Eucharistic Miracle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fragile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fragile

Guest
I’ve heard this a few times, mostly by Rosalind Moss when defending the Catholic position on the Eucharist. About how God transformed the bread and wine into literal human flesh and blood for a doubting priest. I have a few problems w/this, firstly, this is supposed to be believed by faith, that Jesus is “sacramentally present”, secondly, in this case He is no longer “sacramentally present”, but “in the flesh”, if you will. Now we no longer have transubstantiation, but cannibalism! :eek:
 
I doubt very much that in the event that when it turned to flesh and blood that anyone took part of eating/drinking. I think it was a visible manifestation to strengthen the faith and to remind the world that Christ IS literally present in the Eucharist and that it’s not symbolic like select protestants believe (for those that even care to do communion)
 
No, I don’t think anyone would’ve partook either, I just have trouble w/the whole thing, pretty bizarre!
 
Fragile said:
I’ve heard this a few times, mostly by Rosalind Moss when defending the Catholic position on the Eucharist. About how God transformed the bread and wine into literal human flesh and blood for a doubting priest. I have a few problems w/this, firstly, this is supposed to be believed by faith, that Jesus is “sacramentally present”, secondly, in this case He is no longer “sacramentally present”, but “in the flesh”, if you will. Now we no longer have transubstantiation, but cannibalism! :eek:
Click to expand...
Let us start of course with the Bible
John 6:31-69
please read before going on, read all of John 6 to make sure I am not taking it out of context.

A few times here Jesus says very clearly that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and many left him. Why? Because they clearly understood him literally. As they were leaving did Jesus say “I am only speaking in a flowery way, I don’t really mean this.” No, he lets them go. Did he then turn to his 12 and tell them he was not being literal? No, he is so sure, he asks if they will leave him also. In a few other places in the Bible Jesus corrects people when they misunderstand his teachings, does he do that here? No, he in fact tells them, if this is hard for you, wait till you see what comes next.

Now to understand why this is not cannibalism, you need to understand what we are getting. We receive the resurrected and glorified body of Jesus, not his earthly body and blood. Remember that Jesus is our new lamb. What would happen if you were back in Egypt and you killed the lamb, sprinkled its blood, cooked it, and then decided your family does not like lamb, so you will only eat lamb shaped cookies? Well the next morning the first born would be dead. You had to eat the lamb in order to complete the contract with God.

The OT version of the Eucharist is the manna from heaven. This was not normal, but supernatural bread. And those who ate it still died. So the NT MUST be grater then bread from heaven, and it is, the new bread is the body of our lord. He who eats this bread will live forever.

So my brother in Christ, when our lord turns to you and asks “What about you, do you want to go away too?” What are your words going to be? Will you leave him because this is a hard teaching? I know what I answer him, the same words as my name sake, Simon Peter “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” I don’t fully understand it, but I have faith in him.

Pax :signofcross:
 
I would submit to you that He let them go because they were only interested in getting their belly’s full, they enjoyed the free lunch and now they wanted breakfast! 😃

Anyway, I was not arguing for or against this doctrine, just the so called miracle.
 
Cannibalism is eating its own kind, like people eating people. But Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. He is not an ordinary person like us. Jesus is not only 100% man, but God also. If He is only a man like those who do not believe that Jesus is God, then Catholics are cannibals. But…this is not the case. The early Christians were persecuted and killed because they were charged a crime of being cannibalism, but it’s God they partook.
 
Fragile said:
I’ve heard this a few times, mostly by Rosalind Moss when defending the Catholic position on the Eucharist. About how God transformed the bread and wine into literal human flesh and blood for a doubting priest. I have a few problems w/this, firstly, this is supposed to be believed by faith, that Jesus is “sacramentally present”, secondly, in this case He is no longer “sacramentally present”, but “in the flesh”, if you will. Now we no longer have transubstantiation, but cannibalism! :eek:
Click to expand...
  1. Being sacramentally present is merely a veil over his substance. He is free to remove that veil whenever he so wishes. Jesus ascended into heaven, but he has appeared to many even after his ascension i.e. St. Faustina
  2. It still wouldn’t be cannibalism, even in this case. When you deal with cannibalism, you are not merely dealing with accidents, but the substance of the accidents. It may taste and look like flesh and blood, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the glorified body of Christ (as we see it to be sacramentally) . It is still the risen Christ and glorified Christ, who expressed his nature very differently after the Resurrection than before the Resurrection. Normal flesh and blood don’t walk through walls like he so freely did.
 
But His flesh and blood was still 100% human, so it would most definitely be cannibalism, if it were more than “sacramentally present.” His flesh and blood were the same as ours, for He came “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” I seriously doubt that any of you would eat and drink if it were to appear and taste like human flesh and blood!
 
gyzerxx said:
C The early Christians were persecuted and killed because they were charged a crime of being cannibalism, but it’s God they partook.
Click to expand...
Well, yea, but did anyone see them eat real human flesh?
 
Fragile said:
But His flesh and blood was still 100% human, so it would most definitely be cannibalism, if it were more than “sacramentally present.” His flesh and blood were the same as ours, for He came “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” I seriously doubt that any of you would eat and drink if it were to appear and taste like human flesh and blood!
Click to expand...
But his nature was also 100% divine and his body was glorified.
My point in case is that there have been people who receive, and the host becomes flesh in their mouth. Christ would not allow that to happen if it were cannibalism.
A second thought comes up: what would you do with the host which is now flesh and blood?

All that to say, miracles of any sort (even if affirmed by the Vatican) are not necessities of faith. Rather, they are reaffirmations of the necessities. You don’t have to believe in any sort of transubstantiation miracle to be a good Catholic (or in your case, it seems [c]atholic). Are you high church Anglican/Episcopal?
 
The thread assumes that the Priest consumed the host, and that it remained as it was. This anecdote is poor cause to either believe in or doubt Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. This was a private revelation that was intended strictly for the soul that doubted. It was a spiritual 2X4 to the head. Belief in this alleged miracle is not incumbent upon anyone else. It is not red meat, but a red herring.

The evil one has sown the seeds of doubt in the Eucharist only in recent centuries. After 1,500 years of consistent belief in the Eucharist, a spirit went out among believers to spread doubt and division. Since its inception in Genesis 3, it has worked each time it has been tried.
 
Fragile said:
No, I don’t think anyone would’ve partook either, I just have trouble w/the whole thing, pretty bizarre!
Click to expand...
Actually no, it is not bizarre. A priest is empowered to transubstantiate the bread into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. So if there is a priest who has doubts about whether that actually occurs then what better way to convince him that the substance [the essence] is changed by also changing the ‘accidents’. ‘Accidents’ is a philosophical term meaning those qualities that are recognizeable by our senses [taste, smell, sight, hearing, etc.]. You can’t see the change in ‘substance’ but you can see the change in the ‘accidents’.
 
Have you ever read any of Scott Hahn’s stuff? The Lamb’s Supper is a really good book. Available on Kindle in under a minute if you have one;)

It is a hard teaching. Many of Christ’s followers left over it.

I pray that you won’t be one of them who leave over this hard teaching. And if it is just the miracle that confuses and bothers you, the Church says we may believe in it, but we are not required to. It was given to bolster ones faith, not hinder it. If it is not helping your faith,* don’t pay attention to it*.

Either way, good book:thumbsup:
 
Fragile said:
Doubting Catholic, but I’d prefer if God chose some other way to remove any doubts! :eek:
Click to expand...
I pray you find all the answers you need in order that you might understand the Church in its entirety. :crossrc:
 
I also have a few questions, why does the Church disregard Matt, Mark(who wrote for Peter) and Lukes Last Supper.

In Exodus they were not allowed to drink the blood of the lamb.

Now did Jesus eat his own body at the Last Supper in John?

Also why do we think the body and blood are in the host when Jesus said the cup is his blood and the bread is his body amd aways that he will not drink from the fruit of the vine again till… can’t remember.

also Jesus said the manna sustained the body, but the bread he gives us is the bread of life( meaning spiritual).

also why take John literally and not the rest of the Bible.

I believe in communion but not that it turns in flesh and blood… help me out here, been working on this issue for a long time, I read the Cathechism on it and all the reading, and still have a hard time.

Many cradle catholics like me were never told what T was, we thought we were taking it spiritually.
 
Yea, also wondering if Jesus meant that all who ate the manna died spiritually and went to Hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top