What are miracles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nayrb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nayrb

Guest
Are miracles the improbable happening, or are they the impossible happening?

Can something that has a scientific explanation for it nonetheless be a miracle based on its sheer unlikelihood of occurring naturally?

I ask because I got into a conversation about this with a friend at work concerning what would happen if science could one day prove that a virgin birth were physically possible. I argued that the Church would welcome the information as it grants credence to the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ, but my coworker disagreed, that miracles by their very definition are occurrences which are physically impossible yet made possible by God, so if there’s a scientific explanation it cannot be a miracle.

What does the CHURCH teach about miracles?
 
The Virgin Birth is more than a miracle, the mystery of the Incarnation deserves a thread of It’s own. Medical science cannot declare miracles, they can only say an occurence defies medical explanation.

ARGUMENT:
(1) Miracles are defined as: instances where events happen in such close temporal proximity and in logical connection to religious evocation, such as prayer; said events stand out from what we understand to be the set course of nature; said events cannot be explained through any known natural agency; said events create religious affections in the lives of those connected with them.

(2) Miracles are perceived to be interventions or influences of Supernature upon the lower sphere of nature.

(3) Thousands of such examples have been documented in modern times.

(4) When and if such occurrences affect the life of a believer, the believer is then justified in assuming that some supernatural effect has occurred

(5) If a supernatural effect happens, it is assumed that God works such an effect

(6) Such effects have occurred, therefore, the believer is justified in such a belief.

(7) A justified belief in the action of God is a justification for a rational belief in God. Therefore, the real first hand experience of this type of event, or the credible confidence in such documented cases justifies a rational warrant for belief.

The Church’s criteria for miracles in 1734:
Author: Cardinal Prospero Lambertini,
future Pope Benedict XIV (14th, not 16th)

1.Firstly, the disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat.
  1. Secondly, the eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery.
  2. Thirdly, no drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained.
  3. Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly.
  4. Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial.
  5. Sixthly, it is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural.
  6. Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear.
After 1977, following the proposal put forward by Mgr. Donze (who has recently died) to reword the rules laid down by Benedict XIV:
  1. The diagnostics and authenticity of the disease has been preliminarily and perfectly assessed;
  2. The prognosis provides for an impending or short-term fatal outcome;
  3. The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;
  4. The prescribed treatment cannot be deemed to have resulted in a recovery or in any case could have been propitiatory for the purposes of recovery itself.
These criteria are still in use nowadays, in view of their highly logical, accurate and pertinent nature.

Scientific Evidence for Miracles
 
Nayrb said:
Are miracles the improbable happening, or are they the impossible happening?

Can something that has a scientific explanation for it nonetheless be a miracle based on its sheer unlikelihood of occurring naturally?

I ask because I got into a conversation about this with a friend at work concerning what would happen if science could one day prove that a virgin birth were physically possible. I argued that the Church would welcome the information as it grants credence to the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ, but my coworker disagreed, that miracles by their very definition are occurrences which are physically impossible yet made possible by God, so if there’s a scientific explanation it cannot be a miracle.

What does the CHURCH teach about miracles?
Click to expand...
Am I the only one wondering why you and your friend don’t realize that with today’s technology, a virgin can indeed become pregnant without engaging in the sexual act?
That technology was not available at the time Mary, mother of Jesus was alive however.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Am I the only one wondering why you and your friend don’t realize that with today’s technology, a virgin can indeed become pregnant without engaging in the sexual act?
That technology was not available at the time Mary, mother of Jesus was alive however.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about technology. I’m talking about miracles that later on come with a natural explanation as to the mechanism of how the miracle came to be. For example, a parthenogenic pregnancy is theoretically possible yet not yet observed in humans, and so far there’s no conceived way for such a pregnancy to result in a male child. If there could be, then would it be permissible for a Catholic to still believe in the miracle yet believe that God used a natural means to bring about a miracle?
 
Nayrb said:
I’m not talking about technology. I’m talking about miracles that later on come with a natural explanation as to the mechanism of how the miracle came to be. For example, a parthenogenic pregnancy is theoretically possible yet not yet observed in humans, and so far there’s no conceived way for such a pregnancy to result in a male child. If there could be, then would it be permissible for a Catholic to still believe in the miracle yet believe that God used a natural means to bring about a miracle?
Click to expand...
I would argue that it would still remain a miracle in the eyes of the believer. It was not just his virgin birth that made him who He is to believers, even though it is one non negotiable item.
 
Hi Nayrb,

A miracle is is an intervention of God in the normal course of nature.

Miracles are described not only by the nature of the event but by the circumstances that surround them. They do not necessarily go against nature. For example, suppose that a region has been without rain for months and months. One day people gather in a Church and spend the day praying for rain. Lo and behold rain falls for several hours, but only in the area where these people lived. Now it may or may not be proven that such an event was due to natural factors. But the circumstances in which the event takes place make it a miracle. The probability of such an event happening without prayer is probably one in several billions, but the probability of it happening while people are praying precisely for it is mind-boggling.

In the case of miracles requjired for canonization, very precise conditions are required. For example, an uncurable cancer is cured overnight. No natural explanation can be found at the time of the event. This does not mean that SOME DAY a natural explanation could not be found. But here again, the circumstances, such as praying for the intercession of a particular holy person, application of a relic etc. are a essential element of the miracle. A true miracle can never be rescinded.

Verbum
 
=Nayrb;6631479]Are miracles the improbable happening, or are they the impossible happening?
Click to expand...
Can something that has a scientific explanation for it nonetheless be a miracle based on its sheer unlikelihood of occurring naturally?
Click to expand...
I ask because I got into a conversation about this with a friend at work concerning what would happen if science could one day prove that a virgin birth were physically possible. I argued that the Church would welcome the information as it grants credence to the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ, but my coworker disagreed, that miracles by their very definition are occurrences which are physically impossible yet made possible by God, so if there’s a scientific explanation it cannot be a miracle.
Click to expand...
What does the CHURCH teach about miracles?
Click to expand...
Miracles by defination are events beyond human explaination and understading. I seem to recall that there are three “classifications”: Physical and Spiritual being two of them with the Spiritual being the greater of the two; but darn, can’t recall the third catagory?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top