Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[SteveVH]

Perhaps you should reread my post. Nowhere did I state or imply that everything has to be taught in the Bible, nor that the Bible is the sole authority (certainly an odd assertion for a Latter-day Saint to make in the first place). Latter-day Saints are not Bible-only, nor do we derive our beliefs from study of the Bible, in contrast to various Protestant churches.

What I actually did ask was for a reference to the earliest usage of the word "saint" to mean "A "saint" means only that the person is in heaven.", and that the Bible, for one (i.e. for one example), does not contain that usage.

I was only trying to tell you that the Catholic usage of the word "saint" comes from Sacred Tradition. How early it was used, I don't know. Not real sure why it matters. Your church has given it a different interpretation as have most Protestant communities.

Thanks. However, what I am really interested in (since Latter-day Saints already have a belief that saints are all members of Christ's Church throughout time, in this life and the next, united as members of His Body) is a reference for the earliest usage of saint that "means only that the person is in heaven".

Also, as a Latter-day Saint, I personally like this statement on the OrthodoxWiki:

As I tried to explain, those in heaven were obviously saints on earth. It is just that we have no verification that someone is in heaven until we hear from them, so to speak. Obviously, we cannot call everyone saints that proclaim to believe because we have no guaranty that they will be in heaven. If they did not make it to heaven then they are not saints.

I understand why this might be a little confusing, but would you call one that ends up in the outer darkness a saint? How do you know for sure, while they are on earth, what darkness one may be hiding in their life? So yes, there are many saints walking the earth right now and I would agree that those who authentically live out their Christian faith are saints because they will be in heaven. We just can't be sure of who they are.

"In the Holy Scripture, the word saint is used to refer to those who have been set apart for the service of God, consecrated for his purposes.

And I have no argument with this definition as long as its logical conclusion is considered, that being that those who have been set apart and consecrated are still free to reject the faith later in their lives. No "once saved always saved". We believe that all who enter the Catholic Church have been set apart. We also know that some will not end up in heaven. I am sure you are aware of people who, after being in the LDS Church for many, many years, end up leaving it. I talk to these folks almost every day. Do you believe they are saints if they later reject the LDS Church?

[SteveVH]

So, by way of analogy, it would be like flatlanders looking at an ellipse and being told that once it is blessed it becomes a sphere. There would be no way to really test this, as the observable properties remain the same, but the Reality in the fullest sense would be that it has indeed changed. Sometimes, to bolster flatlanders' faith, and by way of illustration, the cross-section is shifted so the sphere is manifest as a circle instead. Even then, the circle isn't the full Reality, but it brings us nearer to understanding it.

What you seem to be describing is an illusion. The Eucharist is no illusion. I think the person of Christ himself is the best example. He appeared in all ways to human (and indeed, he was human, but he was also divine). Christ's divinity was hidden under his humanity. He revealed his divinity when he made the blind see and the lame walk; when he commanded the wind and the sea. But one could not tell, by looking at him that he was, indeed, God.

[Jason_J]

I was only trying to tell you that the Catholic usage of the word "saint" comes from Sacred Tradition. How early it was used, I don't know. Not real sure why it matters. Your church has given it a different interpretation as have most Protestant communities.

Well it matters because I'd simply like to know when the earliest usage of the word saint to mean, as you say, "only that the person is in heaven.", and where it comes from. You state that it comes from Sacred Tradition. How do you know? Where can we find that definition within Sacred Tradition? Are there any ECF quotes that demonstrate that definition? I would think that the belief in the communion of saints shows that the word saint doesn't "only" mean that the person is in heaven, so I was trying to understand your usage of the word in that sense when there is a broader usage within Catholicism, where it can refer to different concepts depending on context (i.e. canonized saints, communion of saints, etc).

And my Church uses the word "saint" in the Biblical sense, and follows what the OrthodoxWiki (as an example) states as the Scriptural usage-"In the Holy Scripture, the word saint is used to refer to those who have been set apart for the service of God, consecrated for his purposes. As such, all members of the Church are called saints, regardless of their personal holiness or sinlessness. It is still appropriate to use the term in this way. ". We believe that all members of Christ's Church, whether on earth or in Paradise, are saints. Not sure if that's how Protestant churches use "saint" as well, but if so, that we agree with what the OrthodoxWiki states on the scriptural usage.

As I tried to explain, those in heaven were obviously saints on earth. It is just that we have no verification that someone is in heaven until we hear from them, so to speak. Obviously, we cannot call everyone saints that proclaim to believe because we have no guaranty that they will be in heaven. If they did not make it to heaven then they are not saints.

I understand why this might be a little confusing, but would you call one that ends up in the outer darkness a saint? How do you know for sure, while they are on earth, what darkness one may be hiding in their life? So yes, there are many saints walking the earth right now and I would agree that those who authentically live out their Christian faith are saints because they will be in heaven. We just can't be sure of who they are.

And I have no argument with this definition as long as its logical conclusion is considered, that being that those who have been set apart and consecrated are still free to reject the faith later in their lives. No "once saved always saved". We believe that all who enter the Catholic Church have been set apart. We also know that some will not end up in heaven. I am sure you are aware of people who, after being in the LDS Church for many, many years, end up leaving it. I talk to these folks almost every day. Do you believe they are saints if they later reject the LDS Church?

As we have seen, Latter-day Saints would agree with what the Orthodox apparently teach as the usage of "saints" in the Bible, to mean all members of Christ's Church, regardless of their personal holiness or sinlessness. Now, while we do not canonize saints as the Catholic and Orthodox churches do, we do recognize that, in addition to the general usage of "saint", there are some people that lead such a Christ-like life that we try to emulate their walk with Christ (in addition to always following the example of Jesus Christ Himself primarily).

If someone leaves the Church of Jesus Christ, they are no longer members of Christ's Body, and are therefore no longer considered "saints". If the Catholic Church accepts what apparently is the Orthodox "general" usage of "saint" to mean all members of the Church, regardless of personal holiness or sinlessness (and I'd assume that it does based on the communion of saints belief, in addition of course to the canonization of saints practice), then are those that leave the Catholic Church, after being in it for many, many years (and I talk to these people every day, whether online or in real life), and are they considered "saints"?

For Latter-day Saints, we believe that all members of the Church of Jesus Christ, whether on earth now, or in Paradise, are considered saints of God. Regardless of personal holiness or sinlessness, we are all considered saints, apparently following the scriptural example. (though not deriving the usage from it of course). When one becomes a member of Christ's Body, they are set apart and become one of the elect. Now, naturally we all have sins, and are sinners, and some may have "darkness" (as you put it) in their lives that we are not aware of. Naturally, we leave that judgment up to God, and always emphasize repentance and reliance on Christ's atoning sacrifice to be forgiven of our sins, washed clean, and empowered to walk with Jesus Christ our Savior. As long as they are members of Christ's Church, regardless of personal holiness or sinlessness (as the OrthodoxWiki states), they are considered saints, saints on a Journey with Christ.

Hope that sheds light on the LDS use of the word saint.

[Vort]

Stephen was responding to anatess' explanation of Catholic doctrine, so in context his definition of "saint" makes sense. That it is not the LDS (or even Biblical) use of the term is irrelevant.

[Jason_J]

Stephen was responding to anatess' explanation of Catholic doctrine, so in context his definition of "saint" makes sense. That it is not the LDS (or even Biblical) use of the term is irrelevant.

Of course. The question I am asking is what is the origin of the definition provided by StephenVH, as well as if there is usage of the definition he provided by the ECFs.

[SteveVH]

Well it matters because I'd simply like to know when the earliest usage of the word saint to mean, as you say, "only that the person is in heaven.", and where it comes from. You state that it comes from Sacred Tradition. How do you know? Where can we find that definition within Sacred Tradition? Are there any ECF quotes that demonstrate that definition? I would think that the belief in the communion of saints shows that the word saint doesn't "only" mean that the person is in heaven, so I was trying to understand your usage of the word in that sense when there is a broader usage within Catholicism, where it can refer to different concepts depending on context (i.e. canonized saints, communion of saints, etc).

I think it comes from common sense. If one does not attain heaven, they cannot be a saint. Even you state that one who leaves the LDS Church is not a saint. Can one be a saint and then not be a saint? The bottom line to sainthood is that one has made it heaven and none of us can be certain as to who that will be.

And my Church uses the word "saint" in the Biblical sense,

Yes, according to your understanding of the Biblical sense.

We believe that all members of Christ's Church, whether on earth or in Paradise, are saints.

We would agree, with the understanding that those who truly constitute the members of Christ's Church are assumed to realize their eternal destiny in heaven.

Not sure if that's how Protestant churches use "saint" as well, but if so, that we agree with what the OrthodoxWiki states on the scriptural usage.

Most would consider themselves "saints" simply because they profess a belief in Jesus Christ. I remind them that the demons also believe in Jesus Christ and shudder.

For Latter-day Saints, we believe that all members of the Church of Jesus Christ, whether on earth now, or in Paradise, are considered saints of God. Regardless of personal holiness or sinlessness, we are all considered saints, apparently following the scriptural example. (though not deriving the usage from it of course). When one becomes a member of Christ's Body, they are set apart and become one of the elect. Now, naturally we all have sins, and are sinners, and some may have "darkness" (as you put it) in their lives that we are not aware of. Naturally, we leave that judgment up to God, and always emphasize repentance and reliance on Christ's atoning sacrifice to be forgiven of our sins, washed clean, and empowered to walk with Jesus Christ our Savior. As long as they are members of Christ's Church, regardless of personal holiness or sinlessness (as the OrthodoxWiki states), they are considered saints, saints on a Journey with Christ.

Hope that sheds light on the LDS use of the word saint.

Thank you.

Edited February 21, 2013 by StephenVH

[mordorbund]

What you seem to be describing is an illusion. The Eucharist is no illusion. I think the person of Christ himself is the best example. He appeared in all ways to human (and indeed, he was human, but he was also divine). Christ's divinity was hidden under his humanity. He revealed his divinity when he made the blind see and the lame walk; when he commanded the wind and the sea. But one could not tell, by looking at him that he was, indeed, God.

What I'm saying is that believers assume that Reality and Truth are greater than observable phenomena. That circle really has changed into an ellipsoid (not an ellipse) and the Eucharist really is transubstantiated (not transformed). The unbeliever may mock at these terms, as you can't "really" change the substance of something and not the form (note the limited perspective of reality being used here - like flatlanders assuming reality is only 2 dimensions). Nevertheless, the believer takes it as an article of faith that this thing really is so and finds sufficient evidence in miraculous illustrations.

I'm not talking about illusions, where something is deceptively not what it seems. I'm talking about teaching in a limited environment. My first lessons about 0 is that it is nothing. With greater understanding, I was made to understand that 0 is also a significant place holder. This is quite the contradiction - the importance of nothing! - and yet for those who are well acquainted with numbers there is no discrepancy. For those experienced and familiar with divinity, the Reality beyond empiricism is less challenging.

[SteveVH]

What I'm saying is that believers assume that Reality and Truth are greater than observable phenomena. That circle really has changed into an ellipsoid (not an ellipse) and the Eucharist really is transubstantiated (not transformed). The unbeliever may mock at these terms, as you can't "really" change the substance of something and not the form (note the limited perspective of reality being used here - like flatlanders assuming reality is only 2 dimensions). Nevertheless, the believer takes it as an article of faith that this thing really is so and finds sufficient evidence in miraculous illustrations.

I'm not talking about illusions, where something is deceptively not what it seems. I'm talking about teaching in a limited environment. My first lessons about 0 is that it is nothing. With greater understanding, I was made to understand that 0 is also a significant place holder. This is quite the contradiction - the importance of nothing! - and yet for those who are well acquainted with numbers there is no discrepancy. For those experienced and familiar with divinity, the Reality beyond empiricism is less challenging.

Thanks for your explanation. I should have read your post more closely. Yes, I agree with you whoeheartedly.

[Jason_J]

I think it comes from common sense. If one does not attain heaven, they cannot be a saint. Even you state that one who leaves the LDS Church is not a saint. Can one be a saint and then not be a saint? The bottom line to sainthood is that one has made it heaven and none of us can be certain as to who that will be.

Ok. I think it is most certainly the case that one can be a saint and then not be a saint in this earthly life as members of the earthly Church of Jesus Christ, in the same way that one can be "saved" then "lose their salvation". While we don't know who will make it to Heaven, we do know that members of the Church here on earth (the "church militant" in the communion of saints, if you will), are considered saints, saints that are working out their salvation with fear and trembling.

Yes, according to your understanding of the Biblical sense.

No, not according to my (personal?) understanding (anymore than your understanding), but the understanding of the Church, which seems to be in common with what is presented as the "scriptural usage" on the OrthodoxWiki link.

We would agree, with the understanding that those who truly constitute the members of Christ's Church are assumed to realize their eternal destiny in heaven.

Of course.

Most would consider themselves "saints" simply because they profess a belief in Jesus Christ. I remind them that the demons also believe in Jesus Christ and shudder.

Thank you.

Of course. However I'd hope that there's a difference between Protestants/Christians in general and the demons, namely, that we profess to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and place all of our trust and hope in Him and His atoning sacrifice on our behalf, and not anyone or anything else. While the demons may "believe" in Jesus Christ, i.e., they know that He exists, is God, etc., that "belief" is not the same as the "belief" of a Christian. I'm sure you would agree.

[madeleine1]

If I may butt in for just a moment. :)

A little delving into the etymology of the word "saint" finds us at the Latin sanctus, which means holy or sacred.

In Catholicism, holiness is the word we use to describe several different things. A person is made holy by their baptism, a person lives a holy life, a person's soul is found holy before God (they are in heaven).

I think this compares closely to the Mormon idea of "sanctified", which is also rooted in the Latin sanctus.

In terms of the anglicized word "saint", it is then implicit in our understanding of holiness, that we are indeed sanctified, and thus we are saints. In Catholic writings you will find a distinction that is made, sometimes with "saint", lowercase, and "Saint" uppercase. Both are descriptive of a person who is holy, the lowercase being a living person, the uppercase being one who has died and their soul is in heaven.

"Saint" as LDS use it is acceptable to Catholics, in the form of describing the baptized, the Body of Christ, as a holy people. Just it is not our cultural tradition to use it in that manner. We use in English, as I already said, the word "holy", and as I said, in the root of its meaning (sanctus), we're still indicating the same thing.

If you look at non-English Catholic speakers and writings, as an example Italian, "saint" is translated to "santo", and "holy" is translated to "santo". There is no distinction in the meaning, or understanding.

Mormonism, being American-English in its origins, does not have the Latin meaning and usage of words that have been retained in Roman Catholicism. So it looks to us that the word "saint" has been redefined by LDS to mean something other than its original.

Hope that helps.

Edited February 22, 2013 by madeleine1

[SteveVH]

If I may butt in for just a moment. :)

A little delving into the etymology of the word "saint" finds us at the Latin sanctus, which means holy or sacred.

In Catholicism, holiness is the word we use to describe several different things. A person is made holy by their baptism, a person lives a holy life, a person's soul is found holy before God (they are in heaven).

I think this compares closely to the Mormon idea of "sanctified", which is also rooted in the Latin sanctus.

In terms of the anglicized word "saint", it is then implicit in our understanding of holiness, that we are indeed sanctified, and thus we are saints. In Catholic writings you will find a distinction that is made, sometimes with "saint", lowercase, and "Saint" uppercase. Both are descriptive of a person who is holy, the lowercase being a living person, the uppercase being one who has died and their soul is in heaven.

"Saint" as LDS use it is acceptable to Catholics, in the form of describing the baptized, the Body of Christ, as a holy people. Just it is not our cultural tradition to use it in that manner. We use in English, as I already said, the word "holy", and as I said, in the root of its meaning (sanctus), we're still indicating the same thing.

If you look at non-English Catholic speakers and writings, as an example Italian, "saint" is translated to "santo", and "holy" is translated to "santo". There is no distinction in the meaning, or understanding.

Mormonism, being American-English in its origins, does not have the Latin meaning and usage of words that have been retained in Roman Catholicism. So it looks to us that the word "saint" has been redefined by LDS to mean something other than its original.

Hope that helps.

Great information. As I am not feeling real welcome around these parts any longer I think it is best for all that I stop participating. Good luck.

Edited February 24, 2013 by StephenVH

[AnthonyB]

Paul routinely referred to all the members of the churches he was writing to as saints, that is they were the set apart holy people of God. However even a quick look at the people in the churches that he was writing to shows they were far from perfect. (Corinthian church was so dysfunctional that all sorts of things were going on.)

[madeleine1]

Yes, that is one English translation. "Holy ones" is another translation. Writing to a group of people and calling them the holy ones, is not the same as walking around calling yourself a holy one. We acknowledge we are made holy by Christ, we also acknowledge our sins, which makes us less than holy. So, walking around calling yourself a "saint"??? You'd get looks like this. But, I think LDS use the word saint in a different way, more like a title is what I perceive.

[AnthonyB]

madeliene1,

Many trimes I have had it pointed in sermons and bible studies that we (ie any member of the church) are saints, even had it personalized that we all individually are saints. I would have no problem saying I'm a saint, albeit only through the grace of God. It is not me that makes me a saint but what Jesus has done for me. (I might even change my posting name to St AnthonyB)

There is a song at the moment by "Third Day" that goes....

We are the saints, we are the children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven

We are the sons and daughters of our God

We are the saints, we are the children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven

We are the sons and daughters of our God

[madeleine1]

madeliene1,

Many trimes I have had it pointed in sermons and bible studies that we (ie any member of the church) are saints, even had it personalized that we all individually are saints. I would have no problem saying I'm a saint, albeit only through the grace of God. It is not me that makes me a saint but what Jesus has done for me. (I might even change my posting name to St AnthonyB)

There is a song at the moment by "Third Day" that goes....

We are the saints, we are the children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven

We are the sons and daughters of our God

We are the saints, we are the children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven

We are the sons and daughters of our God

I agree. :)