¶1The conversion of Joe Schmidt and the apologetic work of Ethan Muse has created renewed interest in whether Marian apparitions, eucharistic miracles, and other distinctly Catholic miracles are proof that Catholicism is true. So, in today's episode, I'll examine the responses made by Protestant apologists like Redeem Zoomer, Jordan Cooper, and Gavin Ortland, and answer the question, how should Catholic miracles be used in our defense of the Catholic faith? And to do that, I'll go through a few common responses to Catholic miracle claims and then offer some of my thoughts on how to incorporate miracles into our defense of the faith. Starting with response number one, postappostolic miracles can't prove Catholicism because the Catholic Church doesn't require belief in postapostolic miracles. I consider this the weakest response, so I was surprised to see Redeem Zoomer making it in this clip.
¶2>> The Catholic Church does not require its members to believe in any particular postappostolic miracle. They don't require you to believe in any of the eucharistic miracles or any of the Marion apparitions. If the Catholic Church itself does not require its own people to believe in any of those miracles, why do Catholic apologists online act like all Protestants suddenly have to believe in those miracles or they're being anti-intellectual? >> It sounds like RZ is asking how a Catholic apologist can sort of force someone to believe a miracle happened when the Catholic Church herself doesn't make as strong a claim about postappostolic miracles. But even if something is not part of the deposit of faith, reason itself could present a strong case for it being true.
¶3And a Catholic apologist could rightly point out if a non-atholic is using a double standard when evaluating the evidence for that particular miracle. But more importantly, just because a belief is optional within a worldview, that doesn't mean a person should not or cannot use that optional belief to justify the worldview. For example, Christians are not obligated to believe any individual had a personal experience of God in prayer just because the person said this happened. But that doesn't mean the individuals themselves can't base their faith off of this experience or that a person couldn't be moved to faith by seeing other people testify about their experience of God. Or to give another example closer to the issue of miracles, no Christian, Catholic or Protestant, would say that you must believe the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ as a matter of faith.
¶4Instead, you're free to believe the shroud is a medieval forgery. But you're also free to believe not only that it is authentic, but that only the energy emitted by Christ's resurrection could create the unique image that is found on the shroud and thus view it as a miracle supporting your belief in Christianity. So the question is not do you have to believe in Catholic miracles? Instead, the question should be what are we to make of these claims and how should we respond to them? Even if they aren't public divine revelation, reason itself could show us that these events are communicating some kind of message about God's public revelation.
¶5And so at the least, it would be wise to not cavalerely discard that message. Response number two, Catholic miracles aren't unique. Lots of Christian denominations have miracles. Here we need to make a distinction between miracles that affirm core Christian doctrines and miracles that affirm the truth of some specific theology, what are sometimes called vindicatory miracles. I agree that Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians also experience miracles because they are united to Christ through valid baptisms and united to his church in varying imperfect degrees.
¶6That means Catholics can praise God when he works through Protestants or Eastern Orthodox to spread the gospel. Consider this episode from the Gospel of Mark. John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name." And we forbade him because he was not following us. But Jesus said,"Do not forbid him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us." The Greek word for miracle is seion, which means sign or miracle.
¶7That makes sense because a miracle is a kind of sign, and its context tells us what the miracle signifies. In the case of nearly all miracles among Protestants, what is signified is usually a fundamental Christian truth like that God loves people and wants to save them or heal them. It's not like the pastor is saying in the name of Jesus and our belief in solos scriptor and solid be healed. Many Catholic healing miracles however are different than Protestant ones because they occur in a context of beliefs that contradict Protestantism like asking the saints to intercede for us and pray for our healing. Gavin Ortland has released several videos saying the Protestant position is that Christians must not do this.
¶8But if God confirms these requests for saintly prayer with miraculous healings, then that would seem to be God saying that this Protestant theology is incorrect and Christians should do this. In Proz and author Craig Kenir's two volume work on miracles, he says some cures at Lords are, in his words, extraordinarily well attested, such as the unexplained cancer recovery and bone regrowth of Victoria McKlly, whose healing the International Medical Committee called inexplicable. Keenir doesn't present any similar kinds of healings that affirm specific Protestant denominations. And unlike general healings in Protestant communities, the healings at Lords can be seen as confirmation that the Lord's shrine and its message of Mary appearing to a young girl and saying, "I am the immaculate conception," are indeed authentic. So, there's a difference between miracles that vindicate a widely shared Christian doctrine, and miracles that vindicate distinct theology.
¶9Some miracles might vindicate uniquely Catholic theology. Or they might just vindicate apostolic doctrine many Protestants reject like high marology and saintly intercession as in the case of the zitune apparition over a Coptic church in Egypt or the veneration of icons associated with weeping icons in Eastern Orthodox churches. Now in response to this, some Protestants say their traditions also have unique vindicating miracles for their specific theology on par with Catholic vindicatory miracles. But the evidence for these Protestant miracle claims is extremely lacking. Here's some examples.
¶10>> So, if you're wondering what the Protestant miracles are, Protestant miracles have less to do with things like icons that stream myrr or skulls that never decompose. Like, Protestantism just does not focus on those things. But some of the reformers during the Reformation did have fulfilled prophecies. Yan Hus had the prophecy about Martin Luther. And a lot of the Presbyterian reformers in the Scottish Reformation like George Wishart and John Knox himself did have a lot of fulfilled prophecies and fulfilled prophecy is a vindicatory miracle.
¶11Those prophecies were specifically things that helped the reformation in Scotland survive. Now there are also several prophecies that at the time of the reformation at least were seen to have been fulfilled in in the work of Martin Luther. And [snorts] we have the very famous one of John Hus which talks about um God you know sending uh you know someone in a hundred years who is going to essentially complete his work and they're not going to be able to to wipe him out. And there are some specifics about this prophecy that apply very specifically to Martin Luther. The specific claim is that Yan Hus said prior to his execution, "You are now burning a goose, but in 100 years, God will raise up a swan you will not be able to burn or silence." And before we go any further, if you want information on the erroneous claim that Hus was executed for translating the Bible into the vernacular, see my episode on the myth of Protestant Bible martyrs, link below.
¶12So Hus's last name means goose in check. So basically, he's saying, "You may be roasting a goose, but a swan will take my place." And then 102 years later, Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the church door in Wittenberg. So, prophecy fulfilled. Well, not quite. Historians doubt whether Martin Luther nailed his thesis because this was only recorded years after his death.
¶13But more problematic is that the story about Hus making this specific prophecy is not historical. The 19th century Protestant scholar and fierce critic of Catholicism, Philip Chaff, said the prophecy about Yon Hus was quote wrongly ascribed to him. And Thomas Fudge in his academic work, patron saint and prophet, Yon Hus and the Bohemian and German Reformations says the story about the prophecy is apocryphal because it doesn't appear in any early sources or in Yon Hus's letters. Now, Hus did say in one letter, "I am only a weak goose, but stronger birds will come after me." which isn't that hard to predict since heresies often build on themselves. The other claim that RZ referred to is that the Scottish reformer George Whisshart predicted his own death and many other things to help maintain the Scottish Reformation.
¶14But these are either vague predictions that anybody could have made, like predicting your own death when authorities are actively hunting you, or they're specific predictions that turned out to be apocryphal. The most famous example is the claim that a cardinal who persecuted Whissart would himself hang outside the window through which he looked at Whissart. But the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, which is edited by Philip Schaef, says that the prophecy is not contained in the earliest account of the martyrdom, in Knox's history, or in the first edition of Fox's acts. The earliest reference occurs in a reprint of Fox's work, which has a marginal note, Mr. George Whissart prophesiath of the death of the cardinal.
¶15George Buchanan expands this alleged prophecy into a saying similar to the traditional utterance which first occurs in David Buchanan's edition of Knox's history in 1644 nearly 100 years after Whissart's death. Jordan Cooper also cites Christina Pitoska's prophecies made during the 30 years war of the 17th century. Now some of her predictions do seem to have have come true several of those of those predictions. She also claimed that God revealed to her that the book of concord was true the Lutheran confessions. Uh and so if you know if she really made prophecies and these really came to pass that this is something miraculous well this is a validation therefore of her claims about the validity of the book of concord.
¶16>> But like the whistart prophecies these are also vague enough to be mere chance guesses or when they are specific there isn't manuscript evidence to support that she actually made them. But there is good evidence Pyoska made prophecies that failed like that Frederick V would return to the throne which never happened. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. Do not be frightened by it." Ultimately, these prophecy miracles that allegedly vindicate Protestantism resemble the vague prophecies of Nostradamus or even Joseph Smith, who Mormon apologists say correctly predicted things like the civil war, even though he got major details wrong, like that the war would soon pour out on all nations.
¶17Redeem Zoomer also did another video on miracles in Christian denominations, but his Protestant examples tended to be things that vindicate mere Christian doctrine, like healings through preaching or baptism. Catholics recognize the validity of Protestant baptisms and even admit baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water, though other ways are permissible. RZ also mentioned a eucharistic miracle at an Anglican church in Arkansas involving light emanating from the host. But this could just be the sun reflecting off the chalice like it reflects off other parts of the sanctuary in the same picture. Or it could also be a miracle affirming Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, especially since this is an Anglo Catholic service that is doctrinally very close to Catholicism.
¶18And in 1971, the Anglican Roman Catholic Church International Commission released a statement saying, "We believe that we have reached substantial agreement on the doctrine of the Eucharist." I've spoken to Protestants who tell me Eucharistic miracles aren't interesting to them because at best they just affirm anyone who believes in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. But if that's true, then why do basically all these miracles happen in Catholic masses with the rare one-off being an Anglo Catholic service? Maybe God isn't just affirming a vague belief Christ is in the bread somehow, but that the consecrated Eucharist is not mere bread anymore, but the true flesh of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So, while there are many claims about vindicatory miracles in Protestant denominations, when you dig deeper into the claims, you see they are nowhere near as well established as distinctly Catholic miracles. This also includes allegedly vindicatory orthodox miracles like the holy fire which my colleague Jimmy Aken has ablely explained in his video that I'll link in the description below.
¶19There are also other miracles to consider that affirm theology that is incompatible with many contemporary forms of Protestantism even if it doesn't directly prove Catholicism like venerating icons in the east or seeking the intercession of the saints. So we're still left with the problem of discerning what is the meaning behind all these events. Response number three, Catholic miracles aren't special because lots of non-Christian religions have vindicatory miracle claims. I really, really caution Protestants to not go down this road. This is the same thing atheists say about Christian miracles like Christ's resurrection.
¶20Why base your faith on stories of Christ rising from the dead when many non-Christian religions are based on stories with similar kinds of evidence? First, we can admit God may perform miracles for heretics or non-Christians, not to vindicate their errors, but just to show his love for them. This may explain the miraculous healing of Bla1 Pascal's niece, Margarite Perriier, who had a disfiguring eye fistula, but lived within and remained part of the Jansenist heresy. Number two, I would implore my Protestant apologist friends to join me in rigorously showing that Christian miracles, regardless of denomination, collectively have better evidence for their divine authenticity than non-Christian vindicatory miracle claims. Saying these things have similar evidence doesn't just undermine Catholic miracle claims, it undermines the entire foundation of our shared Christian faith.
¶21And in many cases, if the issue was just comparing Christ's resurrection to these non-Christian claims, I think these Protestant apologists would not be so accommodating. For example, there is no comparison between Christ rising from the dead and the obvious legend of Muhammad splitting the moon, which I've covered in a previous episode. But here's what Gavin Ortland says about modern miracle claims, >> but they don't really move me that much personally. I tend to think that we expect miracles in all kinds of different contexts. I've grown up with connections to the charismatic movement.
¶22I'm even aware that in non-Christian religions, there are some miracle claims that are very hard to write off. I was just reading an article about a Hindu context as one interesting example. I'll link to that, too. But when you read the Substack article referencing this Hindu miracle, you'll find the incident is not impressive. This Hindu mystic was studied, but not in a totally controlled environment.
¶23And there were gaps in the team observing him where he could have gotten nourishment. He was also allowed to gargle water and bathe, which would give him access to water and provide an opportunity to secretly urinate. This also isn't impossible because people trapped in collapsed buildings have survived for the same amount of time without food and only minimal water dripping from the structure. This could just be a case of someone with unique physiology that has become accustomed to extreme fasting. It certainly doesn't give good evidence for Hinduism or provide a compelling alternative to either the resurrection or uniquely Catholic miracles.
¶24Honestly, I don't understand Protestants who say Catholic miracles are no big deal. Other religions have lots of miracles, too. All right, then. Why do you think Christ's resurrection is a big deal if other religions have miracles as well? Now, a Protestant apologist might say it's because there's a lot more evidence for Christ's resurrection than for any other miracle claim, be it non-Christian or Catholic.
¶25Notice what Jordan Cooper says when comparing the miracle of the son of Fatima to Christ's resurrection, saying the former seems more like a purely mental phenomenon. People are going to say, well, the same evidences for like Fatima, you know, that you see there, those are the same kinds of evidences, same standards that we you would use to judge the resurrection of Jesus when you hit your your entire faith on the resurrection of Jesus. They're not the same. They are not the same. It is not the same thing to have a human being whose body was in a tomb now gone from that tomb.
¶26To have him show up to multiple people, multiple eyewitnesses at the same time where again they they all see the same things. They're not contradictory accounts where there are actual physical consequences to what that that person does as they see him. So, it's not just like they have, oh, I think I saw him over there. It's a he sits and eats the fish that's in front of him. You know, you you're eating food like a a you know, ethereal spirit does not eat food.
¶27And so, you have physical actual evidences of the validity of the miracle. That's very different from what you find with something like Fatima. >> And Gavin Ortland makes a similar argument comparing the apparition of Marriott Zatun to Christ's post-resurrection appearances. My point right now is this is not comparable to the evidence for the resurrection. I think Jonathan Mlache was right to point out these differences that concern recognizability.
¶28Um there is no comparison between a silent figure on a roof at night and your dear friend that you eat and talk with at length. And the differing predispositions at play only add to that contrast. Now granted, we would need to say a lot more to fully nail this point down. So, you know, if we're comparing Zetun versus the resurrection, we need to get into the go trustworthiness of the Gospels. I haven't done that in this video.
¶29We could do that, but I haven't done that here. But that is the huge difference. The earliest account of Christ's post-resurrection appearances comes from 1 Corinthians 15. And they don't describe Jesus saying anything, only that he appeared to people. And when it comes to recognizability, one of those people was St.
¶30Paul, who had no previous relationship with Jesus. Now, I agree the gospel evidence for the tactile interactions the disciples had with Jesus is strong evidence for Christ's resurrection. But they come at a cost. Imagine if I told you that at Fatima in 1917, not only were there reports the sun moved in the sky, but there were also reports of puddles and other clothes inexplicably drying up after being soaked in the rain. Tactile experiences.
¶31However, these reports were first described in 1957, about 40 years later. you'd probably dismiss them as legendary accretions, but that's the same time gap between Christ's resurrection and the first report of tactile interactions with Jesus in the Gospels. Now, to be clear, I do think the gospel reports are trustworthy. But that means that if you're going to be consistent, you have to allow similar details recorded in Catholic miracles into your data set as well. And when it comes to Fatima, these tactile details about puddles drying or clothes drying, they don't show up five decades later.
¶32They show up in some cases 5 days later as when eyewitness Carlos Dilva, who actually denied what happened to Fatima was a miracle, still admitted, "Although I had been completely wet moments before, I noticed that I was now dry." And while skeptics often cast doubt on the claim that the disciples had a group experience of the risen Christ, there is absolutely no doubt thousands of people experienced something at Fatima in 1917 because we have contemporary newspaper accounts describing it. And there's no doubt tens of thousands of people saw some kind of entity outside of their minds at Satun in the 1960s because we have photographs of this event. Two kinds of evidence we don't have for Christ's resurrection. Now, just to be clear, I am not saying there's bad evidence for Christ's resurrection. Saying that something has better evidence than Christ's resurrection doesn't mean that it's more important.
¶33We have better evidence for lots of mundane things that happen in our lives right now, but that doesn't make them more important than Christ's resurrection. We have good evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. My point is just that if you raise the bar high enough for evidence to disqualify Catholic miracles from being considered evidence or theological claims, you're going to end up disqualifying important Christian miracles as well. And finally, there's response number five. The Bible warns about false miracles.
¶34We have like throughout the New Testament several warnings that tell us explicitly that Satan can and does and will perform false miracles. Things that appear like miracles, things that that are so deceptive that they could even deceive the elect themselves. This is probably the most powerful response and it raises important questions. Even the Catholic Church has rejected claims of certain Marian visions and apparitions if the entity described preaches something contrary to the Catholic faith as can be seen in the 1970 Bayside New York visions the church rejected. So we need to develop criteria for determining if a sign comes from God or from the devil.
¶35If it contradicts what we know God already revealed, then we can be confident the sign has a demonic origin. So when it comes to Mormonism, I'm on the fence about it having a natural explanation. I think there is good evidence for that, but it may also have a demonic explanation, as I noted in my conversation with Mormon apologist Hayden Carroll. Now, my Mormon friends might say that's a gigantic copout, but I'd ask them, "What do you do with Eucharistic miracles and Marian apparitions that endorse specifically Catholic doctrines like the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the immaculate conception? You either must harmonize them with Mormonism, which seems impossible, or you'll have to say they're demonic as well." In fact, the early Mormon leader Orson Pratt said the devil founded the Catholic Church.
¶36And the first edition of Bruce McConkey's book, Mormon Doctrine, says under the heading church of the devil, that the Roman Catholic Church specifically is most abominable above all other churches. And it is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Now, to be clear, these were not official Mormon doctrines and modern Mormon leaders reject this claim. My point is just that some prominent Mormons did hold this view and a fair number of people still hold this view today about Catholicism being demonic. So here's the dilemma.
¶37You could be a pleasant Protestant or pleasant Mormon who thinks Catholicism is a Christian denomination that's just mistaken and treat it like you would another mistaken view like how Calvinists and Armenians treat each other. Or you could be an unpleasant Protestant or unpleasant Mormon, which is rare to come across who thinks Catholicism is a non-Christian sect that leads people to damnation and has a demonic origin. If you're the latter, then explaining Catholic miracles as demonic deceptions will make sense for you. In that case, our conversation then is going to have to go back to the basics and ask whose ultimate authority has more evidence, a cannon of scripture alone that was first publicly proclaimed in the 4th century or the enduring church Christ established in the first century that never fell into any alleged great apostasy. But if you're the former or a pleasant non-atholic who just thinks Catholics are mistaken Christians who can still go to heaven, then ask yourself this.
¶38Why would the devil go to so much trouble to create all these counterfeit Catholic miracles to get people to belong to a Christian denomination that can lead them to salvation? To quote Johnny Cochran, >> does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not MAKING ANY SENSE. NONE OF THIS makes sense. To offer a comparison, I don't believe Mormonism is a Christian denomination.
¶39And anyone saved in Mormonism is saved in spite of their Mormon beliefs, not because of them. This can be seen in distinctly Mormon doctrines that reject central Christian concepts like the Trinity and even monotheism. Joseph Smith's problematic moral character and his shady dealings with plural marriage, including not being forthcoming with his own wife about it, would also not be out of place within a demonic origins hypothesis. In contrast, the sears associated with Fatima and Lords stand out in astounding virtue in comparison to a so-called demonic involvement, which makes that very implausible. So if you have an open mind, I would encourage you to examine these reports of miracles in Catholic contexts like healings where Mary proclaimed herself the immaculate conception, the sun moving in the sky as predicted by those who saw an apparition of Mary affirming other Catholic doctrines, healings done through the intercession of Catholic saints, and the Eucharistic Catholic masses becoming literal flesh and blood.
¶40Honestly examine them. And if your only hesitation about being Catholic is that you just worry there's not enough evidence for things like Mary's bodily assumption or not enough evidence for the early papacy. So you're concerned about an absence of proof rather than the presence of demonic elements. Well then perhaps these miracles could serve as motives of credibility to fill in those gaps and give you peace to know that God has worked through his one holy Catholic and apostolic church for the past 2,000 years. If you like more on Catholic miracles, check out the lengthy explanation from Joe Schmid I'll link to below and other resources at catholic.com.
¶41Thank you guys so much for watching and I hope you have a very blessed day.