Only suggestion I have is to note that St. Francis de Sales actually did have mission. He was sent, by an Apostolic authority. -Extraordinary- mission is validated or confirmed by miracles. The Protestant founders were claiming -extraordinary- mission outside of Apostolic authority to correct the Church, similar to an Old Testament era prophet. A prophet’s sayings would typically be validated as being from God by miracles. So, St. Francis de Sales had a powerful point.
The founders of Protestantism had no miracles to validate their claimed extraordinary mission. Miracles within Protestantism are detached from validation of this particular need. Rather, they validate Catholic truth, as God can work through Christians who lack the fullness of the faith. These miracles validate things such as, as you mentioned, the necessity of repentance, God’s mercy and such.
It is also too late for Protestants to have extraordinary mission validated by miracles. These reason is because it must be validated in the first generation, by the first leader or leaders themselves, or else God would be sending a message to mankind, but apparently not wanting them to believe it until much later, which is nonsensical.
Trent, I know I'm about to rain on your parade here, but has it occurred to you that many of the alleged miracles of Rome are almost downright inconsistent with scripture and abusive with respect to the biblical understanding?
A good example of this comes with St. Joseph Cupertino, who is said to have levitated immensely in his lifetime.
Or Vincent Ferrer who is said to have performed 873 miracles.
This sounds like a modern embellishment in the same vain as charismatic healings.
Can you elaborate on your examples of the Miracles done by the Saints as “inconsistent with scripture and abusive with respect to the biblical understanding”? Just seems like hand waving without any context of what you are truly saying. God Bless!
Why does a miracle have to have a previous instance in Scripture to have happened?
I mean, we don’t have a complete record of St. Paul’s life in Scripture, it stops when he’s in Rome. We don’t have a complete record of any of the other apostles either, except for James the greater— and we just have his death, we don’t have everything he did before that point.
At the end of the book of John, there’s even a disclaimer that not everything that Jesus did was recorded. So I’m having trouble following the logic here.
I agree on consistency, but why stop at Catholic vs. Protestant? I tried applying the same standard across Catholic, Muslim, Bahá’í, Hindu, Mormon, and other miracle claims.
I have seen Sam Shamoun previously defend the legitimacy of the Coptic Church by claiming that the apparitions at Zeitoun were evidence that God is, I suppose, "okay" with their theology, or at least that our Creator endorses it enough to warrant a great sign to lead people into such.
And so my question is, how should one go about deciding what kind of theological claims are and are not vindicated by a sign like this, being that the figure many said to be Our Lady did not speak at all during the length of the apparitions. If one were to posit that it was indeed God working this miracle, or His Mother at the Lord's behest, then it would seem very unfitting that such a grand sign should be done that would seem to vindicate the authenticity of a heretical and schismatic group, especially without any additional theological qualifiers to make it clear to the faithful that this group is indeed schismatic and heretical.
Only suggestion I have is to note that St. Francis de Sales actually did have mission. He was sent, by an Apostolic authority. -Extraordinary- mission is validated or confirmed by miracles. The Protestant founders were claiming -extraordinary- mission outside of Apostolic authority to correct the Church, similar to an Old Testament era prophet. A prophet’s sayings would typically be validated as being from God by miracles. So, St. Francis de Sales had a powerful point.
The founders of Protestantism had no miracles to validate their claimed extraordinary mission. Miracles within Protestantism are detached from validation of this particular need. Rather, they validate Catholic truth, as God can work through Christians who lack the fullness of the faith. These miracles validate things such as, as you mentioned, the necessity of repentance, God’s mercy and such.
It is also too late for Protestants to have extraordinary mission validated by miracles. These reason is because it must be validated in the first generation, by the first leader or leaders themselves, or else God would be sending a message to mankind, but apparently not wanting them to believe it until much later, which is nonsensical.
Trent, I know I'm about to rain on your parade here, but has it occurred to you that many of the alleged miracles of Rome are almost downright inconsistent with scripture and abusive with respect to the biblical understanding?
A good example of this comes with St. Joseph Cupertino, who is said to have levitated immensely in his lifetime.
Or Vincent Ferrer who is said to have performed 873 miracles.
This sounds like a modern embellishment in the same vain as charismatic healings.
Rome does not fair differently here.
Can you elaborate on your examples of the Miracles done by the Saints as “inconsistent with scripture and abusive with respect to the biblical understanding”? Just seems like hand waving without any context of what you are truly saying. God Bless!
Yeah, so let's look at the scriptures, where do we find instances of miracles imitating levitation in scripture?
Where do we find instances where one apostle or figure performs miracles into the thousands?
It's theatrical embellishment.
Why does a miracle have to have a previous instance in Scripture to have happened?
I mean, we don’t have a complete record of St. Paul’s life in Scripture, it stops when he’s in Rome. We don’t have a complete record of any of the other apostles either, except for James the greater— and we just have his death, we don’t have everything he did before that point.
At the end of the book of John, there’s even a disclaimer that not everything that Jesus did was recorded. So I’m having trouble following the logic here.
Just wondering, is it your view that:
1. If X is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, even as a similar case, therefore X is inconsistent with Scripture and should be rejected?
2. God cannot perform miracles today that are not recorded in Scripture?
Thank you.
Let me put it this way:
How would you propose for me to validate the miracles produced by Rome if these are not familiar to scriptural readers?
Put it in another way, how would I happen to know that levitation is a true miracle of God when there are groups making similar miraculous claims?
This isn't Atheism arguing this; there are true miracles and false ones. How am I supposed to know if these are not associated with sorcery?
Your claims are good as any other ones.
Catholicism teaches a hawk died after the bird it attacked responded with an “Ave Maria” 😂
I agree on consistency, but why stop at Catholic vs. Protestant? I tried applying the same standard across Catholic, Muslim, Bahá’í, Hindu, Mormon, and other miracle claims.
Once you look at the data across traditions, the apologetic force of any one tradition’s miracles looks much less obvious. See the data here: https://pacificwaves.substack.com/p/is-the-miracle-free-zone-really-empty
I have seen Sam Shamoun previously defend the legitimacy of the Coptic Church by claiming that the apparitions at Zeitoun were evidence that God is, I suppose, "okay" with their theology, or at least that our Creator endorses it enough to warrant a great sign to lead people into such.
And so my question is, how should one go about deciding what kind of theological claims are and are not vindicated by a sign like this, being that the figure many said to be Our Lady did not speak at all during the length of the apparitions. If one were to posit that it was indeed God working this miracle, or His Mother at the Lord's behest, then it would seem very unfitting that such a grand sign should be done that would seem to vindicate the authenticity of a heretical and schismatic group, especially without any additional theological qualifiers to make it clear to the faithful that this group is indeed schismatic and heretical.