cannonized or beatified or whatever…
You don’t need to sanctify God.
Gary T that wasn’t a very good answer, I hope someone comes along with something better then unhelpful drivel!
Weeks I would like to think that no, Jesus never was, and the reason being is because he is Jesus! Sort of the start of the father of the institutions that now cannonize and beatify etc…
He’s not a saint in conventional Christianity. He’s God, and sainthood is a lesser state than divinity (angels can be called saint, as with St Michael, and people can be saints). The Vatican’s rules for canonization say it can only be applied to a dead person, although Saint was in older times a more general title (Easton Bible Dictionary, bottom of page).
Having said that, it’s not absolutely impossible that he has been canonized or called a saint. Until the late 10th century, canonization wasn’t officially centralized with the Pope in Rome (and even today other churches than Rome create saints), so it’s hard to rule it out conclusively, despite it being against conventional church teaching.
I’d say Gary T’s answer was pretty good, all things considered. It sums it up in one sentence. It’d be quite silly to make Jesus a saint, when he’s already the basis for the religion to start with.
The Romanist model of “saint” is not the only model that is used in Christianity. In Greek, the original language of the Church, there is no such word as “saint”. There is only the word “ayos”, which means “holy”. The same word is used to refer to the Saints and to God. Ayos O Theos: Holy God, Ayos Sophia: Holy Wisdom, Ayos Nicholao: “Saint” Nicholas. In Orthodoxy, recognition that someone is a “saint” is recognition that the person is in some way close to God. Likewise, the Church does not have the power to “make” a saint.
Who makes saints then? The church or god?
If god does wouldn’t making his son a saint be favouritism just a tad?
If the the church does wouldn;t that be a flagrant case of sucking up?
(I believe in the church, there is an annoying one just down the road)
Umm, as you may have just read, Jesus is not a saint.
Besides you want God to make himself a saint? Jesus is an aspect of the godhead not a lower order of divinity if I understand it correctly.
Oh, yeah?
Then howcome when I was back in Bible Belt-land this summer, I kept seeing bumper stickers that read **America Bless God! ** ?
:rolleyes:
I couldn’t help wonder how Kate Smith would have sung it…
America, Bless God!
God that I love!
Stand beside Him,
and guide Him,
through the night
with a light
from… above???
To cannonize Jesus would essentially be heresy, since dogma states that He rose from the dead; ergo is not dead… gotta die before you can become a saint.
I should mentioned that the word of which you speak is more properly transliterated “hagios”. Then it will be recognisable to anyone who has studied classical and Koine Green.
UnuMondo
alterego: How is your answer any different from Gary T’s answer?
From a Catholic viewpoint, sainthood is essentially proof that a person is in heaven, generally because miracles have been attributed to them.
Since Christ is known to be in heaven (seated at the right hand of the father - Nicene Creed) sainthood would be superfluous.
Only if the purpose of sainthood is to prove that the person is in heaven. As far as I know, it isn’t.
Gosh, how WRONG of me to transliterate a word in a way that actually resembles the way it is PRONOUNCED.
I guess I’ll have to start running around and telling all the Greeks I know (including the Priests and Bishops) that they cannot pronounce Liturgical Greek properly. Indeed, even the Patriarchs of Athens and Constantinople seem to be making this error. You had better go over and correct the Greeks’ Greek for them.
Fine, if you want to transliterate the Greek of the Church according to its debased modern pronunciation instead simply changing each letter to its Roman equivalent so that it will be easier for students to recognise, well, whatever floats your boat. Very few people do this, however.
Incidentally, your entire original post was sort of daft. You claim that the Greek-inspired churches do not have a word for saint, using simply “holy.” Surely you know that “saint” is ultimately derived from Latin “sanctus”, which means “holy” just the same as “hagios.” There’s really no difference in terminology here.
UnuMondo
Among the Catholic saints there are 3 beatified Jesuses from Spain and one St. Jesus from Mexico, none of them are the Jesus of water-to-wine fame.
As I understand it, the RCC does not “make” somebody a Saint. Rather, the process of canonization is intended to recognize that somebody is a Saint. It’s a matter of discerning, not creating, on the Church’s part.
In most mainline Protestant denominations, the term “Saints” simply refers to the community of believers, both living and dead. In that respect, I’m already a Saint.
“Saint Rimshot” . . . it has a certain ring to it.
Inasmuch as Jesus is the object of devotion of the Church (which includes the Saints by whatever definition), then he is indeed “above” Sainthood. He is the authority by which sainthood is conferred in the RCC sense.
Well first of all, he did not explain exactly why Jesus is God. Considering that his claim that Jesus is God is privy to large amounts of speculation in the first place, his answer was pretty unhelpful.
Do you think the OP read his post and went, “Oh, how stupid of me! I must have just “forgotten” that Jesus was actually God himself. Jeez!”
If Jesus is/was indeed God, I think he would need to provide a cite for that farfetched claim. If Jesus could be God, maybe a cite pointing to the religious doctrine that states it is in order.
In the simplest state of the matter, the OP did not ask if Jesus was God in the first place.
At any rate, I believe that my caricature of his comment was spot-on, no? It was, in the utmost sanctity of the phrase, unhelpful drivel.
I apologize: Aside from all that stuff, the root difference in our answers is that I made no attempt to passively belittle the OP with my seeming intelligence on the matter. I did attempt to answer his question with fact that requires no prior knowledge or cites.
Maybe you took it differently then I? I just didn’t feel like he had any interest in really quenching the OP’s curiousity know what I mean?