I didn’t respond to your question because it was vaguely worded, and because I thought that Tis Bearself answered it better than I could have. I don’t really know what you want, but I’ll try.
If the bodies of complete sinners can be incorrupt, then the incorruptness of saints’ bodies becomes meaningless as regards their sainthood. This does not in any way deny their sainthood; that has been established by other. If the incorruptibility of saints’ bodies were a supernatural phenomenon, their caretakers wouldn’t need to put wax masks on them; they would be truly incorrupt.
But, if the person’s body truly is incorrupt, such means of preservation shouldn’t ever become necessary.Pitcairn17:
The masks have become “necessary”. They weren’t so at the time it was discovered that the individual was incorrupt.
It also stands to reason that we would want to preserve the bodies of the saints using what means we can. The Declaration of Independence is, from what I understand, kept in a temperature controlled container with humidified helium in order to preserve it. If we take such care to care for historic documents, why not human bodies?
If you have a person’s body on display, you do what you can to protect it, incorrupt, “slowly corrupting” or otherwise. I wouldn’t think such things necessary if we were just burying them, but when burying them isn’t our plan, we don’t treat their body the same as we’d treat a body to be buried.Thom18:
But, if the person’s body truly is incorrupt, such means of preservation shouldn’t ever become necessary.Pitcairn17:
The masks have become “necessary”. They weren’t so at the time it was discovered that the individual was incorrupt.
It also stands to reason that we would want to preserve the bodies of the saints using what means we can. The Declaration of Independence is, from what I understand, kept in a temperature controlled container with humidified helium in order to preserve it. If we take such care to care for historic documents, why not human bodies?
