Your personal or favourite saint(s)?

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."
-- Hebrews 12:1-2

This thread isn't really concerning the nature of the Communion of Saints... what it does concern, is who your personal saint is! For those in High Church and Anglo-Catholic cultures, taking up a personal saint or more is natural, knowing that their prayers and intercessions for your spiritual life are powerful. For those of a Low Church, Reformed-Protestant or Broad Church angle, that saint could just be any holy Christian that you admire and desire to emulate.

As one born in the Roman Church, I was given the chance to take up a saint as a heavenly godparent (as one has godparents during baptism) as a spiritual advisor in heaven.

Mine was Saint Kateri Tekakwitha, or Saint Catherine Tekakwitha. Known as the Lily of the Mohawks, she was a prominent holy woman in the Aboriginal community, especially when, as an Indigenous woman, she chose to stay a virgin for the Lord, and adopted a likewise monastic life. She went to Mass regularly, prayed the rosary fervently, and always carried a rosary and a wooden cross with her. Her last words were "Jesus, Mary, I love you!"

​

O GOD, who among the many marvels ​

of thy grace in the New World ​

didst cause to blossom upon the banks ​

of the Mohawk and of the St. Lawrence, ​

the pure and tender lily, Saint Catherine Tekakwitha: ​

Grant, we beseech thee, that through her example, ​

our hearts may be enkindled with a stronger desire ​

to imitate her innocence and faith; ​

through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.​

 

St Mary Magdalene.

 

St. John the Apostle and Evangelist

 

But why? Surely y'all would have a reason for liking these exemplary Christians!

 

St. Paul is mine personal favorite because of his thorn in the flesh that I heard could be a disability, I identify with that since I am in a wheelchair.

 

St Thomas the Apostle. I often struggle with doubts and my faith is tested. St. Thomas doubted as well, and in that I find strength.

 

I like St. Paul, because I identify with the feeling of being "one untimely born." Outside the Bible, I like both of the Augustines. Hippo, because his life (unlike those of some of the more fanciful medieval saints) is a very relatable story of struggling with repeated sin, wrestling with difficult doctrines, leadership unsought, heresies corrected, holiness pursued, faithfulness personified. Canterbury, because of his missionary zeal and fervor for the Gospel - and because his labors still bear fruit among Anglicans and other Christians today.

 

St. John the Apostle and Evangelist because of his faithfulness to our Lord, St. Kateri Tekakwitha because I'm Canadian and my name is Kathryn, and St. Therese of Lisieux because of her little way. The more I read about the lives of the saints, the more I realize that they all have one thing in common - their very, very deep love for our Lord.

 

St Bernadette.

 

S. CHARLES THE MARTYR! ON JANUARY 30TH.

S. Charles lost his life because he refused to abandon the Church in England to the Calvinists after the religious Wars in England 1640/60. He was canonised in May 1662 on the Restoration of the Church 29th, May!

 

I'm a big fan of Sts. Thomas More (try not to hate me for that) and Thomas Becket. They had similar lives. While also being generally holy, both took a strong, active role in politics and both stood up to kings that they recognized as unjust.

As one who has a keen interest in politics, and also as one who tries to be faithful, I find them both inspiring.

Favorite scene from "A Man for All Seasons":


Favorite scene from "Becket":

 

Thoroughly enjoy both movies.

 

S. Thomas More is an interesting case. The Romans claim him as a saint, at least they canonised him! How-and-ever, S.Thomas didn't believe that the Bishop of Rome was either Infallible or had Universal Jurisdiction. In a letter to Cromwell, he claimed authority within the Church was through the Councils.

 

He is indeed an interesting case. I've heard the Romans make caustic comments because he is honoured in the Anglican Communion. I also think it's a bit scary that someone who is, I think, the Patron Saint of lawyers and politicians condoned the torture and execution of Protestants.

Incidentally on another forum I heard an anti-Anglican RC convert making very unkind remarks about Rowan Williams and going on to refer to him as "a man for all seasons"!

Were people talking about Papal infallibilty in the 16th century? Over three hundred years later the Blessed John Henry Newman wasn't keen on it, I gather.

 

You're judging people of the 16th Century through the spectacles of the 21st. More might have been a man for all seasons, but he was also man of his time.

I've also heard Romanists sneer at Anglicans because of Tom More, but he was a member of our Church and gave his life in defence of it, a principle we can't complain justly about it, the Freedom of the Church!. I don't believe for a minute he died for the papacy*, or the Petrine principle! The fact is he knew Henry and made a judgment, in many ways he was probably right. Henry became demented after an accident at the jousting lists in 1536 AD. That is two years after More's death I know, but what if he had been well on the way to madness, in 1533/34?. He nationalised the Religious Communities after More's Death, 1536? So what? I think he made a mistake ,but there's a letter extant in Elizabeth's family correspondence telling the Queen that her father was robbed by his servants and friends and was vertually a pauper sometime before his death. His courtiers ( Protestant & Catholic) had syphoned the money to their own purses.

You should point out to your Romanist authority the Roman Church in England was only a small disparate group of individuals dating from the Council of Trent 1545/64 and that according to two Roman Cardinals, John Newman & Cardinal Vaughan, that there wasn't a Church at all till till the 1860s when they were allowed have their own bishops.

There was very little talk about infallibility, indeed the Irish Theological College (Roman,) had a primer for students that denied the very principal. It was changed quietly and without fanfare overnight after the Robbers Council of 1870!
Interestingly for about five hundred years there was a struggle regarding where the magisterium lay in the Catholic Church , about five councils were held with this as the first subject. Two Popes were sacked ,at least one was imprisoned and one did a runner! It was decided that the authority lay with the Bishops in Council. (See Thomas More.) The unfortunate thing was, the Church couldn't enforce its views because it had no militia. It relied on the Kings,Emperors and N0bles to wield the strong arm! Sadly the Bishop of Rome was also King/or?Ruler of most of Northern Italy and the Continental Monarchs were not ready to reduce one of their own.

Collier's Ecclesiastical History. England & Rome , Dunbar. Google Books.

 

@highchurchman, I think that your points need some clarification.

????

Surely, you know how/why the Protestant Church of England was actually founded. St. Thomas More deferred to the pope on the matter.

If he was "demented" at the time of the Act of Supremacy of November 1534, then why would you trust his decision to declare himself "Supreme Governor"?

This is false. Loyalty to the Papacy is documented as existing in England prior to 1545/64. St. Augustine of Canterbury began the Christianization of the country, but only under the authority of the pope. As for the thing on bishops, I'm sure that both Cardinals meant that the Sacraments were restricted. The Sacraments are what make a church a church.

First, it was not a "Robbers Council" -- it meets the requirements for validity. Second, dissent is allowed until the definition of doctrine. After the definition of it by the Council, though, conscience would force a Catholic to defer to the mind of the Church.

Were any of these Councils meant to be universally-binding? Did they meet the requirements to be such? In your answer, please provide citations.

 

Except in a political sense there is no Protestant Church of England. In the 1690s, William of Orange the usurper, with an army of occupation, of some 10,000 North European, Calvinist and Lutheran soldiers at his back asked the English Convocation to use the term protestant in their conversations with the Dutch Reformed Sect.
They politely refused , pointing out that they were Catholics and the term Protestant wasn't used in their catholic theology! The term was used in 1714.15 in a Parliamentary Bill to support the Elector of Hannover in his attempt to succeed Queen Ann!

By the way! In the middle ages there were two terms used to describe the English Church, one was the Church in England, which I prefer and the other was Church of England.


Regarding S.Thomas More?
"As for the General Councils assembled lawfully..... the authority thereof ought to be taken for undoutable, or else there were in nothing no certainty..... For albeit that I have for mine own part such opinions of the pope's primacy as I have showed you, yet never have I thought the pope above a general council! "

Again, The Monarch or War Chief, has been Supreme Governor in the Church in Britain since the Edict of Milan (312.). All European Monarchs have held the same part in their own Countries, as I expect the President of the U.S. does . All it means in the English Case is that the Church is not above the law and Henry was chief magistrate and as such had jurisdiction.

"That is the point of my comments , modern studies bring forth the supposition that Henry deteriorated after an accident at a joust. As I commented this was after More's death, the death sentence could have been the first symptons."

Loyalty to the Pope? As what?
I am an Anglican of some years and like More, accept him as Primate of the West! That is a political appointment that the last pope adjured at the commencement of his pontificate. Otherwise there's nothing in early church history, Holy Tradition or Scripture to warrant these claims. If there is, I've missed them and we should open another thread and discuss them?.
As for S. Augustine? At least nine 0f the early fathers refer to the early provenance of the British Church. Tertullian, perhaps the earliest father,refered to Christian presence in Britain. The greatest event in Christian era after Christ and the foundation of the Church, was attended by at least one British Bishop and possibly more that is the Council of Nice! Further it regulated seniority and authority within the Church and there is no mention of the Pope! It is some 350 years before there is any real claim by the Papacy to overiding authority. .
Henry Tudor in his rejection of the Papacy didn't go any further than other monarchs from 1066 by the way
William of Normandy was supported by the Bishop of Rome in his successful attempt to claim the throne. In return William was to accept him as overlord! The King refused claiming to follow the previous actions of the Saxon Kings.
Under Henry 11nd, the English Bishops suggested that they break Communion with the Pope!
No Roman Official was allowed in to England without permission of the King & parliament, no missives or Bulls were to be read without permission, neither was His Holiness or his servants allowed in.. They had to remain on the continent till permission had been given neither could they take money out without consent!

Who said so? According to Bl. William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury and Martyr to the Faith, to be a valid Ecumenical Council, a Council had to be called by a proper authority, it was to be free and open to all Catholics, there had to be no pressure exerted on clergy. For acceptance afterward as an Ecumenical council, it had to be free, accepted by the bishops, there was to have been no bribery or pressure and findings to have been freely affirmed by the whole Church after study.
One of the Canons of the Catholic Church had stipulated that Niceae was inviolable, there could be no interference by new comers of its finding. They were sacred. Trent actually added to the Nicean Creed. It was called by the Bishop of ROME, WHO BRIBED HIS Roman Clergy to attend, when that failed he created other Bishops simply to pack the attendance.He separated the audience in to two camps as it were who were not allowed to speak or converse with each other, neither was there to be a final vote. All products of meetings had to be sent to Rome to be passed by the Bishop of that place!
By any standard of judgment Trent was a Robber Council and it was rated so by most of Europe as far as I can see and was responsible in a great manner for the Roman Schism in England in the 1570s.

The Councils that met acceptance were seven and ranged in dates from Niceae 325 to Ephesus 2 . All in the First thousand years and non of them called by the Bishop of Rome! Indeed Henry called on the Canons of the Councils to ban The Pope from interfering in Britain.
Councils are superior after they have been proved and tested . After the fact as they do say! the theological aspects have to be based on Scripture and are simply interpretations of scripture by the bishops, descendants of the apostles.

 

For the quote about Sir Thomas, History Magazine. Church of England in the Middle Ages. Denis Hay. pg.35....

For the rest, England & Rome . Dunbar - Ingram.
Ecclesiastical History of England . Vol. 1/6

 

Yes, I do. It was founded by Queen Elizabeth I, after she inherited a RC country from her sister.

 

i) I think I'm right in saying that there is no mention of the word "Protestant" in the Book of Common Prayer, the XXXIX Articles or the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral. Certainly there isn't one on my Baptism certificate which refers to me as a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

ii) Whilst I accept that England did not exist in 312, presumably Henry VIII did not claim to be supreme Governor of the Church in Britain (though the Stuarts might have done).