Heavenly Visitors Heal Sick Woman - JPII Miracle Testimony

[BoomerangToo]

I read an amazing story about a woman who was healed of a life-threatening illness while her friend prayed over her. It’s in “Marian Helper” magazine: Marian Helper Winter-2017-18

The format of “Marian Helper” is not very good. I copied the article, I hope you can read it. It’s worth reading:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ethereality]

An amazing story, but there are many questions …

How do we know this story is true? I know neither the magazine, the author, nor these women.

Why does God do or allow this so rarely, and require us to “just assume that what you read is true”? (This can get us believing false stories. I read a book about Our Lady of Akita, and recently asked a Japanese priest who told me he didn’t know whether it was true, that he’s heard claims the nuns falsified situations, and that only the Akita bishop approved it, but the Japanese council has not approved it and may still be investigating. Yet if you follow Christian sources in the US, they speak as if the events of Akita truly occurred as described by the 101 Foundation book and were certainly from God.)

Why won’t God heal me miraculously? Why won’t God make it clear to me what I need to do to be healed? Why won’t God heal others we pray for, or communicate clearly with us what needs to be done for them to be healed? Why doesn’t God communicate anything beyond what’s in the Bible? Why does God insist on so much uncertainty (again, for example, always making it unverifiable, such as giving the vision to only this woman, instead of the entire medical staff – or even, instead of the physician who initially examined her)?

Overall, looking at “background information to determine probability” as William Lane Craig says (a philosopher and Christian apologist), namely how God appears never to do things like this, and stories like these are always remote and unverifiable, it seems more reasonable to assume it didn’t happen than that it did.

Just as an aside, the author is incorrect to call it a miracle: The vision was private revelation. Moreover, her healing was providential, not miraculous, because she received medical care.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting my questions don’t have answers. For example, Jesus tells us that “the pure of heart will see God”. Perhaps God will communicate with us if we can sufficiently detach ourselves from the desire to sin (if that’s what purity of heart is), and for this reason Jesus tells us to “seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you”.

 

[BoomerangToo]

@ethereality
Well, you certainly sucked all the air out of the room! Peace be with you!

 

[Kei]

The power of prayer correlates to righteousness.

Certainly these things are things to look into, which is why we have a very strict process in the Church before something is declared a miracle by the Church after much review.

This wasn’t a public miracle but still could count as a private one.

What’s funny is I don’t recall very many claims of healing miracles when asking to be healed for yourself. I believe it is almost always from another’s prayer, or sometimes after saying “I will give my life for you as a priest/brother/etc if you restore my eyesight” (which is the story of a saint whose name I do not recall) or something like that.
I think this has something to do with righteousness being submission to God’s Will, and faith being borne of love.

 

[ethereality]

we have a very strict process in the Church

I haven’t seen that. It seems inferior to the scientific method: They don’t publish their study or the people involved. Effectively it is an appeal to their own authority, not reliance on reason.

This wasn’t a public miracle but still could count as a private one.

Miracles either occur or they don’t; they do not have ‘categories’ of ‘public’ and ‘private’.

I don’t recall very many claims of healing miracles when asking to be healed for yourself.

The majority of miraculous healing in the Gospel is people seeking it for themselves.

You are in agreement with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, though, that if God permits suffering then it is for our good.

 

[Kei]

I haven’t seen that. It seems inferior to the scientific method: They don’t publish their study or the people involved. Effectively it is an appeal to their own authority, not reliance on reason.

Hm, they usually publish some key facts concerning the miracle, etc. Their own criteria shouldn’t be difficult to find.
Your comparison to the scientific method implies you aren’t looking at the concern properly. The scientific method involves empiricism, but miracles of these sort are usually not something that is repeatable. Say someone’s arm gets healed from being broken or something. Are you supposed to break their arm and then heal it again? If so, then that would be like relegating God to a machine or a machinations of the natural order (not to mention breaking the poor guy’s arm again). The nature of miracle is quite different, and requires a quite different investigation from the scientific method. If I had to say, as a layman, it would be more akin to historical investigations than scientific ones.

Miracles either occur or they don’t; they do not have ‘categories’ of ‘public’ and ‘private’.

Well, if a miracle is public and seen by the, well, public, then it would be public. If it is done in, well, private, then it would be private.
Saying there’s no categories because it happened or didn’t is bit like saying blue tinted windows are not a thing–windows either exist or do not.

The majority of miraculous healing in the Gospel is people seeking it for themselves.

Usually what we see is healing via someone with the gift of healing, like an Apostle or even Jesus Himself.
In this case, it is the healer working on their behalf, and not the one needing healing. I imagine they prayed much without avail before having the assistance of the healer.

Indeed, suffering is seen as very important, and mortification is even suggested.

 

[ethereality]

The scientific method involves empiricism, but miracles of these sort are usually not something that is repeatable

You’ve missed my point: Science publishes their findings so that others may scrutinize it to strengthen the conclusion. Instead of seeing what doctors worldwide have to say (e.g. about St. Teresa of Calcutta’s miracles), they ask a secret panel who conclude, “We can’t think of a natural explanation,” then the Church proclaims that because they say there isn’t, then there definitely isn’t.

if a miracle is public and seen by the, well, public, then it would be public. If it is done in, well, private, then it would be private.

A miracle here either happened or didn’t, “full stop.” You can’t say ‘well it was a private miracle’ to insist that it was a miracle. She received medical care, hence a natural explanation is possible, hence it wasn’t a miracle, by definition.

Usually what we see is healing via someone with the gift of healing, like an Apostle or even Jesus Himself.

Jesus is supposed to be (or ‘be in’) the Eucharist, so we should be healed when praying with faith and receiving the Eucharist, or else God as Father should explain to us why we are not. Otherwise the word ‘Father’ is meaningless and you might as well call the First Person merely ‘Creator’ and ‘Master’ instead.

I agree with you that we should accept our suffering to grow in character, not rebel in spiteful wrath against it.

 

[oldgraymare2]

Just as in the story that’s presented here, God can use others to heal us.

He can work through others, using them to help us.

This has been my own personal experience.

I think that God will do what He’s going to do, and that we personally shouldn’t limit Him to how we think that He should do things, and that we should keep an open mind as to how He might act in our lives. That’s what I personally think.

 

[Kei]

You’ve missed my point: Science publishes their findings so that others may scrutinize it to strengthen the conclusion. Instead of seeing what doctors worldwide have to say (e.g. about St. Teresa of Calcutta’s miracles), they ask a secret panel who conclude, “We can’t think of a natural explanation,” then the Church proclaims that because they say there isn’t, then there definitely isn’t.

Hm? They call upon various doctors and usually various specifics of the case are released. I wouldn’t say it’s very secretive.

A miracle here either happened or didn’t, “full stop.” You can’t say ‘well it was a private miracle’ to insist that it was a miracle. She received medical care, hence a natural explanation is possible, hence it wasn’t a miracle, by definition.

That’s an odd way of defining miracle.
In the Church there are varying levels of things and certainties. For instance, you are not required to believe in private revelation, even if it is declared authentic.
You are not under any need to believe in this as a miracle.
Perhaps referring to it as a miracle is obscuring the fact, it was not merely a healing but an apparition.

Jesus is supposed to be (or ‘be in’) the Eucharist, so we should be healed when praying with faith and receiving the Eucharist, or else God as Father should explain to us why we are not. Otherwise the word ‘Father’ is meaningless and you might as well call the First Person merely ‘Creator’ and ‘Master’ instead.

I don’t believe this follows logically at all. I don’t mean to be harsh, but I don’t think this is an argument.
The idea that you’re supposed to be physically healed in receiving the Eucharist in faith isn’t necessarily true. It could happen, but I do not see why it must. Similarly, receiving the Eucharist in an improper state may bring physical ill, but not necessarily. However, it does bring spiritual good and if received improperly in a state of sin, it further condemns. Similarly, I don’t see how that at all affects the Name of the Father. It seems as though you think God owes us, when it is completely the opposite!

 

[dann]

Well you really well thought your response.

 

[dann]

Yes saint Paul . admonished the cor. 11:27-32,
Yes the cor. Were always being corrected.
Repeating the pass over meal. Is the communion fellowship Eucharist ceremony.
Catholics count on this verse and particular commentary to justify the real presence.
And when not doing it with care . and doing it wrong. Is then this is a sin.

 

[Kei]

That is one example, yes, but also it moreso lends to the credence of keeping communion only for the faithful in good standing moreso in particular.

Did you know, some Jews thought that when the Kingdom would come, we would not eat because we would be sustained on the presence of God? It really is a wonder what Christ has done.

 

[ethereality]

It seems as though you think God owes us, when it is completely the opposite!

I’m saying a familial relationship requires clear communication and both parties helping each other as possible. For this reason we have “child neglect” laws, and say people are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ parents. Of course as Creator and Master, God owes us nothing, and hence Jesus says we should declare ourselves unprofitable servants, because in fact we are. But to declare that God is our ‘Father’ implies a great deal more: It implies everything we expect from human fathers to a perfect degree. Otherwise the word ‘father’ is stripped of meaning.

The only valid response to this critique that I see is to declare that God does communicate with us and give us good things as our Father, and yet this does not seem self-evidently true, suffering obscuring the matter. It seems when we suffer something not our fault we are forced to declare, “God is speaking to me and I just can’t hear Him,” etc. when we feel abandoned and observe that God doesn’t remove the suffering.

 

[Kei]

In Catholicism suffering is a gift of sorts. Do you not know of redemptive suffering? In looking like Christ our Lord?
Have you ever read City of God?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

That’s a very nice story. Of course there is always some naysayer. However, unless this is some occurrence that was used as a required miracle to canonize Pope JPII (doubtful), there’s no reason to care if someone else believes it or not. It helped the lady it was meant to help.

I tend to think people who have to “prove” everything all the time are about as much fun as a flat tire, but that’s just me.

I like the idea of someone “gardening” in Heaven. I’d love to have a lot of unlimited time to garden, and no doubt they have much less trouble with weeds, weather, and garden pests up there.

 

[Spyridon]

That was an incredible story.

It brought tears to my eyes.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[BoomerangToo]

I tend to think people who have to “prove” everything all the time are about as much fun as a flat tire, but that’s just me.

Exactly. No sense of wonder, I say. It’s a nice story that may or may not be true. If it’s true, it’s really, really awesome.

 

[Spyridon]

Her description of the 3D image appearing on the wall, for me was reminiscent of Acts 10 where Peter has a vision of animals and God tells him to kill and eat.

Acts 10:11-13
"He[Peter] saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.”

 

[ethereality]

Do you not know of redemptive suffering?

I have studied it but no one has yet explained why God requires that we suffer before giving poor sinners enough grace to stop sinning.

In looking like Christ our Lord?

I don’t see the value in suffering.

Have you ever read City of God?

Which book should I read?

 

[ethereality]

You sound like someone who’s never been driven to desperation by suffering.