Do Any Protestants Believe In The Eucharistic Miracles?

[OneTrueCathApos]

I’ve read many stories regarding Eucharistic miracles. While I take them with a grain of salt I would never dismiss GOD’s will to reach us in any way HE chooses.

But I’m very guarded with many of these so called miracles and the actual validity. I recall a church that reported Christ’s presence in a statue. At certain times the statue cried and foamed at the mouth. Catholics from all over were coming to see this great miracle and donating money to the church. As it turns out the Priest(s) were operating a mechanical statue from behind.

If Christ is present in the bread and wine it’s not because a Priest stands on an altar and calls the power of the Holy Spirit to do so whereby upon completion a bell is rung. I believe and will always believe that Christ responds to our Faith. True Faith and prayer leads to the Lord’s intervention in our lives.

PEACE

ND, I do not believe your story of these so called “priests” operating a mechanical statue…rubbish. This is the kind of posts I expected from this. Even though the cases are documented, and witnessed by hundreds of people, you still don’t believe.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

When I see this types of posts I normally never respond for fear of the reply being taken the wrong way or offending.

But am I the only non Catholic who feels very queasy and grossed out and/or freaked out when reading this? I am not kidding btw, I am sincere. I had never even heard of such a thing until seeing it here, earlier this year.

Well, at least it is a learning experience!

I only heard Jewish people freaking out to this, are you by any chance Jewish?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

This other Eucharistic Miracle occurred at Bolsena, Italy is noteworthy because an investigation was immediately initiated by pope Urban IV who, on being satisfied with the results, commissioned St. Thoman Aquinas to write the Mass and Office of the Body of Christ, a feast initiated one year following the miracle and now celebrated throughout the world as the Feast of Corpus Christi.
The year was 1263 when Peter of Prague, a Bohemian priest, paused at Bolsena on his journey to Rome. A devout priest, he never doubted the real Presence of Christ and was astonished when breaking the host after the Consecration, to see blood flowing from it onto the corporal, the square piece of linen placed under the chalice and host during Mass.
An effort was made to conceal the bloody miracle, but realizing such an occurance could not be kept secret, the priest interrupted the Mass and asked to be taken to nearby Orvieto where the pope had sought refuge.
After listening to the account, the pope ordered an immediate investigation. The facts were speedily compiled.
In 1964, on the 700th anniversary of the Feast of Corpus Christi, Pope Paul VI attended ceremonies in the cathedral after flying from the Vatican to Orvieto by helicopter, the first pope ever to use such means of transportation. Truly another miracle and found worthy by the church with no explanation whatsoever, and witnessed by the whole Mass.

 

[Auriel]

I only heard Jewish people freaking out to this, are you by any chance Jewish?

No, it is just I have never heard of it being real until I came here. It makes me feel queasy at the thought of ingesting real flesh and blood.

Now as far as the miracle part goes, God can do whatever he wants, he is God. So I am not saying it cant happen. But still the freaking part is there for me,

True story, when I was a little girl and at a relatives church, I refused to take communion, freaking out on the flesh and blood part, telling them I was not a cannibal. They finally convinced me it was not real, just symbolic,

So you can imagine how shocking it was the first time I read of such a thing.

BTW, I was baptized Catholic as an infant, but that was as far as it went.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

No, it is just I have never heard of it being real until I came here. It makes me feel queasy at the thought of ingesting real flesh and blood.

Now as far as the miracle part goes, God can do whatever he wants, he is God. So I am not saying it cant happen. But still the freaking part is there for me,

True story, when I was a little girl and at a relatives church, I refused to take communion, freaking out on the flesh and blood part, telling them I was not a cannibal. They finally convinced me it was not real, just symbolic,

So you can imagine how shocking it was the first time I read of such a thing.

BTW, I was baptized Catholic as an infant, but that was as far as it went.

**I can’t imagine ANYONE thinking YOUR Savior could make you sick by these stories…I just can’t imagine this. This sounds so much like a person wanting to make the Catholics look totally like we are cannibals…good grief… **

 

[Auriel]

**I can’t imagine ANYONE thinking YOUR Savior could make you sick by these stories…I just can’t imagine this. This sounds so much like a person wanting to make the Catholics look totally like we are cannibals…good grief… **

Which is EXACTLY why I said in my first post, and I quote:

When I see this types of posts I normally never respond for fear of the reply being taken the wrong way or offending.

But am I the only non Catholic who feels very queasy and grossed out and/or freaked out when reading this? I am not kidding btw, I am sincere. I had never even heard of such a thing until seeing it here, earlier this year.

Well, at least it is a learning experience!

Quote:
The flesh was identified as striated muscular tissue of the myocardium (heart wall) having no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used for the preservation of flesh. Both the flesh and the sample of blood were found to be human origin, excluding the possibility of animal species. The blood and flesh belonged to the same blood type, AB. The blood contained the following minerals: chloride, phosporous, magnesium, potassium, sodium in a lesser degree, calcium in a greater quanity.

I should have just ignored this post then, Since you already have your mind made up that insulting was my intention. I actually have wondered if others had the same thoughts that I have had…

 

[NDfan]

ND, I do not believe your story of these so called “priests” operating a mechanical statue…rubbish. This is the kind of posts I expected from this. Even though the cases are documented, and witnessed by hundreds of people, you still don’t believe.

Call it rubbish all you want. The fact is that it happened and it happened in a church that had fallen onto some hard times.

As far as believing in these so-called miracles, I never said I didn’t believe, I said I take it with a grain of salt. If GOD chooses to reach people by making a piece of bread bleed then so be it. That doesn’t confirm the teaching that the bread and wine are literally turned into a piece of flesh and a cup of blood by a priest. Paul still refers to it as the bread that we break. Christ refers to the cup as the fruit of the vine even after HE stated this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Notice He didn’t say this cup of my blood. Christ would also never ask Jews to partake in cannibalism which is strictly forbidden in Leviticus. And to quote Augustine on John chapter 6: If Christ spoke of committing a crime HE must have been speaking figuratively not literally.

The bottom line is the points have been argued over and over on these forums ad-nausea for both sides. The more compelling point is that if these miracles are bringing folks to Christ or are providing edification then wonderful. They have no affect on me personally after being in the Catholic Church for 40 years other than reinforcing the notion that we should be partaking in the Lord’s supper as often as we can.

PEACE

 

[gcnuss]

Any non-Catholics here believe in these Miracles? If you have and even if you don’t, I’d love to share some true and documented stories of them. I have some wonderful stories, then you decide…

OTCA,

I won’t discount the possibility that eucharistic miracles happen. Who am I to say that our Lord can’t make himself present in any way and anywhere he chooses? Of course, I would say the same to Catholics who hold that Christ is not present in our Lutheran eucharist.

 

[JonNC]

Err … why Anglican? You’ll find the real thing in the Catholic Church. Just kidding.

It is not only real presence but consubstantation. The bread turns into real body and blood of Jesus Christ though still maintains the appearance of bread during the Consecration. It should be recieved as often as possible and where possible should make it as a daily activity.

God bless.

Reuben,
Did you mean transubstantiation?

Jon

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Call it rubbish all you want. The fact is that it happened and it happened in a church that had fallen onto some hard times.

As far as believing in these so-called miracles, I never said I didn’t believe, I said I take it with a grain of salt. If GOD chooses to reach people by making a piece of bread bleed then so be it. That doesn’t confirm the teaching that the bread and wine are literally turned into a piece of flesh and a cup of blood by a priest. Paul still refers to it as the bread that we break. Christ refers to the cup as the fruit of the vine even after HE stated this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Notice He didn’t say this cup of my blood. Christ would also never ask Jews to partake in cannibalism which is strictly forbidden in Leviticus. And to quote Augustine on John chapter 6: If Christ spoke of committing a crime HE must have been speaking figuratively not literally.

The bottom line is the points have been argued over and over on these forums ad-nausea for both sides. The more compelling point is that if these miracles are bringing folks to Christ or are providing edification then wonderful. They have no affect on me personally after being in the Catholic Church for 40 years other than reinforcing the notion that we should be partaking in the Lord’s supper as often as we can.

PEACE

**Then I would like you to name this priest and this church please. Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist whether you want to twist it around or not. I believe Jesus when he said “THIS IS MY BODY, DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”. He never said do this as a symbol of me. Now for another Eucharistic Miracle story… **

 

[NDfan]

**Then I would like you to name this priest and this church please. Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist whether you want to twist it around or not. I believe Jesus when he said “THIS IS MY BODY, DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”. He never said do this as a symbol of me. Now for another Eucharistic Miracle story… **

I will find it and forward to you. And just to clarify I do believe Christ is present for communion. I believe it to be more spiritual than literal as defined in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

As far as HIS command this is my body, and do this in remembrance of me, the Greek word used there is Anamnesis which means remembering or recollection. When a Greek would perform an action in Anamnesis of something they would go into meditation to recall the event remembered. It’s believed that Ignatius would literally weep for hours after partaking in the supper remembering the sacrifice Christ made for us. But the word Anamnesis has no sacrificial connotation to it. So Jesus wasn’t asking us to re-perform the supper as a sacrifice, HE was asking that we remember the sacrifice itself that HE made.

The Douay-Rheims interprets it as “do this for a commemoration of me”.

In any event I look forward to your next story

Peace and GOD Bless you.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

** The Eucharistic Miracle of Santerem is unique in that it did not occur in a church, but nearby, and was not occasioned by a doubting priest as mentioned previously, but by a woman who was fully aware of the sacrilege involved.
The miracle originated in the parish of St. Stephen, located in Santerm, Portugal, 35 miles south of Fatima. A woman of the parish unhappy with the activities of an unfaithful husband, had consulted a sorceress who promised a deliverance from her trials for the price of a consecrated host. After many hesitations the woman consented, received Holy Communion, but removed the host from her mouth and wrapped it in her veil with the intention of conveying it to the sorceress.
Within moments blood issued from the Host and increased in volume until it dripped from the cloth, attracting attention of bystanders. When the people had seen this, they thought she was bleeding from her arm. The woman ran home and placed it in a chest, but during the night she revealed her sin to her husband when a light penetrated the trunk and illuminated the house.
Both knelt in Adoration until dawn when a priest was summoned. Because of the furor, an episcopal investigation was initiated.
It was revealed for belief and approved by the church. It was encased in wax but another miracle appeared. The wax was found broken in pieces and the host was in a crystal pyx. The church was renamed the Church of the Miracle.
The host as seen by visitors, appears to be a thin piece of flesh with delicate streaks of blood running from top to bottom. A doctor who just recently examined this miracle told the blood that is coagulated at the bottom, seems to be fresh blood.
This miracle, occurring as it did in the early part of the 13th century, has endured for over 700 years…Praise Jesus.**

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I will find it and forward to you. And just to clarify I do believe Christ is present for communion. I believe it to be more spiritual than literal as defined in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

As far as HIS command this is my body, and do this in remembrance of me, the Greek word used there is Anamnesis which means remembering or recollection. When a Greek would perform an action in Anamnesis of something they would go into meditation to recall the event remembered. It’s believed that Ignatius would literally weep for hours after partaking in the supper remembering the sacrifice Christ made for us. But the word Anamnesis has no sacrificial connotation to it. So Jesus wasn’t asking us to re-perform the supper as a sacrifice, HE was asking that we remember the sacrifice itself that HE made.

The Douay-Rheims interprets it as “do this for a commemoration of me”.

In any event I look forward to your next story

Peace and GOD Bless you.

Your first two lines are just what Luther thought too. that’s when people started not believing in Transubstantiation. Even Luther himself believed it as a Catholic monk, then doubted it…

 

[JonNC]

Your first two lines are just what Luther thought too. that’s when people started not believing in Transubstantiation. Even Luther himself believed it as a Catholic monk, then doubted it…

No. Luther never thought it was spiritual. He always believed that Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present in the Eucharist, and received with that which is seen, the bread and wine.

“Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss I shall drink blood with the pope” …

 Luther

He never doubted the real presence, and his issue with Transubstantiation had to do more with humans trying to describe or explain a mystery.

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben,
Did you mean transubstantiation?

Jon

Yes. :doh2:

Thanks, Jon, for pointing that out. How could that (the mistake) happen?

 

[Reuben_J]

**Then I would like you to name this priest and this church please. Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist whether you want to twist it around or not. I believe Jesus when he said “THIS IS MY BODY, DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”. He never said do this as a symbol of me. Now for another Eucharistic Miracle story… **

OTCA, it is possible there may be priests faking this kind of things like there are many false apparitions and bleeding statues. This however does not mean miracles do not happen, which Jon admitted.

Besides, whether there is Euchraistic miracles or not, which there were, it does not disprove or invalidate the belief of transubstantation. Ah I got that right this time .

 

[JonNC]

Yes. :doh2:

Thanks, Jon, for pointing that out. How could that (the mistake) happen?

Glad to be of service.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thank you for your answer.
I cannot see logistics or practicality as reasons good enough to keep the blood of Christ away from people. Though one should think that the body of Christ contains the blood also, Christ commanded that we eat the bread and drink the wine (his body and blood).

You’re welcome.

I agree logistics and practicality are not enough reason to keep the blood away from people. But since communicants are not deprived of the full Eucharist (in Catholic belief) by receiving only the Host, it makes sense to omit the blood in consideration of the said prohibiting factors.

BTW, if two thousands is consider big number what about the five hundred thousand to two million communicants in an open air mass? That’s surely logistic nightmare.

A poster, jmcrae, explain this very well here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291666

 

[Frost]

You’re welcome.

I agree logistics and practicality are not enough reason to keep the blood away from people. But since communicants are not deprived of the full Eucharist (in Catholic belief) by receiving only the Host, it makes sense to omit the blood in consideration of the said prohibiting factors.

I cannot see how we can say that people recieve the full Eucharist when Jesus explicitly told us to both eat the bread (his body) and drink of the cup (his blood). What is the reason for believing that only the Host is enough?

BTW, if two thousands is consider big number what about the five hundred thousand to two million communicants in an open air mass? That’s surely logistic nightmare.

I agree. But it is not a problem to administer the wine together with the blood. What about ‘dipping’ the Host into the wine?

Anyway, the practice of giving only the Host is widespread, and even common in churches where there are only fifty communicants (at least where I live). The clergy (priests and monks/ nuns) get both, and everyone else get only the Host.

A poster, jmcrae, explain this very well here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291666

Thank you! I shall read it

 

[Reuben_J]

I cannot see how we can say that people recieve the full Eucharist when Jesus explicitly told us to both eat the bread (his body) and drink of the cup (his blood). What is the reason for believing that only the Host is enough?

We also can say that Jesus instruction was to the apostles thus the verse is opened to interpretation. Basically, the separation of the body and blood in the last supper denotes death. What we receive in the Eucharist is the resurrected victorious body of Christ - no more separation of body and blood. But in the mass, both Body and Blood are still offered though now the understanding is that one contains both thus communicants can have the option to recieve only one species.

I agree. But it is not a problem to administer the wine together with the blood. What about ‘dipping’ the Host into the wine?

Yes, I notice it is done quite often in many parishes. But I understand your objection.

Anyway, the practice of giving only the Host is widespread, and even common in churches where there are only fifty communicants (at least where I live). The clergy (priests and monks/ nuns) get both, and everyone else get only the Host.

Thank you! I shall read it

Yes, you are right. Some priest can’t be too bothered and stick to the convenient practice since to him it would not make any difference to the mass.

God bless.