Yes, I most certainly do beleive that it was a historical event and I say this through the Authority of Scripture which is where we come to know of the actual event.
As for the Eucharistic Miracles, Yes I am aware of them, but these aren’t scientific proof that Transubstantiation does take place, given that not every Host in the world consecrated at every Mass is going through that same physical transformation that we see in those miracles. The simple point is that I beleive in the Real Presence not because Science can prove or dissprove it, rather I accept it on the authority of Chirst and his Church. As Edwest mentioned above, Faith does not need to hold up to science.
The Host (bread) bleeds, it was proven in a lab that it’s tissue from the heart. To the doubter that will suffice. Our protestant brothers reject the Eucharist, at least they should pay close attention to these miracles and think about them. What else does it have to do, talk? Even if the host would talk it would not be enough for many.
This miracle happened to a priest who was doubting the host was the real body and blood of the Lord.That was 1200 years ago, the host we can see today is the same host that the priest hold in his hands that long ago, and it hasn’t decomposed. Leave a piece of regular bread inside a jar in your home and let’s see if it’s the same a year from now.
Allow me to get a bit (a lot?) off topic here to make my point:
What I don’t get is why do so many Catholics have been brainwashed (can’t think of a better word) that everything has to be explained by science. Are scientists infallible and never make a mistake? Is every explanation coming from a scientist DOGMA? As I said in my previous post, these sciences (geology, paleontology, astronomy and such) are not exact sciences, a lot is inferred. For example, when studying the stars scientists have noted that analyzing the light of distant stars it tends to fall to the red or blue of the spectrum. Scientists decided that if it falls to the blue it means the star is moving away from us, if it falls to the red it’s coming toward us (or vice versa, I’m talking from memory here). Is this a proven fact? Does the shifting really mean movement?
I either believe what they say or not. I know they cannot see a star physically “move”, all they have is their light. I have often wondered, if I’m holding a flashlight 1000 miles away from a scientist at night, can he tell me if I’m moving in, out, sideways or not moving at all by analyzing just the light of the flashlight in the spectrum?
These are questions I have in my mind. I cannot prove one way or the other and I guess neither can they. All they have is a ray of light that falls towards the blue or the red. Just as people of ancient time believed the Earth was flat because it was obvious to them, they could see “it was flat”, we will have to believe what they tell about the shifting because that’s what they have at this moment.
With that said, all I wanted was to hammer the fact that these sciences are not exact even though they might appear to be. Besides, these are fairly new sciences, they are still in their infancy, they don’t know it all yet. To me they can’t prove the flood didn’t happen. We have the written account of that event told not just by the Bible.
Back to Transubstantiation: it happens as you say in every consecrated host in every mass in all the world. Science cannot prove it or disprove it. We should leave science at the lab for other matters. We don’t have to expect science to answer all the questions, some of them science can’t answer. Science works only with matter. There is a spiritual world which science can’t detect. I have always said that love cannot be proven scientifically: science cannot tell me its size, weight, smell, color, shape, whether it’s coming or going (no shifting towards red or blue), growing or fainting. But love does exists. And God is Love.
