Catholics that don't believe in miracles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eddie18

Guest
I recently read a quote in a book called “The Face of God” from a Catholic author in Italy named Paul Badde. In it he writes, "I knew that in large parts of the Church, it had been a long time since miracles were believed in, even by many priests and bishops, even in Rome—not even everyone in the Vatican believed in them…”.

Needless to say I was shocked when I read this!

In reading some of the discussions on this website, I’ve also gotten the same impression; that there are Catholics out there that either don’t believe in miracles, or don’t value them.

This should go without saying, but HOW on earth can a Catholic not believe, or even doubt for one second, that miracles exist? God performed them through Moses so that he would be believed, and Jesus performed them so that He would be believed. The lives of the Saints are absolutely filled with them, and we have plenty of proof for all to see to this day, such as with the Miracle Fatima, healings at Lourdes, the Incorruptibles, Eucharistic miracles, the stigmata, and others. And many Catholics don’t know it, but the First Vatican Council anathematizes those who don’t believe in miracles, and Pope St. Pius X made it mandatory for all clergy and professors to swear by in his Oath against Modernism:

First Vatican Council (1870):

“If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in sacred scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.”

The Oath against Modernism (Pope St. Pius X, 1910)

“To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries:
….I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.”

Obviously, a person cannot possibly call themselves Catholic and not believe in miracles at the same time.

Some people ask, “Why aren’t there very many miracles today?”. It’s hard to say for certain, but Scripture gives us a good hint:

“And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief” Matt 13:58
 
I believe only in the miracles that are approved by the Catholic Church. Other than that, you have to use your light of reason and science to discern the “miracle”. Sometimes, miracles are caused my fallen angels to deceive us. For example, the Eucharist miracle of Julia Kim of Naju was caused by fallen angels.

 
Last edited:
Sometimes people believe (and not very intelligently or without thinking it through) that by taking the miraculous elements out of the faith, that it makes them seem more credible to the secular world. It’s a decision that is based more on emotions and the desire to feel accepted than it is on internal consistency or logic. The Gospel is chalk full of miracles, including the Resurrection itself which is foundational to the redemption of mankind, so if there are no miracles, it would be a greater display of integrity by the individual to apostatize.

Clergy are the same sinful and unworthy human beings as laity, so yes, unfortunately, they are susceptible to nonsense as well. This is no cause for alarm or to have your peace disturbed.
 
Last edited:
Miracles were necessary at a time to convince the power of God when humans were in the adolescent stages of spirituality.Now we have matured by the coming of Jesus and subsequent establishment of the Church.No need for the miracles nor is it of much use also to convince the existence of God now. 100% of the so called miracles I know(Mary appeared,heavenly voice heard,blood oozing out on fridays from the sculpture etc.) were pure fraud only.Miracle of healing is found to be merely on account of the resulting physical changes if possible due to the changed mental condition of the individual on account of prayer.
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
Some people ask, “Why aren’t there very many miracles today?”. It’s hard to say for certain, but Scripture gives us a good hint:

“And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief” Matt 13:58
Click to expand...
True. And this is because miracles cannot be worked in the presence of unbelievers. It’s not a matter of Jesus being too proud to work them in their presence. It’s just not possible, because unbelief “blocks” miracles.

Even Jesus could not work miracles in the presence of unbelievers, as is evident from the fact that Jesus took only a few true believers with him when He went in to raise the little girl:
When He arrived at the house of Jairus, He did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child’s father and mother. (Luke 8:51)
Click to expand...
Furthermore, this is also why an unbeliever’s demand for evidence can never be met. “Show me a miracle then,” demands the unbeliever, not knowing that it is his own unbelief that makes this impossible.

Can someone who does not believe in miracles, still be authentically religious? In my opinion the answer is … [inaudible]. 🤫
 
Eddie18 said:
Some people ask, “Why aren’t there very many miracles today?”.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding, there are tons of miracles out there. Just about every canonization and beatification (except for martyrs who can be automatically beatified) involves at least one miracle.

People tend to not advertise it when they have a genuine miracle. They don’t want or need the publicity, or dozens of people discussing it or poking at them.

Last week I went to a retreat at which a person who was cured as a child through a miracle of a now-canonized saint (the miracle was one that was relied upon for the canonization) gave testimony about their illness and the resulting miracle.

A few months ago I had a funeral director tell me in great detail how he was cured of a particular illness as a child by his mother using a “first class relic” of a particular saint which she had found on the tram car, of all places. The mom felt something hit her shoe, she picked it up and saw it was labeled “First class relic of St. (name)” and decided to use it to try to help her child.

These are just ordinary US folks, they wouldn’t stand out at Walmart and they live ordinary lives apart from these cures and don’t talk about their “miracles” all the time…I’m sure there are many more.
 
Last edited:
joseie said:
100% of the so called miracles I know(Mary appeared,heavenly voice heard,blood oozing out on fridays from the sculpture etc.) were pure fraud only.Miracle of healing is found to be merely on account of the resulting physical changes if possible due to the changed mental condition of the individual on account of prayer.
Click to expand...
Because you think miracles have ended you pronounce that all modern miracles are fraud?

100%? You seem awfully sure of yourself. How do you know that what you say is true?
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
Because you don’t think miracles are end you pronounce that all modern miracles are fraud?

100%? You seem oftly sure of yourself. How do you know that what you say is true?
Click to expand...
This is one reason why people who feel they have received genuine miracles don’t talk about them.
Some know-it-all comes out of the woodwork and pronounces them a fraud or otherwise picks at them.
Who needs the aggravation?

And to joseie: Who died and made you the authority on this matter?
 
Last edited:
When you say “Catholics that don’t believe in miracles” do you mean people not believing in specific “miracles” or not believing in miracles generally? Big difference.
 
I also think we need to differentiate between Catholics who don’t believe miracles that are part of the deposit of faith, for example transubstantiation and the miracles performed in the Gospels by Jesus, and Catholics who don’t believe miracles that aren’t part of the deposit of faith, such as Lourdes or Fatima.

If you don’t believe in things that are part of the deposit of faith, you’re risking your status as a Catholic.
But there is no requirement for Catholics to believe in miracles or apparitions that are not part of the deposit of faith.
 
So you’re saying the Chuch is perpetrating a fraud in terms of miracles? Wow.
 
Looking at the quotes in the OP, they are clearly referring to miracles in general and in Scripture.

For specific miracles like that at Fatima, the Church typically labels them “worthy of belief”, and does not insist that we believe them.
 
Good point. Yes, they should be approved by the Church… Lots of evil and fraud out there!
 
So you’re saying that the Church no longer needs miracles? Do you consider yourself Catholic?

It’s impossible for us to know in some cases when a miracle has occurred and when one has not. Yes, there are frauds out there obviously. In these cases, Catholics only need to believe that a miracle was possible.
 
Interesting points. I thought it would be interesting to add how God seems to have made an exception when nonbelievers were known to show up for the miracle at Fatima with the intention of laughing at it and disproving it. They left as believers - some of them submitted testimonials confirming the miracle and were instantly converted afterward.
 
I presume that if I say that I don’t believe in any of the modern times miracles,I am not committing any sin.
Except the healing miracle,does any body know any cases where the claim that it is a miracle is scientifically proved as correct ?
In the case of the healing miracle, just consider that the prayer has been answered and the healing took place in the natural way , rather than through a miracle.
 
Often in the past things were dubbed “miracles” simply because people didn’t know how or why something worked or happened. Today, there are still many things we don’t understand that aren’t necessarily miracles but I am certain that some things genuinely are.
 
I certainly agree with you on this!

Though I would also say it’s important to make the distinction between major miracles (first-class) that are tangible with evidence left behind, and minor miracles (second class) which most people don’t see and can’t be easily proven afterward.

For instance, personal healings and other miracles often used to confirm canonizations are in most cases second-class miracles, and while Catholics believe in them of course, they are often not convincing to many nonbelievers.

Major miracles such as the miracle at Fatima, incorrupt Saints, or a Saint raising someone from the dead, are the miracles that provide tangible or empirical evidence, and it is these that are only found in the Catholic Church and make believers of people. It is these major miracles that seem to have become rare.
 
Agreed. That is a good reason why for major miracles we wait for the Church to investigate them and approve them as worthy of belief before we believe them. After the miracle at Fatima, it took the Church 13 years to investigate it before they publicly approved it as worthy of belief in 1930.

But for smaller astounding events, I simply believe that a miracle was possible and leave it at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top