It is important not to confuse the Gospel of John, Chapter six with an extraordinary phenomenon (term used by some Italian scientists) such as the Lanciano event which took place after the close of the Apostolic Age.
Indeed! The blood was AB, same also as on the Shroud, I may point out.First we have to understand that what we are consuming in the Eucharist is the “risen” body of Christ. It is truely the glorified version of what we will become in the future if we make it to heaven. The Eucharistic miracle talked about is the one at Laciano Italy. It has been determined that the host turned into real flesh so it was no longer “transubstantiated” but real. It was scientifically examined and it was true heart muscle with a particular blood type that was found (forget what type). This heart muscle has been saved and it has not deteriorated as regular flesh would. The interesting thing about this is that something like this happened I believe in Peru or Argentina and that flesh was compared to that at Laciano. It turned out that it was the same dna, blood type and biological markers. Interesting! Our Lord is very consistent and true to His word and heart
mdcpensive1
The information accompanying the Lanciano event is specific in that it is **not **mandatory for Catholics to believe the “miracle” itself. It is very important for people who doubt this miracle to understand the difference between “worthy of belief” and Catholic doctrines. Actually, it would cause a lot less pain in people’s lives if people, who use the Lanciano event to promote belief in the Eucharist, would take time to figure out what “worthy of belief” means in Catholic terminology.
I think that it would be incorrect to consider Christ present “in the flesh” in any Eucharistic Miracle – if by this we mean Christ is present under his proper accidents and in His natural mode. Whatever “flesh” is there is certainly not the flesh Christ has as he has it – for Christ has flesh whole and entire, not in pieces. Furthermore, were Christ to appear as “a full bodied apparition” it till would not be Him “in the flesh” under his proper mode of being, for that can only occur when Christ comes again, and we will know when that happens.Iin this case He is no longer “sacramentally present”, but “in the flesh”, if you will. Now we no longer have transubstantiation, but cannibalism!
I’ve mentioned before on the forums why I think this approach isn’t the most fruitful when it comes to the question of cannibalism. In a nutshell, it is because it a)it seems to deviate a bit from the Church teaching on what the real presence is (Christ himself) and b) it brings up the difficulty of Christ giving the apostles His glorified body at the Last Supper.
Anthony, I’m a bit uneasy about describing sacramental presence as a veil over Christ’s substance, especially when you go on to say that He can remove the veil (which, I suppose, would imply that He becomes present actually). Rather, I think a more accurate account would be that His sacramental presence is a entirely distinct mode of presence. The accidents of bread and wine aren’t a veil over Christ’s substance, they are the sign of the sacramental reality, and are the sine qua non of a sacrament. If we were to suppose we could somehow draw back or look behind the accidents of bread and wine, we wouldn’t find Christ’s substance there, since His substance, like all substances are unintelligible to us.
See above about the non-glorified body received by the apostles.
Luvtosew,
We think this because of who Christ is. Sacramentally, the sign of bread manifests the reality of His Body, and likewise the sign of wine His Blood. But, the reality of that reality is that His Body and Blood are united right now. So, when His Body is made present, so is His Blood.
It is incorrect to imply that the heart muscle has been saved as it lived in 750 A.D.First we have to understand that what we are consuming in the Eucharist is the “risen” body of Christ. It is truely the glorified version of what we will become in the future if we make it to heaven. The Eucharistic miracle talked about is the one at Laciano Italy. It has been determined that the host turned into real flesh so it was no longer “transubstantiated” but real. It was scientifically examined and it was true heart muscle with a particular blood type that was found (forget what type). This heart muscle has been saved and it has not deteriorated as regular flesh would. The interesting thing about this is that something like this happened I believe in Peru or Argentina and that flesh was compared to that at Laciano. It turned out that it was the same dna, blood type and biological markers. Interesting! Our Lord is very consistent and true to His word and heart
mdcpensive1
The miracle I was referring to is the miracle of Transsubstantiation which occurs at the Consecration of every Mass.The information accompanying the Lanciano event is specific in that it is **not **mandatory for Catholics to believe the “miracle” itself. It is very important for people who doubt this miracle to understand the difference between “worthy of belief” and Catholic doctrines. Actually, it would cause a lot less pain in people’s lives if people, who use the Lanciano event to promote belief in the Eucharist, would take time to figure out what “worthy of belief” means in Catholic terminology.
Thank you for your clarification. Thank God for the Miracle of the Eucharist.
Emphasis mine.
Is it possible that there is simply a problem in communication or word choice?No I believe he is there spiritually, like I have believed for over 50 years. I do not believe he turns into human flesh and blood. I have read all on it and I just don’t believe that. I guess I would hold the view Lutherans do I believe.
When Jesus says the consecrated bread is truly his flesh and the consecration wine is truy his blood, why won’t you simply believe him? Do you trust your senses that much?all over this forum posters say they consume the flesh (body flesh) and blood of Christ, eat it as some may put it,
and no its not a matter of understanding it, its a matter of I don’t believe its the flesh and blood of Christ.(heart muscle , etc) , likewise I don’t believe Jesus is a person in the momstance in the chapel, as one Nun recently said in Ewtn.
you said " He is flesh and blood right now" now that I don’t understand that either, he is a spirit in a glorified body, not a human body.
I know your trying to help me, but I have read everything about the teaching on it and that,
also there are many Catholics who share my view, I just asked one the other day and she went to 12th grade Catholic school and Catholic College and she says the host is a symbol.
Now if the nuns let us receive first Holy Communion without telling us its the actual flesh and blood and its Jesus in the host, why would it be a sin to not believe that its his flesh and blood.
I don’t think it would be a sin to not believe that it Christ’s glorified Body is present in the Eucharist if you were never taught that. But, if you later become aware that it is the Church’s teaching that Christ’s Body is present in the Eucharist in a unique manner (and it is Church teaching) then you would have to address that at some point.Now if the nuns let us receive first Holy Communion without telling us its the actual flesh and blood and its Jesus in the host, why would it be a sin to not believe that its his flesh and blood.
I think he was talking metaphorical in John and he also said later in John that he had been talking figuratively. It has nothing to do with my senses or trust or faith in Jesus.
Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, is substantially present (no matter how that is worded) under the signs of bread. The signs are the host’s color, shape, taste, weight, and textue. We taste the host and swallow it. That is the what we recieve.all over this forum posters say they consume the flesh (body flesh) and blood of Christ, eat it as some may put it,
and no its not a matter of understanding it, its a matter of I don’t believe its the flesh and blood of Christ.(heart muscle , etc) , likewise I don’t believe Jesus is a person in the momstance in the chapel, as one Nun recently said in Ewtn.
you said " He is flesh and blood right now" now that I don’t understand that either, he is a spirit in a glorified body, not a human body.
I know your trying to help me, but I have read everything about the teaching on it and that,
also there are many Catholics who share my view, I just asked one the other day and she went to 12th grade Catholic school and Catholic College and she says the host is a symbol.
Now if the nuns let us receive first Holy Communion without telling us its the actual flesh and blood and its Jesus in the host, why would it be a sin to not believe that its his flesh and blood.
Would you allow me to walk with you through the Gospel of John, Chapter Six? You may start with any verse and perhaps, together we can hear the words of Jesus in our hearts.I think he was talking metaphorical in John and he also said later in John that he had been talking figuratively. It has nothing to do with my senses or trust or faith in Jesus.
I’m sorry, but this simply is not true. He never said that he was talking figuratively about the eucharist in John 6. In fact, if you read the chapter, you will see that most of his disciples did not accept his words and left him. Why would they do that if he was only talking figuratively?I think he was talking metaphorical in John and he also said later in John that he had been talking figuratively. It has nothing to do with my senses or trust or faith in Jesus.
Thank you for your clarification.