Why are there no saints from the Old Testament? Do Catholics ask OT characters to intercede on their behalf or just those from NT times and forward?
In regards to Protestant Churches you are absolutely correct.
The Orthodox et al, however, are a very different matter. The Church fully recognizes the legitimacy of the sacraments of these churches and welcomes them into communion. In many Catolic churches, if you look in the missal you will find Canon 844 stated in abbreviated form, along with the list of Churches I gave earlier. The members of these churches are welcome to partake in communion at their own discretion.
They are, of course, encouraged to act in accordance with the teachings of their own church when deciding whether or not they wish to receive communion in a Catholic Church. Some Orthodox Churches condone it, others don’t.
The distinction does not only apply in extraordinary circumstances (although it doesn’t seem to be based on baptism or penance). In fact,extraordinary circumstances are when the distiction isn’t made. There is no mention of danger of death or grave necessity in the following section, which apparently (according to my parish’s “Worship Resource”) applies to members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church and the Polish National Catholic Church
The requirements of being in danger of death or other grave necessity, and the inability to approach a minister of one’s own community apply only to members of churches that are not in the same condition as the oriental churches in the judgement of the Apostolic See.
Interesting question.
A “Saint” (with a capital “S”) is a title for anyone who, according to the RCC, has made it into heaven. Let me make this clear: the Church’s declaration that someone is in heaven does not put them there; rather, it’s the Church who verifies that someone made it there based on miracles, signs, etc. (So just in case anyone wonders: if I paid the Church $1,000 to give me sainthood when I die, it wouldn’t make a difference.)
A “saint” (lowercase “s”) is anyone who makes it into heaven. (An even MORE technical definition is anyone who does God’s work; we ARE meant to be saints on Earth, but that’s another matter.) It’s a status, not a title, such that if your dead grandmother is in heaven, she’s a saint even if she doesn’t have the title.
Having said that, it’s entirely certain that there would be Old Testament people in heaven. (Elijah and Enoch are two we KNOW of, and I suspect Moses is as well.) As best as I can remember from my biblical traditions, there were a number of souls “blocked” from entering heaven until Christ’s sacrifice. That being the case, we don’t know specifically who got in and who didn’t. Is King David in heaven? Are the prophets? It’s an educated guess to assume they are, but at the same time, there’s a danger in presuming to know who was saved and who was damned.
An important point I might tack on is that Saints (capital S) tend to be known for their witnessing of both Christ and the Catholic faith in their lives. (There was a controversy a few years ago about canonizing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The RCC easily shot it down, among other reasons, because King wasn’t Catholic.) On that note, it would be unlikely that you could ever canonize an Old Testament figure.
Two fast points regarding Catholic recognition of other churches: the Coptic Church also exists in Ethiopia, with an independent national church in communion with the Egyptian one (and both are monophysite but no longer make a big deal out of it); and all the Old Catholic Churches are believed to have a valid ministry and sacraments. All but one of them, however, are nearly exclusively European – the PNCC being the American exception. (There are a couple of miniscule splinter groups in the U.S. who claim to have valid apostolic succession through the Old Catholic lineage, with what validity I can’t say.)
With regard to Old Testament saints, it’s worth noting that the Orthodox Churches regularly commemorate capital-S saints from O.T. times; over on the Pizza Parlor, Oblio, a moderator and a member of the Orthodox Church in America (national church derived from the Russian Orthodox tradition), your_quagga (a Roman Catholic), and myself have jointly maintained this thread with capsule biographies of saints as their days come up; this month is fertile for O.T. prophets’ days in the Orthodox tradition.
Question…
Which religions out there have the sacrament of Confession? RCC is the big one, but who else?
Can someone explain the act of being “saved” according to Baptist beliefs? I have a Baptist friend who tried to explain it. I ended up getting confused because according to his definition of it I was already “saved” but he said I wasn’t. It’s got something to do with realizing that you’re a sinner. Ok, I knew I was a sinner since I was about 5. And then your supposed to admit your sins and accept Jesus into your heart. I got that done too because I’ve already been baptized and had First Confession. So why does he think I’m still not “saved”? I’m really confused on this one.
Oh, pro’lly cuz you’re Catholic. 
Seriously, IANAB (I am not a Baptist), but I can think of a couple of explanations. One is that some Baptists are, in fact, anti-Catholic. This may or may not be representative of his church. (Baptists are a pretty diverse bunch; there are many Baptist denominations and many independent Baptist churches.) He may simply assume that because Catholics don’t place the same sort of emphasis on being “saved,” or understand it in quite the same way, (Plus you think you can only pray to Saints instead of Jesus, and you believe everything the Pope says, etc. Right? ;)) that you couldn’t possibly be saved and be a Catholic.
Another is more related to how Baptists understand salvation. Baptists tend to focus on salvation as an event, frequently a memorable and lifechanging event. They don’t deny that there can be a process in which a person learns about Jesus and the nature of sin, goes to church, etc., but there is expected to be a moment when you conciously recognize your own worthlessness and hopelessness and conciously call on Jesus to enter your heart. That doesn’t mean you have to verbally say, “Jesus, I’m a sinner, enter my heart,” but you should feel/think something along those lines. At that moment, you are “born again” and made into a new creation in Christ. After that experience, you are expected to request Baptism, as a sign of what has happened to you, and hopefully to join a church, though you may have been attending one already.
There is some variation, of course, but notice that you must make a concious decision. You cannot, therefore, be saved until you reach an age (sometimes, but usually not, defined precisely) at which you can make such decisions conciously. At some churches, all children, at about the age of twelve, are “expected” to make a concious confession of faith, recognizing their own sinfulness and verbally professing faith in Jesus. Some Baptist churches will baptize anyone who asks for it, even if the person is only two. Nevertheless, they are expected to know what they are asking, and to have already been saved. Others hold out for the full emotional experience described above, and some Baptists may recieve Baptism at an early age, and then later have a full blow salvation experience, at which point they may say they were “really” saved. I’m sure any real Baptists on the board could describe their own experience and the practice at their church (and hopefully correct any errors I made, though like I said, “Baptist” is a broad enough category that everything I said is probably true for at least some Baptists!)
What this means for you is that your friend would probably doubt anyone who said they were saved, but couldn’t remember when it happened. Most Baptists are also suspicious of sacramentalism, the idea that rites performed in the church have any outward effect. Baptism for Baptists is an “ordinance,” which means it’s a human act that recognizes what God has already done, not something in which God actually does anything, at least in any unique or reliable way. So your mention of baptism (as an infant, for crying out loud!) and First Confession didn’t help.
Hope that answers your question
PS–I’ll leave your first question for someone like Polly, since he probably knows way more about it than I do. But I will point out that Christianity is a religion. Catholicism, “Baptist-ism,” Methodism, etc. are denominations–that is names, by which Christians divide themselves. Sorry to jump on you, but that’s a pet peeve of mine! Saying we’re different religions makes it sound like we have completely different beliefs, and obscures the unity we have in Christ.
To add to an already longwinded answer, I’ll mention that “recognizing your sinfulness” and “confessing your sins” does not simply mean realizing that you sin and telling someone when you do. It means having the awareness that you are inherantly sinful, that everything you do and think is warped by sinfulness and that nothing you can possibly do will save you from damnation. It means acknowledging your own unworthiness before God. It sounds pretty down, and it is, but it is balanced by the complete and utter joy you should feel at knowing in your heart that Jesus has saved you anyway as an act of mercy.
All the eastern/ancient churches (Orthodox, etc) have the sacrament of Confession, and all the other sacraments of the Catholic Church.
Among the Protestants, I believe only the Anglicans do. To the degree that other Protestant churches may hold any sort of confessions, as I understand none consider it a sacrament.
Interesting point - I’ve never looked at it that way. I’ve always thought of “Catholic” as my religion and “Roman” as my rite, while considering “denomination” a purely Protestant term. Between your comments and consultation of my dictionary, I’d have to agree that I’ve been looking at it incorrectly. Perhaps Relgion: Christian, Faith: Catholic, and Rite: Roman, would be a more appropriate set of divisions, though I’m probably splitting hairs, here. 
Thank you for telling me about the “denomination/religion” thing. I’ll try to use it in the future.
Hey, no prob!
As I understand things, Sanders is right about the **Episcopal Church. (Welcome to the Board, both of you, by the way!) We do have the sacrament of Confession. The Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer inclused a rite called “The Reconciliation of a Penitent” in two forms, one which can only be pronouced by a bishop or priest, and one which can be used by any other Christian. Since I’ve got my BCP open and at my elbow, let me quote a few relevant passages:
From the section marked Concerning the Rite:
The rite itself starts with the penitent saying, “Bless me, for I have sinned.” Sound familiar, anyone? 
It concludes with the priest saying the following (coding from the BCP)
I have used this rite myself once, with my priest, after I had deliberately and with forethough broken a vow I’d made before God. It was a serious offense, committed in anger, and I felt the need to formally atone. This rite helped.
On the other hand, I don’t think the Episcopal Church has any requirements concerning when this rite must be performed, and I get the impression it’s not commonly used. There is a Confession of Sins which is required before the Eucharist and is recited by the congregation en masse, the exact words varying with the rite. After reciting this, the priest announces that the sins of the congregation, including him- or herself, have been forgiven by God.
My question for Catholics:
When should one make a formal Confession of Sins? Is there a set interval, such as weekly or monthly, or is it after the commission of a sin? Also, how do you see the difference between public and private Confession of Sins? By public, I mean the sort of Confession I referred to earlier, one recited by an entire congregation, with no one mentioning specific, personal sins aloud, and by private I mean telling another person specifically what you did.
Thanks,
CJ
One of the precepts of the Church is that you must confess your sins at least once per year, during the Lenten season. This applies only if serious sin is involved.
I find the ritual of personal confession to a priest to be very rewarding. It forces me to examine and think about things I have done, and how I could do them better. I think people in general - certainly me in particular - have a great ability to rationalize. Given half an opportunity, it would be easy to not dwell on misdeeds… not so much the serious ones, but the little ones. Confession is an excellent opportunity to haul out your soul and examine it.
Could it be done in general terms, and avoid the one-on-one interaction? Sure. But for me, and I suspect for many others, that would prove more a refuge for forgetfulness and rationalization.
- Rick
Stranegly, I go through the exact same process and come to a different ebding. I tend to brrod and become depressed at my own inadequacy. WHen I confess ( a rare event, in all truth) I feel so much free-er. Like there was a big crushing weight on my back.
Actually, there is a big crushing wieght on my back. Its filled with about 13 library books. Stupid University!
Regarding Old Testament Saints, Paragraph 61 of Section 1 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
As noted by Polycarp and others, though, it is not a usual practice in the RC to refer to them as Saint.
Next to absolution, of course, the greatest value of confession is getting the counsel of your priest. (I point this out because I have encountered people who think that confession is this automated procedure – you list your sins, your priest tells you to say 5 Our Fathers, and you’re done. It’s more than that.)
Confession is like a 10-15 minute free therapy session in which you can talk to the priest about your problems that cause you to sin, and he can help you to see certain flaws in your thinking or to your approach to certain issues that you couldn’t see yourself. He then suggests ways for you to improve yourself and maybe recommends a particular book to read or saint from which you could ask for help…etc. Then he gives you your penance and absolves you.
You walk out of the confessional not only cleansed from your sins but armed with the means to avoid them in the future. It’s great!
Also, I have found that going regularly going to confession has had the unexpected benefit of making it easy for me to admit fault in secular situations (like when I screw up at work). Confession is a good way to practice the virtue of humility, and it helps you get used to embarrassing yourself. (In fact, St. Francis de Sales wrote in his Introduction to the Devout Life that one practices more virtues in the act of confessing than in any other act.)
I have always been lead to believe that I was not supposed to say I was “saved”-that, assured salvation is presumptiuous-that it’s arrogant, and it’s up to GOD to know that I’m saved-but I simply must go on and do what I am supposed to do.
That’s why sometimes, I cringe when I hear people talking about being saved or unsaved-to me, that’s the height of hubris.
Guinastasia
This is an interesting topic. Gut-level, my reaction is the same as yours. I’ve certainly seen people act very arrogantly (IMO) while presuming their own salvation. (E.g., those tacky “Warning: In case of rapture this car will be unmanned” bumper stickers.)
My tradition (Methodist) disagrees with me, though, and I’ve learned never to dismiss the teachings of my church. (Disagree with, all the time. Dismiss, never.) John Wesley firmly believed that Christ would not leave us in agonizing uncertainty over the eternal state our souls, but that the Holy Spirit would testify to our salvation, both through outward evidences (good works, righteousness, a transformed life, etc.) and through inward assurance (peace, joy, and sure knowledge of our own salvation). Assurance is actually a major category in Wesleyan theology, right after Perfection/Sanctification (which sounds even more arrogant, but isn’t.) It’s fairly complicated, since Wesley himself admitted to long periods of doubt and dispondancy which altered his thingking over the years. And of course Methodists and other Christians have continued to experience assurance, arrogance, and doubt in the years since Wesley. I don’t know this stuff as well as I should, but if your interested, I can look up some texts on Wesley’s doctrine of assurance next week (after my finals).
Protestants have generally done more thinking about this than Catholics. For Catholics (as far as I understand), if your Baptized and Confirmed, and haven’t committed mortal sin (wilfully rejected the Gospel) without recieving Pennance, your basically saved, though you might spend a few millenia in purgatory. For Protestants, it’s either Heaven or Hell for you, and not knowing which can be pretty stressful. (Not compatable with the peace and joy that Christ promised us!) Different Protestant traditions have dealt with this differently. Calvin (folowing St. Augustine) said that God decided everything beforehand, so quit worrying, already! (Though Reformed Christians since have frequently looked for signs and indications that one is among the elect, not always having been content to trust God’s judgement on the matter.) Luther said basically the same thing. (It often puzzles people, especially us Methodists, that predestination is suposed to be a “doctrine of comfort,” but the basic message is that God has it taken care of, and whether we’re saved or damned, at least God is in charge. It relieves a lot of pressure and worry!) Wesley came up with the doctrine of assurance, and Baptists made Salvation into a more or less easily identifiable event. All of these traditions emphasise that God is the one at work, so we have nothing to be arrogant about either way, but believers sometimes forget that part.
“You’re!” “You’re!” Man, twice in one post. That’ll keep me from getting arrogant, at least!