Posted on 04/10/2005 1:51:12 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY - The private secretary of the late Pope John Paul II saw the pontiff perform what could be claimed as a miracle, one of the key stages to becoming a saint, Italy’s La Stampa newspaper reported Sunday.
It quoted Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz as relating how an American who was seriously ill received communion from the pope, and was cured.
The incident happened in 1998, but Dziwisz, who was John Paul II’s closest confidant for 40 years, spoke of the incident three years ago to reporters, who revealed it Sunday.
According to the report, Dziwisz told how an acquaintance had asked him if an American friend who was very ill with a brain tumor could meet the pope.
The acquaintance said the dying man had only three wishes: to see John Paul II, go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and return to the United States to die.
“I remember him very well, his face showed he was ill,” Dziwisz said. “I also remember that he had no hair, which was clearly due to the chemotherapy (treatment) he was having.”
The pope, at the time at his Castelgandolfo retreat outside Rome, led a private mass at which the sick man received communion, the holiest part of the Roman Catholic ritual.
Later, Dziwisz’s acquaintance rang him to say that the man had been cured, “his tumor completely disappeared in just a few hours.”
In his account of the incident, Dziwisz did not speak of a miracle but of a sign of “the supreme power of God” which surpassed human understanding.
La Stampa, however, pointed to the clamour at John Paul II’s funeral Friday for him to be made a saint, and said it could be interpreted as a miracle.
If he were to be canonised -- he made more saints than all his predecessors combined -- his case must pass three hurdles.
First is a ruling that he has led an exemplary life. Next is beatification following proof of a miracle as a result of his intercession.
The final stage, canonisation, requires at least one more miracle.
Earlier this week, a Mexican teenager claimed the late pope had performed a “miracle” on him 15 years ago that cured his leukemia, while a nun in Colombia has said he cured her of an illness affecting her balance.
On Saturday, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls pointed out in answer to a question on sainthood that it was up to the next pope to decide.
He said any such decision lay “in the sole competency” of the next pope.
Been there, done that! :)
Well, as often as you and agree on so many things, on these, we disagree. Jesus rent the veil and allowed me and all who believe direct access to the Holy of Holies.
Can't see the point in praying to other saved sinners like me, no matter the greatness of their life on earth, when I can daily, minute-by-minute, go straight to the Top.
I guess that's one of the reasons I'm not a Catholic.
so the church was right when it sold 'indulgences' ?
... If we accept this doctrine of the worship of the saints, of which there are innumerable evidences in the writings of the Fathers and the liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches, we shall not wonder at the loving care with which the Church committed to writing the sufferings of the early martyrs, sent these accounts from one gathering of the faithful to another, and promoted the veneration of the martyrs.My quarrel is with the church, not its faithful. I do believe that all of us have a responsibility to study for ourselves and separate the man-made from the God-decreed.Let one instance suffice. In the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna (Eus., Hist. Eccl., IV, xxiii) we find mention of the religious celebration of the day on which St. Polycarp suffered martyrdom (23 February, 155); and the words of the passage exactly express the main purpose which the Church has in the celebration of such anniversaries:
We have at last gathered his bones, which are dearer to us than priceless gems and purer than gold, and laid them to rest where it was befitting they should lie. And if it be possible for us to assemble again, may God grant us to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom with gladness, thus to recall the memory of those who fought in the glorious combat, and to teach and strengthen by his example, those who shall come after us.This anniversary celebration and veneration of the martyrs was a service of thanksgiving and congratulation, a token and an evidence of the joy of those who engaged in it (Muratori, de Paradiso, x), and its general diffusion explains why Tertullian, though asserting with the Chiliasts that the departed just would obtain eternal glory only after the general resurrection of the body, admitted an exception for the martyrs (De Resurrectione Carnis, xliii).Canonization and Beatification
Maybe we have, and found out that the doctrine of "the Bible alone" is a man-made doctrine.
No. Selling indulgences was an abuse of authority. It was simony.
But a failure in practice (a sin) doesn't constitute a failure or contradiction in doctrine.
Revelation 5:8And 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.
Just because they have the mail it doesn't mean it was addressed to them...
Doesnt that contradict your previous statement?
We live in a wonderful and privileged time. We all have easy access to scripture, and we don't risk being burned at the stake if we try to read it in our own language. We have been given much, and if we choose to disregard God's Word, we are, quite simply, without excuse.
We'll all get to stand before Him soon enough and explain ourselves. So let's just all remain faithful, washed clean by the blood of Jesus.
Grace and peace to you.
I Timothy 4.
8-) Then how did they get it?
The Church's dogmatic teaching is infallible. The members of the Church are not impeccable.
Hmmm..... the Bible also repeatedly calls the church the "bride of Christ" and the "body of Christ." We, believers, are the church. The church is not a building, not a heirarchy, but a multitude of believers. I have a little trouble with all this "Holy Mother Church" stuff. Doesn't that sound a little bit incestuous?
Scripture "thoroughly" equips us. II Tim. 3:16-17
Gotta get some work done. God bless.
Why do you need intermediaries when Jesus has given us direct access? It doesn't make sense.
But I know this is a central tenet of your church, and that I'm not going to reason you out of it.
Shalom.
Going to have a little chat with the Father through the Son...
I found this, which may help.
Objection 1. It would seem that we ought to pray to God alone. Prayer is an act of religion, as stated above (3). But God alone is to be worshiped by religion. Therefore we should pray to God alone.
Objection 2. Further, it is useless to pray to one who is ignorant of the prayer. But it belongs to God alone to know one's prayer, both because frequently prayer is uttered by an interior act which God alone knows, rather than by words, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 14:15), "I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding": and again because, as Augustine says (De Cura pro mortuis xiii) the "dead, even the saints, know not what the living, even their own children, are doing." Therefore we ought to pray to God alone.
Objection 3. Further, if we pray to any of the saints, this is only because they are united to God. Now some yet living in this world, or even some who are in Purgatory, are closely united to God by grace, and yet we do not pray to them. Therefore neither should we pray to the saints who are in Paradise.
On the contrary, It is written (Job 5:1), "Call . . . if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints."
I answer that, Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: first, as to be fulfilled by him, secondly, as to be obtained through him. On the first way we offer prayer to God alone, since all our prayers ought to be directed to the acquisition of grace and glory, which God alone gives, according to Ps. 83:12, "The Lord will give grace and glory." But in the second way we pray to the saints, whether angels or men, not that God may through them know our petitions, but that our prayers may be effective through their prayers and merits. Hence it is written (Apoc. 8:4) that "the smoke of the incense," namely "the prayers of the saints ascended up before God." This is also clear from the very style employed by the Church in praying: since we beseech the Blessed Trinity "to have mercy on us," while we ask any of the saints "to pray for us."
Reply to Objection 1. To Him alone do we offer religious worship when praying, from Whom we seek to obtain what we pray for, because by so doing we confess that He is the Author of our goods: but not to those whom we call upon as our advocates in God's presence.
Reply to Objection 2. The dead, if we consider their natural condition, do not know what takes place in this world, especially the interior movements of the heart. Nevertheless, according to Gregory (Moral. xii, 21), whatever it is fitting the blessed should know about what happens to us, even as regards the interior movements of the heart, is made known to them in the Word: and it is most becoming to their exalted position that they should know the petitions we make to them by word or thought; and consequently the petitions which we raise to them are known to them through Divine manifestation.
Reply to Objection 3. Those who are in this world or in Purgatory, do not yet enjoy the vision of the Word, so as to be able to know what we think or say. Wherefore we do not seek their assistance by praying to them, but ask it of the living by speaking to them.
God bless.
Those forces who hate the Pope and God -- rabid Leftists and secular humanists -- will claim that as a young man, John Paul ll didn't act forcefully against the Nazis and did little to save the Jews, even his own boyhood Jewish friends. This, and his failure to push condom use in Africa -- they're blaming every AIDS death there on the Pope, thank you, plus his abhorrence of abortion...will be used to claim that his life was hardly exemplary. You can read the tea leaves. These people won't admit they're wrong. They have their agenda, and that's all they care about. They'd run over their own mother in the street if they thought it would advance Godlessness.
It would have been nice if John Paul ll had dealt with the pedophile eruption problems quickly and forcefully, but that didn't happen. He believed in prayer as a powerful force to change things. That's why he went into the priesthood, why he spoke often about nonviolence. Prayer. Well, they followed that route with pedophile priests, and maybe some of it worked, but studies seem to show that pedophilia cannot be cured. I don't think the Church/the Pope knew that, so they did what they'd always done in the past. As for RR, I noticed that not once was his name mentioned during the week or more of wall to wall tv coverage as having had anything to do with the fall of communism. Interesting. (Grudgingly, the MSM admitted the Pope had had more divisions than Stalin and company ever dreamed.)
I think the "body of Christ" refers to all the baptized, which represents a type of membership in the Church, but not a full membership, since full membership requires acceptance of all that the Church teaches for belief.
We, believers, are the church.
In a sense, as above.
The church is not a building, not a heirarchy, but a multitude of believers.
I can't reconcile this idea with the passage where Jesus tells us to take our disputes to the Church, and that those who don't "listen to the Church" should be treated as a pagan or tax collector.
The multitude of believers believe many things, often times contradictory. How can we go to this "church" of contradictory doctrines to settle disputes? Moreover, how can this church of contradictory doctrines be "the pillar and foundation of truth"?
These passages are easily reconciled with the idea that Jesus founded a single, visible Church which possesses a non-contradictory body of teaching.
I have a little trouble with all this "Holy Mother Church" stuff. Doesn't that sound a little bit incestuous?
Well, the Church is Christ's bride, which is probably where the female aspect of the term derives. And the term refers to the Church as our spiritual mother, which makes sense, since as the body of Christ, She acts like a mother to her children.
Scripture "thoroughly" equips us. II Tim. 3:16-17
True. But being thoroughly equipped for every good work isn't the same thing as having everything necessary for salvation. This is not to diminish Scripture in any way, but just to say that Scripture isn't formally sufficient for our salvation.
What about all of the dire scriptural proscriptions against trying to communicate with the dead?
Much easier to just talk with the Father, anyway.
He's promised to hear us, because Jesus opened the way to come before His Throne of Grace.
Don't need a multi-paragraph explanation to try to understand it, either.
What a relief...
There's a difference between asking the saints in heaven to pray for us and conjuring up the dead. The latter case is an occultic practice which can open us up to contact with demons. In the former case, we're simply asking the glorified saints in heaven to present our prayers to God, as is seen in Revelation. They act as intecessors for us, just as the saints on earth do when they pray for us. And, since "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much," so much more do the prayers of the glorified saints "availeth much."
Well, on this we disagree.
I have a great deal of respect for you, and will drop the subject. At this point, we've both made our positions clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.