Need an Answer

[theox]

Little background: I am Catholic. My wife is not. I am working to be the best Catholic I can so that my example may lead her to Christ. She has questions that I am ashamed to say I am not fully prepared to answer. I am forwarding her all the info I have found her about the Intercession of Saints, but she had another that left me speechless

How can we take a fallible man’s word (witnesses, the Pope) about the miracles of a Saint? She wants to know how the Church became the authority to canonize Saints.

This all stemmed from St. William of Perth’s bio, where the details are extremely sketchy of his miracles. His corpse cured a “mad” woman, and she wants to know how they determined she was “mad” to begin with and how she was determined to be “not-mad” later. This evolved into a general discussion as to why the Church is allowed to canonize Saints.

Help here is appreciated!

 

[Newbie2]

Little background: I am Catholic. My wife is not. I am working to be the best Catholic I can so that my example may lead her to Christ. She has questions that I am ashamed to say I am not fully prepared to answer. I am forwarding her all the info I have found her about the Intercession of Saints, but she had another that left me speechless

How can we take a fallible man’s word (witnesses, the Pope) about the miracles of a Saint? She wants to know how the Church became the authority to canonize Saints.

This all stemmed from St. William of Perth’s bio, where the details are extremely sketchy of his miracles. His corpse cured a “mad” woman, and she wants to know how they determined she was “mad” to begin with and how she was determined to be “not-mad” later. This evolved into a general discussion as to why the Church is allowed to canonize Saints.

Help here is appreciated!

Well, for argument’s sake, let’s start with the assumption that such “miracles” weren’t really miracles. Besides the fact that the Church is using some supernatural criterion for holding up our Saints as Saints, the purpose of canonizing Saints is to officially recognize them as having shown us, the rest of the faithful, an extrodinary example to follow.

Leave the miracles aside, Saints aren’t canonized based solely on the fact that they’re associated with a miracle.

The authority is the same that Christ gave to the Church for the succession of Apostles, to interpret scripture, etc. So…that same fallible man can proclaim infallible truth when he speaks ex Cathedra. It’s not like he just makes these things up…it’s under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Whether or not one believes that such-and-such a saint was associated with a such-and-such miracle is not an essential truth for our salvation. That the Saints provide us an example to follow is.

 

[vee8]

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic church is a Q&A version of the full Catechism it can be found online here
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Perhaps it can help you answer her questions about papal authority etc.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The stories about the lives of the saints, called “hagiographies,” aren’t really of the same caliber as the information gathered and used by the Church in the process of Canonization. That isn’t to say that the information in hagiographies conflict in any way with the documentation used in the process of canonization, just that the purpose and style of the writing is different- kind of like the difference between a biography of a president and the documentation of that president’s term stored in a presidential library. Hagiographies are written for public consumption, and so they may emphasize traditional stories about remarkable events without really going into much detail about how these events were verified, or even if these events were considered in the process of canonization.

Here is a helpful article from march 2008 regarding the Church’s recent clarifications on the process of canonization, including how the Church verifies miracles.

nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03martin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Oscarthecat]

The link didn’t work the second time I tried it, so here’s the full text in case you can’t follow the link…

Here is a helpful article from march 2008 regarding the Church’s recent clarifications on the process of canonization, including how the Church verifies miracles.

nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03martin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

March 3, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Trials of the Saints

By JAMES MARTIN
LAST month, while Americans celebrated the feast days of two secular saints, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, the Vatican issued a surprising new directive calling for greater rigor in its own saint-making process. Published by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the 45-page document called for “strict adherence” to existing rules, in response to some concerns that the canonization procedures had been watered down over the last two decades.

Such criticisms are only half correct: the Vatican’s rules are actually far more rigorous than many may suspect. Still, the church could increase its credibility even further in this department with a few additional benchmarks.

During his long pontificate, Pope John Paul II beatified 1,340 people and canonized almost 500 — more than all his predecessors combined since the current procedures were introduced in 1588. John Paul also waived the traditional five-year waiting period required before the process, or “cause,” could begin for Mother Teresa, who died in 1997.

The Vatican’s new document says that some procedures had become “problematic.” As a result, local bishops are now instructed to exercise “greater sobriety and rigor” in determining which saints-to-be they send for approval to Rome. Candidates should not be promoted by small interest groups; rather, their reputation for holiness must be “spontaneous and not artificially procured.” Officials vetting the cases must be impartial, and not omit negative aspects of a person’s life. And the examination of the miracles required for canonization must make use of “all clinical and technical means.”

While Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul may already be saints in the public mind, for example, the Vatican takes a longer view. Canonization has long been an arduous procedure, which includes gathering evidence for a life of heroic sanctity, interviewing contemporaries and examining a person’s writings for any hint of unorthodoxy. One medically certifiable miracle is required for beatification (when the person is declared “blessed”), and one more for canonization. Only then will the pope declare a person a saint and worthy of “public veneration.”

Even the standard for verifying miracles, arguably the aspect of the process that causes the most eye-rolling among agnostics and atheists, is famously strict. The Congregation draws on teams of doctors (not all of them Catholic) who assiduously rule out any other cause for a healing. Typically, the person cured will have prayed for the saint’s intercession. Any miracle must be instantaneous, permanent and medically verifiable. Those “cured” cannot simply have improved, cannot relapse and cannot have sought medical care (or at least must have given it up well before the miracle). Consequently, the verification process can take decades, as doctors monitor the stricken person’s progress.

Vatican standards for miracles are high not simply because the church is seeking irrefutable evidence of divine intervention, but because the church has much to lose if a miracle is later debunked. The Oxford historian Ruth Harris, for example, uncovered evidence of several early “healings” at the French shrine of Lourdes that were widely held to be miracles by the local populace, but which were rejected by exacting church officials worried about a rush to judgment.

The Vatican understands that any canonization procedures that seem rushed, biased or faulty would invite not only public derision, but also the suspicion of the faithful today and in centuries to come. Any whiff of fast-tracking could decrease respect for a new saint. That may be one reason Pope Benedict XVI did not accede to the wishes of the crowds at John Paul’s funeral in April 2005, who loudly called for “Santo subito!” — “Sainthood now!” Benedict’s implicit response was, “Not yet.”

But to combat ingrained and increasing skepticism, the church could go even further. First, officials could resolve that they will continue to adhere to the five-year waiting period, no matter how popular the candidate might be at death. Second, while the desire to recognize sanctity across the globe is laudable and serves as a reminder that holiness knows no boundaries, the church could avoid bumping up someone in line because the person hails from a country with relatively few saints.

Finally, the church could avoid favoring (or disfavoring) candidates out of any political implications. Archbishop Óscar Romero of San Salvador, who was murdered while celebrating mass in 1980 and who spoke out in defense of the embattled poor, seems to fit the classic definition of a martyr. Yet for many years his cause seemed to have stalled, probably because of his affinity for left-leaning “liberation theology,” which is highly unpopular in Rome.

Catholics should welcome the Vatican’s insistence on increased rigor in its saint-making guidelines. The redoubled commitment to an impartial judging of a saint’s life demonstrates that the church does not “create” saints as much as it simply recognizes them. Likewise, its renewed reminders that, for the church, miracles are serious scientific business, may make it more difficult for agnostics and atheists to disbelieve.

And easier for believers to believe.

James Martin is a Jesuit priest and the author of “My Life With the Saints.”

 

[mcs7474]

Tell her to read a book. Why do you have to do all the searching and feed it to her like a baby bird?

 

[fellowChristian]

How can we take a fallible man’s word (witnesses, the Pope) about the miracles of a Saint? She wants to know how the Church became the authority to canonize Saints.

We take Peter’s word that Jesus performed miracles. Also Matthew’s word or Luke’s word that Peter and Paul performed miracles. All of which are fallible men. Why should we believe them? (Just a thought)

But your question sounds like its about authority…

Jesus gave the authority to His church through His bishops.

Matthew 16:18-19 **
18"I also say to you that you are Peter**, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in** heaven**."

Jesus’ “keys” undeniably represent authority.This was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Also for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matthew 10:20
20"For it is not you who speak, but it is the **Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. **

Luke 12:12

12for **the Holy Spirit **will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

** Matthew 28:20**

20 teaching them to observe all that** I **commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Matthew 18:17-18
17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

18"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Luke 10:16

16"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who **rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." **

Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

John 16:13

13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

1 Timothy 3:15

15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, **the pillar and support of the truth. **

Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.

The Church became the authority to canonize Saints the same way it became the authority to decide what books went into the New Testament, through God.
I hope this helps.

Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV

 

[1ke]

How can we take a fallible man’s word (witnesses, the Pope) about the miracles of a Saint? She wants to know how the Church became the authority to canonize Saints.

The Church speaks with the authority of Christ. When the Church does so, she is infallible. She is not taking the word of a “fallible man,” she is taking the word of Christ who is head of the Church.

This evolved into a general discussion as to why the Church is allowed to canonize Saints.

Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-20; Matthew 18:18.