There goes *everyone*
18 February 2008 - 13 אדר א' 5768 by Huw
According to new rules for sainthood from the Vatican (they are, I guess, not “new” because, of course, the Church Never Changes™) candidates for sainthood must be 100% Orthodox All The Time.
“The second part describes the preliminary phase of the cause which extends as far as the ‘Nihil Obstat’ of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.” The ‘Nihil Obstat’ is a status given to the works of the person in question which certifies that nothing in their teachings contradicts the teachings of the Church.
I worry about Matthew 28:17 where, even looking at the resurrected Jesus, some of the disciples still doubted… but Jesus sent them out as evangelists anyway. I wonder if any of those people would fail the doctrinal purity test. Clearly some of the early Jewish followers would. I’m so VERY happy that I have no freaking clue any more what makes someone Holy. St Francis, St Benedict, St Gregory of Nyssa, … all these would, I think, fail the Raztinger Purity Anschluss. Eastern Orthodoxy, at least, has always made clear that sanctity and teaching are not tied together: that’s why Augustine is included on the EO Calendar.
what makes someone holy?
when will christ return?
is it a binary equation?
is talking the word evangelizing?
is it even walking in the light?
how does dna even though it is damaged or unraveling continue to produce a consistent organism?
how does the meaning of oral traditions remain consistent throughout the machinations of time, writing systems, and language?
does christ return when will all manifest his grace?
or when none are left who manifest it?
or both?
will knowing the answers to these questions, make waiting any easier?
2/19/08
If I were nasty, I’d say something like… “well, what else can one expect from a Nazi”… but since it’s Lent, and I’m trying to be good.. I’ll just offer thanks that my holiness is rooted in Christ’s holiness… and enjoy the company of those doubting disciples…
Let’s be accurate: ex-hilter youth - and that only because enrolment was required of the entire nation.
I’d like to know what the definition of “teaching” is. Is it everything they ever said and wrote? Is it only what they said formally? What about causal conversations? What about in their youth? What about that one night when they were having brewskis with their good buddy, the Protestant and had a little too much to drink?
I happen to like Papa Ratzi a good deal. But this seems like a rather impossible requirement for canonization.
Without attempting to open a huge can of worms… memory says one of the east-west “papal power” issues is over such a question. Did the pope say XYZ in an “official document” or in a “private correspondence”? Is there a difference when you are Pope?
There is an odd story of an Orthodox monk who went to hell for doubt. In hell he was told that one day he had a conversation with a friend - an atheist - and during that conversation he said, “Oh, yes, I can understand this argument against God.” And for this he was sent to hell for a lack of faith.
Untrue - and clearly not at all like the deity I’ve found in Christ. But I think the story exemplifies the kind of combing we might see *as needed*. In other words, if a candidate is politically popular (JPII) he’ll get coasted through. But if a candidate is politically out of vogue (John 23rd) we might see a bit of a tighter scrutiny. Just a guess - but I don’t like the German Shepherd very much.