Why not amputees?

[Mijoy2]

In another thread I asked the question why there are no reported and verifiable healings of the nature of restored limbs, disfigurements restored to before the disfiguration and other such physically visable healings.

After not receiving a reply I searched the net for such stories or explainations only to come up empty.

I believe this is a fair question to ask. The only difference I can see between a visable (please allow me this term) and an invisable healing is it is indisputably verifiable (please take this in context, I am aware of the notion that some will never believe).

Isn’t it fair to question other healings in light of this fact (assuming it’s a fact)? Restoing sight, restoring the ability to walk, disappearing tumors and the like are healings that can reasonably attributed to many things other then the supernatural. The human body is not fully understood as well as disease itself.

From the website:

No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.

The website also went on to site about a dozen common rationals for this. All of which (I am in agreement with the site) I find a stretch, or an attempt at settling with a poor explaination in lew of a good one.

Can anyone cast any light on this?

 

[Genesis315]

Here are some examples of miraculous restoration of limbs. These are very rare–similar to bilocation and raising the dead–and have only been worked by the greatest of saints.

St. John Chrysostom’s,hand was lost. Through his prayer and the intercession of the blessed virgin it is restored. That miraculous hand over 1700 years later is to this day incorruptible while the rest of his body was not (his tongue may be too, I forget ). See here:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

St John of Damascus had his hand amputated by the Caliph of Damascus on the evidence of a forged letter attributed to St John offering to betray the city to it’s enemies. The hand grew back and the Caliph accepted St John’s innocense on the basis of the miraculous regrowth.

A woman named Salome had also lost both her hands as a punishment for some crime. When she repented, they were restored to her by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin.

St. Peter also restored lost hands when a man trying to tip over Mary’s funeral bier had them cut off. Of course, Our Lord restored the lost ear of the soldier.

St. Anthony of Padua was well known for working great miracles, including restoring lost limbs–he is the patron of amputees for this reason. http://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

 

[runandsew]

Did that website mention the story about the Lourdes miracle where the ex British GI that had a metal plate placed in his head because part of his skull was blown away in WWI, he was receiving disability from his government. He was cured at Lourdes, the metal plate was gone and the Skull had grown back. The British government knew of this but continued to give him disability checks because they did not want to admit the miracle.

I just looked it up and found a link, it differs a little from what I had heard before, but I think that it is the same story.
(THE STORY OF JOHN TRAYNOR )

 

[Nullasalus]

Isn’t it fair to question other healings in light of this fact (assuming it’s a fact)? Restoing sight, restoring the ability to walk, disappearing tumors and the like are healings that can reasonably attributed to many things other then the supernatural. The human body is not fully understood as well as disease itself.

Well, it depends on just what your standards are for the supernatural.

Let’s put aside the examples in this thread, and the obvious biblical examples. Would you call it miraculous if a lizard grew back its tail after it had been chopped off? You’d probably stipulate that it depends on the kind of lizard - there are ones who can have their tails removed and will grow them back. That kind of regeneration has plenty of examples in the animal world - even humans have limited forms of regeneration (many of our injuries heal over time, wounds close, etc.)

You’d rightly rule that out as not supernatural - we know the science, we know what’s involved and how it’s done. If a human did grow a limb back - but they did so with the aid of modern medicine and science (I’m not aware of one that can handle this feat, yet) - that would hardly count as supernatural either, right?

The point of bringing those up is just to mention that - even if someone had regenerated a limb, or even an organ - it wouldn’t necessarily be known-down evidence of a miracle, if only because these ‘miracles’ are evident in nature. If we had one authentic regrowth of a limb, would it be viewed as a persuasive miracle, or as an anomaly? If we could figure out how it happened to a point - some kink in the individual’s genetics, some one in a billion chance - would it no longer be supernatural?

The point I’m getting at here is, how are you defining ‘supernatural’? That something happens and we have no idea how? That can’t be right, because there’s just a gap in our knowledge in such a case. That something happens but the odds of it happening were so low that it’s practically impossible that it would have occured? I’d agree that would be an interesting point of investigation - but then you’re just talking about something happening which isn’t necessarily other-worldly. If I predicted that tomorrow the sun would be blocked out in New York - and against all odds, there was a freak storm that kept the city blanketed in darkness - did something miraculous occur? If so, how? It’s no mystery what blocked out the sun. Miracles and the supernatural do not necessarily have no correspondence with the natural world. They must, in fact, because that’s where the miracle is taking place.

All that talk aside… the first answer that comes to mind is that, as you said, we’re in the dark - not just about the human body, but about miracles and their nature as well. If I found out tomorrow that Christ’s resurrection was a natural event (something that happened according to a material nature we do not fully understand), I would not be surprised. Nor would I be surprised to find out that it wasn’t ‘magic’ that was to resurrect all people, but science and understanding vastly beyond our current understanding. I’m in my own niche on this view, of course - I don’t speak for all Catholics, or even most - but I find it personally consistent with teaching. All true miracles owe their authorship to God, but it doesn’t mean that they are forever beyond our understanding.

 

[Amateur_Soul]

methinks thou art pwned OP

 

[Mijoy2]

methinks thou art pwned OP

excuse me?

 

[Mijoy2]

Well, it depends on just what your standards are for the supernatural.

.

Good post and some very interesting views.

I thought of this (or something similiar) too, following my post.

All (or most) miracles, including the miracles of the bible, are arguably some extension of the natural. They’re also somewhat small, with respect to what God is capable of, in scope. God created the universe, turning water to wine or healing the sick is modest with respect to His power.

I doubt I am alone in being in a constant battle with my faith. I find I often ask myself if I am making excuses for believing. We have a reason/answer/rational for the mysteries that disturb us.

If we were told somewhere in the bible that every third Thursday no birds would fly, but we saw no apparent change in birds behavior and they were flying, we’d find some biblical answer for this. Some very articulate apologist would find a convincing way to rationalize this. Why?; because we must to keep our faith alive. I don’t mean to offend anyone or critisize our faith. I just feel (and hope) that God allows these doubts, because frankly, they are unaviodable, they’re beyond my power to control.

Another question I ask myself (and Him) is why He chooses to torment me with doubt when He knows I am searching with all my power to believe.

Even in the Bible, blind faith seems to be a virtue. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Many healings were granted because the sick person believed. “Pick up your stick and go home”, “you are healed because you believe”. Yet, in life we are taught from a very early age to doubt. We doubt certain things and people because it is not only rational and wise to doubt, it is safe. We tell children not to talk to strangers. We watch Benny Hinn on TV and our natural instinct is to doubt. Why was Christ different in ancient times? I understand Christ was righteous and fulfilled prophecy and spoke with love and integrity but wasn’t He stilll a stranger to the people with a message? We (some of us) feel pity for the people who are slain in the spirit at many of these so called faith healings. But the people who approached Jesus are looked upon as virtuous for thier “faith”.

Boy, I just rambled…sorry.

I sure would like to wake up one day and find that Mount Everest had moved to Ohio overnight. But I won’t hold my breath.

 

[water]

Another question I ask myself (and Him) is why He chooses to torment me with doubt when He knows I am searching with all my power to believe.

For each soul, God works differently - whichever way He pleases. For instance, while some may feel a great present of Jesus in the Eucharist, some (like me) have no such feeling, but I try not to doubt but believe His presence. Another example, some may pray a lot and a lot and their prayers have not been answered, some only do one Hail Mary per day, their lives got turned around and toward God.

For us asking more miracles in order to believe - it is like Thomas who wanted to put his finger into the wounds of Jesus.

Blessed are those who do not see but believe.

Keep up your faith and patience.

Mark 8:12
He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.”

 

[Nullasalus]

If we were told somewhere in the bible that every third Thursday no birds would fly, but we saw no apparent change in birds behavior and they were flying, we’d find some biblical answer for this. Some very articulate apologist would find a convincing way to rationalize this. Why?; because we must to keep our faith alive. I don’t mean to offend anyone or critisize our faith. I just feel (and hope) that God allows these doubts, because frankly, they are unaviodable, they’re beyond my power to control.

Sure. But that’s true of absolutely any belief, religious or not. Take a look at the miracle of the sun at fatima - that’s a pretty rare situation. A group of children pick a date when a miracle is supposed to occur, a massive crowd assembles to witness this, and then… something far beyond their control or prediction (or anyone’s, I believe) occurs. Did it convince everyone? Of course not. The explanations range from ‘Well, it was probably a very rare meteorological event and the kids just got lucky’ to even ‘Satan did it.’

I personally think God allows these doubts. In fact, I think that’s made explicit. Take a good look at who was made the rock of the Church - the guy whose faith wavered, who denied Christ three times. If there’s one lesson in Christianity, it’s that practically everyone has moments of doubts, just as everyone has sins.

Another question I ask myself (and Him) is why He chooses to torment me with doubt when He knows I am searching with all my power to believe.

I’ve asked myself this same question, a lot. And I think the problem is that ultimately, no matter what happens, there’s always room for doubt. If after the resurrection Christ pointed at the moon and etched the words ‘JESUS IS LORD’ in humongous letters we could read from earth, would there be nothing but Christians in the world right now? Or would there be theories about extra-terrestrials, or even how the words were a fluke and some guy changed his name to Jesus 2000 years ago to capitalize on the event?

If I experienced a ‘miracle’, I have to wonder if I would believe it. At the time? Sure, probably. But later on? I’d question my memory. I’d wonder if my senses were faulty. I’d wonder if there was a more ‘reasonable’ explanation I simply overlooked.

In the end, I have faith while admitting that there are some things absolutely beyond me, and beyond proof. And I’m not perfect in it, not by a longshot. But I think that’s all we can ultimately do - even if miracles were plentiful, we’d be in this same rut.

 

[petra]

I sure would like to wake up one day and find that Mount Everest had moved to Ohio overnight. But I won’t hold my breath.

But would the moving of Everest be enough for the doubter? Given the number of prophecies that Christ fulfilled, the historical reliability of the gospel accounts of the life of Christ, the witness of over 500 of His resurrection, and the evidence of miracles that have occured in the Church Age (including healing of amputees), we have ample reason to believe. God doesn’t give us every bit of evidence possible, but He gives us sufficient evidence.

You say that the faithful always find a way to explain a contradiction. In my experience, skeptics always find a way to dismiss the work of God. When His work is dismissed so easily by the doubter, why should He go to any further extraordinary effort?

Blessing,

petra

 

[Al_Masetti]

Seems to me there might be a commandment about “thou shalt not tempt the Lord.”

 

[tdgesq]

All that talk aside… the first answer that comes to mind is that, as you said, we’re in the dark - not just about the human body, but about miracles and their nature as well. If I found out tomorrow that Christ’s resurrection was a natural event (something that happened according to a material nature we do not fully understand), I would not be surprised. Nor would I be surprised to find out that it wasn’t ‘magic’ that was to resurrect all people, but science and understanding vastly beyond our current understanding. I’m in my own niche on this view, of course - I don’t speak for all Catholics, or even most - but I find it personally consistent with teaching. All true miracles owe their authorship to God, but it doesn’t mean that they are forever beyond our understanding.

You are not alone in this belief. Through my own limited investigations, I have come to conclude that it is more likely that miracles work within the laws of nature, not in contravention of them. I don’t know of any theological reason why a miracle would require a suspension or violation of the laws that God Himself established. And all by itself, a suspension of the laws of nature doesn’t seem a sufficient condition for a miracle.

If a miracle is meant to communicate something about God to us, then it requires a human witness or witnesses. Would it really be a miracle if God suspended the laws of nature without anyone observing it? Nothing would be communicated. On the other hand, it is conceivable that God working within the laws of nature could communicate something about himself to us that we would recognize as such. God could (in fact, he would) know in advance that the particular act of communication would be accepted by the witnesses as such. That seems like a miracle to me.

I’m not saying that in communicating this message it is impossible that God did suspend the laws of nature. It’s just that I don’t see why that would be necessary, especially given our limited human abilities to positively identify a true suspension of those laws. Just some thoughts here.

 

[Mersenne]

You are not alone in this belief. Through my own limited investigations, I have come to conclude that it is more likely that miracles work within the laws of nature, not in contravention of them. I don’t know of any theological reason why a miracle would require a suspension or violation of the laws that God Himself established.

Because that’s how a miracle is defined. If it doesn’t violate the laws of physics then it’s not a miracle.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

Can we ever be totally sure whether something is a miracle or just a gap in our knowledge? Not really, but like all things there are degrees of certainty. We’ve discovered life that eats things that should be poison to anything alive, that’s a mystery, but probably not a miracle; if we discovered the moon was made of green cheese, that would probably be a miracle. There could be giant space cows hiding somewhere, but that’s pretty unlikely.

There then is an interesting inverse coorelation to notice between how much something would lend credible evidence to the existence of god and how often it happens. I can understand god not feeling the need to prove his existence (not really, but let’s pretend for the sake of arguement), but this is difficult to explain without assuming he is intentionally hiding his presence. It also doesn’t seem congruent with scripture. God doesn’t say he will answer your prayers unless it violates the general course of things, he says he will give of you what you ask, move mountains if he has to. God is all over the old testiment flinging fireballs and meeting people in person and raining mana from the heavens. Why stop all of a sudden? God obviously seems to think it’s okay to do miracles that prove his existence, he use to do it all the time, so why not now? Rationalize all you want, all the evidence is congruent with an inexistent god.

And that’s the next interesting coorelation. There is a direct coorelation between how miraculous an event it and how little evidence we have. That is a little harder to explain away with anything other then “obviously it’s not really happening”. If we have a “miracle” like a tumor going away that could have gone on it’s own, then we’ve got x-rays and doctors and living people who can attest to the “miracle”. But if we’re talking about a metal plate in someone’s head disapearing, we’ve got one guy who heard it somewhere and every time he hears the story it’s different and he can’t find any coolaborating evidence anywhere.

And we’d expect the opposite if these things were real. Look at the claim of Jesus. For his earthy existence, we’ve got a little bit of evidence, people claiming he was walking around starting a cult, doing bad parlor tricks. For his resurection? We have third hand accounts from people writing 100 years after it happened. For his miracles? Third hand accounts from people writing 100 years after it happened. Now, I don’t know about you, but if I saw someone raising the dead and healing the sick I’d be writing home about that, I’d be screaming it from the rooftops and gathering more people to come see it. Yet even though it is claimed he had hundreds of scribes in attendence, no one felt the need to write down what was going on. Even though the record keeping of the day was better then any period in history, and we have very good records of executions and major figures and other messiahs, we have no information about his execution or other major events of his life.

 

[The_Augustinian]

It doesn’t seem to be right for God to hand out miracles like prizes in a Crackerjacks box. A good father would not spoil his children with candy; why would Father God do the same with miracles?

First of all, it’s incongruent with how scripture portrays miracles. Miracles are usually limited in scope and involve a specific audience (such as the Hebrews, St. Paul, etc.) Since miracles are rare and irregular occurrences, they cannot be tested scientifically since the scientific method is based upon repeated observance. Since God is outside the system, so to speak, scientists trying to “prove” miracles would be as futile as flies trying to examine the nature of men, or the blind men trying to figure out the elephant.

Secondly, God does not primarily use miracles to prove He exists; He chooses certain men (such as Noah, Abraham, Moses) to lead His people. Thus, we do not depend primarily on miracles, but on the testimony of the Church. All the miracles we really need are already in the Bible. That is why miracles today are treated as private, not public revelation and are not binding on anyone to believe. Probably the greatest debunker of miracles today is not the Skeptical Inquirer, but the Catholic Church itself!

As Jesus said, “blessed are they who believe without seeing.”

 

[Chanson33]

I saw a documentary once about the Venerable Father Solanus Casey (1870 - 1957). Many, MANY healings are attributed to his intercessions, including one specific one where the skin on a woman’s terribly burned and scarred face was restored to health in an instant. He was declared venerable by Pope John Paul II in 1995. His own body is incorrupt (as observed when it was exhumed in 1987). Awesome!

 

[tdgesq]

Because that’s how a miracle is defined. If it doesn’t violate the laws of physics then it’s not a miracle.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

This is incorrect. First, not even the link you provided gives this definition, and it gives many alternate definitions. Second, a standard dictionary is a very poor source to define theological terms. Specialized disciplines always have their own nomenclature, and usually have their own specialized dictionaries as well. Medical dictionaries being a good example. Third, miracles appear to have been happening since there were human beings. Anybody living before the time of Aristotle and Aquinas would have a difficult time understanding that a miracle would have to “violate the laws of physics.” Finally, many Catholic theologians are very critical of the notion that miracles must violate the natural laws. See newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm.

I would discuss the rest of the post, but until we are all talking about the same thing, there isn’t much point.

 

[Mersenne]

This is incorrect. First, not even the link you provided gives this definition,

…surpasses all known human or natural powers

that sounds like violating the laws of physics to me.

and it gives many alternate definitions.

Pretty well the same definition or used in a different context, such as “a miracle of modern engineering”.

Second, a standard dictionary is a very poor source to define theological terms. Specialized disciplines always have their own nomenclature, and usually have their own specialized dictionaries as well. Medical dictionaries being a good example.

Point, but I see no reason to define the term differently. Seems to me like a somantic way to avoid the obvious. Divine intervension doesn’t happen. If the hand of god is indestinguishable from the hand of fate then the hand of god is indestinguishable from the hand of fate. There’s no reason to assume they aren’t the same thing, there’s no reason to assume the hand of fate can hear what you say or cares how you feel. If there is a creator out there who has any human qualities, he would have to be cold and uncaring and really like empty space and black holes, cause that’s mostly what’s he made.

Third, miracles appear to have been happening since there were human beings. Anybody living before the time of Aristotle and Aquinas would have a difficult time understanding that a miracle would have to “violate the laws of physics.”

If only because they wouldn’t understand “laws of physics”. I think they would understand that the gods use “magic” which is to say they do things that are beyond our normal understanding. If they’re not doing something beyond our normal understanding, if Zuess comes down and then just sits on a hill then it’s not a miracle.

Finally, many Catholic theologians are very critical of the notion that miracles must violate the natural laws. See newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm.

Understandably so. It’s hard to defend the faith when it’s obviously wrong. One good way is to just define everything that happens ever as proof of god’s existence, no matter how obcenely silly that is. Sorry, no violation of the laws of physics, no miracle.

I would discuss the rest of the post, but until we are all talking about the same thing, there isn’t much point.

Well, I think you can still answer the gist of it, but I think you won’t because you don’t have a good answer Why won’t god heal amputees?

 

[Mersenne]

It doesn’t seem to be right for God to hand out miracles like prizes in a Crackerjacks box. A good father would not spoil his children with candy; why would Father God do the same with miracles?

No one is asking him to do anything like that. I hardly thinking having arms will spoil anyone. If it does then he’s spoiling the rest of us.

 

[Mersenne]

It doesn’t seem to be right for God to hand out miracles like prizes in a Crackerjacks box. A good father would not spoil his children with candy; why would Father God do the same with miracles?

I think I need to drive this point home a little further, so let’s use the analogy that you brought up, but let’s make it a little more accurate to what goes on in the real world.

A father sits down with his 5 sons to eat. Each has a roll, some meat, some fruit, and candy for after dinner. Now, a bird comes down and snatches up one the kids candy. The kid turns to his father and says “that’s depressing, I don’t want to impose on you too much, but can I at least have an extra piece of bread to replace my candy, you always said you would give of me what I ask”. In response, sometimes the father gives the kid a piece of bread, sometimes the father gives the kid nothing, sometimes the father gives him double desert, sometimes the father punches the kid in the face and doesn’t tell him why, sometimes the father overturns the table and no one gets to eat, sometimes he takes the food of the kid who asks and gives it to another kid. Sounds like the most psychotic father ever. Pretty soon he’d have to be explaining to social services “my ways are mysterious, but trust me!”

 

[Maryam]

Here is another story of a miraculous healing of lost limbs that I read in the December 8, 2006 newsletter I receive monthly from the Abbaye Saint-Joseph (or St. Joseph’s Abbey) de Clairval in France. It is about a man who had to have part of his leg amputated from the knee down due to an accident. His name was Miguel Juan Pellicer and this ocurred in the year 1637 in the Province of Valencia, Spain.

Due to the young man’s devotion to Our Lady of the Pillar and rubbing oil from the lamps that burned in front of a statue of Our Lady of the Pillar on the stump of his leg Our Lady interceded for him one night and caused his amputated leg to grow back.

In addition Miguel’s amputated leg that had been buried in the courtyard in the hospital and was never found.

This is called the Miracle of Calanda…It was thoroughly investigated and on April 27, 1641 the Archbishop solemnly rendered his verdict declaring the restoration of Miguel’s amputated leg “wonderful and miraculous”.

God bless