I have always been at a complete loss as to where the idea that Peter was ever a "Pope" came from. Granted, I am not Catholic so I am not well versed on the matter of Popes. All I am aware of is that his supposed Pope-hood is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures of the Bible. Popes are not mentioned at all. Seems like a grand assumption or a revision of original text to say Peter held such a position.
There is nothing in Judaism that compares to Christian saints. Jews have a concept called Tzadikim, which are not performers of miracles, but are simply very righteous individuals.
Similarly in Islam, there is no comparable veneration of mortals as in Christianity. There are Muslims that other Muslims will look up to as extraordinary examples of piety, but their faith dictates that only Allah would know/could decide if they rank higher in his eye. There is no requirement for these individuals to have already died.
All of this is, of course, much more involved than can be related on this site. Of the three major monotheisms, not only do Christians differ in raising mortals to divine status (sainthood), they also pray to dead mortals directly, and credit them for “miracles“.
Jews and Muslims both recognize only a single persona of their God, as opposed to the multiple Godhead of the Christian Trinity. Miracles are not integral to their faiths, and there is no Vatican-style corporate hierarchy presiding over either religion.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 17, 2019 7:00 AM MDT
I have never studied such things and know little of what you say. I have devoted my life to science and the natural world. Mayhap I shall learn such things from you.
Science and the natural world have long been passions of mine as well. I also love history. We could have some compelling discussions.
I have studied faith and religion of every stripe from every attainable source over the last 35 years, and as an atheist, I still typically find myself more thoroughly versed on religion and its components than most self-proclaimed devout believers. I hold —to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson— that science represents the breadth of our knowledge, while religion represents the ever-receding picket of our ignorance. I have as yet seen no cogent argument to disprove this position.
I think other sects like perhaps Greek Orthodox have Roman-Catholic type saints as well. But the basic idea of reformed Christianity is that we all in just believing are and so we do not need any mediatorial or priestly classes to intermediate or channel God - because we are to relate directly to God because of the sacrifice of Jesus restored our ability to have direct fellowship with God in prayer. Not using all the proper terms but that is the way the thinking goes.
There is a tradition within Islam, especially Sufism, of venerating Awaliya (singular Wali), a concept often translated as "saint" - and of making pilgrimages to their tombs.
The practice however incurs the disapproval by many "radical", or ultra-conservative revivalist, Muslims, especially Wahhabi and Salafist.
There is no central authority to confer sainthood, as there is in Catholicism, so I assume that someone being recognised as a saint must depend on consensus and local tradition.
SpunkySenior 