I prefer the definition based on the Latin. A newborn child is a miracle, something to be marveled at, even if the conception and birth was normal.As in “something not explicable by the laws of nature”, but more often “something not yet explained” followed by “rats, someone’s now explained it”.
It depends on how we define ‘miracle’. Was St Paul’s Damascus road experience a miracle, i.e., was he really touched by God in some extraordinary manner? What about the resurrection? I’m not sure if you’re saying all miracles are explainable without recourse to the supernatural or if miracles are just possibly not operative today.As in “something not explicable by the laws of nature”, but more often “something not yet explained” followed by “rats, someone’s now explained it”.
How about the restoration of an amputated limb?
Being “touched by God in some extraordinary manner” is not incompatible with an ordinary falling off a horse.
What about it?
Miracles have happened to friends of mine. The phenomena associated with them are naturally explicable. The effects on their lives have been fantastic.
How about the restoration of an amputated limb?/]
I’m amazed you can ask that question! It has never been known in the history of mankind for a human limb to reappear gradually let alone instanteously…
I’m amazed you don’t ask the question. It would depend on a lot of factors, such as why it regrew, who caused it to regrow, etc.
I wonder why you wrote this:
I didn’t write that.I wonder why you wrote this: "No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc."
What does that mean? Either God gave St Paul some sort of direct revelation which is unavailable to the rest of us unless He chooses to do the same for us, or he didn’t. Falling off a horse is now a miracle?
What about the resurrection? It was either a miracle or it couldn’t be a resurrection!!??
I have no idea what this means. Positive thinking vs the actual power of God? I have no doubt many or most modern day miracles are false but to deny miracles out of hand would be to deny the revelation of our faith in the end, IMO.
Who has denied miracles out of hand?
Well, I apologize if I’m reading your comments wrong, but naturally explicable phenomena are by definition not miraculous. A resurrection, OTOH, would fit the definition of a miracle.
No, not by definition. On what definition are you relying? I’ve seen miracles take place with naturally explicable phenomena.
OK, since I’m not sure what you mean, could you give an example?
I have a friend who had reached rock bottom in her descent into substance abuse. At the very moment she was contemplating the worst, she saw written in the concrete sidewalk the words “I love you anyway.” That moment was the turning point of her life, and she has now been clean and sober for 22 years. She does not believe God magically made the words appear at that moment, but she does believe that God spoke to her through these (naturalistically explainable) words at the moment she needed most to hear that message. For her it was purely and simply a miracle that saved her life, even though the circumstances could be explained. I have no reason to disagree or doubt her.
This is the statement from post 351: “The development of doctrine in the light of new discoveries is consistent with the fundamental teaching of the Church.”I agree with your statement, but perhaps tonyrey’s reference wasn’t to divine revelation.
Perhaps the reference was to something like the “discovery” of IVF. 50 years ago there was no Church teaching about it since it didn’t exist at the time. Now there is a teaching.
This is the original statement from post 351: “The development of doctrine in the light of new discoveries is consistent with the fundamental teaching of the Church.”
Instead of your morning Pepsi.
You wrote:
You seemed to imply that this is a difficulty that has not been surmounted…
Reread post 319. I used quotation marks.
Divine Revelation will never be rewritten but the Pope has stated that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine if it is correctly interpreted. The doctrines of the Church have often been refined, explained and given more precision by successive Councils, e.g. the nature of the Blessed Trinity.This is the original statement from post 351: “The development of doctrine in the light of new discoveries is consistent with the fundamental teaching of the Church.”
My apology. I thought you were referring to Catholic Church doctrine. But obviously you are not. Please be careful. There are a few people who wear a Catholic label who are pushing for the Catholic Church to rewrite Divine Revelation.