Pieter De Rudder

Pieter De Rudder or French Pierre De Rudder ( born July 2, 1822 in Jabbeke, † March 22, 1898 ) was a Belgian farm workers. Rudders healing is one of the most famous recognized by the Roman Catholic Church " Lourdes miracles." A bronze cast of his bones is exhibited in the medical office of Lourdes

His healing of a broken leg should not be done in Lourdes, but remarkably, in a Lourdes Sanctuary of Notre -Dame in ostflandrischen Oostakker, near Ghent in Belgium.

The Dossier

On February 16, 1867, De Rudder broke, in hotelbicycles Jabbeke, after a fall from a tree left leg (tibia and fibula ). He was at that time in the service of Viscount Alberic du Bus de Gisignies .. Several doctors recommended after a negative healing amputation. De Rudder, or viscount refused to do so, however, from .. The medical treatment stopped then, more evidence is lacking in a constant over years bad period to be determined.

The Vicomte De Rudder paid a pension that designated the Kaplan Rommelaere of Jabbeke as " nice salary ". After the death of Viscount, on 26 July 1874, this guest house has been deleted by the heirs ..

On April 7, 1875, eight and a half months after the cancellation of the pension that was paid seven years De Rudder went to the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes to worship, and declared himself after leaving the sanctuary cured. It basically shows a scar that when a late ( and, in intention, is favorable for the supernatural thesis ) testimony believes, just after the cure had an old appearance.

The doctors refused to make out a certificate from the clergy of the parish, which in 1875 is content with himself, as eyewitnesses, two neighbors and friends of De Rudder, of the Father and the Son. These two witnesses sign an identical, drafted by vicaire of Jabbeke certificate stating that they have seen on the eve of the pilgrimage, the protruding bone ends in the wound. The certificate mentions a resident of the village who did not sign, and the same thing had seen two days before the pilgrimage.

Bishop Faict, Bruges asked by letter for information on Dr. Van Hoestenberghe to, a doctor who has never belonged to the De Rudders doctors, but had only checked the leg out of curiosity. Van Hoestenberghe responds in April and May 1875. His two letters were from the diocese prior to canonical investigation ( 1907-1908 ) and the recognition of the miracle by Bishop Waffelaert 1908 declared lost and found again until 1956. Bishop Faict, for its part, does not conduct canonical investigation.

The last known by name surviving treating physician, Dr. Verriest died in Bruges on August 3, 1891. Approximately one year later, at the annual Belgian pilgrimage to Lourdes from August 1892, remarked Dr. Van Hoestenberghe for the first time publicly. He writes the Dr. Boissarie, the President of the office of the medical findings of Lourdes, two letters, in which he refers to the case of Rudder, to have then checked the saying still bad leg and can only close on the miracle. These letters cause a number of investigations on behalf of various Catholic authorities. The eyewitnesses, who, as we have seen, 1875 was only two appear to be, are increasing over time, as well as investigations conducted by the injured leg, that of Dr. Van Hoestenberghe said to have made. 1907, before the Bishops' Commission, whose report will lead to the recognition of the miracle, he claims to have the diseased leg ten or twelve times, the last time three or four months before the pilgrimage was investigated.

The question of the time of the last examination of the leg is important because in the opinion of several Catholic doctors, the only motive to consider the healing of De Rudder as a miracle, the oral evidence of its suddenness ..

The letters of Dr. Van Hoestenberghe from 1875 to Bishop Faict in 1956 rediscovered and published in 1957. In this second of Dr. Van Hoestenberghe ( who wanted to explain before the Commission from 1907 to 1908, that he had a bad leg examined ten or twelve times, the last time three or four months before the pilgrimage ) says the leg seen only once to have, and the more than three years before the pilgrimage De Rudders to Notre Dame ..

Canons De Meester, the promoter causae was during the investigation of 1907-1908, still believes, despite the letters of 1875 that Van Hoestenberghe made ​​several studies of the injured leg, and that the last of these investigations show that approximately four months before the pilgrimage of De Rudder took place. In support of this opinion he leads notes in this sense that expressed by Dr. Van Hoestenberghe to have taken soon after the pilgrimage. These are notes on the Van Hoestenberghe spoke for the first time in 1899 to respond to two Jesuits, who were watching him, that he had asked the supplies of the deceased Dr. Verriest 1875, which, compared with other sources, too late appears to be. The comments triumph over this objection: " Verriest 75 ". These notes do not have the peculiarity of the letters from 1875 to Bishop Faict to contradict not only the number and the date of the examinations after, but also the date of examination of the leg after he made after the pilgrimage: According to the comments this investigation found on April 9, 1875 instead, but the Dr. Van Hoestenberghe wrote on April 15, 1875 the bishop Faict that he had not yet had time to see the healed leg. These notes, which were found in an unusual place in the book of Dr. Vans Hoestenberghes: the internal ceiling, and not their chronological place among the pages can now be read on a photo because they appear in the diocese, with the rest of the booklet to have disappeared.

Bibliography

• Canons A. De Meester, De wonderbare genezing van Pieter De Rudder; het kanoniek onderzoek, Oostakker, 1957.
• A. Delcour, Un grand miracle of Lourdes, la guérison de Pierre De Rudder, ou, Que vaut le témoignage? , Brussels, by the author, 1987. This brochure has been widely used for the present article after checking the references.
• Suzanne K. Kaufman, Consuming Visions; Mass Culture and the Lourdes Shrine, Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 182-191. ( In the case raised by the polemics. Partial able to consult Google Books. )