C
CreekCrawler
Guest
Is it the Catholic Church that actually declares a saint to be incorruptible, or is that left up to the individual to decide ?
Thanks
Thanks
Dear CreekCrawler,Is it the Catholic Church that actually declares a saint to be incorruptible, or is that left up to the individual to decide ?
Thanks
What I mean is, does the Church make an authoritative dicision on a body being incorruptible… or does the Church itself stay out of it ?Dear CreekCrawler,
Could you clarify your question? My understanding of incorruptible is when a saint’s body is exhumed, their body is found to be without decay e.g St. Catherine of Siena. But there again, I could be misunderstanding your question (I’m not the brightest bunny in the box).
Wouldnt that be pretty self evident? If a body doesnt decay, its incorruptible. If it does decay, then its not.Is it the Catholic Church that actually declares a saint to be incorruptible, or is that left up to the individual to decide ?
Thanks
You would think so… but I have seen lots of ‘examples’ of incorruptible saints, that have quite obviously decayed.Wouldnt that be pretty self evident? If a body doesnt decay, its incorruptible. If it does decay, then its not.![]()
Are you saying the Church made errors in declaring people saints in the past?I don’t think the Church concerns itself with this topic anymore. It is used to be a requirement to be a saint centuries ago but not anymore. I think the Church believes it is a possible miracle for a saint but allows for scientific explanations as well. Thus it is an unreliable metric for sainthood. The Church looks to more verifiable miracles, such as a person miraculously cured of terminal illness through the saint’s intercessions (must be well documented).
So have I, although the only explanation I can think of is any other normal person would have decayed much faster and would have been reduced to a pile of bones whereas the incorruptibles, even if blemished a little, have not.You would think so… but I have seen lots of ‘examples’ of incorruptible saints, that have quite obviously decayed.
I would be interested to hear more of this myself.You would think so… but I have seen lots of ‘examples’ of incorruptible saints, that have quite obviously decayed.
Just to clarify, incorruptible saints in the context of the question are those saints whose physical bodies (completely or partly) have not decayed. In the second link on my earlier post it says “No one knows why some Saints are preserved from corruption while others aren’t, and incorruptibility is never seen, in itself and by itself, as a proof of holiness. It is a good indicator of such when the deceased was known for his life of faith and virtue – but it’s a phenomenon that can be mimicked by science, by the effects of natural conditions, and by the demonic.” Hope this clarifies things?You would think so… but I have seen lots of ‘examples’ of incorruptible saints, that have quite obviously decayed.
I have to highlight this section because I find this troubling. Though it may be not so now incorruptibility was once a standard by which a saint could be identified. If fell powers can preserve a corpse how are we to know that saint in question is genuine and not a bad individual preserved to confuse Christians, draw false reverence and mock the true saints?Just to clarify, incorruptible saints in the context of the question are those saints whose physical bodies (completely or partly) have not decayed. In the second link on my earlier post it says “No one knows why some Saints are preserved from corruption while others aren’t, and incorruptibility is never seen, in itself and by itself, as a proof of holiness. It is a good indicator of such when the deceased was known for his life of faith and virtue – but it’s a phenomenon that can be mimicked by science, by the effects of natural conditions, and by the demonic.” Hope this clarifies things?
May God bless you.
My understanding is that an incorruptible body is not the sole reason for a person being declared or considered an incorruptible saint. The Church looks for evidence in the person’s lives such as being used as instruments of God, such evidence could be the gifts they used to build up the Church, save sinners, heal etc. We would know about the gifts through the writings of the saints and/or others who knew them. Everything would be tested against the Bible and teachings of the Church. Through God’s will and grace only one or two out of hundreds of thousands of saints are canonized by the Church as inspirational and to me, they seem to be the journeys of faith that strengthen, heal or teach others long after the person has departed Home.I have to highlight this section because I find this troubling. Though it may be not so now incorruptibility was once a standard by which a saint could be identified. If fell powers can preserve a corpse how are we to know that saint in question is genuine and not a bad individual preserved to confuse Christians, draw false reverence and mock the true saints?
I think that is possible. I don’t remember specifics, but I do know there were some saints from the early Church that were later found to be more legends than actual saints. Did the Church make an error in putting that name down as a saint? Maybe. I don’t think the Church is infallible in all ways. If that were the case, the error of taking money for indulgences would never have happened.Are you saying the Church made errors in declaring people saints in the past?