Catholic miracles defy any explanations

[concretecamper]

Don't be stupid.

I've had it up to my eyeballs with some who intentionally post falsehoods about the Church. There is enough to disagree with and discuss without doing such nonsense.

 

[Albion]

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

Yes, that's right. I have now corrected it.

Thank you for your note; I also need to acknowledge that you were smart enough to perceive that the sentence as it stood didn't really seem right. I appreciate that.

As for autocorrect, my computer is full of so many quirks that anything like an autocorrect is but a dream.

 

[packermann]

There seems to be an odd tendency in Protestantism to reject the physical. It's strangely similar to gnosticism.

How right you are! Some Gnostics taught that the physical is evil. Others taught that the physical is not necessary. That is why they had problems with the Incarnation, Cross and Resurrection. They saw that God saving us through the physical is beneath Him. So Jesus did not really become a Man, and that is why Mary could not actually be His mother. Jesus had to only appeared to suffer on the Cross. No physical suffering could affect our salvation. And Jesus could only have rose from the dead spiritually.



Protestantism’s aversion to statues or two-dimensional pictures (icons) add to this Gnostic tendency. It makes Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection into abstract concepts. Some Protestant scholars (such as Lutheran scholar Rudolf Bultmann) would go so far as to say that it does matter if Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection were actual events in history. All that matters is to believe them. And it does not matter to them that miracles do not actually exist today. To them, it matters not if they never existed.

 

[Blade]

Well praise GOD for any and all miracles. I give Him.. and Him alone all the praise..never man.

 

[packermann]

That’s why I stated the Cross and Resurrection should be what we point to. Not apparitions and visitations from the faithful who have died and not yet risen.

I thought that Protestants believe that we should only believe what is in the Bible.


I know that the Bible states that we should look at the Cross and Resurrection but where does it say it’s the only thing we should look to?


I can give you some examples where the Bible clearly states that the Cross and Resurrection are not the only things we look to.


For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"


2 Peter 2:16, 17


Although Peter was an eyewitness to the resurrection of Christ, he did not use his eyewitness testimony as the assurance that they were not following cleverly devised myths. Instead, he used his experience of witnessing Christ’s transfiguration before the Cross and Resurrection, when he heard from the Father "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”.


And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;

18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."


Mark 16: 17, 18


Here our Lord demonstrates not only the resurrection for the validity of Christ, but also that followers will pick up poisonous snakes, speak in new tongues, drink deadly poisons, and heal the sick. I don’t think this was meant to be an exhaustive list. Basically, He is saying that followers will continue to do miracles.

Jesus said an adulterous generation seeks a sign and then told them the only sign they would get is the sign of Jonah. Aka the Resurrection. Since Pentecost the Gospel has come with Power.

What our Lord was condemning was that the adulterous generation was DEMANDING a sign! Signs are only given as a gift from God. We cannot demand them from God as if He is our servant. An example of this, was that I was once talking to an atheist, and he said, “If God exists then why does he appear to me right now?!” That is putting demands on God. He chooses what evidence He will use to prove Himself. To those Jews, He would only give them the resurrection of His Son. To Peter, He gave more. He also revealed His Son to him in all His majesty. But Peter did not demand for this. God freely gave it. Let God be God. He revealed Himself to Moses on Munt Sinai. But the others were not allowed to see Him. He parted the Red Sea. But did not part the Red Sea in subsequent generations. He chooses who He would reveal more. We make no demands on Him. In the list of miracles I presented, not in one did the people demand a miracle.

The miracles of Christ were to prove Who He is. The miracles in Acts of the Apostles was to prove the Power of the the message the Gospel.

So are the Catholic miracles. They all point to Jesus. If I had the time, I would show that to you more in depth. But even the miracles concerning Mary ultimately point to Jesus. If a miracle shows that Mary is the mother of God, then that shows that Jesus is God, since Mary is only the mother of God because she is the mother of Jesus. If only those who wholeheartedly follow Jesus may have incorruptible corpses, then this shows that Jesus is totally unique from Muhammad or Buddha, since no body of a follower of Muhammad or Buddha has been incorruptible. If a Eucharist turns into a piece of human tissue then, sure, it shows that the Eucharist is more than a symbol. But it also shows the Jesus is more than just a man. The healing of Ven Solanus Casey and St Andre are miraculous, but they would be the first to say that all the glory is given to Jesus.

 

[concretecamper]

Auto correct choices for isn't

Didn't don't ain't inst can't won't
Is it wasn't

 

[Albion]

I thought that Protestants believe that we should only believe what is in the Bible.

No, that's not the meaning of Sola Scriptura. I realize that it's often misunderstood, but no.

I can give you some examples where the Bible clearly states that the Cross and Resurrection are not the only things we look to.

Please do.

 

[prodromos]

Auto correct choices for isn't

Didn't don't ain't inst can't won't
Is it wasn't

That's if you correctly type "isn't" in the first place.
I knew it wasn't what Albion intended to write because it was completely out of character for him to state something he knew to be untrue, plus it didn't jive with what he had been posting.
I don't often agree with Albion's views but has never come across to me as a liar.

 

[concretecamper]

I knew it wasn't what Albion intended to write because it was completely out of character for him to state something he knew to be untrue

as a Catholic who knows the faith, this is not my experience.

 

[packermann]

What does this even mean? Jesus is the truth. The catholic church possess the only full truth of God?

I do not see why this statement would be controversial. Suppose your church believes in believers-only baptism and a Lutheran church believes in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. So both you and the Lutheran believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith only, the physical return of Christ, etc. But you disagree on baptism. So maybe you agree 80% of the time but disagree 20 % of the time, such as on baptism. Now, do you believe you are right. I would think so, otherwise, you should become Lutheran. Now, since you believe you a right and that Lutheran is wrong, don’t you think that you possess a fuller truth than the Lutheran. Of course, you do! It is human nature to think that our church is more right than all the others! It does not mean that the other churches are fully wrong.

The mummified remains of a women that have been preserved in wax is hardly a miracle.

I don’t think that wax can work better than embalming fluid. How can wax preserve a body for centuries?

Neither is a past down account of someone seeing mary.

This is not true. St Bernadette saw and talked to Mary. At Fatima, the children saw and talked to Mary.

A pastor dropped human flesh on the ground during eucharist? What? Are we to believe that is the flesh of Christ?

He dropped a piece of bread that then turned into a piece of human flesh. And although this piece was kept for 500 years, scientists recently examined it and discovered that it was a piece of a heart of a man who just RECENTLY died.

These are stories. Stories passed down by generations as tradition.

The resurrection of Christ is an event that was passed down by generations – for 2,000 years! These events have happened within these last 200 years! If we are skeptical of events that happened within these last two centuries then how can we accept something that happened twenty centuries ago?

Because they don't happen. Not like this. These are manufactured. God does not operate that way. I'll say it. I'll be the bad guy.

Atheists also say that the resurrection of Christ was mannufatured. If something that only happened 100 years, with over 70,000 witnesses seeing that even, and a secular newspaper reported it as having happened is manufactured, then how we know that the resurrection of Christ that happened 2,000 with at most 513 witnesses was not manufactured?

Satan has the ability to create 'miracles' or sorcery.

Yes, of course he can. But Jesus had set up the criteria of when we can know the miracle is Satanic.
Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed the man so that he could speak and see. The crowds were astounded and asked, “Could this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “Only by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, does this man drive out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?
Matthew 22:22 - 26
Satan is not stupid. He does not work against himself. Satan does not drive out Satan. Even a non-Catholic on this forum has written that he has known people who were visited by Mary and converted to Christ because of that. How can this apparition be of the devil? His kingdom would be divided against itself. In the Lady of Guadalupe miracle, over 9 million Aztecs left their Satanic religions and turned to Christ. The Aztec religion worshipped the Serpent-God (Satan?) and they would offer human sacrifices. How could Satan prefer these Aztecs to turn to Christ, even with Catholicism, than to be Satan worhippers? Only the staunchest anti-Catholic would say that! But I think that most Protestants would see it better to be a Catholic Christian than no Christian at all, much less being one that offer human sacrifices.

If Aaron and Moses are operating by God's authority, then who made the sorcerer's staves serpents? The devil. Outside of this context an individual that could throw down a staff and turn it into a snake would be feared and followed. Some may even say it would be 'an act of the gods'.

The acts of the sorcerers produced no genuine good. Jesus' miracles did a genuine good. So even though His enemies accused Jesus doing these by the works of the devil, He pointed out that Satan does not drive out Satan. Most Catholics and Protestants can agree that geuine good can out of most of the miracles I listed. The miracle at Fatima happened when the country was threatened by atheism. The miracle of Guadalupe converted millions of Aztecs to Christ. Ven Solanus Casey and St Andre healed millions. Many have been healed at Lourdes.

Likewise who talks to apparitions of the dead? Familiar spirits and wizards. Look into the witch of endor Samuel 28.
Lev 19:31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
So if God doesn't even want you asking 'mediums' to talk to the dead, why do you think God would send the dead to talk to us?

The witch of Endor conjured up the dead. That is magic. To conjur up even God is a sin. He is not at our back and call. The sin is acting like God.

But if what you say it true, that any talking to the dead is witchcraft and conden by the Bible as a sin, the the consequences of this would cause all of Christianity to fall because of this verse:

Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
Matthew 17:3

So was Jesus a medium? He talked to two people who have been dead. If you say that talking to dead people is a form of witchcraft, then Jesus would have been a witch. Good Golly Miss Molly!

But if the sin is conjuring up the dead because conjuring up the dead is something only God could do, then Jesus did not sin, since He is God. Let God be God! If God chooses to send Moses and Elijah down to Jesus, Peter, James and John and talk to Jesus, then He can do so! It is not sin if God does it! If He can send Moses and Elijah then He can certainly send Mary or any of the other saints in heaven.

 

[prodromos]

I don’t think that wax can work better than embalming fluid. How can wax preserve a body for centuries?

Their bodies aren't preserved by wax, the decay is hidden by wax. This seems to be well known by everyone except Catholics.

 

[prodromos]

He dropped a piece of bread that then turned into a piece of human flesh. And although this piece was kept for 500 years, scientists recently examined it and discovered that it was a piece of a heart of a man who just RECENTLY died.

The fact that the flesh was determined to be dead would alone preclude it from being Christ's flesh.

 

[concretecamper]

Their bodies aren't preserved by wax, the decay is hidden by wax. This seems to be well known by everyone except Catholics.

To be fair, wax cannot hide decomposition. Many incorrupt bodies remain pliable yet exhibit some breakdown in certain areas and therefore the need of wax. And the Orthodox also have claimed incorrupt bodies.

 

[concretecamper]

The fact that the flesh was determined to be dead would alone preclude it from being Christ's flesh.

Christ died.

 

[Albion]

I do not see why this statement would be controversial….It is human nature to think that our church is more right than all the others! It does not mean that the other churches are fully wrong.

Yes, I get it, but it probably did take your explanation here to make it clear.

When we say things like "fullness of truth," it has such a theological ring to it that all sorts of ideas run through the mind about what could be the intent of the phrase.

 

[prodromos]

To be fair, wax cannot hide decomposition. Many incorrupt bodies remain pliable yet exhibit some breakdown in certain areas and therefore the need of wax. And the Orthodox also have claimed incorrupt bodies.

We don't use wax, ever, nor do we embalm to preserve the flesh. Your 'incorrupt' Saints have been given the false appearance of not having suffered any decay at all.
Incorrupt for us means the flesh has not decayed, not that it hasn't dried out or shrunk. There are some examples where their flesh has not shown any deterioration such as was the case with St Nektarios for 20 years after his burial. His hair and fingernails continued to grow as if he were still alive. When they next opened his tomb however, his flesh had completely dissolved, and it was revealed that it was his wish that his relics be distributed, which would not have happened if his body remained whole as it had for two decades.
The left hand of St Mary Magdalene is completely whole and maintains body temperature to this day. The bones of many other Saints smell of sweet myrrh. Some, like those of St Demetrius, continuously exude myrrh.

 

[prodromos]

Christ died.

Can He die again?

 

[concretecamper]

Can He die again?

no

 

[concretecamper]

Your 'incorrupt' Saints have been given the false appearance of not having suffered any decay at all.

Nope, wax is sometimes used and it is disclosed when it is. You make it sound like deception is involved.

 

[packermann]

Their bodies aren't preserved by wax, the decay is hidden by wax. This seems to be well known by everyone except Catholics.

Perhaps the most famous incorruptible is a young shepherdess, Saint Bernadette. She died at age 35, but achieved acclaim among Catholics for having been visited by the Virgin Mary. The Virgin instructed Bernadette to dig in a spot at Lourdes, France. A well sprung up and came to be regarded as a healing place.

Bernadette died in 1879 and was exhumed under candidacy of beatification in 1909. Her corpse was uncorrupted. She was reinterred in her crypt and dug up again in 1919 and 1923. Upon the third exhumation, she was dissected. Her organs were still soft and malleable [source: Fortean Times]. She was placed on display in a reliquary, where she remains today, at the convent of St. Gildard at Nevers, France.

Bernadette stands (or lies) as a sterling example of incorruptibility. But her corpse also provides ammunition for skeptics. Her hands and face appear incredibly lifelike, but this is due to a wax covering. Beneath the waxy exterior, her skin has browned. While there's no scientific explanation for why her body would have remained so well-preserved without the aid of embalming or environmental conditions, she shows that all bodies will eventually rot. Just how long that process takes, however, may depend on any number of factors.

How can a corpse be incorruptible?

1. This site is NOT a Catholic site, and yet it said the wax for prevention of the browning
of the skin.

2. She died in 1879 and dug up for good on 1923. So she was incorruptible for 40 years without any benefit of this magic wax.

3. She was dissected and was found here organs were soft and maleable.

4. The author think that there is ammo in the wax but never implied that this is a scientific explanation why her body was has remained. The wax only implied that the body was browning. But the Catholic Church has never taught that incorruptible bodies never decompose. Eventually they do. There was been at one case where the body started to decompose after the person was canonized. This shows that the Lord only does it (at least in this case) to get the Church's attention for canonization.