I cannot take post-vatican II 'miracles' seriously

[cassini]

I am a 1950s Catholic. Not a jot or tittle will I add to my faith nor subtract from it. As far as I am concerned if the Church hadn’t completed its position after 1950 years then something is missing from the faith of the last thousand years.

Then came Vatican II. At that time I was AWOL. When I returned to get married and bring up my children as Catholics as I was, it was like returning to a Protestant Church. It took me many years to learn how this new Church of mine had EVOLVED. Some of the stuff I learned made my hair stand on end but it seems nobody could do anything about it. Anyhow I found my niche of the 1950s again and have lived thereafter as a faithful Catholic and all that entails.

There remains however, many things that my faith simply will not accept, one of them being the ‘miracles’ that seem to me to conveniently occur when someone favoured by the Vatican II reformation want to make a saint. I see it as just another novelty to secure the Idea that the Holy Ghost is 100% behind Vatican II. I mean if heaven is granting miracles to those who were responsible for the council, and these miracles make them saints in heaven, then the message from heaven is YES, I (GOD) approve 100% Vatican II and all its documents. Why is it it I could have made money BETTING that certain people in line for the sainthood WOULD get those required miracles? Are miracles that predictable these days?

God be with the days when He and other saints put their hands over the sick and cured them. But now all one has to do is pray to someone to get God to cure them. If they recover the one to whom they prayed is attributed the miracle. Based on this -someone’s word - that person ‘needing a miracle for sainthood’ is credited with one and another saint is assured, rubber stamped from heaven so to speak, thanks to Vatican II and its new saint creating machine.

Now I will not name names but the ones that spring to mind do not share the universal approval of Catholics. For me, a real saint would be seen by all Catholics, even Christians , as one that is free from criticism of one sort or another. Yet some of those made saints and to be made saints have provided enough controversy to keep two Catholics (1950s Catholics and 2000s Catholics) fighting for the rest of their lives. Hardly the credentials for a Catholic saint say I.

Surely there is something sadly wrong here, something that I for one cannot accept in my heart, in my conscience, and I consider myself Catholic.

What do others think?

 

[Newbie2]

Whether or not one is skeptical of such miracles neither detracts from nor adds to one’s salvation.

Personally, I don’t pay much attention to such miracles; the other things that the saints have done in their lives, as examples for us, are sufficient. I don’t particularly need to know that saint X is associated with this or that miracle.

I’d suggest that you try to focus on something else if it’s troubling for you.

 

[LilyM]

I am a 1950s Catholic. Not a jot or tittle will I add to my faith nor subtract from it. As far as I am concerned if the Church hadn’t completed its position after 1950 years then something is missing from the faith of the last thousand years.

Then came Vatican II. At that time I was AWOL. When I returned to get married and bring up my children as Catholics as I was, it was like returning to a Protestant Church. It took me many years to learn how this new Church of mine had EVOLVED. Some of the stuff I learned made my hair stand on end but it seems nobody could do anything about it. Anyhow I found my niche of the 1950s again and have lived thereafter as a faithful Catholic and all that entails.

There remains however, many things that my faith simply will not accept, one of them being the ‘miracles’ that seem to me to conveniently occur when someone favoured by the Vatican II reformation want to make a saint. I see it as just another novelty to secure the Idea that the Holy Ghost is 100% behind Vatican II. I mean if heaven is granting miracles to those who were responsible for the council, and these miracles make them saints in heaven, then the message from heaven is YES, I (GOD) approve 100% Vatican II and all its documents. Why is it it I could have made money BETTING that certain people in line for the sainthood WOULD get those required miracles? Are miracles that predictable these days?

God be with the days when He and other saints put their hands over the sick and cured them. But now all one has to do is pray to someone to get God to cure them. If they recover the one to whom they prayed is attributed the miracle. Based on this -someone’s word - that person ‘needing a miracle for sainthood’ is credited with one and another saint is assured, rubber stamped from heaven so to speak, thanks to Vatican II and its new saint creating machine.

Now I will not name names but the ones that spring to mind do not share the universal approval of Catholics. For me, a real saint would be seen by all Catholics, even Christians , as one that is free from criticism of one sort or another. Yet some of those made saints and to be made saints have provided enough controversy to keep two Catholics (1950s Catholics and 2000s Catholics) fighting for the rest of their lives. Hardly the credentials for a Catholic saint say I.

Surely there is something sadly wrong here, something that I for one cannot accept in my heart, in my conscience, and I consider myself Catholic.

What do others think?

St Bernadette caused plenty of controversy in her day (ever seen ‘Song of Bernadette’? If you did then you’ll know just how much). I don’t see that controversy is the mark of an unsaintly life - aren’t Christians arguing with non-Christians about the significance of Jesus’ life (and Jews certainly don’t see Him as being saintly by any means!) 2000 years later? I would argue it is potentially a mark of a follower of Christ to be a ‘sign of contradiction’ as He was and remains.

I don’t understand what you’re saying about miracles. Ever since the process of canonisation of saints has been formalised, there’s ALWAYS been a requirement for two or three miracles, performed AFTER the candidate’s death as a result of prayer to them. They have to be, since miracles performed during life are no guarantee that a person died in a state of grace whereas miracles performed after a saint’s death are an indication of God’s favour.

So that part of it is certianly not a post-1950s invention by any means, and the ‘rubber stamping’ you are speaking of has been a possibility for as long as there’s been a formal process of canonisation

 

[puzzleannie]

I
There remains however, many things that my faith simply will not accept, one of them being the ‘miracles’ that seem to me to conveniently occur when someone favoured by the Vatican II reformation want to make a saint. ?

If you mean by “the V2 reformation” the current pope and his predecessors since 1962, and you are contending against their authority to canonize saints, then you have ceased to believe and practice the Catholic faith, in this or any other decade.

 

[Bluegoat]

Why are changes after the 1950s bad, and all the ones before ok? It seems a rather abitrary divition to me, based simply on what YOU were used to and what YOU liked. To say you will not change one jot from what it mean to you to be a Catholic in the 1950s is not a reasonable theological position, and arrogant. Are you so sure you completely understood God and his Church then? Have you had nothing to learn since? Do you not think there might be other things that the Holy Spirit has to reveal to you?

 

[LilyM]

I couldn’t edit my previous post to add this - but in terms of speedy processing, St Anthony of Padua was canonised within a year of his death: novena.com/2009/06/11/400/ : “Greatly beloved in his own lifetime, he was canonized within a year of his death, the second quickest canonization in Church history.”

This is certainly a record no modern saint has come anywhere near beating. Please also note that there is now a minimum of five years that must elapse after a person’s death before they will even be considered for beatification - although this was waived for Mother Teresa, it hasn’t been waived for anyone else, not even John Paul II. Even so Mother certainly wasn’t beatified less than a year after her death, let alone been canonised yet, 12 years later!

And note that St Anthony’s is only the SECOND quickest canonisation on record, so there is someone among the ranks of the saints who was even more quickly rubber-stamped (since quick canonisation must mean rubberstamping by your logic) than St Anthony.

 

[kubuck]

The liturgical changes you mention that came out post V2 were in fact not part of V2. I challenge you to actually read the documents in their entirety. If you do, I suspect that you will find that they were in fact guided by the spirit.

The bottom line is that we are called, as Catholics to be faithful to scripture, tradition and the magisterium. There are many things that we see in the way that others practice their understanding of the faith that bother us, but that shouldn’t detract from our ability to be faithful. If you do, you are falling victim to the logic of the relativistic world that does not recognize that their is one Truth - Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life - and that the Church is the guardian of that Truth on earth.

As for the miracles, you should not base your faith on miracles, but on Christ. He performs the miracles he does so that those of weak faith might see and believe.

 

[crazzeto]

I am a 1950s Catholic. Not a jot or tittle will I add to my faith nor subtract from it. As far as I am concerned if the Church hadn’t completed its position after 1950 years then something is missing from the faith of the last thousand years.

Then came Vatican II. At that time I was AWOL. When I returned to get married and bring up my children as Catholics as I was, it was like returning to a Protestant Church. It took me many years to learn how this new Church of mine had EVOLVED. Some of the stuff I learned made my hair stand on end but it seems nobody could do anything about it. Anyhow I found my niche of the 1950s again and have lived thereafter as a faithful Catholic and all that entails.

There remains however, many things that my faith simply will not accept, one of them being the ‘miracles’ that seem to me to conveniently occur when someone favoured by the Vatican II reformation want to make a saint. I see it as just another novelty to secure the Idea that the Holy Ghost is 100% behind Vatican II. I mean if heaven is granting miracles to those who were responsible for the council, and these miracles make them saints in heaven, then the message from heaven is YES, I (GOD) approve 100% Vatican II and all its documents. Why is it it I could have made money BETTING that certain people in line for the sainthood WOULD get those required miracles? Are miracles that predictable these days?

God be with the days when He and other saints put their hands over the sick and cured them. But now all one has to do is pray to someone to get God to cure them. If they recover the one to whom they prayed is attributed the miracle. Based on this -someone’s word - that person ‘needing a miracle for sainthood’ is credited with one and another saint is assured, rubber stamped from heaven so to speak, thanks to Vatican II and its new saint creating machine.

Now I will not name names but the ones that spring to mind do not share the universal approval of Catholics. For me, a real saint would be seen by all Catholics, even Christians , as one that is free from criticism of one sort or another. Yet some of those made saints and to be made saints have provided enough controversy to keep two Catholics (1950s Catholics and 2000s Catholics) fighting for the rest of their lives. Hardly the credentials for a Catholic saint say I.

Surely there is something sadly wrong here, something that I for one cannot accept in my heart, in my conscience, and I consider myself Catholic.

What do others think?

I’m not sure how the church deciding it was time to offer an updated liturgy based upon our ancient liturgy related in any way shape or form to miracles. One repersents a practical need of the Church Militant (us on earth), the other relates to God wanting to put a stamp on the message given to a select few through apparation of Christ or Mary.

With regards to the changes of Vatican II, it’s worth noting in regards to liturgical concerns… That in the early day’s of the Church, there was a constant effort to ensure Mass was offered in the vulgar (venacular). This is why Latin originally became the toung of the mass, originally it was Greek, which the Orthodox in many cases retain.

Now if you don’t like the Vatican II liturgy, then I suggest you search the web for a Church near you using the older missal. I did a search on Microsoft Bing and came up with all this

bing.com/search?FORM=IEFM1&q=latin+mass+raleigh+nc&src=IE-Address

Regarding non-liturgical “changes” contained in Vatican II. It’s worth noting that there were actually very few actual real changes. More often than not, they simply upheld older rulings using new language, written by current bishops in order to reenforce old teaching.

 

[OchsFam]

I am a 1950s Catholic. Not a jot or tittle will I add to my faith nor subtract from it. As far as I am concerned if the Church hadn’t completed its position after 1950 years then something is missing from the faith of the last thousand years.

Then came Vatican II. At that time I was AWOL. When I returned to get married and bring up my children as Catholics as I was, it was like returning to a Protestant Church. It took me many years to learn how this new Church of mine had EVOLVED. Some of the stuff I learned made my hair stand on end but it seems nobody could do anything about it. Anyhow I found my niche of the 1950s again and have lived thereafter as a faithful Catholic and all that entails.

There remains however, many things that my faith simply will not accept, one of them being the ‘miracles’ that seem to me to conveniently occur when someone favoured by the Vatican II reformation want to make a saint. I see it as just another novelty to secure the Idea that the Holy Ghost is 100% behind Vatican II. I mean if heaven is granting miracles to those who were responsible for the council, and these miracles make them saints in heaven, then the message from heaven is YES, I (GOD) approve 100% Vatican II and all its documents. Why is it it I could have made money BETTING that certain people in line for the sainthood WOULD get those required miracles? Are miracles that predictable these days?

God be with the days when He and other saints put their hands over the sick and cured them. But now all one has to do is pray to someone to get God to cure them. If they recover the one to whom they prayed is attributed the miracle. Based on this -someone’s word - that person ‘needing a miracle for sainthood’ is credited with one and another saint is assured, rubber stamped from heaven so to speak, thanks to Vatican II and its new saint creating machine.

Now I will not name names but the ones that spring to mind do not share the universal approval of Catholics. For me, a real saint would be seen by all Catholics, even Christians , as one that is free from criticism of one sort or another. Yet some of those made saints and to be made saints have provided enough controversy to keep two Catholics (1950s Catholics and 2000s Catholics) fighting for the rest of their lives. Hardly the credentials for a Catholic saint say I.

Surely there is something sadly wrong here, something that I for one cannot accept in my heart, in my conscience, and I consider myself Catholic.

What do others think?

To this I say:

Read Hebrews 5:12-15
Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food. Everyone who lives on milk lacks experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties are trained by practice to discern good and evil.

Maybe you aren’t quite ready for the solid food. Pray and it will come. I will be praying for your enlightenment.

God Bless.

 

[reggieM]

God be with the days when He and other saints put their hands over the sick and cured them. But now all one has to do is pray to someone to get God to cure them. If they recover the one to whom they prayed is attributed the miracle.

St. Therese Lisieux. Didn’t work any miracles during her life.

 

[JustaServant]

I am a 1950s Catholic.

I belong to the Church of all Ages. 50AD, 150AD, 1500AD…
Not trying to be a wise guy. But your opening sentence marginalizes many people, in all ages.

 

[LilyM]

Rereading the original post I have to ask - why the 1950s in particular? Surely it’s every bit as unlikely that the Church would take 1950 years to formulate its doctrine as 2000. For that matter equally implausible for it to take 1500, 1000 or 400 years

 

[cassini]

If you mean by “the V2 reformation” the current pope and his predecessors since 1962, and you are contending against their authority to canonize saints, then you have ceased to believe and practice the Catholic faith, in this or any other decade.

easy puzzleanne, I never said any such thing. If you read my post carefully you will see it is the ‘miracles’ that I am questioning. As a Catholic there is no obligation on me to believe in these ‘miracles’ just as there is no obligation for me to believe in apparitions. I judge each one on its merits.

 

[cassini]

St Bernadette caused plenty of controversy in her day (ever seen ‘Song of Bernadette’? If you did then you’ll know just how much). I don’t see that controversy is the mark of an unsaintly life - aren’t Christians arguing with non-Christians about the significance of Jesus’ life (and Jews certainly don’t see Him as being saintly by any means!) 2000 years later? I would argue it is potentially a mark of a follower of Christ to be a ‘sign of contradiction’ as He was and remains.

I don’t understand what you’re saying about miracles. Ever since the process of canonisation of saints has been formalised, there’s ALWAYS been a requirement for two or three miracles, performed AFTER the candidate’s death as a result of prayer to them. They have to be, since miracles performed during life are no guarantee that a person died in a state of grace whereas miracles performed after a saint’s death are an indication of God’s favour.

So that part of it is certianly not a post-1950s invention by any means, and the ‘rubber stamping’ you are speaking of has been a possibility for as long as there’s been a formal process of canonisation

Hi LillyM, thanks for posting. Yes I did see the film about Bernadette and loved it. The controversy I speak about are on doctrinal differences between traditional and Modernist beliefs. They exist I can assure you. Bernadette’s controversy was a different matter altogether but no doctrine was contradicted.

Yes I know about the two or three miracles and I thank you for your point that they must happen after death, but I think we speak about saints that could have been made saints without any ‘proofs’. Their teachings (as distinct from their pious lives) however were always orthodox and non controversial, not like some favoured by today’s saint makers.

Besides that, I do not think there is a ‘Devil’s advocat’ now and one ‘miracle’ will do. Another thing, saints used to have to wait for centuries. It is obvious to me that today’s saint making is to get Vatican II itself canonised by Heaven,

 

[cassini]

Why are changes after the 1950s bad, and all the ones before ok? It seems a rather abitrary divition to me, based simply on what YOU were used to and what YOU liked. To say you will not change one jot from what it mean to you to be a Catholic in the 1950s is not a reasonable theological position, and arrogant. Are you so sure you completely understood God and his Church then? Have you had nothing to learn since? Do you not think there might be other things that the Holy Spirit has to reveal to you?

No. Faith changed is faith abandoned. That is the nature of the Church.

 

[crazzeto]

Hi LillyM, thanks for posting. Yes I did see the film about Bernadette and loved it. The controversy I speak about are on doctrinal differences between traditional and Modernist beliefs. They exist I can assure you. Bernadette’s controversy was a different matter altogether but no doctrine was contradicted.

Yes I know about the two or three miracles and I thank you for your point that they must happen after death, but I think we speak about saints that could have been made saints without any ‘proofs’. Their teachings (as distinct from their pious lives) however were always orthodox and non controversial, not like some favoured by today’s saint makers.

Besides that, I do not think there is a ‘Devil’s advocat’ now and one ‘miracle’ will do. Another thing, saints used to have to wait for centuries. It is obvious to me that today’s saint making is to get Vatican II itself canonised by Heaven,

Are you suggesting that the Church supports “moderism”? That is simply not the case, the Church still rejects so called Modernism.

 

[thistle]

easy puzzleanne, I never said any such thing. If you read my post carefully you will see it is the ‘miracles’ that I am questioning. As a Catholic there is no obligation on me to believe in these ‘miracles’ just as there is no obligation for me to believe in apparitions. I judge each one on its merits.

Without the miracles canonisation cannot be done. As miracles are an essential part of the canonisation process and canonisation is an infallible declaration that the person canonised is in Heaven then you have to believe the miracle relating to a particular canonisation did happen.

 

[cassini]

I belong to the Church of all Ages. 50AD, 150AD, 1500AD…
Not trying to be a wise guy. But your opening sentence marginalizes many people, in all ages.

OK. one final reply before I go walk my dog. So far few have actually addressed my post that deals with the MIRACLES part of making new saints. The rest is just the contexct that I put them in. When I said I was a 1950s Catholic I did this to show the time I received my Catholic education. It was indeed the same as 50AD, 150AD, 1500AD. Now it is MY faith that has been ‘marganalised’. I know this because many of its tenets have been abandoned, ignored, changed and forgotten within the Church today. I am the one being BLACKMAILED into change. Well I will not change the faith of my Fathers and if that means ignoring all that change that now goes as the Catholic faith well let that be on my conscience. No doubt I will soon be excommunicated for this.

 

[cassini]

Without the miracles canonisation cannot be done. As miracles are an essential part of the canonisation process and canonisation is an infallible declaration that the person canonised is in Heaven then you have to believe the miracle relating to a particular canonisation did happen.

Another poster above has given an example of a no-miracle saint.

 

[crazzeto]

Another poster above has given an example of a no-miracle saint.

Nope, they didn’t. They gave an example of a saint who did not perform miricles in their life time. this is not required to be a saint, a saint is nothing more than a soul which is in heaven. This is why we celebrate the feast day of the solemnity of all saints. Because there are so many more saints than we can ever know.

But to be cannonized, the praying to the saint must result in miraculas ends.