Can someone help explain Eucharistic miracles?

[papaspicy]

Let me start by saying that I believe in the Eucharist fully and faithfully. However, I often play “protestant’s advocate” (since I would never play that other type of advocate!), and this has led me and my friends to the following quandary. In discussions about various proofs of the Eucharist, someone brought up some of the Eucharistic miracles such as at Lanciano and Bolsena/Orvieto. In discussing these miracles, we have been paraphrasing the events in this way:

1. A priest denies or doubts transubstantiation.
2. While he is saying mass, the Real Presence is made visible and,
3. the appearance of bread and/or wine partially disappears.
4. The priest realizes the truth since he interprets the miracle as Jesus saying: “Here I AM.”

Pretty powerful stuff! When I think of how much I wish I could get that kind of proof this Sunday at mass I have to remember John 20:29. But, as always, my mind goes to work and starts thinking outside the box. What if Jesus wasn’t saying “Here I AM?” What if Jesus was saying:

“See, this is the proof against transubstantiation. If I was going to turn bread into my body, it would look like this. Do you see this every time you say mass? Of course not.”

(I’m sure Jesus wouldn’t be that patronizing.)

I know that these miracles are to be considered private revelation, and that whatever proof they have is only intended for the doubting priests, but since people often use them as proof of the Eucharist and the relics are venerated, this just bothers me a bit. Again, I’m not really in doubt about the Eucharist; I’ve got John 6. Thanks for any responses.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Let me start by saying that I believe in the Eucharist fully and faithfully. However, I often play “protestant’s advocate” (since I would never play that other type of advocate!), and this has led me and my friends to the following quandary. In discussions about various proofs of the Eucharist, someone brought up some of the Eucharistic miracles such as at Lanciano and Bolsena/Orvieto. In discussing these miracles, we have been paraphrasing the events in this way:

1. A priest denies or doubts transubstantiation.
2. While he is saying mass, the Real Presence is made visible and,
3. the appearance of bread and/or wine partially disappears.
4. The priest realizes the truth since he interprets the miracle as Jesus saying: “Here I AM.”

Pretty powerful stuff! When I think of how much I wish I could get that kind of proof this Sunday at mass I have to remember John 20:29. But, as always, my mind goes to work and starts thinking outside the box. What if Jesus wasn’t saying “Here I AM?” What if Jesus was saying:

“See, this is the proof against transubstantiation. If I was going to turn bread into my body, it would look like this. Do you see this every time you say mass? Of course not.”

(I’m sure Jesus wouldn’t be that patronizing.)

I know that these miracles are to be considered private revelation, and that whatever proof they have is only intended for the doubting priests, but since people often use them as proof of the Eucharist and the relics are venerated, this just bothers me a bit. Again, I’m not really in doubt about the Eucharist; I’ve got John 6. Thanks for any responses.

Why doesn’t God make it completely obvious that He exists, for instance by transmuting wine to blood at the consecration?

You’ve given a partial answer. Humans are so good at inventing justifications for their own hobby horses that such a eucharistic miracle could somehow be twisted into a denial of the Real Presence.

However, occasionally, God may intervene in some dramatic and unambiguous way. You would have to be very lucky to be an eyewitness, but there have been miracles that have stood up to investigation.

 

[CRW]

Why doesn’t God make it completely obvious that He exists, for instance by transmuting wine to blood at the consecration?

You’ve given a partial answer. Humans are so good at inventing justifications for their own hobby horses that such a eucharistic miracle could somehow be twisted into a denial of the Real Presence.

However, occasionally, God may intervene in some dramatic and unambiguous way. You would have to be very lucky to be an eyewitness, but there have been miracles that have stood up to investigation.

I can only think of the Jews, after all the miracles that Moses through God showed them (parting of the Sea), that we would still have those that would not believe it was his precious Body and Blood, just some symbolic images. Also, those that would be opposed by the realization that they are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ. Our Lord, in his wisdom, knows what is best for us and our faith.

 

[batteddy]

I believe in the eucharistic miracles, I guess…but they’ve always confused me a little.

They certainly don’t teach the faithful about transubstantiation very well, and reinforce a common misconception.

The eucharistic miracles seem to suggest that transubstantiation means that the host becomes a little slice of flesh, and the cup a small pool of blood (a common misconception)…when in reality, each becomes an entire resurrected human being. The entire person Jesus Christ.

By turning the host into merely a little “slice of flesh”…doesn’t that reinforce the confusion over what the bread does substantially become in the consecration?

Also there is the theological question in these miracles of what is what anymore:

Clearly, the flesh and blood aren’t merely “the accidents falling away and revealing what is truly underneath”…because as discussed, what is truly underneath is the ENTIRE Christ. So is the “slice of flesh” appearence a NEW set of insubstantial accidents? If so…is the host still consecrated and thus Jesus underneath? Are the bread accidents still there, just now under “another layer” as it were? Or does it cease to be either bread or Jesus and just now remains (substantially and accidentally) as the bloody flesh? And if it is no longer Jesus substantially underneath…isn’t a eucharistic miracle worth infinitely less than a truly consecrated bread host (which is God Himself)??

In these cases, did the substance of the bread and wine get entirely annihilated (because usually they return when digested…but now even their accidents are gone)? If the flesh appearence is merely accidents…what would happen (hypothetically) if someone were to digest the miraculous host…would it “revert” to real flesh (like the bread does)…or would it revert to being substantially bread but with the accidents of flesh?

 

[CANman]

I believe in the eucharistic miracles, I guess…but they’ve always confused me a little.

They certainly don’t teach the faithful about transubstantiation very well, and reinforce a common misconception.

The eucharistic miracles seem to suggest that transubstantiation means that the host becomes a little slice of flesh, and the cup a small pool of blood (a common misconception)…when in reality, each becomes an entire resurrected human being. The entire person Jesus Christ.

By turning the host into merely a little “slice of flesh”…doesn’t that reinforce the confusion over what the bread does substantially become in the consecration?

Also there is the theological question in these miracles of what is what anymore:

Clearly, the flesh and blood aren’t merely “the accidents falling away and revealing what is truly underneath”…because as discussed, what is truly underneath is the ENTIRE Christ. So is the “slice of flesh” appearence a NEW set of insubstantial accidents? If so…is the host still consecrated and thus Jesus underneath? Are the bread accidents still there, just now under “another layer” as it were? Or does it cease to be either bread or Jesus and just now remains (substantially and accidentally) as the bloody flesh? And if it is no longer Jesus substantially underneath…isn’t a eucharistic miracle worth infinitely less than a truly consecrated bread host (which is God Himself)??

In these cases, did the substance of the bread and wine get entirely annihilated (because usually they return when digested…but now even their accidents are gone)? If the flesh appearence is merely accidents…what would happen (hypothetically) if someone were to digest the miraculous host…would it “revert” to real flesh (like the bread does)…or would it revert to being substantially bread but with the accidents of flesh?

Maybe this is oversimplification, but a miracle is just that
A MIRACLE!!. God stepping out of the ordinary and permitting us to experiance something extra-ordinary. You can not overanalyze it. Accept it for what it is, clear evidence of that which has hitherto been withheld from our eyes.
That and nothing more.

 

[CRW]

Let me start by saying that I believe in the Eucharist fully and faithfully. However, I often play “protestant’s advocate” (since I would never play that other type of advocate!), and this has led me and my friends to the following quandary. In discussions about various proofs of the Eucharist, someone brought up some of the Eucharistic miracles such as at Lanciano and Bolsena/Orvieto. In discussing these miracles, we have been paraphrasing the events in this way:

1. A priest denies or doubts transubstantiation.
2. While he is saying mass, the Real Presence is made visible and,
3. the appearance of bread and/or wine partially disappears.
4. The priest realizes the truth since he interprets the miracle as Jesus saying: “Here I AM.”

Pretty powerful stuff! When I think of how much I wish I could get that kind of proof this Sunday at mass I have to remember John 20:29. But, as always, my mind goes to work and starts thinking outside the box. What if Jesus wasn’t saying “Here I AM?” What if Jesus was saying:

“See, this is the proof against transubstantiation. If I was going to turn bread into my body, it would look like this. Do you see this every time you say mass? Of course not.”

(I’m sure Jesus wouldn’t be that patronizing.)

I know that these miracles are to be considered private revelation, and that whatever proof they have is only intended for the doubting priests, but since people often use them as proof of the Eucharist and the relics are venerated, this just bothers me a bit. Again, I’m not really in doubt about the Eucharist; I’ve got John 6. Thanks for any responses.

Lanciano, Italy - 8th century; test flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contained the arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers and the blood type was AB.
img388.imageshack.us/img388/8199/eucharistlanciano14dq1.th.jpg

Google Eucharistic miracles and you can find many post.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi batteddy,

Very thought provoking questions!

I’d like to comment on them, according to my rudimentary understanding.

batteddy:

Clearly, the flesh and blood aren’t merely “the accidents falling away and revealing what is truly underneath”…because as discussed, what is truly underneath is the ENTIRE Christ.

Absolutely yes, it is always the entire Christ!

batteddy:

So is the “slice of flesh” appearence a NEW set of insubstantial accidents?

As I understand it some of the accidents of the species (namely all but dimensive quality) are CHANGED into other accidents. See Aquinas:
Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. (III, 76, 8)

Of course we have no word to discribe this process, other than miracle.

batteddy:

If so…is the host still consecrated and thus Jesus underneath?

Yes, becaus the a)the sacrament itself has not changed substantially and b) the dimensive quality upon which is predicated all other accidents has not changed: and therfore since Christ remains while “the accidents remain”, Christ is truly present in the sacrament.

Better said by Aquinas:
And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents. . .the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament. (III, 76, 8)

batteddy:

Are the bread accidents still there, just now under “another layer” as it were?

Sic et non: the dimensive quality of the bread remains, but the other accidents have changed into different accidents. Hence their is no more “doughy”, or “white”, or “bread taste”.

batteddy:

Or does it cease to be either bread or Jesus and just now remains (substantially and accidentally) as the bloody flesh?

It follows from what is said above that it does remain Christ, substantially present, under the appearance of bloody flesh.

Taking your above sentence step by step:

“does it cease to be either bread that ceased at the moment of consecration or Jesus Christ remains while the accidents remain, and dimensive quality is the foundation of the rest of the changable accidents and just now remains (substantially” there is no other substance than Christ, because then there would have been two instances of transubstantiation, and also the substance of Christ changing into another substance is unacceptable and accidently) as the bloody flesh" Yep, some accidents have changed into the accidents of flesh.

batteddy:

In these cases, did the substance of the bread and wine get entirely annihilated

The substance of bread and wine don’t ever get annihilated by transubstantion, the substance changes. See III, 75, 3.

batteddy:

(because usually they return when digested

As I understand it, the substance of bread and wine do not ever return. The substance of Christ does not change back into the substance of bread. See III, 75, 8.

batteddy:

…but now even their accidents are gone)?

The accidents are changed.

batteddy:

If the flesh appearence is merely accidents…what would happen (hypothetically) if someone were to digest the miraculous host…would it “revert” to real flesh (like the bread does)…or would it revert to being substantially bread but with the accidents of flesh?

Neither? The same thing happens regardless of what accidents the sacrament has (bread accidents, wine accidents, or flesh accidents): the substantial presence of Christ remains along with the accidents, until the accidents are destroyed. No “re-transubstantiation” or bread or wine occurs.

To sum up, I would say that eucharistic miracles could be properly understood as having TWO changes instead of the normal singular change: the substance of bread is transubstantiated into the substance of Christ, and the non-dimensive accidents of bread are changed into the accidents of flesh. Normally, the accidents do not change.

As always, I present the above with the desire that it conform to the mind of the Church. If it should be found that anything I wrote be at variance with authentic Chruch teaching, please disregard my post (and point it out! ). The error is either due to my lack of comprehension of the topic or my inability to properly communicate it.

Anyway, batteddy, what do you think? Any help?

God bless,
VC

 

[Scott36]

I found this recently from:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/emw_coggi.htm

Thought it might help. It seems reasonable:

Medieval theologians have carefully examined the matter of Eucharistic Miracles (which were very frequent in their day) and have given various interpretations; but the best founded and most reasonable one seems to be that of St. Thomas Aquinas, the “Eucharistic Doctor” par excellence (Summa Theolgica III, q. 76, a. 8).

He says that the body and blood which appear after a miracle are due to the transformation of the Eucharistic species, namely, of the accidents, and do not touch the true substance of the body and blood of Christ. In other words, the species of bread and wine are miraculously changed into the species of flesh and blood; but the true body and true blood of Jesus are not those which appear but those which, even before the miracle, were hidden beneath the species of flesh and blood.

If, in fact, the flesh and blood which appear were truly the flesh and blood of Christ, we would have to say that the risen Jesus, who reigns impassibly at the right hand of the Father, loses a part of his flesh and blood, something which in no way can be accepted.

We must therefore say that the flesh and blood which appear in the miracles are in the order of species or appearances, neither more nor less than the order of the species of bread and wine.

 

[Scott36]

Hi batteddy,

My previous post was mostly in address to your questions. The link again is

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/emw_coggi.htm

I believe in the eucharistic miracles, I guess…but they’ve always confused me a little.

They certainly don’t teach the faithful about transubstantiation very well, and reinforce a common misconception.

The eucharistic miracles seem to suggest that transubstantiation means that the host becomes a little slice of flesh, and the cup a small pool of blood (a common misconception)…when in reality, each becomes an entire resurrected human being. The entire person Jesus Christ.

By turning the host into merely a little “slice of flesh”…doesn’t that reinforce the confusion over what the bread does substantially become in the consecration?

Also there is the theological question in these miracles of what is what anymore:

Clearly, the flesh and blood aren’t merely “the accidents falling away and revealing what is truly underneath”…because as discussed, what is truly underneath is the ENTIRE Christ. So is the “slice of flesh” appearence a NEW set of insubstantial accidents? If so…is the host still consecrated and thus Jesus underneath? Are the bread accidents still there, just now under “another layer” as it were? Or does it cease to be either bread or Jesus and just now remains (substantially and accidentally) as the bloody flesh? And if it is no longer Jesus substantially underneath…isn’t a eucharistic miracle worth infinitely less than a truly consecrated bread host (which is God Himself)??

In these cases, did the substance of the bread and wine get entirely annihilated (because usually they return when digested…but now even their accidents are gone)? If the flesh appearence is merely accidents…what would happen (hypothetically) if someone were to digest the miraculous host…would it “revert” to real flesh (like the bread does)…or would it revert to being substantially bread but with the accidents of flesh?