Catholicism and Posthumous Miracles

Originally posted by no1marauder



So there would be some sort of investigation to determine if the posthumous miracle occurred.

But that's just what I'm asking. What is the nature of the investigation that determines whether the deceased has performed a miracle?

What you cited describes an investigation into the deceased's character. Is this to say that making a finding about a deceased's character, coupled with reader's criteria, is sufficient to determine whether a miracle has occurred at the hands of the deceased?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But that's just what I'm asking. What is the nature of the investigation that determines whether the deceased has performed a miracle?

What you cited describes an investigation into the deceased's character. Is this to say that making a finding about a deceased's character, coupled with reader's criteria, is sufficient to determine whether a miracle has occurred at the hands of the deceased?

You've been hanging out in this forum too long.

You asked what this meant: "the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues". Do you understand what "analogous" means? The investigation into the posthumous miracle would be "analogous" i.e. conducted in a similar manner has the "heroic virtues" one.

Please read the whole link.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You've been hanging out in this forum too long.

You asked what this meant: "the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure [b]analogous to that for heroic virtues". Do you understand what "analogous" means? The investigation into the posthumous miracle would be "analogous" i.e. conducted in a similar manner has the "heroic virtues" one. [/b]

But that's the very issue. There is no analog. The whole notion is ridiculous, that there can be some investigation into what a deceased person has done. What would be the analog to giving testimony concerning concrete facts about a person's character? I'm not interested in what the nature of the investigation is analogous to; I'm interested in what it is.

And that's not even to mention that the very premise that a deceased person is capable of doing anything at all other than rotting is nonsense.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But that's the very issue. There is no analog. The whole notion is ridiculous, that there can be some investigation into what a deceased person has done. What would be the analog to giving testimony concerning concrete facts about a person's character? I'm not interested in what the nature of the investigation is analogous to; I'm interested in wh that a deceased person is capable of doing anything at all other than rotting is nonsense.

Obviously, if you don't accept the idea of intercession by the dead than the whole exercise is pointless.

I don't know how reliable the website for The Third Miracle is, but it gives this criteria regarding medical miracles:

10) Miracles are intensively scrutinized by both religious and scientific authorities. Medical miracles are examined by a board of five doctors who must unequivocally determine that no other possible explanation for a cure exists.

11) All cures must be instantaneous and complete (One potential candidate's miracle – restoring the sight of a blind man – was rejected because the sight was only 90% restored). In the case of cancer, a ten year waiting period must assure that the patient doesn't come out of remission

So presumably the investigation is to determine first, if the alleged miracle was really medically possible even if extremely unlikely. That would seem to require scrutiny of the miracle receiver's medical condition by experts.

And of course it is analogous; it's the same procedure - a factfinding one. You're starting to sound like a dunce.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Obviously, if you don't accept the idea of intercession by the dead than the whole exercise is pointless.

I don't know how reliable the website for The Third Miracle is, but it gives this criteria regarding medical miracles:

10) Miracles are intensively scrutinized by both religious and scientific authorities. Medical miracles are exami gous; it's the same procedure - a factfinding one. You're starting to sound like a dunce.

But how do you make the jump from finding that a miracle has occurred to attributing that miracle to a particular deceased? That is what I am interested in. Is an investigation resulting in a finding of fact that the cured petitioned that particular deceased for intervention sufficient?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But how do you make the jump from finding that a miracle has occurred to attributing that miracle to a particular deceased? That is what I am interested in. Is an investigation resulting in a finding of fact that the cured petitioned that particular deceased for intervention sufficient?

Since no good explanation for the cure has been found, you're free to attribute it to anyone, or anything, you like. Which is to say, we don't know what caused it, therefore god done it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But how do you make the jump from finding that a miracle has occurred to attributing that miracle to a particular deceased? That is what I am interested in. Is an investigation resulting in a finding of fact that the cured petitioned that particular deceased for intervention sufficient?

From what I understand, it's usually based on the person cured praying to the particular saintly dead person. Is that "sufficient"? It seems to me they're using what in law would be described as a "totality of circumstances" approach.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles


And that's not even to mention that the very premise that a deceased person is capable of doing anything at all other than rotting is nonsense.

But if you don't believe in an afterlife of any sort, nor do you seem to believe in God, then I'm not sure what the point of the conversation is. It seems as though you are already thinking that religion is absurd. Are you trying to create an absurdity spectrum? Is their any religion, political viewpoint, national group, culture, gender, or any other categorization that doesn't include beliefs or practices that seem absurd to "outsiders?"

Gotta go ... time to play school again!

Originally posted by reader1107
But if you don't believe in an afterlife of any sort, nor do you seem to believe in God, then I'm not sure what the point of the conversation is. It seems as though you are already thinking that religion is absurd. Are you trying to create an absurdity spectrum? Is their any religion, political viewpoint, national group, culture, gender, or any other c fs or practices that seem absurd to "outsiders?"

Gotta go ... time to play school again!

Hold on. Let's grant that an afterlife where individuals' personalities are preserved in one fashion
or another, say by means of a soul, and those individuals go to heaven.

Let's say someone (P) on earth is suffering. Obviously, God is aware of it, but is electing not to interfere.
P's relatives start praying for Saint Somebody's intercession, and, consequently, P is healed.

Now, there are two questions in two threads. The first is, what are the means by which the Roman
Catholic authorities attribute the healing to the intercession of Saint Somebody (to which God responds
by healing P) as opposed to simply believing that God healed P irrespective of Saint Somebody's
putative intercession?

The second is (from the other thread and which interests me more), why would the intercession
have an influence on God? That is, God knows the state of P's soul, the kind of life P has led, and
so forth. In fact, it's pretty normative to believe that God instantaneously knows the state of every
one's soul. Why would intercessory prayer have any meaning at all? Do those who believe in such
prayers feel that they can change the course of God's action by virtue of them, not unlike Abraham
is reported to have negotiated with God regarding Sodom?

That's not to say that praying with an ill person is necessarily a good idea; the positive sentiment
created through knowing that you are loved and cared for is powerful for healing indeed. But that
is different than praying to Saint Somebody to confer with God such that God would make a different
decision had the prayers of Saint Somebody not taken place.

Nemesio

Not to hijack the thread but to follow that logic further then, let's assume for the sake of argument there is a God. Wouldn't all prayer be wasted? If that God is never swayed by requests then aren't all prayers time wasted that could be better spent learning how to play chess or reading an interesting book or something?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Hold on. Let's grant that an afterlife where individuals' personalities are preserved in one fashion
or another, say by means of a soul, and those individuals go to heaven.

Let's say someone (P) on earth is suffering. Obviously, God is aware of it, but is electing not to interfere.
P's relatives start praying for Saint Somebody's intercession, and, co ...[text shortened]... e a different
decision had the prayers of Saint Somebody not taken place.

Nemesio

Why did Jesus perform miracles?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why did Jesus perform miracles?

To get to the other side?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Hold on. Let's grant that an afterlife where individuals' personalities are preserved in one fashion
or another, say by means of a soul, and those individuals go to heaven.

Let's say someone (P) on earth is suffering. Obviously, God is aware of it, but is electing not to interfere.
P's relatives start praying for Saint Somebody's intercession, and, co ...[text shortened]... e a different
decision had the prayers of Saint Somebody not taken place.

Nemesio

Let's say someone (P) on earth is suffering. Obviously, God is aware of it, but is electing not to interfere.

Two objections here: one, grace operates in many different ways, so one cannot say that God isn't participating here. Two (and I'll admit this is based on a particular philosophical view of God), God doesn't interfere not because he 'elects' not to interfere, but because he cannot interfere.

The first is, what are the means by which the Roman Catholic authorities attribute the healing to the intercession of Saint Somebody (to which God responds by healing P) as opposed to simply believing that God healed P irrespective of Saint Somebody's putative intercession?

How do you think grace operates vs. human freedom? What do you think happens in prayer?

(I realise I'm answering a question with questions, but one cannot get into the more specific point of how grace, including miracles, are mediated through Saints and how intercession "works" without first looking at the broader points of grace and prayer.)

The second is (from the other thread and which interests me more), why would the intercession have an influence on God? That is, God knows the state of P's soul, the kind of life P has led, and so forth. In fact, it's pretty normative to believe that God instantaneously knows the state of every one's soul. Why would intercessory prayer have any meaning at all?

Because prayer (intercessory or direct) changes the state of a person's soul. It transforms (even if ever so slightly) the dynamic between that individual and God; it shifts the balance away from human freedom rejecting grace to freedom cooperating with grace.