Ok, this is a huge topic Nihil, so I hope you understand that if my replies are complex it is not because I am trying to lead you in circles, but this is IMO, not something to be casual about.
It depends what you mean by the word miracle. I don’t know in what sense you are using the word.
Well let’s take the water to wine conversion for example. Historically, that is, with the use of the historical method, this event can never be rendered likely. Using the principle of analogy, we see that no such events occur today. So methodologically, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that this event was likely using the historical method.
What we can say, for example, is that the entirety of Christian belief for which there is vast evidence is enough to render the event probable as a matter of faith. But in and of itself, no.
Comparing this with something such as the talking snake in the garden, we have a couple of things going on here: first, historically, we cannot render it probable just as with the water into wine conversion. This would differ from the conversion to me, however, since we have good reason to believe it is allegorical and symbolic rather than historical because of the type of story involved - this story explains why man hates snakes. It is rather similar in that sense to other mythological tales like that of the Greek story of Arachne, who was turned into a spider because she enjoyed weaving. Further, since the talking snake is not a fundamental piece of Christian belief, we cannot justify it through faith and the evidence for the faith.
Yes, let’s move back to the natural means vs. supernatural means part of the discussion. Let me discuss the risen Christ for a moment here. In my view, miracles can only occur naturally. What this would mean for the risen Christ is that if he was risen in human bodily form, it would mean his heart was pumping and blood was flowing through his veins.
I do not concern myself with what constitutes a saint and what does not. It is just not a subject that I know much about nor care to analyze at the moment. The only thing I would add about it is that obviously anyone who does good works in the name of the Lord is a person that I respect.
Your historical-critical exegesis strays into Protestant territory. I recall Pope Benedict writing in the first part of Jesus of Nazareth about how the purely historical-critical method is completely lacking as a means to come to faith, as it works from secular biases and assumptions to come to secular conclusions. To put it bluntly, it is the Bible divorced from faith.
What is the Eucharist then? It certainly doesn’t fit with the materialist scientific view of the world. Is that a ‘natural’ miracle (whatever that means). Do you believe that the Eucharist really, substantially becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Why believe that this is possible with God, and not making some lowly saint heal or fly?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Throughout the course of church history there are miracles so well authenticated that their truth cannot be denied.
Thus St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch speak of the miracles wrought in their time.
Origen says he has seen examples of demons expelled, many cures effected, and prophecies fulfilled (Against Celsus I, II, III, VII).
Irenaeus taunts the magic-workers of his day that “they cannot give sight to the blind nor hearing to the deaf, nor put to flight demons; and they are so far from raising the dead as Our Lord did, and the Apostles, by prayer, and as is most frequently done among the brethren, that they even think it impossible” (Against Heresies II).
St. Athanasius writes the life of St. Anthony from what he himself saw and heard from one who had long been in attendance on the saint.
St. Justin in his second apology to the Roman Senate appeals to miracles wrought in Rome and well attested.
Tertullian challenges the heathen magistrates to work the miracles which the Christians perform (Apol., xxiii);
St. Paulinus, in the life of St. Ambrose, narrates what he has seen.
St. Augustine gives a long list of extraordinary miracles wrought before his own eyes, mentions names and particulars, describes them as well known, and says they happened within two years before he published the written account (City of God XXI.8; Retract., I, xiii).
St. Jerome wrote a book to confute Vigilantius and prove that relics should be venerated, by citing miracles wrought through them.
Theodoret published the life of St. Simon Stylites while the saint was living, and thousands were alive who had been eyewitnesses of what had happened.
St. Victor, Bishop of Vita, wrote the history of the African confessors whose tongues had been cut out by command of Hunneric, and who yet retained the power of speech, and challenges the reader to go to Reparatus, one of them then living at the palace of the Emperor Zeno.
From his own experience Sulpicius Severus wrote the life of St. Martin of Tours.
St. Gregory the Great writes to St. Augustine of Canterbury not to be elated by the many miracles God was pleased to work through his hands for the conversion of the people of Britain.
…but of course, they were just backwards, superstitious old fools; not nearly as enlightened as we are today. Poor ignorant Fathers of the Church. Too bad they didn’t understand God like you do.
. But maybe there is a way to improve upon what Aquinas had to say with a drop of “personalism” or maybe even phenomonology, as you mentioned.
I’ve only taken a few philosophy classes, one of which was partially phenomenology, so I’m not really qualified.
