Do miraculous healings happen today?

[Faith1960]

Yes the majority saw something, but significant numbers along-side them did not. Many Catholic “reporters” appear to have somehow discounted these “difficult” witness experiences.

Of course anti-Catholics would deny they had seen anything, that is to be expected.
Yet ardent Catholics wanted to see, yet some did not, even though standing next to agnostics who did.

What that means I do not know exactly.
But it doesn’t sound like a normal “miracle” to me.

As the wise riddle goes:
“What is the difference between fact and fiction?”

Answer:
“Only fiction has to make sense.”

So what instances if any, over the years, WERE true miracles?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Miracles do not have SOPs do they? In Saul’s trip to Damascus, he saw the light but not his companions although they did heard the voice. So it is possible that who gets to witness/see/feel/hear a miracle is decided divinely. In fact, a selected group that witness a miracle whereas others in the group did not would indicate a superior power that can selectively attentioned the correct targets. For example, in Acts 2:4-8, each hearer hear in his own native language. But if everyone gets to see/hear the same thing, then critics may just attribute it to some natural phenomena.

Sorry I don’t understand SOP?
I believe the Church has procedures now to rigorously rule out the likelihood of inexplicable phenomena being natural phenomena before prudentialy asserting the likelihood of divine intervention. This more modern approach would seem wiser than times past where God was seen at work in this way under every stone and in every whispering forest. This scientific approach appears to be based on the philosophic principle of Ochams Razor - we assume explanations that have the fewest and simplest causal factors.
The DOTS seems unlike Saul. At least his friends experienced something of what Saul alleged. But even Sauls experience is really an apparition and locution, not really paranormal phenomena or even a miracle it would seem.
The Church has never claimed to be able to finally discern if subjective apparitions are true, only that they can be worthy of belief. Catholics may reject their authenticity. I see no reason why Saul is any different.
As for selectivity… that itself suggests natural phenomenon is at work as nature is known to be random in its effects eg some survive an earthquake while people right next to them do not. Sure we can start bringing in superior powers and aliens… but that is multiplying causal factors merely to justify our preconceived world views and desperately supply meaning when in fact nobody knows. This is circular reasoning and Ochams Razor, if an accepted principle to avoid superstition by self-interested groups, would not accord.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So what instances if any, over the years, WERE true miracles?

Why put this one to me?

My simple point is that I personally do not see the DOTS as clearly in the class of paranormal phenomena due to contradictions between sincere witnesses that there was even an objective event that needs to be explained.

This is different from, say, the healing of the man born blind.
Even Jesus’s most ardent opponents could not deny the man was now able to see.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Why put this one to me?

My simple point is that I personally do not see the DOTS as clearly in the class of paranormal phenomena due to contradictions between sincere witnesses that there was even an objective event that needs to be explained.

This is different from, say, the healing of the man born blind.
Even Jesus’s most ardent opponents could not deny the man was now able to see.

The question for the most ardent opponents of Jesus was not whether the man born blind could now in fact see (which he plainly could) but whether this was in fact a miracle from the hand of God, or some sort of elaborate hoax. That is why the parents were called in to testify. Even with all of the eye witness reports and the man’s own testimony, they still did not consider this a miracle from the hand of God, but rather something they could not at the moment explain, but they were sure there was some devious non-miraculous explanation. (Sounds familiar, no?)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The question for the most ardent opponents of Jesus was not whether the man born blind could now in fact see (which he plainly could) but whether this was in fact a miracle from the hand of God, or some sort of elaborate hoax. That is why the parents were called in to testify. Even with all of the eye witness reports and the man’s own testimony, they still did not consider this a miracle from the hand of God, but rather something they could not at the moment explain, but they were sure there was some devious non-miraculous explanation. (Sounds familiar, no?)

I think you’ be missed the small point I am making, but thanks for agreeing that, as objective paranormal phenomena, tmbblind is in a different class from tdotsun.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The question for the most ardent opponents of Jesus was not whether the man born blind could now in fact see (which he plainly could) but whether this was in fact a miracle from the hand of God, or some sort of elaborate hoax. That is why the parents were called in to testify. Even with all of the eye witness reports and the man’s own testimony, they still did not consider this a miracle from the hand of God, but rather something they could not at the moment explain, but they were sure there was some devious non-miraculous explanation. (Sounds familiar, no?)

I think you’ be missed the small point I am making, but thanks for agreeing that, as objective paranormal phenomena, tmbblind is in a different class from tdotsun.

 

[ericc]

Sorry I don’t understand SOP?

Standard Operating Procedure. Miracles don’t come in prepackaged form. Each miracle needs to be assess on its own merit.

I believe the Church has procedures now to rigorously rule out the likelihood of inexplicable phenomena being natural phenomena before prudentialy asserting the likelihood of divine intervention. This more modern approach would seem wiser than times past where God was seen at work in this way under every stone and in every whispering forest. This scientific approach appears to be based on the philosophic principle of Ochams Razor - we assume explanations that have the fewest and simplest causal factors.

Can’t God work through natural phenomenas to tell you something? Just something as innocent as a raincloud following you where ever you go.

The DOTS seems unlike Saul. At least his friends experienced something of what Saul alleged. But even Sauls experience is really an apparition and locution, not really paranormal phenomena or even a miracle it would seem.
The Church has never claimed to be able to finally discern if subjective apparitions are true, only that they can be worthy of belief. Catholics may reject their authenticity. I see no reason why Saul is any different.

Don’t apparitions and miracles belong to the same category of “supernatural”? An apparition that can’t be explained by science would I’d think belong to the same group as miracle - unexplained by science. God is showing you something in his own way. It could be vision, audio, dream.The Bible show dreams/vision as a frequently used process for God to communicate to his prophets and selected folks.

As for selectivity… that itself suggests natural phenomenon is at work as nature is known to be random in its effects eg some survive an earthquake while people right next to them do not. Sure we can start bringing in superior powers and aliens… but that is multiplying causal factors merely to justify our preconceived world views and desperately supply meaning when in fact nobody knows. This is circular reasoning and Ochams Razor, if an accepted principle to avoid superstition by self-interested groups, would not accord.

Not for languages, each one hearing their own language. No randomness involved here.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

ericc:

Don’t apparitions and miracles belong to the same category of “supernatural”? An apparition that can’t be explained by science would I’d think belong to the same group as miracle - unexplained by science. God is showing you something in his own way. It could be vision, audio, dream.The Bible show dreams/vision as a frequently used process for God to communicate to his prophets and selected folks.

You are correct in the sense that an apparition is “supernatural.” But the reason the vision of Saul in Acts is different from the visions of Ecclesiastical visionaries, is Scriptural. Sacred Scripture is the Word of God. Therefore, the conversion of Saul with the apparition is considered unquestionable and a part of Divine Revelation. The Ecclesiastical visionaries since that time, do actually involve supernatural phenomena, but not necessarily in the same sense as an approved miracle.

For example Our Lady of Guadalupe was an apparition. But the miracle of the roses, and the image of Our Lady on the Tilma are attested miracles of the Church. They were witnessed and testified to by a bishop of the Church. The Bishop therefore built the Church which the “apparition of Our Lady” had requested, by her servant/visionary Juan Diego. There are many other examples of similar interactions between visionaries and their message to the Church. For example today we celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday the week after Easter for the same reason.

So, although apparitions are TRUE expressions of supernatural intervention, they are not classified in the same way as miracles, by the Church. However, there is usually a miracle which accompanies these apparitions, which are TRUE ecclesiastical miracles, and which further testify to the Divine nature of the Apparition.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Standard Operating Procedure. Miracles don’t come in prepackaged form. Each miracle needs to be assess on its own merit.

Can’t God work through natural phenomenas to tell you something? Just something as innocent as a raincloud following you where ever you go.

Don’t apparitions and miracles belong to the same category of “supernatural”? An apparition that can’t be explained by science would I’d think belong to the same group as miracle - unexplained by science. God is showing you something in his own way. It could be vision, audio, dream.The Bible show dreams/vision as a frequently used process for God to communicate to his prophets and selected folks.

Not for languages, each one hearing their own language. No randomness involved here.

If everybody was clear as to how “supernatural”, “natural”, “miracle” and “paranormal phenomena” are to be defined and distinguished perhaps we would have some hope of identifying what is true in your above views!

I tend to stick to “paranormal phenomenon” to discuss the currently inexplicable because its the least tautological and controversial in definition.