The Eucharistic Miracles of the WorldCatalogue Book of the Vatican International Exhibitionwith a Foreword byThe (Most Rev.) Raymond Leo Burke, D.D., J.C.D.Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic SignaturaFormer Archbishop of Saint Louis With an extensive assortment of photographs and historical descriptions, the exhibition presents some of the principal Eucharistic Miracles that took place throughout the ages in various countries of the world and which have been recognized by the Church. By means of the panels, one can “virtually visit” the places where the miracles took place. The current exhibition includes 153 panels that are used to explain 152 Eucharistic Miracles with an additional 22 country and historical panel maps (60x80 cm), all of which are available on a DVD in both high and low definition. High definition is used to make the exhibition poster's size and low definition is used for all other purposes.
may cause miracles pdf 20
A miracle (from the Latin mirari, to wonder), at a firstand very rough approximation, is an event that is not explicable bynatural causes alone. A reported miracle excites wonder because itappears to require, as its cause, something beyond the reach of humanaction and natural causes. Historically, the appeal to miracles hasformed one of the primary lines of argument in favor of specific formsof theism, the argument typically being that the event in question canbest (or can only) be explained as the act of a particular deity.
The philosophical discussion of miracles has focused principally onthe credibility of certain claims in the Jewish and Christianscriptures. But inquiry into the credibility of specific miracle claimsinevitably raises questions regarding the concept of a miracle, andarguments regarding particular claims cannot be evaluated until thenature of that concept has been at least reasonably clarified.
Speaking of miracles as violations of the laws of naturealso raises questions about the nature of violation. Richard Swinburne(1970) has suggested that a miracle might be defined as anon-repeatable counter-instance to a law of nature. If a putative lawhas broad scope, great explanatory power, and appealing simplicity, itmay be more reasonable, Swinburne argues, to retain the law (defined asa regularity that virtually invariably holds) and to accept that theevent in question is a non-repeatable counter-instance of that law thanto throw out the law and create a vastly more complex law thataccommodates the event.
Many arguments for miracles adduce the testimony of sincere and ableeyewitnesses as the key piece of evidence on which the force of theargument depends. But other factors are also cited in favor of miracleclaims: the existence of commemorative ceremonies from earliest times,for example, or the transformation of the eyewitnesses from fearfulcowards into defiant proclaimers of the resurrection, or the conversionof St. Paul, or the growth of the early church under extremely adverseconditions and without any of the normal conditions of success such aswealth, patronage, or the use of force. These considerations are oftenused jointly in a cumulative argument. It is therefore difficult toisolate a single canonical argument for most miracle claims. Thevarious arguments must be handled on a case-by-case basis.
The strategy is intended as a reductio ad absurdum of thefirst premise, since prima facie it is not the case that boththe Christian miracles and the non-Christian miracles are worthy ofcredit. Paley does not cast his own argument into a deductive form, buthe does attempt to forestall this sort of criticism by adding, in roundingout Part 1, an additional claim for which he offers several lines ofargument:
The most obvious rejoinder here is that the believer in miraclesdoes not generally believe that there are no dependable regularities inthe physical world; it is in the nature of a miracle to be an exceptionto the ordinary course of nature. The feared undermining of theprinciples of historical inquiry is therefore an illusion generated byexaggerating the scale on which the order of nature would be disruptedwere a miracle actually to occur.
Because the field of arguments for miracles is so wide, aconsideration of all of the criticisms that have been leveled againstparticular arguments for miracles would fill many volumes. But fourparticular arguments raised by Hume are sufficiently well known to beof interest to philosophers.
All attempts to draw an evidential parallel between the miracles ofthe New Testament and the miracle stories of later ecclesiasticalhistory are therefore dubious. There are simply more resources forexplaining how the ecclesiastical stories, which were promoted to anestablished and favorably disposed audience, could have arisen and beenbelieved without there being any truth to the reports.
There are two exceptions to this general acquiescence in theevidential value of miracles. First, there is a question regarding theidentity of the cause. If God alone can work miracles, this is easilysettled; but this claim has been a point of contention in thetheological literature, with some writers (Clarke 1719: 305 ff; Trench1847) maintaining that lesser, created spirits may work miracles, whileothers (e.g. Farmer 1771, Wardlaw 1852, Cooper 1876) vigorously denythis. The point is of some interest to the evaluation of arguments formiracles, since as Baden Powell points out, there is adistinction
Second, it is occasionally argued that, contrary to what mostphilosophers and theologians have assumed, actual confirmed cases ofmiracles could not count in favor of the existence of God. GeorgeChryssides (1975) argues that a miracle, conceived as a violation of ascientific law, could never be attributed to any agent, divine orotherwise, since the assignment of agency implies predictability. Thisbold contention has not attracted many defenders. Gregory Dawes (2009)pursues a related but more moderate line of argument, urging that it isdifficult to meet the standard necessary to attribute particular eventsto the personal agency of God. But Dawes does not present this as anabsolute barrier to theistic explanations.
4. Until quite recently, it was easier in traditionally Christian countries to keep Sunday holy because it was an almost universal practice and because, even in the organization of civil society, Sunday rest was considered a fixed part of the work schedule. Today, however, even in those countries which give legal sanction to the festive character of Sunday, changes in socioeconomic conditions have often led to profound modifications of social behaviour and hence of the character of Sunday. The custom of the "weekend" has become more widespread, a weekly period of respite, spent perhaps far from home and often involving participation in cultural, political or sporting activities which are usually held on free days. This social and cultural phenomenon is by no means without its positive aspects if, while respecting true values, it can contribute to people's development and to the advancement of the life of society as a whole. All of this responds not only to the need for rest, but also to the need for celebration which is inherent in our humanity. Unfortunately, when Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a "weekend", it can happen that people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see "the heavens".(7) Hence, though ready to celebrate, they are really incapable of doing so.
5. From this perspective, the situation appears somewhat mixed. On the one hand, there is the example of some young Churches, which show how fervently Sunday can be celebrated, whether in urban areas or in widely scattered villages. By contrast, in other parts of the world, because of the sociological pressures already noted, and perhaps because the motivation of faith is weak, the percentage of those attending the Sunday liturgy is strikingly low. In the minds of many of the faithful, not only the sense of the centrality of the Eucharist but even the sense of the duty to give thanks to the Lord and to pray to him with others in the community of the Church, seems to be diminishing.
18. Because the Third Commandment depends upon the remembrance of God's saving works and because Christians saw the definitive time inaugurated by Christ as a new beginning, they made the first day after the Sabbath a festive day, for that was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead. The Paschal Mystery of Christ is the full revelation of the mystery of the world's origin, the climax of the history of salvation and the anticipation of the eschatological fulfilment of the world. What God accomplished in Creation and wrought for his People in the Exodus has found its fullest expression in Christ's Death and Resurrection, though its definitive fulfilment will not come until the Parousia, when Christ returns in glory. In him, the "spiritual" meaning of the Sabbath is fully realized, as Saint Gregory the Great declares: "For us, the true Sabbath is the person of our Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ".(14) This is why the joy with which God, on humanity's first Sabbath, contemplates all that was created from nothing, is now expressed in the joy with which Christ, on Easter Sunday, appeared to his disciples, bringing the gift of peace and the gift of the Spirit (cf. Jn 20:19-23). It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity, and with it the whole creation, "groaning in birth-pangs until now" (Rom 8:22), came to know its new "exodus" into the freedom of God's children who can cry out with Christ, "Abba, Father!" (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi! 2ff7e9595c
留言