(06-26-2015, 12:52 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote: I don't think anyone should be given the label of saint. Besides, anyone who truly is "saintly" would not want to be called that.

This is my personal belief, too. In other words: no one is perfect.

(06-26-2015, 12:52 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote: My questions are raised by the discussion in this thread concerning nonsecular saints canonized by the Catholic church. But I guess I'll take this opportunity to give my opinion about the canonization of secular saints by the media, popular opinion, or whatever. I don't think anyone should be given the label of saint. Besides, anyone who truly is "saintly" would not want to be called that. Same goes for celebrities and such, who are elevated above ordinary folks but hardly deserve such status, for the most part.

I agree Kate, and I think we should avoid so randomly describing many people as "heroes" for things that have nothing to do with true heroism.

[ I don't think anyone should be given the label of saint. Besides, anyone who truly is "saintly" would not want to be called that]

The men who wrote the Scriptures-the apostles-did not agree with you. Particularly in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, the word is used quite frequently to describe members of the early Christian Church.(Acts 9:32)

The term "saint" in the Catholic sense of the word does not mean someone is considered perfect. Very far from it.. St. Augustine wrestled his demons of lust and sins of the flesh. Saints struggle mightily to imitate Christ and follow the Gospel. Some have been so transformed by their earthly struggle that they are now(according to Catholic teaching) different from other men and women and, thus, should be considered holy.

It is also true that the great saints of the world...Francis of Assisi, Therese of Lisieux, Thomas Aquinas, Padre Pio...would likely shrink at having themselves described thus, because HUMILITY is one of the main attributes of a true saint.

But the fact that they would not welcome the appellation does not make it any less true.

As for Jesus making the comment that the "dead know nothing"? I own a KJV and a Catholic Vulgate version of the Bible and I cannot locate any verse where Our Lord ever made such a comment. However, I am very familiar with the Gospel accounts of His Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor where He conversed with the long dead prophets Moses and Elijah as witnessed by Peter, James and John (Matthew 17: 1-8, Mark 9:1-8, Luke 9:28-36).

So if the dead indeed know nothing, it must have been a remarkable conversation between Moses, Elijah and Christ on that mountaintop.

The Book of Revelation adds that the "martyrs," the Christians killed for the sake of Christ, "stand before the throne of God and worship him day and night in his temple" (Rev. 7:15). "Life after death, "therefore, is life with God and with Christ: with God who "is not God of the dead but of the living, because in his sight all are alive" (Luke 20:38).

How can these martyred souls worship before the throne and yet know nothing?

I could continue, but since I am obviously no theologian and we are already way off topic I will not. But that is the basis for the Catholic belief in the Communion of Saints that I explained earlier. Since even the dead remain part of the Mystical Body of Christ we remain united with them.

Actually, I was just thinking out loud and did not really expect a reply to my questions, which were prompted by an earlier discussion in this thread.

I too was brought up Catholic but have not been a Catholic for many many years. Too many things in that religion make no sense to me.

I prefer to leave the judging to God, not to any church, or any human being, and that is based on my simple and probably woefully incomplete knowledge of things spiritual. As I understand it, we humans are allowed only to judge actions, and labeling anyone a saint is judging the person.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/ecclesias...mpare.html

(So whoever wrote the book of Ecclesiastes said "the dead know not anything." That does seem to jive with the concept of the Second Coming, whereas souls immediately going to the next world does not appear to.)

(06-27-2015, 06:04 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote: Actually, I was just thinking out loud and did not really expect a reply to my questions, which were prompted by an earlier discussion in this thread.

Well, it's a discussion forum...

For all the following goes - this is my personal opinion and by no means any offense is intended.

Re: "The men who wrote the Scriptures-the apostles-did not agree with you,"
...and IMO there's no need either as this is a matter of personal belief. Thus IMO the saint-title in the Catholic sense can only be awarded by Catholics, and (as it's first of all a Catholic concept) IMO the use of the term should "remain" within the Catholic world.

Re: "The term 'saint' in the Catholic sense of the word does not mean someone is considered perfect" - this is what I found about the explicit Catholic requirements a person must fulfill to become a saint:

The Catholic church recognizes a person a saint who had an exceptional degree of holiness, or likeness to God, and who had dedicated him/herself to God as a saint, proven by either two miracles performed through the saint's intercession after his or her death, or instead of one of the miracles, the acknowledgement that he/she gave his or her life voluntarily as a witness for the faith and/or in an act of heroic charity for others.

Regarding this, when Kate objected the "canonization of secular saints by the media, popular opinion, or whatever," and stated her opinion that "celebrities and such, who are elevated above ordinary folks but hardly deserve such status, for the most part," for my understanding this is also very in line with the Catholic thinking, i.e. a no-go.

Perhaps, but there is a great deal of difference between a secular saint and a Christian saint.

The Catholic Church recognizes the extraordinary personal sanctity/holiness of a person as the standard for sainthood.

A secular "saint" has qualities that the press and public admires, like courage or heroism. But courage is not necessarily a supernatural virtue, and a person can have that very admirable quality without being a follower of Christ. The late Christopher Reeve and Diana Princess of Wales are examples of humans that the world elevated for "human" reasons, not because they bore heroic witness to the Gospel.

In other words the difference between a secular saint and a Catholic one is Jesus Christ.

MyNameisKate...you are right that Ecclesiastes says that the dead know nothing. But that's because Ecclesiastes is part of the Old Testament and was written before the arrival of the Son of God. There was no hope of salvation for anyone at all before that happened. When Christ briefly descended to the dead after His death on the Cross, he awakened their souls by the Good News that He had defeated death and made them part of the New Covenant.

This is the teaching of the Church and as a Catholic it's what I also believe and accept. I don't want anyone to think I am judging them if they have different beliefs. I am always open to listening to the beliefs of others.

I'm bringing this thread from the past back up because the current (summer) issue of The Civil War Monitor magazine has a thought-provoking article by Allen Guelzo on "The Redemption of Abraham Lincoln." The cover quote states 'The last century hasn't been kind to the legacy of the Great Emancipator. Is it time to set the record straight?'

I have only skimmed the article, but its main thesis is that Abraham Lincoln's prestige has fallen very low over the past 50+ years - especially in the role that he played as the Great Emancipator. As civil rights grew in strength, Mr. Lincoln's role diminished. We are all familiar with the controversy stirred up by Lerone Bennett several decades ago, but even Senator Barack Obama was quoted in 2005 as saying, "As an African-American...I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator." Guelzo sets out to reestablish Lincoln's legacy when it comes to freedom for the enslaved.

Honestly I don't think Abraham Lincoln himself would have loved this full-bodied title, nor does it match his humble personality. Legacy isn't established through titles either.

People change, and some people change a great deal. I think it’s impossible to conceive of the Lincoln of the 1840’s as any kind of “emancipator,” great or otherwise. I think he always hated slavery (perhaps because he viewed himself as a kind of “slave” when he was hired out by his father before Lincoln became twenty-one), but I don’t think he wanted to free slaves until midway through the Civil War. Lincoln’s reputation as the one who freed the slaves isn’t based much on the Emancipation Proclamation, which didn’t actually “free” slaves, but on the Thirteenth Amendment. Lincoln knew that any kind of presidential proclamation lasted only so long as a president wanted to keep it in force. But an Amendment was part of the Constitution and would defy any change to the executive branch of the government. So, midway through 1864, after the Senate had passed on April 8 an Amendment abolishing slavery, Lincoln began to work for the House of Representatives to pass the Senate’s bill. It passed the House January 31, 1865. Lincoln was so proud that he signed copies of the Amendment. It took a terrible war, enormous loss of life, and the Lincoln’s conviction that slavery was “the” cause of the war (see the Second Inaugural) to produce the Thirteenth Amendment.

So, did he “free” the slaves, and should he be venerated as a “secular saint”? I can’t imagine slavery being eradicated in the 1860’s without Lincoln’s efforts. Without him as president, who knows what would have happened? (Maybe no Civil War, but two countries, and slavery stays? Or perhaps bluster and more compromises, but slavery stays?) But, lucky us, he was president. I think Lincoln would reject the term “secular saint,” but he is wholly deserving of our deep love and respect.

(06-14-2016, 05:18 PM)L Verge Wrote: I'm bringing this thread from the past back up because the current (summer) issue of The Civil War Monitor magazine has a thought-provoking article by Allen Guelzo on "The Redemption of Abraham Lincoln." The cover quote states 'The last century hasn't been kind to the legacy of the Great Emancipator. Is it time to set the record straight?'

Laurie, would it be possible to share this article - via scan or photo - so others could read it? I am aware that most are able to just buy the magazine but I, being in Germany, can not. Yet I would be very interested to read it to understand the point that Mr. Guelzo is making.
I have recently had a surge on my blog, especially with young people who are very critical in their take on Lincoln and found that once they are provided with sources of popular quotes that are actually in context, they are willing to think about and discuss the topic earnestly and with a great level of understanding.
I would agree with others here who argue that a certain default Lincoln veneration can be problematic. It appears to be a problem of how certain historical figures are prestentedt to people of a young age and how they grow up believing into some mystical figure that stands beyond and above all criticism.
However, if those people meet the man and understand the challenges he faced and the ultimate outcome of his quest, they appear to rethink their critical point of view.
I would be very interested in learning more about this article!

Angela - thank you for your input (I, too, would like to read the article!) May I ask you - do we have such mystification of "earthly" leaders or other significant achievers or role models in Germany? Can you think of any comparable example (my mind is blank)? I have often thought about this. If not, why? Are we less emotional or don't we dare anymore to be, or have we simply had no one over that many "years"?

(06-15-2016, 03:20 PM)Angela Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 05:18 PM)L Verge Wrote: I'm bringing this thread from the past back up because the current (summer) issue of The Civil War Monitor magazine has a thought-provoking article by Allen Guelzo on "The Redemption of Abraham Lincoln." The cover quote states 'The last century hasn't been kind to the legacy of the Great Emancipator. Is it time to set the record straight?'

Laurie, would it be possible to share this article - via scan or photo - so others could read it? I am aware that most are able to just buy the magazine but I, being in Germany, can not. Yet I would be very interested to read it to understand the point that Mr. Guelzo is making.
I have recently had a surge on my blog, especially with young people who are very critical in their take on Lincoln and found that once they are provided with sources of popular quotes that are actually in context, they are willing to think about and discuss the topic earnestly and with a great level of understanding.
I would agree with others here who argue that a certain default Lincoln veneration can be problematic. It appears to be a problem of how certain historical figures are prestentedt to people of a young age and how they grow up believing into some mystical figure that stands beyond and above all criticism.
However, if those people meet the man and understand the challenges he faced and the ultimate outcome of his quest, they appear to rethink their critical point of view.
I would be very interested in learning more about this article!

It is a fairly lengthy article with some full-page photos, so I don't know if our scanning it at work can accommodate everything. We have a local government server that we depend on for delivery.

Another alternative would be for me to send the extra copy of the magazine that we receive because we advertise in it to Roger for scanning.

OR I can send the magazine directly to you, but Eva and others would then be at a disadvantage. Let me experiment with scanning first. If it works, I'll send to Roger for full distribution.

Angela and Eva,

Scanning worked in five segments. However, I think posting the article here may constitute a copyright invasion. Watch for emails. U.S. participants here will have to find a retail source or library that carries the Civil War Monitor.

(06-16-2016, 02:00 PM)Angela Wrote:

I second Angela! Thank you so much - we received it already!