The Dispensation of Divine Revenge

[Bells]

I'm also not sure how they would make money off of declaring someone a saint?

The people or congregation who put forward a person for sainthood have to pay a hefty sum of money. It's called a processing fee. Mother Teresa cost up into the millions apparently. She was fast tracked. And sadly, I'm not joking about this. I read a report on it last year. That is how it is done today. The group who promote the canonisation of a person must pay for it. And from what I remember, they have to pay the salaries and expenses of the Vatican official who must investigate the case and the longer the canonisation, the more you pay. If you fast track it, you pay even more. It's quite despicable actually. I think the Church makes most of its money in selling little statues and badges and other little things with the saint to be's name or picture on it. Whether such processes existed long ago, I do not know. I will try and find the link to that report I read, but I don't know if its online. However, this is an extract I found from an article after a quick google, explaing some of the expenses that the postulator has to pay to the Vatican to have someone made a saint. And the expenses listed for the canonisation and beatification were from 1913. I believe the cost is much higher now.

It will not be out of place to give succinctly the ordinary actual expenses of canonization and beatification. Of these expenses some are necessary others merely discretionary, e.g. the expenses incurred in obtaining the different rescripts) others, though necessary, are not specified. Such are the expenses of the solemnity in the Vatican Basilica, and for paintings representing the newly beatified which are afterwards presented to the pope, the cardinals, officials, and consultors of the Congregation of Rites. The limits of this class of expenses depend on the postulator of the cause. If he chooses to spend a moderate sum the entire cause from the first process to the solemn beatification will not cost him less than $20,000. The expenses of the process from beatification to canonization will easily exceed $30,000. In illustration of this we subjoin the final account of the expenses of the public solemnities in the Vatican Basilica for the canonization by Leo XIII, of Saints Anthony Maria Zaccaria and Peter Fourier, as published by the Most Rev. Diomede Panici, titular Archbishop of Laodicea, then Secretary of the Congregation of Rites.

To decoration of the Basilica, lights, architectural designs, labour, and superintendence -- Lire 152,840.58
Procession, Pontifical Mass, preparation of altars in Basilica -- 8,114.58
Cost of gifts presented to Holy Father -- 1,438.87
Hangings, Sacred Vestments, etc. -- 12,990.60
Recompense for services and money loaned -- 3,525.07
To the Vatican Chapter as perquisites for decorations and candles -- 18,000.00
Propine and Competenza -- 16,936.00
Incidental and unforeseen expenses -- 4,468,40
Total -- 221,849.10 or (taking the lira equivalent to $.193 in 1913 United States money) $42,816.87.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

A breakdown of what the postulator is expected to pay and how much for what amazed me. Again, since this is expense account is from 1913, God knows how much it would be today. I particularly liked the expenses for the Vatican Chapter for decorations and candles.


As for the rest of your post, yes I know of what you are saying. For me, I just find the whole issue to be so ambigious. There are so many contradictions within the bible itself and the wording could be taken to mean either/or.

 

[okinrus]

I thought what you were saying was that the Church makes money off the publicity that the canonization of a saint.

Now I'm wondering who paid the money for her to be "fast tracked?" I'm pretty sure that this group, whoever it was, was within the Church. I've also read suggests that it was the Pope who wanted Mother Teresa to be "fast tracked" and be declared a saint.

I think the necessary expenses which are far less than a million dollars.

 

[§outh§tar]

@ Bells

I would encourage you both to read this article.
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/teresasMiracle.htm

This aggrandized mode of "saintification" is nothing but malicious heresy foreign to the teachings of Scripture. I am sure okinrus will be far more able to produce even a shred of Biblical evidence to approve the foolish processes you have described.

It is true, the whole shebang is actually "quite despicable". I am continuously amused by this great folly and Satanic heresy, and the fact that okinrus submits himself to it. I do hope and know that he will read this, and I await his scriptural confirmation of these heinous deeds.

It is equally amusing that he seeks to justify, all the more, this devilish process by saying the expenses "are far less than a million dollars."

Very. very bemusing to me. So now the "Church of God" devotes the very gifts of finance recieved from God in the first place to such foolishness?

P.S. okinrus, don't forget to answer the other thread. You have a habit of avoiding my comments.

In Christ,

 

[okinrus]

Bells, don't worry. We're be able to find enough loose change to pay the expenses of your canonization.

This aggrandized mode of "saintification" is nothing but malicious heresy foreign to the teachings of Scripture. I am sure okinrus will be far more able to produce even a shred of Biblical evidence to approve the foolish processes you have described.

So you do not consider that Paul is in heaven? Where is the Scripture that proves that Paul is in heaven?

It is true, the whole shebang is actually "quite despicable". I am continuously amused by this great folly and Satanic heresy, and the fact that okinrus submits himself to it. I do hope and know that he will read this, and I await his scriptural confirmation of these heinous deeds.

I'm very busy, and I'm going to put off your questions for a while.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The People who call themselves Christians because they claim to benefit from having had Murdered the Christ, claim that their Sins are forgiven and that they are Blessed by the Grace of God. But by the way God has rained down His Wrath, does it really seem that God has forgiven any Sin? By the way God rains down His Wrath, does it really seem that God is bestowing His Grace?

Which wrath? Do you mean suicide people that kill others? That is people. Where do you see God's wrath?

But God’s Wrath has not been total, because certainly not everyone murdered Christ, and then not everyone rested on that Murder as the source of their Salvation. Opposed to the Antichrist Paul’s contention that Murdering the Messiah was the culminating point of Religious Destiny, we have the Doctrines of Mary and the Saints who reiterated the actual Teachings given by Christ – Penance and Conversion, Righteousness and Love. But even among the Saints there were those who still taught the efficacy of Christ’s Blood. Of them Christ asked the Suffering of the Stigmata. Even the Saints, if they were to claim benefit by Christ’s Suffering, would have to endure the revenge of Christ’s Suffering.

What is this? Have you ever read the Bible at all? Christ Himself said that His death would save everyone that would believe. What is your motive? Are you anti-christian or just don't know well the scriptures? How dare you to say that one of Christ's teaching is penance?

Christ did not need to be murdered.

He Himself said He needed it, and He even cried about it.

Christ had already established the Bloodless Sacrifice of the Eucharist – the Bread and the Wine as the Real Body and Blood. The Eucharist was not supposed to be a Death-for-Life kind of thing. The Eucharist was to be a Divine Nourishment Sacrament – Ingest Christ to become Christ.

Again, what kind of thing is this? This is at the best pure non-sensical tradition, not to mention paganism.....

Christianity would grow up split between the influences of the False Salvation by Death, and the True Christly regeneration through taking the Holy Sacrament.

So you are saying that the Bible is wrong?

Our Lady the Blessed Virgin would come to sponsor any Church that would honor the Holy Sacrament as Real. Likewise, She would reject any Church that would reject it. How abominable can it be to suppose that Christ’s Mother could support a congregation that celebrates that they have murdered Her Son? So the Protestant Sects are outside of the Pall of Her Grace.

Protestant "sects"? "Lady the Blessed Virgin"? What is this? How can you suddenly pull out this kind of thing? Christ is not even dead! And you totally miss the whole point of Christianity. By far.

But, there is no avoiding the apparent reality that since the Murder of the Messiah we have been living in a Dispensation of Divine Revenge. The Messiah was to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. Instead, Humanity soundly rejected God. John the Baptist was killed – cutting off the Head of the Messenger. Then the Son was crucified. It would not be possible to insult God any worse. Our Punishment has been the bloody History of the last two thousand years.

That is so.... I don't even have words for that. God already forgave people. And they aren't punishing anyone. And the whole thing of Christ dying on that cross was His will. Christ even asked in the Ghetsmane garden if he should really do it and God said yes and Christ cried...!

We should endeavor to fix this Big Problem.

How, you holy imperfect human being...?

Instead of insisting that God reward us for having Murdered His Son, we should do the obvious – something that entirely escaped Paul the Antichrist – we should all sincerely apologize to God for this abomination.

I believe all Christians already do that, on the top of accepting God's mercy... :bugeye:

Believe me, God will never try again to work with us – we will not see the 2nd Coming – until we can convincingly repent for the poor reception we gave the 1st Coming. I would add that we need also serve Penance and Atone; however, History clearly shows we have already been serving penance and atonement.

Translation: I am perfect. Worship me. God is evil and wants you to suffer. Worship me, I am better then Him.

Do you ever give up...? :bugeye:

The Bloody 20th Century could be accepted as finally Enough. But the only way the Suffering can be brought to an end is if we renounce this Violence we have committed against the Divine. Surrender the Salvation which we do not deserve and plead instead for Mercy.

God is always merciful. Wheter we accept His mercy or wheter we are proud about ourselves and don't accept it - that is the real issue...




Oh my... you are sooooooo far away.... I wonder if you even know what you are saying...

 

[§outh§tar]

Bells, don't worry. We're be able to find enough loose change to pay the expenses of your canonization.

So you do not consider that Paul is in heaven? Where is the Scripture that proves that Paul is in heaven?

I am sure you do not sit around wandering whether or not people from 2000 years ago are in Heaven or not. Scripture does not exhort us to do meaningless things. See Mark 16:6-7.

I must also marvel at your inability to simply respond to my questions. Moreover you have provided an unrelated question simply to sway me from the topic. Simply address the questions okinrus.

I'm very busy, and I'm going to put off your questions for a while.

I expected this answer from you, it's nothing new from you the past couple of days. I understand if you can't answer them.

 

[§outh§tar]

@ TruthSeeker

Often times I feel the same way.

Not only is okinrus a liar (at times), but he persistently fails to respond when the truth is presented him. I am only calling him out because we are friends, and as such, I wish for him to know the "purpose of the commandment", "love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith".

 

[TruthSeeker]

Well §outh§tar... I wasn't talking about okinrus, but I can understand you...
Maybe the hardest thing about compassion is that you often get too emotionally evolved... :/
Try not to push yourself too much....

 

[§outh§tar]

I am a zealot, not a fanatic.

People often times forget the distinction.

 

[okinrus]

Not only is okinrus a liar (at times)

Ok, where have I lied?

but he persistently fails to respond when the truth is presented him.

Ok, it stems from you are presistently asking for Scriptural evidence. There are somethings such as the canonization of saints have almost no Scriptural evidence, whether we should do so or not. But it was common place to call Paul, Peter and some of the Martyr's of tradition saints, recognizing that they lived a holy life and were in heaven. James, in fact, says "He shoud summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up." Popular marytr accounts since Stephen, Ignatius and Polycarp show that these people were saints, and the community of believers were given evidence. This later evolved into the formal canonization of the church in order to avoid false piety. That is, it's reasonable to assume that God would give his Church enough evidence to declare who are to revered as saints.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

SourStar: "I am a zealot, not a fanatic." People often times forget the distinction.

*************
M*W: There is no distinction. You are a fanatic.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: But it was common place to call Paul, Peter and some of the Martyr's of tradition saints, recognizing that they lived a holy life and were in heaven. Popular marytr accounts since Stephen, Ignatius and Polycarp show that these people were saints, and the community of believers were given evidence. That is, it's reasonable to assume that God would give his Church enough evidence to declare who are to revered as saints.

*************
M*W: Not to argue, but doesn't Catholic Doctrine say its believers are either an Apostle (teachers), Martyr (those who died for the RCC) OR Saint (those who have purity and are miracle workers)? I believe we were taught that if one person was an Apostle, then they couldn't be considered a Martyr or a Saint. This is confusing because Paul, for example, was only a self-proclaimed "Apostle" and not made one by Jesus himself, yet he somehow gained Sainthood and not Martyrdom! Paul, however, did not die FOR THE RCC. Peter, for example, is considered to be one of the original Apostles, but as far as we know, Peter was martyred for his faith in the RCC (or was it his faith in Jesus?) Was Peter then a martyr for the RCC since he is now called a saint? James, the brother of Jesus, was martyred, but he's called a saint as was Stephen. This is all too confusing. Catholics are called to be apostles, martyrs OR saints, the lowest of all being apostles. All catholics are called to be at least apostles. Many of the saints were martyred, but they're called "saints." Very few catholics end up being saints. When you get unbusy, could you shed some light on this? Thanks.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: Not to argue, but doesn't Catholic Doctrine say its believers are either an Apostle (teachers), Martyr (those who died for the RCC) OR Saint (those who have purity and are miracle workers)?

Not that I know of. Some of the apostles are called marytrs.

I believe we were taught that if one person was an Apostle, then they couldn't be considered a Martyr or a Saint.

No, apostle means someone who is "sent from God."

This is confusing because Paul, for example, was only a self-proclaimed "Apostle" and not made one by Jesus himself, yet he somehow gained Sainthood and not Martyrdom!

No, I think Paul uses the word "apostle" in the sense of "sent from God," while the term twelve Apostles refers to the original 11 and Mathias.

Paul, however, did not die FOR THE RCC. Peter, for example, is considered to be one of the original Apostles, but as far as we know, Peter was martyred for his faith in the RCC (or was it his faith in Jesus?)

Both were marytred. Faith in Jesus and faith in the Church.

Was Peter then a martyr for the RCC since he is now called a saint?

Yes, I've seen church records might name the marytrs along with those were saints, but I'm not sure how comon this practice is. Not all martyrs will be given the honor of saints.

James, the brother of Jesus, was martyred, but he's called a saint as was Stephen.

I think their both saints.

This is all too confusing. Catholics are called to be apostles, martyrs OR saints, the lowest of all being apostles. All catholics are called to be at least apostles.

Yes, all should consider themselves "sent from God" and an apostle.

 

[§outh§tar]

Both were marytred. Faith in Jesus and faith in the Church.

There is no documentation whatsoever in the Holy Bible that either had faith in the Church of God. Why would there be any such need? Christ did not even give his disciples such a command!

 

[§outh§tar]

SourStar: "I am a zealot, not a fanatic." People often times forget the distinction.

*************
M*W: There is no distinction. You are a fanatic.

Fanatic
marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion

A zealot is not (necessarily) marked by this.

 

[§outh§tar]

Ok, where have I lied?

How about all the times you have taken Bible verses out of context and even after my efforts to show you where your mistake has been by providing further Scripture, you have suddenly abandoned those arguments.

The only reason I am persisting in making you respond is just this: so you can justify your arguments instead of taking a new course of argument when I discredit something you say.

Ok, it stems from you are presistently asking for Scriptural evidence. There are somethings such as the canonization of saints have almost no Scriptural evidence, whether we should do so or not. But it was common place to call Paul, Peter and some of the Martyr's of tradition saints, recognizing that they lived a holy life and were in heaven. James, in fact, says "He shoud summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up." Popular marytr accounts since Stephen, Ignatius and Polycarp show that these people were saints, and the community of believers were given evidence. This later evolved into the formal canonization of the church in order to avoid false piety. That is, it's reasonable to assume that God would give his Church enough evidence to declare who are to revered as saints.

Wow that is the weakest argument you have made so far. God has called NO man to be "revered as saints" and in fact, Scripture and the apostles themselves warn us against doing so. Therefore, you have no excuse but to tout tradition.

James also said:
James 5
16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

He doesn't say "prayer to a saint" or "prayer by a saint" (in respect to your attempts to justify canonization). Do you think Paul cares whether or not he was made a saint? Do you think he would admonish you for doing such a thoughtful thing? NO! In fact in all his writings and even those of Peter (or for that matter any of the apostles), NONE supported such behavior. See Galatians 2:6.

According to Ephesians 2:5-7, ALL Christians are saints. Therefore your argument is INVALID. Therefore the "community of believers" you speak of are ALL saints and your flimsy excuse about avoiding false piety only reveals a treacherous tradition which is at war with the Scripture I have just mentioned.

I will even quote this for you:

Ephesians 2
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone

I hope your response will address this Scripture.

In Christ,

 

[okinrus]

How about all the times you have taken Bible verses out of context and even after my efforts to show you where your mistake has been by providing further Scripture, you have suddenly abandoned those arguments.

How does not quoting Scriptural evidence make me a liar. When I've mentioned something, in most cases you could indeed look up the Scriptural evidence itself, but I rarely go beyond common sense in most of my arguments. I think it's fair to say that you cannot demand me to find quotations, just as if I was to demand that you find quotations somewhere else.

Ephesians 2
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone

My translation translates saints into holy ones and the NIV God's people. But why even if this verse used saints does this have to mean living saints? Someone who is one with Christ is also in commune with those who were died in Christ.

 

[Bells]

I thought what you were saying was that the Church makes money off the publicity that the canonization of a saint.

Now I'm wondering who paid the money for her to be "fast tracked?" I'm pretty sure that this group, whoever it was, was within the Church. I've also read suggests that it was the Pope who wanted Mother Teresa to be "fast tracked" and be declared a saint.

I think the necessary expenses which are far less than a million dollars.

Er Okinrus, did you read through the list of the cost of creating a saint from 1913? The costs have gone up. The Church makes the most of its money from the sale of souvenirs etc, with images of the up-coming saint. The people who pay for the canonisation are the people who support the individual up for sainthood. Donations are taken from the public by these organisations. A hefty part of what they are paying goes straight into the coffers of the Church. And considering the dramatic, if not ridiculous, amount of saints pronounced by the Church in the last 20 years, it can be said that it has been a very profitable venture for the Church. Okinrus, my parents are strict Catholics. To them the Church can do no wrong in most instances. However even they are amazed at the amount of people who are being canonised by the Church. For them, the Church has taken away the sanctity of the saints and have cheapened it. And in a way they are correct in thinking so. Where in the past it would take decades if not more for someone to be canonised, today it can all happen in under 10 years if you have the funds to push it through.

As for the amount of money paid, that would depend on how fast you wish it to go through. And the report I read listed most in excess of $1 million.

Bells, don't worry. We're be able to find enough loose change to pay the expenses of your canonization.

Ah your attempt at sarcasm is amusing. And with the way the Church is going at the moment, anyone can soon be declareda saint, even you. As for me, I'd rather have the skin flayed from my body.

 

[§outh§tar]

How does not quoting Scriptural evidence make me a liar. When I've mentioned something, in most cases you could indeed look up the Scriptural evidence itself, but I rarely go beyond common sense in most of my arguments. I think it's fair to say that you cannot demand me to find quotations, just as if I was to demand that you find quotations somewhere else.

I do NOT "demand" that you take verses out of Scripture. I only ask that you address the points I have raised instead of bypassing them. I have many times discredited what you have said without you even bothering to respond. Which leaves the impression that you accept that you were wrong on the issue..

For example, in my last reply, I provided many evidences to refute your claim, of which you answered but one.

[quotes]My translation translates saints into holy ones and the NIV God's people. But why even if this verse used saints does this have to mean living saints? Someone who is one with Christ is also in commune with those who were died in Christ.[/QUOTE]

Wow, so now you are arguing semantics even though the verse CLEARLY uses the word "saints". Why don't you go to a commentary to verify what I said then? The word saints, according to context, refers to ALL saints. It is VERY clear from what he says about God's household.

 

[okinrus]

Er Okinrus, did you read through the list of the cost of creating a saint from 1913? The costs have gone up. The Church makes the most of its money from the sale of souvenirs etc, with images of the up-coming saint.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

The people who pay for the canonisation are the people who support the individual up for sainthood. Donations are taken from the public by these organisations. A hefty part of what they are paying goes straight into the coffers of the Church.

I don't see a problem if the Church gains money as long as the money is eventually spent running the Church, doing charity and building.

For them, the Church has taken away the sanctity of the saints and have cheapened it. And in a way they are correct in thinking so. Where in the past it would take decades if not more for someone to be canonised, today it can all happen in under 10 years if you have the funds to push it through.

No, I don't think so. Sainthood is determined by whether someone's lives should be honored as saint. Given that the population has increased exponentially, it's reasonable to assume that the number of saints will increase correspondingly.

As for the amount of money paid, that would depend on how fast you wish it to go through. And the report I read listed most in excess of $1 million.

St. Teresa was given a large public ceremony, however. The Democratic convention was quoted to cost $5 million.

Ah your attempt at sarcasm is amusing. And with the way the Church is going at the moment, anyone can soon be declareda saint, even you. As for me, I'd rather have the skin flayed from my body.

I'm already declared to be a marty. Well, someone with the same first and last name.