/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6983003]

Could someone please explain to me the theology of saints? The Catholic Church believes in the Resurrection of the Dead and all that (but not necessarily in the same body), but bestows the title "saint" on those who went directly to heaven, like Mary (hence why it's okay to talk to them, because they are not among "the dead"). So does that mean the saints are not going to be among the Resurrected, and they just sit that one out?

[Anonymous No.6983005]

mfw I'm Catholic and I have no fucking clue. They NEVER, EVER talk about this. I just want a simple answer: are the Saints dead, or are they in heaven, because I'm pretty sure Jesus said no one is in heaven except for people like Moses. and Mary

[Anonymous No.6983017]

>>6983005
Saints are in heaven, that's literally the definition of Saint in the terms here. The criteria the Church uses to categorize saints is minimal for it to be official, but they don't claim that it includes all saints, just confirmed saints. It might be simple 1% of saints, but you have to have a criteria for official recognition.

[Anonymous No.6983055]

bump

[Anonymous No.6983091]

>>6983005
>because I'm pretty sure Jesus said no one is in heaven except for people like Moses.
I'm pretty sure you've not read the canonical gospels paying particular attention to what Jesus says in them.

p.s.: Nobody can come to the father but through me.

[Anonymous No.6983095]

>>6983017
>1% of saints

1%ers

[Anonymous No.6983096]

>>6983091
Moses does get there through Christ, m80. He had to wait in limbo, but Christ saves him, at the very least during the hallowing of hell.

[Anonymous No.6983098]

>>6983017
That is what the Catholic Church claims, yes. Supporting documentation...?

>>6983091
Can't have it both ways, m8. You either go to heaven when you die, or you remain dead until Jesus returns then you go to heaven. The Church is trying to suggest that for some people we call saints (based on popular consensus more than anything) somehow are in heaven. Supporting documentation...?

[Anonymous No.6983106]

>>6983098
>You either go to heaven when you die, or you remain dead until Jesus returns then you go to heaven.
Right. Some go to heaven, some remain dead. A "saint" is defined as someone in heaven, which is what distinguishes them. "Saint" also just means someone saved, but in the more particular sense that requires canonization, it means someone who is in heaven, as opposed to just being a deceased Christian

>based on popular consensus more than anything)
Ah, no. Being declared a saint by the Church has nothing to do with popular consensus.

[Anonymous No.6983109]

When someone dies their soul is judged and, if worthy, they enter Heaven, becoming a saint.
The Church is able to canonise (confirm the sainthood) of a person.

>bestows the title "saint" on those who went directly to heaven, like Mary
Mary was assumed, bodily, into heaven and is exceptional. Sainthood is not exclusive to those assumed into heaven.

>hence why it's okay to talk to them, because they are not among "the dead"
We can ask saints to pray on our behalf. Otherwise, we can pray that the dead enter heaven a la 'Requiem AEternam.'

A person who dies in God's grace and friendship ascends to heaven in spirit, becoming a saint. Though, they are not yet complete, as humans are both spiritual and physical in nature.
The Resurrection of the Dead is when the communion of saints will be united with an uncorrupted body.

>tfw merely a former Catholic and now staunchly atheist but matters of doctrine and holding Mary in motherly esteem are still important to you

[Anonymous No.6983119]

>>6983109
Learn something new every day.

Thanks for nothing, Catholic vacation bible school!

[Anonymous No.6983127]

>>6983119

Pray God sees fit to gift me with faith once more. ;_;

[Anonymous No.6983131]

>>6983127
God still has faith in you

[Anonymous No.6983140]

>>6983109
>When someone dies their soul is judged and, if worthy, they enter Heaven, becoming a saint.

So we get judged twice? Seems like an asspull to me.

[Anonymous No.6983142]

>>6983096
>Moses does get there through Christ, m80. He had to wait in limbo, but Christ saves him, at the very least during the hallowing of hell.

This is not contained in a directly attributed saying of Christ mate. I'm happy for your to make up whatever story time games you like, but it isn't from the mouth of the Christ.

>>6983098
>Can't have it both ways, m8. You either go to heaven when you die, or you remain dead until Jesus returns then you go to heaven. The Church is trying to suggest that for some people we call saints (based on popular consensus more than anything) somehow are in heaven. Supporting documentation...?

Pretty sure Jesus doesn't say anything about heaven, but it has been some time. I know Jesus doesn't say anything about death like that except the those who are now living are dead stuff.

Go back to the canonicals, read what is directly attributed to Jesus.

[Anonymous No.6983148]

>>6983142
What the EFF m8, Christianity is not contained to the five paragraph essay composed of "text directly attributed to Jesus".

Lest ye fall squarely into the "well, Jesus never explicitly condemned [you know what] therefore it's not a sin!" trap

[Anonymous No.6983191]

>>6983148
You can't have it both ways mate. Either Jesus is the central figure in Christianity and his directly attributed sayings are central OR you're playing make believe.

[Anonymous No.6983198]

>>6983140

Yes.
There is 'particular judgement' which occurs immediately after death. The soul is sent to Heaven, Purgatory and eventually Heaven, or Hell.

Last Judgement occurs after the Resurrection of the Dead. Souls in Purgatory are released to Heaven, and Heaven and Earth are made new in the World to Come.

In my understanding, Last Judgement is concerned more with the Universe itself rather than particular souls (besides those who happen to still be living at the time.)

[Anonymous No.6983204]

>>6983191
Oh shit, I guess we all have to pack it up and go home then. Bible is bullshit guys, confirmed by some shitposter on /lit/!

[Anonymous No.6983218]

>>6983003
When a soul leaves the body they go to purgatory, if they haven't earned themselves eternal separation from God. If a soul is something special like a saint's, they may instead be admitted to heaven immediately, instead of spending time in purgatory.

[Anonymous No.6983231]

>>6983204
I didn't say the Bible is bullshit you illiterate cock swallower, I said that there is a special accord to the literal words of God within the bible.

[Anonymous No.6983237]

>>6983191
Jesus is the central figure, but there's a lot in His ministry and a lot that He said which is not included in the Gospels, because it simply could not all be covered; that itself is in the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.6983240]

>>6983218
This doesn't really address eschatology.

[Anonymous No.6983246]

>>6983237
Look at it this way: unless you believe Saul/Paul to be himself divine, his sayings are of lesser worth than the actions and sayings attributed to Jesus directly in the canonicals, correct?

[Anonymous No.6983258]

>>6983246

As an alternative to believing Paul is divine, one could believe his writings were divinely inspired.

There's really no cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter and Christ's Vicar on earth.

[Anonymous No.6983259]

>>6983231
Then you had better back the fuck up and apologize for the cheeky shit you said about the Church "making things up" when they make valid inferences about doctrinal matters using things Jesus said and things God said in the past and producing a fusion out of them.

[Anonymous No.6983266]

>>6983259
>when they make valid inferences about doctrinal matters using things Jesus said and things God said in the past and producing a fusion out of them.

The thing is, there are many valid inferences available and the Church is loathe to rely on an argumentum ad deus to support its readings. The Church is aware that its readings are (even in its own eyes) the readings of men.

Take a course in hermeneutics before you open your chit trap in public about reading divine matters.

[Anonymous No.6983269]

>being c*tholic

Disgusting

[Anonymous No.6983273]

>>6983246
I believe Paul's words to be divinely inspired. The guy went from a persecutor of Christians to someone who was repeatedly whipped and even survived a stoning, someone who wouldn't even accept pay for his ministry and preferred to gain his income purely from manual labor. Christ spoke to Paul, and Paul, along with Peter, was the primary driving force behind eliminating requirements like circumcision and reconciling gentile and Jewish Christians. Paul was instrumental in Christianity becoming the religion of Europe.

[Anonymous No.6983274]

>>6983017
>>6983106
>>6983109
>>6983142
>>6983198
>>6983258

>people ironicaly spout this shit, expecting others to believe in ghosts that visit the world under the command of god.

sage and reported for non-literature

[Anonymous No.6983279]

>>6983003
Sorry to get off-topic here, but there are a bunch of reaction pics of this girl in the OP pic but I don't know what her name is and image search is giving me nothing.

Can someone tell me who this is so I can find more pics?

[Anonymous No.6983285]

>>6983003


who is this semen demon?

[Anonymous No.6983286]

>>6983279
Christ-Chan

[Anonymous No.6983288]

>>6983266
I don't even know who is jewing who at this point. If you're supposed to be representing yourself as an actual Catholic, I think you messed up like 5 posts ago. For all that you pretend to have gone to seminary, you seem to have forgotten that the Magisterium is considered unquestionable.

[Anonymous No.6983289]

>>6983258
>As an alternative to believing Paul is divine, one could believe his writings were divinely inspired.

And this is one of a number of potentially valid readings (unless one themselves is divine, in which case they know the TRUE reading).

Other valid readings include Saul being a Sadducee secret policeman trying to destroy a temple reformation movement through COINTELPRO. Or that Saul was just a man who earnestly wanted to emulate what he thought Christ was, even though he had no contact with the authentic Jesus. Or that Paul earnestly and correctly followed the teachings of Jesus as they were fallibly transmitted to him. Or that Paul earnestly and correctly followed the teachings of Jesus as they were accurately transmitted to him, and the whole thing about letting gentiles into the club was an appropriate decision of the apostolic council and that the church can innovate.

>There's really no cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter and Christ's Vicar on earth.

But nor is it the most straight forward reading, nor the most supportable reading, nor the most innovative reading. It is a reading of vital importance to many people. (And of course I know many catholics who earnestly emulate the Christ I read from the gospels, and I admire them.)

[Anonymous No.6983296]

>>6983286
Thanks boo

[Anonymous No.6983297]

>>6983286

>Catholics confirmed for shotacons , yet they keep denying it.

[Anonymous No.6983298]

>>6983266
Are you suggesting that a random pastor can understand what Scripture means better than a consensus of authorities tracing appointment back the original Apostles, which the Bible says are chosen and guided by the Holy Spirit?

[Anonymous No.6983306]

>>6983288
>If you're supposed to be representing yourself as an actual Catholic,

I'm not.

>For all that you pretend to have gone to seminary,

I don't. I've just read theology.

>you seem to have forgotten that the Magisterium is considered unquestionable.

Show me the text you rely upon for that.

[Anonymous No.6983311]

>>6983289

>Other valid readings include Saul being a Sadducee secret policeman trying to destroy a temple reformation movement through COINTELPRO

Holy shit, did god just plagiarize police story? What a hack!

[Anonymous No.6983312]

>>6983289
>Other valid readings include Saul being a Sadducee secret policeman trying to destroy a temple reformation movement through COINTELPRO.
No, that's not a possible reading, you haven't actually read the Bible.

>Or that Saul was just a man who earnestly wanted to emulate what he thought Christ was, even though he had no contact with the authentic Jesus
Erm, he actually did, except from a secular perspective.

[Anonymous No.6983336]

>>6983312
>Erm, he actually did, except from a secular perspective.

You know who else constantly relies on divine revelation to buttress their weak readings? Mormons.

[Anonymous No.6983338]

>>6983198

But what's the point? Surely God couldn't make a mistake and judge us differently at the final judgement. If we're judged when we die, the final judgement is superfluous.

[Anonymous No.6983344]

>>6983005
>mfw I'm Catholic and I have no fucking clue
Jesus, I'm Catholic & I'm the same more often than not. I really should read the CCC or something.

[Anonymous No.6983353]

>>6983336
1. Paul doesn't actually claim any doctrine he said was divinely revealed except what was agreed upon by all Christians, as in not divinely revealed to him.

2. Paul's inclusion in the canon is part of the canon in general, meaning if you're going to cite the Gospels as some sole authority, you're going to have to choose WHICH Gospels. Since you reject the canon in favor of the Gospels, you're left with a lot more than four Gospels.

3. Paul didn't appoint himself, he was ordained by another bishop who also thought the Holy Spirit guided him (despite his extreme prejudice in regard to Paul, for obvious reasons).

[Anonymous No.6983368]

>>6983353
I might add that the author of Luke is the same author of Acts, which substantiates Paul's guidance from God. So by throwing the validity of Paul around, you're calling equally into question the validity of the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.6983516]

>>6983311
Probably a reference to the Toledot Yeshu. In it, Judas heroically defeats the apostate Jesus who is trying to infect "real" Judaism with his heresy. Jesus is successfully killed, and Saul is used to create the Christianity as a separate religion instead of a reformation of Judaism.

[Anonymous No.6983555]

>>6983368
>you're calling equally into question the validity of the Gospels.
I'm okay with this.

[Anonymous No.6983576]

>>6983555
Then you're suggesting that the secular perspective is the orthodox one for Christianity, which kind of defeats your argument. You can construct an argument, but it can't be one claiming to be the orthodox Christian perspective when it doesn't even hold the Gospels to be valid. Your argument must be purely secular..

[Anonymous No.6983645]

>>6983576
Readings that presume the correctness of one's own belief in the divine are self-satisfying.

[Anonymous No.6983666]

>>6983338
Can anyone answer this. It's annoying me. Like, the whole thing seems a mess. Protestantism has it's problems, but this isn't one of them.

[Anonymous No.6983689]

>>6983645
Maybe, but I'm not presenting my belief as anything else, whereas you're falsely representing secularism as orthodox Christianity, and saying Christians who don't have a secular perspective are heterodox Christians. That's a false premise, period, which is different from a poor premise, which is what you're accusing me of.

>>6983666
You have the living, and you have the dead (which includes Limbo and Purgatory for those not in Hell). those are covered in the final judgement.

[Anonymous No.6983710]

>>6983689
You're misusing orthodox to mean Catholic. And Catholicism is one of a number of heterodox beliefs.

The only way you can substantiate your argument is by divine revelation.

[Anonymous No.6983738]

>>6983710
Noooo, orthodox means different things to different denominations. Seventh Day Adventists use the term "orthodox", for instance, and while it means the same superficially as it does with Catholics, it's going to entail different things in substance. In your case I use "orthodox" to mean what it does literally, that is "right path", "proper", "correct", etc. A proper Christian doesn't have a secularist perspective on Christianity, full stop, there's absolutely zero basis for that. You might argue that secular viewpoint is orthodox according to criteria A, but you cannot argue it is orthodox according to criteria B where B = Christian.

Christianity makes a distinction between natural and revealed religion, yes, and I can argue revealed religion against secularism, but not if you screw around with the name of the game we're playing. If we're playing tennis, say tennis, if we're playing chess, say chess, but don't say it's chess and then get out a racket and then claim triumph because I am unable to stop the return the ball using a pawn.

[Anonymous No.6983768]

>>6983689
But the dead have already been judged. So why are they judged again? It's going to be the same judgement, right?

Unless the final judgement was just for the living, but that isn't scriptural.

[Anonymous No.6983801]

>>6983768
Their judgement hasn't been fully administered, no, at least not in the case of Purgatory, and perhaps even in the case of Limbo. Also even in the case of Hell. As Virgil points out in the Divine Comedy, the Last Judgement will make everyone more perfect, and the more perfect something is, the greater the capacity for both joy and suffering, thus the suffering of those in Hell increases drastically.

[Anonymous No.6983879]

>>6983801
>Divine Comedy

Please tell me you're joking. It¨s a good book, but it's not a guide to doctrinal points.

And I don't understand what you mean by "fully administered". People in Purgatory eventually go to Heaven. What does judging them for a second time achieve? Unless I've totally misunderstood the judgement of the dead, and it's not really a judgement at all.

I think this is maybe just not a particularly logical doctrine and I just have to accept that.

[Anonymous No.6983900]

>>6983879
The Divine Comedy is poetry based largely on Aquinas. It's not a source of doctrine, but it's a fairly faithful, albeit it highly artistic, derivative of Catholic theology.

People in Purgatory go to heaven, I'm saying the final judgement might cut short their time in Purgatory.

It's actually not fully a doctrine. There are perspectives more and more orthodox, but there's a lot of room for dissent on this point within the Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia says judgement is only rendered for some cases, but even in those cases Resurrection happens. The Saints receive Resurrected bodies, but they are shimmering and differentiated from other bodies before last judgement, and the saints commune with heaven in the meantime. People in Hell get bodies too, and are judged, etc. Everyone does. But the Encyclopedia is not considered the final word on doctrine, just a more orthodox guide; dissenting here is not considered heresy.

[Anonymous No.6983932]

>>6983900
>It's actually not fully a doctrine.

Okay, so I'll have to read about it a bit and work out what I think. I had a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the last judgement and it had some quote from the Catechism that didn't make a great deal of sense to me. Thanks.

Regarding Dante, he maybe is right, but it makes me queasy using him as a direct source. He occupies the same position as Milton in the way people treat his stuff as adjuncts to the Bible. They're just works of fiction.