What is the non Catholic view of this?

[Albion]

Matt 24 and Rev 13 (and 2Thess 2) says that the devil will be performing all sorts of signs and wonders as an Angel of light and his servants as Apostles of Christ. 2 Cor 11.

So should we "test the spirits" 1 John 4... or just assume that they are all telling the truth?

I believe that Athanasias' point was that they have been tested. (And my point was that they have been tested but the testing didn't prove anything about the Roman Catholic Church; saying that it did so was just a leap of faith on his part.)

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that Athanasias' point was that they have been tested. (And my point was that they have been tested but the testing didn't prove anything about the Roman Catholic Church; saying that it did so was just a leap of faith on his part.)

The RCC "tests" to see if the supernatural event is ... supernatural or not.

Notice that in Matt 4 Christ does not test the devil to see if his work is supernatural or not. Rather he tests the statements of satan against Bible doctrine.

 

[Athanasias]

The clarification is worthwhile, but you haven't proven that point in the least. At the most, what you've "proven" would be that some of the miracles are genuine, that's all.

thats fine this is not a debate i do not need to prove anything. i just present the evidence which i and many find powerful.

 

[Athanasias]

Thomas needed physical proof that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead; many others did not, but believed on faith. Might it be that Catholics need more physical proof than the Churches which hold to the Solas?

maybe. I think we all play the Thomas game from time to time so God allows us to see his Truth as a mercy to our weakness and to strengthen our faith in Him. as he did Thomas.

 

[Albion]

thats fine this is not a debate i do not need to prove anything.

I guess that's why you've already posted 29 replies to your own OP--because it's "not a debate" and you "do not need to prove anything."

 

[hedrick]

Miracles (or claimed miracles) tend to occur among people who expect them. There would be no reason that Protestants would see eucharistic miracles since we don't claim the same thing about the eucharist. However healing miracles and exorcisms do occur among Protestants, at least those Protestants that expect them. All groups claim that their miracles have been carefully validated.

 

[Athanasias]

Miracles (or claimed miracles) tend to occur among people who expect them. There would be no reason that Protestants would see eucharistic miracles since we don't claim the same thing about the eucharist. However healing miracles and exorcisms do occur among Protestants, at least those Protestants that expect them. All groups claim that their miracles have been carefully validated.

Sure I have said before we hold to the fact that God can and does give grace and healings to protestants and even sometimes exorcisms(as we can also say he does the same for other non Christian groups like Mormons who ask for these things out of good will in his name). As to the other question Well yes and no. Sometimes you have to be at least open to certain ones like healing. Even the Gospels show Jesus could not do miracles in some places because of the lack of faith in the community. But many of the miracles such as the Eucharistic ones no one expected and came out of doubt so the Church had to test and confirm them.

What you have to at least admit to is these doctrinal miracles happen in the Catholic Church. Now God is not a relativist and would do "doctrinal" miracles for just anyone who believed it so. There is only one truth he died and rose for and the early Christians died for. Either for example the Eucharist is truly the body and blood soul and divinity of Christ supernaturally or its not. Either Mary is Immaculately Conceived and purgatory exist or its all a malicious lie from many. Either all these are real and God is talking and we need to listen or the Catholic Church and every single scientist and witness to these miracles are liars and evil and make a mockery out of God and his word. And if that is the case the Catholic Church needs to be condemend at idolatrous and evil, the most evil Church on the planet disguiseing itself at length as Gods Church with miracles tested bv outside science to show credibility of the witnesses. This is just no middle ground when it comes to this. Either we are being evil and deceptive(and thats alot of deception from alot of witnesses) or its real and we all ought to conform our lives to this truth.

 

[MKJ]

Sure I have said before we hold to the fact that God can and does give grace and healings to protestants and even sometimes exorcisms(as we can also say he does the same for other non Christian groups like Mormons who ask for these things out of good will in his name). As to the other question Well yes and no. Sometimes you have to be at least open to certain ones like healing. Even the Gospels show Jesus could not do miracles in some places because of the lack of faith in the community. But many of the miracles such as the Eucharistic ones no one expected and came out of doubt so the Church had to test and confirm them.

What you have to at least admit to is these doctrinal miracles happen in the Catholic Church. Now God is not a relativist and would do "doctrinal" miracles for just anyone who believed it so. There is only one truth he died and rose for and the early Christians died for. Either for example the Eucharist is truly the body and blood soul and divinity of Christ supernaturally or its not. Either Mary is Immaculately Conceived and purgatory exist or its all a malicious lie from many. Either all these are real and God is talking and we need to listen or the Catholic Church and every single scientist and witness to these miracles are liars and evil and make a mockery out of God and his word. And if that is the case the Catholic Church needs to be condemend at idolatrous and evil, the most evil Church on the planet disguiseing itself at length as Gods Church with miracles tested bv outside science to show credibility of the witnesses. This is just no middle ground when it comes to this. Either we are being evil and deceptive(and thats alot of deception from alot of witnesses) or its real and we all ought to conform our lives to this truth.

Those aren't actually the only options. I mentioned this earlier, and Hendrick alluded to it - people see the miracles they expect. Their understanding of reality can shape their perception. In some cases we know that even very objective miraculous experiences can be psychological in origin.

There are a great many questions that you haven't answered that don't seem to fit in well with your claims here.

Why is it the Eastern Church, which you believe has a valid Eucharist and which also believes in the Real presence, does not have these kinds of miracles?

Why is it that these fleshly miracles seem to go against some of the more important theological explanations of transubstantiation?

Why is it these kinds of miracles became common in a particular time and place in the Church? Why does that seem to correspond to such a degree to a time of people being extremely focused on miracles and special personal revelations, things that eastern Christians would consider probable examples of prelest.

How healthy is this focus on miracles been in those for whom it is important?

Why is it that not only in other denominations, but other religions, the miracles always seem to confirm the view of reality the group already has? Why is it you think that is only significant in Catholicism?

 

[Athanasias]

Those aren't actually the only options. I mentioned this earlier, and Hendrick alluded to it - people see the miracles they expect. Their understanding of reality can shape their perception. In some cases we know that even very objective miraculous experiences can be psychological in origin.

There are a great many questions that you haven't answered that don't seem to fit in well with your claims here.

Why is it the Eastern Church, which you believe has a valid Eucharist and which also believes in the Real presence, does not have these kinds of miracles?

Why is it that these fleshly miracles seem to go against some of the more important theological explanations of transubstantiation?

Why is it these kinds of miracles became common in a particular time and place in the Church? Why does that seem to correspond to such a degree to a time of people being extremely focused on miracles and special personal revelations, things that eastern Christians would consider probable examples of prelest.

How healthy is this focus on miracles been in those for whom it is important?

Why is it that not only in other denominations, but other religions, the miracles always seem to confirm the view of reality the group already has? Why is it you think that is only significant in Catholicism?

Thanks sister for your comments. I certainly can not makes anyone believe these truths but I feel that these make great motives of credibility for the Catholic truth of these doctrines and so do many like the adult protestants and teens I teach. I actually did answer Hendricks questions let me repeat my response here. "Sure I have said before we hold to the fact that God can and does give grace and healings to protestants and even sometimes exorcisms(as we can also say he does the same for other non Christian groups like Mormons who ask for these things out of good will in his name). As to the other question Well yes and no. Sometimes you have to be at least open to certain ones like healing. Even the Gospels show Jesus could not do miracles in some places because of the lack of faith in the community. But many of the miracles such as the Eucharistic ones and the one at Lourdes no one expected and some of the Eucharistic ones came out of doubt so the Church had to test and confirm them."

To answer your second question these various miracles have happened on virtually every content in the past 2000 years and some of them here in the USA. They cross the time and land barrier in that respect. But I also think its prudent that God in His providence uses some of them at specific places and times to help give his Church intellectual and spiritual signs of His presence about His truths to strengthen the faith of those doubting like those stuck in the current age of rationalism, religious indifferentism, relativism, and empiricism we are going through.

As for the East they do have these Eucharistic miracles and they do have plenty of miracles similar to the Roman Church and they also have private revelations. One Marian miracle and private revelation in Egypt is seen as authentic by both the East and the West. All one has to do is a little research.

Not sure how these fleshly miracles go against transubstantiation. With the exception that most of the time God hides the true substance of these things by retaining the former accidents so as St. Thomas Aquinas says I am paraphrasing "We do not get grossed out".

I think these miracles are significant because they are not just general healing miracles like all religions seem to get but rather very clear doctrinal miracles that seem to be confirmed by both modern science and negative evidence(Satanist and demons) and that ought to get us thinking like a detective for truth and putting the pieces of the puzzle together to see who has all the truth when we study Christianity. So I use these in my teaching because they are very useful for intellectual reasons for the faith as motives of credibility.

Now I also stand by what I said earlier also they are important because God is not a relativist and would do "doctrinal" miracles for just anyone who believed it so. There is only one truth he died and rose for and the early Christians died for. Either for example the Eucharist is truly the body and blood soul and divinity of Christ supernaturally or its not. Either Mary is Immaculately Conceived and purgatory exist and dead saints do hear our prayers and take them to God or its all a malicious lie from many. Either all these are real and God is talking and we need to listen or the Catholic Church and every single scientist and witness to these miracles are liars and evil and make a mockery out of God and his word. And if that is the case the Catholic Church needs to be condemend at idolatrous and evil, the most evil Church on the planet disguiseing itself at length as Gods Church with miracles tested bv outside science to show credibility of the witnesses. This is just no middle ground when it comes to this. Either we are being evil and deceptive(and thats alot of deception from alot of witnesses) or its real and we all ought to conform our lives to this truth.

At least is my take. It makes sense to alot of people but its the greatest hidden secret ever. So i say lets use what God has provided to evangelize his truth. At least that is my take brother. God bless you!

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias

 

[Sean611]

I've always found miracles and the stories of miracles to be incredibly fascinating. I think it is a sad that (many) Christians discount miracles or even the possibility of miracles. That said, it is quite important that we try to be skeptical when evaluating events claimed as miracles. I'm not trying to be a doubting Thomas by any means, just saying that Christianity and Christians are best served by evaluating events deemed miracles by all necessary and available means, less we look like superstitious fools to the secular world if the "miracle" turns out to be a simple fraud.

All of that out of the way, I think that miracles have happened, do happen, and currently happen. That being said, I think we must be aware that sometimes well-meaning folks will forge or fake a miracle in order to bring people into the faith or to bring those closer to the faith. If one believes that one's immortal soul is in danger, then we shouldn't be surprised if a person believes that faking a miracle is ultimately for a good cause. Secondly, especially during medieval times, it was of value to parishes (and others) to have relic or to have had a miracle happen in order to bring in pilgrims, who brought money with them. Relics and miracles were a very lucrative business during the medieval age.

That being said, I'm certainly not discounting any of the miracles discussed in this thread, just trying to shed light on why we must be skeptical. However, I've always found the Shroud of Turin to be the most fascinating relic and miracle, one that has yet to be dismissed as a fraud, despite the best efforts of science.

 

[Albion]

I've always found miracles and the stories of miracles to be incredibly fascinating. I think it is a sad that (many) Christians discount miracles or even the possibility of miracles. That said, it is quite important that we try to be skeptical when evaluating events claimed as miracles. I'm not trying to be a doubting Thomas by any means, just saying that Christianity and Christians are best served by evaluating events deemed miracles by all necessary and available means, less we look like superstitious fools to the secular world if the "miracle" turns out to be a simple fraud.

All of that out of the way, I think that miracles have happened, do happen, and currently happen. That being said, I think we must be aware that sometimes well-meaning folks will forge or fake a miracle in order to bring people into the faith or to bring those closer to the faith. If one believes that one's immortal soul is in danger, then we shouldn't be surprised if a person believes that faking a miracle is ultimately for a good cause. Secondly, especially during medieval times, it was of value to parishes (and others) to have relic or to have had a miracle happen in order to bring in pilgrims, who brought money with them. Relics and miracles were a very lucrative business during the medieval age.

That being said, I'm certainly not discounting any of the miracles discussed in this thread, just trying to shed light on why we must be skeptical. However, I've always found the Shroud of Turin to be the most fascinating relic and miracle, one that has yet to be dismissed as a fraud, despite the best efforts of science.

From what I can tell, the average Christian, regardless of denomination, is far from discounting miracles. They do indeed believe people with incurable diseases have been cured, that prayer brought about events that couldn't be explained otherwise, and so on. What they don't believe are these vaudeville-type shows such as Lourdes and Fatima are supposed to be, in which next to nothing that could be considered miraculous happened except for the show.

 

[BobRyan]

The RCC "tests" to see if the supernatural event is ... supernatural or not.

Notice that in Matt 4 Christ does not test the devil to see if his work is supernatural or not. Rather he tests the statements of satan against Bible doctrine.

It is "assumed" by all - that the devil can produce supernatural miracles. The question is the source - not the fact that they can happen.

 

[Sean611]

From what I can tell, the average Christian, regardless of denomination, is far from discounting miracles. They do indeed believe people with incurable diseases have been cured, that prayer brought about events that couldn't be explained otherwise, and so on. What they don't believe are these vaudeville-type shows such as Lourdes and Fatima are supposed to be, in which next to nothing that could be considered miraculous happened except for the show.

I was thinking along the lines of the mainline, where miracles are often discounted, including many biblical ones.

 

[Albion]

I was thinking along the lines of the mainline, where miracles are often discounted, including many biblical ones.

You mean among the religiously very liberal or modernist types? I suppose that can be said, but I still think that the average Christian, regardless of denomination, believes in miracles (although not the sensationalist "pilgrimage to where the Madonna made flowers bloom in the snow" type).

 

[Sean611]

You mean among the religiously very liberal or modernist types? I suppose that can be said, but I still think that the average Christian, regardless of denomination, believes in miracles (although not the sensationalist "pilgrimage to where the Madonna made flowers bloom in the snow" type).

I wouldn't disagree, that is why I said "many" in my post and not "all" or the "average."

 

[BobRyan]

I wouldn't disagree, that is why I said "many" in my post and not "all" or the "average."

Very often when creation is discounted and the Bible called "myth" then you will find that the miracles in the Bible, the creation account, almost everything but the virgin birth is also being discounted.

Bob

 

[Athanasias]

I've always found miracles and the stories of miracles to be incredibly fascinating. I think it is a sad that (many) Christians discount miracles or even the possibility of miracles. That said, it is quite important that we try to be skeptical when evaluating events claimed as miracles. I'm not trying to be a doubting Thomas by any means, just saying that Christianity and Christians are best served by evaluating events deemed miracles by all necessary and available means, less we look like superstitious fools to the secular world if the "miracle" turns out to be a simple fraud.

All of that out of the way, I think that miracles have happened, do happen, and currently happen. That being said, I think we must be aware that sometimes well-meaning folks will forge or fake a miracle in order to bring people into the faith or to bring those closer to the faith. If one believes that one's immortal soul is in danger, then we shouldn't be surprised if a person believes that faking a miracle is ultimately for a good cause. Secondly, especially during medieval times, it was of value to parishes (and others) to have relic or to have had a miracle happen in order to bring in pilgrims, who brought money with them. Relics and miracles were a very lucrative business during the medieval age.

That being said, I'm certainly not discounting any of the miracles discussed in this thread, just trying to shed light on why we must be skeptical. However, I've always found the Shroud of Turin to be the most fascinating relic and miracle, one that has yet to be dismissed as a fraud, despite the best efforts of science.

Good Point. In fact in the video on Eucharistic miracles I posted(which alot of people did not watch I guess) a Bishop is interviewed and says exactly that and then describes the other conditions the Church does for these. Truly the most "skeptical" of these studies on the miracles comes from the Church. That is why she test them for so long usually(the last miracle declared official in Lourdes was declared in 2013 but had been studied since 1989). That is also why Lourdes has had only 69 official declared miracles by the Church but thousands of unofficial ones signed off by doctors.

 

[Athanasias]

Very often when creation is discounted and the Bible called "myth" then you will find that the miracles in the Bible, the creation account, almost everything but the virgin birth is also being discounted.

Bob

That is very sad but very very true!

 

[com7fy8]

I often get this question ignored when I ask it from many non Catholics. I assume they are trying to be nice.

Instead of assuming, let each one speak for oneself. One falsehood of organized groups is how ones can try to glump all members into one category and speak for all of them. Discover, by getting to know someone.

In the Catholic faith we have many documented "doctrinal miracles" or miracles associated with dogma's.

I am not a legal witness to if any of them really happened. But I know people can fake things. And people can be wishful, to believe what tells them they are right. Look at how people can fool themselves, about who they marry, just as an indicator of how human nature can readily have us fooling ourselves.

But what really works for me is how Jesus has done so much more for me, than my Roman Catholic activity did.

So what do protestant do with these? They either have to say that these are made up(like the Atheist medical materialist do) or that they are from Satan(like the Fundies do).

If someone talking with me makes these claims, I might look the person in the eye and be quiet and listen for the "therefore". If they say therefore something that the Bible says, fine. If they say therefore something that I find is not Biblical, not fine.

There are things the Roman Catholic Church does, to my knowledge, which are not Biblical and are much more of a problem than having wrong doctrine. So, I am more concerned with what is being done, than what ones think is dogma.

Two examples of what I mean >

> not obeying Paul's standard for who is qualified to "take care of the church of God" > please consider 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

> calling so much attention to Mary and saints, and not so much attention to how Christ "also makes intercession for us." (in Romans 8:34)

I understand that falsehood includes false direction of attention, away from what is more important and what should get more time and attention.

But the fruits seem to bring about conversion to Jesus Christ.

If you are assuming that converting to Christ means or includes worshiping the Roman Catholic "Eucharist", I can't assure you that the person has converted to the real Jesus > 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 shows that there are false Jesus Christs.

What about the strong negative evidence that Satanist mock the Mass and not just any worshio service. Satanist also break into Catholic Churches and steal consecrated host to vilify in black Mass. They do not break into Lutheran or Methodist Churches or others ect to do that. They know the presense is real.

Satanists are deceived. Even if ones of them believe they can capture and kidnap Jesus from a Roman Catholic tabernacle, I would not build your faith on what a Satanic person is capable of thinking.

Also, yes maybe certain "ex" Satanists have said they stole the host because they knew Jesus was in it. But I'm curious what some number of different Satanists would say, speaking for themselves. Satan would love to think he has power to capture and kidnap Jesus. So, may be he is really that foolish that he actually thinks he can kidnap Jesus by taking the Roman Catholic host. Or, he has his people thinking so, in order to give them something to do.

But when Jesus was captured and tortured and murdered on the cross, then He beat Satan.

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

So, Satan does not have power to hurt Jesus. Jesus beat the devil, even while Jesus was the dead Man.

And "fear of death" is slavery to Satan.

And worry is a pathological lier which some number of people trust and obey more than they trust and obey Jesus. So, if you claim someone has converted to Jesus, how is the person about refusing to give in to fear and the pathological lying and abuse of worry??

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

How much attention is going to how Jesus gives us rest for our souls, and how the "gentle and quiet spirit" of God's love is preciously pleasing to Him? How much are we about resting in Jesus and first being about pleasing our Father?

 

[BobRyan]

I often get this question ignored when I ask it from many non Catholics. I assume they are trying to be nice. In the Catholic faith we have many documented "doctrinal miracles" or miracles associated with dogma's. Such as the miracles at Lourdes(a place where the BVM told St. Bernadette that She was "the Immaculate Conception"). This Shrine which has 69 miracles recognized by the Vatican so far and thousands of non recognized ones by the medical community and locals has brough many to the brink of faith.. Medical science has been puzzled by these and even some atheist doctors who have seen the healings have been brought to the brink of conversion because of these. So what do protestant do with these? They either have to say that these are made up(like the Atheist medical materialist do) or that they are from Satan(like the Fundies do). But the fruits seem to bring about conversion to Jesus Christ. Does this not point toward Mary's real intercession and her Immaculate Conception?? Just curious what do non-Catholic Christians do with these.

Gal 1:6-9 "though we(Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should bring to you a different gospel..."

The "test" is not simply "is this a real visitation, a real miracle or not" but the test is also -- 'How does it line up with sola scriptura testing?".

Even Paul was subject to that kind of testing in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to "see if" those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were so"