“Only a person in a state of grace can help others, or be helped by them, via prayer.”
Right, but the implication of that is, one must be able to know in someone who has died was in a state of grace, in order to know if prayer to them is acceptable by that standard. We as individuals divine that information for ourselves. However, the Catholic church contends that it has the keys of Peter, and is the dispenser of grace on Earth, so it, as a body, can officially make declarations as to such things.
That’s what declaring a Saint is, in part, is it not? The church is declaring that this person is holy, and that is, under your doctrine of the Communion of Saints, a “go ahead” to pray to them without worry. However, if you wanted to pray to someone who is not a saint, then you would, even under your own standard, have no certainty that it would be proper or effective.
“You are very much mistaken if you think that we members of the Body of Christ on earth have no living, vital, connection with the saints in heaven who are also members of that same Body with us. Or do you think Christ’s Body is three quarters dead?”
No, but firstly, as I said above, with the exception of those who have been officially declared saints, if you believe in the Catholic church’s authority on those matters, we really have no idea who is a part of that Communion for certain. I could have a great belief that someone was saved, but only Christ really knows for certain. That’s not really a problem when it comes to dealing with living people, since there is no prohibition with communicating with the living, whether they are saved or not.
Secondly, even though there’s surely a connection between all believers, that does not imply the type of connection that is proposed by the Catholic church. I can’t use prayer to communicate telepathically with a living Christian, yet you assume that those who may be in Heaven have this supernatural power, extending to the point of omniscience. So, while the Holy Spirit connects us all, I see know reason to assume this creates a mystical channel of communication to anyone besides God. We’re the body of Christ, and in the human body, the toes do not talk to the elbows, or the liver to the lungs. All communication goes from the members of the body to the nervous system, or back from the nervous system to the members of the body. In the body of Christ, Christ is the head, so I expect that communication straight to him is the natural path.
“The sin of spiritism consists in trying to summon or get information from the spirits of the departed. That’s what the Bible teaches (and it’s the dictionary definition as well.) It is quite the opposite of intercessory prayer, because spiritism/necromancy is an impious attempt to get power, not the sweet interchange of love which goes on constantly throughout the entire Body of Christ, through all His members.”
I think you’re splitting hairs here. Consulting the dead is forbidden, not just consulting them for a specific purpose. The Bible prohibits many spiritual practices specifically, but there are also generally condemnations which cover nearly ever form of occult practice, including simply communicating with the dead.
“All you can do is assemble the historical material you have, assess its quality, and judge not by proof but by preponderance of evidence.”
Sure, I don’t expect a miracle to necessarily be scientifically provable, or for a historical narrative to be verified to such a great degree. However, if the narrative is fantastic, and miracles by their very nature are so, it requires a higher standard of proof than is usual.
So, I might take General Grant’s diary pretty much at face value, if it is describing ordinary events. I’d only require that we not have more certain evidence disputing his account. However, with the Guadalupe story, it must meet that standard, but also must be accompanied by some additional evidence that could overcome the proper skepticism to a fantastic story. To accept it with a lesser standard opens us up to accepting all sorts of folklore and myths as being true.
As for the condition of the tilma, I’m not certain that is as impressive as its proponents suggest. First of all, fibers that would normally disintegrate quickly do not always do so, and some can last for thousands of years under the right conditions. We don’t know the exact conditions that it has been kept in over the years, but religious relics are normally treated with reverence, so I would expect that it would show more longevity than a cloak in everyday use. Also, there certainly doesn’t seem to have been a miraculous preservation of the painting, since it is seriously flaking, and appears to have been restored and at least partially repainted several times.
“One must be able to know if someone who has died was in a state of grace, in order to know if prayer to them is acceptable by that standard."
I’m not sure what you mean by “acceptable.” I can ask anyone for their prayers, naturally in hopes that they are in a state of grace: you, for instance. If you were not, there was no harm in my asking. In other words, if you were in fact in a state of mortal sin, you might think inwardly, “Meh, what a fool; she thinks I’ll pray! Bwa-ha-ha! Not in a million years!” --- but my asking did no harm to me or to you.
“The Catholic church contends that it has the keys of Peter, and is the dispenser of grace on Earth, so it, as a body, can officially make declarations as to such things."
It depends not on simple declaratory authority, but on the conclusions drawn from evidence, both natural and supernatural. Even before the Council of Nicaea, prudent fathers (Cyprian??) were saying that even in the case of martyrs, court records should be examined, and depositions taken, to ensure that the reputed martyr was executed for the Faith and not for criminal or political reasons.
When non-martyrs were considered for public recognition, the effort was rather to rein in the local custom of honoring the relics of the departed, rather than to multiply the practice. That is, people were censured for elevating to the level of, shall we say, spiritual celebrities, departed persons whose lives had not been properly examined. Again, the emphasis was on curbing and restricting this practice, not expanding it.
Modern Canon Law (1917, 1983) calls for a forensic procedure of examining their lives in all the detail that can be gotten, and two miracles, usually of a healing sort, both occurring after the person’s death, and attributable to the departed person’s intercession. Relics may be involved, since, as the book of Kings teaches, a dead man was brought back to life when his corpse touched the bones of Elisha; and as we know from the Acts of the Apostles, people brought cloth articles for Paul to touch, and took them back to people for healing. God thus shows His favor for His holy ones, by associating them with His healing power via physical contact.
The level of authentication required, and the amount of time required, tends to curb local enthusiasms for public honoring of “favorite sons,” since, strictly speaking, public devotions to uncanonized persons are forbidden.
This has no bearing on “private” devotion. God knows how many people have murmured, “Grandma, pray for your grandkids” at Grandma’s grave. And there you have it: they pray for her, she prays for them. Love is stronger than death.
"If you wanted to pray to someone who is not a saint, then you would, even under your own standard, have no certainty that it would be proper or effective."
It might be ineffective, yes; “improper”, no. If it were “improper” to inadvertently ask a mortal sinner to pray for you, then it would be improper to ask anyone to pray for you—since you can not know another person’s secret sins.
Does that make sense?
"If you believe in the Catholic church’s authority on those matters, we really have no idea who is a part of that Communion for certain. I could have a great belief that someone was saved, but only Christ really knows for certain."
Exactly.
"Even though there’s surely a connection between all believers, that does not imply the type of connection that is proposed by the Catholic church. I can’t use prayer to communicate telepathically with a living Christian, yet you assume that those who may be in Heaven have this supernatural power, extending to the point of omniscience."
There is no doctrine of saints being omniscient. Only God is omniscient. :o)
And I’m not sure if the word “telepathic” is right, either. I think that usually refers to paranormal brain operations; and of course, the deceased person’s brain is, typically, rotting in the ground. We are speaking of spiritual operations, not physiological ones. We aren't "communicating" in the sense of having a chat line open!
John says in his first Epistle, that the blessed ones “shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” If you see Him, the infinite and blessed God, and are like Him, you surely see those who are, just as you are, members of His Body. Not that they are “omniscient,” but it’s impossible that people in Eternal Life know less, and love less, than they did on earth!
Souls aren’t kept isolated and incommunicado, in a kind of Admin. Seg. in Maximum Security Heaven. Quite the contrary, our knowledge is expanded: the author of Hebrews says we are even now “surrounded” by a great “cloud of witnesses” --- citizens of heaven --- who are actively cheering us on as we run the race. This is wonderful! You can see that, can’t you?
"So, while the Holy Spirit connects us all, I see know reason to assume this creates a mystical channel of communication to anyone besides God."
And not only the author of Hebrews sees them surrounding us, seeing and cheering us; John, in Revelation, sees Heaven, and sees “ the smoke of the incense going with the prayers of the saints, out of the hand of the angel before God” --- incense, prayers of saints, angels offering, no distinction made between saints in heaven and saints on earth, and persons angelic and human: all brought together in this one wonderful vision. Boogieman, that’s our vision. This isn’t occult. This is Heaven.
On the Guadalupe topic: your insistence on hard evidence about purported supernatural events is entirely appropriate, even necessary. The Catholic authorities are, if I may put it this way, professional skeptics about such things. That’s why they set up so many hurdles to clear, so many “Gideon’s fleeces,” before any judgment is made.
For instance the healings at Lourdes: it’s been 150 years since those miracles began there, and there have been thousands reported; but the number authenticated have been very, very few. Only about one every two years. The rest aren’t “un-authenticated,” they were mainly ones for which evidence wasn’t available, or wasn’t conclusive.
I’ll be gone most of tomorrow. Meanwhile, I’ll pray for you, and (I don’t think this is a wasted request) you pray for me, OK?!
Tagline is for you, Brother Boogieman: