Seems interesting the translation was fine for about an 1000 years, then people started seeing what the 'church' had been doing for so many centuries.
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.
Rome insists that 6.1 billion non-Catholics should believe in IT's interpretation of Scripture.
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
Nobody likes a know it all, especially when what they claim to know is only so much error.
What can I possibly add to what has already been typed?
Slow your roll Hoss. If your interpretation of Scripture is right and true, what does that say about someone, say a Baptist, who also believes their interpretation is right and true, but they disagree on the meaning of the passage?
This is the problem Luther had with Calvin, then Wesley had with others, and you end up with any number of denominations. Back to the question, how do YOU know you are right, and someone else isn’t?
That’s a huge problem with those who believe in there own personal interpretation of Scripture. With no single authority, who’s to know who’s right and who isn’t?
Another question, who has taught you all you “know “ about Catholicism? What reason do you have to believe them? Finally, you’re able to quote selected passages that support your beliefs. Are you intellectually willing to go deeper, understanding you may be wrong?
I can appreciate your sincerity, and the time spent studying your beliefs. However, many of the conclusions you have come to are wrong. If you are open to further study, but not through the lens of your current beliefs, but rather as a dispassionate observer, you may come to different conclusions. For example, I have no interest in becoming a Mormon, but I have spent time reading what they have written about themselves. I still don’t agree with their theology, but at least I have a better understanding of where they are coming from.
Just some things to think about.
Your chosen religion does.
Do you disavow the following??
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Seems interesting the translation was fine for about an 1000 years, then people started seeing what the 'church' had been doing for so many centuries.
It makes no such claim, and I challenge you to prove your claim.
Besides, what do care what the Catholic Church teaches? It doesn’t apply to you, so why do you care?
Funny, nobody answers the question I asked about what non-Catholic group has the fullness of truth.
I wait until the warring factions WITHIN Catholicism get done first.
Interesting...nothing to say about the blasphemies in CCC 969?
That’s a huge problem with those who believe in there own personal interpretation of Scripture. With no single authority, who’s to know who’s right and who isn’t?
Oh, the lovely YOPIOS canard, trotted out yet again like it actually means something. The single authority is God. His Word. And it's really funny -- really it is -- that RCCs use this canard and fail to realize that it cuts BOTH ways. If you're saying MY interpretation (which really, is just simply reading what the Bible says) is so very suspect, then the interpretation brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church is just as suspect; there's nothing magical about it. In fact, the truth of it is, when you hold up Scripture to the "interpretation" ascribed to it by the Roman Catholic Church, you find that the RCC is so far off base on so many things that you would have to ignore God's word in the matter to accept Rome's!
Speaking of that, what about CCC 969?
Another question, who has taught you all you “know “ about Catholicism?
I read these forums. Aren't the Roman Catholics here catechized properly? Can I not assume they're correct in their Catholicism? Maybe not? Then you might be wrong too!
What about that CCC 969?
Hoss
Why the challenge?
I didn't require YOU to back up YOUR statement.
Can't a fella on the other team play by the same rules?
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
Logic says you can’t prove a negative. Now, put up or shut up on your claim.
While everyone is at it, I have the same questions about authority and interpretation, yet no one cares to answer. I have asked it different ways,still no answer.
I will ask it again. If we all have our own interpretation of Scripture, who’s right? Baptists? Southern Baptists? ELCA Lutherans? Missouri Synod Lutherans? PCUSA Presbyterians? Free Presbyterians? I would love to hear the answer.
BAck at ya.
I find it revealing the replies that you choose to respond to and the ones you decide to skip over.
I fully believe what is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whether you think it’s blasphemy or not.
The Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, led by Peter and then succeeded directly to the current day. It holds the fullness of truth, and has been preaching the Gospel since the Apostles.
You may not believe as I do, that’s your business. I know I can trust the teachings of the Church Christ founded, because he told Peter the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 2000 years on, the Catholic Church remains the visible witness of the Gospel. It lives the Beatitudes, and the Grand Commission.
Have people done horrible things in the name of the Church and God? Yep. However, the teachings of the Church remain, free of error, continually preaching the Gospel by word and deed.
I'd love to hear your answer regarding the disagreement CCC 969 has with John 14:6 and 1 Timothy 2:5.....
Hoss
So... you believe that, despite God saying that no one comes to him, has salvation, except through Christ, you believe that Mary provides salvation and grace?
So, in essence, you do not believe God. Okay.
While we're with the CCC, lets look at 841:
"The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
So... since you believe what is written in the Catechism, then you believe that the Roman Catholic Church worships (adores) the same "God" as the Muslims? We KNOW that Muslims do not worship the One, True, Living God -- the God of the Bible-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.... but Rome says, "together with us they adore the one, merciful God...."
So, you must then agree that you do not worship the Christian God. The One True God...right?
So, according to you, this teaching remains free of error? REALLY? Rome teaches that Catholics and Muslims adore the same "merciful God."
HOW? Muslims do NOT worship God. They worship a false god.
Do YOU worship the God of the Bible, or the "God" of Muslims? For, logically, to worship truly puts you at odds with your denomination and shows it to be in error; otherwise, you're worshipping a false god.
Still want to stick with that "errorless" teaching?
Hoss
Catholic, Jesus DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CATHOLICIISM INSTITUTION UPON WHICH YOU ARE TRUSTING YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY. I am absolutely certain of this because Jesus would not, AS GOD, violate His own laws and would not teach humans to practice idolatry, and would not be so inept as to require something additional to HIS SAVING GRACE. The heretical assertion of Purgatory, the raising the Mother of Jesus to demigoddess status, the blasphemous claim of feeding GOD'S Soul and DIVINITY to people at catholic Mass, and the selling of 'get out of purgatory quick' Brown Scapulae ALL prove catholiciism is not Biblical Christianity, that your religion is 'another gospel', not that which Jesus established.
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal. 1:6
JESUS IS The Word of God. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by The Word of God. The work God requires is this, that you believe/faithe in the One Whom God has sent for your deliverance.
Paul knew deliverance happens once and is then upheld by the Promise of God:
For they themselves relate of us, what manner of entering in we had unto you; and how you turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God. And to wait for his Son from heaven (whom he raised up from the dead,) Jesus, who hath delivered us from the wrath to come. 1Thess1:9&10
Paul wrote that as PAST TENSE fro a reason, a reason that the romish cult will not abide because the religion of Rome is not Christianity.
Jesus did not establish a denomination or the institution you trust for your eternal destiny, catholiciism.
JESUS as GOD established a body of believers, ALL OF WHOM have (as in present tense) Holy Spirit life in them identifying them as HIS EKKLESIA.
Arguing over verses and nuances is how some broke away from the cult of Rome. The fundsamental question you ought to seek to answer is 'What must I do to be born from above in the here and now, to be delivered from the wrath to come?'
There is no catholic sacramwent to accomplish this, no indulgence you can acquire to render this transformation, no priest holding up bread telling you to eat GOD'S soul and DIVINITY to claim for yourself this transformational SPIRITUAL BIRTH. ONLY God's Spirit can birth you anew. He will not do it as wages. He will do it upon genuine belief/faith in Whom He has sent for your Salvation.
JESUS IS the Way the Truth and The Life. Brown scapulae, purgatory cleansing, priestly feeding, adoration of Mary the Mother of Jesus, nor fidelity to Catholic sacraments will cause Jesus to owe you what He offers as His Grace not your wages.
This is not --contrary to what your tried to make it-- not about denominations. It is about how to be born from above, and GOD made it so simple even a catholic could find it, but only by laying aside pride which is fed by fealty to religious activities. Religion will kill the soul for eternity. That's why satan pushes that canard of 'who has it right' with such persistence!
ONLY God has it right, and you will find it only by His Grace in response to your profession, just as Peter found it, by his profession which JESUS hallmarked as the ROCK upon which He would build HIS CHURCH, His body of believers.
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.