Thoughts on the Incorruptibles
#31
(09-09-2009, 08:21 AM)Cyriacus Wrote: I would be hesitant to read too far into the sex of the incorruptible saints. The preservation of the flesh is a great miracle of God, surely, and it is a sign, and it is good, and as such it is ordered for our sanctification, that we may take heed and strive to overcome sin and disbelief. As to what it says of our particular natures, and the particular natures of the sexes, I cannot say, and I would be suspicious of any claims other than that it is a holy mark of Christ's supreme triumph over death, which is our common inheritance as fallen creatures of fallen nature, and that it illustrates that we rightly expect a resurrection of the dead.

The only reasonable explanation for the gender incongruity that I can deduce would be:

Quote: 1 Corinthians 11

7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.

Reply
#32
Don't leave out St. Padre Pio!  Some forty years after his death, he's still fresh as a daisy. :)
[Image: pioincorrupt1.jpg]
[Image: pioincorrupt12.jpg]
[Image: pioincorrupt6.jpg]



Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#33
I heard Padre Pio was preserved?
Reply
#34
(09-09-2009, 08:43 PM)SinfullyLate Wrote: I heard Padre Pio was preserved?

It is a silicon mask.

His body was in pretty good condition though, but the top of his head was skinless.
Reply
#35
I wonder if there's a particular company the Vatican hires to make those masks? They're so realistic looking, I would never know they were masks without being told.
Reply
#36
(09-05-2009, 10:30 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(09-05-2009, 10:28 PM)timoose Wrote: This is my singular opinion. I've never heard that in-corruptables are dogmatic nor that the Church has ever made any pronouncement as to their veracity. If I am wrong please correct me.
tim

They are investigated as miracles.

I don't know what you mean by "dogmatic". The Church investigates them and can declare them to  be a miracle, often in support of canonisation. They are not automatically used to mean anything, like anything else.

A  truly GREAT miracle would be finding an incorruptible politician. ;D
Reply
#37
(09-09-2009, 10:25 PM)stvincentferrer Wrote: I wonder if there's a particular company the Vatican hires to make those masks? They're so realistic looking, I would never know they were masks without being told.

Actually, there could be many companies to do it. They are modeled on the real faces and conform to the actual corpse for structure.
Reply
#38
(09-10-2009, 07:47 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(09-09-2009, 10:25 PM)stvincentferrer Wrote: I wonder if there's a particular company the Vatican hires to make those masks? They're so realistic looking, I would never know they were masks without being told.

Actually, there could be many companies to do it. They are modeled on the real faces and conform to the actual corpse for structure.

I didn't know that. The article said nothing about a silicon mask!  >:(
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#39
(09-12-2009, 08:38 AM)Jacafamala Wrote: I didn't know that. The article said nothing about a silicon mask!  >:(

It is not hidden in any official documents.

Reports on it can be misleading.

This is what my thoughts were about :) The incorruptibles do not regenerate and anything which causes any harm is final, so the skin is can be worn away by chemical reactions and such.
Reply
#40
(09-07-2009, 10:38 AM)Nic Wrote:
(09-06-2009, 12:45 PM)Satori Wrote:
(09-06-2009, 09:57 AM)Nic Wrote:
(09-05-2009, 10:13 PM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: is it me or are there far more incorrupt female saints than male ones?

I have noticed this as well - it is a staggering ratio of female to male concerning Incorruptibles.  I have my own pet-theory concerning this phenomenon, though.

I believe that it, in essence, it is actually more difficult for a woman to attain a high level of "holiness" in this world.  The simple fact that women were, concerning the order of things, created "beneath" men is the obvious reason.  Here we almost see a level of wanting to "catch up" with men.  In today's modern times, this is even more so than ever before.  Although women are, in the eyes of the modern world, now on an equal level with men, it is now even more difficult for them to attain a high level of holiness due to the poison of modern feminism and the ebb and flow of the modern world.  The role of women so given by God and declared in holy writ is now deemed "old-fashioned" and degrading.  It is now held in the utmost respect for a woman to venture out into the corporate world and have a fulfilling career - putting off having children or just doing away with the idea altogether.

With all of this being said, I also believe that when a woman reaches such a high level of righteousness, their holiness shines like a great light to the Lord.  These saintly women put the holiness of most men to shame, and they have done so seemingly "against the odds," so to say.  So, in other words, it is easier for a woman to choose decadence and wickedness than righteousness and holiness, ESPECIALLY in modern times.  I guess this is the reason why I have always had such a great respect for women who choose to be nuns - because it almost seems that the world demands less of them and they are breaking the mold with such a choice.  It cannot be avoided that the VAST majority of women Incorruptibles were nuns or otherwise attached to an ascetic order.  It was the righteous example of holy women like St. Bernadette that helped lead me home to the Catholic Church.

Will you please explain what you mean when you say women were created "beneath" men? Do you mean "inferior" or "lower down in the hierarchy"?

I figured this would come up...

If you notice from what I wrote, I stated "concerning the order of things," that is, concerning the Natural Law that the Lord God Almighty established.  Let us take some insights into Scripture to better help to see what I meant from "created beneath" man.

1 Corinthians: 7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.

Here we see in inspried text that man is the image and God, and woman is the glory of man - THEREFORE, man is, in terms of the Natural Order, above woman concerning such things.

You can label me a "sexist pig" or whatever you desire, but the INSPIRED Scriptures speak for themselves, and I rely on them before I do the common sentiment of a morally inverted modern world.  It is only the Vatican II Novus Ordo Revolution that has changed such tradition in the Catholic Church.  In pre-conciliar days, there were NO women speaking in church, NO altar girls and veils were wore upon the head as Scripture commands.  The N.O. Revolution met the world half-way, and thus bent over backwards for the Feminist movement, and gave women a role in the Church that was never theirs to begin with.  It is the pride of the modern feminist, a "Jezebel spirit," that wishes to seek positions of authority in the Church - beginning with speaking in Church - to the removing of veils - to allowing altar girls (which is a sacrilege in its own right, because the position of "altar boy" was to allow young boys to experience firsthand the ways of the priesthood).  This brings us to the final push in the Catholic Feminist movement - the Priesthood.

Somehow I managed to lose this thread until now.

I'm taken aback by what I perceive as the strident tone of this post. My question was a simple and honest one and not loaded with insinuations that you are a "sexist pig." Never did I suggest I was in favor of any of the wretched things mentioned above -- believe me, I don't like altar girls and lay lectors any better than you do, much less the idea of female priests. That has nothing to do with my question.

The verse you quoted above that refers to women as "the glory of man" also says that Jesus is the glory of the Father, and obviously that does not mean that Jesus is inferior to the Father. Since I was not sure I understood your wording, I asked you to explain whether you were referring to a created hiararchy (roughly analagous to the hierarchy that exists even in the Trinity) or to actual inferiority, such as the inferiority of animals to humans. I can only properly understand what you meant in your original post if I understand how you view women, which is the only reason I asked. I lack both the stomach and the philosophical background to argue for ontological equality, so you can say whatever you want in that regard and you'll be safe from me. What, am I going to come cry into your keyboard if you tell me you think women are worth less than men? I might cry into my own keyboard, but I wouldn't try to change your mind.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)