Miracle Cure Brings Sainthood to Polish Nun (Divine Mercy)

Detroit News via the Washington Post ^ | April 26, 2000 | Carlyle Murphy

[Aliska]

Miracle Cure: Priest's recovery brings sainthood to Polish nun

By Caryle Murphy/The Washington Post In 1995, the Rev. Ronald P. Pytel, just 48, had resigned himself to an idle life and early death. His heart was so damaged that simply walking made him winded. His complexion was pallid, his weight a gaunt 140 pounds. His quality of life, he recalls one doctor saying, "wasn't worth a plug nickel." But the pastor of Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Baltimore, like many of his parishioners, had long been devoted to Faustina Kowalska, a Polish nun and mystic who died in 1938. At a healing service in October 1995, he and a dozen church members were praying to her for his health when Pytel fell to the floor and, although conscious, couldn't get up for 15 minutes. "I could talk, but I couldn't move a muscle," he recalled. "It was as though I was paralyzed." When he finally stood up, he felt so fit he began laughing. Nowadays, the blond Pytel has the rosy cheeks of a choirboy, weighs a hearty 170 pounds and swims with abandon. His pumping machine is so robust he jokes of having "the heart of a 19-year-old." He and his parishioners call what happened a miracle. And so does the Catholic Church.

Go to link to read rest of article

[CCWoody]

Why would you do that anyway? Is your friend a saint?

ROLFLOL! You are funny. Well, I am a saved man and my friend is a saved man:

• 1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;

I guess that your Bible is radically different for this verse. And here is a verse specifically about healing prayers:

• Jam 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

I'm sure you think so, but we are talking about people who are in heaven with God. If you think that it is stupid, as you obviously do, then what more can I say? I'm sorry to have strained your neuron.

Well, I guess that one functioning neuron for a Bible believing Protestant is more effective than a brain full of mush who can't produce a single Bible verse to back up praying to those who have died.

And no, asking what authority you use to interpret scripture isn't changeing the subject. It begs asking since you refer to the bible for all of your arguments. How do you know you are even using inspired scripture since you reject Rome? Who is your authority?

Oh, I get it. You are claiming that the Bible does contain just such a verse, but I just can't intrepret it verse correctly. Well, come on and quit being coy. Give us the verse or admit you are just blowing smoke.

[the_doc]

Election and regeneration are different. (If you are not elect, you are actually predestined to hell, as Augustine would point out.)

We have explained the terminology to you many times, I believe.

[CCWoody]

The doctrine of the Trinity: Once a Christian has the doctrine of the Trinity, Scripture can be found to support it,....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So, what you are saying is that the way the Voltaries of Rome "intrepret" the Bible is to actually just make up something and then find some kind of support for it in the Bible.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Last chance: Do you really want to actually make this claim.

What you defend to the Mormons on a daily basis originated in Rome. I just had this discussion with someone else earlier this evening.

I thought that you just told me that the doctrine of the Trinity originated in fantasy land. Am I to suppose that this is in the Voltaries of Rome? [I think I can actually see the plane!]

[JMJ333]

Go ahead and post the verses that outline the Trinity as we know it. And quit acting obnoxious or I'll stop posting to you.

[JMJ333]

Fine. "I do not have the Holy Spirit" was your implication. How you would know is beyond me, but I guess you smug elitists have an edge over the rest of us. What gets me is that you actually think God smiles upon your arrogence toward others. If anyone is lacking in the spirit it is you. Good night.

[CCWoody]

Go ahead and post the verses that outline the Trinity as we know it. And quit acting obnoxious or I'll stop posting to you.

First off, a little housekeeping. I read post #82. It doesn't have a single verse in it which says that I should Pray to the saints. You must actually make up words in those verse and twist them horribly to actually get that.

Secondly, you are the one who claims that at least portions of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the Scripture. Begin to name them. The burden of proof is on you. I'm not going to begin a dissertation when you can simply bring for a single thing for discussion.

[JMJ333]

I don't see how the burden of proof is on me since I have an authority that not only backs up the interpretation of scripture, but also has apostolic tradition. You have neither. You only have your own authority, and that is hardly credible. The point is that you can't admit that saying simple intercessory prayers to saints, asking them for help is indeed not only found in scripture, but also can be traced back to the father of the church.

As to the Trinity, The Old Testament does contain allusions to the Trinity, but they are so vague that before the coming of Christ no one was aware of their meaning. For example, the plurality of persons is implied in Genesis: "Let Us make man in Our image and likeness" (1:19). "Let Us then go down and there confuse their language" (11:17). And in the triple invocation Isaiah heard the Seraphim cry: "Holy, Holy, Holy, the Lord God of Hosts, all the earth is full of His glory" (6:3).

Certainly nothing as descriptive as we teach it today.

Here are the other references to the Trinity:

Message of Archangel Gabriel: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; hence, the holy offspring to be born will be called Son of God" (Lk.1:35).

At the baptism of Jesus: "After Jesus was baptized, he came directly out of the water. Suddenly the sky opened and he saw the Spirit of God descend like a dove and hover over him. With that, a voice from heaven (the Father's) said: 'This is my beloved Son. My favor rests on him' " (Mt.3:16).

At the Last Supper: "The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything, and remind you of all that I told you" (Jn. 14:26).

Before the Ascension: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 28:19).

Does that teach doctrine of the Trinity as we know it? No. And sorry for the repetition but--- It supports it, but says nothing about that there is one God in Three Persons, each Person wholly and entirely God, all co-equal, co-eternal, and possessing the divine nature totally unto Himself, the Godhead having but one divine intellect and one divine will.

And here is another example of doctrine that you accept that is promulgated by Rome:

Jesus Christ as true God and true Man: Scripture is essentially silent on the true nature, or rather natures, of Christ. Scripture says Jesus Christ is God; Scripture says Jesus Christ is human; Scripture says Jesus Christ is like us in all things but sin. But nowhere does Scripture say how or when all of this fits together. Was He this way from the moment of conception, or did His divinity descend upon Him at the baptism by John?

The idea that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man, having the fullness of the divine nature and a complete human nature, was only finally settled by the Magisterium at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. He was known to be God from the moment of conception because Ephesus (431 A.D.) declared Mary to be Mother of God in order to clarify that very point. The doctrine of Jesus’ dual natures was laid out at Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

Now...I have complied with your request. The burden now lies with you to refute these assertions and to outline where in scripture your case is made for the Trinity as it is now taught.

[Joshua]

"And I find it highly comical that you guys continually laud the Jewish people who use tradition as well as the Torah and sacred scripture, yet you won't tolerate that same principal from Rome. "

Do a word search in the NT and find out what Jesus thought of the Pharisees who used "tradition" with the Torah. You won't find it comical when you realise your falling into the same trap.

[Joshua]

"How do you know if that scripture is divinely inspired since it was Rome who put it together and approved it? "

Could you give us the date that Rome put it's seal of approval on the OT. I'm sure the Jewish freepers sleep better knowing Rome finally got around to putting the finishing touches on the Torah.

[JMJ333]

Please show me where in the bible it says to only use scripture for a teaching manual. Please show me where it says that it is a catechsim. And Jesus was harsh with the Pharisees over being stubborn on certain traditions, but he did not condemn tradition outright. He only chastised those who were more concerned with it than with God. My point is that the apostles who were Jewish used the same methods of teaching as they had been taught.

[JMJ333]

Be glad to give you the dates. And after I am finished you can tell me who your authority is to determine scripture. I am still waiting for cc, the_doc, and wrigly to answer that question. Since you reject Rome's authority then you must also reject the scripture they compiled. Who is it that backs up your interpretation and how do you know that your scripture is inspired?

The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: Where did we get the Bible? Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.

[drstevej]

Mark 7

5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

====

You say, "He only chastised those who were more concerned with it than with God. "

The point of this passage is that their traditions rendered the Word of God / the commandments to be void. Traditions that violate the Scriptures are condemned by Jesus.

[Joshua]

" 2 Tim 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV) "

You may want to look up the word "thoroughly " in your dictionary.

I don't know how much more a man can be equipped than thoroughly. And this verse says scripture does that.

[Joshua]

Read your history. The early fathers knew and actually gave the books in order long before Rome jumped in and gave it's approval. Stop being spoonfed this garbage from Rome.

[JMJ333]

You have yet to find me a place that says scripture only in the bible. And that is because it isn't there. And of course post 82 by sock, and my post 107 are questions that are still unanswered. The truth is that before scripture was compiled the church was already functioning. Paul's letters were sent to settle disputes in the church, not as lesson plans.

And as Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6).

[Joshua]

And by the way. Peter talked of Pauls writings as scripture. He didn't need Rome.

[drstevej]

Drj: Traditions that violate the Scriptures are condemned by Jesus.

- = - =
Do you agree or not?

[JMJ333]

They had booklets, but scripture wasn't approved or compiled until 3 centuries later. Spoonfed? You can't even come up with a credible argument and you give me this tripe about being spoonfed? Why don't you answer the questions I posed to you. I don't believe you can.

I'll ask you again. If you reject Rome's authority, how do you know you are reading inspired scripture? Who is your authority? You own?

And then go back and answer post 107.

And then show me where the bible says sola scriptura.

[JMJ333]

What are you talking about? Peter was the head of the church. He was the first Pope and was martyred in Rome. Why don't you come back after you do 5 minutes of research.

[Joshua]

Going to bed. I'll answer all responses tomorrow.