How many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved?

[spiderweb]

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.

Thank you for reiterating.

I don’t make the claim that the sun literally moved off it’s axis and I don’t think the people that witnessed it would say that either. They claim they saw a phenomenon that can’t be explained by science other than “optical illusion” or some other explanation. But what never gets addressed is the other evidence that something indeed happened. The ground and their clothing was soaked, and yet it dried quickly. I haven’t come across anyone saying that this did not happen or offer an alternative explanation for this aspect of the miracle. To disprove this as a miracle, all aspects of it need to be addressed. This is the (dis)provable evidence that I was referring to.

Edit: This would be objective “proof” that could be seen by others and not subjective “proof” that some claim to have seen themselves despite others not seeing the same thing.

 

[SonOfMan]

I don’t make the claim that the sun literally moved off it’s axis and I don’t think the people that witnessed it would say that either. They claim they saw a phenomenon that can’t be explained by science other than “optical illusion” or some other explanation.

Optical illusions and hallucinations do exist and do occur. Why would anyone be quick to dismiss these explanations?

But what never gets addressed is the other evidence that something indeed happened.

So far, it looks like there is no evidence that anything happened in reality. If so, I ask where the evidence is. There only seems to be the* claims *of witnesses, but no actual evidence. I don’t doubt they saw something or what they thought they were seeing, but did what they see actually happen in reality? The answer seems to be “no”, since the scientific community along with the rest of the world never observed the sun to have “danced” on the specific date it was claimed to have danced.

Edit: This would be objective “proof” that could be seen by others and not subjective “proof” that some claim to have seen themselves despite others not seeing the same thing.

The rest of the world did not see the same thing. By definition, this falls under subjective.

 

[Ignatius]

I have asked that if I was mistaken about the Miracle of the Sun being approved, to please correct me. .

If it is approved then there will be a document number. There are many thousands of claimed miracles but a very few have actually ever been approved.Post #30 above provides instructions for finding that out. I am specifically asking about the class of miracles that have been through that rigorous process.
Can you tell me if it has gone through this process? Have you checked, because if it hasn’t, then it’s not the class of miracles that I am asking about. If it is approved, then there will be an approval document. Please cite the approval document number and provide a link. It is that document that will give the details of that can then be disputed.

Unfortunately, sometimes people like to come and use here say or claim something “commonly accepted” because they are incapable of doing the requisite scholarship so that the actual details can be presented and discussed. Can you do the requisite scholarship to at lease find the document for a particular miracle so we can get started in a serious discussion? Because that is where the information resides that is the basis for any serious discussion.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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?

I don’t think science is ‘in’ that business, nor should it be.

 

[Ignatius]

I don’t think science is ‘in’ that business, nor should it be.

Science is very much involved, Post #30 gives the detailed scientific process used in the approval process. This is why of the 10’s of thousands of claimed miracles a few dozen have actually ever been approved.

 

[SonOfMan]

Have you checked, because if it hasn’t, then it’s not the class of miracles that I am asking about.

If this is not the class of miracles you’re talking about then I wasn’t addressing you with Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun to begin with, so the discussion between you and me can end. The title and topic of this thread is “How many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved?” Fatima fits that critera.

 

[Ignatius]

SonOfMan;12726807:

I have asked that if I was mistaken about the Miracle of the Sun being approved, to please correct me. .

If it is approved then there will be a document number. There are many thousands of claimed miracles but a very few have actually ever been approved.Post #30 above provides instructions for finding that out. I am specifically asking about the class of miracles that have been through that rigorous process.
Can you tell me if it has gone through this process? Have you checked, because if it hasn’t, then it’s not the class of miracles that I am asking about. If it is approved, then there will be an approval document. Please cite the approval document number and provide a link. It is that document that will give the details of that can then be disputed.

Unfortunately, sometimes people like to come and use here say or claim something “commonly accepted” because they are incapable of doing the requisite scholarship so that the actual details can be presented and discussed. Can you do the requisite scholarship to at lease find the document for a particular miracle so we can get started in a serious discussion? Because that is where the information resides that is the basis for any serious discussion.

The title and topic of this thread is “How many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved?”

Exactly and If it is approved then there will be a document number. There are many thousands of claimed miracles but a very few have actually ever been approved. Post #30 above provides instructions for finding that out. All approved miracles have gone through this process and will have a document number, understand?

 

[spiderweb]

So far, it looks like there is no evidence that anything happened in reality. If so, I ask where the evidence is. There only seems to be the* claims *of witnesses, but no actual evidence. I don’t doubt they saw something or what they thought they were seeing, but did what they see actually happen in reality? The answer seems to be “no”, since the scientific community along with the rest of the world never observed the sun to have “danced” on the specific date it was claimed to have danced.

The rest of the world did not see the same thing. By definition, this falls under subjective.

I was incorrect in my previous post, apparently at least one witness did claim he saw what appeared to be the sun spinning on it’s axis. That doesn’t mean that scientifically that is what literally happened only that that is what appeared to happen to this witness. We often say something like “the sun went down at 7:30”, even though that is scientifically incorrect.

The witnesses also claim that it was pouring down rain, which pictures attest to, and then that during the 10 minutes or so of the alleged miracle the ground and their clothes were completely dry. That would have been something that everyone would have seen and experienced. My point in all of this is that a critic who was there at that time could easily prove or disprove at least that aspect of it, but the critics are silent on that aspect of the miracle (at least to my knowledge). Whether the ground was miraculously dried or not could have been easily proven objectively at that time.

 

[SonOfMan]

Exactly and If it is approved then there will be a document number.

If it isn’t approved there will be a condemnation, which you cannot provide. So let me ask you, while sticking to the example I gave about Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun.

1. Is Fatima Vatican approved? Yes or No.
2. Has the sun, in observable, objective reality, ever been recorded or witnessed by anyone else in the world, to have moved eradically off its axis in such a way that is being alleged by the witnesses, specifically on the date that it was alleged to have happened? Yes or No.

You’ve already stated that the example I gave didn’t apply to you, however. So I don’t know if there is much point in continuing our discussion beyond this point. The OP, which you are not, did not give such rigid criteria for the types of miracles he was asking about.

 

[SonOfMan]

The witnesses also claim that it was pouring down rain, which pictures attest to, and then that during the 10 minutes or so of the alleged miracle the ground and their clothes were completely dry.

Where are these pictures? Feel free to post them please, as it would be much appreciated.

 

[spiderweb]

If it isn’t approved there will be a condemnation, which you cannot provide. So let me ask you, while sticking to the example I gave about Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun.

1. Is Fatima Vatican approved? Yes or No.
2. Has the sun, in observable, objective reality, ever been recorded or witnessed by anyone else in the world, to have moved eradically off its axis in such a way that is being alleged by the witnesses, specifically on the date that it was alleged to have happened? Yes or No.

You’ve already stated that the example I gave didn’t apply to you, however. So I don’t know if there is much point in continuing our discussion beyond this point. The OP, which you are not, did not give such rigid criteria for the types of miracles he was asking about.

I could be totally mistaken about this so I’m open to correction. The apparitions of Fatima were approved by the local Bishop as usual protocol. The approval is only for the message given by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the three children that it does not contradict the Faith.

So to my understanding the church is not stating definitively that the sun “dancing” is an absolute miracle. Although many believe it as such (including myself), the church does not say this is indeed absolutely unexplainable by science and therefor a miracle.

The pertinent part of the official statement of the Bishop reads “Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917.” fatima.org/essentials/facts/bishapprov.asp

It does not say anything about the miracle of the sun or of what eyewitnesses saw. As such I would have to conclude that the topic of the “Miracle of the Sun” is actually off topic of the original intent of the OP.

 

[spiderweb]

Where are these pictures? Feel free to post them please, as it would be much appreciated.

bing.com/images/search?q=rain+during+the+fatima+miracle+picture&qpvt=rain+during+the+fatima+miracle+picture&qpvt=rain+during+the+fatima+miracle+picture

 

[SonOfMan]

bing.com/images/search?q=rain+during+the+fatima+miracle+picture&qpvt=rain+during+the+fatima+miracle+picture&qpvt=rain+during+the+fatima+miracle+picture

I see pictures, but no rain, drying clothes, or dancing sun.

I could be totally mistaken about this so I’m open to correction. The apparitions of Fatima were approved by the local Bishop as usual protocol. The approval is only for the message given by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the three children that it does not contradict the Faith.

The pertinent part of the official statement of the Bishop reads “Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917.” fatima.org/essentials/facts/bishapprov.asp

I’m not quite sure I understand, so correct me as needed. The Church is not stating that anything supernatural actually took place, just that the words themself the children were delivering to the Bishop did not contradict the Faith. Correct?

So to my understanding the church is not stating definitively that the sun “dancing” is an absolute miracle. Although many believe it as such (including myself), the church does not say this is indeed absolutely unexplainable by science and therefor a miracle.

As I understand from what you’ve written, although the Miracle of the Sun is associated with Fatima, that portion of the phenemonon isn’t approved and may not have actually happened. Correct?

 

[Natural_Numbers]

Not sure if it’s “Vatican-approved”, and not exactly a miracle, but the Shroud of Turin has been more or less proven to not be old enough to be something Jesus would have been associated with during his life. And I think I heard some sort of reverence for it on EWTN radio earlier this week or last week.

 

[Ignatius]

If it isn’t approved there will be a condemnation.
.

Incorrect, it would be impossible to issue condemnations of the hundreds of thousands of claimed miracles. I posted that actual, official process used in post #30. As noted, the process can take many decades, so most claims are in the investigation phase. When and if it is approved then there will be a document number. There are many thousands of claimed miracles but a very few have actually ever been approved.All approved miracles have gone through this process and will have a document number, do you still not understand? Really?

I’m beginning to think that you hadn’t done any rigorous scholarship on the subject or the way investigations are conducted before you posted here. It seems like you don’t have any real depth of knowledge about the subject and you are just winging it and making things up as you go. Am I right?

 

[Ignatius]

Not sure if it’s “Vatican-approved”, and not exactly a miracle, but the Shroud of Turin . . . .

No,It has not been approved officially as the Shroud of Christ. It’s still in the investigation phase.

 

[thistle]

Not sure if it’s “Vatican-approved”, and not exactly a miracle, but the Shroud of Turin has been more or less proven to not be old enough to be something Jesus would have been associated with during his life. And I think I heard some sort of reverence for it on EWTN radio earlier this week or last week.

The Church has not and will never declare the Shroud of Turin to be the authentic burial cloth or Christ.
Such things do not fall under the Deposit of Faith.

 

[spiderweb]

I see pictures, but no rain, drying clothes, or dancing sun.

In a couple of those pics there are tons of umbrellas open. Then the statements from witnesses also say it was pouring and then the ground and their clothing were dried as part of the miracle. Hard to tell from old pictures whether wet or dry, etc. but the critics at that time (including ones who where actually there) could have known those things. But to my knowledge no one denies that that aspect of the miracle did not happen.

I’m not quite sure I understand, so correct me as needed. The Church is not stating that anything supernatural actually took place, just that the words themself the children were delivering to the Bishop did not contradict the Faith. Correct?

What the church has approved is the supernatural apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children and the messages given to them not only on that day, but also the previous times as the children stated. As far as the miracle of the sun, the church neither approves nor disapproves.

As I understand from what you’ve written, although the Miracle of the Sun is associated with Fatima, that portion of the phenemonon isn’t approved and may not have actually happened. Correct?

Yep, I think we’re on the same page.

 

[SonOfMan]

Hard to tell from old pictures whether wet or dry, etc. but the critics at that time (including ones who where actually there) could have known those things. But to my knowledge no one denies that that aspect of the miracle did not happen.

“Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun “dance”. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[28] No scientific accounts exist[clarification needed] of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have “danced”, and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event

What the church has approved is the supernatural apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children and the messages given to them not only on that day, but also the previous times as the children stated.

The Miracle of the Sun was also part of the children’s message given to them by the Virgin Mary and would seem that, it too, was approved.

"The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them[13] and provide a miracle “so that all may believe.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#The_event

And this seems to settle the case:

“The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

 

[spiderweb]

“Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun “dance”. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[28] No scientific accounts exist[clarification needed] of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have “danced”, and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event

The Miracle of the Sun was also part of the children’s message given to them by the Virgin Mary and would seem that, it too, was approved.

"The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them[13] and provide a miracle “so that all may believe.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#The_event

And this seems to settle the case:

“The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

No, the Miracle of the Sun was Not part of the children’s message. The children’s message was that a miracle would be provided. It didn’t mention anything about the sun, the sky, or any other detail at all, simply that it would be a miracle. We call it the Miracle of the Sun simply because that’s what people describe it as. The only thing that science has demonstrated in regards to this is that what the people saw wasn’t the sun even if they thought it was, or appeared like the sun. For all we now the actual sun could have still been behind the clouds while something else that appeared like the sun could be seen by some people.

If it was a natural phenomenon than everyone there would have seen it. Therefor if the literal sun zigzagged in the sky everyone would have seen it. Furthermore, it would have probably totally disrupted the entire solar system. However if it was a supernatural apparition that appeared like the sun, that would explain why some saw it and others didn’t. Proving that it was not the sun, doesn’t disprove anything other than the discriptions that people gave for what they saw may not actually be what they saw. It doesn’t disprove that they saw something.

Again I’m going to press the issue which all critics seem unwilling or unable to respond to. To quote from Wikipedia that you already provided the link for.

"Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became “suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling”.

According to De Marchi, “Engineers that have studied the case reckoned that an incredible amount of energy would have been necessary to dry up those pools of water that had formed on the field in a few minutes as it was reported by witnesses.”

If you want to discredit this miracle as a miracle than someone needs to explain the dry ground. As I previously stated, it can’t really be proven or disproven that people saw something that appeared like the sun dancing in the sky. However it easily could have been disproven at the time that the ground was completely dry. So yes, the church accepts that a miracle happened. Whether the literal sun danced or whether people saw something that looked like the sun or something else is always open to debate.