Vatican may have found late pope's 'miracle'

CNN ^ | January 30, 2006 | Philip Pullella

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) -- The Vatican may have found the "miracle" they need to put the late Pope John Paul II one step closer to sainthood -- the medically inexplicable healing of a French nun with the same Parkinson's disease that afflicted him.

Monsignor Slawomir Oder, the Catholic Church official in charge of promoting the cause to declare the late pope a saint of the Church, told Reuters on Monday that an investigation into the healing had cleared an initial probe by doctors.

Oder said the "relatively young" nun, whom he said he could not identify for now, was inexplicably cured of Parkinson's after praying to John Paul after his death last April 2.

"I was moved," Oder said in a telephone interview. "To think that this was the same illness that destroyed the Holy Father and it also kept this poor nun from carrying out her work."

John Paul suffered from Parkinson's Disease during the last decade of his life. His body trembled violently and he could not pronounce his words or control his facial muscles.

"To me, this is another sign of God's creativity," he said, adding that the nun worked with children.

He said Church investigators would now start a more formal and detailed probe of the suspected miracle cure.

The process that could lead to sainthood for John Paul began in May when Rome archdiocese published an edict asking Catholics to come forward with evidence "in favor or against" John Paul's reputation of holiness.

One proven miracle is required after John Paul's death for the cause to lead to beatification.

It must be the result of prayers asking the dead pope to intercede with God. Miracles are usually a physical healing that doctors are at a loss to explain.

Another miracle would be necessary between beatification and eventual sainthood.

[phatus maximus]

Before St. Peter was crucified, he appointed St. Linus as his successor. Why should this practice not be carried on to the present day?

Question of curiousity from your perspective: If St. Peter appointed his successor before his death, why is that not done today? The practice of the pope naming a successor vs a vote by the bishops after his death is quite different...Thanks in advance for your thoughts...

Blessings in Christ.

[NYer]

If St. Peter appointed his successor before his death, why is that not done today? The practice of the pope naming a successor vs a vote by the bishops after his death is quite different.

PAPAL ELECTIONS

[Rutles4Ever]

Absolutely I see. God, ultimately, deserves credit for me getting out of bed in the morning, miracles aside.

The point is, God doesn't just reach down from the sky. He works through us mere mortals, us sinners. There is no such thing as a PERFECT insititution because there are no PERFECT human beings. People who point at the Church and an array of scandals throughout recorded history and scream "APOSTATE!" were the same ones standing at the cross taunting Jesus to come down after He was abandoned by all the Apostles but John. These are the same Pharisees who point to Judas and declare Jesus a fraud.

So this constant effort to tear down the Catholic Church because of its imperfect members has no bearing on the fact that:

1) It was established by Christ, blemishes and all.

2) It is led by the Holy Spirit, as proven by its unwavering teachings on morals and faith.

3) It will never fall before the gates of hell, in spite of every effort to reduce it to rubble throughout recorded history.

4) It carries the fullness of the deposit of faith - Scripture and Apostolic Tradition (planting the seeds of the New Testament and interpreting Scripture for the means of living out and administering the Catholic faith).

5) The papal line is unbroken and directly traced to St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, the seat of the Catholic Church.

[Rutles4Ever]

You are dodging the question. Why is the Catholic churches claim to Apostolic succession more valid than the Morman's?

Um... because Jesus actually told Peter to be the shepherd of His flock? I guess it comes down to which history you believe. People make choices in life. Do I believe a lesson in history coming from Tertullian, or do I believe a lesson in history coming from Dan Brown? Was Jesus the Messiah or not? You look at the evidence and make a choice. The evidence of history indicates that the Catholic Church has a continuous, traceable line of succession going back to Pentecost Sunday. Do you believe uncountable sums of documented history of this fact, or do you just sort of see what you feel like in the morning? It's up to you.

Whether or not you like, dislike, approve of, or disapprove of the Catholic Church is nothing but a gnat on my windshield. It's irrelevant to Truth. But if you're going to hijack a thread and deliberately lambast the Catholic Church through your litany of errors, I'm going to stand in your way. If you want to have a serious discussion on theology, church history, and Christian brotherhood, then I'll be glad to engage, but if you're only here to be a destructive element, then you'll get it back in spades...

[OLD REGGIE]

For 2000 years, the ordination of bishops has flowed through the laying on of hands from one bishop to the next. (Notice the placement of the Book of the Gospels on his head and the hand cross of the Patriarch, placed against his forehead in blessing for his ministry). This is my bishop, on the day of his ordination in Harissa, Lebanon. He was enthroned the following month in the Eparchy of St. Maron, Brooklyn NY where he serves all those parishes assigned to his eparchy.

You, nor anyone else, knows how Bishops were created/ordained 2000 years ago. We do know, Acts 1:, that the 11 remaining Apostles appointed a 12th as successor to Judas. Of course this appointment was made collectively by the living Apostles not by a single person.

In your system the Bishops are appointed by the Pope. Certainly this is not biblical but a man made system.

Your amazing recreation of history has retroactively created Peter as the first Pope and invented a system of "Apostolic Succession" which in no way resembles the system of the original Church of the Apostles.

Do you care to enlighten me as to how the Bishops were appointed in the days of the Apostles?

[OLD REGGIE]

The papal line is unbroken and directly traced to St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, the seat of the Catholic Church.

Silly question: If the United States had no President for four years and the country had no official leader for these four years would you say the presidential line was unbroken.

[NYer]

Do you care to enlighten me as to how the Bishops were appointed in the days of the Apostles?

Sure! I already posted that in link #22

[OriginalChristian]

'Men don't decide who is to be a saint...'

You're absolutely right, the Church does.
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

[OLD REGGIE]

Reg: "Do you care to enlighten me as to how the Bishops were appointed in the days of the Apostles?" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sure! I already posted that in link #22

"The method of electing the pope has varied considerably at different periods of the history of the Church."

If you have no real answer baffle them with smoke.

Once again, how were Bishops appointed in the days of the Apostles?

[NYer]

Why don't you tell me.

[OLD REGGIE]

Why don't you tell me.

Nice try but I would expect you to back up your "facts" with something more substantial than a misdirection.

The fact is I don't know. (Take a peek at my tagline).

I do know they weren't appointed by a non-existant Pope.

If you suggest the Apostles appointed Bishops then you agree there was no central (Pope) appointing authority.

If Paul appointed Bishops was he the Pope?

I made no claim that things in the RCC have remained unchanged for 2,000 years. You found it necessary to answer for someone else so I assumed you had facts, not smoke, to back your claim.

[NYer]

Nice try but I would expect you to back up your "facts" with something more substantial than a misdirection.

To understand apostolic succession, you must go back to the early Church Fathers. Here is what they wrote:

"Through Our Lord Jesus Christ our Apostles knew that there would be strife over the office of episcopacy.  Accordingly, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those men already mentioned.  And they afterwards gave instructions that when those men would fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that those appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards by other acclaimed men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry."  St. Clement Of Rome ("The Epistle Of Clement To The Corinthians," c. 96 A.D.)

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.  And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth."  St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)

"It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles.  For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.  But we should hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever.  For they are either heretics or perverse minds, or else they are schismatics who are puffed up and self-pleasing....  Therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof from all such persons and to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, hold the doctrine of the Apostles."  St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)

"He cannot be reckoned as a bishop who succeeds no one.  For he has despised the evangelical and apostolic traditions, springing from himself.  For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way....  How can he be esteemed a pastor, who succeeds to no one, but begins from himself?  For the true shepherd remains and presides over the Church of God by successive ordination.  Therefore, the other one becomes a stranger and a profane person, an enemy of the Lord's peace."  St. Cyprian Of Carthage ("Letter To Magnus," c. 250 A.D.)

Early Church Fathers

[OLD REGGIE]

To understand apostolic succession, you must go back to the early Church Fathers. Here is what they wrote:

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth." St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)

Here is some more of what Irenaeus wrote:

In ( Against Heresies, Book 3, Chap. 3, before aprox. 195 A.D. ) Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote: " . . . The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing [ in his ears ], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [ in this ], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles . . . "

WHO did the Apostles appoint as the Bishop of Rome? Where was Peter?

One source is Here

There are hundreds more if you are interested in history rather than boilerplate apologetics.

BTW, are we drifting pretty far off the original topic?

[phatus maximus]

so pretty much it's been whatever sounds good at the time...interesting material...thank you for the link...

[Cronos]

There are a lot of things that can cause Parkinson's syndrome in a younger person, and usually it's not your classic Parkinson's disease. It can be a side effect to numerous medications and can go away when you stop taking the medication.

That's why we Catholics are sceptics! We take everything with a pinch of salt and the Church demands really tough criteria to consider someone among the canons of saints.

[P.O.E.]

particular caricature of the Church

Thanks for that phrase. I've been noticing that many unfavorable depictions (especially in the media) use "demonized" versions of the faith to make their point. They portray mischaracterizations of doctrine as if they were the Church's real stance. I've been looking for a better way to express that, and I like the way you've stated it.