Theoretically, Anglicanism could recognise a new Saint through a synod (as it had for King Charles the Martyr), or even a National Church Convention could recognise a saint for that National Church.

Although they have not been "officially recognised as saints" - the New Guinea Martyrs (eight Anglican clergy, teachers, and medical missionaries killed by the Japanese in 1942), English martyrs, and Ugandan Martyrs all typically have commemoration days and are treated as Saints by most Anglicans, many of whom have veneration cults (such as Lucian Tapiedi, one of the New Guinea Martyrs).

That's interesting. Am I correct in assuming that the reason why official canonisations do not take place any more is because of the impossibility in getting a majority of Anglicans to agree on a common meaning of "sainthood"? I mean, I assume that Anglo-Catholics would pretty much hold the same beliefs as Catholics regarding sainthood, while Reformed or low-church Anglicans probably do not believe in "saints" as a distinct category at all, and presumably accept the use of the title "saint" only as a historical tradition.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's pretty much it, I think. For example, I believe quite strongly in the Communion of Saints - but, like most Reformed Anglicans, I follow the late Augustinian view that this term refers to the whole body of the elect, living and dead, and not to a smaller group of exceptional figures.

This really illustrates the diversity of views within Anglicanism. While many Anglicans broadly accept Roman Catholic canonizations and venerate Anglican martyrs in a way that approaches Catholic models, many definitively do not. We will still worship together, but I think that it may be misleading to refer to a standard or even a majority approach to sainthood for the whole Anglican Communion.

Also, by the way, Charles I was removed from the Calendar of Saints in 1859 - thank God. The argument that Charles is a martyr because he refused to abandon the episcopacy is obviously historically false; Charles was executed because he refused to compromise, claimed divinely mandated sovereign immunity from the trial, and declined to speak in his own defense. If your entire argument boils down to contempt of court, you have no one to blame but yourself for your own conviction.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Even if I am late, I also join in the celebration of the canonization of Mother Teresa.

Also, to extend the discussion on sainthood and canonization, this old news caught my attention when it was released: http://www.news.va/en/news/coptic-churc ... -coptic-ch

If the news is correct, and it is more likely reliable since it came from a source from the Vatican, it was said that the Coptic Church canonized the 21 Egyptian Christians martyred by ISIS. What was the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church's (name to clear confusion) reaction on the 21 Egyptian Christians as martyrs?

If my knowledge serves me right, the Catholic Church normally don't recognize the canonizations (or more accurately, their canonization equivalents) of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches due to them being not Catholic. This is also the same reason why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches don't recognize the Catholic Church's canonizations. Is my understanding on these right?

But, if the person was martyred for his/her faith, is it an important thing to consider his/her faith and religion and theology, whether the person was Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox for canonization and recognition? Or, does the Catholic and the Orthodox Church recognize martyrs as saints regardless of whatever particular church they belonged to?

This has also been my personal observation, in the Christian Chinese Martyrs killed in China, only the Catholic ones were canonized by the Catholic Church, and only the Orthodox ones were recognized by the Orthodox Church.

[Czechanada]

For anyone who would like a peer-reviewed article on some of the questionable actions of Mother Teresa.

[Czechanada]

Silly question, but what would the name of a post-schism church be? The Catholic and Orthodox Christian Church?

Or would it just be "The Christian Church"?

[The Archregimancy]

Stupid question, but what would the name of a post-schism church be? The Catholic and Orthodox Christian Church?

Or would it just be "The Christian Church"?

The Orthodox Church is already formally 'the Orthodox Catholic Church'; I see no particular need to change that name. We would presumably all agree at that point that we were of the right belief and universal.

[Coulee Croche]

Yes you may. The canonisation process usually starts with a cult, called a "Fame of Sanctity" or "Fame of Martyrdom;" the members of the Cult call for the person(s) intercession, as well as to push and pray for the person(s) canonisation. In the process, Martyrs are usually automatically considered Blessed by the virtue martyrdom.

This is more-or-less how the canonisation process works in the Orthodox Church as well. First, there is a group of people that consider a certain (deceased) person to have been a saint; these people pray for that person's intercession, and may also compose hymns and paint icons of that person. They petition the bishops of the Church to canonise the person in question. The bishops are usually expected to be resistant in the beginning (unless the sainthood of the person in question is particularly self-evident), because it's part of their job to act as gatekeepers and ensure that canonisation never becomes too easy or routine.

Some people are never canonised at all, for various reasons, even while they continue to be considered saints by a strong group of followers. The Orthodox Church does not oppose such unofficial veneration, as long as it is done privately.

It is private until that person becomes Blessed then its local, and of course a Saint is the entire Church

Thats interesting, I wouldnt know of any in Catholicism, though I've only been keeping up with two people, Venerable Henriette DeLille and (St) Charlene Richard.