Eucharistic Miracles and Transubstantiation

[christcnection1]

As a faithful Catholic Christian, I am a believer in Transubstantiation. That is, the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Now, it’s not hard to convince me that Sacred Tradition and the Bible affirm this belief; however, if there were never any Eucharistic Miracles (much like the links below) throughout history, I would have a very hard time embracing this doctrine of faith.

Throughout Jesus’ ministry He used miracles to help convince the masses of His message. Therefore, I believe it’s perfectly acceptable to be more open to something if it’s backed up by the supernatural. (This of course assumes it’s in line with the Bible and Sacred Tradition.)

Here are my questions:

If there were never any Eucharistic Miracles throughout the ages, could you easily accept the Church’s teaching on the Blessed Sacrament?

Do you feel that Eucharistic Miracles enhance your faith in Transubstantiation? (If no, why not?)

(If you are are a Non-Catholic Christian, in all likelihood you do not believe in Transubstantiation, so there is no need to answer.)

---

Some examples of “Eucharistic Miracles”:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
holyspiritinteractive.net/features/eucharisticmiracles/
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0610fea1.asp

Peace and Love,

JB

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Yeah, I would still accept the Doctrine of the Transubstantiation or Metousiosis. The words of Our Lord in the 6th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel are very plain.

Eucharistic Miracles in the East and in the West are for those who disbelieve. Blessed are you who have seen and believed, but more blessed is he who has believed and has not seen… or something like that.

 

[allhers]

Yes, I would still believe, because as a child I did and I didn’t know anything about the Eucharistic Miracles then. I believe for me it was a gift of God, faith in His Word. I really was much more open then. I still am but as an adult I find that I research more now. Perhaps if I had been in another denomination and not raised Catholic I may have had a harder time though.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As a faithful Catholic Christian, I am a believer in Transubstantiation. That is, the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Now, it’s not hard to convince me that Sacred Tradition and the Bible affirm this belief; however, if there were never any Eucharistic Miracles (much like the links below) throughout history, I would have a very hard time embracing this doctrine of faith.

Throughout Jesus’ ministry He used miracles to help convince the masses of His message. Therefore, I believe it’s perfectly acceptable to be more open to something if it’s backed up by the supernatural. (This of course assumes it’s in line with the Bible and Sacred Tradition.)

Here are my questions:

If there were never any Eucharistic Miracles throughout the ages, could you easily accept the Church’s teaching on the Blessed Sacrament?

Do you feel that Eucharistic Miracles enhance your faith in Transubstantiation? (If no, why not?)

(If you are are a Non-Catholic Christian, in all likelihood you do not believe in Transubstantiation, so there is no need to answer.)

---

Some examples of “Eucharistic Miracles”:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
holyspiritinteractive.net/features/eucharisticmiracles/
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0610fea1.asp

Peace and Love,

JB

**Proof of what I believe is the very last thing I want - if Catholicism is nothing better than a set of proofs of its beliefs, it’s not a faith but a philosophy. **​

**I don’t need or want miracles or any such thing - faith is enough & more than enough. The difficulties I have are to do with points of doctrine, so miracles won’t help. **

**They would not enhance it in the slightest. They are so far from doing any such thing, that they are a temptation to disbelief. **

**The problem with this mania for proving things, is that not everything is known in the same way. A mathematical proof is fine for a proposition in Euclid, but that method of proof is irrelevant to an aesthetic judgement: no mathematical proof can prove that Homer is a greater poet than Emily Dickinson, yet there is no doubt that he is. How can maths be applicable to poetry ? Nor is it any good for knowledge of people: that a friend is honest, cannot be proved - because knowing a person is a different sort of knowing from that which is engaged in maths or other disciplines. **

**And these again are hopelessly inapplicable to the knowledge of God, Who is Unique - there are no true comparisons between God & anything else, as God is inconceivably & infinitely incomparable. God cannot be known by scientific means - it is shameful even to think of anything so laughable. Miracles are a load of hogwash, unless they are signs of God - they have no Christian value if they are mere “wonders”, & not signs. Signs may be miraculous - but, often they are not. **

 

[TylerM]

**Proof of what I believe is the very last thing I want - if Catholicism is nothing better than a set of proofs of its beliefs, it’s not a faith but a philosophy. **

**I don’t need or want miracles or any such thing - faith is enough & more than enough. The difficulties I have are to do with points of doctrine, so miracles won’t help. **

Faith is in no way a rejection of proofs of belief. Rather faith is a response to proofs of God’s goodness and the authenticity of prophets and doctrine. See below. . .

…we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”. So “that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.” Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.
–Catechism 156

 

[christcnection1]

**Proof of what I believe is the very last thing I want - if Catholicism is nothing better than a set of proofs of its beliefs, it’s not a faith but a philosophy. **​

**I don’t need or want miracles or any such thing - faith is enough & more than enough. The difficulties I have are to do with points of doctrine, so miracles won’t help. **

**They would not enhance it in the slightest. They are so far from doing any such thing, that they are a temptation to disbelief. **

**The problem with this mania for proving things, is that not everything is known in the same way. A mathematical proof is fine for a proposition in Euclid, but that method of proof is irrelevant to an aesthetic judgement: no mathematical proof can prove that Homer is a greater poet than Emily Dickinson, yet there is no doubt that he is. How can maths be applicable to poetry ? Nor is it any good for knowledge of people: that a friend is honest, cannot be proved - because knowing a person is a different sort of knowing from that which is engaged in maths or other disciplines. **

And these again are hopelessly inapplicable to the knowledge of God, Who is Unique - there are no true comparisons between God & anything else, as God is inconceivably & infinitely incomparable. God cannot be known by scientific means - it is shameful even to think of anything so laughable. Miracles are a load of hogwash, unless they are signs of God - they have no Christian value if they are mere “wonders”, & not signs. Signs may be miraculous - but, often they are not.

I am glad that you don’t need miracles as proof to support your faith. Though, I am sorry for all skeptics who would be unwilling to accept a higher power even if a person was truly raised from the dead. The truth is I would not believe in God if miracles did not happen in my life.

Eucharistic Miracles are genuine signs from God. So are all approved Marian apparitions. Why miracles tempt you to disbelief mystifies me. If God allows genuine miracles to happen, they are only meant to bring people to greater faith, or even to affirm what they already embrace.

In a number of instances Jesus points to the miracles (the works) He does as proof to adhere His message. Indeed, He often steered away from being the constant miracle-worker so that people would not misled.

Just as Jesus decided to give the doubting Thomas a true sign after the resurrection, many people need genuine signs to be convinced of their faith, and to grow in it. This is a gift from God; however, I believe to who much is given, much is required.

The greatest miracle is a life transformed by Christ. This is the primary reason why I believe. I can accept Transubstantiation because there are strong reasons to accept the Catholic Church’s authority from a historical and Biblical point of view. (Likewise, I can accept the authority of the Bible because I believe in the authority of the Church.)

For me, miracles only help support what has been embraced throughout the ages. To not be inspired or grateful for a God-given miracle is to dismiss a gift given to us for our benefit. Yes, we are to have faith in the Giver, not the gift. They are meant to help us grow in love for the truth.