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.

[Almondjoy]

If you don't know... perhaps you can grab a history book and look for Catholic Church.

It has a dark and evil side.

[wagglebee]

You are absolutely correct, in 2000 years there have been some evil and corrupt Catholics and a few of them were even cardinals and popes. If memory serves me, there was also a disciple with an evil and dark side, does that mean that all of Christianity is false? Because there really is no difference.

Your ignorance comes from the fact that you are confusing the totality of Christ's Church with the actions of some of it's members.

[magisterium]

Amen!

The idea behind canonization of saints is fairly straightforward.

First, the Church is not "creating" saints when undertaking the canonization process. The Church is simply acknowledging the judgment of God already undertaken concerning a particular soul. Really, *all* people in Heaven are saints; canonized saints are just people whom the Church has noticed and wants to hold-up to the faithful as particularly good role-models.

The process is well-described by the following notes issued in September 1997 by the Vatican press office:

"1. Canon norms regarding the procedure to be followed for causes of saints are contained in the Apostolic Constitution 'Divinus Perfectionis Magister,' promulgated by John Paul II on January 25, 1983.

"2. To begin a cause it is necessary for at least 5 years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate.

"3. The bishop of the diocese in which the person whose beatification is being requested died is responsible for beginning the investigation. The promoter group ('Actor Causae'): diocese, parish, religious congregation, association, asks the bishop through the postulator for the opening of the investigation. The bishop, once the 'nulla osta' of the Holy See is obtained, forms a diocesan tribunal for this purpose. Witnesses are called before the tribunal to recount concrete facts on the exercise of Christian virtues considered heroic, that is, the theological virtues: faith, hope and charity, and the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, and others specific to his state in life. In addition, all documents regarding the candidate must be gathered. At this point he is entitled to the title of Servant of God.

"4. Once the diocesan investigation is finished, the acts and documentation are passed on to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The public copy used for further work is put together here. The postulator, resident in Rome, follows the preparation of the 'Positio', or summary of the documentation that proves the heroic exercise of virtue, under the direction of a relator of the Congregation. The 'Positio' undergoes an examination (theological) by nine theologians who give their vote. If the majority of the theologians are in favour, the cause is passed on for examination by cardinals and bishops who are members of the congregation. They hold meetings twice a month. If their judgment is favourable, the prefect of the congregation presents the results of the entire course of the cause to the Holy Father, who gives his approval and authorizes the congregation to draft the relative decree. The public reading and promulgation of the decree follows.

"5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his death, is necessary. The required miracle must be proven through the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues. This one too is concluded with the relative decree. Once the two decrees are promulgated (regarding the heroic virtues and the miracle) the Holy Father decides on beatification, which is the concession of public worship, limited to a particular sphere. With beatification the candidate receives the title of Blessed.

"6. For canonization another miracle is needed, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed and having occurred after his beatification. The methods for ascertainment of the affirmed miracle are the same as those followed for beatification. Canonization is understood as the concession of public worship in the Universal Church. Pontifical infallibility is involved. With canonization, the Blessed acquires the title of Saint."


The point is, again, to raise up to the faithful's awareness people who, by way of their heroic virtue, have led lives that are particularly valuable as role models. The canonization of a saint is considered an infallible act of the pope, that is, the person in question "is" in Heaven. There are, of course, many, many other people in Heaven who will never be canonized, but we don't know absolutely for certain who, specifically, they are. Many of these anonymous souls are likely to have led lives even more estimable than some of the canonized; we'll know this at the General Judgment. God grants a small window into Heaven now to give us examples, but the greater host of people who have been saved and are now contemplating the Beatific Vision is not important for us to know now.

The process is not a "rubber stamp," though. Many causes are started and languish for years, even centuries. Many of these never make it. Are these people therefore known to be in Hell? No. Not at all. It is not in the Church's power to say "definitively" that ANY particular person is in Hell. A cause can languish or be DOA for many reasons, none of which can be known with certainty in an individual's case. Some doubtless include: 1) The person IS in Hell (!). Such a case will obviously never "get far" in the process! 2) The person is in Purgatory (he or she is "saved," but has not yet attained Heaven). Such a person, obviously, is not quite the model of heroic virtue that people thought! Even though saved, such a person is not going to be canonized, since the heroic virtue requirement is evidently lacking as well as the role model aspect. God will not promote such a cause. 3) The person is in Heaven, but, for reasons known only to Him, God does not want to have the process result in canonization. Again, *unusually* worthy people are held-up for the emulation that comes with sainthood. Perhaps the person in question is in Heaven, and entered, as required, through the narrow gate, but put his or her feet in the same places that all of the saved do. 4) The human factor. God does not issue canonization decrees written in gold in the sky! If the people responsible for the cause don't do the work and research, a cause can easily lapse into obscurity. The person could easily be in Heaven and meet the requirements, but our Church Militant (here on earth) is composed of flesh-and-blood members; if they don't carry the ball, God will not force them. There are other factors, I'm sure, but these are a few obvious ones for why a canonization is hardly automatic.

Miracles associated with a beatification or canonization (the chief bone of contention on this thread) are meant to be the required evidence that the person in question is, in fact, in Heaven and lived a life of heroic virtue. The saint-to-be does NOT perform the miracle. He or she is asked to pray to God for the divine intervention necessary. If the miracle is shown to have come solely as an end-product of the petition to a particular Servant of God, that IS evidence that the person is in Heaven. Revelation 5:8 makes it clear enough that the saints in Heaven know our earthly trials and can offer prayers for them before the God whom they see before them, so the concept isn't difficult to grasp.

Benedict doubtless would like to see his friend canonized. But he can't just order it. The process must be fulfilled. He can waive the requirement for five years to go by before a cause is started, but the rest of the process must go through without his meddling. IF John Paul II is going to be canonized, it might happen during the pontificate of Benedict. It might not, and some future pope will "do the honors." It won't be Benedict's call as to when the requirements for the canonization will be fully met, if, indeed, they ever are.

I hope this helps!

[wagglebee]

Hey, you shouldn't make fun of people just because they learn things from comic books!/sarcasm off

[OLD REGGIE]

"I don't believe the word 'haste' applies so much as 'expansion'..."

I am almost certain you are aware my use of "unseemly haste" was slightly hyperbolic.

I do, however, believe there has been an almost assembly line naming of "Saints" in the past few years. To what purpose"

Further, I believe "miraculous healing" is too freely interpreted. If there is a record of thousands of instances of spontaneous healing (remission) of a particular condition how do you choose one as a "miracle"? Are they all "miraculous"?

I have been partially paralyzed for well over 20 years and have attended several "healing" services at various churches, Catholic and Protestant. I have not been healed but there are many cases on record of people being "healed" of the same condition. Were they all "miracles" regardless of where, when, or how the healing took place? I don't think so.

I may sound skeptical but I believe firmly that we should ascribe a "miracle" to something that has not yet happened as far as we know. Such a "miracle" would be an example of a missing limb growing back.

[SoothingDave]

I do, however, believe there has been an almost assembly line naming of "Saints" in the past few years. To what purpose"

John Paul canonized a lot of saints because he wanted us to take notice and see these good examples.

Further, I believe "miraculous healing" is too freely interpreted. If there is a record of thousands of instances of spontaneous healing (remission) of a particular condition how do you choose one as a "miracle"? Are they all "miraculous"?

The previous poster was talking about verified cases versus claims of miraculous healing. To be verified, cases need to be examined. That cuts a lot out. Not everyone wishes to go through the formal process of having the Church investigate. Many are just happy to know the truth and to tell their own witness.

Secondly, to be verified there must be clear, undeniable scientific medical evidence of the condition prior to the alleged healing.

Lastly, there must be the same type of unimpeachable evidence of the condition after the healing. And no possible rational explanation can exist.

So there can very well be many, many miracles that do not, for various reasons get documented as official miracles. In this way it is like canonization of saints. For every one we know of, there are multitides of those unknown to the general public.

I have been partially paralyzed for well over 20 years and have attended several "healing" services at various churches, Catholic and Protestant. I have not been healed but there are many cases on record of people being "healed" of the same condition. Were they all "miracles" regardless of where, when, or how the healing took place? I don't think so.

I hope you developed your skepticism afterwards, and did not bring it with you. God remain inscrutible. No amount of desiring miracle cures for all will make it so. This doesn't diminish the miracles that do happen.

SD

[NYer]

No amount of desiring miracle cures for all will make it so. This doesn't diminish the miracles that do happen.

Thank you for phrasing this so well.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I do, however, believe there has been an almost assembly line naming of "Saints" in the past few years. To what purpose"

Its their version of the "hall of fame" Reggie. But they should just go ahead and make someone a saint instead of this silly charade of claiming that somebody's prayer to JPII who prayed to God for a healing is the final piece to the puzzle. No way they can know, should this be a legit miracle, that it was this sequence of events responsible for the alledged healing. One of them just admitted to me yesterday that they take it by faith that JPII is responsible. Kinda funny.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I do, however, believe there has been an almost assembly line naming of "Saints" in the past few years. To what purpose"

Its their version of the "hall of fame" Reggie. But they should just go ahead and make someone a saint instead of this silly charade of claiming that somebody's prayer to JPII who prayed to God for a healing is the final piece to the puzzle. No way they can know, should this be a legit miracle, that it was this sequence of events responsible for the alledged healing. One of them just admitted to me yesterday that they take it by faith that JPII is responsible. Kinda funny.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

oops sorry dave that was meant for reggie. I copied and pasted his remark from your post.

[OLD REGGIE]

I hope you developed your skepticism afterwards, and did not bring it with you. God remain inscrutible.

I imagine you are saying there has never been a miraculous healing of a skeptic or an otherwise unworthy person.

This doesn't diminish the miracles that do happen.

How many missing limbs have grown back?

[SoothingDave]

I imagine you are saying there has never been a miraculous healing of a skeptic or an otherwise unworthy person.

I am saying that, in general, faith is rewarded, not cynicism. If you go to a healing Mass in order to prove to yourself that it's all bunk, you will likely get what you are asking for.

How many missing limbs have grown back?

I am not aware of any. Why isn't remission of cancer or MS good enough for you? I imagine if God has a delightful sense of humor you may find yourself in eternity with several extra appendages.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I am saying that, in general, faith is rewarded, not cynicism. If you go to a healing Mass in order to prove to yourself that it's all bunk, you will likely get what you are asking for.

Some time ago on another thread I had an extensive discussion with a person from the local area who was familiar with the LaSalette Shrine in Ipswitch, Massachusetts (long gone and now a BioLab). I assure you I was awestruck and was reduced to tears. I just wasn't healed. It is as simple as that. I am convinced if the Lord wants me to be healed it will be so no matter what action I take. In the final analysis I simply don't think the whole question is that important in the grand scheme.

Now I want you to say that no total skeptic has ever been "miraculously" healed, yet remained a skeptic.

Sometimes I think you live in a fairy tale world and don't quite grasp the reality of life. I hope, for your sake, you are never put to the test.

Why isn't remission of cancer or MS good enough for you?

It would be if there was not also an extensive record of spontaneous remissions of the same maladys. IOW it is not totally unique.

A person with "terminal" cancer prays to Saint Whoever and is cured. It is proof of a "miraculous" healing.

A person with "terminal" cancer is an athiest and doesn't pray to anyone or anything and is cured. This is proof of what?

[OLD REGGIE]

The office of "apostle" is to be continued (Acts 1:20-26) to the present day.

To replace Judas. How do you make hundreds or thousands out of this?

[PleaseNoMore]

I am not being contentious but I have a hard time crediting a mortal man with miracles. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that miracles are performed. The apostles noted they did nothing on their own. Even Jesus exclaimed such. IMO, credit should not be given to mortal man simply because he/she did what is commanded of them; pray. To pray is a duty of a Christian. God should receive the credit. Can you understand where I am coming from?

[PleaseNoMore]

Still, the CEO is the one who actually gave the raise. Me? I would go to the CEO directly.

[Yank_In_A_Tank]

Looks who's talking ;)

[NYer]

Me? I would go to the CEO directly.

Would you really? I worked for many years in the North American HQ of an international airline, with offices all over the world. The CEO was in Paris. He didn't know me and were I to approach him for a raise, odds were good I would be fired for impertinence. However, my boss and his boss and those above him took note of the contributions I brought, locally, to the world body of this organization. They are the ones who made the local decisions, not the CEO. (BTW - this was my dream job. Find the job you most want to do and you never work again. It was 4 hour r/t daily commute to work each and every day but I loved my job and gave 100%. It was noticed and recognized.)

[NYer]

To replace Judas. How do you make hundreds or thousands out of this?

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.). Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).

Ordination - Gregory John Mansour
Maronite Catholic Church

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 do the math.