How many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved?

[AnimalSpirits]

You missed the entire point Read the words - “many claimed healings are not not admissible as evidence”

Part of the approval process is review my medical experts. If it is medically disputed, it is, ipso facto, NOT an official Vatican approved miracle.

And yet, we have medical doctors publicly disputing the “miracle” used to justify the beatification of Mother Theresa.

Here’s a Catholic site with an article on the subject:m.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=75

In fact, it appears that the nuns made all sorts of promises to her. A poor, seriously ill woman was offered money and support… and, surprise, she told a story that made her patrons happy. Sadly, it seems she misled:telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562284/Mother-Teresa-miracle-patient-accuses-nuns.html

 

[Ignatius]

And yet, we have medical doctors publicly disputing the “miracle” used to justify the beatification of Mother Theresa.

In fact, it appears that the nuns made all sorts of promises to her. A poor, seriously ill woman was offered money and support… and, surprise, she told a story that made her patrons happy.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Here it is in a nutshell: The approval process requires review my medical experts. If it is medically disputed, it is, ipso facto, NOT valid. If this process was not followed, it is not valid Vatican approved miracle.

There are many claims, very few ever make it through the approval process. This thread is not about the many claims, but only about those that made it through the approval process.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Here it is in a nutshell: The approval process requires review my medical experts. If it is medically disputed, it is, ipso facto, NOT valid. If this process was not followed, it is not valid Vatican approved miracle.

There are many claims, very few ever make it through the approval process. This thread is not about the many claims, but only about those that made it through the approval process.

And here is a case that did make it through and we know fire a fact that there’s a dispute because the doctors that treated this woman have publicly disputed. Exactly what are you denying here? Do you think that the Vatican didn’t recognize this is a miracle, despite the fact that a myriad of news outlets reported it. Or are you denying that the miracle is medically disputed, despite the fact that the woman’s doctors are disputing it.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12723564:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Here it is in a nutshell: The approval process requires review my medical experts. If it is medically disputed, it is, ipso facto, NOT valid. If this process was not followed, it is not valid Vatican approved miracle.

There are many claims, very few ever make it through the approval process. This thread is not about the many claims, but only about those that made it through the approval process.

And here is a case that did make it through and we know fire a fact that there’s a dispute

And hence it is, ipso facto, NOT valid. Get it - The fact that there is a medical dispute renders it invalid. Is that clear now? I can certainly continue to explain it as long as you wish.

What this thread is attempting to discuss is Valid miracles.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

And hence it is, ipso facto, NOT valid. Get it - The fact that there is a medical dispute renders it invalid. Is that clear now? I can certainly continue to explain it as long as you wish.

What this thread is attempting to discuss is Valid miracles.

No, the thread is about vatican approved miracles- see the title. And given that this miracle justified the beatification of Mother Theresa, it certainty has vatican approval. Again, see the articles. There really is no denying the fact that the Vatican has approved this as a miracle, despite the entirely sensing objections of the Indian medical team.

You can asset that the Vatican would never do this all you like, but the fact is that they have. There’s absolutely no way around it. Unless the Vatican’s people have changed their minds, then they still see this as valid even if you don’t.

This thread would be wholly pointless if it was about any undisputed claims. None of those have been disproven by definition.

 

[chris62]

No, the thread is about vatican approved miracles- see the title. And given that this miracle justified the beatification of Mother Theresa, it certainty has vatican approval. Again, see the articles. There really is no denying the fact that the Vatican has approved this as a miracle, despite the entirely sensing objections of the Indian medical team.

You can asset that the Vatican would never do this all you like, but the fact is that they have. There’s absolutely no way around it. Unless the Vatican’s people have changed their minds, then they still see this as valid even if you don’t.

This thread would be wholly pointless if it was about any undisputed claims. None of those have been disproven by definition.

 

[chris62]

No, the thread is about vatican approved miracles- see the title. And given that this miracle justified the beatification of Mother Theresa, it certainty has vatican approval. Again, see the articles. There really is no denying the fact that the Vatican has approved this as a miracle, despite the entirely sensing objections of the Indian medical team.

You can asset that the Vatican would never do this all you like, but the fact is that they have. There’s absolutely no way around it. Unless the Vatican’s people have changed their minds, then they still see this as valid even if you don’t.

This thread would be wholly pointless if it was about any undisputed claims. None of those have been disproven by definition.

Animal,
You have missed the point.
Just because the doctors say she would have recovered anyway doesn’t mean science has disproved anything.
The post is about any instances where science has disproved a Vatican approved miracle, not whether doctors argue whether it would have happened regardless.
For example, if scientists had have found in 1980 that the flesh from the 1st Eucharistic miracle was that of a goat, than that would be science disproving a Vatican approved miracle.

 

[Ignatius]

No, the thread is about vatican approved miracles- see the title. And given that this miracle justified the beatification of Mother Theresa, it certainty has vatican approval. Again, see the articles. There really is no denying the fact that the Vatican has approved this as a miracle, despite the entirely sensing objections of the Indian medical team.

You can asset that the Vatican would never do this all you like, but the fact is that they have. There’s absolutely no way around it. Unless the Vatican’s people have changed their minds, then they still see this as valid even if you don’t.

This thread would be wholly pointless if it was about any undisputed claims. None of those have been disproven by definition.

Once more, a valid miracle is one that has undergone the process that must not have natural causes such as medical treatment. Your example has a medical treatment as the cure, therefore it is , ipso facto, NOT valid.
Get it - The fact that there is a medical dispute renders it invalid.
Is that not clear? A valid miracle cannot be the result of natural causes. That is what makes it a miracle. Do you need more clarification?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Once more, a valid miracle is one that has undergone the process that must not have natural causes such as medical treatment. Your example has a medical treatment as the cure, therefore it is , ipso facto, NOT valid.
Get it - The fact that there is a medical dispute renders it invalid.
Is that not clear? A valid miracle cannot be the result of natural causes. That is what makes it a miracle. Do you need more clarification?

So the Vatican is wrong, in your view?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Animal,
You have missed the point.
Just because the doctors say she would have recovered anyway doesn’t mean science has disproved anything.
The post is about any instances where science has disproved a Vatican approved miracle, not whether doctors argue whether it would have happened regardless.
For example, if scientists had have found in 1980 that the flesh from the 1st Eucharistic miracle was that of a goat, than that would be science disproving a Vatican approved miracle.

Some of miracles approved by the Vatican are non-falsifiable. The closest you get to disproving one is to find a 100% plausible naturalistic explanation.

 

[Ignatius]

No, the thread is about vatican approved miracles- see the title. And given that this miracle justified the beatification of Mother Theresa, it certainty has vatican approval. Again, see the articles. There really is no denying the fact that the Vatican has approved this as a miracle, despite the entirely sensing objections of the Indian medical team.

You can asset that the Vatican would never do this all you like, but the fact is that they have. There’s absolutely no way around it. Unless the Vatican’s people have changed their minds, then they still see this as valid even if you don’t.

This thread would be wholly pointless if it was about any undisputed claims. None of those have been disproven by definition.

Once more, a valid miracle is one that has undergone the process that must not have natural causes such as medical treatment. Your example has a medical treatment as the cure, therefore it is , ipso facto, NOT valid.
Get it - The fact that there is a medical dispute renders it invalid.
Is that not clear? A valid miracle cannot be the result of natural causes. That is what makes it a miracle. Do you need more clarification?

So the Vatican is wrong, in your view?

You misunderstand what constitutes a valid miracle. You see, there is a rigorous process by which a valid miracle is established, this includes verifying that it is not the result of natural causes.

For example, here is a Vatican Document (Document Code: ZE 04021108) which details how cures are recognized as miraculous.

Code: ZE04021108

Date: 2004-02-11
How Cures Are Recognized as Miraculous
Doctors Scrutinize Each Case
LOURDES, France, FEB. 11, 2004 .
Who decides when a cure is a miracle?
The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some 7,000 inexplicable cures.
Dr. Patrick Thiellier, director of the medical office established at the to scientifically examine alleged cases of healing
It is required that all cases of alleged miracles or cures recorded be analyzed scientifically. For example, at the shrine’s French-language Web page (www.lourdes-france.com) the medical office
explains that its objective is to be able to declare a cure “certain, definitive and medically inexplicable.”
To do so, it applies four criteria:
– “the fact and the diagnosis of the illness is first of all established and correctly diagnosed”;
– “the prognosis must be permanent or terminal in the short term”;
– “the cure is immediate, without convalescence, complete and lasting”;
– “the prescribed treatment could not be attributed to the cause of this cure or be an aid to
it.”
The sick who come to Lourdes with a pilgrimage group are accompanied by a doctor who is
furnished with a medical file describing their present condition.
This file forms the basis from which to work when a pilgrim declares that he has been cured.
The file, and the pilgrim who claims to have been cured, are presented to the medical office.
A doctor based there will then gather the members of the medical profession present in on that day who wish to participate in the examination.
No definite conclusion is given at the end of this examination. The person who claims to have been cured will be invited to meet the medical commission the following year and possibly for many subsequent years.
Finally, after many successful examinations, the file of the cure will be sent, to the International Medical Committee.
The committee comprises 30 specialists, surgeons and professors or heads of department, from various countries, who meet once a year. The current president is professor Jean-Louis
Armand-Laroche.
It allows an assessment to continue over several years in order to observe the development of the patient.
If the International Medical Committee gives a favorable opinion, the case is already recognized as extraordinary by science and medically inexplicable.
It remains for the Church, to make an announcement on the miraculous character of the cure.
To do this, the Church gathers together a diocesan commission made up of priests, canonists and theologians. The rules that guide the procedures of this commission are those defined in
t his treatise “Concerning the Beatification and Canonization of Servants of God” (Book IV, Part I, Chapter VIII No. 2).
In sum, the rules demand that there must not be found in the cure any valid explanation, medical or scientific, natural or usual.

I’ve been trying to be charitable, hoping that you would the scholarship to find this out for yourself. This document and many more are publicly available at the library of any Catholic institution of higher learning.
Any questions?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Once more, a valid miracle is one that has undergone the process that must not have natural causes such as medical treatment. Your example has a medical treatment as the cure, therefore it is , ipso facto, NOT valid.
Get it - The fact that there is a medical dispute renders it invalid.
Is that not clear? A valid miracle cannot be the result of natural causes. That is what makes it a miracle. Do you need more clarification?

You misunderstand what constitutes a valid miracle. You see, there is a rigorous process by which a valid miracle is established, this includes verifying that it is not the result of natural causes.

For example, here is a Vatican Document (Document Code: ZE 04021108) which details how cures are recognized as miraculous.

Code: ZE04021108

Date: 2004-02-11
How Cures Are Recognized as Miraculous
Doctors Scrutinize Each Case
LOURDES, France, FEB. 11, 2004 .
Who decides when a cure is a miracle?
The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some 7,000 inexplicable cures.
Dr. Patrick Thiellier, director of the medical office established at the to scientifically examine alleged cases of healing
It is required that all cases of alleged miracles or cures recorded be analyzed scientifically. For example, at the shrine’s French-language Web page (www.lourdes-france.com) the medical office
explains that its objective is to be able to declare a cure “certain, definitive and medically inexplicable.”
To do so, it applies four criteria:
– “the fact and the diagnosis of the illness is first of all established and correctly diagnosed”;
– “the prognosis must be permanent or terminal in the short term”;
– “the cure is immediate, without convalescence, complete and lasting”;
– “the prescribed treatment could not be attributed to the cause of this cure or be an aid to
it.”
The sick who come to Lourdes with a pilgrimage group are accompanied by a doctor who is
furnished with a medical file describing their present condition.
This file forms the basis from which to work when a pilgrim declares that he has been cured.
The file, and the pilgrim who claims to have been cured, are presented to the medical office.
A doctor based there will then gather the members of the medical profession present in on that day who wish to participate in the examination.
No definite conclusion is given at the end of this examination. The person who claims to have been cured will be invited to meet the medical commission the following year and possibly for many subsequent years.
Finally, after many successful examinations, the file of the cure will be sent, to the International Medical Committee.
The committee comprises 30 specialists, surgeons and professors or heads of department, from various countries, who meet once a year. The current president is professor Jean-Louis
Armand-Laroche.
It allows an assessment to continue over several years in order to observe the development of the patient.
If the International Medical Committee gives a favorable opinion, the case is already recognized as extraordinary by science and medically inexplicable.
It remains for the Church, to make an announcement on the miraculous character of the cure.
To do this, the Church gathers together a diocesan commission made up of priests, canonists and theologians. The rules that guide the procedures of this commission are those defined in
t his treatise “Concerning the Beatification and Canonization of Servants of God” (Book IV, Part I, Chapter VIII No. 2).
In sum, the rules demand that there must not be found in the cure any valid explanation, medical or scientific, natural or usual.

I’ve been trying to be charitable, hoping that you would the scholarship to find this out for yourself. This document and many more are publicly available at the library of any Catholic institution of higher learning.
Any questions?

Yes, two- but they’re the same ones you’ve been insisting on dodging.

Do you agree Vatican considers the healing of Monica Besra to be a legitimate miracle?

Do you agree that her doctors consider the healing to be the result of medical treatment?

Please provide a clear yes or no for both.

What you’ve done is basically assume that the Vatican’s rules prevent them from labeling a natural event as a miracle- I am disputing that, and offering this case as an example. You can’t cite the Vatican’s procedure as proof of anything- the above standard might seem rigorous, but my claim is that they utterly failed in this case.

If you’re going to assume that the procedure is prefect went always applied perfectly, this thread is pointless. I’ve presented clear evidence to the contrary, but you have continued to assert as dogma that the Vatican cannot possibly have made a mistake.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12725603:

Once more, a valid miracle is one that has undergone the process that must not have natural causes such as medical treatment. Your example has a medical treatment as the cure, therefore it is , ipso facto, NOT valid.
Get it - The fact that there is a medical dispute renders it invalid.
Is that not clear? A valid miracle cannot be the result of natural causes. That is what makes it a miracle. Do you need more clarification?

You misunderstand what constitutes a valid miracle. You see, there is a rigorous process by which a valid miracle is established, this includes verifying that it is not the result of natural causes.

For example, here is a Vatican Document (Document Code: ZE 04021108) which details how cures are recognized as miraculous.

Code: ZE04021108

Date: 2004-02-11
How Cures Are Recognized as Miraculous
Doctors Scrutinize Each Case
LOURDES, France, FEB. 11, 2004 .
Who decides when a cure is a miracle?
The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some 7,000 inexplicable cures.
Dr. Patrick Thiellier, director of the medical office established at the to scientifically examine alleged cases of healing
It is required that all cases of alleged miracles or cures recorded be analyzed scientifically. For example, at the shrine’s French-language Web page (www.lourdes-france.com

) the medical office explains that its objective is to be able to declare a cure “certain, definitive and medically inexplicable.”
To do so, it applies four criteria:
– “the fact and the diagnosis of the illness is first of all established and correctly diagnosed”;
– “the prognosis must be permanent or terminal in the short term”;
– “the cure is immediate, without convalescence, complete and lasting”;
– “the prescribed treatment could not be attributed to the cause of this cure or be an aid to
it.”
The sick who come to Lourdes with a pilgrimage group are accompanied by a doctor who is
furnished with a medical file describing their present condition.
This file forms the basis from which to work when a pilgrim declares that he has been cured.
The file, and the pilgrim who claims to have been cured, are presented to the medical office.
A doctor based there will then gather the members of the medical profession present in on that day who wish to participate in the examination.
No definite conclusion is given at the end of this examination. The person who claims to have been cured will be invited to meet the medical commission the following year and possibly for many subsequent years.
Finally, after many successful examinations, the file of the cure will be sent, to the International Medical Committee.
The committee comprises 30 specialists, surgeons and professors or heads of department, from various countries, who meet once a year. The current president is professor Jean-Louis
Armand-Laroche.
It allows an assessment to continue over several years in order to observe the development of the patient.
If the International Medical Committee gives a favorable opinion, the case is already recognized as extraordinary by science and medically inexplicable.
It remains for the Church, to make an announcement on the miraculous character of the cure.
To do this, the Church gathers together a diocesan commission made up of priests, canonists and theologians.
In sum, the rules demand that there must not be found in the cure any valid explanation, medical or scientific, natural or usual.

. . . This document and many more are publicly available at the library of any Catholic institution of higher learning.
Any questions?

Yes, two- but they’re the same ones you’ve been insisting on dodging.
Do you agree Vatican considers the healing of Monica Besra to be a legitimate miracle?
Do you agree that her doctors consider the healing to be the result of medical treatment?
.

In order to answer that, you would have to find out if the process documented above has been followed and completed yet. I don’t believe that the validation process has been completed yet, hence it has not been determined yet so the case you are mentioning may still be in the speculation stage, i.e. no medical board review has been performed. See, here again, the problem is that you don’t understand how the process works. A valid miracle is one in which the process has been followed to it’s conclusion, and that is the kind of miracle that we are asking about.

I am enjoying our conversation and I hope I am helping you begin to see how thorough this determination of a miracle is. Though it will probably take significant additional study to crystallize the process for you. The process can take quite a number of years before completion of the study and an approved declaration made. I would suggest, as a method of study, that you perform a case study on some of the cases in which the process has actually been completed. I think that will help make it clear.

 

[SonOfMan]

The “Miracle of the Sun” is Vatican approved as far as I know (please correct me if I am mistaken) and science has definitely proven this never took place. Many people saw the sun move in unusual and unnatural ways, yet the science shows that the sun has never done such a thing. I believe many critics of this event attribute this experience to “mass hysteria”; seeing and experiencing an event that did not take place in reality. No one else in the world observed this phenomenon at the specific time that this was alleged to have happened.

Keep in mind, the Church does not require us to believe in any private revelation, even if they are approved.

 

[Ignatius]

The “Miracle of the Sun” is Vatican approved .

If it is approved, there is an approval document (read the previous posts). Please cite the approval document number and provide a link.

 

[SonOfMan]

If it is approved, there is an approval document (read the previous posts). Please cite the approval document number and provide a link.

Isn’t the Miracle of the Sun associated with Fatima? I was under the belief that Fatima is commonly accepted and known to be an approved apparition. If this is not the case, can you cite where the Vatican has denounced these events?

 

[spiderweb]

The “Miracle of the Sun” is Vatican approved as far as I know (please correct me if I am mistaken) and science has definitely proven this never took place. Many people saw the sun move in unusual and unnatural ways, yet the science shows that the sun has never done such a thing. I believe many critics of this event attribute this experience to “mass hysteria”; seeing and experiencing an event that did not take place in reality. No one else in the world observed this phenomenon at the specific time that this was alleged to have happened.

Keep in mind, the Church does not require us to believe in any private revelation, even if they are approved.

Science has “disproven” the miracle of the sun in Fatima in the same way science has “disproven” the resurrection of Jesus. They start with the premise that it’s impossible, therefor it is disproven despite the provable evidence that surrounded it at that time.

Although Fatima has been approved by the church for belief, it is not required to be believed.

 

[SonOfMan]

Science has “disproven” the miracle of the sun in Fatima in the same way science has “disproven” the resurrection of Jesus. They start with the premise that it’s impossible, therefor it is disproven despite the provable evidence that surrounded it at that time.

The sun has never in human history, moved unusually in such a way that the witnesses of this miracle alleged it has. Everyone on this earth has and sees the same sun and nobody else outside of this immediate region saw it “dance.”

If there is evidence as you allege for the sun moving off its axis and moving eradically on this specific date, I would be grateful if you could share that.

Although Fatima has been approved by the church for belief, it is not required to be believed.

Thank you for reiterating.

 

[Ignatius]

I was under the belief that Fatima is commonly accepted .

I’m not talking about “commonly held” beliefs… There is a rigorous process for approving something as a miracle (read post #30 above). Can you tell me if it has gone through this process? Because if it hasn’t, then it’s not the class of miracles that I am asking about. If it is approved, there is an approval document. Please cite the approval document number. That document will be the basis of the discussion.

 

[SonOfMan]

I’m not talking about “commonly held” beliefs. There is a rigorous process for approving something as a miracle (read post #30 above). Can you tell me if it has gone through this process? Because if it hasn’t, then it’s not the class of miracles that I am asking about. If it is approved, there is an approval document. Please cite the approval document number and provide a link.

In post #33 I have asked that if I was mistaken about the Miracle of the Sun being approved, to please correct me. One way to correct me is to simply show me where the Church has condemned or warned against belief in Fatima, such as what they have done for Garabandal, Bayside, Medjugorge. To my knowledge, Fatima is approved, unless you can show otherwise. Many priests and local parishes talk about it and some even have framed pictures near the room where Eucharistic Adoration takes place. If this isn’t approved, the onus is on you to show me where I, and all these local parishes, are mistaken.