Carlo Acutis: From a baptism in London to the first millennial saint

[Nearly Sane]

The problem though is when one says "We can't know that something is supernatural" while at the same time stating that a particular thing cannot be considered because it is Supernatural. This is the problem with the term Supernatural especially when there are other more sensible ways of describing the philosophical divide vis "falsifiable vs unfalsifiable.

Arse backwards  if the claim is to it being supernatural, which this is by the RCs, then the burden of proof would lie on them. I've pointed out where within their own terms that fails.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which i didn't. However if you are claiming an answer that is not methodoligically naturalistic, you would need a methodology. I pointed out where this fails in its own terns.

What I am saying is my understanding of the term Supernaturalis that it derives from the early naturalist who were keen for dividing processes they considered completely separate from divine considerations and the direct interventions of God.
That there was an explanation based on causation rather than agency.

So rather than pinning the awkwardness of this term on Catholics perhaps you should look elsewhere. Perhaps to people of your own jib who tend to use the term "Supernatural" as a pejorative.

[Nearly Sane]

What I am saying is my understanding of the term Supernaturalis that it derives from the early naturalist who were keen for dividing processes they considered completely separate from divine considerations and the direct interventions of God.
That there was an explanation based on causation rather than agency.

So rather than pinning the awkwardness of this term on Catholics perhaps you should look elsewhere. Perhaps to people of your own jib who tend to use the term "Supernatural" as a pejorative.

See previous answers about it not mattering what you call it. The claim that it is not natural which is tge vasis of what the RCs are doing is .based around a claim to omniscience which they are not. I also think your understanding is incorrect bit irrelevant