St Bernadette and Our Lady of Lourdes

[LilyM]

Oh, I don’t know…pins being stuck into children’s eyeballs maybe? Sounds like an invasive procedure to me…so you’re saying that the men who conducted the “experiments” upon the children by sticking pins into their eyes are psychologists and scientists? And this to prove some “miracle”? And peopel are “OK” with this?

No more invasive or risky than an ear or body piercing, and you don’t run off to your doctor to get those.

It does require some knowledge of anatomy and hygiene, as any piercing would, to avoid risks, but no medical knowledge beyond that.

 

[Publisher]

No different to an ear or body piercing, and you don’t run off to your doctor to get those.

It does require some knowledge of anatomy and hygiene, as any piercing would, to avoid risks, but no medical knowledge beyond that.

That is true, sticking pins in children’s eyes takes no medical knowledge…but I’m not sure children’s eyes qualify as “any piercing”. To me, it is barbaric in a religious context…it goes against all my Quakerly sensibilities.

 

[LilyM]

That is true, sticking pins in children’s eyes takes no medical knowledge…but I’m not sure children’s eyes qualify as “any piercing”. To me, it is barbaric in a religious context…it goes against all my Quakerly sensibilities.

But it’s not done purely in a religious context - these sort of paranormal phenomena occur in all sorts of contexts divorced from the religious and are investigated by all sorts of people, many of whom don’t have any sort of religious motive for so doing. The methods would be similar in many cases, I imagine. Especially if there is limited possibility to use high-tech sensors or non-invasive methods.

People, for example, claim to achieve the same sort of trance-like state, and perhaps see visions and hear voices as well, though not of the Virgin Mary or other religious figures, using secular rather than religious forms of meditation. Their claims to be able to do so are often investigated as well, no?

The method is chosen because it’s the surest way of eliminating fakery, absent sophisticated machinery, and not from any sort of religious motive. One can have a pin stuck in ones foot and, I imagine, perhaps grit ones teeth and not flinch and pretend to be unaware or unconscious of the pain. To do so if the needle is stuck or about to be stuck in one’s eye would be much much more difficult if one is not truly insensible.

It has nothing to do with religion or lack thereof. It would, I imagine, be used in lots of secular as well as religious situations, and by lots of secular as well as religious people.

 

[Publisher]

But it’s not done purely in a religious context - these sort of paranormal phenomena occur in all sorts of contexts divorced from the religious and are investigated by all sorts of people, many of whom don’t have any sort of religious motive for so doing. The methods would be similar in many cases, I imagine. Especially if there is limited possibility to use high-tech sensors or non-invasive methods.

People, for example, claim to achieve the same sort of trance-like state, and perhaps see visions and hear voices as well, though not of the Virgin Mary or other religious figures, using secular rather than religious forms of meditation. Their claims to be able to do so are often investigated as well, no?

The method is chosen because it’s the surest way of eliminating fakery, absent sophisticated machinery, and not from any sort of religious motive. One can have a pin stuck in ones foot and, I imagine, perhaps grit ones teeth and not flinch and pretend to be unaware or unconscious of the pain. To do so if the needle is stuck or about to be stuck in one’s eye would be much much more difficult if one is not truly insensible.

It has nothing to do with religion or lack thereof. It would, I imagine, be used in lots of secular as well as religious situations, and by lots of secular as well as religious people.

I understand that these kinds of experiments are conducted in “non-religious” contexts…but we’re not discusssing “non-religious” contexts…and to do such things to a child to prove that “religious fakery” is not occuring…is well beyond my sensibility…“insensible” or not…this is a child we’re discussing…I just shudder at the thought of doing such things to a child simply to prove a “miracle”…somehow in my Quaker mind the thought of doing such things in the Name of God goes against my understanding of any religious belief I would hold as valid…no one would do such a thing to my child, while I was able to stop it.

 

[LilyM]

I understand that these kinds of experiments are conducted in “non-religious” contexts…but we’re not discusssing “non-religious” contexts…and to do such things to a child to prove that “religious fakery” is not occuring…is well beyond my sensibility…“insensible” or not…this is a child we’re discussing…I just shudder at the thought of doing such things to a child simply to prove a “miracle”…somehow in my Quaker mind the thought of doing such things in the Name of God goes against my understanding of any religious belief I would hold as valid…no one would do such a thing to my child, while I was able to stop it.

Do you understand, though, that it’s not actually being done in the Name of God at all? It’s not like anyone invokes His name over the needles or calls on Him to bless the ritual of piercing or anything like that. It’s purely being done as a tool of scientific investigation and is distinct from the religious aspect.

That consideration aside, my point of view is this. I had my ears pierced when I was about five years old, along with a friend of mine who I think was a little younger. My father, who’s a doctor, was the one who did the piercing.

For me piercing part of the body in the name of looking good is a far worse motive than piercing it for either scientific or religious reasons, just like dieting in order to look good is different from and an inferior motive to fasting for religious reasons.

And yet, there’s absoutely nothing wrong with piercing the ears, and only a little wrong with dieting in order to look good (eg if it goes overboard into anorexia or bulimia or becomes an obsession)!

 

[Publisher]

Do you understand, though, that it’s not actually being done in the Name of God at all? It’s not like anyone invokes His name over the needles or calls on Him to bless the ritual of piercing or anything like that. It’s purely being done as a tool of scientific investigation and is distinct from the religious aspect.

That consideration aside, my point of view is this. I had my ears pierced when I was about five years old, along with a friend of mine who I think was a little younger. My father, who’s a doctor, was the one who did the piercing.

For me piercing part of the body in the name of looking good is a far worse motive than piercing it for either scientific or religious reasons, just like dieting in order to look good is different from and an inferior motive to fasting for religious reasons.

And yet, there’s absoutely nothing wrong with piercing the ears, and only a little wrong with dieting in order to look good (eg if it goes overboard into anorexia or bulimia or becomes an obsession)!

Understood…ear piercing is a far cry from having pins or needles inserted in a childs eyes to verify they are in a religious ecstatic state by any pseudo scientist or pseudo religious member.

That it would be done to seek to prove a child was truly in an ecstatic religious state to me is appaling…that any person professing faith in the One who called the children to himself is beyond me…as I said it is beyond my Quaker sensibilites…as long as I had breath and was able to place myself between my child and the person inserting the needles or pins in my child’s eyes as a method of experimentation, it would not take place.

That it would be argued as “no big deal” surprises me…when it comes to the welfare and well being of my child, I could not be swayed by any religious or pseudo-scientific arguement. If the procedure was done for theraputic purposes by a medical professional, that is an entirely different matter…but this is not the case in this instance.

 

[LilyM]

Understood…ear piercing is a far cry from having pins or needles inserted in a childs eyes to verify they are in a religious ecstatic state by any pseudo scientist or pseudo religious member.

That it would be done to seek to prove a child was truly in an ecstatic religious state to me is appaling…that any person professing faith in the One who called the children to himself is beyond me…as I said it is beyond my Quaker sensibilites…as long as I had breath and was able to place myself between my child and the person inserting the needles or pins in my child’s eyes as a method of experimentation, it would not take place.

That it would be argued as “no big deal” surprises me…when it comes to the welfare and well being of my child, I could not be swayed by any religious or pseudo-scientific arguement. If the procedure was done for theraputic purposes by a medical professional, that is an entirely different matter…but this is not the case in this instance.

No, I don’t think you do entirely understand. In what way is ear piercing ‘a far cry’? Is it the pain of it you object to? Ear piercing is more painful. Fact is somone who isn’t in an insensible trance doesn’t even GET pierced because they react when they SEE the needle, BEFORE it’s applied (which is one of the points of doing it in the eye), and the scientists then know not to proceed - perhaps it’s this aspect that you are confused about? Someone who IS insensible suffers absolutely no pain, of course, and very frequently no wound or other aftereffects, unlike ear piercings which at least hurt and oftentimes get infected etc.

Is it the part of the body that you object to? Would you feel just as strongly about pins being stuck into the foot or the hand, for example? What is it about the eye that makes it any different? It’s a part of the body, just like any other, largely full of watery jelly and thus less susceptible to pain or injury than many other parts. Yes, there’s a potential for permanent damage, but the risk would be no greater than piercing the ear, which is equally close to some very important facial nerves.

If you’re not objecting on either of these grounds then it appears you’re not objecting for any logical reason at all, rather a presumption of how God would feel about it - my presumption is that God feels no worse about it than He does about children getting pierced or getting dental work or operations done - I don’t think He wants any of His children to be in pain, but pain IS an inevitable part of the human condition which isn’t evil in and of itself.

Of course if possible pain is to be avoided, yes, and I am sure if the scientists had other means of testing that weren’t invasive they would use 'em. That undoubtedly not being possible, and I’m sure they could explain why, what do you expect them to do? Do you expect them to not to test allegations of miracles, in which many people can be led to believe, and not make sure they’re not being led seriously astray (often to the point of parting with lots of money) by a fraudster???

 

[brigid12]

Yes, I believe in the miracles of Lourdes. If I had the chance to go to anywhere in the world, that would be on the top of my list.

Me, too.:yup:

 

[MarieVeronica]

I’m not impressed by how many pins were stuck into any visionaries.

What convinces me… is the sheer numbers of those healed at places like Lourdes, Fatima, Knock. So many healings… which have baffled the medical and scientific communities for decades.

How could anyone not believe, with such clear proof?

 

[Righteousone]

I’m not impressed by how many pins were stuck into any visionaries.

What convinces me… is the sheer numbers of those healed at places like Lourdes, Fatima, Knock. So many healings… which have baffled the medical and scientific communities for decades.

How could anyone not believe, with such clear proof?

Well, I’d certainly be impressed by the pins in one’s eyes. Who wouldn’t??

 

[MarieVeronica]

Well, I’d certainly be impressed by the pins in one’s eyes. Who wouldn’t??

lol. Touche. Yes, that would be impressive. And would probably make me a wee bit queasy. I was just trying to make a point… about the cures.

(The eyeball thing kind of went over my head; I had never heard that any visionaries were stuck in the eyeball I had always read they were poked in the arm… or trunk of the body… etc. Also, in the case of St. Bernadette… a doctor held the flame of a candle under her hand for a number of minutes… and she never flinched).

 

[BarbaraTherese]

St. Bernadette’s body has not corrupted:



theworkofgod.org/saints/Lives/Bernardt.htm

One of the things that convinced me that Our Lady had appeared to Bernadette was when Bernadette related that her vision had told her that she was “The Immaculate Conception” which was an astounding concept for a very young unlearned peasant girl to state.

 

[leonie]

OL of Lourdes has several factors that are convincing:

the message

the number of witnesses to the miracles

The holiness, humility, and faith of St. Bernadette–and her family. They were very poor, but still refused to benefit financially from the experience.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Here’s a pic I took of St. Bernadette back in 1998, when I visited France.

home.comcast.net/~jrichardocds/STBERN.gif

If you don’t believe in the Miracles at Lourdes, how do you explain this?

Jim

 

[saylo]

Been to Lourdes TWICE. Very fortunate for me. I believe all of it. If you ever have the chance to go there and have an extra day of time go to Nevers…it’s a bus ride from Lourdes. There you will see a standing sign of St. Bernadette lying in state INCORRUPT. She had died about 130 years ago and looks asleep.

Lourdes is a great gift to us.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Garabandal is a real stretch for me. The church is silent on that one. And there are other problems with that. I once saw a video that included those visions, but it sounded not so good in light of what the scripture and the church teaches.

May 7, 2007, the Archbishop of Oviedo, Apostolic Administrator of Santander wrote a letter in which he said, “. . . I want you to know that I am open to all information and to every consideration about Garabandal, and I want to continue in this manner, as long as the Holy Father sees fit for me to be Apostolic Administrator . . . I respect the apparitions and have known of authentic conversions. In light of these events, how can we not always feel the need to open our heart to our mother Mary to tell her that we need her protection, help, spirit, desire, faith, hope and love! I encourage you to continue maintaining this devotion to our Mother.”

The Archbishop also mentioned in his letter that further investigations would be done in the matter of Garabandal.

I would not say that the apparitions at Garabandal are approved, but neither have they been rejected out of hand by the Church.

 

[BRB]

Here’s a pic I took of St. Bernadette back in 1998, when I visited France.

home.comcast.net/~jrichardocds/STBERN.gif

If you don’t believe in the Miracles at Lourdes, how do you explain this?

Jim

How is she encased ? … behind glass, in vacuumed-sealed casket ? How long has her body been on display ? When was she exhumed ?

I’ve read the account of Bernadette on Google. It is highly fanciful, with all the multiple visitations, etc. It doesn’t seem credible. Also, the young girl with her did not see what Bernadette did … as I recall.

Also, this event happened several years after church made pronouncement of Mary as Immaculate Conception. The child may very well have heard this term from others.

Some will say the Church needed this event to support the newly formulated Marian dogmas. Indeed it does seem Lourdes has taken on a circus-type atmosphere.

Everyone would love for it to be factual. But, it seems a stretch. I do venerate Mary and believe her Mother of Church and our Mother. But, why would she wait 1800 years to make her first appearance ? Her role in Church could of been clarified much earlier… with apparitions/visitations in Roman Empire times. The lengthy delay causes concerns.

If it is legit, perhaps she didn’t want to upstage Christ. If she had made a more dramatic, believable appearance … even greater Marian worship might of resulted. Perhaps she/He desires it ‘low key’ …

 

[JimR-OCDS]

BRB

How is she encased ? … behind glass, in vacuumed-sealed casket ? How long has her body been on display ? When was she exhumed ?

Her body was first exhumed and found to be incorrupt in 1909, during the canonization process. Her body was returned to the grave.

Read for yourself.

catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm

I’ve read the account of Bernadette on Google. It is highly fanciful, with all the multiple visitations, etc. It doesn’t seem credible. Also, the young girl with her did not see what Bernadette did … as I recall.

Well its a matter of faith, but the visions are approved by the Catholic Church. Also, no one except Bernadette saw the Blessed Virgin when she appeared.

BTW, St. Bernadette isn’t the only incorrupt saint. I also visited
St. Catherine of Laboure, who died in 1830. I took pictures of her as well, but don’t have them on line. Scroll down, you’ll see the pic of the incorrupt body of St. Catherine. her hands are pointed up and her eyes are open, they are blue.

members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/first.htm

Also, this event happened several years after church made pronouncement of Mary as Immaculate Conception. The child may very well have heard this term from others.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, was made in 1854. The apparitions were in 1858. However, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, was not known throughout the Church in general, especially among the peasant classes, until after our Lady revealed it to Bernadette and it spread as a result of the apparition. Keep in mind, there was no radio or telephone in those days. Word spread much slower than we have today.

Bernadette herself, an unlearned girl, didn’t know what the Immaculate conception was when the Blessed Mother told her. She had to have it explained to her by her pastor, when she told him the name of the Lady who appeared to her.

Some will say the Church needed this event to support the newly formulated Marian dogmas. Indeed it does seem Lourdes has taken on a circus-type atmosphere.

Have you been there?

There is nothing circus like about it at all. In fact, most find it to be holy ground.

Everyone would love for it to be factual. But, it seems a stretch. I do venerate Mary and believe her Mother of Church and our Mother. But, why would she wait 1800 years to make her first appearance ? Her role in Church could of been clarified much earlier… with apparitions/visitations in Roman Empire times. The lengthy delay causes concerns.

This wasn’t her first appearance. She has appeared throughout history, one that comes to mind is Our Lady of Mt Carmel’s appearance to St. Simon Stock, and it is from this apparition we have the Scapular.

If it is legit, perhaps she didn’t want to upstage Christ. If she had made a more dramatic, believable appearance … even greater Marian worship might of resulted. Perhaps she/He desires it ‘low key’

In all the approved Marian apparitions, Mary’s message is always pointed toward people following Jesus her son.

Jim

 

[BRB]

BRB

Her body was first exhumed and found to be incorrupt in 1909, during the canonization process. Her body was returned to the grave.

Read for yourself.

catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm

I did. Seems incredible.

Perhaps in the past a Catholic medical examiner [who has done autopsies on bodies 30 years in grave w/o benefits of formalin preservatives] has given comments to the Church.

There are certainly some qualified Catholic ME’s who could ‘weigh in’ on these medical notes / pictures.

One thing of note … her first burial was in a lead coffin. So she was sealed off from air/oxygen. Upon exposure to oxygen on first and second exhumations … they did note prompt blackening of face and mold on skin did increase with additional passage of time. Thus, the body was washed and cosmetics may of been applied.

Napolean for example, had very good preservation of body upon his exhumation hundreds of years later. The scientists were amazed … since clearly he was no saint. His preservation was due to arsenic in the tissues … thus, he was poisoned.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

BRB

Perhaps in the past a Catholic medical examiner [who has done autopsies on bodies 30 years in grave w/o benefits of formalin preservatives] has given comments to the Church.

The Church has had independent teams of scientist examine her body a few times.

One thing of note … her first burial was in a lead coffin. So she was sealed off from air/oxygen. Upon exposure to oxygen on first and second exhumations … they did note prompt blackening of face and mold on skin did increase with additional passage of time. Thus, the body was washed and cosmetics may of been applied.

The thing is, the bodies of the nuns buried in the same style coffins next to her in the convent graveyard, did decompose, but not Bernadette’s. Also, her clothes had started to decompose, and the nuns changed them, before returning her to the grave, after the first exhumation. The wax they applied is because her skin was drying out and darkening, do to the candles burned
in the chapel. Her body was not immediately placed in the glass coffin you see. For a time her body laid out in the open.

Other incorruptibles who died long before the technology of glass coffins came about, their skin darkened due to the number of candles that are burned in the chapels and churches where they lay. This is the case not just for the body, but the entire enclosure of the building. The ceilings and walls darken from the burning candles, over time.

Napolean for example, had very good preservation of body upon his exhumation hundreds of years later. The scientists were amazed … since clearly he was no saint. His preservation was due to arsenic in the tissues … thus, he was poisoned.QUOTE]

Well, this is the explanation for Napoleon, but there is no scientific explanation for Bernadette or the other incorruptibles.

BTW, Lenin’s body is also incorrupt, but he was stuff by a taxidermy, and his body must be reworked every 10 years or so.

Not so the incorruptibles.

Jim