How many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris62
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chris62

Guest
I am thinking of the 1st Eucharistic miracle, where about 1300 years afterwards, science supported the claims of the miracle.
And I am also thinking of the miracle of Our Lady Of Guadalupe which also supported the claim, indeed boosted them, in regard to the magnification of the eyes and in regard to the fabric of the portrait of the cloth.
So, has science of the modern day been able to disprove any?
 
chris62 said:
So, has science of the modern day been able to disprove any?
Click to expand...
You ask about “any.” Surely there have been false or dubious claims which have been either disproved or discredited.

But there are some claims for which science cannot offer a plausible alternate explanation. Of course, those who are not disposed to accept miracles would claim that science has not YET offered an alternate explanation, as science is always developing.

Of course, doctrine is always developing. It seems to be a stalemate.
 
DavidFilmer said:
You ask about “any.” Surely there have been false or dubious claims which have been either disproved or discredited.

But there are some claims for which science cannot offer a plausible alternate explanation. Of course, those who are not disposed to accept miracles would claim that science has not YET offered an alternate explanation, as science is always developing.

Of course, doctrine is always developing. It seems to be a stalemate.
Click to expand...
You say “surely” a Vatican-approved miracle has been disproved.
That is what I am asking.
Does anybody know of one?
 
One would think that if there were some “disproved” miracles, the atheists would cite them frequently. I can’t recall hearing of any.
 
chris62 said:
You say “surely” a Vatican-approved miracle has been disproved.
That is what I am asking.
Does anybody know of one?
Click to expand...
David did not say that. He stated “false or dubious claims” had surely been disproved or discredited. He did not say Church “approved” ones had been disproved.
 
I do not believe that there have been any that have been disproved. I’m sure we would hear about it constantly if there had been.

Furthermore, in order for a miracle to be declared a miracle by the Church, it must defy all scientific knowledge of the time. There has to be literally -no- scientific explanation for it. If it looks like something that could even be remotely attributed to natural causes it isn’t labelled as a miracle. That’s why, of the literally thousands of miracles that have been claimed at Lourdes, only about 70 of them have been confirmed by the Church. (I believe the number is 78, but don’t quote me on that.)
 
chris62 said:
I am thinking of the 1st Eucharistic miracle, where about 1300 years afterwards, science supported the claims of the miracle.
And I am also thinking of the miracle of Our Lady Of Guadalupe which also supported the claim, indeed boosted them, in regard to the magnification of the eyes and in regard to the fabric of the portrait of the cloth.
So, has science of the modern day been able to disprove any?
Click to expand...
Since the Church relies on scientific means to weed out the false and/or dubious claims to begin with, I don’t see it happening after the fact. I’ve never heard of such a thing happening in regards to a miracle that has gone through the process and been affirmed.
 
My guess is no.

In most cases science is really not in a position to investigate. For instance, healings make up a significant number of Church approved miracles - yet science cannot investigate a healing that occurred in, say, the 11th century. 🤷
Healings that occur today are thoroughly investigated and includes members of the appropriate medical fields…so if it is approved, there is little likelihood of it later being disproved.

Just a thought.

Peace
James
 
But apart from the healing miracles, there are other miracles approved by the Vatican, centuries before the Vatican would have had any remote knowledge of how much science would improve, yet science seems to not only not been able to disprove them, but indeed, verify them, ie, in the case of the two miracles I cited earlier.
That seems to be quite a vote of confidence in the Holy Spirit, don’t you think?
 
Google Monica Besra- lots of news stories about the formal acceptance of her healing as miraculous. I’m not even sure if the Vatican puts their formal miracle documentation on line, so you might be our of luck there.
 
In the process of canonization, several categories of claimed healings are not not admissible as evidence, such as blindness, substance abuse, psychiatric conditions, etc. - as all could be cured by non-miraculous remission. It’s a pretty exacting review.

I’ve said before that there should be one volume that describes all the instances of miracles approved for the purpose of canonization just in, for instance, the 20th century. Some of these are so amazing and so well-documented that they would constitute excellent evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
I’ve said before that there should be one volume that describes all the instances of miracles approved for the purpose of canonization just in, for instance, the 20th century. Some of these are so amazing and so well-documented that they would constitute excellent evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
That’s a really good idea! The Congregation for the Causes of Saints should get on that. I would definitely buy that book!
 
AnimalSpirits said:
Google Monica Besra- lots of news stories . . . …
Click to expand...
Google is not really the level of verification that this thread is about. As pointed out by others, In the process of canonization, many claimed healings are not not admissible as evidence. If they are ambiguous at all, they are not admissible.
So, you might be out of luck with that claim of yours.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
In the process of canonization, several categories of claimed healings are not not admissible as evidence, such as blindness, substance abuse, psychiatric conditions, etc. - as all could be cured by non-miraculous remission. It’s a pretty exacting review.
Click to expand...
And yet, we have doctors treating a patient with a developing tumor. That patient is prescribed drugs and, separately, treated with a picture of Mother Theresa. The priests say it was the picture, the doctors say it was the drugs and that get recovery wasn’t unusual, let alone miraculous.
 
AnimalSpirits said:
Ignatius;12721408:
AnimalSpirits;12721260:
The Vatican claims that a picture of Mother Theresa cured an Indian woman’s abdominal tumor. The doctors say it was the medicine.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They don’t show any Vatican approval documentation.
Google Monica Besra- lots of news stories . . . …
Click to expand...
Well, what we’re discussing is more rigorous than Google stories. Google is not really the level of verification that this thread is about. As pointed out by others, In the process of canonization, many claimed healings are not not admissible as evidence. If they are ambiguous at all, they are not admissible.
So, you pretty much out of luck with your as far as your claim that it’s an official Vatican approved miracle.
 
Ignatius said:
Google is not really the level of verification that this thread is about. As pointed out by others, In the process of canonization, many claimed healings are not not admissible as evidence. If they are ambiguous at all, they are not admissible.
So, you might be out of luck with that claim of yours.
Click to expand...
Google isn’t, but what about newspapers reporting on the recognition of the miracle, speaking with the doctors involved? What you’re asking for, an official document from the Vatican proclaiming that a miracle has occurred, might not even be possible for me to retrieve, as the Vatican doesn’t appear to maintain a public online database of these things. Somehow, western journalists have been reporting that the Vatican recognized this as a miracle for the past decade. Why do you think that is? You could deny pretty much any event by this logic. If your asked for proof that a given celebrity had died, I’d link you to a news story about their death. What you’re doing now is equivalent to demanding an autopsy report.

Again, I’m not asking you to trust Google, but Google will point got to several articles from the past decade from internationally recognized sources- like the one I linked. Asking for documentation which may not even exist on the Internet is wholly unreasonable.
 
AnimalSpirits said:
Ignatius;12723264:
Well, what we’re discussing is more rigorous than Google stories. Google is not really the level of verification that this thread is about. As pointed out by others, many claimed healings are not not admissible as evidence. If they are ambiguous at all, they are not admissible.
So, you pretty much out of luck with your as far as your claim that it’s an official Vatican approved miracle.
Click to expand...
Google isn’t, but what about newspapers reporting on the recognition of the miracle, speaking with the doctors involved?

I’m not asking you to trust Google, but Google will point got to several articles from
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top