For the mistakes video, at time of writing Carlo Acutis has not yet been canonized, his canonization is approved, but the date of canonization has not been announced
@@lukedevandonge2923 it is correct according to Catholic doctrine to say that saints are prayed to, this is a form of "dulia" only latria sometimes translated as worship/adoration is reserved to God. To pray is a bit of an archaic word, it really means to ask someone to listen. Hence why in legal settings we have a "prayer for relief" directed at a court. If you read older English documents, such as iirc Shakespere, you will hear things like "I pray thee spare my life" it sort of just means to ask or to communicate. So you can translate "I prayed to St. Peter" to "I spoke to Saint Peter".
You mean you didn't send your outisde correspondent Amy to be beatified and then die just to perform miracles from beyond the grave and become a Saint? HAI really fell off smh
Yeah... I like Catholic Answers, but why they decided to go with an AI chatbot (and worse, the first draft of the chatbot was in the form of a priest, that ended real quick after some major outcry) I'll never know. They have some top-notch apologists already, why do they need an overglorified Siri?
You may be wondering "what if the 'miracle' has a scientific explanation but the scientific panel couldn't find it?" or "what if a scientific explanation is found after new scientific advancements?". "Does that mean that the person isn't really a saint?". The Church acknowledges that possibility and takes it into consideration, but it isn't too problematic. We have to understand that canonization is just an official sainthood certification. In other words, it means that the Church came to the conclusion that there's an extremely high probability that a certain person is a saint (e.g. 99% chance). The vast majority of saints (aka anyone who is in Heaven) are never canonized. Approving two miracles is only the last requirement for being canonized as saint and, in a way, the least important one. What matters the most is having lived (or at least died) as a righteous Catholic. That's what makes someone a saint and that's the main matter researched in a canonization cause. However, since it's impossible to know for sure what a person really thought in their inner self of what they did in private, there's a small chance that a person who, by all accounts, lived like a saint, may not actually be a saint. That's why miracles are required as further proof that they were a saint. And that's why martyrs require just one miracle: if they gave their life for God, there's a very high chance they're a saint. Thus, miracles are just the final proof that a person was truly righteous. If a miracle was later proven to have a scientific explanation, that wouldn't mean that the person who by all accounts was righteous isn't a saint. It would only mean that the probability that they're a saint is a little lower (e.g. 90% instead of 99%).
Mother Teresa was a media saint. She was cruel, selfish, and made friends with dictators to collect money. She refused patents pain medication though she popped oxycontin like it was candy when she was ill herself. Little of the money ever went to the poor though she started over 400 convents to teach her lessons. The "Saint of Calcutta" never even once set foot in that city. The unbelieving husband of the woman "cured" of cancer admits receiving money from the Church but still claims it as a cyst drained at the hospital. The Church needed some positive publicity and some pablum for the poor and ignorant that support it. The chances that anyone is a saint is 0%.
Doubt anyone will see this, but terminology matters even if most Catholics don't use it right either. Catholics don't pray to saints, they ask for saints' intercession on their behalf with God. It's like asking a friend or family member to pray for you, but with someone you believe to be in heaven. In essence, you pray *with* saints, not *to* them. Mind, most Catholics will also call it praying to this or that saint, so not surprising that it's stated wrong in this video.
@@RadioactiveSherbet It's not polytheistic if we don't believe the saints are divine beings. No Catholic (minus the rural folk pagans in Catholic countries) believe the saints are divine. It's Catholic dogma that the only God is the Holy Trinity. We pray to saints and ask for their intercession to help the Church Militant (word for the Church on Earth). The saints in Heaven make up the Church Triumphant. The reason why we believe the Saints can hear us is because we believe the Church is united like a body, meaning the Church on Earth is connected with the Church in Heaven. Along with that, we believe the Saints can't do things by their own will, and they intercede for us with God. When someone says a Saint "Answered my prayers" they mean a Saint heard their request and relayed it to God, which means God is the doer of the action that answers someones prayers. The reason why we go through Saints in prayer sometimes, has to do with their holiness related to the fact that they're in Heaven. Since all who are in Heaven are holy and without sin, they are the greatest intercessors that we have access to. This comes from James 5:16. There is more to this like the origin of the word prayer which just means ask, and the differences between the honor given to Saints (Dulia) and the Worship given to God alone (Latria) but this should sum up the basics.
1:57 Carlo Acutis isn't a saint yet, he was beatified on october 10 2020 and his canonization was approved in 2024, but as of today he has not been canonized yet
Prepare to add this to next year's mistakes video. At 1:50 Johannes Karhapää is listed as a Catholic saint. He is not a Catholic saint, although he was canonised by the Orthodox church. As an Eastern Orthodox Missionary it'd be a little weird if the Catholic church were to give him sainthood.
the catholic church considers eastern orthodoxs close enough to catholics that they allow catholics to attend mass there and even take communion (though technically they dont allow catholics to take communion at their churches). they could still be considered a catholic saint
a dude in my home town actually had a church approved miracle that ended up helping cannonize a saint in 2012. Pretty cool dude, always low key about it
@Zachruff he got a case of face eating bacteria. he was in a coma for a couple weeks if I remember right. they had a sister come in with an artifact, and he started healing the morning after. Big news in our little town
There's a great novel by Morris West called The Devil's Advocate about a priest investigating against someone's case for Sainthood, and the priest often laments how many times he has to fill out the same dozen forms.
@@nashadkajr.3111 Easily one of my favorite books. I actually own a copy of the illuminated manuscript version of the Transistorized Control System for Unit 6B!
@@Descriptor413 There are so many inside jokes. The Dominicans clogging ecclesial beaurocracy while trying to settle more Marian theology was hilarious.
meanwhile insurance companies: that was totally miracle and act of god, therefore excluded from our coverage. You'll need to prove otherwise for us to pay.
This was a surprisingly respectful and non-partisan video on a quite controversial topic. Well done!
3 หลายเดือนก่อน +18
Yes, I was gonna say! When I saw the title and the thumbnail, I was getting ready for... well for what usually follows on the internet. But nope, good job Sam, or Ben, or Amy, or whoever else wrote this!
Tbh They aren't looking for "miracles" miracles. They are looking for tricks that are so well planned by the saint guy that they cant poke holes in the trick. Do if they classify it as miracle they are confident nobody can poke holes in the trick.
For better or worse, this is peak western civilisation: convening multiple committees with experts from medicine to theology to determine how we should classify the unexplainable. Everyone from Thales to Aquinas to Hawking would approve lol.
I mean, not really... This process doesn't find positive proof for a miracle, only circumstantial proof that the event can fit into their already existing belief system.
@@madeline6951 that's no different than finding any proof of dark matter that fits the current understanding of general relativity. The key is in the scientific process - you eliminate as much evidence to the contrary as possible, with the end result becoming the latest contribution to science. Of course, I do not know if the catholic church ever "de-saints" a saint following new scientific evidence, but at least they got the first half of the equation right. And it's not like the catholic church is still stuck to their beliefs from two millennia ago. See the Second Vatical Council of the 1970s.
@@madeline6951 How is that relevant to what I said? Did I claim that committees were always right? That this was a good system for finding positive proof of divine miracles? No. But that they did it anyway is what makes it peak western civilisation. Not the best or the worst, but the epitome of it.
@@madeline6951the process is intended to make sure it’s not a natural event. It can’t provide evidence that a miracle occurred but it can’t disprove any scientific explanation.
@@madeline6951 you can't call it circumstantial when it is properly vetted against the scientific method or any non-religious inquiry that follows the same methods are also all circumstantial
So in Catholicism you don't pray to saints, you ask saint to pray for you. Saints are venerated, not worshipped. Wikipedia describes it in this way "Roman Catholics, will also ask the righteous in heaven and "in Christ," such as the Virgin Mary or other saints to intercede by praying on their behalf (intercession of saints)". I have seen it being called "intercessory prayer to saints", but I would really avoid calling it "praying to saints".
Pray means “ask”, theyre synonyms. The definition people give to prayer now doesnt make it theologically wrong to say we make requests of saints, or pray to them.
@@dondangler2458 I am not a native English speaker so I may have missed some minor details of English language. Because "to pray" is usually translated into my language as "modlić się" which means to recite a "modlitwa" and "modlitwa" (usually translated as a "prayer") means "words or thoughts addressed to God or gods".
@@Hadar1991 The modern english definition and the traditional definition are different. Modern terms, yes, prayer means that. In the past, "pray" meant the same as "ask", so we "ask" the saints to pray for us basically. But "asking" someone and "praying to" someone can mean the same thing.
we really do love bureaucracy lol. if anyone is interested in learning more, the book "Medical Saints" was written by a (non-Catholic) woman who was one of the medical professionals for a miracle. the beginning discusses her experience of that, and I found it very interesting
This has been going on for a long time, too. I happened to read about the canonization of St. Elizabeth of Hungary in the 13th century, and even then they collected reports of miracles after people went to her grave and asked for her help. The reports include the names of the people that experienced the miracles and where they lived. (It's rare to have sources that mention ordinary people from small German towns and villages by name and give a little insight into their lives as early as 1235).
For anyone who’s curious, the Holy See is simultaneously the name of the throne the pope sits on, and a name given to the combined administration of the Catholic Church. That’s why in the UN it’s referred to as the Holy See and not Vatican city
Catholic theologian here. In response to “the Church’s process for confirming them is extremely human” - this ought not to be viewed as in any way discrediting from a Christian or Catholic perspective. The two sources of theology are 1) the Christian tradition, which includes Scripture, oral tradition, and capital-T Tradition as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and 2) human experience, which includes interpretation as you might initially think, but also philosophy, social science, and even natural sciences.
That wasn't supposed to be a discrediting thing. What is discrediting is the fact that this process doesn't find any positive proof of anything, only circumstantial evidence that can be neatly fitted to whatever belief you have.
Always wondered what would happen if cancer-ridden Rosemary legitimately, with all her heart and soul, and with all good intentions, prayed to that small-moustache German man, or that Joe "Big Moustache Stallone" from Georgia, or even that Red Angel who fell from the sky......and actually get a "real" Catholic miracle, and her cancer just completely vanished and she got hundreds of real blessings.
Nothing, because the first step of becoming a saint is the diocese you die in performs an investigation to determine if you lived a life of heroic virtue, which the man you are describing obviously didn't. Saints aren't just guys in heaven, but role models of virtue for us on earth.
@@alexanderf8451now I'm curious if the crusades were actually against some paranormal threat and this entire time the Catholic Church really did perform exorcisms
That TV show 'Evil' is, at least in the first season, about exactly this process. I recommend it to anyone. They do an amazing job of leaving you guessing whether or not the things happening are truly supernatural or merely complex but natural phenomenon
Yeah the Catholic answers page is talking about miracles that qualify for getting a saint canonized. Catholics believe God does all kind of other stuff that are miracles, but we don’t use those for recognizing saints.
indeed, the Church would say there are miracles outside of the strict criteria. Though this definition he is given is for those that are conencted to a Cause for Canonisation, as they'd say on the BBC "other miracles are availible"
You know Orthodox are very critical of Catholics for being too focused on rationalizing religion but I believe it's one of the most important thing anyone can do in Christianity.
I know someone who had to go through the process in the video, it took like 3 years for the investigation to happen and he had to talk to dozens of doctors and specialists and had to fly to Rome a few times to be interviewed
My mother is Donders. The potential saint Peerke Donders is family with one miracle to his name. My parents were present in Rome for the initiation of the process of decalring him a saint. He was a priest working with lepers in Suriname south America.
This isn't Highlander, there can be more than one😁. For instance both Saint Jude Thaddeus and Saint Rita of Cascia are patrons of desperate and hopeless situations.
Agree with all of the above, but also yes, very recent. For anyone who didn’t know, you have to be dead to be a saint, and Isidore mostly got the job for his work writing an encyclopedia. But once Carlo came around, suddenly there was a saint who had *actually* used the internet, which is obviously better.
Hey Sam! Loved the video! I thought the jokes were funny and the facts were true. And even the facts that weren't true, I think it's awesome that you tried your best. Also, and pardon me if this is inappropriate, but based on your voice, I can tell you're a really cool and chill type of guy, probably with lots of friends. And this is just you, by the way. Not your writers. And not your editors. Especially not your editors.
As one of the handful of people who watched the 2017 anime series "Vatican Miracle Examiner" I'm here like "oh, like the guys in that", who would have thought that was a real thing. (That series is wild...😅)
@@timothyodonnell8591 Atheists makes complete sense, they want someone to disprove their miracle and who more motivated than an atheist, but why would you want someone who agrees it's a miracle, but just not on who performed it
Most of the time, the Host has turned into heart tissue. Recent Eucharistic miracles show the heart tissue is from a person under severe stress or injury. Also, the tissue from different such miracles all have the same blood type.
Yes several times the host has taken the appearance of human heart tissue, showing signs of extreme trauma and stress (such as crucifixion would cause) and showing signs that the heart the tissue came from was still alive.
At around 6:30 you saint due to Craig's intervention. Craig doesn't intervine in the situation at all, its his intercession, which is Just him praying to God on behalf of whomever prayed to him. This also makes the graphic on screen wrong because it's not God working through Craig who heals the hypothetical person, it's Craig praying to God on behalf of the family, and God heals the person.
@@lonestarr1490 There is no such thing as sucking at praying, it is more about intent and devotion. You can think of it more like god doing the saint a favour by intervening in a situation he would usually not intervene.
At least he said it is god working throgh Craig, where it would still be god from whom the power originates, many people get it wrong and say that the saint is healing someone.
0:45 For those wondering, the dog mayor is in Idyllwild, California, and his name is mayor Max the 3rd. He's a very friendly and photogenic golden retriever.
@mirzaahmed6589 If all the available evidence suggests that a miracle has occurred, it's pure ideological bias to say "well, that can't be it, because miracles are impossible!" You've begged the question - you have a pre-determined conclusion, and you're forcing the evidence to fit your assumptions, rather than just following where the evidence leads.
Blessed Carlo Acutis was building a database of Eucharistic miracles. Yes, the Body dropped it's accidents of bread and turned into human flesh. Not just once, many times.
1024: Hey guys, check this out! *is double jointed* “Woah! Praise the Lord!” “Hallelujah! This cured my cancer!” 2024: Look sir, I know you have laser eyes but you still need to fill out Form 2013-A first.
The Catholic Church contributed a ton to the development of the scientific method. Science started as a way to investigate the natural world to understand the complexity of God’s creation.
While the first of those two points is true, the latter is objectively not and exemplifies an anachronistic (or historical) fallacy. That is, the second statement implies that the scientific method (or scientific thinking in general) started as a way to understand God’s creation, which imposes a religious framework retroactively on a practice that existed long before the religious tradition in question.
The best scientific achievement was to understand that the universe and everything on it can be studied without relying on God's will as an explanation to everything. BtW at that time, the "god" was Zeus.
@@TahozaWell, the invention of the scientific method is usually attributed to Galilei, who explicitly mentions this very aim. Now, it is true that several things that were supposedly discovered in the 16th-17th century were older, but this is probably where that second statement comes from.
@@AulusAugerius The scientific method predates even the 16th-17th century by at least many 10's of thousands of years and probably many more than that. While perhaps not explicitly referred to as "the scientific method", its practice is evidenced in what we would today call ancient or even privative cultures by the development and refinement of agriculture, husbandry, architecture, material refinement, etc. Equally as important to consider is the fact that, historically, the scientific method evolved from a combination of philosophical, empirical, and experimental traditions long before the modern church, and it draws on contributions from many cultures and eras. To attribute its creation to any one source, such as Christianity or the church at the time described here, is reductionistic and fails to appreciate the many contributions from sources other than the Christian church.
Where exactly do you think the phrase came from? The West only exists as the political outgrowth of Catholic philosophy and religion and the everlasting barrage of heresies and rebellions against it. This happens to be why you have a default attitude of believing revenge killings to be wrong, unless you come from a non-western culture. Some areas of the West have degenerated into total modernistic freefall, but don't think for a second that the "kindness" morality or phrases like "hail mary", "devils advocate", "hallow('s)ween" did not come from a vast, shared Catholic culture.
The Kurt example really tied everything together, they couldn't just let it slide but had to investigate. You could come out of a coma and it still wouldn't be a miracle.
I don't believe in ghosts investigation contents but there's one particular group that I like since they investigate supernatural phenomena in a different way. Let's say there's a moving glass on the counter top on its own, they wouldn't investigate that phenomenon using the Ouija board or talk to nothing while the thermal camera is on or some bullshit device instead they will see if there is something that the glass can move itself like small amount of water at the bottom of the glass, slanted surface etc etc. They basically look for scientific evidence and if they don't see anything scientific they will conclude it as a paranormal, as far as I know they never find anything paranormal And because of them I'm not scared of doors suddenly closing, silhouettes in the dark etc etc since all i do is look then investigate how something can move on it's own or make a silhouette but I'm not gonna go to an abandoned place since alive ones are far more dangerous than dead ones if you know what I mean 🤣
Hey Sam! Loved the video! I thought the jokes were funny and the facts were true. And even the facts that weren't true, I think it's awesome that you tried your best. Also, and pardon me if this is inappropriate, but based on your voice, I can tell you're a really cool and chill type of guy, probably with lots of friends. And not just you, by the way. Also your writers. But not your editors. Especially NOT your editors.
I still enjoyed listening to the video about the topic--but the whole idea of rigorous verification really truns to mush when you get someone queued up to be canonized cuz "man these people had some bad medical conditions that happened to get better because we were able to find some way to connect it to the subject" What about all of the cases where people make unlikely medical recoveries and never touched artifacts or said a single prayer? At the end of the day they have no realistic way to prove a causal relationship between the two things.
That hardly matters. The church isn't looking for miracles that can be *proved* it's looking for miracles that can't be *disproved* Which is good since actually proving a miracle would shake the foundations of our world.
Within Catholic doctrine & theology (Christian and platonist in general, really) all acts are considered to be from God (prime mover and whatnot), these miracles are seen entirely through this lense, they're not meant to be a good polemic arguments against non-believers. Sainthood, also, merely means acension into heaven, the current process for sainthood (though very old) was not ratified until a while into the Church's history, originally often saints were just local men famed for their piety, which is why there are (to my knowledge) a few lesser-known early medieval & late classical saints which have no major miracles but were simply very pious people.
When people hear about this they often wonder "what if the 'miracle' has a scientific explanation but the scientific panel couldn't find it?" or "what if a scientific explanation is found after new scientific advancements?". "Does that mean that the person isn't really a saint?". The Church acknowledges that possibility and takes it into consideration, but it isn't too problematic. We have to understand that canonization is just an official sainthood certification. In other words, it means that the Church came to the conclusion that there's an extremely high probability that a certain person is a saint (e.g. 99% chance). The vast majority of saints (aka anyone who is in Heaven) are never canonized. Approving two miracles is only the last requirement for being canonized as saint and, in a way, the least important one. What matters the most is having lived (or at least died) as a righteous Catholic. That's what makes someone a saint and that's the main matter researched in a canonization cause. However, since it's impossible to know for sure what a person really thought in their inner self of what they did in private, there's a small chance that a person who, by all accounts, lived like a saint, may not actually be a saint. That's why miracles are required as further proof that they were a saint. And that's why martyrs require just one miracle: if they gave their life for God, there's a very high chance they're a saint. Thus, miracles work like the final proof that a person was truly righteous. If a miracle were later proven to have a scientific explanation, that wouldn't mean that the person who by all accounts was righteous isn't a saint. It would only mean that the probability that they're a saint is a little lower (e.g. 90% instead of 99%).
Hey Sam! Loved the video! I thought the jokes were funny and the facts were true. And even the facts that weren't true, I think it's awesome that you tried your best. Also, and pardon me if this is inappropriate, but based on your voice, I can tell you're a really cool and chill type of guy, probably with lots of friends. And not just you, by the way. Also your writers. And your editors. Especially your editors.
In this instance, I believe that they are primarily referring to verifying miracles to canonize saints. I believe there was a brief section in the video discussing the process of verifying transubstantiation outside of mass. That being said, wouldn't transubstantiation fall under covenant? Which would arguably not make it a miracle. I'm not a catholic, so perhaps I'm wildly incorrect.
@josiahsimmons9866 Transubstantiation is the process of how the eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, which does fall under the new covenant, but is itself a miracle because it is a supernatural phenomenon.
@@crabser2253 Here's the thing, I'm not catholic and transubstantiation is one of the primary reasons I will likely never be one, so that makes discussing this a somewhat challenging matter. But, allow me to pretend for a moment that I do believe. Since I "believe" in transubstantiation, I know that it happens every time I partake in the eucharist. Therefore, it's a replicable phenomenon. I put forward the argument that if something is consistently replicable, it is simply invalid to suggest that it's miraculous, and rather, instead, a better explanation is that it's a natural law.
@josiahsimmons9866 it's miraculous because it is a supernatural phenomenon. The repeatability of the miracle has no bearing on its miraculous nature. The theology behind it is a whole different can of worms, and it's one I will not touch right now.
@@longiusaescius2537 communicating the nuance of finnish civil war, e.g. how the whites were weird mix of monarchists, nationalists, bourgeoise, and proto fascists, in a short message is quite difficult
2:24 more like a death hack, but whatever. Anyway, it's a breath of fresh air to see a video, documenting a Christian practice, that looks at things objectively and isn't explicitly aggressive to Christianity.
@@samanjj It's actually a common misconception, but she wasn't canonized as a martyr since her execution was ordered by a canonically constituted court! She was executed by Christians for heresy against her faith, not for her Christian faith itself. She was however canonized as a virgin, and two miracles were attributed to her for her to be canonized.
You’re so right Sam (actually Ben), in today’s world, due diligence IS a miracle, so it is no shock that the biggest religion in the world by far is the one still keeping things up to date and creating such compelling storylines that can’t be deciphered even by impartial medical experts. I’m very happily Jewish, but man I would absolutely choose to be Catholic if I was atheist and had a choice, it is by far the most compelling religion out there
Hey Sam, good job on this!! Even if a few details were a bit off, you clearly put in a lot of effort to understand a complicated topic, and I appreciate you. ❤
I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’ve got to give it up to Sam for treating my religion and others’ religions with respect. Or at least, not outright trying to slander us, Hulu. His video on Utah and its weirdness was excellent. If you ever want to know how good a media outlet is, see how they report something you have personal experience with. If it doesn’t mesh at all or misses obvious and key details, then it’s likely garbage. My areas of expertise are Utah politics and space travel. Everything I’ve seen from Sam in both these categories has been pretty good. Significantly more accurate than most major drive-by media outlets. Props to Sam. Glad to be subscribed on Nebula.
I personally look to Carl Jung's conceptualization of Synchronicity and his rigorous statistical definition of what he considers synchronicity. I consider two classes of synchronicity, and I do not necessarily involve God (who may or may not influence the synchronicity's outcome). 1) Define a probabilistic value for which an outcome is anomalous enough to be considered a synchronicity, and an anomalous value that defines a "glitch in the matrix" so to speak. The latter is more a phenomenon described by players of Randonautica, and not so much a misrememberance effect as is the Mandela Effect. (Timeline hopping "affects forward timelines"--in all of my own experiments I have never seen such an event as described by the Mandela Effect that isn't simple mass misrememberance) 2) Use your favorite statistical algorithm to assess the probability of event A occurring with the probability of event B occurring at the same time. The simplest possible way to do this is just multiply the events. 3) Depending on the threshold of probability, one can assess how anomalous the event truly was, to categorize it as potential true synchronicity, or potential true reality glitch. For one-time occurrences, the threshold of anomaly has to itself exceed the set probabilistic value on its own. This is how I (an esoteric pagan theist) similarly assess "miraculous" events in my life.
Last confirmed miracle I heard about was in Australia, where people were in a church and prayed to Mary Mackillop, and the storm outside that was supposed to go for days, stopped early and missed the church completely... Luck?
There was a saint in the late 1200s that the church wanted to venerate (ie. make a saint in the first place) but one of the conditions was that you had to perform a miracle. They couldn't find one that satisfied the council, but they learned that in his deathbed he had requested herring for dinner but all his attendants could find was sardines. When he took a bite he said "this is the best herring I've ever had" and the church decided "well it must have turned to herring in his mouth, make him a saint". He's known today as Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of education.
That's not what happened at all. There are a few problem to note here. 1. Thomas Aquinas has many miracles attributed to him, far more than the 2 needed for canonization 2. That isn't even what the fish related miracle was. The miracle was that sardines changed into herring, not that he thought the sardine was herring. Yes it's a bit of a silly miracle, but you don't have to be misleading about it.
@@YourLocalMairaaboo definitely a sockpuppet, it has most of the channel name, logo, and the information was pointing to the editors. My comment was meant as a joke, I should've been more clear maybe 😅
Has something to do with the fact that we have no said example (2000 years ago and within Roman Judea who in a few years would revolt and kill most of the Jews in Jerusalem) and Christ ascended without a body...except if your that particular kind of Christian.
Even if they did it may not be correct or even the same from one to another. The purpose of the miracle is for God to demonstrate to us that he’s still there for us and to strengthen our faith, not to tell us what Jesus’ DNA sequence was.
Brother, they’ve donated literal hospitals and schools to end it. The problem is that simply donating money to buy food isn’t sustainable and especially it isn’t a wise decision to give it the governments in africa
@@NearlyAsleep There is no evidence of the supernatural. Saying miracles are outside of science is nonsensical. Furthermore, the only conclusion they should reach is simply that they do not know. But, they employ the god of the gaps fallacy to attach unknowns to their god.
“Whatever happens, they say afterwards, it must have been fate. People are always a little confused about this, as they are in the case of miracles. When someone is saved from certain death by a strange concatenation of circumstances, they say that's a miracle. But of course if someone is killed by a freak chain of events -- the oil spilled just there, the safety fence broken just there -- that must also be a miracle. Just because it's not nice doesn't mean it's not miraculous.” ― Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times
Hey Sam! Loved the video! I thought the jokes were funny and the facts were true. And even the facts that weren’t true, I think it’s awesome that you tried your best. Also, and pardon me if this inappropriate, but based on your voice, I can tell you’re a really cool and chill type of guy, probably with lots of friends. And not just you. Also your writers. And your editors. Especially your editors.
For the mistakes video, at time of writing Carlo Acutis has not yet been canonized, his canonization is approved, but the date of canonization has not been announced
Also he says that we pray to Saints, and not that we ask for their prayer
the greater crime is the pronunciation of Nyan right after
@@lukedevandonge2923 it is correct according to Catholic doctrine to say that saints are prayed to, this is a form of "dulia" only latria sometimes translated as worship/adoration is reserved to God. To pray is a bit of an archaic word, it really means to ask someone to listen. Hence why in legal settings we have a "prayer for relief" directed at a court. If you read older English documents, such as iirc Shakespere, you will hear things like "I pray thee spare my life" it sort of just means to ask or to communicate. So you can translate "I prayed to St. Peter" to "I spoke to Saint Peter".
@@carus6280 I think that's also where "pray tell" comes from.
I find this thread delightfully pedantic
You mean you didn't send your outisde correspondent Amy to be beatified and then die just to perform miracles from beyond the grave and become a Saint? HAI really fell off smh
Amy was a saint from the beginning
She could perform miracles while living, but she could be beatified only after death. :p
Why is no one talking about the roller coaster video? He never apologized or even acknowledged it. Shouldn’t we be trying to cancel him for that?
Its a promotion, "heavenly correspondent Amy".
@@willtheprodigy3819 What roller coaster video? There is no roller coaster video.
0:45 I'm sorry but the Catholic website having AI summaries is somehow the funniest thing in this video
Yeah... I like Catholic Answers, but why they decided to go with an AI chatbot (and worse, the first draft of the chatbot was in the form of a priest, that ended real quick after some major outcry) I'll never know. They have some top-notch apologists already, why do they need an overglorified Siri?
@@MacrossSD My feelings as well
As a catholic... I agree.
It's pretty controversial among catholics lol ( and by that I mean no one likes it)
they shut down their Al Said it would baptize your child in gator aide ....
You may be wondering "what if the 'miracle' has a scientific explanation but the scientific panel couldn't find it?" or "what if a scientific explanation is found after new scientific advancements?". "Does that mean that the person isn't really a saint?". The Church acknowledges that possibility and takes it into consideration, but it isn't too problematic.
We have to understand that canonization is just an official sainthood certification. In other words, it means that the Church came to the conclusion that there's an extremely high probability that a certain person is a saint (e.g. 99% chance). The vast majority of saints (aka anyone who is in Heaven) are never canonized.
Approving two miracles is only the last requirement for being canonized as saint and, in a way, the least important one. What matters the most is having lived (or at least died) as a righteous Catholic. That's what makes someone a saint and that's the main matter researched in a canonization cause. However, since it's impossible to know for sure what a person really thought in their inner self of what they did in private, there's a small chance that a person who, by all accounts, lived like a saint, may not actually be a saint. That's why miracles are required as further proof that they were a saint. And that's why martyrs require just one miracle: if they gave their life for God, there's a very high chance they're a saint.
Thus, miracles are just the final proof that a person was truly righteous. If a miracle was later proven to have a scientific explanation, that wouldn't mean that the person who by all accounts was righteous isn't a saint. It would only mean that the probability that they're a saint is a little lower (e.g. 90% instead of 99%).
As an ex catholic stats person I am so amused by this.
this comment alone manages to be more interesting than this video
@@vilukisu pretty accurate for the channel name. It was only half interesting the other half was the comment
Mother Teresa was a media saint. She was cruel, selfish, and made friends with dictators to collect money. She refused patents pain medication though she popped oxycontin like it was candy when she was ill herself. Little of the money ever went to the poor though she started over 400 convents to teach her lessons. The "Saint of Calcutta" never even once set foot in that city. The unbelieving husband of the woman "cured" of cancer admits receiving money from the Church but still claims it as a cyst drained at the hospital. The Church needed some positive publicity and some pablum for the poor and ignorant that support it. The chances that anyone is a saint is 0%.
@@vilukisu so you're saying the comment is full as interesting?
Doubt anyone will see this, but terminology matters even if most Catholics don't use it right either. Catholics don't pray to saints, they ask for saints' intercession on their behalf with God. It's like asking a friend or family member to pray for you, but with someone you believe to be in heaven. In essence, you pray *with* saints, not *to* them.
Mind, most Catholics will also call it praying to this or that saint, so not surprising that it's stated wrong in this video.
He stated it correctly. You're correct in a way, but the description "praying to saints" is a proper way of phrasing it.
Do you think the average person knows about that? People pray to saints because it fits with our polytheistic instincts and nothing more.
@@ΣτελιοςΠεππας Yeah. That whole praying to saints has long bugged me for an otherwise monotheistic religion. It really does scream of polytheism.
@@RadioactiveSherbetprayer =/= worship
@@RadioactiveSherbet It's not polytheistic if we don't believe the saints are divine beings. No Catholic (minus the rural folk pagans in Catholic countries) believe the saints are divine. It's Catholic dogma that the only God is the Holy Trinity. We pray to saints and ask for their intercession to help the Church Militant (word for the Church on Earth). The saints in Heaven make up the Church Triumphant. The reason why we believe the Saints can hear us is because we believe the Church is united like a body, meaning the Church on Earth is connected with the Church in Heaven.
Along with that, we believe the Saints can't do things by their own will, and they intercede for us with God. When someone says a Saint "Answered my prayers" they mean a Saint heard their request and relayed it to God, which means God is the doer of the action that answers someones prayers.
The reason why we go through Saints in prayer sometimes, has to do with their holiness related to the fact that they're in Heaven. Since all who are in Heaven are holy and without sin, they are the greatest intercessors that we have access to. This comes from James 5:16.
There is more to this like the origin of the word prayer which just means ask, and the differences between the honor given to Saints (Dulia) and the Worship given to God alone (Latria) but this should sum up the basics.
1:57 Carlo Acutis isn't a saint yet, he was beatified on october 10 2020 and his canonization was approved in 2024, but as of today he has not been canonized yet
It could be literal decades or centuries for it to happen aswell. Çiprian Nika died in 1946 and was beatified just recently in 2016
@@ttterg6152 though, bl Carlo does have two approved miracles, he is just awaiting his canonization date which will likely be next year
Prepare to add this to next year's mistakes video. At 1:50 Johannes Karhapää is listed as a Catholic saint. He is not a Catholic saint, although he was canonised by the Orthodox church. As an Eastern Orthodox Missionary it'd be a little weird if the Catholic church were to give him sainthood.
E
He still might be. His cult might have been accepted through a reunion between Rome and another eastern church.
the catholic church considers eastern orthodoxs close enough to catholics that they allow catholics to attend mass there and even take communion (though technically they dont allow catholics to take communion at their churches). they could still be considered a catholic saint
@@ultimateoriginalgod Eastern Churches have a different canonization process as well.
@@carlose4314 exactly this is the Latin Rite procedure, which is used for the majority of causes but not for every cause.
a dude in my home town actually had a church approved miracle that ended up helping cannonize a saint in 2012. Pretty cool dude, always low key about it
what was the miracle?
Also Interested in what the miracle was
i, as well want to know the miracle
@Zachruff he got a case of face eating bacteria. he was in a coma for a couple weeks if I remember right. they had a sister come in with an artifact, and he started healing the morning after. Big news in our little town
@@yanikkendler .
There's a great novel by Morris West called The Devil's Advocate about a priest investigating against someone's case for Sainthood, and the priest often laments how many times he has to fill out the same dozen forms.
The first third of A Canticle for Leibowitz goes into a lot of this, too
@@Descriptor413Finally! Someone else who's read Canticle for Leibowitz! Such a good novel.
@@nashadkajr.3111 Easily one of my favorite books. I actually own a copy of the illuminated manuscript version of the Transistorized Control System for Unit 6B!
@@Descriptor413 There are so many inside jokes. The Dominicans clogging ecclesial beaurocracy while trying to settle more Marian theology was hilarious.
4:45 Props to Kurt for getting hurt nearly dying just to show what a miracle is
Don’t forget Craig who helped him heal his severe injures 😂
@@GoldClav Shout out to a real one
@@ryshow9118 To kurt or Craig?
@@GoldClav yes
He's the real saint
meanwhile insurance companies: that was totally miracle and act of god, therefore excluded from our coverage. You'll need to prove otherwise for us to pay.
This was a surprisingly respectful and non-partisan video on a quite controversial topic. Well done!
Yes, I was gonna say! When I saw the title and the thumbnail, I was getting ready for... well for what usually follows on the internet. But nope, good job Sam, or Ben, or Amy, or whoever else wrote this!
As an an ex catholic I noticed some pointed snark but it was very subtle.
@@ladyeowyn42 if Half as Interesting can't find a way to have some pointed snark, they don't make a video.
Agreed! Thanks Ben Doyle! It taught me so much!
Tbh They aren't looking for "miracles" miracles. They are looking for tricks that are so well planned by the saint guy that they cant poke holes in the trick. Do if they classify it as miracle they are confident nobody can poke holes in the trick.
Samuel L. Jackson: "What happened here is a miracle, and I want you to f*cking acknowledge it."
*Church:* "Get in line, buddy."
"I recognize the council has made a decision, but not canonizing is a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it."
"We acknowledge your miracle, but do not grant you the rank of Saint."
"What? How can you do this? This is outrageous!"
For better or worse, this is peak western civilisation: convening multiple committees with experts from medicine to theology to determine how we should classify the unexplainable. Everyone from Thales to Aquinas to Hawking would approve lol.
I mean, not really... This process doesn't find positive proof for a miracle, only circumstantial proof that the event can fit into their already existing belief system.
@@madeline6951 that's no different than finding any proof of dark matter that fits the current understanding of general relativity. The key is in the scientific process - you eliminate as much evidence to the contrary as possible, with the end result becoming the latest contribution to science. Of course, I do not know if the catholic church ever "de-saints" a saint following new scientific evidence, but at least they got the first half of the equation right.
And it's not like the catholic church is still stuck to their beliefs from two millennia ago. See the Second Vatical Council of the 1970s.
@@madeline6951 How is that relevant to what I said? Did I claim that committees were always right? That this was a good system for finding positive proof of divine miracles?
No. But that they did it anyway is what makes it peak western civilisation. Not the best or the worst, but the epitome of it.
@@madeline6951the process is intended to make sure it’s not a natural event. It can’t provide evidence that a miracle occurred but it can’t disprove any scientific explanation.
@@madeline6951 you can't call it circumstantial when it is properly vetted against the scientific method or any non-religious inquiry that follows the same methods are also all circumstantial
The true miracle in the world is bricks
E
But bricks are not miraculous, because we expect bricks.
Brick gang🧱🧱🧱So bricked rn
@@WyvernYT when i came into this world i did not expect bricks 🤷🏼♂️
It's Saturday? Why is HAI posting on Saturday??
Its.. a miracle
It's a miracle!
Reminds me of a song haha
@GoldClav all I need is a miracle...
@@smartawesome376 „are u too cynical to believe in a miracle …” 🎶🎶🎶
So in Catholicism you don't pray to saints, you ask saint to pray for you. Saints are venerated, not worshipped. Wikipedia describes it in this way "Roman Catholics, will also ask the righteous in heaven and "in Christ," such as the Virgin Mary or other saints to intercede by praying on their behalf (intercession of saints)". I have seen it being called "intercessory prayer to saints", but I would really avoid calling it "praying to saints".
Thank you for cleaning up the confusion that HAI introduced. I was very confused at what he was talking about.
Pray means “ask”, theyre synonyms. The definition people give to prayer now doesnt make it theologically wrong to say we make requests of saints, or pray to them.
@@dondangler2458 I am not a native English speaker so I may have missed some minor details of English language. Because "to pray" is usually translated into my language as "modlić się" which means to recite a "modlitwa" and "modlitwa" (usually translated as a "prayer") means "words or thoughts addressed to God or gods".
@@Hadar1991 The modern english definition and the traditional definition are different. Modern terms, yes, prayer means that. In the past, "pray" meant the same as "ask", so we "ask" the saints to pray for us basically. But "asking" someone and "praying to" someone can mean the same thing.
But why not pray to God directly? He is the one that heals the people so why in the world would you ask for an intermediate? This makes me so mad
we really do love bureaucracy lol. if anyone is interested in learning more, the book "Medical Saints" was written by a (non-Catholic) woman who was one of the medical professionals for a miracle. the beginning discusses her experience of that, and I found it very interesting
So basically the Catholic church is the real-life equivalent of the SCP foundation.
As close as we can get to it.
This has been going on for a long time, too. I happened to read about the canonization of St. Elizabeth of Hungary in the 13th century, and even then they collected reports of miracles after people went to her grave and asked for her help. The reports include the names of the people that experienced the miracles and where they lived. (It's rare to have sources that mention ordinary people from small German towns and villages by name and give a little insight into their lives as early as 1235).
0:11 "see". Like holy see. Nice
Edit: explaining the joke is like dissecting a frog. It's disgusting and the frog is dead
@@joaovitormatos8147 🤣🤣
then why are you explaining it
Terry Davis mentioned
For anyone who’s curious, the Holy See is simultaneously the name of the throne the pope sits on, and a name given to the combined administration of the Catholic Church. That’s why in the UN it’s referred to as the Holy See and not Vatican city
Catholic theologian here. In response to
“the Church’s process for confirming them is extremely human” - this ought not to be viewed as in any way discrediting from a Christian or Catholic perspective. The two sources of theology are 1) the Christian tradition, which includes Scripture, oral tradition, and capital-T Tradition as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and 2) human experience, which includes interpretation as you might initially think, but also philosophy, social science, and even natural sciences.
That wasn't supposed to be a discrediting thing. What is discrediting is the fact that this process doesn't find any positive proof of anything, only circumstantial evidence that can be neatly fitted to whatever belief you have.
Theology is that edifice of human thought that has no first floor.
Always wondered what would happen if cancer-ridden Rosemary legitimately, with all her heart and soul, and with all good intentions, prayed to that small-moustache German man, or that Joe "Big Moustache Stallone" from Georgia, or even that Red Angel who fell from the sky......and actually get a "real" Catholic miracle, and her cancer just completely vanished and she got hundreds of real blessings.
Nothing, because they aren't martyrs, so it takes two wonders for them.
And yes, that's probably where this rule comes from.
Nothing, because the first step of becoming a saint is the diocese you die in performs an investigation to determine if you lived a life of heroic virtue, which the man you are describing obviously didn't. Saints aren't just guys in heaven, but role models of virtue for us on earth.
They're not candidates for beatification in the first place and Catholicism recognizes the existence of supernatural powers other than God.
@@alexanderf8451now I'm curious if the crusades were actually against some paranormal threat and this entire time the Catholic Church really did perform exorcisms
Nothing on the church's part. Mostache man wasn't an example of heroic faith, so he's not in consideration.
That TV show 'Evil' is, at least in the first season, about exactly this process. I recommend it to anyone. They do an amazing job of leaving you guessing whether or not the things happening are truly supernatural or merely complex but natural phenomenon
Nice pfp
Nice pfp, i say too
Carlo Acutis is not a canonized saint. He is a blessed, and he is set to be canonized soon.
He’s been approved for canonization so both are technically right
@@humanperson6675 but his canonization could still occur in early 2025, there is no guarantee it will occur in 2024
And they just did the video about all the mistakes they made in the last year, time to start curating the next year's list!
You speak bunch of nonsense make believe talk meant for children.
@LaplacianFourier oh no, I'm shaking in my boots rn. You totally just decimated my faith and millenia of scholarship!
In the words of The Insane Clown Posse, 'Magnets, how do they work'
That quote is incomplete
@@LazyCat010air, water, fire and dirt; fucking magnets, how do they work?
don’t worry i gotchu my dude
Insane Clown Posse and Magnets are real though
I have to say, this was a really positive and objective video on a topic that could be really divisive. Nice work!
Fun fact: because of 3:57 in Italian, when you know everything about someone, we say that you know "vita, morte e miracoli"
I like that!
Does “vita, morte e miracoli” mean “life, death, and miracle”?
@@ZacksRockingLifestyle yes
Miracles in the old testiment 100% had positive and negative effects. For example; The 10 plagues; the earth swallowing Korah; etc
I think that miracle is a thing on its own as defined in the video, meaning not all deeds of God would be called miracle by this norm.
Yeah the Catholic answers page is talking about miracles that qualify for getting a saint canonized. Catholics believe God does all kind of other stuff that are miracles, but we don’t use those for recognizing saints.
@@ikcikor3670 who am I to judge. There were two boys that killed a little girl and were punished by the legal system in the US.
indeed, the Church would say there are miracles outside of the strict criteria. Though this definition he is given is for those that are conencted to a Cause for Canonisation, as they'd say on the BBC "other miracles are availible"
None of those things ever happened.
You know Orthodox are very critical of Catholics for being too focused on rationalizing religion but I believe it's one of the most important thing anyone can do in Christianity.
St. Thomas Aquinas: "And I took that personally."
0:39 Ben (who wrote this episode) trying to get more people on his side for Jet Lag lol...
I know someone who had to go through the process in the video, it took like 3 years for the investigation to happen and he had to talk to dozens of doctors and specialists and had to fly to Rome a few times to be interviewed
My mother is Donders. The potential saint Peerke Donders is family with one miracle to his name. My parents were present in Rome for the initiation of the process of decalring him a saint. He was a priest working with lepers in Suriname south America.
This was actually super interesting, especially the stuff about Carlo Acutis. Thanks!
That must have been a recent change because Isidore of Seville is supposed to be the patron saint of the internet.
You mean, like, an update?
This isn't Highlander, there can be more than one😁. For instance both Saint Jude Thaddeus and Saint Rita of Cascia are patrons of desperate and hopeless situations.
Things can have multiple patron saints
Agree with all of the above, but also yes, very recent. For anyone who didn’t know, you have to be dead to be a saint, and Isidore mostly got the job for his work writing an encyclopedia. But once Carlo came around, suddenly there was a saint who had *actually* used the internet, which is obviously better.
Patron saints are kinda a fan determined thing and non-exclusive. Some things have loads of patrons.
Hey Sam! Loved the video! I thought the jokes were funny and the facts were true. And even the facts that weren't true, I think it's awesome that you tried your best. Also, and pardon me if this is inappropriate, but based on your voice, I can tell you're a really cool and chill type of guy, probably with lots of friends. And this is just you, by the way. Not your writers. And not your editors. Especially not your editors.
I see what you did there!
@@DanielHelmet He’ll be impressed
Can’t wait for a video by hai saying “most mistakes in one video: the miracle video” 😂😂😂
As one of the handful of people who watched the 2017 anime series "Vatican Miracle Examiner" I'm here like "oh, like the guys in that", who would have thought that was a real thing. (That series is wild...😅)
I'm no Catholic, so I don't know: do they invite Muslims into the panel to decide if a miracle occured in Catholicism? 3:13
I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know they have included atheists in the past.
@@timothyodonnell8591 Atheists makes complete sense, they want someone to disprove their miracle and who more motivated than an atheist, but why would you want someone who agrees it's a miracle, but just not on who performed it
Diversity hire fail. The pope's job is up for grabs next.
Why would they invite terrorists?
Christopher Hitchens was one of the "devil's advocates" for Mother Theresa's sainthood.
What do you MEAN the Hosts have actually turned into human flesh in the past???? What??
Most of the time, the Host has turned into heart tissue. Recent Eucharistic miracles show the heart tissue is from a person under severe stress or injury. Also, the tissue from different such miracles all have the same blood type.
@@timothyodonnell8591 that is incredible. Why aren't more people talking about this😭
Yes several times the host has taken the appearance of human heart tissue, showing signs of extreme trauma and stress (such as crucifixion would cause) and showing signs that the heart the tissue came from was still alive.
Yea, Miracle of Lanciano, the blood type was identified as AB😊
@@Bacon2000. Jesus was white. Checkmate.
They should start a new show, Catholic Saint Investigators, or CSI for short. Starring Amy, from HAI.
I was seriously thinking that there's a really interesting movie premise in portraying the process by which miracles are confirmed.
At around 6:30 you saint due to Craig's intervention. Craig doesn't intervine in the situation at all, its his intercession, which is Just him praying to God on behalf of whomever prayed to him. This also makes the graphic on screen wrong because it's not God working through Craig who heals the hypothetical person, it's Craig praying to God on behalf of the family, and God heals the person.
uh huh. i also have a bridge to sell you
So in other words, if you suck at praying, you're gonna have a hard time becoming a saint.
@@lonestarr1490 There is no such thing as sucking at praying, it is more about intent and devotion. You can think of it more like god doing the saint a favour by intervening in a situation he would usually not intervene.
At least he said it is god working throgh Craig, where it would still be god from whom the power originates, many people get it wrong and say that the saint is healing someone.
It's being in denial about de facto polytheism, is what it is.
0:45 For those wondering, the dog mayor is in Idyllwild, California, and his name is mayor Max the 3rd. He's a very friendly and photogenic golden retriever.
The piano hit different
Does turning wine into water count?
Only if the "water" isn't yellow.
@@lonestarr1490 so with enough hydration...
I appreciate the inclusive panel at 3:21.
How are you just going to gloss over 3:42 ??
Like, excuse me, what!?
Especially why it supposedly happened three times in quick and regular succession in Buenos Aires. There's got to be some other explanation.
@mirzaahmed6589 If all the available evidence suggests that a miracle has occurred, it's pure ideological bias to say "well, that can't be it, because miracles are impossible!"
You've begged the question - you have a pre-determined conclusion, and you're forcing the evidence to fit your assumptions, rather than just following where the evidence leads.
Blessed Carlo Acutis was building a database of Eucharistic miracles. Yes, the Body dropped it's accidents of bread and turned into human flesh. Not just once, many times.
Imagine introducing yourself as the Holy Microscopy and Microbiology Specialist.
The Vatican basically has its own SCP Foundation
but they neither secure nor protect. At best they do contain. Numerous historical artifacts that is.
1024: Hey guys, check this out!
*is double jointed*
“Woah! Praise the Lord!”
“Hallelujah! This cured my cancer!”
2024: Look sir, I know you have laser eyes but you still need to fill out Form 2013-A first.
The Catholic Church contributed a ton to the development of the scientific method. Science started as a way to investigate the natural world to understand the complexity of God’s creation.
While the first of those two points is true, the latter is objectively not and exemplifies an anachronistic (or historical) fallacy. That is, the second statement implies that the scientific method (or scientific thinking in general) started as a way to understand God’s creation, which imposes a religious framework retroactively on a practice that existed long before the religious tradition in question.
The best scientific achievement was to understand that the universe and everything on it can be studied without relying on God's will as an explanation to everything.
BtW at that time, the "god" was Zeus.
@@TahozaWell, the invention of the scientific method is usually attributed to Galilei, who explicitly mentions this very aim. Now, it is true that several things that were supposedly discovered in the 16th-17th century were older, but this is probably where that second statement comes from.
@@AulusAugerius The scientific method predates even the 16th-17th century by at least many 10's of thousands of years and probably many more than that. While perhaps not explicitly referred to as "the scientific method", its practice is evidenced in what we would today call ancient or even privative cultures by the development and refinement of agriculture, husbandry, architecture, material refinement, etc.
Equally as important to consider is the fact that, historically, the scientific method evolved from a combination of philosophical, empirical, and experimental traditions long before the modern church, and it draws on contributions from many cultures and eras. To attribute its creation to any one source, such as Christianity or the church at the time described here, is reductionistic and fails to appreciate the many contributions from sources other than the Christian church.
The fact that there's professional devil's advocates is fantastic
Where exactly do you think the phrase came from? The West only exists as the political outgrowth of Catholic philosophy and religion and the everlasting barrage of heresies and rebellions against it. This happens to be why you have a default attitude of believing revenge killings to be wrong, unless you come from a non-western culture. Some areas of the West have degenerated into total modernistic freefall, but don't think for a second that the "kindness" morality or phrases like "hail mary", "devils advocate", "hallow('s)ween" did not come from a vast, shared Catholic culture.
Interesting side note: At 1:49 a saint Johannes Karhapää is shown, but he's actually a saint in orthodox church, not in catholic church.
When I was asked to define a miracle, I said one of Smoky Robinson's backup singers...
OK, this made me chuckle. 🤣
The Kurt example really tied everything together, they couldn't just let it slide but had to investigate. You could come out of a coma and it still wouldn't be a miracle.
I don't believe in ghosts investigation contents but there's one particular group that I like since they investigate supernatural phenomena in a different way.
Let's say there's a moving glass on the counter top on its own, they wouldn't investigate that phenomenon using the Ouija board or talk to nothing while the thermal camera is on or some bullshit device instead they will see if there is something that the glass can move itself like small amount of water at the bottom of the glass, slanted surface etc etc. They basically look for scientific evidence and if they don't see anything scientific they will conclude it as a paranormal, as far as I know they never find anything paranormal
And because of them I'm not scared of doors suddenly closing, silhouettes in the dark etc etc since all i do is look then investigate how something can move on it's own or make a silhouette but I'm not gonna go to an abandoned place since alive ones are far more dangerous than dead ones if you know what I mean 🤣
i like that. basically myth busters but for supernatural phenomena
Hey Sam! Loved the video! I thought the jokes were funny and the facts were true. And even the facts that weren't true, I think it's awesome that you tried your best. Also, and pardon me if this is inappropriate, but based on your voice, I can tell you're a really cool and chill type of guy, probably with lots of friends. And not just you, by the way. Also your writers. But not your editors. Especially NOT your editors.
I still enjoyed listening to the video about the topic--but the whole idea of rigorous verification really truns to mush when you get someone queued up to be canonized cuz "man these people had some bad medical conditions that happened to get better because we were able to find some way to connect it to the subject"
What about all of the cases where people make unlikely medical recoveries and never touched artifacts or said a single prayer? At the end of the day they have no realistic way to prove a causal relationship between the two things.
That hardly matters. The church isn't looking for miracles that can be *proved* it's looking for miracles that can't be *disproved*
Which is good since actually proving a miracle would shake the foundations of our world.
Within Catholic doctrine & theology (Christian and platonist in general, really) all acts are considered to be from God (prime mover and whatnot), these miracles are seen entirely through this lense, they're not meant to be a good polemic arguments against non-believers. Sainthood, also, merely means acension into heaven, the current process for sainthood (though very old) was not ratified until a while into the Church's history, originally often saints were just local men famed for their piety, which is why there are (to my knowledge) a few lesser-known early medieval & late classical saints which have no major miracles but were simply very pious people.
When people hear about this they often wonder "what if the 'miracle' has a scientific explanation but the scientific panel couldn't find it?" or "what if a scientific explanation is found after new scientific advancements?". "Does that mean that the person isn't really a saint?". The Church acknowledges that possibility and takes it into consideration, but it isn't too problematic.
We have to understand that canonization is just an official sainthood certification. In other words, it means that the Church came to the conclusion that there's an extremely high probability that a certain person is a saint (e.g. 99% chance). The vast majority of saints (aka anyone who is in Heaven) are never canonized.
Approving two miracles is only the last requirement for being canonized as saint and, in a way, the least important one. What matters the most is having lived (or at least died) as a righteous Catholic. That's what makes someone a saint and that's the main matter researched in a canonization cause. However, since it's impossible to know for sure what a person really thought in their inner self of what they did in private, there's a small chance that a person who, by all accounts, lived like a saint, may not actually be a saint. That's why miracles are required as further proof that they were a saint. And that's why martyrs require just one miracle: if they gave their life for God, there's a very high chance they're a saint.
Thus, miracles work like the final proof that a person was truly righteous. If a miracle were later proven to have a scientific explanation, that wouldn't mean that the person who by all accounts was righteous isn't a saint. It would only mean that the probability that they're a saint is a little lower (e.g. 90% instead of 99%).
Your videos are miracles, literally. I laugh out loud. You are a saint! But don’t get cocky. Keep em coming
Hey Sam! Loved the video! I thought the jokes were funny and the facts were true. And even the facts that weren't true, I think it's awesome that you tried your best. Also, and pardon me if this is inappropriate, but based on your voice, I can tell you're a really cool and chill type of guy, probably with lots of friends. And not just you, by the way. Also your writers. And your editors. Especially your editors.
@@TheMortey copied comment
It's a miracle this video was ever made!
Transubstantiation does in fact count as a miracle. I don't know why you said it didnt.
In this instance, I believe that they are primarily referring to verifying miracles to canonize saints. I believe there was a brief section in the video discussing the process of verifying transubstantiation outside of mass.
That being said, wouldn't transubstantiation fall under covenant? Which would arguably not make it a miracle. I'm not a catholic, so perhaps I'm wildly incorrect.
@josiahsimmons9866 Transubstantiation is the process of how the eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, which does fall under the new covenant, but is itself a miracle because it is a supernatural phenomenon.
@@crabser2253 Here's the thing, I'm not catholic and transubstantiation is one of the primary reasons I will likely never be one, so that makes discussing this a somewhat challenging matter. But, allow me to pretend for a moment that I do believe.
Since I "believe" in transubstantiation, I know that it happens every time I partake in the eucharist. Therefore, it's a replicable phenomenon. I put forward the argument that if something is consistently replicable, it is simply invalid to suggest that it's miraculous, and rather, instead, a better explanation is that it's a natural law.
@josiahsimmons9866 it's miraculous because it is a supernatural phenomenon. The repeatability of the miracle has no bearing on its miraculous nature. The theology behind it is a whole different can of worms, and it's one I will not touch right now.
The Apostles were pretty darn good at replicating miracles
That Kurt face was unexpectedly adorable, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw it. Fantastic design!
1:50 Johannes Karhapää is a Finnish Orthodox saint, who was murdered by the capitalists during the finnish civil war, and not a catholic one.
Capitalists lmao
@@longiusaescius2537 communicating the nuance of finnish civil war, e.g. how the whites were weird mix of monarchists, nationalists, bourgeoise, and proto fascists, in a short message is quite difficult
@@fish3977 no capitalists? And it was probably protestant nationalists
@@longiusaescius2537 since you seem unaware, "bourgeois" translates to "porvari". and lol
Praise be to Craig! It's a miracle that HAI has posted a new video!
*Wins the lottery
“This miracle is illegal”
*loses the lottery
Power of god
It’s happened. Which would suck
2:24 more like a death hack, but whatever.
Anyway, it's a breath of fresh air to see a video, documenting a Christian practice, that looks at things objectively and isn't explicitly aggressive to Christianity.
2:18 Joan of Arc wasn't actually canonized as a martyr!
She was - not sure why you thought she wasn’t
@@samanjj It's actually a common misconception, but she wasn't canonized as a martyr since her execution was ordered by a canonically constituted court! She was executed by Christians for heresy against her faith, not for her Christian faith itself. She was however canonized as a virgin, and two miracles were attributed to her for her to be canonized.
@@psy_laris the people who kill her were Protestants right? How would they have standing in the Catholic Church?
@@psy_laris the people that executed her were Protestant weren’t they? How would they have standing?
@@samanjj There were no Protestants in the 1300s.
You’re so right Sam (actually Ben), in today’s world, due diligence IS a miracle, so it is no shock that the biggest religion in the world by far is the one still keeping things up to date and creating such compelling storylines that can’t be deciphered even by impartial medical experts. I’m very happily Jewish, but man I would absolutely choose to be Catholic if I was atheist and had a choice, it is by far the most compelling religion out there
This is not diligence. It's the god of the gaps fallacy on a factory assembly line.
Effective and efficient, but just as hollow.
Was Amy sent to perform a miracle for this one but the church is still checking its validity? 🤨🤔
Hey Sam, good job on this!! Even if a few details were a bit off, you clearly put in a lot of effort to understand a complicated topic, and I appreciate you. ❤
It's always a good day when hai posts a video.
I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’ve got to give it up to Sam for treating my religion and others’ religions with respect. Or at least, not outright trying to slander us, Hulu.
His video on Utah and its weirdness was excellent. If you ever want to know how good a media outlet is, see how they report something you have personal experience with. If it doesn’t mesh at all or misses obvious and key details, then it’s likely garbage. My areas of expertise are Utah politics and space travel. Everything I’ve seen from Sam in both these categories has been pretty good. Significantly more accurate than most major drive-by media outlets. Props to Sam. Glad to be subscribed on Nebula.
No drill and blast music??? Petition to bring it back
👇👇👇
I personally look to Carl Jung's conceptualization of Synchronicity and his rigorous statistical definition of what he considers synchronicity. I consider two classes of synchronicity, and I do not necessarily involve God (who may or may not influence the synchronicity's outcome).
1) Define a probabilistic value for which an outcome is anomalous enough to be considered a synchronicity, and an anomalous value that defines a "glitch in the matrix" so to speak. The latter is more a phenomenon described by players of Randonautica, and not so much a misrememberance effect as is the Mandela Effect. (Timeline hopping "affects forward timelines"--in all of my own experiments I have never seen such an event as described by the Mandela Effect that isn't simple mass misrememberance)
2) Use your favorite statistical algorithm to assess the probability of event A occurring with the probability of event B occurring at the same time. The simplest possible way to do this is just multiply the events.
3) Depending on the threshold of probability, one can assess how anomalous the event truly was, to categorize it as potential true synchronicity, or potential true reality glitch.
For one-time occurrences, the threshold of anomaly has to itself exceed the set probabilistic value on its own.
This is how I (an esoteric pagan theist) similarly assess "miraculous" events in my life.
3:25 a histologist studies microscopic anatomy, not history lol
History was never mentioned.
Last confirmed miracle I heard about was in Australia, where people were in a church and prayed to Mary Mackillop, and the storm outside that was supposed to go for days, stopped early and missed the church completely... Luck?
yes
It saves a lot of time to say, "Nope. It either didn't happen or it has a natural explanation."
Nope, it happened and it was a miracle
So in the absence of evidence, you conclude that it must be something that cannot be proven. Hm 🤔
@@methatis3013
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Fascinating. More of this please!
Hi please free me from your basement
So you're the prisoner who always grovels, stop it, give up, it's so annoying.
No
@@ishkanark6725 i did nothing dude oh gosh half as interesting is here again bye
Leaving a nice comment for you to feature on a video if needed. What a miracle!
7:35 hmmm … ‘due diligence’ and Catholic Church … 🤔
.... Yes?
What do you do for work?
I'm a certified miracle worker😂
What do you mean it sometimes comes back flesh?
Did he stutter?
Genuinely one of the best HAI videos ever imo
There was a saint in the late 1200s that the church wanted to venerate (ie. make a saint in the first place) but one of the conditions was that you had to perform a miracle.
They couldn't find one that satisfied the council, but they learned that in his deathbed he had requested herring for dinner but all his attendants could find was sardines.
When he took a bite he said "this is the best herring I've ever had" and the church decided "well it must have turned to herring in his mouth, make him a saint".
He's known today as Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of education.
That's not what happened at all. There are a few problem to note here.
1. Thomas Aquinas has many miracles attributed to him, far more than the 2 needed for canonization
2. That isn't even what the fish related miracle was. The miracle was that sardines changed into herring, not that he thought the sardine was herring.
Yes it's a bit of a silly miracle, but you don't have to be misleading about it.
source?
Who you asking the source from?
@@danboy12342 original comment's insane statement about the fish
That wouldn’t even qualify as a saint miracle if true though, since he wasn’t dead at the time.
The double space in the title is just
The commenter on 00:38 seems to have a strong parasocial connection to you, I would have keep an eye on them, could get messy.
Is that even a real commenter or just a sockpuppet used for the gag?
@@YourLocalMairaaboo definitely a sockpuppet, it has most of the channel name, logo, and the information was pointing to the editors. My comment was meant as a joke, I should've been more clear maybe 😅
Never knew I needed to know this. But it's definetely more than Half as Interesting
3:40 and no one bothers to attempt to sequence literally a sample of Jesus' genome???
Has something to do with the fact that we have no said example (2000 years ago and within Roman Judea who in a few years would revolt and kill most of the Jews in Jerusalem) and Christ ascended without a body...except if your that particular kind of Christian.
Even if they did it may not be correct or even the same from one to another. The purpose of the miracle is for God to demonstrate to us that he’s still there for us and to strengthen our faith, not to tell us what Jesus’ DNA sequence was.
Imagine if they donated $500,000 to end child hunger instead.
Brother, they’ve donated literal hospitals and schools to end it. The problem is that simply donating money to buy food isn’t sustainable and especially it isn’t a wise decision to give it the governments in africa
Are magnets a miracle?
nope
Ask the Insane Clown Posse; the Vatican doesn't investigate those.
Credit where credit's due. Due diligence is important for everything, even if you don't believe in the cause. Flippancy is the path destruction.
Not having an explanation ≠ magic is a good explanation
Science can't explain the supernatural, only natural, so after rigorous testing miracles are pretty sensible
@@NearlyAsleep
There is no evidence of the supernatural. Saying miracles are outside of science is nonsensical.
Furthermore, the only conclusion they should reach is simply that they do not know.
But, they employ the god of the gaps fallacy to attach unknowns to their god.
Everytime hai uploads, I always think it’s a miracle 😂😂😂
Hey, for the part at 4:26 where you say DCS employs 24 staff, you only put 21 dots. You did put 100 dots for the clerical members. Cheers.
I feel like we glossed over the flesh biscuits thing a little too quickly....did I hear right that this supposedly happened?
Yes, there are multiple cases such as this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle_of_Lanciano
Not just supposedly, but documentedly.
“Whatever happens, they say afterwards, it must have been fate. People are always a little confused about this, as they are in the case of miracles. When someone is saved from certain death by a strange concatenation of circumstances, they say that's a miracle. But of course if someone is killed by a freak chain of events -- the oil spilled just there, the safety fence broken just there -- that must also be a miracle. Just because it's not nice doesn't mean it's not miraculous.”
― Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times
The real miracle was the friends we made along the way
Neat, but you still need two of those to get considered for the club.
Hey Sam! Loved the video! I thought the jokes were funny and the facts were true. And even the facts that weren’t true, I think it’s awesome that you tried your best. Also, and pardon me if this inappropriate, but based on your voice, I can tell you’re a really cool and chill type of guy, probably with lots of friends. And not just you. Also your writers. And your editors. Especially your editors.