27 Apr 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI wonder what it is like, phenomenologically, for the candidate saint to take a petition to God. Does he, say, walk into a throne room, kneel, and straight up ask God to help out? Does he telepathically communicate the request? How does this work?
As much as a debate about the appropriate decision criteria for assessing the actions of the deceased can, I suppose.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by bbarrWell, you see, it's just like the story of the prodigal son...
I wonder what it is like, phenomenologically, for the candidate saint to take a petition to God. Does he, say, walk into a throne room, kneel, and straight up ask God to help out? Does he telepathically communicate the request? How does this work?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI am beginning to suspect that you are now just looking for any excuse to attack the RCC. Do you remember that this thread is supposed to be on the sibject of whether an OOO God who is benevolenent must be persuaded to do good, and not on the subject of sainthod? Square one is whether God needs to petitioned to do good, right?
Then we are back to square one. What is the decision procedure for determining whether a candidate for sainthood has satisfied the requirement of performing a posthumous miracle? It has been proposed that having observed Q petition P petition God for a miracle healing and then having P healed was sufficient to determine that P had performed a mirac ...[text shortened]... ed their required miracle. Why can't somebody just tell me how this determination is made?
What is the decision procedure for determining whether a candidate for sainthood has satisfied the requirement of performing a posthumous miracle?
It must be proved that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P. I should think that obvious to everyone. It is not enough for someone to petition P and later experience a miracle. There has to be a causal link.
It has been proposed that having observed Q petition P petition God for a miracle healing and then having P healed was sufficient to determine that P had performed a miracle, but now you deny that.
If you recall, you had written (and I paraphrase) that if X is not a saint, and Q petitions X, then God cannot allow a miracle to occur for Q. This is the logic I am denying. God can perform the miracle, it would just mean that there is no causal link between the petitioning of X and the miracle.
So, how do we tell that the healing followed as a result of the petitioning of P, if not by observation of the miracle, which you admit provides no information?
I don't think I said the observation of a miracle provides no information. I would have said the observation of a miracle does not provide sufficient information. There are other conditions that need to be satisfied (and I have alluded to these): it would have to be proven that all of P's publications are consistent with thr Catholic faith, that they have lived a life of sanctity and displayed heroic virtues, and also that there is no divine explanation for the miracle. For example, some miracles have been viewed as attestation of the validity of a doctrine, rather than an affirmation of sainthood for the person who performs them.
27 Apr 07
6 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat are the decision criteria for affirming that such a link exists, for establishing that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P?
It must be proved that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P. I should think that obvious to everyone. It is not enough for someone to petition P and later experience a miracle. There has to be a causal link.
And don't you see that accepting an OOO God entails that such a causal link cannot exist, for if it did it would mean either that but for P's action God would have done the wrong thing, or subsequent to P's action God is doing the wrong thing, and an OOO God never does the wrong thing.
By the way, LH explicitly disagrees with you. Witness: "If P prays for X's intercession and P is healed miraculously then, trivially, X has satisfied the miracle criterion of the Church." He explicitly claims that it is in fact enough for someone to petition a possible saint and later experience a miracle healing in order for the requirement to be met. He explicitly denies that any further causal link need be established. Who is right, you or him?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerEh? Do you have any concrete examples of this kind of thing?
[b]Catholics will often identify a miracle as an affirmation of the legitimacy of a doctrine. Say a prominent supporter claimed that Limbo existed and then cured many people of cancer, that may be regarded as a validation of the theory of limbo.[/b]
Eh? Do you have any concrete examples of this kind of thing?
I imagine that if such Q expe ...[text shortened]... ship, not an IFF relationship. The absence of a miracle does not imply the absence of sainthood.
I was obtuse to say that "Catholics will often identify a miracle as an affirmation of the legitimacy of a doctrine". What I meant is that "a miracle can affirm the legitimacy of a doctrine." Catholics may support the validity of a teaching such as the Immaculate Conception with the subsequent occurrence of miracles. I am not reputing any instance where a miracle is in itself taken as a proof.
Not necessarily. This is an IF relationship, not an IFF relationship. The absence of a miracle does not imply the absence of sainthood.
My mistake.
EDIT: From Catholic apologetics and Catholi doctrine, Michael Sheehan, (page 79)
A miracle is obviously a clear proof of the divine origin of the doctrine in support of which it is wrought; it is God's positive testimony that the doctrine is true, and God cannot testify to a lie.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat are the decision criteria for affirming that such a link exists, for establishing that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P?
What are the decision criteria for affirming that such a link exists, for establishing that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P?
And don't you see that accepting an OOO God entails that such a causal link cannot exist, for if it did it would mean either that but for P's action God would have done the wrong thing, or subse ...[text shortened]... icitly denies that any further causal link need be established. Who is right, you or him?
I suppose the rejection of any other causes for the miracle.
And don't you see that accepting an OOO God entails that such a causal link cannot exist, for if it did it would mean either that but for P's action God would have done the wrong thing, or subsequent to P's action God is doing the wrong thing, and an OOO God never does the wrong thing.
I have already explained my opinion on this. Healing Q is neither morally right or wrong compared to the determination of a saint. If God healed Q and allowed X to be venerated saint, that would inadvertently elevate someone un-saintly to the worth of veneration and emulation.
By the way, LH explicitly disagrees with you. Witness: "If P prays for X's intercession and P is healed miraculously then, trivially, X has satisfied the miracle criterion of the Church."
Clearly I disagree. I think that such a criterion places an undue restriction on God, as I have already explained.
27 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, what are the decision criteria for rejecting other causes of the miracle? For example, on what conditions would you reject the possible cause that God healed out of benevolence to ease the victim's suffering?
[b]What are the decision criteria for affirming that such a link exists, for establishing that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P?
I suppose the rejection of any other causes for the miracle. [/b]
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPerhaps praying to a saint to make things clear is necessary.
Well, what are the decision criteria for rejecting other causes of the miracle? For example, on what conditions would you reject the possible cause that God healed out of benevolence to ease the victim's suffering?