Bishop Oscar Romero is on his way to being a saint. If he doesn't make it,

[Hoppy]

can he still get into heaven?

[rug]

1. You should read up on canonization. It acknowledses it, it does not cause it.

Do you object to Romero being recognized for what he did?

http://liberationtheology.org/people-organizations/archbishop-oscar-romero/

[rug]

4. Romero did exist.

[edhopper]

5. replied to the wrong post

Oops.

[rug]

8. I'll pretend it didn't exist.

[okasha]

2. He's on his way to sainthood

precisely because the Church believes he's in heaven. Everyone in heaven is already a saint; a canonized saint is someone whose presence in heaven is verified by martyrdom and/or miracles.

Romero is already commemorated as a saint in the Anglican Communion.

[edhopper]

6. unless the person doesn't exist.

Then confirming they are in heaven is a mistake.

[okasha]

7. If you're questioning Romero's existence, you're in bad shape.

A good many of the nonexistent saints--Christopher, eg., --were "canonized" by popular belief before a formal process was instituted. (Christopher has since been de-canonized, along with several others.)

[edhopper]

11. that is what I meant

not Romero.

[okasha]

16. OK.

Thanks for the clarification.

[rug]

14. That's exactly right.

The modern process of canonization is relatively new, 400 years or so, and is filled with typical Roman legalism. Before that, saints were named by acclamation and endorsed by local bishops. It was a pious, but haphazard process producing as many saints who were simply weird as there were saints who were simply nonexistent.

Here's the book that set the modern process.

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/discernment/Benedicti_Papae_XIV_Doctrina_de_servorum.pdf

[edhopper]

20. though it's apparent now

That they can find "miracles" when ever they need.

[rug]

30. Not really.

The process can be corrupted but there remain many incidents that meet these strict criteria.

I'd say the process is about as reliable as any given state's Grand Jury system.

[edhopper]

32. You mean where the prosecuter

Can get an indictment whenever they want?

I find it funny that a Church based on faith, where physical proof isn't possible, finds"proof" of sainthood.

It's all a silly dance.

[rug]

38. Correct. I am as skeptical of Grand Juries as I am of miracles.

Nevertheless, I must concede the validity of certain indictments. And the existence of certain results with no possible cause.

Seriously, you should check out how these things are investigated.

If not, this entire discussion is the silly dance.

[edhopper]

40. I have read how they are investigated

And I have read non-Church reports about the people involved.

[rug]

41. Any non-polemical sources?

[edhopper]

42. probably not.

[rug]

43. Me either.

Talk about anti-climax.

[phil89]

9. Verified miracles?

you know it's 2015 right?

[cbayer]

13. And you know who Oscar Romero is, right?

Is he being beatified because of verified miracles or because of martyrdom?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. It's because of martyrdom, not miracles.

Although it's controversial, they are claiming Romero's assassination arose from his work with the poor (liberation theology), and because his doing so was an expression of his faith, he died a martyr. Martyrs don't have to do miracles. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/11/oscar-romero-martyr_n_6444574.html

[cbayer]

31. I am aware of that, it just appears that the person I was responding to was not.

This thread is just an excuse to take a dump of a good man because of his affiliation with the catholic church.

This kind of knee jerk antipathy is the kind of intellectual laziness that has been recently discussed here.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. Oh, OK. I was kind of confused by all that -

that person seemed to be claiming Romero wasn't real?? Anyhow, IMO, whatever the church decides to do, Romero was a great man who worked hard for the poor. He was what Christians should aspire to be; and even people who are not at all religious ought to acknowledge the value of his work.

[cbayer]

37. Yeah, there was that Romero not being real thing, too, which was

really confusing. I'm not at all clear on what that meant.

I am also a fan of Romero and feel that when the RCC does something right, which frankly doesn't happen all that often, we should stand up and cheer, not take it as an opportunity to attack some other part of it.

[okasha]

18. The process is rather stringent.

If you want to argue with it, address the Church.

[edhopper]

21. No

It is self fulfilling.

[okasha]

23. Hardly.

Do you know what the process is?

[edhopper]

24. Do you

know the "miracles" for JP ll and Teresa?

[okasha]

26. Yes.

Do you know the process?

[rug]

27. I know the one about Teresa.

There is a big problem with it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/10/is_mother_teresas_miracle_for_real.html

I really didn't follow John Paul. There was an air of inevitability about that.

Yet, there do appear to be numerous incidents that completely lack a natural or scientific explanation.

[edhopper]

29. Not really

That is the church's line. But in fact they often had medical explanations. Some claimed illness for which their wasn't a medical record. And so forth.
Not really stringent at all. It looks like the Church decides on the Saint and finds the miracle.

[rug]

34. That's what the link about Teresa states. But it's only about her case.

You'd really need to look at the particular Cause to see if there was fraud or negligence in the investigation.

From what little I have read there are indeed incidents that cannot be explained. Which is not to say "miracle of the gaps". There are results with no possible cause.

I take that if confronted with one of the particulars, your position would be "unexplained" rather than "miraculous".

Take a close look at some of them.

BTW, I do not believe in God because of miracles. I believe in God despite miracles.

[edhopper]

39. I know

Leave it at that.

[rug]

25. You know Google, right?

Assessing miracles[edit]

The miracle may go beyond the possibilities of nature either in the substance of the fact or in the subject, or only in the way it occurs. So three degrees of miracle are to be distinguished. The first degree is represented by resurrection from the dead (quoad substantiam). The second concerns the subject (quoad subiectum): the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum). There is then a third degree (quoad modum): recovery from an illness, that treatment could only have achieved after a long period, happens instantaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Causes_of_Saints#Assessing_miracles

[cbayer]

10. Is there something you don't like about Oscar Romero?

I think I really don't understand your question.

[edhopper]

12. about saints in general

not Romero

[cbayer]

15. What is it you don't like about saints in general, ed?

And how does that apply to Romero?

[edhopper]

17. read rug

up thread.

[cbayer]

19. Read rug?

The only thing I can make of this is that some saw a cheap opportunity to attack a pretty great guy.

Am I reading that right?

[edhopper]

22. No

The sainthood process. Not Romero.

[cbayer]

33. Fine. I also have problems with the process and, more specifically,

with some of the recent nominees.

But this isn't one of them and it is wrong to use this person to make an issue out of the process.

[edhopper]

35. ok