The Incorruptibles

What do you think about this?



Incorruptibles

Through history, the bodies of a considerable number of deceased Catholic Saints and other blessed persons, have not undergone the normal processes of disintegration. Without any kind mummification or embalming methods, their corpses have thus remained incorrupt, a few even after 1500 years. The accounts of incorruptible bodies are a part of Christian history from the first century right through to the 21st.

my beautiful family

DSC02882.JPG
Originally uploaded by summavitae.

Communion of Saints

If saints and angels are so holy and so aware of our affairs, why should we not ask them to pray for us, since "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (Jas 5:16)? Protestants say that this raises them to the level of God (thus, the charge of idolatry). But they need not be all-knowing, nor perfect, like God, only out of time and glorified, to hear our prayers. We venerate them (particularly Mary) because of their proximity to God - this is not worship or adoration, which is reserved for God only. St. Paul urges us to "imitate" him (1 Cor 4:16, Phil 3:17), as he, in turn, imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1, 1 Thess 1:6), and we are told to honor the "heroes" of the faith (Heb 6:12, 11:1-40, Jas 5:10-11). None of this detracts from the Infinite Glory and Majesty of God in the least. Rather, it enhances it, just as the painter is honored when one admires his masterpiece, and just as the dewdrop can reflect the brightness of the sun.

Linked above

Circular Reasoning

There is a larger sense in which circularity, as Pontificator suggests, cannot be avoided in arguing for the ultimate criterion of a system. This is what Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas meant by saying that first principles are indemonstrable. Why should one be logical? Because it would be illogical not to be! Why should one believe God's Word? Because it is the Word of God, of course! Every system is based on presuppositions that control its epistemology, argument, and use of evidence; therefore ultimate circularity is philosophically inescapable. But this does not mean that circularity is permissible in other (penultimate) sorts of arguments. "The Bible is inspired because the Bible says its inspired" is a circular argument whose circularity is not justified. It lacks cogency. A document's self-attestation is insufficient warrant for accepting its claims. The argument can gain cogency only by enlarging its circle to include also the attestation of the Church and data of sacred and secular history. By contrast, "The Bible means what the Church says it means" is not circular in this way, since the Church's interpretation is not closed off from history, but empirically testable for fidelity and coherence both against Scripture and the other traditions of the Church.

See Link above for full article, it's not too long either.