Catholic miracles defy any explanations

[Jonathan Walkerin]

So not a single link, just the

Many forensic labs have tested and the reports are out there.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I said forensic lab verification, check it out.

You are a scientist and apparently familiar with the issue. Why not make scientifically watertight case on this ? Get your Nobel prize and probably memo from the Pope thanking you for bringing truth for the world instead of citing some obscure Italian journal ?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But what about the Catechism book of the Catholic church?
Does it have evidences showing that such a book is divine in origin and that it is consistent with the teachings in the Bible?

In my opinion, this would be a.... "no."
So no offense, but this makes me doubt the veracity of any God given miracles associated with the Catholic church.

 

[Albion]

You misread what was said.

Priests do not dispute the validity,
They dispute the necessity for faith, they are not an article of faith, which is the catholic position, we are free to believe or not.

Doesnt alter the fact they happen.

So where is the falsehood?

Since you ask, here is the bottom line. Some of these alleged miracles are unexplained. Others, however, have been shown to be either fakes or just mistakes made on the part of the onlookers. Still others were altered in the telling--by the Church itself--in order to make them more credible.

In any case, however, the Church and its clergy have encouraged the faithful to consider them genuine. That is highly questionable as a policy, anyone should be able to admit.

 

[Mountainmike]

If Anglicans encourage the faithful tho believe them, that is dubious. What is its view of wolsingham?

The ones which interest me all have good scientific provenance.

Thankfully the Catholic Church does not, it is overtly hostile to those involved, and at very best leaves it to conscience to decide. Nowhere does it demand belief,

Since you ask, here is the bottom line. Some of these alleged miracles are unexplained. Others, however, have been shown to be either fakes or just mistakes made on the part of the onlookers. Still others were altered in the telling--by the Church itself--in order to make them more credible.

In any case, however, the Church and its clergy have encouraged the faithful to consider them genuine. That is highly questionable as a policy, anyone should be able to admit.

 

[Mountainmike]

The power to bind and lose as authority , and the faith handed down by tradition give meaning to scripture aka the catechism.

You would have no New Testament or creed If councils did not have that authority,


And the evidence should determine your view of miracles, not a straw man.

But what about the Catechism book of the Catholic church?
Does it have evidences showing that such a book is divine in origin and that it is consistent with the teachings in the Bible?

In my opinion, this would be a.... "no."
So no offense, but this makes me doubt the veracity of any God given miracles associated with the Catholic church.

 

[Albion]

The ones which interest me all have good scientific provenance.

Of course, but it is impossible to give a categorical pass to all of these things and simultaneously also pick out as proof of the validity of such 'miracles' only the ones that pass muster.

Thankfully the Catholic Church does not, it is overtly hostile to those involved, and at very best leaves it to conscience to decide. Nowhere does it demand belief,

That is almost a technicality, considering that in every way she promotes them, encourages devotion to them, teaches all members to believe them, etc.

 

[Mountainmike]

Of course, but it is impossible to give a categorical pass to all of these things and simultaneously also pick out as proof of the validity of such 'miracles' only the ones that pass muster.


That is almost a technicality, considering that in every way she promotes them, encourages devotion to them, teaches all members to believe them, etc.

At official position level, "worthy of belief" is as good as it gets

Talk to the average priest they are very dismissive

The church is outwardly hostile to those involved, they Get a hard time.

It is not as enthusiastic as you think.

Although a church is made of people , and people are not entirely a consistent bunch:

 

[Albion]

At official position level, "worthy of belief" is as good as it gets

Talk to the average priest they are very dismissive

I don't buy that for a moment. Dismissive of Lourdes or Fatima or Guadalupe? No way. And even if it were true of the average parish priest, it certainly isn't true of the wider apparatus of the Church, its publications, sodalities, special occasions, and so on that are focused on these 'miracles.'

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The power to bind and lose as authority , and the faith handed down by tradition give meaning to scripture aka the catechism.

You would have no New Testament or creed If councils did not have that authority,


And the evidence should determine your view of miracles, not a straw man.

Well, I believe the Catechism book both contradicts the Bible, and it also has no evidences backing it up that it is a divine document like the evidences that back up the Bible that show that it is divine.

 

[Albion]

Well, I believe the Catechism book both contradicts the Bible, and it also has no evidences backing it up that it is a divine document like the evidences that back up the Bible that show that it is divine.

The Catechism is NOT considered a "divine document."

It is a compact encyclopedia of sorts explaining the main beliefs and practices of the church. Sort of a Q and A reference work or primer intended mainly for laypersons.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Catechism is considered a "divine document."

Any joe can write something on a piece of paper and say it is divine and convince people that it is divine, but the proof in the pudding is the evidence. Where is the evidence? The Bible has plenty of evidences showing that it is divine. I created a blogger article to show this very fact.

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

It is a compact encyclopedia of sorts explaining the main beliefs and practices of the church. Sort of a Q and A reference work or primer intended mainly for laypersons.

Yes, I heard this once before. That's great. I believe personally it is not worth a hill of beans if there is no actual proof that such a document is divine in origin. Things in life that are true and important usually have some kind of evidence backing it up to show it's trustworthiness.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I heard this once before. That's great. I believe personally it is not worth a hill of beans if there is no actual proof that such a document is divine in origin. Things in life that are true and important usually have some kind of evidence backing it up to show it's trustworthiness.

You don't put any stock in such things as a church's confession of Faith, the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, or anything like Sunday School materials, the Alpha Course for inquirers, then? Ditto for any book written by any church leader alive or dead. They serve no useful purpose at all, you are saying (?)

Very strange.

 

[prodromos]

The Catechism is considered a "divine document."

I suspect you meant to write "isn't considered a divine document". Has autocorrect caught you out?

 

[Albion]

Lie.

Therefore it calls onto question everything this poster has posted in this thread.

I like the saying, "once a liar, always a liar"

Actually it was a typo. I have now corrected it. Do not write to me again.

 

[concretecamper]

Actually it was a typo. I have now corrected it. Do not write to me again.

caught.

 

[packermann]

I hope y’all Catholics have feelings too! I had feelings when I was a Catholic.

I meant that they tend to rely on good feeling far more than Catholics.

But why perpetuate this false premise? Regeneration is not just good feelings. We Protestants when not feeling so good hold on to the sure and steady promises of God.

But how do you know that the Bible holds the promises of God? How do know that the promises of God are not instead of the Koran? Or how do you the promises of God are in the Book of Mormon? I just talked to a woman who into Eastern Mysticism. She said that the sky is God, and the sky whispers his promises to her. How do you know that the Bible is not just another book written by mere men and God does not whisper to this woman?


You may say that you believe the Bible is the Word of God by faith, but that is just a circular argument. You believe because you believe. But really the reason you believe that the Bible is the Word is because you feel something when you read it. You take that as the inner witness of the Spirit. But that is just a feel. A Muslim can feel the same away about the Koran and a Mormon can feel the same way about the Book of Mormon. And definitely that woman I talked to would say that she has the inner witness of the Spirit. So why would your inner witness be more valid than theirs?



But a Catholic has a much deeper rationale for believing that the Bible is the word of God. A Catholic does not need to depend on feelings or an “inner witness of the Spirit” in order to believe in the Bible.

Most of us know the difference between happiness and Joy. When things are horrible like a 10 year old son has cancer then you get cancer and have both parents die within 2 years, sure don’t rely on emotions to get you to focus on the prize.

What prize does a Protestant needs to focus on? Heaven? Eternal life with Christ? But most Protestants believed that this is all settled once you become a Christian. It is a done deal. So why should parents of child with cancer focus on that? What would happen if they decide to stop focusing on the prize? Would they lose the prize? Most Protestants would say no! So why stay focus on it if they know that they will never lose it?

But the Joy of Christ is constant. It never fades. It does not rely on how happy or how I feel. Frankly the Joy of Christ does not depend on me. It’s what He freely gives when God takes the heart of stone we have and replaces it with a heart of flesh which only we can answer “You are the Christ the Son of the Living God!”

No, joy is like any other feeling. It is not constant. It can fade and can emerge again. Catholics understand this. That is why St Therese of Calcutta lacked joy for FORTY YEARS. She received this joy on her deathbed.


Depression can be because of the circumstance or it can be clinical. And when go through severe depression, the last thing you want to hear is that if you just turn it over to Christ, you will then have joy. A person who lacks joy, but still seeks to serve God in spite of no joy, is more pleasing to God that one who only serves God because he feels joy.

I've seen answered prayer as a miracle. Like a 11 year old child who had cancer, some complications from treatments manifested an intestinal disease the doctors took a week to diagnose. Then tells the family every case this bad ended either in death or a life altering surgery which would make the kid handicapped the rest of his life.


The decision was not hard. Either surgery or watch the kid die. Surgery was scheduled for 8am. Over 5000 people prayed overnight. The next morning during pre op the surgeon informed the parents that the surgery was unnecessary and the disease was significantly reduced overnight.


The oncologist came in and informed the father that his son just made the medical journals. With tears in his eyes the oncologist said “wow never saw this.”

I never said that non-Catholics never receive answers from their prayers. Of course, they do! And God, in His mercy, could also heal non-Christians. But no matter how difficult the surgery was, it was possible that this child was healed because of a natural explanation. This is not to say that God was not ultimately behind it, as he is behind nature. He works through secondary causes such as steadying the hand of the surgeon.

But a miracle of God is working DIRECTLY. It is not INDIRECTLY through natural causes. Jesus did not just pray that the Father would work through a doctor. He spoke and they were healed. The examples I gave were by far direct acts of God. Because of this, they have no scientific explanation.

 

[packermann]

I’d be careful. You just testified that externals and in some cases the material is necessary for your faith.

I don’t understand why the Cross and Resurrection is not enough. Over 500 saw the Risen Christ.

I know the Catholic Church teaches this.

Can you name all these 500 people?

Could it have been a mass hallucination?

And could have the Catholic Church inserted that verse into the 1 Corinthian letter?

Are we sure that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul? Could it have been a forgery?

The statutes of limitations usually runs out a certain number of years. The resurrection of Christ happened 2,000 years ago! We still debate who shot JFK, and that was only 80 years ago!

 

[prodromos]

caught.

Don't be stupid.

 

[packermann]

That is because you are not an Orthodox Christian.

Like I said before. I have nothing but respect for any Orthodox miracles. They would not discredit any of the miracles I listed.


It seems that Orthodox miracles can be categorized as follows:


Eucharistic miracles


Icon miracles


Healing miracles


Marian miracles



I do not question any of these miracles. None of these miracles contradict what the Catholic Church teaches. We basically agree on these things, so it does not surprise me that God has done these miracles in your churches.


I am sorry that I did not call this thread “Catholic/Orthodox miracles that defy explanation”. I never intended this as a knock against Orthodox miracles. Please forgive me. It is just that since I had spent many years as a Protestant I mostly keep Protestantism in mind. If I am still able to change the title of this thread and edit the thread to also give credit to the Orthodox, I will.