Miracles as Doctrine of The Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mayo-man
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mayo-man

Guest
FYI… I’m a cradle Catholic… pretty orthodox, but curious. None of what follow is intended to unsettle anyone. I believe in miracles… just need more / better information on the though processes in miracles and the Church.

I am eager to know what the Church declaration actually states / affirms when the Church declares / approves an event to be a miracle = an act of divine intervention inexplicable by natural causes. Done apparently by the local Bishop, after review and approval at the Vatican. So it’s a formal declaration that this event was wrought by “the hand of God”? I’m just back today from 9 days @ Lourdes and could not get a satisfactory answer in Lourdes.

The fact, for example, of an inexplicable cure [that’s what the Medical Bureau at Lourdes calls it] is hardly any help in identifying causation. Seems to me there are at least two possibilities. Hand of God [as evident in miracles in Apostolic Age] or we just don’t know what we don’t know. So what evidence does the Church look for to support a declaration of the Hand of God causation?

Is this type declaration considered “de fide” or prudential judgement?
Not Magisterial [ex cathedra] since the local Bishop makes the declaration “on behalf of the Church”.
Useful links will be sincerely appreciated.
Please cite sources where appropriate.
I’m hoping to acquire a nuance grasp of the matter.

Thanks for your time and help.
 
Heh, this is the second time I’ve shared this today (first time was on another message board).

The First Vatican Council decreed:

If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.

Source:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
 
Last edited:
It bugs me when millennials expect other’s to do their homework for them.

This is especially true when they have the audacity to ask for quotes.
 
The only times the Church officially states that a miracle is wrought by “the hand of God” is in initial cases of phenomenon. For Loudres, the Vatican officially approved of the initial healings and left it be. The Medical Bureau is a commission which was established to continue examining and documenting the healings at Loudres after the Vatican commission was dissolved.

A declaration of a Bishop is a declaration using the universal authority of the Church. It is a declaration using his authority as the head of the local Church and is always considered in good faith. The Bishop either personally examines the theological merit of the proposed miracle based on the evidence or assigns others under his authority to do so and makes a pronouncement. Now, sometimes these declarations of local Bishops are all that arises. If a miracle is not widely acknowledged outside of the diocese, the Vatican often leaves the matter be.

The main time the Vatican steps in is in the case of miracles proposed for the canonization of Saints, miracles which receive widespread devotion, Marian apparitions, and Eucharistic Miracles. In these cases a Vatican commission is appointed to scrutinize the miracle and declare validity or invalidity. Even if the miracle is declared valid and “worthy of belief” it does not enter the Deposit of Faith, that is, it does not become doctrine. You may believe it or not.

I’m sorry I don’t have links. Most of this information has been obtained through speaking to various priests and religious who worked at different miraculous sights which I met on my pilgrimages.

God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM
 
Last edited:
Thank you Br. Ben. Your insights were most helpful in grasping the ideas involved and searching up relevant sites with more info on the matter.
 
Its hard to see how there can be anything more than human moral certainty in these matters.
Noone is obligated to believe in private revelation and that would appear to include alleged instances of miracles.

As you say we cannot know what we do not know. However a point comes when it is reasonable to assert the existence of spiritual causality rather than as yet hidden material causality.

It seems we need to avoid two extremes - jumping to spiritual causality for every inexplicable phenomenon OR denying the very possibility of spiritual causes.

But in particular cases there can never be total certainty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top