“Ours are not miracles of evidence, but of power and influence”

If, as Cardinal Newman argued, the Incarnation is true – and it is undoubtedly the greatest miracle imaginable – then why grouse about other miracles?

"Christ healing the deaf mute of Decapolis" (1635) by Bartholomeus Breenbergh [Wikipedia]

Once more, the Church presents us with another of Our Lord’s miracles (see Mk 7:31-37), belief in which has fallen on hard times – actually for more than a century, truth be told. Some of you may remember how Franz Werfel ends his award-winning Song of Bernadette: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

Catholics, however, are neither hard-core rationalists nor simple-minded fideists. Our faith is never irrational; supra-rational at times, but never irrational. And so, for the remainder of this morning’s homily, I would like to reflect on the meaning of miracles, both biblical and post-biblical, the topic of two volumes of the work of Blessed John Henry Newman – which I would commend to the more stalwart among you.

It seems that there are always two opposing approaches to the miraculous: the first denies the possibility of any divine interventions ever, while the second finds a miracle under every tree or on every hamburger! As usual, the Church declares, “in medio stat virtus” (virtue stands in the middle).

Cardinal Newman observes that miracles in the Old Testament are rather scarce; this may surprise those who are used to viewing the Old Testament through the prism of Cecil B. DeMille. Miracles, however, were to blossom at the coming of the Messiah, according to Jewish thought – a proof of his identity and a sign of the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God. And so, as few and far between as they are in the Old Dispensation, we find them popping up on almost every page of the New Testament. It is interesting that no one (not even Jesus’ enemies, whether pagan Romans or hostile Jewish religious authorities) suggested that He did not work miracles; His opponents merely sought to explain them away by asserting either that they were little more than magician’s tricks (which is why St. John never uses the word “miracle,” preferring “sign”) or that He was able to do such marvelous works because He was in league with the Devil.

So, from even a purely critical, objective and historical standpoint, the miracles of Jesus should be undisputed. The problem surfaces for some, however, when it comes to what Newman calls “ecclesiastical” miracles, that is, miracles occurring in the age of the Church. And the Cardinal has a very engaging response to such skeptics:

Catholics, then, hold the mystery of the Incarnation; and the Incarnation is the most stupendous event which ever can take place on earth; and after it and henceforth, I do not see how we can scruple at any miracle on the mere ground of its being unlikely to happen. No miracle can be so great as that which took place in the Holy House of Nazareth; it is indefinitely more difficult to believe than all the miracles of the Breviary, of the Martyrology, of saints’ lives, of legends, of local traditions, put together; and there is the grossest inconsistency on the very face of the matter, for anyone so to strain out the gnat and to swallow the camel, as to profess what is inconceivable, yet to protest against what is surely within the limits of intelligible hypothesis. If, through divine grace, we once are able to accept the solemn truth that the Supreme Being was born of a mortal woman, what is there to be imagined which can offend us on the ground of its marvellousness?1

In other words, if the Incarnation is true (which every Christian must believe) – and it is undoubtedly the greatest miracle imaginable – then why grouse about other miracles? The principle is simple: If God can do the greater, He can do the lesser.

That said, we can and should ask, “Why does God enable human beings to work miracles? Or why miraculous events?” For two reasons, says St. Thomas Aquinas:

First and principally, in confirmation of the doctrine that a man teaches. For since those things which are of faith surpass human reason, they cannot be proved by human arguments, but need to be proved by the argument of divine power: so that when a man does works that God alone can do, we may believe that what he says is from God: just as when a man is the bearer of letters sealed with the king’s ring, it is to be believed that what they contain expresses the king’s will.

Aquinas goes on to offer a second purpose: “To make known God’s presence in a man by the grace of the Holy Ghost: so that when a man does the works of God we may believe that God dwells in him by His grace.”2 That said, Aquinas concedes that “miracles lessen the merit of faith,” but – nonetheless – he declares, “it is better for them to be converted to the faith even by miracles than that they should remain altogether in their unbelief.”3

Contrary to popular imagination, the Church herself always exhibits a healthy skepticism when such extraordinary events are reported, with the presumption that the “seer” is either a deceiver or self-deceived. Clear criteria exist to test the veracity of the claim of supernatural character, among which are the orthodoxy of the message; the spirit of willing submission to ecclesiastical judgment on the part of the visionary; good fruits flowing from the event. Investigations into visions are conducted at the local or diocesan level, through recourse to theologians, pastors, psychiatrists and other professionals in a position to evaluate the spiritual, physical and mental state of the seer. Some investigations result in relatively quick judgments (usually negative), while other investigations can go on for years and may yield an indeterminate decision. It has been estimated that for every alleged apparition the Church accepts, there are a hundred that never receive a favorable judgment.

Sometimes people ask, “What does it matter if a vision is really occurring or not, as long as good things are happening (e.g., conversions, cures)?” It matters a great deal because the act of faith must always be grounded in reality and truth; it can never be based on a falsehood. That is why the Evangelists went to great pains to convince their readers that the Lord’s resurrection appearances were real and not phantasms; hence, the stress on His eating and drinking and being able to be touched. Belief is serious business, and God wants no one to be duped for He is, as the traditional act of faith, declares, the One who “can neither deceive nor be deceived.”

The present moment in history finds us confronted with hundreds of purported supernatural visitations. This proliferation is not cause for rejoicing; on the contrary, it suggests that people are not being spiritually fed through the normal means of grace (good catechesis and preaching; uplifting celebrations of the sacraments; strong witnesses to Christian living), and so, they run after cheap substitutes. Jesus cautioned us against such a spirit: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign.”

He continued: “But no sign shall be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet” (Mt 12:39). Jonah’s message was a call to repentance; his sign in the belly of the whale for three days and nights was a prefigurement of Christ’s very passion, death and resurrection. Time after time, the Blessed Virgin, Queen of Prophets, directs us toward the “sign of Jonah” as she urges repentance through reception of the Sacrament of Penance and an experience of her Son’s Paschal Mystery through a worthy and devout reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Not infrequently, we hear people say, “If I had lived during the Lord’s earthly life and ministry and had seen his mighty deeds, my faith would have been so much stronger than it is now.” Once again, Cardinal Newman has a penetrating response:

. . . we are really far more favoured than they were [those who witnessed biblical miracles]; they had outward miracles; we too have miracles, but they are not outward but inward. Ours are not miracles of evidence, but of power and influence. They are secret, and more wonderful and efficacious because secret. Their miracles were wrought upon external nature; the sun stood still, and the sea parted. Ours are invisible, and are exercised upon the soul. They consist in the sacraments, and they just do that very thing which the Jewish miracles did not. They really touch the heart, though we so often resist their influence. If then we sin, as, alas! we do, if we do not love God more than the Jews did, if we have no heart for those “good things which pass men’s understanding,” we are not more excusable than they, but less so. For the supernatural works which God showed to them were wrought outwardly, not inwardly, and did not influence the will; they did but convey warnings; but the supernatural works which He does towards us are in the heart, and impart grace; and if we disobey, we are not disobeying His command only, but resisting His presence.4

We are about to witness and benefit from the greatest miracle possible, let us ask for the grace never to “resist His presence.”

(Editor’s note: This homily was preached by the Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., on the Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost [EF], August 25, 2019 , at the Church of the Holy Innocents in New York City.)

Endnotes:

1John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908), p. 305.

2Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 43, Art. 1.

3Ibid.

4“Miracles No Remedy for Unbelief,” PPS, pp. 86-87.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Peter M.J. Stravinskas 118 Articles
Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas is the editor of the The Catholic Response, and the author of over 500 articles for numerous Catholic publications, as well as several books, including The Catholic Church and the Bible and Understanding the Sacraments.

16 Comments

  1. In the first Newman quote, was “indefinitely” supposed to be “infinitely”? If so, the sentence actually makes sense. Alas, there is no proofreading in the 21st Century, although your site is far better than most.

  2. “As usual, the Church declares, “in medio stat virtus” (virtue stands in the middle)”.

    And the lack of it by the elite within the Church was never more evident than within the Divine Mercy Image/revelation/message given to Sr Faustina.

    Quote “Many people are wondering how to handle the current crisis in the Church, what they can do in practical terms, in a situation that seems increasingly apocalyptic and completely out of their hands”

    Our Lord Himself has given The Laity the means to confront an ongoing manifestation of evil within the Church, by calling the elite to account, for collusion with the breaking of the Second Commandment. So why do they not do so?

    I need to pose a question that incorporates the Second Commandment, which if you agree with me, will give the Church the practical means to confront the present situation that emanates from spiritual corruption.

    “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”

    For nearly twenty years, I have been stating that the present different Divine Mercy Image (s) been presented to the laity for veneration are blasphemous, (See some of my previous posts below) as the ‘One’ true Image is an Image of Broken Man, hopefully this condensed version of what I have been propagating, will now meet with approval, as it goes to the heart of the matter, which is, duplicity in the use of the Word (Will) of God.

    “Paint a picture according to the vision you see and with the inscription. “Jesus I trust in thee”. I desire that this picture be venerated first in your chapel and then throughout the world”

    His Will was manifest by the actions of Sr Faustina, as she immediately accepted, and acted upon It, with singular pure intent, to paint/draw the said picture. The Church states that Private Revelation is only binding on those who receive it, assuming of course that they are of sound mind, and have accepted within their heart, that they have received a message from God, requesting them to do something, as the recipient would feel obliged to fulfil that request, and in the case of Sr Faustina, she acted immediately to His request.

    Logic says that if the given Revelation was accepted and endorsed by the Church, which it was, then the acknowledged request attributed to God, contained within it, would oblige the Church also to accept that request.

    The Church fulfilled her obligation to God’s request, by promising that the said Image would be presented to the faithful for veneration throughout the (Churches of the) World, with the inscription “Jesus I trust in thee” So Yes, we now have a picture in God’s house on earth with this inscription, but it is not the painting/picture/image requested by God.

    — Catechism of the Catholic Church 2147
    Promises made to others (In this case the faithful) in God’s name engage the divine honor, fidelity, truthfulness, and authority. They must be respected in justice. To be unfaithful to them is to misuse God’s name and in some way to make God out to be a liar. (1 John 1:10)

    “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”

    Actual words attributed to God (His Name) by the Church that contain a request which the Church has endorsed and acted upon, must not be misused, distorted or twisted in ways that impugn the character of God, and then be used by man for his own ends, to do so, would be to say that God was made for man, not man for God, in effect the elite within the Church would be conspiring with the Devil.

    The elite within Church need to make a Public Act of Contrition for this infringement of the Second Commandment and replace the blasphemous image(s) with the ‘One’ and only true image, requested by God, which is an Image of Broken Man.

    To understand the fullness of this Revelation to Sr. Faustina we need to view the request made by our Lord, as seen on the spiritual plane. We can assume that her attempt to paint the picture would be very childlike, in effect a distorted/broken reflection of the vision she saw. This reflection is a self-reflection of herself but also a reflection of all of us before God, that is one of been flawed and sinful.

    So the true image if viewed ‘honestly’ confronts the ego, impelling one to proclaim in humility “Jesus I trust in thee” Trust in God is not just about words, rather it is a movement of the heart, that induces a shared relationship with Him, and underpinning this relationship, is our humility before Him.

    God’s Word (Will) is Inviolate it cannot contradict Itself if it does it cannot be from God. A ‘direct’ request was made to the then Sr Faustina to “ Paint a picture according to the vision you see” only she can ‘see’ and paint (Fulfil the task given) the picture, to say otherwise, would be to say that God did not know what he was doing.

    Does anyone disagree with what I am saying ?

    kevin your brother
    In Christ

    • If I am understanding what you wrote – a big if – you believe that all the Divine Mercy images out there are blasphemous because Saint Faustina didn’t paint them herself.

      Saint Faustina believed that the original (Vilnius) painting was acceptable to Our Lord. If you accept her private revelation at all, then it seems to me you ought to accept all of it, including her belief that Our Lord approved of the image.

      You’d have a more credible argument against all the other paintings, which St. Faustina never saw.

      • Thank you for your comment Leslie

        The point been made is that in the case of the given ‘first’ Revelation to Sr. Faustina which she ‘faithfully’ acted upon immediately, is that it contained a command which incorporates the direct use of God’s Holy Name, which is sacrosanct, to deviate in any way from this original command given by Jesus to her is sinful, as it calls into question the Divine prerogative as stated in my post above.

        Please explain to me how it does not.

        From the original information given to the laity in England 1998/9, the first request given to Sr. Faustina

        “Paint a picture according to the vision you see and with the inscription. “Jesus I trust in thee”. I desire that this picture be venerated first in your chapel and then throughout the world”

        “This apparition of Jesus King of Mercy repeated itself several times”

        Why?

        Fr Michal Sopocko who intervened at this point, would have known of this ‘reinforcement of the original request’ But he pursued his own agenda, in requesting Sr. Faustina to ask for further information and then proceeded to oversee her diaries. He then commissioned the first fraudulent image of Divine Mercy, while posing and demonstrating to the artist, the stance of Jesus ‘he’ wanted, within the painting, and in doing so violated her trust in God”

        Any information after the original request to Sr Faustina, must be considered suspect, as worldly hands, have pursued their own agendas.

        kevin your brother
        In Christ

        • In a different context, but possibly relevant, in the Diary, Paragraph 933 reads:

          “You will receive a greater reward for your obedience and subjection to your confessor than you will for the practices which you will be carrying out. Know this, My daughter, and act accordingly: anything, no matter how small it be, that has the seal of obedience to my representative is pleasing to Me and great in My eyes.” Also “any transgressions against the confessor touch Myself” and “I will answer you through his mouth”(P. 145).

          (Following Paragraph 933, the 937 with fn. 169 refers to St. Faustina’s spiritual director (confessor?) either Father Andrasz or Father Sopocko.)

          Yes, Paragraphs 47 and 49 instruct Faustina to “paint an image according to the pattern you see…” and “which you will paint with a brush.” Pretty explicit as Faustina transcribes it, but on the other hand even Scripture–wherein “the Spirit reminds you of everything I have taught you”(John 14:26) is inspired rather than dictated.

          Maybe Christ delighted in Faustina’s humility at not being an adequate artist, and maybe he allowed her to accept a helping hand, without giving much thought to, what’s that word, oh yeh, “fraudulent”.

          • Thank you Peter for you comment, you say

            “Maybe Christ delighted in Faustina’s humility at not being an adequate artist, and maybe he allowed her to accept a helping hand, without giving much thought to, what’s that word, oh yeh, “fraudulent”

            We need to put the Inviolate Word (Will) of God at the centre of our lives, rather than giving a wishy-washy, have- it- all, personal opinion, which contradicts Truth, while confusing the laity which attributes to lax consciences found in so many of them today.

            The True Divine Mercy Painting/ Image is about Trust as it should incorporate these Words given by our Lord Himself “Jesus I Trust in thee”

            We see this same Trust in Abraham who acted in faith/trust/humility with singular pure intent, to his understanding of the Will of God, in wanting him to sacrifice Isaac. We see this same singular intent when Jesus rebukes Peter. Also in St Francis of Assisi “Francis, repair my church.” he then acted in singular pure intent and commenced to do so. As did St Faustina Kowalska when asked to “Paint a picture according to the vision you see and with the inscription: “Jesus, I Trust in Thee.” She also acted in singular pure intent.

            So acts of true faith/trust/humility before Him, work to the greater glory of God

            A humble heart accepts the reality of itself before the Will of the Lord, and Sr Faustina did, as she immediately in Trust/humility commenced to paint/drawer the said picture, in singular pure intent. A true spiritual adviser would have known and accepted this reality, while also taking great care not to impinge on the inviolate Word (Will) of God, by accepting her efforts, no matter how distorted they were, as they were in accordance with His Will.

            Sr Faustina was very innocent and trusting we can deduce this because after her first vision she immediately attempted to paint Jesus herself and for this reason I believe her vision was genuine and received in total trust. This simple trust is often seen in many of our saints.

            If Fr Sopocko had accepted her efforts which he should of done, it is fair to say that she would have done so also. Sadly he followed his own agenda, as he could not accept the reality of this distorted picture and in doing so committed blasphemy, while also undermining her Trust in God’s holy living Word (Will). So as previously stated “Any information after the original request to Sr Faustina by our Lord must now be considered suspect, as worldly hands, have pursued their own agendas”

            But you appear to have avoided my fundamental question, which relates to the breaking of the Second Commandment, by the elite within the Church. As the point been made is that in the case of the given ‘first’ Revelation to Sr. Faustina which she ‘faithfully’ acted upon It immediately, as it contained a command which incorporates the direct use of God’s Holy Name, which is sacrosanct, to deviate in any way from this original command given by Jesus to her is sinful, as it calls into question the Divine prerogative as stated in my posts above.

            Perhaps you Peter, can explain to me how it does not. If you do attempt to do so, I would advise you to take great care, as you will run the risk of aligning yourself with the ‘fraudulent’ Fr. Spocko.

            kevin your brother
            In Christ

    • Kevin you have an inordinate fixation on St Faustina’s image of the Merciful Christ as if salvation or promised grace belongs only to viewing the ‘real’ image as you somehow believe is not real. An original was painted by her then painted by an artist which she approved. If the image revelation account is true should we believe that the Saint given the mission to promote the image, which like all spiritual images conveys a spiritual meaning not the image itself. And that as you allege has failed in conveying Christ’s wishes. She has absolutely not failed. Your fixation borders on a form of idolatry in a physical image. Get hold of yourself Kevin. I keep reading this ongoing saga of the true image yet you write beautifully and intelligently on much else. In other words get hold of faith in Christ not on an imagined mistaken image.

      • At the same time Kevin my words are unfortunately harsh though not intended to injure. You’re notion of ‘Broken Man’ appears in play in this perhaps that the true image as you perceive will bring healing. The physical image itself will not bring healing rather trusting faith in Our Lord’s message to St Faustina will bring if not emotional physical healing more relevant the spiritual healing we all need.

      • Thank you Peter (Fr. Peter Morello) your comment.
        Some time ago (2017), on The 1P5 site I made this post directed at you ( Copy taken from my Discuss records). Which you marked with a credit, while saying “Good assessment Kevin”

        Kevin Walters Fr. Peter Morello: The post
        “It could be said that the true divine Mercy Image (Message) of Broken Man is a ‘direct divine intervention’ by Christ Himself, as our Lord Himself has placed before these men of power, the elite within the church, who in their own hubris ensnared themselves, by crystalizing their own hypocrisy before God and the whole church, in such a way that cannot be misunderstood by all.
        In endorsing a communiqué that incorporates the direct Word (Will) of God and then using that communiqué, they shamelessly made God in their image, a self-serving image of Clericalism.
        Because of this willful act, our most fundamental belief that God’s Word is inviolate, has been breached by those who profess to defend that belief, their accumulated silence on this matter compounds their guilt before God and mankind.

        “For clarity” the church teaches that divine revelation ended with the apostles. The visual and verbal request given by our Lord to Sr. Faustina may not be an additional revelation but it is a communiqué endorsed by the Church that incorporates the direct Word (Will) of God and for that reason it is binding on the Church, in that the true image painted by Sr. Faustina (one of Broken Man) must be venerated and no other”

        Sadly now, you appear to be speaking with a forked tongue

        kevin your brother
        In Christ

        • Addendum to my Comment Directed at your Second Comment. (Supplement)
          Thank you for your comment Peter (Fr Peter Morello)

          The true Divine Mercy image one of Broken Man inscribed with the Words ‘Jesus I Trust in thee’, is the message as it carries within it, the manifest Will of God, and when in faith, it is looked upon honesty, it will confront the ego, impelling one to proclaim in ‘humility’ “Jesus I trust in thee” Trust in God is not just about words, rather it is a movement of the heart, that induces a shared relationship with Him, and underpinning this relationship, is our humility before Him.

          While the said image also confronts the hypocrisy embedded in Clericalism, as stated in my Post above, which at one time, you appear to have agreed with.

          kevin your brother
          In Christ

        • Saint Faustina in her Diary said when Our Lord appeared showing the rays red and white representing the font of all grace, mercy his appearance was brilliant and majestic. The fantasy of Broken Man you attach to the image is exactly what it is. A fantasy. You are impeding God’s will and impugning St Faustina who approved of artists paintings based on her vision. That is all I would have commended in your comment. Not at all the rest or that only the original she painted is the true image and none other, no copy is worthy of veneration. Veneration has spread throughout the Church in my parish included as well as EWTN. You’re in effect alleging we’re all blasphemers. As if you alone Kevin have a handle on the truth. As if Fr Sopocko who Faustina loved and thought so highly of is as you complain a sordid person. Again Kevin for get hold of yourself and turn to Christ in true humility.

          • Thank you for your comment Peter (Fr Peter Morello), you say “That is all I would have commended in your comment” I can only respond, by saying those who read my Post Kevin Walters SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 AT 6:29 PM that relates to your statement, “Good assessment Kevin” is that I am more than happy for them, to come to their own conclusions..

            “You’re in effect alleging we’re all blasphemers.”

            In reality graces do not come from images, although they can and do assist the heart to reflect on the wonder of our God. Rather it is sincerity of heart before Him as He looks at our intent, if good, it will bear (The graces of) good fruit. Many down the ages have venerated relics, many of which have (unknowingly) been fake but this does not diminish their intent before God, as God looks at the heart. But if you fully accept it is not the image commanded/requested by God, to venerate it, would put your soul at risk.

            You also say “As if Fr Sopocko who Faustina loved and thought so highly of is as you complain a sordid person Shame on you Peter, I said ‘fraudulent’ In law. fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain He broke trust with Gods ‘law’ (Word/Will) to ‘gain’ worldly prestige, which originated from Pride as he could not accept the reality of what was been asked of Sr Faustina, so he undermined her trust in God and then proceeded with his own agenda.

            “As if you alone Kevin have a handle on the truth”

            Down through the ages many have stood alone in serving the Truth, from my prospective all my Posts/statements relating to the True Divine Mercy Image, bear witness to the Truth, for me to say any other, would be to deny my own conscience

            kevin your brother
            In Christ

  3. Since faithful Catholics believe that Jesus was transfigured, and commanded the wind and sea, and raised Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus and the widow’s son, and rose in His glorified body from the dead after he was crucified, it is appalling and “deeply unappreciated” to realize that the Church has knowingly elevated a man to Bishop and then Cardinal who has since the 1970s published and taught material heresy denying the miracles attributed to Jesus: “His Eminence” Walter Kasper, the favored theologian of our “troubled” pontificate.

    Kasper denied all these miracles, and lists among others the ones I named above, in his text book: “Jesus The Christ,” first published 1974 (re-issued to destroy the faith further in 2011). He sums up his velvet apostasy with a deft “technical” dismissal: we “probably” don’t have to believe these things.

    His inspiring predecessors include his fellow German apostate Herr Bultmann, who encouraged his fellow Christians to disbelieve in the miracles of Jesus, literally because now that we have “electric lights” we can no longer believe in the “mythology” of the New Testament.

    Too bad for our children that the Roman Catholic Church has promoted apostates like Kasper. It is sobering to realize that such behavior is not merely tolerated, but promoted.

  4. AS I’ve mentioned before, I have been personally and directly involved in investigating an alleged Marian apparition. Many miracles were claimed by the people who visited the place of the alleged apparition and some were verified as true, many were not. Eventually, the apparition itself was found not to be true and the top visionary is now a fugitive of the law because of alleged sexual crimes against women followers of his now cultic group, rebellious against Church authority.

    In this context, why did some few real miracles even happen from an unreal apparition? Short answer: God’s Mercy! Long answer, read Matthew 7:22-23, “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…” Yes, Satan and his associates are fallen angels and God allows them and their perverse human associates to perform miracles to test our faith, spiritual maturity and discernment.

    Spiritual immaturity should always be temporary and when it is willful, self-righteous and blind, it is sinful and deadly. The latter are those that crave constant miracles, the spiritually mature don’t need them and are not easily fooled by falsely spiritual circus sensationalism. God allows the Holy Mother Mary to do miracles, but (like the article says) external miracles are not necessary or even evidence of any real authenticity beacuse the miracle that authenticates all other miracles is the miracle of True Heart Conversion and Holy Humility INSIDE, being faithful to Church Tradition and Teaching, the Bible and Church Magisterium. I did not see that inside miracle in the time I spent with these alleged visionaries of the Virgin, and what came later tragically verified this. Let’s pray every day for that inside miracle in all of our hearts and minds, so that THEN AND ONLY THEN, the faith of our brothers and sisters in the Incarnation and in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, our Source of Power, is totally restored and both the Church and the world are renewed before Our Lord Jesus returns!!

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. “Ours are not miracles of evidence, but of power and influence” – Catholic World Report - Mama Mary - Our Loving Mother
  2. “Ours are not miracles of evidence, but of power and influence” -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*