Roma Locuta Est

May 17, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – This article continues with Roma Locuta Est‘s Historicity series of articles (see also HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE).  This article will consider the case of the Miracle of Calanda, which occurred in Calanda, Spain in 1640. 

The miracle involves the case of Miguel Juan Pellicer whose leg was restored to him two and a half years after it had been amputated. I became aware of the case ‘long, long ago‘ in the course of an informal debate on the topic of Lourdes with a group of skeptics/atheists. In the course of that debate on miraculous healings at such places like Lourdes one the skeptics, I believe it was the late Farrell Till, who pointing out seeing a Church will crutches on the wall, asked why God does not heal amputees. And, indeed, I have invariably found it a “favorite question“[1] of skeptics: “why doesn’t God heal amputees?”

Well, in the case under consideration in this article, we do have an example of a case of God restoring a young man’s leg, as said, two and a half years after it was amputated.  Below, after recounting background and the miracle, I’ll address three objections to the Miracle of Calanda, and will offer some comments/reflections on a fourth objection on the question “why doesn’t God heal (more) amputees.“

In reviewing the Miracle of Calanda, I’ll be relying on the Italian language (Kindle) version of Vittorio Messori‘s excellet 1998 book, The Miracle, (I believe a Kindle Version was released in 2023) which provides a couple of the documents (translated to Italian) that provides various testimonies from 1640 and 1641, and as well upon the ‘Sentence of the Archbishop of Zaragoza,’ which contains the sworn testimony of 24 witnesses from the public “trial” which investigated the case.  One of these documents still exists in the original spanish, but I found not translation of it.  However, I did find the full document, in Spanish, which provides the aforementioned sentence by the archbishop at the time, as well as the sworn interviews/statements of the 24 witness, plus that of Miguel Juan Pellicer (see Copia Literal y Autentica Del Proceso, Y Sentencia de Calification Sobre Milagro Obrado por la Intercesion de Nuestra Senora Del Pilar en La Villa de Calanda).

Our Lady of the Pillar

To begin, having reviewing all the interviews, and the advice of the investigators, the Archbishop’s final judgment concludes:

“…Therefore, considering all these and other things, with the advice of the illustrious Doctors of both Sacred Theology and Papal Law below, we affirm, pronounce and declare that Miguel Juan Pellicer, a native of Calanda, who has been discussed in In this process, his right leg which had previously been amputated was miraculously restored; and that it must be judged and held as a miracle, meeting all the conditions required by law for this to be possible, as we attribute to the prodigy in the case at hand. We therefore ascribe it among miracles, and as such we approve, declare and authorize it and so we say…”[2]

A vitally important part of this story in the documents is Our Lady, the Mother of God; in particular under the title of Our Lady of the Pillar (Nuestra Senora del Pilar). Our Lady of the Pillar is said to represent the first apparition of Our Lady in history (actually a case of bilocation), who appeared to the apostle St. James the Greater at Saragossa in 40 A.D. (see HERE; and also HERE for background). A theme that runs throughout the account and the trial, as said, is Miguel Juan Pellicer’s great devotion to Our Lady of the Pillar, and the signs that is was through her intercession that this great miracle was obtained from God,  

The Accident

Toward the end of July 1637, Miguel Juan Pellicer’s leg was broken when the wheel of a heavy cart ran over it.[3] Thus injured, he was taken by his uncle Jaime Blasco to the city hospital in Valencia [4], some 37 miles away. There, as Messori quotes the sources: “various remedies were applied, that didn’t have effect”[5]. From available historical documentation of the case, we know precisely when Pellicer arrived at the hospital in Valencia (August 3rd, 1637), what Pellicer was wearing (“tattered gray clothes”), and even the signature of the hospital administrator who filled out the entry note (“Pedro Torrosellas”)![6].  

Pellicer remained in Valencia only five days [7], after which he traveled to the city of Saragossa, to seek medical attention for his leg at the city’s General Hospital of Our Lady of Grace [8]. Nowadays, that trip would cover c. 194 miles. According to Pellicer’s deposition, after arriving in Saragossa, but before proceeding on to the hospital, Pellicer first visited the Church of Our Lady of the Pillar, where he confessed his sins and received the Holy Communion.[9] Again, as is clear from the documentation provided in the official documents, and Pellicer’s testimony, he had a great devotion to Our Lady of the Pillar.

The Amputation and Post Operation Period

As it turned out, due to the severity of Pellicer’s injury, and the presence of gangrene, it was necessary to amputate his leg. Juan de Estanga, “Professor of Surgery at the city university of Saragossa,” performed the amputation with the aid of his assistants [10].  He would later be the first witness called by the official investigation into the matter. 

Miguel Juan Pellicer testified that the during the excruciating pain of the amputation and cauterization of the leg, he entrusted himself to Our Lady of the Pillar, and implored her help.[11] The amputated leg taken by Juan Garcia and another from the operating room, they buried it in the cemetery on the grounds of the hospital.[12]

As he recovered from the operation, Pellicer was equipped with a wooden leg upon which the stump of the leg rested, and given a couple of crutches. It is important here to note that there are witnesses who had seen him place the kneecap of the leg that was amputated unto his wooden leg — “that he placed only the knee in the said wooden leg” and to have even “touched” the stump.[13]

Once he began to heal, but was “still weak in strength to the point of not being able to take care of himself”[14], motivated by his devotion to Our Lady of the Pillar, Pellicer went to the Church of Our Lady of the Pillar, crawling “best he could on his knees to the Holy Church and Chapel,” where he “he thanked her for having recovered his health, and offered himself and his life again to the virgin.”[15]  

Miguel still continued to suffer pain in the stump of the leg, and went to the Church of the Virgin of the Pillar to anoint his stump with oil from one of the lamps in the chapel dedicated to Our Lady of the Pillar.  This he reported to his surgeon, professor Estanga, who advised the wetness of the oil might thwart the healing process.[16] Still, despite this medical advice, Miguel continued to go to anoint his stump at the chapel.[17]

Pellicer remained in Saragossa for two years, begging in and around the church of Santa Maria del Pilar. After two years, he returned to Calanda to his parents’ home, apparently with “great difficulty,”[18] and lived by collecting alms for himself and his parents in “surrounding places.”[19] 

The Miracle

On March 26, 1640, after begging in ‘surrounding places,’ Miguel Juan Pellicer returned to his parent’s house. On the evening of 29 March 1640, Miguel went to bed, and it was here, between 10pm and 11:00pm [20], when the miracle occurred.  Around 11pm, Pellicer’s mother, Maria, came into the room where he was sleeping and saw two crossed feet exposed outside of the bed sheets. She then called to her husband to come and see.[21] Both seeing the same thing, his parents then woke Miguel.

According to his sworn statement [22], while he slept, Miguel said he dreamed he was “inside the Chapel of the Most Holy Virgin of Pilar.” In his dream, he was taking oil from one of the lamps of the Chapel – as had been his custom after his operation – and with that oil was anointing his knee where his leg was missing. He said that he believed the miracle had happened through the intercession of the Virgin of Pilar, to whom, “he had entrusted himself fully, and truly from the heart, while he was going to bed.”[23]

Initially, the leg above the knee was “for the moment darker than the new leg“[24]. That the newly re-attached leg was the same leg which had been amputated nearly two and half years earlier was evident from various recognizable marks upon it. For example, there were the scars where the wheel of the cart had run over his leg nearly two and a half years earlier. Furthermore, on his calf were the marks where he was once bitten by a dog when he was a boy, and above the ankle bone, the scar of cyst that had been removed when he was child.[25]

Worthy of Belief

The Miracle of Calanda is worthy of belief.  The documents, processes, and sworn statements testify to the historicity of this great miracle. The facts surrounding the miracle are well documented. First, a local judge in Calanda took a report “on the morning immediately after the event” which although it “has not survived to our time, but documentary traces confirm that there was such a report“[see HERE]. 

There is the witnessed and notarized testimony of Pellicer on April 2, taken down only four days after the miracle by the Royal Notary, Miguel Andreu. Per the excellent Wikipedia article on this miracle, this original document survives to our times, and is currently kept behind a glass case in the town hall of Saragossa [see HERE].  

By June 5, 1640, just a little over two months after the miracle, the formal investigation began. This investigation would last over a year. The original trial document survived till 1930 but was lost during WWII. However, there is printed and notarized copy of the original that was printed in 1829 [See (see Copia Literal y Autentica Del Proceso, Y Sentencia de Calification Sobre Milagro Obrado por la Intercesion de Nuestra Senora Del Pilar en La Villa de Calanda)].

Thus, as can readily be seen, we are not talking about a seemingly mythical or fantastic story written down hundreds of years after the fact. To the contrary, those at the time recognized the extraordinary character of the event, and documented it immediately — beginning the morning after the miracle.

Vittorio Messori reports in his book that the official investigation began on June 5, just over two months after the miracle, and about two and half years after the amputation of the leg. Messori writes (emphasis added):

“5 June – therefore, two months and one week after the event – three representatives of the municipality accompanied appear before the vicar general of vicariate general of the diocese, Msgr. Doctor Juan Perate, and officially opens the canonical process. Which, for transparency, will be public, not behind closed doors. The complete acts, with all the interrogatories, the objections, the deductions, and counter deductions will be right away published and put at the disposal of whomever wants to consult them: moreover, for greater distribution, they will be released in the “vulgar”, in Castilian, and only the sentence of the Archbishop  will be in Latin…” [26]

Regarding Miguel Juan Pellicer, according to the sworn testimony, he had the reputation, for his entire life as being a “good Christian,  and “fearing God, and his conscience”; being “obedient to his parents”, and “simple, without any malice,” and as noted earlier this article, “devoted to the Mother of God of the Pilar.”[27] This was the common opinion of him in his town of Calanda, and “in other parts.”[28]  So, we see that Pellicer was held to be an honest and trustworthy young man.

In addition to the testimony of this well-regarded man, the trial proceedings in Saragossa included the sworn testimony of 24 witnesses, inclusive of those who had amputated Pellicer’s leg. Among these was Juan de Estanga who had amputated the leg [29]; Diego Millaruelo, master of surgery at the hospital, who stated he helped with the operation, and of the leg said, “he saw it cut off.”[30]  Also, Juan Garcia, who was one of the young practitioners (“mancebo platicante”) that helped in the procedure[31], and along with a companion, took the amputated leg and buried it in the cemetery on the hospital grounds [32] [NB: the hole where it was buried was found to be empty[33]]. All of these individuals were familiar with Pellicer, his case, and all said he was the same man whose leg had been amputated. To this, there are those who saw Pellicer in the time following the amputation who knew him during this period as having only one leg. All of this documented with sworn testimony.

Now, as Messori pointed out, as I quoted earlier, the official proceedings were open to the public.  Interviews were immediately published and disseminated for any and all to read. Thus, if any member of the public had information that refuted testimony or findings, they could step forward to contradict any testimony known to them to be false. However, as Messori reports, no one in the proceedings, or in the public objected.

The documented, uncontradicted, sworn testimony – open for public examination, establishes a great miracle had indeed taken place. Pellicer’s amputated leg was restored to him instantaneously, and obviously, in a miraculous way beyond the capacity of nature. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the historicity of the miracle, and that it is indeed ‘worthy of belief.’ 

But there is another consideration, I think, which further adds to its credibility. Clearly, the restoration of the leg to Miguel’s body was instantaneous and miraculous, as the evidence demonstrates. This is obvious. Yet, while the restitution of the leg was instantaneous, its former strength and color did not return immediately. As noted earlier, when the miracle was discovered, it was noted that the leg above the knee was darker than the “new leg.” So, it seems the ‘new leg’ appeared pale. The decree of the archbishop notes this, saying of the leg that (emphasis added):

“In fact, his nerves and toes were contracted and almost useless, and he did not feel the normal heat in his leg, which appeared cadaverous in color and was neither as long nor as thick as the other.”[34]

If the account of the miracle had been fabricated and fraudulent, one might expect the storyteller to relate that the leg was restored with full health, with nerves, toes, color, and heat all normal, and the restored leg being as long and as thick as the other. However, that is not the case. The archbishop’s approval of the miracle goes to some length to offer some opinions as to why the restored leg did not appear, at first, to be normal like Pellicer’s other leg. The leg improved some after three days; but only was “restored to its pristine state,” like the other leg, after Pellicer visited Our Lady of the Pillar.[35]

Therefore, in view of the above, and the documentary evidence, it is reasonable to accept the historicity of the Miracle of Calanda.

Objections to the Historicity of the Aforementioned Miracle, and Replies to those Objections

Objection 1:

“…one has to remember two very important points. First, the trial was held for the explicit purpose of providing proof of this miracle — it was not to investigate or to learn what had happened, but to document a predetermined conclusion. The transcript was written for the exact same purpose — to give the Church the needed documentation that a miracle, unexplainable by any natural causes, had taken place. Even so, they failed to produce any doctor willing to state that he had amputated the leg of Pellicero.

Why not? In my experience, it’s because this sham Church trial cherry picked its witnesses, as evidenced by a total lack of witnesses who presented any contradicting testimony. Even if they had found a doctor willing to say he’d done the amputation, such trials as this have always been so notoriously tarnished by their flagrant prejudice that its finding should carry little weight with any reasonably skeptically minded person, especially when such an obvious and well-known alternate explanation exists.”

(Source: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4733)

Reply to Objection 1

The Objector’s accusation that the trial was only intended to provide “proof of this miracle”, and “not to investigate” what really happened, and only to “document a predetermined conclusion” is but a mere assertion without any evidence.

All evidence supports the historicity of the miracle of Calanda. As noted above, the documentation of what happened on the evening of the miracle began the next morning, immediately following the miracle. Then, four days later, a statement was taken from Pellicer, with witnesses, before a Royal Notary, Miguel Andreu. Then, a little over two months after the miracle, the formal investigation began. The title of the final document produced by the investigation regarding the events surrounding Miguel Juan Pellicer gives the purpose of the proceeding: “Trial of the Illustrious Gentlemen Jurors of the Council and University of the City of Zaragoza for the purpose of ascertaining a miracle.” In other words, the purpose of the participants, certainly on its face, was to ascertain the truth: or find out the truth with certainty.  Was this a real miracle or not?

The proceedings themselves are evidence that the purpose of ascertaining the truth was more than just lip service. There were 24 witnesses who testified under oath. There was sworn testimony to the fact the Pellicer’s leg was amputated, by witnesses who were present at the amputation. The Objector’s claim “they failed to produce any doctor willing to state that he had amputated the leg of Pellicero” is patently false, and is addressed in my Reply to Objection 3. The process was open to the public, who could follow the proceedings and testimony along. Thus, with this sort of transparency, people could come forward to dispute factual inaccuracies or lies, but there is no record that any did.

Consequently, there is no reasonable grounds to suggest that the archbishop, the investigators, or the witnesses, who swore to the facts presented — all of whose reputations were on the line — simply wanted to rubberstamp a ‘miracle,’ which might then, or later be proven false. It makes no sense that they would risk their reputations on behalf of beggar, when their own part in such a proceeding would surely hold them up to ridicule amongst those they knew, within society, within the Church, and before the King.  They would be subject to prosecution for perjury if any lies were discovered in their sworn testimony. Given all the above, the claim of a ‘sham’ trial is utter nonsense.

Now, while the Catholic Church certainly believes miracles are possible — something the skeptic does not; the Catholic Church has a long track record of fairly and carefully investigating all sorts of supernatural or preternatural claims, e.g., apparitions, miracles, cases of possession, etc., and accepting some, while rejecting many more. For every Fatima the Church may deem worthy of belief, there are many more Bayside’s which it rejects as not being of supernatural origin. Similarly, at Lourdes, there have only been sixty-something canonically approved miracles over the history of the shrine, out of the many considered. In his book, Messori points to the many cases of witch trials and condemnations in Northern, protestant Europe in the 1600s; while the Roman inquisition convicted only one.[36] So, these processes employed by the Catholic Church, such as the one looking into the case of Pellicer, are and were not intended to rubberstamp supernatural claims regardless of the truth of the matter.

The truth is a Catholic’s faith would not be harmed should this or that particular supernatural claim or alleged miracle be rejected. Thus, a Catholic can fairly hear and weigh the evidence. However, this is not the case for the skeptic whose unbelief could not long survive the acceptance of a miracle claim. Consequently, there appears to be a fair amount of projection in the skeptic’s assertion about the Catholic Church ‘not investigating or learning what had happened’ and wanting to ‘document a predetermined conclusion.’  These accusations, and the skeptic’s accusation of “flagrant prejudice” is as vacuous as it is laughable, and just another clear example of projection.

Objection 2

“But what about all those witnesses who knew him with one leg? Allow me to offer an alternative version of what might have happened, that requires no miraculous intervention, and is still consistent with all the documentary evidence we have. Pellicero’s leg was broken in the accident as witnessed and reported, but like most broken legs, did not develop gangrene. His uncle took him to the hospital at Valencia (a documented event), where he spent five days — during which his uncle presumably went back to his farm — and his broken leg was set.

The next 50 days he spent convalescing as his leg mended. Unable to work during this time, he was forced to earn a living as a beggar, and found that the broken leg did wonders for the collection of alms. Once his leg was sound, he reasoned that if a broken leg was good, a missing leg would be even better. He bound his right foreleg up behind his thigh, got ahold of a wooden leg, and traveled to Zaragoza, home of the great Basilica — someplace where he wasn’t known. For two years, the young Pellicero enjoyed the relative financial success of panhandling among the Basilica’s devotees as an amputee with a sad story.

Eventually he made it back home to Calanda, where his plans were accidentally foiled when the existence of his complete, sound leg was revealed when his parents saw his feet sticking out of his blanket. At that point, the miracle story was a perfect cover. Many, many people had known him as the man with one leg, and now everyone could quite plainly see that he had two. There was no way he could lose. “

(Source: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4247)

Reply to Objection 2

There are various problems with the above objection which makes it an impossible theory.  

The miracle occurred on March 29, 1640. As stated above, Pellicer’s story was documented on the very morning following the meeting; within no more than about twelve hours of its discovery. This was taken down by a local judge in Calanda “on the morning immediately after the event” which although it “has not survived to our time, but documentary traces confirm that there was such a report”[see HERE].  Although this text has not survived, we can be sure that Pellicer’s story was “locked in” so to speak very early on.  This is so because, within four days of the miracle, Miguel Juan Pellicero was interviewed by several officials, and his account documented in writing, witnessed, and notarized by Miguel Andreu on April 2, 1640 (see Messori’s book for Italian translation).  The official investigation would begin two months later, and the official report of this investigation, and the approval of the Archbishop of Saragossa would come just a little over a year later. 

The problem for the Objector is that if Pellicero was a fraud, how is it that various sworn details found in the notarized April 2 document includes the key details which other witnesses would later swear to under oath in Saragossa? For example, the April 2 document includes the following details: (1) the doctors consulted about what to do about Pellicer’s leg, (2) after which, Dr. Juan De Estanga — specifically named by Pellicer — amputated the leg, (3) the leg was taken and buried on hospital grounds.  

All the above facts were confirmed under oath through various witnesses, including Dr. Juan de Estanga, professor of surgery at the university [37]. Also, Diego Millaruelo, “master of surgery” at the hospital, also under oath, stated he helped with the operation, and of the leg said, “he saw it cut off.”[38] Also, Juan Garcia, one of the young practitioners (“mancebo platicante”) helped in the procedure [39], and along with a companion, took the amputated leg and buried in the cemetery on the hospital grounds [40]. All of them remembered stated under oath they knew Pellicer, and his case.

So, the problem for the Objector is clear. He says Pellicer made up the miracle story when his ‘fraud’ was found out on March 29, 1640.  However, as noted above, he gave details 4 days later (and likely also within 12 hours of the miracle) which were later confirmed under oath by doctors, and practitioners quite familiar with him and his case.  How does the Objector explain this? 

How does the skeptic credibly explain the holes in his theory? I don’t know. But perhaps he or another Objector might allege all of the above-named individuals were involved in a broader conspiracy concocted two years before by Pellicer after he broke his leg. However, this is implausible.  Why would respected doctors, hospital workers, and other witnesses commit themselves to public, sworn testimony on behalf of this beggar if it were not true? 

And as said in the Reply to Objection 1, it makes no sense that they would risk everything on behalf of a beggar, when their own part in such a proceeding, if discovered, would surely hold them up to ridicule amongst those they knew, within society, within the Church, and before the King. The investigation and their testimony were open to the public and under oath, thus further exposing themselves to discovery, recriminations, and prosecution for perjury.

The Objection fails as a theory due to its own inner inconsistencies with the known facts, as well as a lack of evidence that would suggest those who swore they either amputated the leg, or saw it cut off, had perjured themselves.

Objection 3

“When Estanga testified, he affirmed that he remembered a young man come to the hospital with an injured leg some two and a half years ago, but he did not know that young man’s name. He recommended amputation, and he testified that he believed it had been carried out by “practitioners and nurses”, but did not claim any first hand knowledge.

(Source: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4733)

Reply to Objection 3

The Objection above mutes the truth of the matter. Yes, Juan de Estanga said he did not know the young man’s name when he first came in (“entonces no sabia como se llamaba“).[41] However, Estanga did not speak simply, or vaguely of remembering “a young man…with an injured leg” — as if he did not recognize Pellicer as being that young man!  Estanga’s testimony clearly indicates Estanga speaks of Miguel Juan Pellicero “of whom he knows well” (“a’ quien bien conoce“). Estanga recalled that Pellicer applied oil of the lamps from the chapel of Our Lady of the Pillar to his stump, and suggested he not do that.  So, Pellicer, and his medical case were clearly quite familiar to Dr. Estanga. He affirms he recognizes Pellicer, and well remembers his case. Thus, he is in perfect position to say Pellicer is one and the same person on whom he operated two and a half years earlier, and it was his leg he amputated.

The Objector also attempts to understate the facts of Dr. Estanga’s participation, suggesting only:

“…he testified “he believed it (the amputation) had been carried out by “practitioners and nurses”, but did not claim first hand knowledge…”[42]

However, the Objector is wrong.  With regard to the amputation, Estanga’s testimony sworn under oath is as follows:

“…having made the above deliberation (that the leg needed to be amputated), the Deposed (Estanga), with the help of[43] his practitioners and nurses, cut off one of the said Juan Pellicero’s legs, four more fingers, below the knees, which he believes, and holds to be true, is the same as that which has been shown to said deponent (Estanga), and this he said to be true per oath.” [44]

Diego Millaruelo, master of surgery at the hospital, also under oath, stated he helped with the operation, and of the leg said, “he saw it cut off.”[45] Also, Juan Garcia, one of the young practitioners (“mancebo platicante”) helped in the procedure, and of the leg said he “saw it cut off” [46], and along with a companion, took the amputated leg and buried in the cemetery on the hospital grounds [47].

Consequently, the Objection fails.

Objection 4:

Why doesn’t God heal amputees, or even if Calanda is an example of one such miracle, why doesn’t God heal (more) amputees?

(Source: Based on https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm).

Reply to Objection 4:

When I’ve informally debated skeptics in the past on the question of miracles (e.g., Lourdes), they have tried to argue against the healing miracles (e.g., Lourdes) by posing the question, “why doesn’t God heal amputees?”  Thus, I was not surprised to see that Brian Dunning in his article on the Miracle of Calanda begins it by saying:

“A favorite question asked by skeptics, when confronted with stories of miraculous religious healings, is to ask “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?” The answer? He did, once.”

(source: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4247)

My responses to Objections 1-3 answers the key objections to Calanda.  With regard to Objection 4, as something of a bonus objection, I’d like to provide some comments or reflections on this question which pops up a lot in discussions with atheists/skeptics.

Now, even if it be true that God has not worked (many) miracles to restore limbs to amputees, it is a fallacious argument to claim that because of this, that all other miracle claims are necessarily false, or the truth of them less probable. This is a fallacious argument that might be posed in the following terms: because there are no pigs which have wings and can fly, there are no such thing as pigs. That is to say, just because there have not yet been found miracles of a specific type or description, this is not a proof against there being true miracles of another type or description.  To the extent the question “why doesn’t God heal amputees” is used as an argument against miracles, it is a fallacious red herring — which can be dismissed.

This article has already discussed the Miracle of Calanda, involving Miguel Juan Pellicer, where an amputated leg was restored two and a half years after it was removed.  In his book, Messori points to the another historical example in the case of St. John of Damascus, who after his hand was cut off by a Muslim caliph, prayed for his hand to be restored to him, and it was (see HERE).

Another case Messori points to in his book is that of Pierre de Rudder [48], whose leg was broken by a falling tree. In her book on Lourdes, Ruth Cranston reported that after the bone fragments were removed from de Rudder’s leg, the bones of the upper and lower leg were separated by over an inch so that the leg “swung in all directions like a rag.” Even after eight years, the bone had not healed or connected.  However, de Rudder he was instantaneously after he prayed to Our Lady of Lourdes at a shrine for the ability to care for his children and no longer live by charity.[49] His doctor, who would return to the Catholic faith, wrote:

“Pierre is undoubtedly cured. I have seen him many times during the last eight years, and my medical knowledge tells me that such a cure is absolutely inexplicable. Again, he has been cured completely, suddenly, and instantaneously, without any period of convalescence. Not only have the bones been suddenly united, but a portion of bone would seem to have been actually created to take the place of those fragments I myself have seen come out of the wound. But if a miracle, then there is something beyond natural law–God exists, and surely, He must have given some revelation of Himself.”[50]

But, for the skeptic who still will not credit any of these cases as possible, perhaps there is nothing that can be said given their hyper-skepticism. But, perhaps, a more reasonable searcher for the truth might ask, why are cases of restored, amputated limbs not more common amongst all miracles that do happen? 

This seems to me an interesting, and a fair question, to which I can only offer a speculative answer which may not satisfy an unbeliever. My answer is as follows.

Whether in the times when Christ walked this earth, or in the apostolic age, or since then unto our own age, miracles involving the human body might be divided into two broad kinds. The first are miracles of healing. As the name suggests, in these sorts of miracles, God restores the proper functioning of a living body that has been damaged, inhibited, thwarted, etc., by some defect or disease of nature within or which afflicts an existing, living body. Here we speak of miracles that restore sight, hearing, speech, bodily functions, the use of paralyzed limbs, etc. 

The second category of miracles involving the human body is that of Resurrection miracles. Here, of course, we are speaking of the restoration of life itself to the body. While restoring health to a body is one thing, restoring life to it is something else entirely. Obviously, we are not talking about a living body which cannot heal its own functions, or has difficulty doing so — but rather here we are speaking of a dead body which no longer functions at all.  It is into this second category of miracles that I would place the restoration of amputated limbs, or bodily organs that have been removed. Here we are speaking of members of the body which have been separated from it, and are dead. In the case of Miguel Juan Pellicer, as we have seen, his amputated leg was buried in the hospital cemetery. It was no longer a living member of Pellicer’s body.

The faithful Christian asks: “Why should it be thought a thing incredible, that God should raise the dead?” (Acts 26:8). Indeed, God certainly can restore life! Aside from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the bodies raised after the Crucifixion (Matthew: 27:52), Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:1-45), and the only son of the widow (Luke 7:11-17). St. John in his gospel wrote that “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). So, perhaps there were others raised from the dead. The Lord did many wonders, which we cannot number, either by type or kind. In The Acts of the Apostles, Peter raised Dorcus/Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:39-42), and Paul raised Eutychus (Acts 20:8-12). In the lives of the saints, there have been many instances of the dead being raised. For example, one book catalogs at least 400 cases of the dead being raised.[51]

Still, while there have been many resurrection miracles, in relative numbers they appear quite rare in comparison to healing miracles. Why is that if it is ‘not an incredible thing to think God should raise the dead‘ (cf. Acts 26:8)? Here I would speculate that resurrection miracles are rarer in numbers than healing miracles because God’s promise of the Resurrection of the body, aside from an exceptional miracle according to His Divine Providence, is something reserved for the last day.

The bodily resurrection is something the Christian looks forward too. Even in the case of Miguel Juan Pellicer, he did not pray for the restoration of his right leg. Even though Martha must have known the Lord had raised others from the dead (e.g., Luke 7:11-17), she did not think to ask Him to raise Lazarus at that moment — although the Lord, without being asked, was moved to do so (see John 11:1-45). The Lord said to Martha: “Thy brother shall rise again.” To which, Martha replied: “I know that he shall rise again, in the resurrection at the last day.” In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Christian says: “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come,” which echoes the Apostles’ creed wherein the Christian states he believes in the “…the resurrection of the body.”

The Resurrection of the body is reserved by God for the Last Day, and in this the Christian believes and hopes. Thus, while we will find Christians praying for the health of relatives, friends, etc.; or find them in lines at places like Lourdes to be healed of sickness; we will not see lines of pilgrims bringing their dead to Lourdes, or praying at funerals for them to be raised from their coffins to life at that moment, in the here and now — for that is reserved to the last day. So, too, lost limbs and organs, as members of the body, participate in this hope of the resurrection; and must, therefore, await the resurrection of the body on the last day to be fully restored to the body.

It is for this reason, I speculate, we do not see bodily resurrections, or restorations of lost body parts, in numbers close to those of miracle healings over the history of the Church. It is not because God cannot work such miracles, for He can and has done so; rather it is because healing miracles are for the here and now of this life. God’s promise of the resurrection of the body, aside from exceptional miracles according to His Divine Providence — like the Miracle of Calanda, is something reserved for the last day. 

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes

[1] Brian Dunning, “The Miracle of Calanda” (https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4247)

[2] Vittorio Messori, Il Miracolo.  Kindle Version (Edizioni Aires: Milan, 2023).  Book originally published in 1998.  Quote based on an English translation of Messori’s Italian translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle.  See the original Latin and Spanish HERE, pages 25-40.

[3] Vittorio Messori, Il Miracolo.  See Public Deed drawn up in Calanda, Lower Aragon, on 2 April 1640 by the Royal Notary of Mazaleon, doctor Miguel Andreu

[4] See Article 8 from the Trial.  See also Pellicer’s testimony  (p.111) and also that of his uncle Jaime Blasco (see Page 

[5] See Messori, (Kindle version, loc. 772]

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Based on English translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle.  See Spanish HERE.See Article 8 from the Trial (p.12).  See also Pellicer’s testimony  (p.111). 

[9] Based on English translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle.  See the original Latin and Spanish HERE, pages 25-40.See Article 9 from the Trial (p.12). See also Pellicer’s testimony  (p.111); “he went to the Virgin of the Pillar of the present City, where he confessed, and took communion.” 

[10] See testimony of Juan de Estanga from the trial, p. 43:  “…having made the above deliberation, the Deposed (Estanga), with the help of his practitioners and nurses, cut off one of the said Juan Pellicero’s legs, four more fingers, below the knees, which he believes, and holds to be true, is the same as that which has been shown to said depositor (Estanga), and this he said to be true per oath…“; testimony of Diego Millaruello from the trial;  p. 51; “Re the 10th article: “(Millaruelo) saw the said Miguel Juan Pellicero in a bed with a gangrenous leg, which said Mr. Juan de Estanga applied the various medications to him, and seeing that they were of no use…. Juan de Estanga decided to cut off said leg, because he could not find any other way for the said Juan Pellicero to live; The depositor knows this, because as stated, he spoke with the said Mr. Juan de Estanga…(and per the 11th article)… That after the deliberation above, they cut off the leg, he knows this because he was present to cut it, and helped with the execution, and saw it cut off…”; See testimony of Juan Garcia from the trial, p. 49: “Juan de Estanga, through his young assistants (Mancebos), cut the said leg, and the deponent (Garcia) saw it cut…”; and Pellicer’s testimony  (p.112): “...Juan de Estanga, and his Mancebos, prepared what was necessary, and they gave the beholder a drink, and then they tried to cut, as in fact they did, cut off his right leg, four fingers below the knee, and they cauterized it…“

[11] Based on English translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle. See also Article 11 from the Trial (p.13).  See also Pellicer’s testimony (see Page 112): “The depositor always entrusted himself very truly to the Virgin of Pilar, imploring her help and this he said to be true…”

[12] Vittorio Messori’s book See Public Deed drawn up in Calanda, Lower Aragon, on 2 April 1640 by the Royal Notary of Mazaleon, doctor Miguel Andreu.  See also other testimony from the trial, which confirms Pellicer’s testimony on this point; for example, that of Juan Garcia, p. 49: “That the depositor is the one who took said leg after it was cut and took it with another companion of his, and having been with it in the Chapel, they took it to bury it in the Cemetery of said Holy Hospital, as in fact they buried it, making a hole like a palm of a wave…“

[13] Vittorio Messori’s book See Public Deed drawn up in Calanda, Lower Aragon, on 2 April 1640 by the Royal Notary of Mazaleon, doctor Miguel Andreu.  The document states there were many witnesses to the truth his right leg was a stump only.  See also other testimony from the trial, which confirm Pellicer’s testimony on this point through various witnesses.

[14] English translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle.  See Latin and Spanish HERE; pages 25-40.

[15] English translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle.  See also the Latin and Spanish HERE, pages 25-40; and Article 16 (p. 14) from the trial and Pellicer’s testimony (p. ) and that of Juan de Estanga (p. 112): “But since the deponent was weak, he could not help himself with a wooden leg, and carried away by his devotion to the Virgin of Pilar, he left the Hospital, and crawled best he could, to her (Virgin of Pilar’s) Holy Church, and Chapel, and thanked her for having remained alive to serve her, and again he truly offered to be her devotee...”

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] English translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle.  See Latin and Spanish HERE, pages 25-40.

[19] Ibid.

[20] See Articles 21 and 22 from the Trial (p.16-17).  See also testimony of Pellicer’s mother, Maria Blasco (p. 71): “…going to bed, they went to bed in the same room where Miguel Juan Pellicero was sleeping, she saw that he had two legs, having seen him, as has been said, shortly before with only one…“;  and father, Miguel Pellicer (p. 55): “…the deponent and his wife entered the room where the said Miguel Juan Pellicero was sleeping, the deponent noticed that his wife was amazed, and the deponent wanted to know why, she told him to look at how his son had two legs, and the deponent lifted the clothes, and saw that it was true, and that the leg, which as said, he saw cut off, was healthy, only that the toes were curved…“

[21] Vittorio Messori, Il Miraculo. See Public Deed drawn up in Calanda, Lower Aragon, on 2 April 1640 by the Royal Notary of Mazaleon, doctor Miguel Andreu

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.  Also compare to testimony of mother and father.  For example, the father, Miguel Pellicer (p. 55): “he (the father, Miguel Pellicer) saw that he (Miguel Juan Pellicer) was sleeping, and he woke him up with great difficulty, and having woken him up, the deponent (the father, Miguel Pellicer) told him to look at how healthy the said leg was, and the said Miguel Juan Pellicero, amazed by said event, told this deponent to shake his hand, and forgive him for everything that had offended him until then, and when the deponent asked him if he knew how said event had happened, he replied, It seemed (i.e., in his dream) that he was in the Chapel of Our Lady of Pilar, in this City, anointing his sick leg with oil from one of the lamps, as he had customarily done in said City, and that he was certain that, through her prayers, the Virgin of the Pilar had brought him the leg, and with this the deponent says that when he entered said room he noticed a soft smell, not usual in that one, this he said to be true…”

[24] Ibid.

[25] Based on English translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle.  See Latin and Spanish HERE.

[26] See Messori (Kindle version, loc. 1484]

[27] See Article 7 from the Trial (p.12), which summarizes the witnesses view of Pellicer.  

[28] Ibid.

[29] See testimony of Juan de Estanga from the trial, p. 44.“…having made the above deliberation, the Deposed (Estanga), with the help of his practitioners and nurses, cut off one of the said Juan Pellicero’s legs, four more fingers, below the knees, which he believes, and holds to be true, is the same as that which has been shown to said depositor (Estanga), and this he said to be true per oath…“; 

[30] See testimony of Diego Millaruello from the trial, p. 51; “Re the 10th article: “(Millaruelo) saw the said Miguel Juan Pellicero in a bed with a gangrenous leg, which said Mr. Juan de Estanga applied the various medications to him, and seeing that they were of no use…. Juan de Estanga decided to cut off said leg, because he could not find any other way for the said Juan Pellicero to live; The deponent (Millaruelo) knows this, because as stated, he spoke with the said Mr. Juan de Estanga…(and per the 11th article)… That after the deliberation above, they cut off the leg, he knows this because he was present to cut it, and helped with the execution, and saw it cut off…”; 

[31] See testimony of Juan Garcia from the trial, p. 49: “Juan de Estanga, through his young assistants (Mancebos), cut the said leg, and the deponent (Garcia) saw it cut…”; and Pellicer’s testimony  (p.112): “...Juan de Estanga, and his young assistants (Mancebos), prepared what was necessary, and they gave the beholder a drink, and then they tried to cut, as in fact they did, cut off his right leg, four fingers below the knee, and they cauterized it…“

[32] Ibid.

[33] In his book, The Miracle, Messori writes (emphasis added): “A so-called Aviso Historico has been preserved, a newspaper of the time (the editor was an Aragonese writer who settled in Madrid) which, dated 4 June 1640, the day before the start of the trial on these facts, states that searches were made in the hospital cemetery of Zaragoza. But, writes Aviso, no trace has been found of the leg buried in the sector for severed organs. Just the hole in the ground, empty.” (translation, Roma Locuta Est)

[34] Based on English translation of “The Sentences of the Archbishop…” from Messori’s book, The Miracle.  See Latin and Spanish HERE, pages 25-40.

[35] ibid.

[36] On this point, see Messori’s The Miracle (KINDLE version), location 1534.

[37] See testimony of Juan de Estanga from the trial, p. 44;“…having made the above deliberation, the Deposed (Estanga), with the help of his practitioners and nurses, cut off one of the said Juan Pellicero’s legs, four more fingers, below the knees, which he believes, and holds to be true, is the same as that which has been shown to said depositor (Estanga), and this he said to be true per oath…“; 

[38] See testimony of Diego Millaruello from the trial, p. 51.Re the 10th article: “(Millaruelo) saw the said Miguel Juan Pellicero in a bed with a gangrenous leg, which said Mr. Juan de Estanga applied the various medications to him, and seeing that they were of no use…. Juan de Estanga decided to cut off said leg, because he could not find any other way for the said Juan Pellicero to live; The depositor knows this, because as stated, he spoke with the said Mr. Juan de Estanga…(and per the 11th article)… That after the deliberation above, they cut off the leg, he knows this because he was present to cut it, and helped with the execution, and saw it cut off…”; 

[39] See testimony of Juan Garcia from the trial, p. 49:  “Juan de Estanga, through his young assistants (Mancebos), cut the said leg, and the deponent (Garcia) saw it cut…”; 

[40] Ibid.

[41] See testimony of Juan de Estanga from the trial, p. 43.

[42] In his second article on the subjection of the Miracle of Calanda, wherein he must walk back some of his claims in his first article (see Wikipedia on this point), Brian Dunning suggests the translation of the witness interviews he is working from is superior to that which is provided by supporters of the miracle he addresses in his article.  However, on the question of whether in his deposition Estanga claims to participate in the amputation or not, Dunning, curiously does not provide the translation he is working from, saying only Estanga: “testified that he believed it had been carried out by “practitioners and nurses”, but did not claim any first hand knowledge.”  So, here, Dunning would have us believe Estanga was not present at the operation, but that he knew his “practitioners and nurses” cut off the leg. This he claims although there are other witnesses who in their depositions corroborate the fact that Estanga did amputate Pellicer’s leg.  

[43] See testimony of Juan de Estanga from the trial, p. 44.  The relevant Spanish reads (emphasis added): “…, habiendo hecho la deliberacion de arriba el desposante, mediante sus platicantes y enfermeros cortaron una pierna a’ dicho Juan Pellicero cuatro dedos mas abajo de las rodilla, que cree, y tiene por cierto es la misma que se le ha ensenado a’ dicho deposante, y esto dijo ser verdad per juramentum.”

As stated in footnote 42, Dunning, curiously, does not provide his translation of the above text.  But as his commentary suggests, his reading excludes Estanga’s participation in the amputation operatoin. However, this view is untenable for various reasons.  One of which, he is included with “his practitioners and nurses” as being among the “they” that cut off the leg (cortaron). The “his” clearly denotes the association of the “practioners and nurses” with Estanga. Further, the preposition mediante is defined as by means of; with the help of; through; by; with (see nota bene below). Thus, the context of mediante here certainly indicates that Estanga “with” or “with the help of” his assistants cut off the leg of Pellicer; and this is also indicated in the broader context of the trial document where others say he cut off the leg with others.  So, for example, see testimony of Juan Garcia from the trial, p. 49: “Juan de Estanga, through (mediante) his young assistants (Mancebos), cut the said leg, and the deponent (Garcia) saw it cut…“; and see also Pellicer’s testimony  (p.112): “…Juan de Estanga, and his young assistants (Mancebos), prepared what was necessary, and they gave the beholder a drink, and then they tried to cut, as in fact they did, cut off his right leg, four fingers below the knee, and they cauterized it…“.  I ran the original Spanish of this part of the deposition past a fluent, native Spanish speaker, born and from Spain, (and who is a skeptic), and she confirmed the reading and sense is that Estanga amputated the leg with “his practioners and nurses”; and these we know via Garcia’s and Pellicer’s testimony appear to have been young assistants (Mancebos). Thus, Dunning’s attempt to deny Estanga either amputated or witnessed the amputation of the leg is disingenuous.

(NB:  The Spanish preposition mediante is defined as: by means of; with the help of; through; by; with.  See: HERE;  See: The History of the Spanish Preposition Mediante. Beyond the Theory of Grammaticalization (by Mar Garachana);  See:  Here.  

[44] See testimony of Juan de Estanga from the trial, p. 44.

[45] See testimony of Diego Millaruello from the trial, p. 51: “Re the 10th article: “(Millaruelo) saw the said Miguel Juan Pellicero in a bed with a gangrenous leg, which said Mr. Juan de Estanga applied the various medications to him, and seeing that they were of no use…. Juan de Estanga decided to cut off said leg, because he could not find any other way for the said Juan Pellicero to live; The depositor knows this, because as stated, he spoke with the said Mr. Juan de Estanga…(and per the 11th article)… That after the deliberation above, they cut off the leg, he knows this because he was present to cut it, and helped with the execution, and saw it cut off…”

[46] See testimony of Juan Garcia from the trial, p. 49: “Juan de Estanga, through his young assistants (Mancebos), cut the said leg, and the deponent (Garcia) saw it cut…”; 

[47] Ibid.

[48] See Messori (Kindle version), location 349.

[49] Ruth Cranston, The Miracle of Lourdes, (Doubleday: New York, 1988), p. 162.

[50] Ibid. p. 163.

[51] See Fr. Albert J Hebert, S.M., Raised from the Dead (Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.: Rockford, Illinois, 1986)