The question of miracles - Are there convincing miracle cases?

[Hugh_Farey]

It is a message by a bishop. There are many of those. It is not surprising that finding a specific one (written in a foreign language) is not very easy.

The miracles of Lourdes, properly investigated by the Medical Bureau and authorised by a representative Bishop, may be the best attested miracles endorsed by the Church, but there is nothing I can find by way of documentation. If there really are “many of those”, then it should be possible to find them, but there isn’t. I am happy searching in English, French, Spanish, Italian and Latin, but can find nothing. If “the Church” endorses any miracles all, then she keeps her endorsement very much to herself.

 

[MPat]

The miracles of Lourdes, properly investigated by the Medical Bureau and authorised by a representative Bishop, may be the best attested miracles endorsed by the Church, but there is nothing I can find by way of documentation. If there really are “many of those”, then it should be possible to find them, but there isn’t.

I meant that there are many messages by bishops. For example, each year they write a message for Christmas, for Easter…

You might find those messages less interesting, but it is not necessarily the view of everyone else.

If “the Church” endorses any miracles all, then she keeps her endorsement very much to herself.

Um, what exactly did you expect to find?

The medical report? Yes, it is very likely to be secret. Because of personal data protection etc.

Then again, if you think about it, much of science is secret: for example, everything connected with any sort of peer review.

For that matter, it is unlikely to be all that interesting. It is hard to make report with conclusion “We found no explanation we were competent to find.” interesting.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Um, what exactly did you expect to find?

If “the Church”, the Universal Catholic Church endorses any miracles, then I expect to be able to find out which and where. I do not expect these revelations of divine intervention to be hidden away in seasonal messages from local bishops. The OP asked if there “any miracles that ‘you’ consider really defensible?” and many commenters have defended many miracles, but I do not know that “the Church” supports any of them.

I have come across the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, which seems to be responsible for verifying the miracles required for canonisation. Their pronouncements surely constitute official recognition of miracles - but where can I find them?

Very recently, Pope John Paul II was declared a saint. The Magis Centre describes one of the miracles supporting this in detail, the cure of a woman called Floribeth. It says:

" A commission of medical physicians was assembled by the Vatican. The commission brought Floribeth to Rome in secret, admitted her to a hospital for a new examination, and compared her current state of health to neurological records and scans from before her cure.
They also concluded that her cure was scientifically inexplicable."

Fair enough, but where did the Magis Centre gets its information from? CNN? The BBC?

 

[MPat]

I have come across the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, which seems to be responsible for verifying the miracles required for canonisation. Their pronouncements surely constitute official recognition of miracles - but where can I find them?

From “Regulations of the Medical Board of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints”(Regolamento della Consulta Medica (English)):

• Article 12. At the beginning of the meeting of the Medical Board, the Experts swear under oath to examine the case according to science and conscience, and to observe the secret of office regarding the progress of the meeting itself and the judgment of each Member and of that collegial judgment formulated at the conclusion of the Medical Board.
• Article 19. The Medical Experts, the Postulators and the Promoters of the Cause are obliged to keep secret everything regarding the presumed miracle under examination, especially if the person healed is a minor.

So, you should not find much.

If “the Church”, the Universal Catholic Church endorses any miracles, then I expect to be able to find out which and where. I do not expect these revelations of divine intervention to be hidden away in seasonal messages from local bishops.

So, as we can see, your expectations were wrong.

Now what?

Do you have an explanation for this wrong guess?

Or are you going to declare that you being wrong has no natural explanation and thus is likely to be a miracle?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I’m not sure you’re getting my underlying frustration. Has the Catholic Church ever endorsed any non-biblical miracles at all? Yes or no. If anyone knows the answer to this, then can they name one, and say how they know. It’s a simple enough question, surely.

 

[MPat]

I’m not sure you’re getting my underlying frustration.

Yes, I do see that you are frustrated.

And I am pointing out that now you should stop demanding for various things (that only leads to further frustration, for you are not going to be given anything). Instead, you should seriously investigate the arising question: why are you frustrated?

As you have already indicated, you are frustrated, because your expectations concerning documents about miracles do not match the reality.

So, how did you form those expectations? What assumptions are they based on?

After all, if the expectations do not match the reality, then either you were reasoning badly, or you started from false assumptions. In both cases that should be corrected before we proceed anywhere else.

So, why don’t you try to write down your reasoning leading to conclusion “Documents of Catholic Church that concern miracles should be easy for user ‘Hugh_Farey’ to find.”, which, as we can see, proved to be wrong? What was the (most likely implicit) argument?

 

[undead_rat]

The shroud pattern (herringbone) is consistent with Middle Ages techniques, not first century. Burial clothes from the 1st century do not match the shroud, but several Middle Ages clothes do.

In 1988 Prof. Tite of the British Museum tried very hard to find to find a weave pattern similar to that of the Shroud, but he was unable to find anything that matched from either the 12th, 13th, or 14th century. That particular weave pattern was not made in Europe until at least the 16th century. This is common knowledge and is why the carbon fourteen labs were able to distinguish the Shroud samples from the control samples of the 14th century.

 

[undead_rat]

Mr. Farey seems to be a “modernist” which means that he believes that all events have a natural explanation. He is not going to accept any “proof” of a miracle, the miraculous image on the Shroud of Turin being a primary case in point.

Pope Pius X denounced the modernist philosophy and took steps against it.

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

 

[Hugh_Farey]

What a thoughtful and sensible reply. I suppose I was hoping to answer the OP easily by referring to some kind of official list of defensible miracles. If there is in fact no such thing, then I suppose I must fall back, as perhaps we all must, on what miracles I personally consider defensible. The trouble with that, of course, is that there is no particular reason why my list should be the same as yours or anyone else’s. In the absence of consensus, I guess Blindseeker04 must go with his intuition as to which, if any, miracles are true for him. This could be difficult for an agnostic.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Prof. Tite of the British Museum tried very hard to find to find a weave pattern similar to that of the Shroud

This is quite true. The weave of the Shroud is, as far as we know, unique. In the absence of comparable cloth, we must fall back on the looms upon which such a cloth could have been made. The four leading experts on the subject are agreed that no such loom is evidenced from before about 1100, after which the weave of the Shroud was at least possible.

He is not going to accept any “proof” of a miracle,

This is Undead_rat’s usual blithe assumption as to my attitudes, which, in spite of my continued public explanations of them, he prefers to make up to suit his own prejudices. If he had any ‘proof’ of any miraculous event, I should be glad to consider it, but as he prefers insult to reason, I have no expectation of any in the foreseeable future.

 

[Rasoleil]

The New Orleans Saints winning the Superbowl.

 

[undead_rat]

This is quite true. The weave of the Shroud is, as far as we know, unique. In the absence of comparable cloth, we must fall back on the looms upon which such a cloth could have been made. The four leading experts on the subject are agreed that no such loom is evidenced from before about 1100, after which the weave of the Shroud was at least possible.

Nonsense! Examples of cloths made of the Shroud’s herringbone weave have been found dating in the first century.

 

[undead_rat]

This is undead_rat’s usual blithe assumption as to my attitudes, which, in spite of my continued public explanations of them, he prefers to make up to suit his own prejudices.

I have seen you in action, sir, on many occasions, and i do not think that i owe you an apology.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Examples of cloths made of the Shroud’s herringbone weave have been found dating in the first century.

You seem very sure. Perhaps you’d like to give us some examples.

 

[Pattylt]

As you have already indicated, you are frustrated, because your expectations concerning documents about miracles do not match the reality.

I’ll have to add that I am surprised that there is no list of verified, accepted miracles (other than the Bible) from the Catholic Church, as well.

We know they investigate them so I’ve always assumed they publish their findings. I don’t expect private details to be revealed but a summary would be normal in other investigations.

How can anyone say there have been 70 Lourdes miracles? Does the Church just say so? Why should I, as a non believer, just accept the Churches word with no documentation whatsoever! It just allows me to completely discount any Catholic miracle.

I don’t mean this to sound snarky but the claims of miracles by the Church have been ongoing for years with claims that they scientifically investigate them. If they really do, how can anyone know if they don’t publish?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The best found was an Egyptian burial cloth about 80% of the shroud’s complexity.

I’m not sure I’m familiar with it. Have you a source?

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

That particular weave pattern was not made in Europe until at least the 16th century.

This seems to imply the shroud is NOT authentic.

Your comment makes no sense at all.

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

That particular weave pattern was not made in Europe until at least the 16th century.

Regardless, the technology required to make the pattern was available around 500AD (spinning wheels). No cloth of similar pattern and thread density has ever been found from Jesus’ time. The best found was an Egyptian burial cloth about 80% of the shroud’s complexity.

This comment is factually inaccurate. Fabric with herringbone weave of the type found on the Shroud has been found dating to the first century.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Fabric with herringbone weave of the type found on the Shroud has been found dating to the first century

Yes, you said that before, but you haven’t actually quoted any. Some thin strips of similar pattern, but woven in a different way, have been found, and a little later some silk damask, also woven using quite a different method, but there is no evidence for any first century apparatus that could weave the Shroud.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I’m still not convinced by either side

That’s absolutely fine; it’s best to inquire into all the arguments and eventually make up your own mind, or simply leave the question open.

As for the weave, it is a little more complicated than you imply. Almost all weave is very simple “tabby” weave. A set of threads is stretched across a frame (the warp threads), and then a shuttle loaded with more thread is woven under and over them (this is the weft thread). It is possible, and in the case of thin strips and some damasks, simply to thread the shuttle like a darning needle, over and under and over and under from one side to the other, and then back again, but this is ridiculously time consuming for large sheets of simple pattern. From very early times the warp threads were arranged so that every alternate thread passed over a bar at the top or bottom of the frame, lifting it up slightly, so that there was a gap between the even (lower) and odd (upper) threads, through which the shuttle could be passed very easily over the evens and under the odds. The clever bit is that all the lower warp threads were tied to a bar across the whole loom, which could be lifted up so that the even threads could be pulled even higher than the odd threads, so that coming back, the shuttle was passed under the evens and over the odds. However, this was still very time consuming, as the bar had to be lifted up onto a support and lowered back to level with the frame with every pass of the shuttle.

There is good evidence from Egyptian records in particular that as looms developed, more horizontal bars were introduced, and the warp threads, numbered 0-1-2-0-1-2 threaded on to two bars rather than one. With this one can make simple twills, by lifting one bar after another as the shuttle was passed backwards and forwards. Naturally, one could project this idea into a loom of more and more bars, but the fact is that there is no evidence for any more than two in the whole pictorial and archaeological corpus.

The four shaft loom is not known until medieval times, by which time the development of looms had resulted in each horizontal bar being attached, via pulleys, to a foot-treadle. By playing the four treadles with the feet, alternate bars can be lifted to produce the 3/1 twill of the Shroud.

There is a discussion of all this, with references, at The Medieval Weave – The Medieval Shroud.