Get ready to start Praying to St. Paul VI
#11
How do you account that there are two miracles which have been determined to have been due to his intercession?
Reply
#12
I think I'll pass.
Reply
#13
(02-09-2018, 04:28 AM)Poche Wrote: How do you account that there are two miracles which have been determined to have been due to his intercession?

Are we sure they are miracles? Nowadays if someone's cold goes away they claim it was because they prayed to Alberto Bugningi.
Reply
#14
(02-09-2018, 04:28 AM)Poche Wrote: How do you account that there are two miracles which have been determined to have been due to his intercession?

That he’s in heaven and can intercede for us. That doesn’t mean everyone has to think he was a good pope.
Reply
#15
The funny thing about all of this is that Francis will canonize Paul VI all the while trying to shred the one great thing about his pontificate (Humanae Vitae) to shreds.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
[-] The following 2 users Like GangGreen's post:
  • Eric F, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#16
(02-09-2018, 04:28 AM)Poche Wrote: How do you account that there are two miracles which have been determined to have been due to his intercession?

The problem with miracles is that just as the standards have dropped for the investigation (before if one had even written anything mildly ambiguous, he was disqualified, now you can commit a grave public sin against the First Commandment without any notable repentance and be called “the Great”), so too for miracles.

In the case of John Paul II, the miracle attributed for his beatification was publicly questioned by the doctors involved, leaving wide open the doubts of Sister Marie Simon-Pierre's "healing" from Parkinson's. That doctor, reported in the Polish paper Rzeczpospolita, said he though she was not suffering from Parkinson's at all, but a different disorder that can go into remission, and quite suddenly. The paper also noted that the sister had become sick for some periods of time again after the “miracle”. 

The real problem is with a Parkinson's miracle is that it's a very non-specific disease. Diagnosis is not based on any objective test (the only proof of the disease can come post-moterm by autopsy), but a combination of factors, especially the combination of symptoms, reactions to levadopa and a medical history. Effectively, one prudently eliminates other diseases to diagnose Parkinson's. Thus a sudden cure could just as easily mean a miracle (she was cured of Parkinson's) or a misdiagnosis (she never had Parkinson's).

There are also other signs that suggest a misdiagnosis rather than a miraculous cure, most especially that Parkinson's rarely affects (under 2 percent of those with the disease) those under 60 (Sister Simon-Pierre was 40 at her diagnosis), women are less likely to get the disease, life expectancy for a 40-year-old female patient without dementia is 30-40 years of with all but perhaps the last 10 years spent relatively normally (yet Sister was nearly paralyzed within 5 years after her diagnosis),

Except for the female aspect we can take Michael J. Fox as an example of typical early-onset Parkinson's. He was diagnosed at 29. He has lived 27 years since then and is still reasonably functional, even today. What Sister Simon had does not really follow that typical case, which does not mean there was no disease or miracle, but that the likelihood of a misdiagnosis is much higher. That would undermine the notion of a miracle.

In the case of John XXIII, there was no second miracle. Pope Francis decided to canonize him without a second attributed miracle.

Compare this with the older process that required four verified miracles, two for beatification and two for canonization. There were exceptions like "equivalent canonization" (such as with the North American Martyrs) where the very long-standing devotion and so-numerous miracles existed that a process was not had, but those exception were rare. And those miracles were considered only after a near-perfect life, meaning that shear quantity of natural evidence plus supernatural evidence made the result unquestionable.

Now when it's just one miracle, maybe, and there are serious questions about those, even those "miracles" really don't provide a great certainty.
Reply
#17
(02-09-2018, 06:59 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(02-09-2018, 04:28 AM)Poche Wrote: How do you account that there are two miracles which have been determined to have been due to his intercession?

The problem with miracles is that just as the standards have dropped for the investigation (before if one had even written anything mildly ambiguous, he was disqualified, now you can commit a grave public sin against the First Commandment without any notable repentance and be called “the Great”), so too for miracles.

In the case of John Paul II, the miracle attributed for his beatification was publicly questioned by the doctors involved, leaving wide open the doubts of Sister Marie Simon-Pierre's "healing" from Parkinson's. That doctor, reported in the Polish paper Rzeczpospolita, said he though she was not suffering from Parkinson's at all, but a different disorder that can go into remission, and quite suddenly. The paper also noted that the sister had become sick for some periods of time again after the “miracle”. 

The real problem is with a Parkinson's miracle is that it's a very non-specific disease. Diagnosis is not based on any objective test (the only proof of the disease can come post-moterm by autopsy), but a combination of factors, especially the combination of symptoms, reactions to levadopa and a medical history. Effectively, one prudently eliminates other diseases to diagnose Parkinson's. Thus a sudden cure could just as easily mean a miracle (she was cured of Parkinson's) or a misdiagnosis (she never had Parkinson's).

There are also other signs that suggest a misdiagnosis rather than a miraculous cure, most especially that Parkinson's rarely affects (under 2 percent of those with the disease) those under 60 (Sister Simon-Pierre was 40 at her diagnosis), women are less likely to get the disease, life expectancy for a 40-year-old female patient without dementia is 30-40 years of with all but perhaps the last 10 years spent relatively normally (yet Sister was nearly paralyzed within 5 years after her diagnosis),

Except for the female aspect we can take Michael J. Fox as an example of typical early-onset Parkinson's. He was diagnosed at 29. He has lived 27 years since then and is still reasonably functional, even today. What Sister Simon had does not really follow that typical case, which does not mean there was no disease or miracle, but that the likelihood of a misdiagnosis is much higher. That would undermine the notion of a miracle.

In the case of John XXIII, there was no second miracle. Pope Francis decided to canonize him without a second attributed miracle.

Compare this with the older process that required four verified miracles, two for beatification and two for canonization. There were exceptions like "equivalent canonization" (such as with the North American Martyrs) where the very long-standing devotion and so-numerous miracles existed that a process was not had, but those exception were rare. And those miracles were considered only after a near-perfect life, meaning that shear quantity of natural evidence plus supernatural evidence made the result unquestionable.

Now when it's just one miracle, maybe, and there are serious questions about those, even those "miracles" really don't provide a great certainty.
Peace.....and what would be the reason for approving low standard investigations for canonization?  It did seem to me to be a huge rush in getting recent canonizations through especially with less miracles or questionable miracles - was it to gain some attention in the Catholic Church - Vatican/Rome?  :huh:
Reply
#18
(02-09-2018, 07:33 PM)angeltime Wrote: Peace.....and what would be the reason for approving low standard investigations for canonization?  It did seem to me to be a huge rush in getting recent canonizations through especially with less miracles or questionable miracles - was it to gain some attention in the Catholic Church - Vatican/Rome?  :huh:

It was to "canonize" the Second Vatican Council.

I'd say more about it, but it would sound more like the spirit of Martin Luther, than a holy one.
Reply
#19
(02-09-2018, 07:45 PM)austenbosten Wrote: It was to "canonize" the Second Vatican Council.

Which is why John XXIII's feast day is 11 October, the opening of Vatican II. It should have been in June, probably the 4th, since he died on 3 June.
Reply
#20
(02-10-2018, 01:52 AM)Paul Wrote:
(02-09-2018, 07:45 PM)austenbosten Wrote: It was to "canonize" the Second Vatican Council.

Which is why John XXIII's feast day is 11 October, the opening of Vatican II. It should have been in June, probably the 4th, since he died on 3 June.
I've argued for the last several years, ever since this spate of 'santo subito' started, that it was to canonise the Council, but I didn't realise that John XXIII's Feast was on the anniversary of the Council.

Of course, I say the Old Breviary and I've generally ignored the new Papal Saints.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)