Satan's World, VII.
When van Rijn lights candles to St. Dismas, St. Nicholas and St. George, Adzel reminds him that the Church "'...as far back as the twentieth century...'" (p. 393) had declared that St. George was mythical and van Rijn responds:
"'Bah,' said van Rijn loftily. 'They got no faith. I need a good fighting saint, who says God can't improve the past and make me one?'" (p. 393)
I am surprised at the Buddhist Adzel's pedantry. Of course St. George is mythical as are the Boddhisattvas that personify wisdom and compassion. We do not need to believe in the literal existence of a saint or a Bodhisattva in order to make him the focus of a religious ceremony. Indeed, if St. George did exist, would he be more likely to help in the rescue of Falkayn if van Rijn lit a candle in front of his statue? But, if lighting a candle as an expression of hope helps van Rijn to focus on the task at hand, then it does no harm and might help in the performance of the task.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But it does matter to Catholics to show reverence for REAL saints. And I do believe there are literal saints.
As for Old Nick seeking help from a warrior saint, well he could have invoked St. Michael the Archangel. Or even St. Ignatious Loyola, who was once a soldier before he founded the Jesuit Society.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A saint is a perfected human being whereas an angel is a superhuman being so why is Michael, an archangel, called a saint?
Ignatius is a historical figure, thus in a very different category from either George or Michael.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your comments surprised me! You were raised as a Catholic, so I think you should have remembered that it's standard Christian belief that all who are with God in Paradise are saints, including the angels. So it's natural and proper to address the Archangel as St. Michael.
I put St. Ignatius and St. Michael in this category: both are real beings.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A terminological difference only. I never heard angels described as saints, except St. Michael Archangel. Do we hear of St. Gabriel, St. Raphael etc?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the correct use of terminology does matter.
Yes, Catholics and Orthodox have reverence for St. Gabriel and St. Raphael. I am sure you can find churches dedicated to them in the UK.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course it matters but I have honestly heard saints and angels referred to as different kinds of beings and have never heard Gabriel or Raphael described as saints.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Maybe it comes from me actually READING what the Church teaches and Catholic theologians write, but I find that to be odd. Briefly, angels are non corporeal beings having intellect and free will. And I have at least written references to St. Gabriel and St. Raphael.
Another oddity I've came across has been some referring to angels as "she," when, of course non=-corporeal beings like them have no sex, "he" being used of them simply in neutral sense.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know what an angel is. I am not used to them being called saints.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that still seems so odd to me. I find it natural to think of the holy angels with God as saints.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I find this whole conversation odd. You have explained and I understand that the terminology is not used precisely as I had thought. I think that we have cleared that up.
On a less terminological and more substantial point, I have known informed, intelligent Catholics, including a Jesuit priest, who did not believe in the literal existence of either angels or demons. Religious traditions change and diversify a lot.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong, what those Catholics say. The Church has taught, as de fide doctrine, the actuality of the angels as real persons, since the Fourth Lateran Council.
And that in turn was the common Christian belief, derived from both Scripture and Tradition.
I don't believe in OPINIONS, but in what the Church teaches as DEFINED dogma.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not taking a position on this from within Catholicism.
I understand that the institution of the Papacy grew within the Roman church and was never accepted by many Eastern churches. They had Apostolic succession for all the bishops but nothing more.
On Apostolic succession: the Apostles were believed to be the witnesses to the Resurrection. They founded churches and appointed assistants. Each church elected or appointed an assistant as a successor when an Apostle died. This first generation of bishops had known an Apostle and heard his testimony but now a newly consecrated bishop is no nearer to evidence for the Resurrection than anyone else and can only read the New Testament like everyone else.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I do that position, because I believe it to be actually and literally TRUE.
And the institution of the Papacy has roots even deeper than the Church in Rome, from Scripture and Tradition. And an early example of that Tradition can be found in St. Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Romans (c. AD 107), showing the HIGH regard he has for the AUTHORITY of the Church in Rome. And all the ancient eastern churches had acknowledged that the Bishop of Rome held a unique authority only he and hiss successors could hold.
Catholics and Orthodox also believe the faith is transmitted not only via Scripture, but also thru Tradition: which can be found in the writings of the Fathers, the common belief of orthodox Christians, and the decrees and definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. And even the Orthodox believe a valid council need to be presided over by the Pope or his Legates. Which is why the Orthodox have not tried to hold an ecumenical council since the Council of Florence.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment