/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>775470

As far as my understanding goes, if you were canonized by the Vatican it's permanent. This excludes any of the other popes however, so cases like Charlemagne aren't Saints.

>>775470

Yes of course they are.

>>775476

>This excludes any of the other popes however

Wrong. When a pope of anytime says someone is a Saint, that statement is infallible.

>so cases like Charlemagne aren't Saints.

Because no one ever tried to canonise him.

The only monarchs that I can think of my mind that were canonised were St. Louis of France and St. Isabel of Portugal.

>>775470

Trigger warning: da joos

Wasn't Simon of Trent de-canonized in the 60s because of anti-semitism?

>>775541

>When a pope of anytime says someone is a Saint, that statement is infallible

So popes that have been declared as invalid suddenly have that level of power?… Sure.

>Because no one ever tried to canonise him.

Antipope Paschal III canonized him

>The only monarchs that I can think of my mind that were canonised were St. Louis of France and St. Isabel of Portugal.

There are literally dozens of monarchs that have been canonized.

I have no idea where you're getting this info.

>>775547

>anti-pope

ok

>dozens of monarchs

true, but the Church has always made a point of attempting to verify their actual sanctity and avoiding politics. St. Louis IX was made a Saint, but the French royalty that came after all tried and were denied.

>>775546

no, just shuffled off. still a Saint.

>>775546

LOL no one can be decanonised.

Where the winnie the pooh did you read that?

And implying St. John Chrysostom wouldn't be the first in the line for that.

Simon of Trent was never canonised.

Only the local cult was allowed (beatification).

>>775551

ah, he was never actually infallibly confirmed. thanks for the correction.

>>775547

>So popes that have been declared as invalid suddenly have that level of power?… Sure.

What the winnie the pooh is an invalid pope? Popes are always valid by definition.

>Antipope Paschal III canonized him

Come on look at the first word you wrote.

>There are literally dozens of monarchs that have been canonized.

Source?

>>775553

but he should have

>>775549

>>775551

Okiedoke Thanks for clarifying that.

>>775555

debatable, any number of the previous Popes never officially declared them

>>775559

Probably there was too much folklore about the miracles to make a sound investigation about him.

Still since he was a kid he is in heaven for sure.

Wasn't Clement of Alexandria de-canonized around the 1600s?

>>775561

Well he had never a cult in the universal church, he was never officially canonised and he believe in many no small time heresies.

When the pope revised the calendar they decided to remove him since we had no sufficient data on him. Because back then there were many persons the lay people believed they were saints (even a a dog) and got into the general calendars. From time to time the church has to clean the house.

He is still venerated by the Eastern Catholics, so he is Blessed.

Imagine believing that the pope decides who's in heaven

>>775602

I don't believe that females can be pastors, and I also don't believe unrepentant trannies go to heaven either.

>>775645

But I don't know how I feel about the idea of the papacy. I know the verses catholics use to justify it but those verses don't ever say that Peter is above all the other bishops. He even calls himself a fellow bishop in one verse, using the language of an equal instead of the language of a superior. A lot of the catholic practices aren't in the Bible, or are read into the verses at the very best. Inb4 you try to discredit what I'm saying by just calling sola scriptura, read 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

>>775654

>catholic tradition defines and defends scripture for 1500 years

>"but my personal interpretation is more important than those who gave us it"

>>775662

The ideas of the reformation weren't some completely new ideas that waited until the 1500s to pop up, just look at the name "reform". The reformers believed the Church had strayed from scripture, and wanted a return to the original church that Jesus established. A lot of the doctrines the catholic church established and defined were power grabs with no scriptural basis. Yes, Peter was given a special role among the apostles, but he is never stated to be above the others in a hierarchical manner until later when the catholic church looked back and defined Peter as the first pope. The Bible also tells us to call no man father, which is meant in a spiritual sense (we obviously aren't prohibited from calling our biological fathers that). Yet the catholic church calls all of its priests father, and it calls the pope father, and it does so in a spiritual sense. I fail to see how that isn't directly opposed to the scripture.

>>775665

There was reform of several docterines during the reformation, but the degree to which the reformers took thing was far enough to the point that it also violated scripture and traditions handed down to us by the apostles you can find documents like the The Didache that are as old as 100 AD that document these traditions I won't deny that there was a lot of secular politics slowly infecting the church throughout the middle ages, but that hardly justified majority of the stances taken by the "reformers" .

>>775665

>>775687

If reformers actually stuck true to the scriptures and teachings of the christians before them they would have at most become schismatics, not heretics.

>>775470

Yes, although not all saints are canonised, thats how Chaldeans venerate controversial people like Nestorius or byzantines post schism saints since they're local 'cults', heck even St. Patrick isnt canonised but is a popular saint nevertheless

>>775688

Basically. Like I said, I don't actually deny that reform was needed in some capacity, particularly when it came to the church's political involvement like scapegoating the Knights Templar to appease European monarchs who were tired of throwing money and men at the crusades, even thought the evidence brought against them was so blatantly false the pope straight up pardoned them in secret But the "reforms" Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. implemented were far more than that. They were radical to such a degree that they completely changed the nature of the Christian faith. Had they been more conservative, they might have been viewed as schismatics.

But as I was alluding to when I mentioned the Didache, how far do we have to go until we get to the "historic church" ? Did the whole of Christianity just go astray the minute Revelations was finished? Because based on historical estimates, the two were written very close to each other (like a matter of a few years). I get that historic revisionism is pretty common in Evangelical circles, but even Lutherans and others ignore these kinds of things. The only protestants that are really close to being schismatics are the Anglicans, and even they have too many issues.

>>775777

>The only protestants that are really close to being schismatics are the Anglicans, and even they have too many issues.

One of them is having no doctrine at all sadly.

Either you are gay and go to a mass celebrated by a female "priest" or you go almost Catholic in everything but the pope.

No offense Anglo bros.

People who say yes never give an actual authoritative source for that. A canonization is supposed to be the well formed judgement of the Church. If the process is not performed well, there is no reason why a canonization would be true.

>>775654

Remember what Christ said in John at the last supper. That if you want to lead you must serve. One of the titles of the Pope is the servant of the servants of Christ. So servant of all bishops. His primacy is actually one of humility hence why St Peter doesn't lord his position over the other Apostles. But in acts, St Peter is clearly leading the Apostles and Christ did tell him three times to rule and feed his sheep and to confirm thy brethren. No one can read the NT without realising that Peter is the humble leader of the apostolic band, which really should be the attitude the Popes take (although they haven't always. The Popes of this century past have been quite tyrannical)

>>775687

>you can find documents like the The Didache that are as old as 100 AD that document these traditions

I've read through the Didache three or four times and the only thing I remember it teaching that even remotely resembled modern "Sacred Tradition" is the part at the end where it says to confess your transgressions before taking communion. But even then it was done only to avoid quarrel among the people. Back in those days each person would confess their sins in front of the entire church, so that any issue you had with someone else could be resolved.

Cathodox always do this. They come up with some new doctrine then act like it was part of Christian beliefs all along, it was just never written down but was instead passed down orally through "Sacred Tradition". At best they'll read their new doctrine back into ancient Christian texts and claim that it was implied but not explicitly stated because of reasons while ignoring the fact that many of the Doctors of the Church taught against said doctrine, such as Aquinas teaching against the Immaculate Conception for example.

>>775844

<Gives no source

Heh

>>777800

>Ignores teachings about non-full submersion baptism

>Back in those days each person would confess their sins in front of the entire church, so that any issue you had with someone else could be resolved.

Which is why we have confession & say the act of contrition before all else when we gather for the mass.

>They come up with some new doctrine then act like it was part of Christian beliefs all along, it was just never written down but was instead passed down orally through "Sacred Tradition".

Unlike prots who take singular verses of scripture and twist them to mean whatever they feel like that week.

>At best they'll read their new doctrine back into ancient Christian texts and claim that it was implied but not explicitly stated because of reasons while ignoring the fact that many of the Doctors of the Church taught against said doctrine, such as Aquinas teaching against the Immaculate Conception for example.

Being a doctor=/=infallible it just means you contributed to the faith on a large scale.

There is evidence of the doctrine of the immaculate conception going back to the ancient church. Likewise with the assumption.

>>777841 The Confiteor said before mass:

I confess to almighty God

and to you, my brothers and sisters,

that I have greatly sinned

in my thoughts and in my words,

in what I have done

and in what I have failed to do,

through my fault,

through my fault,

through my most grievous fault;

therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,

all the Angels and Saints,

and you, my brothers and sisters,

to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Made in public, with the rest of the congregation.

>>777800

>I've read through the Didache three or four times and the only thing I remember it teaching that even remotely resembled modern "Sacred Tradition" is the part at the end where it says to confess your transgressions before taking communion.

Lying is a grave sin. Or you are being purposefully ignorant.

>At best they'll read their new doctrine back into ancient Christian texts and claim that it was implied but not explicitly stated because of reasons while ignoring the fact that many of the Doctors of the Church taught against said doctrine, such as Aquinas teaching against the Immaculate Conception for example.

The Immaculate Conception is a false doctrine anyway.

What is your problem with the Orthodox?

>>777846

>The Immaculate Conception is a false doctrine anyway.

<God took his form out of sinful flesh

<God comprised himself of imperfection

ok

>>777849

Human nature was purified by Christ in Himself, when it became united to the divine nature. Human nature was not purified pre-emptively in Mary. Jesus took our nature from Mary and purified it. It is anti-evangelical and anti-Christian to say Jesus took upon a nature that was already restored. You make the Theotokos a co-savior with Christ, and you distord the entire evangelical mystery. Tell me, the Baptism of which we are baptized and which purifies our nature, is it into Christ, or into Mary?

>>777851

>Jesus took our nature from Mary and purified it. It is anti-evangelical and anti-Christian to say Jesus took upon a nature that was already restored.

"My dove, my perfect one, is only one, the darling of her mother, flawless to her that bore her."

>>777855

The Song of Songs is about Christ and the Church. Where in the world did you get the idea that it was about Christ and Mary? Considering how erotic the text is, that would be very disturbing.

>>777856

>the darling of her mother

the text quoted sounds like anon is applying "darling of her mother" to Our Lady, which is perfectly applicable to how the text is traditionally read. The Church is seen as a sort of daughter of St. Mary, if not outright identified with Her at times (lady in the desert, remnants of Her Seed, etc). Applying a modern understanding of eroticism (which you have, friend) to a 2,000 + year old prophecy of scripture is a big error, remove the log from your eye before you rebuking a brother.

>>777846

>The Immaculate Conception is a false doctrine anyway

Ah here we go. If you're already mislead, there's nowhere to reason with you.

>>777851

Christ is the first-born of all creatures, why would He purify what was already pure? Mary was not purified within Herself, She was Pure from Her Creation, which bears a close and special relationship with Christ, since Christ was first-born of all creatures.

>>777851

>You make the Theotokos a co-savior with Christ

Which is a claim that comes from you, not one that you can assert to us. Nobody used the word "co-savior" here. You cannot separate Mary from Christ. That you attempt to push this into an erroneous reading is not our fault, but is a disingenuous method of arguing on yours.

>>777858

>remove the log from your eye before you rebuking a brother.

Catholics are not my brothers in Christ.

>Ah here we go. If you're already mislead, there's nowhere to reason with you.

I am the one trying to reason with you. You are a heretic.

>Christ is the first-born of all creatures, why would He purify what was already pure?

What are you talking about? Christ is the first-born of the resurrected. Christ did not purify the divine nature, but the human nature.

>>777859

You already call her co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix, and you say that it is not in Himself, but in Mary, that Christ purified our fallen condition.

>>777864

>Catholics are not my brothers in Christ.

I applaud your honesty. Brother, may you be reconciled one day.

>I am the one trying to reason with you. You are a heretic.

What's the heresy, brother?

>What are you talking about? Christ is the first-born of the resurrected.

Wrong.

Colossians 1:15

>Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature

>Christ did not purify the divine nature, but the human nature.

Why are you pushing some other argument onto us? Christ is the first-born of all creatures, before all creatures, you must reconcile that with whatever bizarre theology you're trying to espouse.

>You already call her co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix

Where? The Church has not officially declared Her as such, but is the supposition of certain theologians. However, seeing that Mary has an integral role in salvation as the Queen of Heaven, I definitely see Her as a co-mediatrix. Prayers to the Queen of Heaven is powerful, because Christ hears His Mother's voice, and regards Her requests.

>and you say that it is not in Himself, but in Mary, that Christ purified our fallen condition.

Where? But if you put the argument to me, Christ was "already purified", He is purity itself, He is God. Not sure where you grabbed this odd quibble to attack the Church with.

>>775470

I don't know where you're getting at by posting a picture of St Louis and Zélie Martin with this title, but if you know about their life they were definitely saints.

>>777866

I'm sorry for my earlier outburst. I've been having a shitty day and was looking to pick a fight. Please pray for me, a sinner.

>>775554

That I know of: Sigismund of Burgundy, Olaf of Norway, Canute of Denmark, Edward the Confessor, Ladislao of Hungary, Leopold III of Austria, Isabel of Aragon, Adela of Normandy, Wenceslao the Good, Oswald of Northumbria, Louis IX of France, Fernando III of Spain, and soon to be Isabel the Catholic of Spain

>>777912

Pray for me too! May God bless you and keep you.

>>778050

Ah, and I bet God just affirms everything you affirm, and rejects everything you reject huh?

>>778134

I know right? If I ever feel down I just look at this picture and thank God that thing will never exist in Jesus' Church.

>>778134

That's definitely not a pastor, whatever she says to the contrary.

>>775562

St. Clement of Alexandria did not commit heresies. The claim that he did are based on commentaries of his work on the lives of the Apostles by St. Photios, whom admitted the Gnosticism therein was most likely interpolated. The 3 works of his we have that are not fragmentary meanwhile actually refute Gnosticism hand in hand. His Exhortation of the Heathens is one of the most well put together destroying of Pagans and heretics alike in Christian history. He is a Saint. You can't simply uncanonize someone.

>>775541

Charlemagne is officially a Blessed, specifically in the official 1924 Dictionary of Saints. so he is still canonized in a way.

This place truly is a catholic hugbox

>>789795

> The claim that he did are based on commentaries of his work on the lives of the Apostles by Photios

whoa whoa, so not only did the wretch Photius create the deadly schism, he also besmirched St. Clement? pathetic.

>>775562

>even a a dog

Why do people still fall for this meme?

This is due to mistranslation because of similarities between "Canaanite" and "Canine" in Latin. There is no saintly dog, get over it.