How do I interpret miracles attributed to St. Anselm?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Relztrah

Puritan Board Freshman
I am currently reading Eadmer’s The Life of St. Anselm which is fascinating. Since I began reading Meditations, I have found St. Anselm a great source of inspiration and wisdom. So I requested a copy of Eadmer’s biography from our local library.

In The Life of St. Anselm Eadmer recounts many miracles attributed to him which have the following chapter titles:

  • How a large hole was found in the ship which brought him across the sea; and how the water nevertheless did not enter.
  • How two knights were cured of quartan fevers by scraps from his table at Vienne.
  • How one of the barons of that district was cured of fevers and belly-aches by being present at a Mass of Anselm’s.
  • How he restored a mad woman to complete health by the sign of the holy Cross which he made over her.
  • How a copious rain fell at his prayer.
  • How he put out a fire which fell from heaven and was consuming some houses.

And so forth. How do I interpret these? For most miracles, Eadmer mentions that there were many witnesses. Normally I use my Western, 21st century, cessationist, skeptical perspective when reading such anecdotes, and consider them in the same category with miracle healing crusade testimonies. Is this simply medieval fan fiction? Or should I accept Eadmer’s account as factual particularly since St. Anselm wasn’t attempting to manipulate anyone and often only prayed for the miracle very reluctantly.
 
I am currently reading Eadmer’s The Life of St. Anselm which is fascinating. Since I began reading Meditations, I have found St. Anselm a great source of inspiration and wisdom. So I requested a copy of Eadmer’s biography from our local library.

In The Life of St. Anselm Eadmer recounts many miracles attributed to him which have the following chapter titles:

  • How a large hole was found in the ship which brought him across the sea; and how the water nevertheless did not enter.
  • How two knights were cured of quartan fevers by scraps from his table at Vienne.
  • How one of the barons of that district was cured of fevers and belly-aches by being present at a Mass of Anselm’s.
  • How he restored a mad woman to complete health by the sign of the holy Cross which he made over her.
  • How a copious rain fell at his prayer.
  • How he put out a fire which fell from heaven and was consuming some houses.

And so forth. How do I interpret these? For most miracles, Eadmer mentions that there were many witnesses. Normally I use my Western, 21st century, cessationist, skeptical perspective when reading such anecdotes, and consider them in the same category with miracle healing crusade testimonies. Is this simply medieval fan fiction? Or should I accept Eadmer’s account as factual particularly since St. Anselm wasn’t attempting to manipulate anyone and often only prayed for the miracle very reluctantly.

Unless he is attributing them to the intercessions of the Virgin or to touching a relic, I do not see the problem. The mass can be problematic, but what we call transubstantiation was not finalized, so that might help.

I am a cessationist on matters regarding revelation and prophecy, but I absolutely believer miracles happen today. To be sure, even though I grant there were witnesses (and I am inclined to believe the miracles happened), I do not have as strong epistemic warrant for these miracles as I would for those well-documented by Craig Keener.

My suggestion: take them for what they are worth, but do not based all of your certainty of the faith on them.
 
I feel like there can be a general trend against accepting miracles, with us wanting to distance ourselves from televangelists and charismatics. But that doesn’t mean that God hasn’t and doesn’t work through miracles today. I don’t think it’s inherently problematic to accept them as legitimate, but it can become problematic depending on the conclusions you draw from them.
 
All miracles attested only years after the death of a saint should be ignored as hagiography and myth. Did St Anselm himself or his contemporaries claim these things happened? Well, then perhaps they did. Did someone writing a hagiography after his death say they happened? Then, like most Romanist miracles, they probably didn't happen.
 
I like what Jacob said and what others have alluded. The question should be how any extra-biblical, alleged miracles should be approached Anselm’s or others’?
 
This is where the idea of warrant in epistemology is helpful. It is not a matter of all or nothing. Are you warranted in believing x or not? If so, how much warrant do you have in x belief? In fact, just study epistemology. Take the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief. Focus on the justified part. How strong is it? Are you 50% certain of x? Are you 50.01% certain?

We can even take it a step further:

A miracle must meet several criteria:
  1. It has to be improbable by the nature of the case (at least <50%).
  2. It must be independent and have specificity.
In other words, there must be
  1. An intelligent agent involved.

Does this criteria prove miracles exist? Of course not. It simply delineates, with varying degrees of certainty, between natural providences and supernatural actions. Moreover, and this is a valid epistemological point across the board, one can have legitimate knowledge with varying degrees of certainty. Let us say that I only have 75% certainty that x is a miracle. That counts as legitimate knowledge. I might not bet the house on it, but in terms of practical, day-to-day living it is knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top