Posted on 03/14/2006 12:47:42 PM PST by tbird5
OME -- The sudden recovery of a young French nun suffering from Parkinson's disease is at the heart of the sainthood case for Pope John Paul II, the Polish priest who heads the inquiry said Monday.
The Vatican needs to confirm a miracle after John Paul's death for the pontiff to be beatified, the first step toward his possible canonization.
Monsignor Slawomir Oder told The Associated Press in an interview that an official inquiry into the nun's inexplicable recovery was beginning this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
hubris? i suppose i was just raised better, but i would never presume to go after Baptists, evangelicals, Lutherans or WHOMEVER, (including atheists) with what i consider to be problems or erroneous practices in THEIR churches or way of thinking. but you know, it takes all kinds. : )
It's disappointing that sometimes you hear of these things, and then you never hear about them again. I can understand the need to protect the nun's privacy, but it hasn't been so hush hush about other recent miracles.
Oh well, it's good new on the face of it. I feel confident being the man he was, he would have done such in life were it in his power. Maybe he did, and we don't know about it. Sometimes things happen with a cause, like being at a papal mass, and then months later a person miraculously gets better, possibly never linking it with the particular circumstances that preceded it, but knowing it came from God.
I'm not being coy. Use the Mormons, instead. The result is the same.
No. Catholics change things. Didn't they used to do the mass thing in Latin? As I recall from my youth, fish was forbidden on Fridays. It seems to me like they are open to changes.
"This of course presumes that the elders are actually living - as opposed to asking a dead pope to "intervene".
It would help if you catholics would actually open a bible once in a while instead of depending on your apostate leaders to tell you what to believe."
Like I said in another post...this isn't about idolatry but about whether or not souls in heaven can still intercede for others.
Your nasty tone tells me you are more concerned with trash talking a catholic than with any real dialogue.
I have managed to crack a bible open once or twice.
It must be one of those times I managed to read Revelations 5 and saw souls in heaven who were aware of earthly events and appealing to God.
Some people might consider that to be "intercession"
So...by your own definition, if a sick person asks a neighbor (who they may think has been given the gift of healing) for prayer..that person is an idoloter because that person is not an elder at the Church.
Furthermore - the sick person is not appealing directly to God, but to a mere human and asking them to mediate.
So..only elders can pray for people...and only when their physical bodies are alive.
Is that right?
. . . a miracle! < g >
In the New Testament, there is no indication that any deceased Christian interceded and received a favor. Christians living on this earth, whether it be apostle or simple believer, often got a miracle. I can't think of any examples where angels were prayed to either. It's something I don't understand about the catholic faith completely, but some.
Again I say you guys need to read your bible for yourself instead of depending on "the teaching" of your apostate leaders. They are leading all of you to hell.
That is too harsh. We don't know for certain how God views it one way or the other; we know what the church believes. There is a lot of evidence that it simply works in too many cases to dismiss out of hand.
I don't pray to saints any more, but if they want to intercede for me and God hears their prayers (he can ask them to ask Him), I'll be grateful.
Remember, one requirement for a positive answer to prayer is belief. Those nuns evidently believed with all their hearts that it was possible if this account is true. Many people, I myself, pray hoping but thinking I am asking for something too big because I have faith for little things but not the real, big blockbuster cases.
Praying for healing is a slippery slope. In my experience over many years, both Protestant and Catholic, the person usually dies or remains ill sometimes for long years no matter what prayer method is used, whether the whole congregation prays, one, or a few etc., whether some blessed object or "miracle-working water" is applied. Still for a very blessed few, miracles seem to happen, and my observation has been that no particular method of prayer worked unless their is a causative link. In other words, they all work, Protestants praying to God in the name of Jesus Christ and Catholics (and Orthodox) through the sacraments and their unique practices.
It's good to keep an open mind on the subject.
"I pray to Jesus for my family, friends, enemies, sometimes. I don't pray to Mary or any Pope or any other person or being for them to pray to Jesus for me. What is the point in having a personal relationship with Christ, if you have to go through another person to get to him?
He is MY savior, not because of something I or someone else did, but just because he loves me"
I'm glad you are in love with Jesus.
So am I.
When I decided to have a personal relationship with my husband I didn't say to him "I only want a direct relationship with you - I will not honor your parents, siblings, or friends in any way."
I didn't do this because I knew part of having a personal relationship with my husband meant welcoming all of him, including his family and friends.
So it is with Jesus.
It is not an "either" "or" situation.
I pray directly to Jesus too. And I pray directly to His (and mine) Heavenly Father. And I pray to the Holy Spirit.
And I ask for intercession from others - I ask it from those still in their physical bodies here on earth, and I ask for intercession from those who now dwell in heaven in the presence of the Holy Trinity.
When I "pray to" Mary (as you like to call it), it is not me saying "Mary - you have the power of a goddess to fulfill my request"
No it is more like this "Mary - you gave birth to my savior, you raised Him and nurtured Him, you know Him like no other human being knows Him, please present my prayers to Him and intercede on my behalf"
I have a little girl in heaven. I recently found out my aunt is dying of cancer.
I find myself talking to my little girl, and it goes something like this "please pray for Aunt Grace, she is suffering. You are now living in the presence of Christ, please offer prayers for Aunt Grace's behalf to Him"
Now...I know my little girl is not a goddess - I gave birth to her afterall. But I do think she is aware of what is happening with her family, and I think she can still pray to God.
There is nothing in scripture that says the souls in heaven are mysteriously incapable of praying to God....there right there with him afterall - why would they stop praying?
I'd never heard that story about Thomas a Kempis. I'm not sure it follows though to assume he gave into despair. He might have tried to see if he could get out. He may have despaired of being able to go on living on earth, but I thought theological hope relates to our future life, which would not necessarily be affected by being buried alive. Anyways, poor guy!
Wow. Thank you very much for that information. I wasn't even aware of that.
No problem. I just write what I think. Sometimes it's well-received. Sometimes it's not.
Because I am asking someone in the Church to pray for me.
CCC
957 Communion with the saints. "It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself"498:
We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because of their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples!499
958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.
498 LG 50; cf. Eph 4:1-6.
499 Martyrium Polycarpi, 17:Apostolic Fathers II/3,396.
500 LG 50; cf. 2 Macc 12:45.
Dear Dionysiusdecordealcis,
"I am skeptical of this particular case. It is being hyped by some but it strikes me as a poor case to satisfy the seven criteria."
Which criteria do you think this case likely fails?
Thanks,
sitetest
As others have pointed out, Parkinson's is difficult to diagnose. And hasn't the nun received treatment? I suppose it turns on whether any treatment for Parkinson's is known to be effective.
And then there's the matter of the waiting period. But there my quarrel is with putting John Paul on the fast track. I undersand the pressure to do so, but it does make it hard to satisfy the "permanent" criterion. I would imagine there would be other diseases where things would be more clearcut and I'd rather they waited for a miracle of that sort.
Finally, I just generally don't trust media reports. It may be that behind the media blabbering, real solid evidence in this case that satisfies the seven criteria is available. I just wish the media (Catholic and otherwise) would shut up and let the doctors and investigators do their work. But I fear that the postulators of the cause may be part of the problem. They shouldn't be making statements to the press at all--just doing their work.
But I know that the clamor is great, especially in Poland where the cause is headquartered and it's hard to resist the pressure to pump out information to the press.
Dear Dionysiusdecordealcis,
I'm not a medical expert or anything at all, but I know a little about Parkinson's, watching my father slowly degenerate from the disease these past 15 years or so.
It is very difficult to diagnose, but as the disease progresses, it becomes increasingly obvious that it is Parkinson's, unfortunately. The Washington Post article indicates that the young woman has been suffering from the disease for a very long time. It's quite possible that the diagnosis, by the time of the alleged cure, was definitive.
I know that for my father, ten years ago, the doctors still debated a little as to whether he had Parkinson's. Not any longer.
"I suppose it turns on whether any treatment for Parkinson's is known to be effective."
There are treatments that can reduce symptoms in the short term. My father has taken a variety of medications that reduced his symptoms. However, over time, the progression of the disease undid much of that reduction. I know of no medicine or drug regimen that can actually cure the disease, or even reduce to nothing its symptoms late in the progression of the disease.
As well, in my father's case, at least, medications took days or even weeks to have their full effect, while the Washington Post article here states that the miracle occurred pretty much instantaneously. Here's a quote from the article:
"'Exactly two months after the death of the pope, from one minute to another, the nun didn't show the symptoms of the illness any more,' [Msgr.] Oder said."
I've read a little bit about a type of brain surgery that is supposed to work wonders at least for some patients. However, I'm sure that if this nun had that surgery, the Church would have rejected the alleged miracle out of hand.
"And then there's the matter of the waiting period."
Well, the criterion for determining whether the alleged cure is permanent certainly hasn't yet been met. The cure only took place in June, 2005. However, to the best of my knowledge, the nun still shows no evidence of Parkinson's anymore, and thus, this alleged miracle hasn't failed this criterion, either.
If this is the miracle on which beatification or canonization is based, I assume that the Church will not judge it as being genuinely miraculous until after the death of the nun. Even so, even if she lived to an advanced age, in terms of the process of beatification and canonization, it will be a relatively short wait. A few decades or so at most.
"Finally, I just generally don't trust media reports."
A healthy skepticism regarding the lamestream media is generally a prudent attitude. When I was a subscriber to the Washington Post, I used to make my check out to the "Washington Lying Thieving Post." They never failed to cash my check. I always viewed that as an admission. ;-)
Nonetheless, I'm not sure that the Post would be interested in digging up the seven criteria that you cite, and then write an article slanted to support those criteria, on purpose. It seems more likely to me that the Post would try to debunk the miracle rather than go overboard to report it in a favorable light.
As well, skepticism should apply to just about anything reported in the general media, yet that's not an argument in favor of generally suppressing news.
"I just wish the media (Catholic and otherwise) would shut up and let the doctors and investigators do their work. But I fear that the postulators of the cause may be part of the problem. They shouldn't be making statements to the press at all--just doing their work."
I don't completely disagree with you, but I think there is a place for sober, careful reporting. This article doesn't seem incautious to me.
"But I know that the clamor is great, especially in Poland where the cause is headquartered and it's hard to resist the pressure to pump out information to the press."
Yes, and the information reported in this article is newsworthy.
All in all, though, the article from the Washington Post seems to suggest that this case may actually go a long way to meeting the seven criteria that you've presented, which was the original question I asked.
sitetest
That's a nice cuircular argument that there is no way out of. How do you know they "want" to canonize someone? Because they did?
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.