mightychurch.com

The question of
Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey is presented in this essay. It is a good read on this subject, I thought, giving both sides of the story.

In the summary, this is stated:

The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order of the W.C.C. at
Montreal in 1963 produced a report, Scripture, Tradition and Traditions, which sets forth a more positive concept of tradition.

It defines ‘Tradition’ as ‘the Gospel itself, transmitted from generation to generation in and by the Church, Christ Himself present in the life of the Church’. It also states ‘Thus we can say that we exist as Christians by the Tradition of the Gospel… testified in Scripture, transmitted in and by the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Tradition taken in this sense is actualized in the preaching of the Word, in the administration of the sacraments and worship, in Christian teaching and theology, and in mission and witness to Christ by the lives of the members of the Church.

What is transmitted in the process of tradition is the Christian faith, not only as a sum of tenets, but as a living reality transmitted through the operation of the Holy Spirit. We can speak of the Christian Tradition (with a capital T), whose content is God’s revelation and self-giving in Christ, present in the life of the Church’.

The stress here is on tradition as an all-embracing concept rather than something opposed to Scripture. In this sense Tradition both precedes Scripture and includes it.
This new approach would not command the assent of all Protestants and there would be considerable differences in how it is to be understood. But it is important to note that it need not involve a contradiction of the older position. The positive approach avoids an unnecessary antithesis between Scripture and tradition and rejects a narrow biblicism which sees no role for tradition.

Prayers to Saints sounds to me too much like contacting the dead.
For example: (Another weird Old Testament event)
 

1 Samuel 28
Saul and the Witch of Endor
1 In those days the Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel. Achish said to David, “You must understand that you and your men will accompany me in the army.”
2 David said, “Then you will see for yourself what your servant can do.”
    Achish replied, “Very well, I will make you my bodyguard for life.”

3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in his own town of Ramah. Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land.

4 The Philistines assembled and came and set up camp at Shunem, while Saul gathered all the Israelites and set up camp at Gilboa. 5 When Saul saw the Philistine army, he was afraid; terror filled his heart. 6 He inquired of the LORD, but the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets. 7 Saul then said to his attendants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her.”
    “There is one in Endor,” they said.

8 So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. “Consult a spirit for me,” he said, “and bring up for me the one I name.”

9 But the woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?”

10 Saul swore to her by the LORD, “As surely as the LORD lives, you will not be punished for this.”

11 Then the woman asked, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”
    “Bring up Samuel,” he said.

12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!”

13 The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?”
    The woman said, “I see a spirit [a] coming up out of the ground.”

14 “What does he look like?” he asked.
    “An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.
    Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”
    “I am in great distress,” Saul said. “The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.”

16 Samuel said, “Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? 17 The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David. 18 Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today. 19 The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines.”

20 Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel’s words. His strength was gone, for he had eaten nothing all that day and night.

21 When the woman came to Saul and saw that he was greatly shaken, she said, “Look, your maidservant has obeyed you. I took my life in my hands and did what you told me to do. 22 Now please listen to your servant and let me give you some food so you may eat and have the strength to go on your way.”

23 He refused and said, “I will not eat.”
    But his men joined the woman in urging him, and he listened to them. He got up from the ground and sat on the couch.

24 The woman had a fattened calf at the house, which she butchered at once. She took some flour, kneaded it and baked bread without yeast. 25 Then she set it before Saul and his men, and they ate. That same night they got up and left.

Kevin Goddard said:

Could posters please supply links to any quotes given - that way we can check the sources ourselves and work out where the original author is coming from. ( Ken, your unsourced quotes on #44 need links - thank you. )

Sorry Kevin, I should have posted the links. But you may find the comments are supported by general historical records, I am sure.

Owen, sorry for offending. The reference to murderers is towards Catholic leaders of many centuries. These leaders pose as Christ’s vicars on Earth. The Catholic Church is led by these infallible men. You seem to agree with the Church that spawned them. Am I incorrect?
If you thought I was saying all Catholics were murderers, then you were naive.

I may have become heated in one of my posts. I apologise for offence.

There was an interview on TV tonight (ch7, I think) with the healed woman, among other people.  She said she believed in the power of prayer.  She showed the Mary MacKillop ‘relic’ (for want of a better word) she had worn.  She said ‘she prayed with us’ - that was the way she expressed it.  As if she had met with M.M. and they had prayed together. 
       
The way the media expresses it makes it sound like Mary MacKillop’s miracle, but she believes it was Mary MacKillop’s prayer, and a miracle from God. 
     
They also had an interview with a doctor, who said what happened is quite outside normal medical expectations, even of spontaneous remission. 
     
They weren’t bagging out the possibility of a miracle, which is good.  To raise the idea of divine intervention in people’s minds is good, even if it is Catholic.

All good Ken, no worries.
I thought your allegation was levelled at the folks of the Vatican. That is a lot of folks, mostly religeous who just go about the business of prayer and service.

These leaders pose as Christ’s vicars on Earth. The Catholic Church is led by these infallible men.

No, it is lead by fallible men- your typo.

You seem to agree with the Church that spawned them.

That depends on what you are asking about when you want to know what I agree or otherwise with. I agree with them on all the points you also agree with them. I have a belief that is closer to the early church belief than to modern Catholic belief. But that means I do think the dead in Christ can pray for us, that Mary has a special place and that the Eucharist is more than memorial. OTOH I don’t think much of the over zealous representations of Mary nor the emphasis on the saints. I reject Indulgences and the bureaucratic dogma that drives them.
But, I do try to understand things from their point of view. I believe that is important otherwise I would be talking about and arguing against a caricature.
I do think that the RC has to answer for the Inquisition, but I certainly don’t think we can accuse them of it now. I do think that all the other major denominations also have their own atrocities to answer for. The Church of England failed, for example, to do anything about the Irish famine until the Quakers acted. They were disdainful or uninterested in the plight of Catholic Ireland. I think holding other communions to blame is dangerous and morally wrong. Each should seek their own forgiveness from God and other communions, not have the blame thrust on them. After all, in most cases the perpetrators are long dead and the paradigm shifts have left those old ways absent.
Except
Except where the issues of Child Abuse is concerned. In this the RC Communion is behaving badly and has yet to appropriately tackle the issues where they are arising.

I do think that Inquisition is hardly likely to arise from a communion that gave us Liberation Theology. It has its enemies within that communion, but its influence has left inquisition traces only in its bureaucracy and the old dept that Ratzinger used to head up.

I ask you to note Ken (and others) when I am asked a question re RC doctrine, I answer it. I try to do so from the logic that they appear to own. This does not necessarily indicate I share that belief, only that I (pretend to?) have some understanding of it. If I were to condemn every belief that I differ with I would be a busy man here and on other forums.
Also I don’t believe that I am right. I am a person who pays close attention to people. I long ago rejected certainty in these matters having watched very certain church leaders and pastors change their beliefs. Well if they did that then their certainty on the matter they later rejected was unwarranted. I have also noted that this process is something everyone undergoes.
So, I find theology useful- but not accurate.
It is with the Living Christ we find certainty, but not in doctrines, rules and dogma. But in the reality of His Love and Sacrifice (no matter what particular theology you might have about that) and with His grace (no matter whether it was predestined or accepted by free will)

Incidentally Ken, you also agree with the Catholic Church. You are a Trintarian. You believe in Christ’s sacrificial and redemptive death. You believe in God’s good grace. You can recite the Apostle’s and Nicene creeds and mean them.
Your denomination has added doctrines that may be argued from Scripture but others will challenge.
But, you aren’t in a communion that has roots that can be traced way back to the early church in unbroken lines- actually “webs” is a better description since the history isn’t just a single line but many, many lines. You don’t have that weight to carry and manage. The RC and Orthodox do. I try to understand this and I try to understand that one person’s theology, no matter how biblical they think, is likely to be heresy.

Owen, I think you should read the link I posted (#51) - if you havn’t not already. Your silence on this post?

It points which traditions are in agreement with Scripture and those which are not. Catholics have many traditions which actually oppose Scripture.

Praying to Saints and Mary are two biggies. Bible says that we all live once, die and await judgement by Jesus. If all dead are dead, I don’t see a reason to waste time praying to them.

The general direction and overall story in the bible is opposed by such ideas. Why would God have one plan, only to see it added to. Doesn’t make sense to me, but Catholics don’t see the problem. Go figure?

Looking for contributions outside the small pool of forum posters comes this feedback from the wider world as seen in the Letters column of today’s SMH :

Please explain why God leaves others to suffer  -  January 13, 2010   SMH

Without wishing to sound disrespectful, I am at a loss in trying to understand how the connection of thoughts, existing only in the mind of a single person, with a subsequent event can amount to proof sufficient to declare the event a miracle (’‘Why me? Miracle cure that followed prayers to MacKillop’‘, January 12). Again, with the greatest respect, is it not sacrilegious to pray to a dead person, who, after all, is supposed to be at rest until the second coming, rather than to God Himself? Not just the sceptics, but also all those who are understandably uncertain and confused by all this, would benefit greatly from some kind of official statement containing a full explanation in detail.    ( Chris Turner, Castle Hill )

If praying to Mary can beat cancer why on earth does not this next saint, or the many others, try to help out more in this troubled world? Why do the so-called saints not help the thousands of children who are dying every day around the world? Is it because those children did not have the right picture or the right cloth to pray to? Every cancer survivor is a miracle and every death a tragedy.      ( Tobias Andreasson, Rushcutters Bay )

Where is the real miracle here? How about showing us one amputee who has been healed? Surely not too big an ask for any god worth his/her salt? Prayer is a placebo, nothing more. Mary MacKillop herself was proof of the idea that two working hands achieve more than a million hands praying. So let’s not belittle the good she did by ridiculous superstition and the Catholic Church trying to boost falling numbers. If prayer worked there would be no need for people like MacKillop to try to fix things.        ( Nathan Lee, Coogee )

Before giving credence to the ‘‘miracle’‘, I would need to know how many people prayed to Mary MacKillop and did not experience remission, and how many people experienced remission without having prayed to Mary MacKillop.  (  Katherine Cummings,  Tascott )

So there are all these people who think praying to Mary MacKillop accounts for their cures. Can we hear from the people who prayed to her but died anyway? I guess not. But does this negate the saintliness? Apparently not. Oh please! What century are we living in?
                                        ( Maralyn McDowell, Stafford Heights (Qld) ) 

Also in today’s SMH is this informative piece from Paul Collins looking at the “politics” of the RCC’s need for “saints” :

Becoming a saint: who makes it and who doesn’t
                                by PAUL COLLINS   SMH January 13, 2010

Many things that Pope John Paul II did would have horrified his papal predecessors. Among them was his production-line approach to making saints. All up he canonised 482 people, more than all his predecessors put together since the present saint-making process was set up in 1588.

For sure, groups of martyrs from Korea (102), Japan (16), Vietnam (116) and conflicts such as the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War inflated the numbers. He also managed to declare 1270 people ‘‘blessed’’ in his 26-year papacy, again including big groups of martyrs from modern conflicts. John Paul achieved this because he simplified investigative procedures and emphasised facilitation rather than a legal obstacle course. Since his election in April 2005 Benedict XVI has canonised 14 saints.

Like everything in the Vatican, saint-making has political implications. You don’t become a saint just because you’re holy or died a martyr’s death. The courageous Archbishop Oscar Romero was killed by a right-wing death squad in El Salvador in 1980 while celebrating Mass, but to make him a saint could have implied papal approval of liberation theology and that was anathema to the Vatican because of its supposed Marxist overtones.

Nowadays, with a secularist Socialist government in power in Spain and church-state relations strained, beatifying 498 priests and nuns killed during the Spanish Civil War by socialist republicans clearly has political implications. But this is precisely what Benedict XVI did in October 2007. And in case the present-day Socialists missed the point, he said martyrdom ‘‘is an important witness in today’s secularised society’‘.

Tensions can also focus on relationships with other religious communities. When Edith Stein, the German Jewish philosopher, convert to Catholicism and Carmelite nun, was canonised as a martyr in 1998 an international debate broke out over whether she was killed by the Nazis at Auschwitz as a Catholic nun or because she was born Jewish.

Since the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s Catholicism has taken Jewish-Christian relationships very seriously, but this could be again endangered by the process to beatify the war-time pope, Pius XII. This is anathema to Jews because of his failure to speak out in their defence during the Holocaust. A very tentative first step was taken on Pius XII last month when he was declared ‘‘venerable’‘. Benedict XVI is testing the waters.

In the case of someone like Mary MacKillop the politics are less fraught, but the Vatican wants every country with a significant Catholic population to have someone as a saintly ideal. So MacKillop was beatified in January 1995 when John Paul II visited Australia. MacKillop’s recent sainthood was simply the culmination of that process.

However, local church politics intruded when Cardinal George Pell told Herald readers that MacKillop ‘‘wasn’t in favour of women’s ordination’‘. That is hardly surprising given the issue was not widely discussed in Catholic circles until the 1970s. He also does not tell us how he knows so much about MacKillop’s views, and it is interesting that another late 19th century woman saint, Therese of Lisieux, had a profound, lifelong desire to be a priest.

Other questions focus on who gets the nod, who doesn’t, and why. It is a lot easier to become a saint if you are a nun or priest because you have got an institution to support you. MacKillop might not have made it if she did not have the Josephite Sisters to support her process. Lay people, especially married laity, are under-represented as saints. The implication is that sexual satisfaction is incompatible with sanctity. Your best chance as a lay person is to get martyred.

Scholars and intellectuals also have difficulty, probably because they are more likely to have criticised church authority. An example is Cardinal John Henry Newman (who died in 1890), perhaps the greatest theologian since the Reformation, who will probably make it to ‘‘blessed’’ this year when Benedict XVI visits Britain.

Part of John Paul’s streamlining was to reduce the need for miracles. Now only two are needed, one for beatification, one for canonisation. Some would like to see this requirement dispensed with. For us today real miracles are not the suspension of natural processes - as in unexplained medical cures - but something like widespread international agreement to do something about climate change. It would have been a miracle if everyone had agreed at Copenhagen.

Catholicism is a worldwide faith and its diverse members are at different places along an educational spectrum, with some cultures still being very miracle oriented. But today’s Western secular culture is sceptical and scientific and distrusts the arcane and unexplained. Theologically, miracles make God seem arbitrary and capricious, as some get responses and others seem completely ignored.

Why have saints? Because we all need heroes and heroines. We need people who dedicate their lives to serve others, who reflect the best in humanity. People like Caroline Chisholm, ‘‘Weary’’ Dunlop, Fred Hollows and Mary MacKillop.

Paul Collins is a Catholic commentator and historian of the papacy.

link

Ken ,  You argue strongly for scripture over tradition. They both have problems IMO. In 1978 in seedy Chichago there was a conference to affirm the “INERRENCY OF SCRIPTURE” . J.I. Packer was there of course. There must have been problems with this because in 1982 another conference was held in Chichago about the errency of inerrency. I’d like to cut and paste some of the conclusions , but i’m just learning how to do this. I’d like to learn how to kill the Inquisition also. It ain’t dead, it’s just an Atom Bomb of verbosity.

Ken
Halfway through that article and I’m finding it very interesting
Thanks

Kevin
Those posted articles are brilliant. As I said before, I think the RC canonisation method is not one I like at all. The politics makes it all the more interesting. I’d be voting Romero before Pope Pius XII for example.

Doug
The innerancy of Scripture is a biggie. I for one do not think it literally inerrant, and have many, many unresolved questions around contradictions in Scripture. It is why, for want of a better term, I call myself a liberal.

Owen Atkins - 13 January 2010 10:10 AM

As I said before, I think the RC canonisation method is not one I like at all. The politics makes it all the more interesting. I’d be voting Romero before Pope Pius XII for example.

Yes, Oscar Romero’s is an interesting case indeed. I have vague memories of that time and the political ‘struggle’ that many priests in South America were caught up in. It got a lot of media attention - and then disappeared into the ether.

This link Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical? from a bible based site, probably give reasons from scripture why we really don’t need to ask anyone on earth or heaven to intercede for us other than Jesus.

The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in Heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholic pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and saints as “intercessors” before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more “direct access” to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can “...approach the throne of grace with confidence…”

1 Timothy 2:5 declares, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, “Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in Heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in Heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination - activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). The one instance when a “saint” is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel was not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is plainly clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for you. One has a strong Biblical basis, the other has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in Heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in Heaven has any greater access to God’s throne that we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

Ken
You keep on throwing stuff around that is old hat. I’m not sure what to do with it. the essay on Tradition etc is good, the rest is mostly “been there before” stuff.
Once again, in the RC view, asking a saint to pray for them is the same as asking a church elder or your pastor to pray for them.
Your article is about the “need” for asking the dead in Christ to pray for us. If you do it with those folks here who are close to God, then why not those who are dead. To me the arguement is about whether or not the dead in Christ can perceive us. If they can, the rest follows.

Owen Atkins - 13 January 2010 08:04 PM

Ken
You keep on throwing stuff around that is old hat. I’m not sure what to do with it. the essay on Tradition etc is good, the rest is mostly “been there before” stuff.
Once again, in the RC view, asking a saint to pray for them is the same as asking a church elder or your pastor to pray for them.
Your article is about the “need” for asking the dead in Christ to pray for us. If you do it with those folks here who are close to God, then why not those who are dead. To me the arguement is about whether or not the dead in Christ can perceive us. If they can, the rest follows.

 
I don’t think so Owen.  You have not answered the question of whether we are barred from contacting the dead, as I would think from the 1 Samuel passage I quoted earlier (and also referenced by the article Ken gives), as well as elsewhere in the Bible. 
 
Besides, if you ask the living to pray for you, you use normal methods of communication - so it’s not the same on that level either.

Owen, you said earlier that Catholics do not ignore scripture when it does not agree with Catholic traditions.

I think you have demonstrated that you, and Catholics generally , actually do ignore scripture,
and seem to reserve loyalty and faith mostly towards the denominational stance.

Today’s SMH brings us another thoughtful contribution to the debate :

Act of God requires giant leap of faith

PETER COCHRANE   SMH
January 15, 2010

The first miracle attributed to Mary MacKillop’s intercession was a woman cured of leukaemia. Reported in 1961, it was approved by the Vatican in 1971 and ‘‘officially documented’’ in 1993.

Pope John Paul II beatified her in Sydney in 1995. That year, a second miracle occurred when she interceded on behalf of another Sydney woman with inoperable lung cancer. This week, the media, along with Kathleen Evans’s family, have rightly celebrated her ‘‘miraculous’’ recovery. Her continued good health is indeed great news, but what is a miracle? The website of the Sisters of St Joseph in North Sydney (where Mother Mary is entombed) says ‘‘a miracle is usually the cure of an organic illness so that there can be scientific proof of the fact’‘.

There can be no scientific proof that a dead person - Mary MacKillop - has the power of intercession with God and, further, has persuaded God to do something. Not only does the church suggest its procedure is ‘‘scientific’‘, it reports thousands of hours have gone into the examination of ‘‘documentary and anecdotal’’ evidence of Mary’s life to secure this proof. Panels of bishops, doctors and others in Sydney and Rome engaged in rigorous interrogation of this ‘‘evidence’‘.

Sanctification requires miracles as well as good works. The evidence, we are told, must show that miracles have occurred. It must show that Mary MacKillop, in death, has persuaded God to cure at least two desperately ill people. There is no evidence available to prove this, yet the Catholic Church insists it has enlisted ‘‘medical’’ experts as well as theologians to confirm this miracle.

We are told about vast amounts of documentation and an exhaustive and thorough examination that arrived at a conclusion that is beyond doubt. But the documentation is largely secret. We cannot see how it is possible to have documents evidencing Mary’s active life after death.

The blogosphere is alive with commentary, some funny, some telling. One blogger argues that if enough terminally ill cancer patients pray to Tiger Woods then, eventually, one of them will be cured. By Tiger Woods? Pundits ask why these medical miracles seem confined to cancer and do not extend to other conditions such as loss of limbs or sight.

If a church wants to call someone a saint, that is perhaps no business of anyone outside that church. But when it invokes science and historical scholarship we are entitled to question it rigorously. Science needs to be defended against shysters, and in this case the church’s appropriation of the label ‘‘science’’ is ridiculous.

It seems the church is reluctant to acknowledge a medical appreciation of the unlikely recovery from terminal illness called ‘‘spontaneous remission’’ or ‘‘regression’‘. It has been the subject of occasional scientific scrutiny for decades, beginning (so far as I know) in 1966 with W.H. Cole and T.C. Everson’s Spontaneous Regression of Cancer.

They acknowledged the causes of remission are obscure. They also surveyed hypotheses, including immune mediation, hormonal factors and genes. They noted fever often seems to play a part.

The frequency of this form of reprieve is conjectural. The most commonly quoted figure is one case in 60,000 to 100,000, but others believe it to be more frequent.

Colloquially, we might call it a ‘‘one-in-a-million’’ phenomenon. It happens in the other direction, too - the ‘‘one-in-a-million’’ cases of patients suffering a fatal or debilitating effect from a drug or a vaccination. Are those acts of God?

I have no medical expertise. I merely point out that a medical appreciation of spontaneous remissions exists. Like so many medical mysteries, this phenomenon will be subjected over time to systematic observation, hypotheses, experimentation, improved understanding and, eventually, to a rational explanation.

What we are seeing is not miracle, but mystery. In medieval times, many mysteries were put down to miracles. Over the years, one by one, ‘‘miracles’’ of one kind or another have succumbed to rational explanation.

Yet today the church is working overtime to reinstate medievalism. I do not want the considerable worldly achievements of Mary MacKillop to be lost in such hocus-pocus. By all means honour her life and work, but the church should stop campaigning for the supernatural and put its time, money and effort into cancer research.

Peter Cochrane is a historian and freelance writer.

link

“Yet today the church is working overtime to reinstate medievalism.”
-  That’s been my interpretation of events too.

Here’s some early web responses to Peter’s article ( I’m sure that even more comments will be added during the day ) :

4 comments so far :

I find the whole “saint” thing very confusing ... are the saints granted special privilege to go to heaven immediately after death while the rest of us must wait for the “last trump” ... or do they have to wait, remaining dead until the last judgement like the rest of us?

If disembodied dead people are able to influence the deity and perform miracles on Earth, aren’t they by any fair assessment, at the very least, demi-gods? Will the saints, who seem to manage quite well without one, receive their bodies back, like the rest of us, at the last judgement ? And if one good Catholic is granted a cure for a terminal illness, why is another not ... are God and the saints capricious ?

This whole area of Catholic doctrine seems very confusing to me ... no, lets be honest ... it seems absurd. Can anyone enlighten me; (preferably non-miraculously) ?
                                                        ( Bill C., Qld. - January 14, 2010, 6:53AM )

Why is it that these lovely, helpful saints only intercede after someone has gotten a terminal illness. If they really cared they’d prevent you getting sick in the first place.

We always hear about people praying for the victims of some natural disaster or other but if god really was a nice guy why did he cause the earthquake, or whatever, to happen.
                            ( Nurse Roodaal | Melbourne - January 14, 2010, 6:50AM )

At last some rational comment on this issue. People, get it into your brains: there are no miracles; only things we don’t fully understand. ( Jordiet, ACT - January 14, 2010, 6:29AM )

Well said, Peter Cochrane; the ridiculous suggestion that an omniscient timeless being called God can be changed through the intercession of a dead person and then directly intervene in history to alter it is not only thoroughly contradictory but totally absurd. It is an absurdity, nevertheless, that seems central to the Catholic Chruch’s identity, and its continued promotion and defense of such idiotic propositions surely points to its complete incompetence in dealing with any matters - temporal or spiritual - at all. Embarrassing incidents like the claims of these miraculous cures only make one recall Voltaire’s profound words that, “If you believe absurdities, you will commit atrocities”, and there is certainly plenty of evidence of that in the history of the Catholic Church.  ( Stephen Sewell, Parramatta - January 14, 2010, 7:04AM )

@ Ros

I don’t think so Owen.  You have not answered the question of whether we are barred from contacting the dead, as I would think from the 1 Samuel passage I quoted earlier (and also referenced by the article Ken gives), as well as elsewhere in the Bible. 

We are barred from summoning the dead, which is what happened in that story re Samuel.
Once again, if the Glorious dead can see us then it is reasonable that they would pray for us. Asking them to do so is not unreasonable. I am not convinced that we need to get into naming them though and therefore have that as an issue especially with the RC Communion.

@ Ken

I think you have demonstrated that you, and Catholics generally , actually do ignore scripture,
and seem to reserve loyalty and faith mostly towards the denominational stance.

Hmmm
Which denominational stance am I adhering to?
My beliefs are hardly the same as the RC Communion. If you are once again mistaking my explaning their stance (albeint clumsily) with adherence I would request a little more nuanced thinking from you. Or as you said to me earlier (paraphrased)
“If you thought I was agreeing with the Catholics , then you were naive.”

Re; the comments about the RC Communion “returning to mediaevalism”
Yes, I think that is the trend and it is regretable indeed. I think Vatican II was a great thing and the movement within the communion has been against it ever since. It is a major reason I wasn’t happy when Ratzinger got the Papal possie, he’s just way to “back then” for my taste.

If Vatican II had been allowed to proceed, then the Veneration of the saints would have become a minor thing, although the Cultus Marialis would have thrived and I suspect the Co-Redemptix movement would have also thrived.
Indulgences would have possibly left the books and female ordination might have been possible. P. John Paul headed a backlash agaisnt reform and sadly this process has been upheld since.

Owen Atkins - 14 January 2010 08:58 AM

Once again,  IF    the Glorious dead can see us then it is reasonable that they would pray for us….

You’ve done it again Owen. You make a supposition - and then go on as if it was a proven fact. (* This approach is what I refer to as the “von Daniken effect” - used ad infinitum in his boring book ( and even more boring film - I fell asleep about 20 times ! ) “Chariots of the Gods” ).

You write “IF” the glorious dead can see us…

Get this straight, Owen, THEY CANNOT and THEY DON’T. They are DEAD ....it’s not a new concept….. look it up in the dictionary.

Owen Atkins - 14 January 2010 08:58 AM

@ Ros

I don’t think so Owen.  You have not answered the question of whether we are barred from contacting the dead, as I would think from the 1 Samuel passage I quoted earlier (and also referenced by the article Ken gives), as well as elsewhere in the Bible. 

We are barred from summoning the dead, which is what happened in that story re Samuel.
Once again, if the Glorious dead can see us then it is reasonable that they would pray for us. Asking them to do so is not unreasonable. I am not convinced that we need to get into naming them though and therefore have that as an issue especially with the RC Communion.

 
It is not reasonable at all.  There is no scriptural precedent for contacting them in any way.  The Samuel story is the closest analog I know of, and certainly provides no encouragement. 
   
As for the prayers of the glorious dead, the closest Scriptural reference I know of is in Revelation 6:

9When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed. 

which is really not enough to build a case for soliciting their prayers for personal matters.
   
One of the things that bothers me about Roman Catholicism, is in allowing all of these very dubious, tenuous and mostly peripheral ideas into their doctrine (saints, Mariolatry, trans-substantiation, etc.), they then become the major focuses of Catholic practice.  What becomes the focus of this woman’s healing?  The love and power of God? The death and resurrection of Jesus?  Er, no: it’s the ‘first Australian Saint’.

From the “39 Articles” :

Article XXII     Of Purgatory

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Anglican wise, that’s CHECK MATE ;)

ps It’s Biblical too.

Summing up we can see that there are three truths in life:

1. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

2. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.

3. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store.

Summing up we can see that there are three truths in life:

1. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

2. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.

3. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store.

ROFL

You’ve done it again Owen. You make a supposition - and then go on as if it was a proven fact.

No, actually I am trying to get folks to see the general thinking that applies. I don’t believe I made a case in argument at all. I am trying to get folks to take blinkers off, see how others are thinking. Once this thinking is understood then an argument is cool, but should be less heated. Less of the “They are deliberate deceivers” nonsense and then the emotional vitriol that is rather present can be less acid.
I haven’t been arguing from the Bible or from tradition. I have been arguing perception all through. I have rarely stated my own beliefs as that is not a reference to the OP.
I do believe that the RC communion consists of our brethren. We are not enemies. If we were, for example, under persecution we would forget this drivel and get on with the business of helping one another, praying with one another and making allowances for the differences because THEY DON’T MATTER.
This has usually been the case under persecution and it is a statement that we are closer than these discussions like to admit. We aren’t under persecution so we have this luxury of disagreement. But I think we need perspective. I am less interested in the theology than I am in the people factor and our shared love of Jesus.

Would you like to turn this into an argument on theology? What particular angle should I argue? My own theology- which I have revealed very little of, or catholic- which there is a limit to my understanding. (therefore there is a limit to my capacity to make a real defence for)

Actually, I am beginning to see that I was a fool to respond at all to the Original Post. I am beginning to form the opinion that it was simply a bait for response from outside your communion, or to seek some sort of general applause for a good shot of Catholic bashing.
There has been sod all that leaves me to think that there was a genuine question involved. The readiness that folks have at attacking anyone who answers in a non-theologically aligned to Sud Ang way is a huge indication.
Getting attacked for sharing Catholic Belief is a great example of this. I don’t share their beliefs and should I present, as I am, for acceptance into their communion I would be rejected. The capacity for nuance here is rather limited so far.

If the OP was deceptive and no real question was involved then I wonder that folks don’t see this as deceptive.
Did you actually want the OP answered or was this simply a ruse to get a fight going?