Chronos – see the sites I link to, above.
I know of no Christian sect or belief labeled “Cappadocian”. It’s geographic.
FatBaldGuy – I learned that from the tour guides at the LDS sites in St. George, and the books I’ve read agree with it.
http://www.desertusa.com/Cities/ut/stgeorge.html
This comes from the St. George site:
Cal Meacham, thanks for fighting my ignorance.
In my experience, we just don’t care very much.
The way I was taught growing up (evangelical protestant), like BMalion said, all believers are saints.
The apostles, Paul, Mark, Luke, and Stephen were more likely to be referred to as “St. <name>” than other dead believers (whom we would occasionally refer to as “St. <name>.” But very seldom.) But all were more likely to be called by just their name than with their title.
And, as we don’t tend to venerate saints, the ones without big names just don’t come up nearly as often as they might in Catholic or Orthodox practices.
I don’t know your co-worker, but there seems to often be a black-or-white response to things like this.
Why can’t “sainthood” be a matter of degrees?
Gee, could it possibly be that R.C and E.O. churches set aside certain of the deceased because they are SURE of their “admission” to a beatific state? Granted, it is key whether one holds that a true believer is able to forfeit their salvation, granted by the grace of God though it be.
But even if salvation becomes inevitable upon true confession and baptism, there would still be some who would be better examples in their lives as a whole than most true believers.
Let’s say I can’t ice-skate at all. (Not really hypothetical at all.) Now, let’s just say that I have a sweet little 15-year old cousin who has been ice-skating for about a year.
With her near-total lack of commitment to practice and dubious level of potential to begin with, she now can circle a rink TWICE and only fall down, on the average, ONCE.
Well, now, Dorothy Hamill and Peggy Fleming never had anything on her, right? I mean, they are all “skaters” as I am not. RIGHT?
WRONG!
And, besides, the Eastern Orthodox Church emphasizes very strongly that there is a broad sense of the word “saint” as well as a narrow one. All people who are truly faithful in belief and deed to the Church are therefore truly faithful to Christ. And so they ARE considered saints and this is shown in various ways in the Liturgy.
Maybe the problem with (notice the emphasis) SOME fundamentalists is that more than one definition of a word makes no sense to them. And they would rather get up on their high horses and pontificate about the “truth” than listen to reason.
Again, not ALL fundamentalists.
True Blue Jack
I’m not sure there is anything for us to disagree on here.
But I suspect that the implication here is that applying the “narrow” definition of “saint” to them means saying that they WERE perfect. Or at least that they became perfect in later life.
Do you, or perhaps others, think that Catholics or Orthodox (or maybe also Anglicans?) hold THAT?! :dubious:
I’d say that perhaps here is the perfect example of “straw man” argument!
True Blue Jack
Roman Catholicism holds to the belief in the communion of saints, meaning that there are saints on earth, in purgatory and in heaven. Canonization is held for those who led exemplary lives and through certain criteria are believed with as much certainty as possible to have made it to heaven. But anyone who makes it to heaven is a saint, just maybe not a Saint.
And NOT an angel, by the way. grrr.