Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCan we subsequently conclude anything about the sainthood of either P or X?
You don't understand the scenario, and you are adding to the confusion by using circular reasoning.
To clarify, Q cannot distinguish between P and X; to Q, they seem equally likely to be saints. But God can distinguish them, and knows that only P is worthy of being a saint.
Now, imagine two universes. In one, Q petitions P to petition God for ...[text shortened]... ot the observation of the healing convey information regarding the sainthood of the petitioned?
No. The "getting" of a miracle is not sufficient to validate P as a saint. It has to be proved that the miracle must have followed from the petitioning of P.
And neither is the absence of a miracle sufficient to conclude that X is not a saint. For the cause of sainthood it must be satisfied that the miracle occurred because of the petitioning of P, or that the miracle did not occur because of the petitioning of X.
That is, does or does not the observation of the healing convey information regarding the sainthood of the petitioned?
Not by itself.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPerhaps you should painlessly clarify that it is *petitionary* prayer that is at issue, to prevent discussants getting sidetracked.
From the Catholicism and Posthumous Miracles thread:
[quote]
If you are praying to P for healing you are asking P to talk to God on your behalf. You are believing that P is already in heaven and not in purgatory, and thus is able to converse with God. It is not unlike my going to ark13 and asking him to talk to his father about some matter that c ...[text shortened]... ve that such a God would not heal your cancer unless he was persuaded to by a deceased person?
I can't see how an all-round perfect God could be, or could need to be, persuaded of anything, since all-round perfection implies all-round perfect judgment too. And it seems to be that petitionary prayer does necessarily involve, on the part of petitioner, an attempt to persuade God, specifically, an attempt to persuade God to move from a course of lesser charity to one of greater charity, either on behalf of oneself or others. So I think that engaging in petitionary prayer in particular doesn't make sense for someone who thinks God's is already perfect.
But perhaps God has another use for petitionary prayer. He looks to see which people, of their own free will, humbly petition Him or don't, and then He rewards or punishes them in the next life accordingly. All the while, His divine will remains immutable, and He lets His petitioners persist in the false belief that His divine will can be swayed by their petitions. It's just another one of His slightly underhand tests for his potentially perfidious creatures.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYou started off so well...
Perhaps you should painlessly clarify that it is *petitionary* prayer that is at issue, to prevent discussants getting sidetracked.
I can't see how an all-round perfect God could be, or could need to be, persuaded of anything, since all-round perfection implies all-round perfect judgment too. And it seems to be that petitionary prayer does necessaril ...[text shortened]... just another one of His slightly underhand tests for his potentially perfidious creatures.
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KThen we are back to square one. What is the decision procedure for determining whether a candidate for sainthood has satisfied the requirement of performing a posthumous miracle? It has been proposed that having observed Q petition P petition God for a miracle healing and then having P healed was sufficient to determine that P had performed a miracle, but now you deny that.
[b]That is, does or does not the observation of the healing convey information regarding the sainthood of the petitioned?
Not by itself.[/b]
So, how do we tell that the healing followed as a result of the petitioning of P, if not by observation of the miracle, which you admit provides no information? I don't see why this is such a hard question to answer. It's not like it's a hypothetical or contrived scenario - there are tons of saints. All that I'm asking is how, in practice, the RCC came to affirm that each of them had done the required miracle. Presumably the RCC regularly affirms or denies that particular candidate saints have completed or not completed their required miracle. Why can't somebody just tell me how this determination is made?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know much about litigation, but it seems that Dr S's formulation does have a forseeable use:
Can it rain on the Moon? If so, doesn't this mean that there are rain clouds hovering above the Moon or that it can rain without rain clouds?
The second statement is nonsensical once we accept that the first is answered "no". Your third question is equally meaningless once the second question is answered "no" as you state it must be.
Lawyer: Were you there that night when your wife was stabbed?
Defendant: No. I was in another state.
Lawyer: If you were there, could you have stabbed her with your left hand as forensics suggest the killer did?
Defendant: No, my arm was in a sling.
Are you suggesting that the second question serves no purpose? I'm sure you're not. And simply
because you can switch them around, doesn't mean that their order is necessarily problematic.
Maybe the lawyer wants to emphasize his inability to be there first and then his inability to do the
crime second.
Similarly, Dr S's second question (Is it possible to persuade God?) is only a rhetorical one from his perspective.
He, bbarr, I and a bunch of other people opine 'no,' but none of us knows the answer. There are
many people who by virtue of the fact that they engage in petitionary prayer evidently believe
that they can. For the non-believer in petitionary prayer, it sets up a hypothetical for examination
(that is, assumes something as true which is believed to be false). For the believer, it states what
is believed to be the case.
This allows both people to examine the implication of the the proposal, to see if it makes sense.
For the non-believer, if the assumed proposal turns out to be intra-contradictory, then it affirms the
stance of the non-believer. For the believer, if the believed proposal turns out to be intra-contradictory,
then it rationally ought to be rejected.
It is astonishing to me that you don't see the value of this, given that I've read examples of it in
Supreme Court briefs (which I barely understand, to be sure), and I've certainly seen its use on
CourtTV.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau KCatholics will often identify a miracle as an affirmation of the legitimacy of a doctrine. Say a prominent supporter claimed that Limbo existed and then cured many people of cancer, that may be regarded as a validation of the theory of limbo.
Originally a miracle was postulated to occur because it demonstrated the validity of a doctrine. For example, in the book of Kings Elijah proves the God of Israel to be superior to the idols of the pagans through the use of a miracle. Jesus' prophetic nature is illustrated through his performance of miracles. Catholics will often identify a miracle as an af ...[text shortened]... rough a miracle. I imagine that if such Q experienced no miracle then P could not be a saint.
Eh? Do you have any concrete examples of this kind of thing?
I imagine that if such Q experienced no miracle then P could not be a saint.
Not necessarily. This is an IF relationship, not an IFF relationship. The absence of a miracle does not imply the absence of sainthood.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesQ petitions P for help and God performs the miracle to affirm P as indicated.
Is this coherent with the rest of your beliefs?
Consider this scenario:
Q has cancer.
P is a deceased person worthy of being a model of grace and veneration.
X is a deceased person not worthy of being a model of grace or veneration.
Q petitions P for help and God performs the miracle to affirm P as indicated.
However, applying your analysi ...[text shortened]... ing X instead of P, Q would have been healed. Is this consistent with the nature of an OOO God?
I would say that God performs the miracle to reaffirm P as indicated.
As no1 pointed out elsewhere, the miracle criterion is not the sole criterion for canonisation (i.e. a determination of sainthood). An independent investigation of the person's life must also conclude a life of 'heroic virtue' till the end. (There may be other criteria as well, I don't remember).
However, applying your analysis, you would have to find that in this same scenario, if Q had petitioned X instead of P, Q would not have been healed.
Not necessarily. God may still act miraculously; reaffirming X's virtue will just not be one of the reasons.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen you are not being coherent.
Rather trivially, yes.
What if the person X that Q petitions is not saint material, and God heals Q for reasons other than to affirm that X is a saint?
Is it still true that X has performed a miracle? If X has met all other conditions for sainthood, would he be deemed a saint by the RCC?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst of all, it isn't X that performs the miracle -- it's God who does so.
Then you are not being coherent.
What if the person X that Q petitions is not saint material, and God heals Q for reasons other than to affirm that X is a saint?
Is it still true that X has performed a miracle? If X has met all other conditions for sainthood, would he be deemed a saint by the RCC?
Second, if P prays for X's intercession and P is healed miraculously then, trivially, X has satisfied the miracle criterion of the Church (which is simply that an intercessory prayer is made and a miracle follows). That is not the same thing as the Church saying that the miracle occurred through X's intercession. You're confusing the two and hence think I'm incoherent.
If God heals P whilst X is not in heaven then, clearly, X has not interceded for the miracle.
Which leaves us with the question of whether the Church can actually canonise someone who is not in heaven. The Church Herself does not say that Her charism of infallibility extends to decrees of canonisation for universal veneration; but most theologians do (and I agree).