Saint-making Pope is ready to ditch the miracle clause

London Times ^ | 12/20/04 | Richard Owen

[wagglebee]

CANDIDATES for sainthood will be exonerated from the requirement to have performed a miracle under guidelines being considered by the Pope.

Already under fire from some Roman Catholics for running a “saint factory”, the Pope is preparing to overturn a centuries-old rule that candidates for canonisation must have performed “medically inexplicable” posthumous miracles.

The Pope, 84, has created 482 saints in his 26 years as pontiff — more than all his predecessors put together — and has beatified 1,337 people. He believes that “latter-day saints” offer a much-needed example at a time when Christianity is under threat from secularism and rival religions.

Abolishing the need for miracles would speed up the canonisation of some of the Pope’s favourite candidates, including Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who was beatified last year. It could also revive plans to beatify Robert Schuman, the French-born founder of the EU, shelved earlier this year because of lack of evidence that anyone had been cured after praying to him.

The Pope last streamlined the beatification and canonisation process in 1983, when he decreed that martyrs — those killed for their faith — could be beatified without the need for a certifiable miracle.

Yesterday Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa, disclosed that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pope’s ideologial “enforcer” for two decades, had presented a formula for the abolition of the “the miracle clause” to the Pope. Cardinal Bertone said that there was a growing feeling in the Vatican that the need for miracles for both beatification and canonisation was “anachronistic”.

At present, candidates for beatification, which confers the title “Blessed” and is the penultimate step before sainthood, must be shown to have performed at least one miracle after death by curing the terminally ill in response to prayers of intercession. For sainthood, evidence of at least two miracles is required. Claims of miraculous cures are examined by a panel of five medical experts at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a Vatican body.

The panel, drawn from a pool of a hundred doctors and specialists, must conclude that the cure was “sudden, complete and permanent” and had no scientific explanation. Cardinal Bertone said what mattered was not whether saints had performed miracles but whether they had displayed “heroic virtues” and led an exemplary Christian life.

Il Secolo XIX, the Genoa newspaper, said the proposed “revolution in saintmaking” would upset traditionalists who regarded miracles as “one of the cornerstones of the Catholic faith”.

[sevry]

There's always some embarrassing thing about such a regime that you only later discover.

Except it's not true.

Which is why they find it embarrassing, because it's not true to Catholicism. They might try to keep it quiet. But you can't shut people up when there's an internet. Dan Ra^ther found that out.

[murphE]

Was the Holy Spirit present when Mahony built his pagan temple complete with an inverted pentagram roof, a snake winding through the children's garden and sheep dogs about to attack the sheep?

I need more details on this! Please explain, pictures if you have them.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

pascendi has many pictures of the Taj Mahony. The children's garden is particularly revealing. Mahony's every detail was purposeful and planned.

Dajjal posted an aerial view of the temple a while back. I remember drawing an outline around the edges of the roof and getting the form of an inverted pentagram or the classic goat head outline.

Dajjal, do you still have the picture?

[murphE]

Now that is scary.

[Viva Christo Rey]

Let's not forget the new cafe-bar on the dome of St. Peter's Basilica. TRUE!!!

St Peter's opens "basilica bar"

Mon Dec 20, 8:58 AM ET

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The view is hard to beat, the atmosphere can be, well, heavenly, and the coffee isn't bad either. St Peter's Basilica now has its own rooftop coffee bar.

The bar on the roof of Christendom's largest church opened several months ago without fanfare but even many Vatican (news - web sites) officials and employees did not know about it until Monday when an Italian paper splashed the "discovery" on its front page.

Located on the terrace at the base of the cupola designed by Michelangelo, it commands a breathtaking view of St Peter's Square all the way to the Tiber River and beyond.

It is open to tourists who have already visited the top of Michelangelo's dome and who want to stop for a coffee or soft drink on their way back down to earth.

The bar does not have a name -- the sign over its entrance reads only "Ristoro/Refreshment" -- but an Italian newspaper dubbed it "The Holy Apostolic Cafeteria."

An engraved sign on a terrace wall reminds visitors to consume the drinks before continuing their visit to the basilica. And while the spirit of the place may be there, spirits are not. Unlike its counterparts in Italy, the basilica bar does not serve alcoholic beverages.

[Gerard.P]

Question: How can a canonization be infallible and not be a "new revelation" ???? Revelation closed with the death of John the Apostle. We can know that Our Lady had already been assumed by then, Hence the dogma of the Assumption can't be denied. Notice that we don't have a "canonization" for Our Lady. She is a part of revelation.

Her apparitions however are not. For the same reason cited. Revelation closed.

What is infallible is that there are saints in Heaven. Our Lady, St. Stephen, all of those who he (Our Lord) claimed when he descended into Hell. With that we are obliged infallibly to believe in is the "communion of saints" but that does not make papal canonizations infallible.

[pascendi]

Interesting.

[Aquinasfan]

They might try to keep it quiet.

They were bumped from the calendar. They weren't "de-sainted."

[normy]

I am not quite sure what you mean by "more than the Bible" but if someones doctrine doesn't fit with whats in the Bible then its not of God, plain and simple.

Denominations come from the Church being confused and divisions amongst Gods people. God however is not confused and humble people will receive grace and their blind eyes will be opened and they can be taught of God, not of some wolf who lies to Gods people.

[todd1]

I was talking about word of mouth teachings and traditions from the early Christians and Church fathers.

[normy]

There is no problem with that belief. The Father made it simple for those who can hear. His instructions are to believe the death, burial, and resurrection of his Son, Jesus. That is it.

In Revelations, John spoke the words of Jesus to several church's and admonished them for certain faults. The epistle's of Paul are full of correction to the various church's. Obviously these church's lost their way and if not for God's correction by the Apostles they would have continued in their sin.

The Catholic Church is not "the Church" and if it is it is grossly out of the will of God. Although it probably speaks of the resurrection more than most denominations it is full of idolatry. I have read Catholics on FR speak of praying to the "queen of heaven" and Jeremiah condemned the Jews for doing the same thing.

The Bible is open to only one interpretation and thats Gods. If men feel they can interpret Gods word without being led by the Spirit, but by using their intellect, they are sorely mistaken. That is what the Pharisees and Sadducee's did but Jesus walked in the power of God, thats how we know he was approved of God. The Apostles walked in the power, not with just words, thats how we know they were approved of God. The Pope does not walk in the power of God and neither do most Preachers or Bishops of other denominations.

[Aquinasfan]

I have read Catholics on FR speak of praying to the "queen of heaven"

Revelation 11:19-12:1-2

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm. A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

[normy]

There are so many bogus traditions sent down through the generations its ridiculous.

Most denominations teach the Law of Moses which absolutely contrary to sound doctrine and what Christianity is all about. Most denominations teach their people to obey the law, yet break one every Sunday. These people will be judged by the Law and not by the grace that comes by faith in the Gospel.

If we cannot go back to the Bible to check what our leaders are saying, how can we be wary of wolves? Do we just follow these people who teach doctrines contrary to the Bible.If the Bible can be changed to fit man then scrap it and scrap Christianity as a whole.

[normy]

That says nothing about the woman being the "queen of heaven " nor does it command us to pray to her. However there are scripture that speak of the "queen of Heaven".

Jer 7;18 " The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."

Jer 44 has several verses condemning the Jews for worshiping the queen of heaven.

Why would a Catholic care though since they worship Mary, the queen of heaven, call the pope Father and other priest as well when NOTHING in scripture backs those practices. There are scriptures that actually condemn those practices but Catholics don't seem to care.

[Aquinasfan]

That says nothing about the woman being the "queen of heaven " nor does it command us to pray to her.

How else would you describe a woman appearing in heaven, "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."

Queens wear crowns.

And we know that the woman is Mary because in the same chapter the woman "gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

We are not commanded to pray to Mary, but praying to the saints is certainly recommended. In fact, in Revelation we see the saints in Heaven offering to Jesus the prayers of the saints on earth:

Revelation 5:8

And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twentyfour elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Why would a Catholic care though since they worship Mary, the queen of heaven,

We worship God. We venerate Mary. "From now on all generations will call me blessed," (Luke 1:48) Do you?

call the pope Father and other priest as well when NOTHING in scripture backs those practices.

Neither does Scripture contradict these practices. And where does it say in Scripture that we're only allowed to do things mentioned in Scripture?

The passage you're citing doesn't contradict this particular Catholic practice at all. Read the entire passage:

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

Have you ever called anyone "teacher"?

Jesus is simply using hyperbole to emphasize the point that the ultimate Teacher and Father of us all is God. Otherwise, we couldn't even call our fathers, "father."

[Aquinasfan]

More:

Does Virgin Mary Deserve the Title "Queen of Heaven"?
by Wibisono Hartono

One of the titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary is sometimes attributed with is the title Queen of Heaven. Her coronation as Queen of Heaven is the last Glorious Mysteries in the Rosary and whose feast day falls on August 22. This title may irk non-Catholic Christians who may point out that in the Bible the title of "Queen of Heaven" is given to a pagan goddess (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17, 19, 25). This article explains how Catholics should respond to this charge.

Most books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew and Hebrew has four words translated as "queen" in English. They are (1) gebira (1 Kings 11:19; 15:13, 2 Kings 10:13, 2 Chronicles 15:16, Jeremiah 13:18; 29:2), (2) malkah (1 Kings 10:1, 2 Chronicles 9:1, Esther 1:9, 2:17 etc.), (3) melekheth (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17, 19, 25) and (4) shegal (Nehemiah 2:6, Psalm 45:9). Another word, sara, is generally translated as lady (Judges 5:29) or princess (Lamentations 1:1) and only once translated as queen (Isaiah 49:23). Among these four words we shall focus on gebira, the feminine of gebir (Genesis 27:29, 37), which means lord or master. Gebira, as its masculine meaning suggests, means "a lady who has power to rule". Some Bibles translate gebira as "queen mother" because she is the mother (or grandmother) of the king, not his wife, except in 1 Kings 11:19 where gebira refers to the wife of the Pharaoh.

In the Davidic kingdom (or Judah), the gebira played an important role and she had power and influence. King Solomon, the bible recounts, was the first King to seat his mother, Bathsheba, at his right hand (1 Kings 2:19). Solomon's half brother, Adonijah, requested Bathsheba to speak on his behalf to King Solomon (1 Kings 2:13-18). The verse indicates the role of the gebira as mediator to the King. King Asa removed Maacah, his mother, because she abused her power (1 Kings 15:13). On the death of her son (King Ahaziah), Athaliah did not want to lose her power and had all her grandsons murdered (2 Kings 11:1). One survived and later became King Joash (2 Kings 11:2, 12). The name of most Davidic kings' mother is always mentioned after that of the king (1 Kings 14:21; 15:2, 9; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26; 12:2; 14:2; 15:2, 33; 18:2; 21:1, 19; 22:1; 23:31, 36; 24:8, 18). From Jeremiah 13:18 we know that both King and Gebira had crowns, indicating their power. The New Testament tells us that Jesus will be given the kingdom of David and his Kingdom will have no end (Luke 1:32-33). His Kingdom is in heaven and it exists on earth in His Church. Therefore, it logically follows that Mary, His mother, naturally becomes the Gebira of the New Testament. This is the reason why Catholics believe that she is the Queen of Heaven. Like the Gebira in Jeremiah 13:18, she also has crown in heaven. Furthermore, the Church understands that the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and crowned with twelve stars (Revelation 12:1) refers to Mary.

One of the Messianic Psalms applied to Christ is Psalms 45:6-7 which cited in Hebrews 1:8-9. Coincidentally, Psalms 45:9 also mentions the Queen who sits at His right hand in gold of Ophir. While the Hebrew word for queen in this verse is shegal, to Catholics this verse also refers to the Queenship of Mary in heaven. In the book of Jeremiah in verses 7:18; 44:17, 19, 25, the word translated as queen in "queen of heaven" is not gebira but melekheth and is therefore not applicable to Mary. After all, if there are false Christs (or Messiahs) and false prophets (Matthew 24:24) it should not surprise us that we also have false queens.

[gbcdoj]

Question: How can a canonization be infallible and not be a "new revelation" ????

Like all dogmatic facts, it was already revealed.

But how are we to explain for example that what theologians call for short the Jansenist fact (do the five propositions figure in the Augustinus in a condemnable sense?) is a revealed fact and contained in the primitive deposit? Exactly as we explain that other facts posterior to the primitive deposit (e. g. the Council of Trent is oecumenical, Pius XI is a true successor of St. Peter, the Canon of the Mass is free from error) are revealed and contained in the deposit. They are particular applications of a universal proposition revealed from the outset. "The Jansenist fact" says Billuart, "is contained in the deposit, not indeed explicitly and immediately, but implicitly and mediately; it is included as a particular proposition within the universal one revealed from the outset—'Every text condemned by the Church is condemnable.' It follows that the condemnation of Jansenius' text is not a new article of faith, but the unfolding of a revealed universal, or rather its application to a determinate case. So, when a child comes into the world, it becomes of faith that this child has sinned in Adam, although there is no new revelation there, or any new article of faith, but the application to a particular datum of the revealed universal 'All have sinned in Adam’" (De Regulis Fidei, dissert. 3, a. 7, solvuntur object.). cf. Marin-Sola, op. cit., vol. I, p. 475. The question of "dogmatic facts" and the sophism involved in the Jansenist distinction between a dogmatic law and a non-dogmatic fact, have been placed in vivid light by this theologian. The dogmatic fact is indivisible. At bottom, the judgments of the Church, being a confrontation of an orthodox or heterodox datum with the revealed deposit, are always judgments of fact (op. Cit., p. 467). (Journet, footnote 783)

[sevry]

They weren't "de-sainted."

You're only kidding yourself. Effectively, they were. That was the sense everyone took from it. And devotion to either dropped away, until just recently.

It also goes to the point of JP II wanting to drop the very qualification for declaring a Saint - miracles. How did they know of Philomena, and so quickly made her a Saint? Miracles, after her death, attributed to her intervention. Those awful 'evil' miracles. Right?

[todd1]

There is scripture that does back up those practices as well but you don't seem to care...

[todd1]

I am part of a bible study at work that has several denominations so I learn quiet a bit from there myself. I could have it wrong in how I worship as a Catholic but I agree with you that God knows our hearts. Before I went back to the catholic church I prayed that God would show be the best way to worship him. And all I can do is hope and pray that I will be taken to heaven with all my other Christian brothers and sisters.

Maybe some of these former Preacher, Ministers, and laymen who converted to Catholicism can explain it better than I can. http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289&T1=journey+home

Cheers