Incorruptibles?

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?

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.

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.

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.

“I guess we should completely disregard all of these statements on Tim Staples’ anti-Protestant website using your criteria of the ellipsis usage.”

No.

1) any time Staples has used an ellipse that I have seen he has used it correctly.

2) you didn’t use ellipses. YOU CUT AND PASTED A QUOTE with them which proved the quote was not as it appeared in the original and

3) when caught CUTTING AND PASTING FROM AN ANTI-CATHOLIC website you denied it even though the evidence was right there in black and white.

4) now you’re claiming - rather desperately it would seem - that any use of ellipses must then be suspect. No, only when you posted a quote you FALSELY claimed was from the original - which was then DEMONSTRATED to be from an anti-Catholic website (I even posted sample links to such) - and then (bizarrely) denied having cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic website - only then - do the ellipses matter. O’Brien didn’t use any in the quote. Anti-Catholics did. And we’re right back to where we always start and finish with Protestant anti-Catholics:

“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)

Catholics veered off the road, or the amazing grace and power of God? Does this look like the body of a person that's been dead since 1879 ... 10 years of that in the ground?

You provided no ID, while as the OP states,

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.

Vatican’s secret, and deadly, project to mummify saints

With Ancient Egypt’s mummification process as inspiration, the Vatican had an elite team of embalmers preserve 31 “saints, beatified, and servants of God” between 1975 and 2008. The project, which tragically proved fatal to many of those who worked on it, is a bridge between heaven and earth. “The bodies and body parts of these holy individuals,” says one embalmer, “kept like a work of art.”..

When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, the Vatican used a wrapping technique similar to what was believed to have been applied to Jesus. It failed miserably. Only days after his death, his nose fell off, and a Swiss Guard fainted due to the stench while he was guarding the body. Pope John XXIII followed the reign of Pope Pius XII. After his death, John was treated with a simple formalin solution and placed in an airtight, layered coffin. It worked remarkably well — though the Church wouldn’t find that out until decades later...

In 1975, Monsignor Gianfranco Nolli, director of the Vatican’s Egyptian Museum, had an inspiration. After examining the excellent state of 4,000-year-old Egyptian mummies, he believed the Church could advance its treatments of popes and saints for the same effect.

St. Teresa, who died in 1582, is an example of how obsessed earlier Catholics were with relics of the flesh. After her death, a priest cut off her left hand, from which he took a finger, wearing it around his neck for the rest of his life. Followers later removed her heart, right arm, right foot and a piece of jaw to display as relics in various sites...

31 bodies and body parts of saints and other holy people the mummification team from the Vatican worked on from 1975 to 2008..

The team’s most important task was Pope John XXIII...More than 25,000 people visit St. Peter’s Basilica every day, and many faithful still believe the incorrupt state of his body is a miracle.

Shockingly, there is only one survivor from the original team, the others having died of various tumors and cancers, likely side effects of the toxic chemicals expended during their work. Nobody is currently willing to assume their task due to the peril. - http://nypost.com/2014/03/22/making-of-a-saint-the-vaticans-quest-to-preserve-its-leaders/

Catholics do not worship Mary (a common misperception) although they do venerate her.

Which is mere word games. As I have often illustrated by the grace of God,

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Words (I found) used for worship in the NT (KJV) (click on title for more details and for Scripture texts)

Proskyneō/Proskuneō — a masculine noun meaning to prostrate, almost always in worship. It occurs 60 times, mainly for worship of God, but sometimes for false gods, including images and demonic incarnations, which is idolatry. (Acts 7:43; Rv 9:20; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9; 16:2)

It is used twice for obeisance before men, once in forbidding a pious man to do so, before Peter no less, (Act 10:25) and another in compelling false brethren to show obeisance before the feet of true brethren. (Rv. 3:9)

Furthermore it is used once in reproving John for trying to worship an angel of Christ, telling him to worship (proskyneō) God instead. (Rv. 22:8,9)

Thus this act of prostration normatively denotes worship, only once being clearly used for less than that, and worship is always the case when proskyneō is used as a volitional activity, or in the context of supernatural beings.

Nowhere is the act of believers bowing down to believers sanctioned, much less bowing down before a statue of them in prayer, praise and adulation, and ascribing to them attributes which are only ascribed to God. And which is blasphemous, and outside of worship of God this manner of prostration and ascription is only seen in pagan worship, which is idolatry.

Proskunētēs — a masculine noun, which occurs just once (John 4:23) and describes those who worship God. Therefore latreia is not the only word that uniquely means worship, contrary to what many Catholics argue.

Sebō/Sebomai — A verb which occurs 10 times, denoting worship of God as well as false gods, and to describe devout persons.

Sebazomai A verb occurring once (Rm. 1:25) in describing those who worshiped and served false gods.

Latreuō — service of worship. It occurs 21 times, mostly as "serve" in describing the activity of worship of God, and twice for service to false gods. (Acts 7:42; Rm. 1:25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped [sebazomai (G4573)] and served [latreuō (G1391)] the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

It is never used for service to man, and is what we see Catholics giving to the Mary of Catholicism, to whom they ascribe Divine attributes and functions, and dedicate themselves to her.

Latreia — From latreuō; service of worship. Occurs 5 times as denoting service toward God, not any created being, yet it is corespondent to the dedicatory service of Catholics to their Mary.

Eusebeō — to be pious, reverent as in the only place it occurs in describing worship of unknown God. .(Acts 17:23)

Conclusion: From this brief study we can see that any assurance the Catholics are not engaging in worship in their "hyperdulia" of Mary, crossing the invisible line into latreia, is plainly specious. For just as souls were quite obviously engaging in worship described as proskyneō or latreuō or sebazomai, even if latreia was not used to describe them, so also can Catholics.

While sometimes the words for worship can be used in regards to obeisance toward men, yet as with the words for praise, they are never used in regards to created beings being bowed or prostrated to (much less before representative statues) beings in adulation and praise and prayed to as unseen beings having supernatural abilities in the heavenly realm, including the ability to hear corporate, even mental prayer in Heaven from those on earth, and engaging in making sacrificial offerings to them.

And in Scripture constitutes worship, with such activity and ascriptions being unseen toward anyone but God, and otherwise it belongs in the pagan world.

And thus by engaging in such towards Mary, it is evidenced that many Catholics are materially engaging in worship, or at the least blasphemy (if a difference can be made), even if unawares.

In response some Catholics argue that one cannot engage in worship if that is not intended in the persons heart. However, this is not the case, for one can easily be unaware of what constitutes worship, including of money, and in any case one can deny they are engaging in such, even taking the mark of the Beast but denying it represents worship of him.

Moreover, idolaters are described as being such, not necessarily based upon their hearts, but their dedicatory actions and ascriptions, which at the least are often blasphemous in the case of Mary.

Catholiciism is an 'other religion, not Chrisatianity. With Christianity, Jesus sacrificed Himself Once for All, forever and when God raised Him from the grave the sacrifice had God's final judgment attached so Jesus ascended to the Throne Room of Heaven and is there at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. JESUS is not taking commands from catholic pagan priests, He is not transubstantiating a wheat wafer into His flesh and blood, and He certainly is not allowing pagan priesthood to serve up His Soul and DIVINITY for catholics to eat in that idol euphemistically called --a wheat wafer-- Him, kept in a special box for manipulation by pagan priesthoods.

Catholiciism is a magic act serving a demonic agenda. The priesthood are taught to perform magic incantations to manipulate God and the poor souls trusting them in the pagan rites.

JESUS IS God. He wrote the laws and would not break them since He said He came to fulfill them. He would not have broken the Levitical law against eating the blood, on the night BEFORE He went to the cross for our redemption as the perfect Lamb of GOD Who takes away the sins of the world. But the pagan religion of catholiciism insists that is exactly what He did in the Passover Seder which JESUS identified as a Remembrance. The Passover Seder was/is a remebrance and Jesus explained that it was thereafter, FOR CHRISTIANS, to be a remembrance of What He was doing for us and for our salvation. He finished the sacrifice and ascended into Heaven. He is not brought down tot he pagan catholic altars to be continuously murdered by catholic priesthood class. The catholic Mass calls their jesus a victim. The Jesus Who IS GOD is no victim and His resurrection from the dead declares it for all generations.

I think you mean body, blood, soul, and divinity. Yes, we commune with our physically present Lord, Jesus Christ, present under the accidents of bread and wine. He commanded us to take and eat. We do. From John 6

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

And further:

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

Non-Catholics may have a different interpretation of the scriptures, but that doesn’t, by definition, make Catholics wrong. Rather, it indicates honest people can disagree.

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.