Catholicism and Persuading God

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I mean to tell you that it is not the saint who performs miracles, it is God who does so.

Is performing a posthumous miracle a necessary condition for sainthood?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is performing a posthumous miracle a necessary condition for sainthood?

Which part of "it isn't [the saint] that performs the miracle -- it's God who does so" didn't you understand?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Which part of "it isn't [the saint] that performs the miracle -- it's God who does so" didn't you understand?

I understand that perfectly, but I am asking a different question.

Is performing a posthumous miracle a necessary condition for sainthood?

I know it makes you so uncomfortable when I corner you in equivocation, but just humor me and answer the question.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I understand that perfectly, but I am asking a different question.

Is performing a posthumous miracle a necessary condition for sainthood?

I know it makes you so uncomfortable when I corner you in equivocation, but just humor me and answer the question.

You're not cornering me in an equivocation -- you're asking an ambiguous question. I've done enough high-school rhetoric to know how the word games work -- and I refuse to answer until you clarify the terms used.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're not cornering me in an equivocation -- you're asking an ambiguous question. I've done enough high-school rhetoric to know how the word games work -- and I refuse to answer until you clarify the terms used.

Then I guess it's my turn to ask you -- which terms don't you understand?

Is performing a posthumous miracle a necessary condition for sainthood?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then I guess it's my turn to ask you -- which terms don't you understand?

Is performing a posthumous miracle a necessary condition for sainthood?

Hasn't he already claimed that it is not a necessary condition? The performance of a posthumous miracle is necessary, but not the performing of the miracle by X. Maybe I'm being dense here. What exactly hasn't LH answered?

Originally posted by bbarr
Hasn't he already claimed that it is not a necessary conditions? The performance of a posthumous miracle is necessary, but not the performing of the miracle by X.

I'm willing to accept an answer to this question instead:

Is the performing of a posthumous miracle by X a necessary condition of X being a saint?

LH has not yet denied this, which is what I am trying to get him to do.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm willing to accept an answer to this question instead:

Is the performing of a posthumous miracle by X a necessary condition of X being a saint?

LH has not yet denied this, which is what I am trying to get him to do.

The answer to this is, clearly, 'no'. He has claimed this is not a necessary condition repeatedly.

Originally posted by bbarr
What exactly hasn't LH answered?

Allow me to summarize the issue.

Everybody seems to be in agreement that the RCC requires several criteria to be met before one is dubbed a saint. I thought that we were all in agreement that one of these requirements is that the candidate perform a posthumous miracle, but now it is not clear. I want to clarify whether this is actually a requirement or not.

The reason I ask is because I would also want to know:
1) If it is a requirement, how is it determined that X has performed a miracle.
2) It is is not a requirement, but it is a requirement that X intermediarily petition God on the behalf of a sick and living petitioner, how is it determined that X has met this requirement, given that God, for any given sick petitioner, will or will not heal that petitioner regardless of any intermediary petitioning.

Originally posted by bbarr
The answer to this is, clearly, 'no'. He has claimed this is not a necessary condition repeatedly.

That's not so. All that he has claimed is that the healing is not a miracle done by the saint. He hasn't denied that, for example, the candidate's talking to God is a miracle, or that hearing the living petitioner's petition is a miracle. Thus, it could be the case that performing a miracle is a requirement, and that one of those things fulfills it. But I don't know - that's why I'm asking. If he could say once and for all that a saint need not have performed a miracle in order for the RCC to dub him a saint, then this aspect of the issue will be settled.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Allow me to summarize the issue.

Everybody seems to be in agreement that the RCC requires several criteria to be met before one is dubbed a saint. I thought that we were all in agreement that one of these requirements is that the candidate perform a posthumous miracle. I want to clarify whether this is in actually a requirement or not.

The re ...[text shortened]... ck petitioner, will or will not heal that petitioner regardless of any intermediary petitioning.

Alright, so the worry seems really to be this:

According to LH, God performs all miracles. So, trivially, no candidate saint has ever performed a miracle. Yet, it is a necessary condition for canonization that there be a petition to the candidate saint followed by an appropriate miracle ("appropriate" in that the miracle is related in nature to the content of the petition). Yet, it will always be an open question whether God performed the miracle for reasons related to the petition, and a further question whether God performed the miracle on the basis of intercession by the candidate saint.

Originally posted by bbarr
Alright, so the worry seems really to be this:

According to LH, God performs all miracles. So, trivially, no candidate saint has ever performed a miracle. Yet, it is a necessary condition for canonization that there be a petition to the candidate saint followed by an appropriate miracle ("appropriate" in that the miracle is related in nature to the conten ...[text shortened]... uestion whether God performed the miracle on the basis of intercession by the candidate saint.

Yes, that's a fine way to put it. I'd add that it will also always be an open question whether the intermediary did his job at all, or just blew it off and chilled out in heaven.

Conrau has already admitted that observing the miracle bears no information that would allow the observer to distinguish a saint from a non-saint. So, the practical issue is why the RCC does these miracle investigations at all if they cannot be relied upon, even in theory, to distinguish saints from non-saints.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's not so. All that he has claimed is that the healing is not a miracle done by the saint. He hasn't denied that, for example, the candidate's talking to God is a miracle, or that hearing the living petitioner's petition is a miracle. Thus, it could be the case that performing a miracle is a requirement, and that one of those things fulfills i ...[text shortened]... e in order for the RCC to dub him a saint, then this aspect of the issue will be settled.

Oh, O.K. Well, in one of his denials LH claims that the saint "does not perform miracles", and in another that the saint "does not perform the miracle". I guess a principle of charity would lead me to believe that LH means that miracles are all and only performed by God.

Originally posted by bbarr
Oh, O.K. Well, in one of his denials LH claims that the saint "does not perform miracles", and in another that the saint "does not perform the miracle". I guess a principle of charity would lead me to believe that LH means that miracles are all and only performed by God.

Give this guy an inch and he takes a mile. You have to keep LH on a tight leash.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Give this guy an inch and he takes a mile. You have to keep LH on a tight leash.

Well, at least this debate makes sense. It was like they were handing out crazy pills here yesterday.