Posted on 04/16/2016 8:01:29 AM PDT by Salvation
Q. Can you explain about the incorruptibles? I know that some saints are given that designation, but is it part of the process of canonization? What does it mean spiritually if a body is incorrupt? Was St. John XXIII found to be incorrupt?
Name withheld by request, via e-mail
A. The normal process of decay for the human body, especially before embalming was common, was for the remains of a cadaver to be largely skeletonized within just a few years after death. In certain rare cases, however, the usual process of decay seems arrested and the bodies are preserved largely intact.
This fact has been observed in a number of cases regarding Catholic saints.
As part of the process of canonization, the bodily remains of the saints are usually exhumed and examined. In not a few cases, their bodies are found to have escaped the usual decay and corruption that is the lot of the typical human body, which returns to the dust from which it came.
In addition, there is sometimes a pleasant fragrance like roses emanating from the body of those found incorrupt.
Generally speaking, when the body of a candidate for sainthood is found incorrupt, this is looked upon favorably by the Church as a sign of sanctity since, implicitly, the individual has escaped the full consequences of the punishment due to sin. For Adam was told after he sinned, “For you are dust, / and to dust you shall return” (Gn 3:19).
However, to be sure, though incorruptibility is looked upon favorably, it is not an absolute requirement for canonization, for many canonized saints are not listed among the incorruptibles.
Further, natural phenomena — for example, lack of oxygen — can also explain the lengthy preservation of bodies.
Pope St. John XXIII’s body was found largely intact when exhumed. This was judged to be the result of unusually extensive embalming before his entombment.
But it is also important not to be misled by the term incorruptible.
It does not necessarily mean that the person looks exactly as they did the day the casket was closed. The usual condition of an incorruptible is more akin to a kind of mummified state. Though the skin and organs may be largely intact, and still flexible, most of the moisture of the body has departed, producing a mummified look.
Further, when one looks at the bodies of incorruptible saints in some of the churches of Europe, a wax mask of sorts often covers the face and hands.
Most notably, the beautiful face of St. Bernadette, the visionary of Lourdes, that people see when they visit Nevers, France, actually includes a wax mask that covers the face and hands of her incorrupt body. Her actual face has a more mummified appearance, as seen in photos of her exhumed body. Her body is incorrupt, but her face and hands (visible outside her habit) are not as moist and fully featured as when she was alive.
So we ought not have a notion that is too exaggerated about what an incorruptible body looks like. They have surely evaded the usual human condition which reduces us to dust and bones, but they seldom look like the very day they died.
Just because we don’t hold the same belief doesn’t necessarily mean the other’s is false. It may be false, but not necessarily.
Regarding any thank yous you have received, I would expect that from those who share your point of view.
Speaking for myself, your arguments are a waste of time. I also find them rude and intellectually dishonest.
On religious topics, I have no interest in reading your opinions and mindless repetition of anti-Catholic screeds.
You may have meaningful insights on other topics, and we may agree on many things. However, when it comes to my religious beliefs, your opinion is of no account.
READ the ENTIRE Levitical laws list. You are asserting that GOD would violate THE LAWS HE gave to Israel on the night before He went to the Cross as The Perfect Lamb of God for our salvation. That you refuse to see that lie at the heart of your Pagan Mass(es) is quite telli9ng of what spirit you serve. ... But Christians ought not oppose your OTHER gospel, by your calculus ...
I suggest you study Polycarp’s Letter to The Philipians, in which he either quotes from or makes strong alluding to all 27 of the books later cited as The New Testament.
Just because we don’t hold the same belief doesn’t necessarily mean the other’s is false. It may be false, but not necessarily.
Regarding any thank yous you have received, I would expect that from those who share your point of view.
Speaking for myself, your arguments are a waste of time. I also find them rude and intellectually dishonest.
On religious topics, I have no interest in reading your opinions and mindless repetition of anti-Catholic screeds.
You may have meaningful insights on other topics, and we may agree on many things. However, when it comes to my religious beliefs, your opinion is of no account.
"when it comes to my religious beliefs, your opinion is of no account." spiritu tuo
And that is a current example of the haughtiness to which I referred. As to this whole paragraph: "Speaking for myself, your arguments are a waste of time. I also find them rude and intellectually dishonest." When a person is hysterical and unable to see TRUTH, it is sometimes useful to smack the silly out of them, figuratively, of course. That you resist the occasional slap is not surprising. Catholiciism indoctrination is quite thorough and aimed at scaring the followers into not hearing anything which would oppose the cult of your other religion. That's how the heresies -like eating GOD'S soul and DIVINITY, and Mariolidolatry, and Brown Scapulae, and priest absolution for sins against GOD, praying to dead 'saints' for intercession, etc.-- are sustained dontchaknow.
If you read those LAWS He gave through Israel and see an escape clause which allows Him to be duplicitous, then you have found your mark.
If, on the other hand, you find there is no escape clause therein then you have an obligation to HIM to learn of Him, not by the dictates of a magisterium but by ingesting His Word into your soul and spirit by spiritual means, not carnal means.
God is Spirit and MUST BE WORHSIPPED in Spirit and Truth. THIS is the message that resonates with those truly seeking Him, not their worthiness. You can spend a lifetime striving to obtain salvation, and fail to do so, OR you can relent, bow your head and acknowledge to HIM that you cannot in the flesh meet HIS standard of righteousness, and accept the Grace of God in Christ and be immediately born from above.
The day of Pentecost, believing is what ushered 3000 into the Ekklesia; in the House of Cornelius it is believing that immediately resulted in the Holy Spirit coming INTO the spirit of those listening to the Word Preached. For FAITH cometh by hearing, and hearing by The Word of God. The spirit filled those listeners so completely that they spoke in tongues, they heard everyman his own language regardless of the Aramaic being spoken, etc.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter fed the thousands The Word of God, not transubstantiated bread and wine. Peter fed them The Gospel of God's Grace.
In the house of the Roman Centurion, Cornelius, Peter fed them the Word of God, and they were born from above before he could even finish the message! Is this not the most compelling proof that Salvation is immediate and is come by believing The Promise of God?
That you believe yourself suitable to slap another is the epitome of arrogance.
You, and you alone, have decided what 1.2 billion ought to believe, based on YOUR interpretation of Scripture.
Perhaps 1500 years of studying the Gospel message from the Apostles pales in comparison to your weighty intellect. Maybe the Church father’s who studied at the feet of the Apostles are less astute than you. Perhaps St. Jerome is less studied in ancient languages than you. Perhaps Augustine and Aquinas lack the depth of your theological and philosophical education.
You see where I’m going, right? Who appointed you the final authority on anybody else’s religious beliefs?
Nobody likes a know it all, especially when what they claim to know is only so much error.
And, thus pithily, a Roman Catholic has successfully defined Roman Catholicism: arrogance, blasphemous error, and a claim to be the ONLY church.
Sounds.... Mormon-esque?
Hoss
Here’s the difference, I don’t run around telling everyone they’re wrong, blasphemers, etc. I respect the person’s right to believe as they choose. I will preach the Gospel without words, setting the example (imperfectly).
You certainly claim, indirectly, yours is the only church. If it weren’t, why would you be a member? Are all non-Catholics the same in their beliefs? Is there a reason to be Baptist, etc, and not Methodist? If they aren’t the same, then who is telling the truth? How do you know? Who says so,and by what authority?
And that's where Catholicism's argument falls apart on this issue.
The Greek does not support Rome's claims to Mary's perpetual virginity.
However, the honest reader will see that in these quotes, and there are lots more, the writers are placing their faith and trust in Mary and/or Jesus.
The Word makes it clear. Our faith is to be in Christ and Christ alone.
Anything else is a lie from the pit.
Perhaps your interpretation of the Greek is wrong. Jerome was the most respected linguist of the day, fluent in the languages he translated from.
Additionally, English doesn’t do such a hot job with many Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic words.
We have the Kione Greek available to us. It remains possible to make very accurate translation from the Greek to the English.
The Greek in Luke 1:34 isn't that difficult of a passage to translate.
Those who want to deny this possibility do as you do by falling back on the old "it's too hard to translate" argument.
If that is the case then all of the writings the catholic relies upon from the ECFs are in question as NONE were written in English.
Again, you are disputing the translation. Seems interesting the translation was fine for about an 1000 years, then people started having their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Others proposed an alternate translation to fit their doctrinal needs. Multiply that by each non-Catholic denomination, and what does that get you?
Funny, nobody answers the question I asked about what non-Catholic group has the fullness of truth.
THAT church is being built by GOD'S Spirit, not a priesthood of pagan commandos. Yes, we speak of THE CHURCH and it is not catholiciism and has not the blasphemies and heretical dogmas of catholiciism.
Did you look at the LAWS GOD gave to us via the Hebrews? Have you found the exception clause which allows God's nature to be duplicitous? If not you are in a state of lostness without faithing exclusively in Jesus The Christ. The catholic Mass will not save you. Brown Scalpulae will not save you. Suffering in some imaginary purgatory will not save you. Praying to Mary or dead people will not save you. Fidelity to a string of catholic sacraments will not save you.
JESUS will save you as soon as you do as the people listening to Peter on the Day of Pentecost did. THEY believed the Word and they were born from above, right then, that day, and remained that way because of the Promise of God, not the agenda of an institution. The Bible records precisely the evidence of their state of 'savedness'. You can read it for yourself.
The people in the House of Cornelius were saved immediately when they believed Peter's Words of Jesus, The Word of God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by The Word of God. But He will not force you to Hear Him. You must make the choice. He stands at the door of your soul and knocks. If ANY MAN shall open to Him, He will come in and abide with you through everything that follows. Try it. You'll like it! Even Mikey likes it ...
If you understand in Greek how the verb "ginosko" is used in context, this is really pretty easy.
To continue to insist otherwise is either displaying a degree of obstinacy that is resistant to reality.
I am only aware of Catholicism's claim to the perpetual virginity on Mary.
You are aware the ECFs have differing opinions on this? Right? However, I am not aware of any who reference a breakdown of the Greek in their writings on this issue.
Not even Rome has offered a breakdown of the Greek on this verse.
Try reading the LAWS God gave to us through the Hebrews coming out of Egypt. Those laws have not passed away, yet. Can you or one of the ECF your religion posts as authoritative ever found an exception clause allowing Jesus to violate the Laws He authored, on the night before He went to the Cross? Please, show us just one exception clause ... worthy of you risking your eternal spirit upon.
Hmmm. So much for not telling everyone they're wrong. I claim nothing about my denomination -- which is where the difference seems to lie. The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination not "The One True Church."
The One True Church is composed of Christians -- many may be Baptists, Presbyterians, Church of God, or even Catholic...
The authority I claim is God's inerrant, inspired word -- I know because that's what God said. It's simple. And again, that's where an issue lies with the Roman Catholic Church: they ADD to what God says you need in order to be saved. And that's blasphemy. The authority the RCC claims is the magisterium -- fallible men, fallible "tradition" -- and a habit of ignoring scripture.
As for who's right about things, let me ask you this: CCC 969 says that Mary provides salvation through her intercession. How does that square with God's inerrant, breathed-out word where he says:
"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -- John 14:6
Hmm. NO ONE comes to the Father (salvation) EXCEPT THROUGH ME. God Incarnate said so. Why does the Roman Catholic Church say God is a liar? That's what they do when the teach blasphemy such as in CCC 969 where the claim is made that Mary occupies an intercessory and salvific office!
Further on in CCC 969, we read that one of Mary's titles is "mediatrix." But what does God say about that?
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," -- 1 Timothy 2:5
ONE mediator. Not two or three. ONE. Jesus. Not Mary. But why does the Roman Catholic Church TEACH that Mary is a mediatrix when God says there is ONE and that ONE is Jesus? Again, the implication here is that God is a liar and the RCC knows better. In fact, it's the RCC that lies.
The fact that it lies is borne out in just two verses of scripture that directly refute its blasphemous teaching. So how can the RCC be right?
The way to know is to look to the actual authority: God Almighty. Not a man-made church. I am a Christian, not a Catholicitan. That's how one knows. God says so. And he says so because He is God.
Hoss
When you start lining up roman catholicism with the Word the glaring differences begin to show.
Does this work both ways?
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.