Is Don Bosco incorrupt or just wax?

I had the pleasure of seeing Don Bosco in Turin, Italy and found him looking very "waxy". I realize it is common to put wax on incorrupt saints, but then I started hearing stories about how his remains are under the fake wax body. Anybody know anything of this?

[quote="aball1035, post:1, topic:226737"]
I had the pleasure of seeing Don Bosco in Turin, Italy and found him looking very "waxy". I realize it is common to put wax on incorrupt saints, but then I started hearing stories about how his remains are under the fake wax body. Anybody know anything of this?

[/quote]

listverse.com/2007/08/21/top-10-incorrupt-corpses/

This post made me a little more interested, doing a little reading on it now.

Started at the link above.

[quote="aball1035, post:1, topic:226737"]
I had the pleasure of seeing Don Bosco in Turin, Italy and found him looking very "waxy". I realize it is common to put wax on incorrupt saints, but then I started hearing stories about how his remains are under the fake wax body. Anybody know anything of this?

[/quote]

Wax body? Or wax covering over a human body?

[quote="GEddie, post:3, topic:226737"]
Wax body? Or wax covering over a human body?

[/quote]

Wax body. Like the whole thing. Why would they put any wax on if it's incorrupt anyways?

(Not a new topic but I just saw it...)

Apparently, when Don Bosco's remains were unearthed in 1934, they were found to be incorrupt. At that time, they were displayed and many thousands viewed them.

After that viewing, his body was burried beneath the glass display where he had been viewed and what is now seen is actually a mold which contains a relic of the saint.

This is not a secret or some deception by the way. It is sometimes misunderstood, especially when one catches a glimpse on the web or views something without a tour guide or book to provide the details.

I'm no expert, just happened to do some reading recently.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

quote="Skipper350, post:5, topic:226737"

Apparently, when Don Bosco's remains were unearthed in 1934, they were found to be incorrupt. At that time, they were displayed and many thousands viewed them.

After that viewing, his body was burried beneath the glass display where he had been viewed and what is now seen is actually a mold which contains a relic of the saint.

This is not a secret or some deception by the way. It is sometimes misunderstood, especially when one catches a glimpse on the web or views something without a tour guide or book to provide the details.

I'm no expert, just happened to do some reading recently.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

[/quote]

Skipper, could you provide a reference? Thanks!

Sorry to resuscitate an old topic, but incorrupt bodies may indeed have stuff put on them to keep air contaminants from reacting with the skin; that was done to Saint John Neumann.

ICXC NIKA

Mmm, there tends to be a problem with skin shrinkage happening in a lot of the incorrupt, which leads to them looking kind of weird and, well, cadaverous, so oftentimes, the caretakers will have a coating of wax applied to the skin to seal in the moisture.

I am sure that if there is a God, and for some reason He wants to demonstrate that certain people were saintly by preventing their bodies from decaying he would do so in a way which required no wax, or special treatment, and left bodies looking unlike any old mummy looks. Also bodies buried at sea, or in wet alluvial soil, or burned in fires would be found to be incorrupt. It is meant to be a miracle after all. I imagine God would have managed to preserve some bodies longer than a few hundred years also

You think that if you were correct it would be incredibly easy for you to just go dig up a body of someone that was buried right next to where one of the uncorrupted bodies was and it should be uncorrupted as well should it not?

I imagine if you were in Thomas’s shoes and had stuck your hand in Jesus’ side you would have then required that you were able to examine his head wounds and actually stick your finger through the holes in his hands to make sure it wasn’t a trick of the light. You then would have concluded that he was just someone the other apostles had found that looked like Jesus and had inflicted the corresponding wounds on him to trick you.

Saying a miracle is disproved simply because a greater miracle could have been done is an empty argument.

[quote="Nate13, post:10, topic:226737"]
You think that if you were correct it would be incredibly easy for you to just go dig up a body of someone that was buried right next to where one of the uncorrupted bodies was and it should be uncorrupted as well should it not?

I imagine if you were in Thomas's shoes and had stuck your hand in Jesus' side you would have then required that you were able to examine his head wounds and actually stick your finger through the holes in his hands to make sure it wasn't a trick of the light. You then would have concluded that he was just someone the other apostles had found that looked like Jesus and had inflicted the corresponding wounds on him to trick you.

Saying a miracle is disproved simply because a greater miracle could have been done is an empty argument.

[/quote]

There are hundreds of bodies found in all sorts of places that are well preserved. Just Google 'mummies' and click on images. Belief in these as miracles can only be a form of credulity.

Originally Posted by Nate13
You think that if you were correct it would be incredibly easy for you to just go dig up a body of someone that was buried right next to where one of the uncorrupted bodies was and it should be uncorrupted as well should it not?

I imagine if you were in Thomas’s shoes and had stuck your hand in Jesus’ side you would have then required that you were able to examine his head wounds and actually stick your finger through the holes in his hands to make sure it wasn’t a trick of the light. You then would have concluded that he was just someone the other apostles had found that looked like Jesus and had inflicted the corresponding wounds on him to trick you.

Saying a miracle is disproved simply because a greater miracle could have been done is an empty argument.

The difference is no embalming and science can’t explain why. Also, they don’t have a smell of decay or anything else. They actually smell nice and some flowery.

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

[LIST]
*]the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
*]posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
[/LIST]

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.