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.
Good chatting with you.
I see you're an Alinsky fan also. Seems a lot of catholics are.
Why do I care about catholics? Because they are blind but do not see they are.
“Catholicism has to redefine the normal understanding of everyday words and sentences.”
You’re the only one doing that. You’re claiming one thing is another. It’s what you do.
“It’s one of the most convaluted systems I’ve encountered.”
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
As always vlad....it’s like nailing jello to the wall. Out for the night.
“As always vlad....it’s like nailing jello to the wall. Out for the night.”
Except you keep getting nailed. You make mistake after mistake - like when you were talking (mistakenly) about what John O’Brien actually said.
The quote was right. O’Brien is stating what I said. Now they may not be the words you want as a Clinton fan but he’s saying Christ is ascribed over and over again. Keep,denying if it makes you feel better.
Why do I care about catholics? Because they are blind but do not see they are.
I could say the same about some posters here as deaf, dumb and blind, but I am not sure they want to open there eyes, ears or their minds to seek the Truth.
They seem to make comments, some totally ridiculous and don’t respond to the issues or questions asked in a rational manner. They may say the same about Catholics. But it is not leading to a mutual understanding or agreement.
I don’t think they have proved any error in Catholic Doctrine, and I don’t believe that we are going to change their thinking or their faith. We strongly believe in the Catholic Faith, will defend it to the best of our ability (while it is open to all), and many believe in some other faith. Name calling may just show anger or even worse and if we are discussing the Bible we should not be leading each other into sin.
May God Bless you and that you find everlasting life with God.
Okay, back in for a moment, just for this:
“The mere fact it’s called the Hail Mary should be the first clue.”
I discussed that in my posts. That you raise this now might reflect that you didn’t read what I wrote, or possibly that you’re pretending that you didn’t read it.
One of the silliest things people do is to quibble over the English meaning of words that have passed through two or three translation processes. Even sillier is to insist on the meaning current in April 2016 for a word selected hundreds of years ago.
Apparently you think that the use of the word “hail” indicates worship such as is properly reserved to God. That is just simply false. Doesn’t mean that; never did, and there are no reasonable grounds to suspect otherwise.
“I note you do not refute the claims of the apparition.”
Of course I refute your misunderstanding.
I’ll leave you with a proverb that never seemed as apt:
Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.
Is that you, George Soros?
“The quote was right.”
Unless you have the book you wouldn’t know one way or the other.
“O’Brien is stating what I said.”
Nope.
“Now they may not be the words you want as a Clinton fan but he’s saying Christ is ascribed over and over again.”
Ascribed? Hey, Clinton eagleone, why are you now using another word O’Brien didn’t use in the quote you claim? Apparently you don’t know what it means either: https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=ascribed
“Keep,denying if it makes you feel better.”
Keep making up false things if it makes you feel more Protestant.
The book is online so yes I have the quote. We’ve hashed that out on another thread if you will recall.
“The book is online so yes I have the quote.”
The book is not online. The book is partially accessible through google books.
“We’ve hashed that out on another thread if you will recall.”
Yes, you were shown to be wrong there as well - as was inevitable: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3405974/posts?page=315 In that thread, you’ll remember, I proved you had not used the actual book or its actual text but had actually used a copy of the text cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic website. This was proved by the fact that the text you posted contained ellipses and bracketed anti-Catholic comments which Fr. O’Brien never used in his original quote (after all, why would he?).
In other words, Newman was proved right again:
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
And you will recall I gave you the whole quote. You freaked out over the ellipsis if I recall.
“And you will recall I gave you the whole quote. You freaked out over the ellipsis if I recall.”
If there were ellipses, then it wasn’t the full quote. See, you can’t even get the obvious correct.
You cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic website and then denied it.
If the quote is wrong, you'd be the first to say so.
I'm back to studying for my Survey of the OT Class.
“I’m not going to rehash the whole thing again.”
Right, why embarrass yourself?
“You’ve got the quote.”
Why I got was what you cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic website and then denied cutting and pasting from an anti-Catholic website.
“It’s on google books.”
The original quote is. That’s not what you originally posted in that thread you’re “not going to rehash”.
“Anyone can access it.”
But you didn’t. You cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic website and then denied cutting and pasting from an anti-Catholic website.
“If the quote is wrong, you’d be the first to say so.”
The quote your cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic website and then denied cutting and pasting from an anti-Catholic website is wrong. I was the first to say so.
“I’m back to studying for my Survey of the OT Class.”
Hopefully you won’t cut and paste for a final paper in that class and then deny cutting and pasting.
anything that illustrates the falseness of catholicism is anti-catholic. if i had a recording of O’Brien saying the phrase and it was on a website you deem anti-catholic you still wouldn’t like it.
“anything that illustrates the falseness of catholicism is anti-catholic.”
Then that would mean nothing is anti-Catholic since there is no falseness of Catholicism. But anti-Catholicism does exist. You demonstrate it all the time.
“if i had a recording of O’Brien saying the phrase and it was on a website you deem anti-catholic you still wouldn’t like it.”
The problem is you keep making false claims:
1) the quote you ORIGINALLY posted was not from the book but from an anti-Catholic website.
2) you denied it was even though that is an objective fact as I demonstrated last time (ellipses and brackets were added by anti-Catholics).
3) you continued to deny the obvious even when it was PAINFULLY obvious to everyone.
4) What you originally claimed O’Brien said he never in fact said.
5) You continue to mischaracterize what he said to the point where you even claimed in post #45 that O’Brien was “conflated on his message. One place he says this, the other place something else.” In reality he knew what he was talking about and you’re the one who is confused. But most likely it isn’t confusion at all but this:
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. TheDidache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .
"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass
Or perhaps this website posted on salvation's library of posts should be called into question as well.
Nicene Creed (325), Constantinopolitan Creed (381) ... Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human.
Uh oh....this really must be an anti-luther site!
German reformer Martin Luther's (1483-1546) writings often address the subject of Mary: On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, he wrote In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
In another place Zwingli professed I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary ...; Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin. (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.) The more the honor and love for Christ grows among men, the more esteem and honor for Mary grows, for she brought forth for us so great, but so compassionate a Lord and Redeemer. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, pp. 427-428.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2510196/posts
maybe even the catholic encyclopedia is in question now.
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity : "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37). http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
IIRC daniel1212 posted a link to you on the use of ellipses.
Then that would mean nothing is anti-Catholic since there is no falseness of Catholicism. But anti-Catholicism does exist. You demonstrate it all the time.
verga just proved how false catholicism is on one of its core issues on a vanity post he made this week. I'll let the two of you discuss that one.
Now, regarding the Mass. Even this website uses doubletalk...just like O'Brien.
Q. 917. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
Q. 920. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.
Q. 921. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same -- Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.
Q. 931. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass?
A. Yes; the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross Christ really shed His blood and was really slain; in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, represents His death on the Cross. http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson24.htm
In either case it goes against the NT which tells us there has been one sacrifice and it is not repeated again. Jesus is not brought back down from Heaven as O'Brien says. Jesus is only coming back to earth once more and it's not for the Mass.
ummmmmm...she was His mom....He was a child....she is also posed holding Him after the crucifixion...the Pieta
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.