Eucharistic Miracles

[Janet1983]

well, I am highly skeptical…but here is something all you faithful adherents could do for us skeptics:

1. pick the five Eucharistics miracles that enjoy the greatest confidence of Catholics;
2. run DNA tests on the flesh and blood samples from those five miracles;
3. the results should either:
   

        a) prove to the rest of us that all the DNA samples came from a single person, a male semite to be precise; or
   
        b) prove that the adherents are a gullible and mistaken lot (when it comes to Eucharistic miracles)

We have the technology, let’s do the test for the good of all of us…until then, don’t expect me to buy into the claims…there are just too many holes in them.

That is a pretty interesting approach. I’d love to see the results of that one.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

As I understand it, it would not be observable flesh and blood, as the accidents of the bread and wine remain.
But your point is well accepted; the more we try to define and explain this mystery, the more there is to explain. John of Damascus said;
*“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit” *

Christ’s words should suffice: “This IS my body.” And so it is.

Jon

Jon you do realize that I am refering to this website therealpresence.org/eucha…/lanciano.html
Posted in the OP and I’m not trying to define or explain it. Merely pointing out what I see as major contradictions.

 

[JonNC]

Jon you do realize that I am refering to this website therealpresence.org/eucha…/lanciano.html
Posted in the OP and I’m not trying to define or explain it. Merely pointing out what I see as major contradictions.

Missed a turn somewhere. Sorry.

 

[edwest2]

That’s just it Ben. You believe that the host transubstantiates into the body and blood of Jesus. Now we know or should know, irregardless of that belief, that the host does not turn into actual flesh and blood. So now we have this so called miraculous sample. That supposedly is real flesh and blood. So what is this a witness for. Is it saying that at all masses the host should be turned into actual observable flesh and blood? And if that is so wouldn’t that invalidate all masses where that does not occur? And again would you eat this flesh and blood? And does not the CC say that the mass is an unbloody sacrifice? Wouldn’t this actual flesh and blood be contrary to this so-called unbloody sacrifice? I mean there is so many contradictions here it’s hard to keep track of them.

There are no contradictions. God knows the depth of our unbelief. He knows how far down it goes. In my case, in the mid-1970s, I heard this: “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” That is still the story today.

I invite everyone to read the following:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[benidict]

That’s just it Ben. You believe that the host transubstantiates into the body and blood of Jesus. Now we know or should know, irregardless of that belief, that the host does not turn into actual flesh and blood. So now we have this so called miraculous sample. That supposedly is real flesh and blood. So what is this a witness for. Is it saying that at all masses the host should be turned into actual observable flesh and blood? And if that is so wouldn’t that invalidate all masses where that does not occur? And again would you eat this flesh and blood? And does not the CC say that the mass is an unbloody sacrifice? Wouldn’t this actual flesh and blood be contrary to this so-called unbloody sacrifice? I mean there is so many contradictions here it’s hard to keep track of them.

no contradiction Richard. signs are for unbelievers. not for those of us who believe. Christ, i believe was showing that transubstanaition (we both spelled it wrong ) is true. i do not need a miracle to believe it. in fact it was not until later i encountered this one. i accepted much of Catholic doctrine, before i ever took one catechism class. my conversion to rome, has more to do with the mystical, morso than the written. Catholicism only confirmed what i had been shown. should Christ have to be ressurected every day to prove the ressurection? no. so why should the Host reveal itself at all masses. it is the actual body blood soul and divinity of our Lord. we can accept this on faith. it was hard for the Jews when Jesus announced it, it is hard for people today. that is why so many walk away from him still. sad but true. Peace :sad_yes:

 

[benidict]

As I understand it, it would not be observable flesh and blood, as the accidents of the bread and wine remain.
But your point is well accepted; the more we try to define and explain this mystery, the more there is to explain. John of Damascus said;
*“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit” *

Christ’s words should suffice: “This IS my body.” And so it is.

Jon

hopefully we can get our differences taken care of in the Near future brother. then we can celeberate this mystery together! Peace to you and yours.

 

[Reuben_J]

That’s just it Ben. You believe that the host transubstantiates into the body and blood of Jesus. Now we know or should know, irregardless of that belief, that the host does not turn into actual flesh and blood. So now we have this so called miraculous sample. That supposedly is real flesh and blood. So what is this a witness for. Is it saying that at all masses the host should be turned into actual observable flesh and blood? And if that is so wouldn’t that invalidate all masses where that does not occur? And again would you eat this flesh and blood? And does not the CC say that the mass is an unbloody sacrifice? Wouldn’t this actual flesh and blood be contrary to this so-called unbloody sacrifice? I mean there is so many contradictions here it’s hard to keep track of them.

Hi.

We don’t need a miracle to believe that the host is true body and blood of Jesus. Either one believes it is so or one does not. It is a matter of faith and belief.

Miracles do happen. It is a complicated thing. So the issue why it happen does not arise; that’s why this subject can be very much misunderstood because we want to know why.

Likewise miracles happen in the Gospels and we can never know exactly why they happened – the multiplication of bread and fish, the healing of the lepers and the blinds, the deliverance of demons and the rising of the deads. Jesus did not say categorically, “I am going to perform this miracle because I want to prove to you …” No, he did not say that.

But sometimes the reason is because he is what he is - compassionate – in many ways. Because of our lack of faith, because of our illness, because we cannot help ourselves but most of all because we need him and sometimes need affirmation that he is with us – all the time.

The Eucharistic miracle can fall into any of the category; it acts differently on different people.

By no means it is only to demonstrate that the host is flesh of Jesus. I doubt very much it is meant to be such though it appears as his flesh. Most of all, he is present there but more so the effect of the miracle is far reaching because it speaks to the Church as a whole. God is with us; he is in the Eucharist in his real self.

We may be Thomas or not but nevertheless he appeared in the upper room all the same. What’s true is that he was experienced individually and they have individual testimony to it.

God bless.

 

[edwest2]

Hi.

We don’t need a miracle to believe that the host is true body and blood of Jesus. Either one believes it is so or one does not. It is a matter of faith and belief.

Miracles do happen. It is a complicated thing. So the issue why it happen does not arise; that’s why this subject can be very much misunderstood because we want to know why.

Likewise miracles happen in the Gospels and we can never know exactly why they happened – the multiplication of bread and fish, the healing of the lepers and the blinds, the deliverance of demons and the rising of the deads. Jesus did not say categorically, “I am going to perform this miracle because I want to prove to you …” No, he did not say that.

But sometimes the reason is because he is what he is - compassionate – in many ways. Because of our lack of faith, because of our illness, because we cannot help ourselves but most of all because we need him and sometimes need affirmation that he is with us – all the time.

The Eucharistic miracle can fall into any of the category; it acts differently on different people.

By no means it is only to demonstrate that the host is flesh of Jesus. I doubt very much it is meant to be such though it appears as his flesh. Most of all, he is present there but more so the effect of the miracle is far reaching because it speaks to the Church as a whole. God is with us; he is in the Eucharist in his real self.

We may be Thomas or not but nevertheless he appeared in the upper room all the same. What’s true is that he was experienced individually and they have individual testimony to it.

God bless.

Jesus did say that:

bible.cc/john/9-3.htm

And he said it again before he called Lazurus, who was dead, from the tomb:

bible.cc/john/11-42.htm

Please, read your Bible.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Richard_Kastner]

no contradiction Richard. signs are for unbelievers. not for those of us who believe. Christ, i believe was showing that transubstanaition (we both spelled it wrong ) is true. i do not need a miracle to believe it. in fact it was not until later i encountered this one. i accepted much of Catholic doctrine, before i ever took one catechism class. my conversion to rome, has more to do with the mystical, morso than the written. Catholicism only confirmed what i had been shown. should Christ have to be ressurected every day to prove the ressurection? no. so why should the Host reveal itself at all masses. it is the actual body blood soul and divinity of our Lord. we can accept this on faith. it was hard for the Jews when Jesus announced it, it is hard for people today. that is why so many walk away from him still. sad but true. Peace :sad_yes:

Well, there are contradictions. I enumeratied several of them. The fact that you do not want to acknowledge them does not mean that they are not there. You say signs are for unbelievers. Well, I’m an unbeliever, in transubstantiation, and this so called miracle would do nothing to convince me. I find the whole thing somewhat revolting and again let me ask you would you eat that miraculas sample of “flesh and blood”?

 

[Reuben_J]

Jesus did say that:

bible.cc/john/9-3.htm

And he said it again before he called Lazurus, who was dead, from the tomb:

bible.cc/john/11-42.htm

Please, read your Bible.

God bless,
Ed

This is a reply from a man who has lost his direction in an argument.

If you give me Bible passages you should explain to me how they are relevant to your argument instead of just asking me to find out what you mean by them. You think you make a point in doing so but actually you don’t; you are merely hiding behind a façade of Biblical verses to support your argument that you do not have anything substantial to shout about; otherwise you would not be afraid to say what you really mean by them.

I am quite flabbergasted by this technique the Protestants often use against us Catholics; it is as if we do not know our Bible and they think we lack the knowledge. It is intellectual bullying actually. I have never shied away arguing the Bible but you have to state first what you mean by them. You can quote all the Biblical passages here but if you do not know what they really mean, they mean nothing actually. It is like fishing for fishes in muddy water hoping that other people will interpret the Bible for you.

Anyway, I find nothing there in the Bible passages you gave that justify your argument or rebut what I said. If you want to use the Bible in such manner that the miracles were done for specific reasons, is this not what Catholics are doing here with the Eucharistic miracles? Only I do not want to hold unto that approach; not that I do not believe in the miracles per se, but I see them having even far reaching implication and they can mean different thing to different people. The fullness of the reason behind a miracle can only be realized in years and years to come.

For example, the multiplication of the bread. What is the purpose of this miracle for Jesus’ audience when it was performed? Many onlookers would merely think it was a miracle to feed the multitude and that Jesus had that special power to do thing extraordinarily like that. But today? There is so much that can be said of this miracle unlike the time when it was performed. I can elaborate if you want to know further.

If you are a smart Biblical scholar, the miracles performed by Jesus can be seen in multi facets today. But they may not be necessarily seen that way then; the miracles were more fully understood in their implication much later.

This is what I meant in my last post. The disciples and the people did not understand the purpose of the miracles in the same way we do today. Even when they were given the reason we know now that it is not the only reason.

So much for that.

Now I ask you to explain to me the verses you have given otherwise it is just empty bluff.

 

[benidict]

Well, there are contradictions. I enumeratied several of them. The fact that you do not want to acknowledge them does not mean that they are not there. You say signs are for unbelievers. Well, I’m an unbeliever, in transubstantiation, and this so called miracle would do nothing to convince me. I find the whole thing somewhat revolting and again let me ask you would you eat that miraculas sample of “flesh and blood”?

the question you ask is sacreligious at worst. why would i eat a sign to the unbelievers? i get the same body blood soul and divinity at each mass. the priest this happened to, was having trouble with this doctrine as well. God gave him a clear sign. if you dont wish to believe, then that is between you and your Creator. have you always doubted? or did your doubt start somewhere along the road of life? Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

the question you ask is sacreligious at worst. why would i eat a sign to the unbelievers? i get the same body blood soul and divinity at each mass. the priest this happened to, was having trouble with this doctrine as well. God gave him a clear sign. if you dont wish to believe, then that is between you and your Creator. have you always doubted? or did your doubt start somewhere along the road of life? Peace

How is my question sacreligious Ben? Is not the host at the Catholic mass consecrated for the express purpose of being consumed? So, when this host was sopposedly changed into real flesh and blood, as a sign to this monk, why wasn’t it consumed? You ask " why would i eat a sign to the unbelievers?" My question. Why wouldn’t you? Here’s the acccount.

**Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back. **

If this so called miracle was actually a sign for this monk why is it still here? Wouldn’t he have eaten it 1400 yrs ago? My whole point is that something smells here, excuse the pun.

 

[benidict]

How is my question sacreligious Ben? Is not the host at the Catholic mass consecrated for the express purpose of being consumed? So, when this host was sopposedly changed into real flesh and blood, as a sign to this monk, why wasn’t it consumed? You ask " why would i eat a sign to the unbelievers?" My question. Why wouldn’t you? Here’s the acccount.

**Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back. **

If this so called miracle was actually a sign for this monk why is it still here? Wouldn’t he have eaten it 1400 yrs ago? My whole point is that something smells here, excuse the pun.

your tone sure seems sacreligious. why would the monk not want to preserve what had happened? there is alot less doubt about this and other miracles in the Catholic Church, than a woman who claimed to recieve new and strange doctrines in the 1800s. so again Richard. did you always doubt the real presence, or did this happen at a later time in your life? im just wondering. because even when i was a baptist, i knew there was more to the communion rite, than a mere rememberance. and i treated it as such. it wasnt until i recieved the truth, of what communion really is, that i understood it much better. your question is kinda like if you would ask, if i would wear the shroud of turin. why is this miracle still around? these are evidences that what we believe is true. a visible embodiment if you will. Peace and prayers for you

 

[Drew0426]

That’s just it Ben. You believe that the host transubstantiates into the body and blood of Jesus. Now we know or should know, irregardless of that belief, that the host does not turn into actual flesh and blood. So now we have this so called miraculous sample. That supposedly is real flesh and blood. So what is this a witness for. Is it saying that at all masses the host should be turned into actual observable flesh and blood? And if that is so wouldn’t that invalidate all masses where that does not occur? And again would you eat this flesh and blood? And does not the CC say that the mass is an unbloody sacrifice? Wouldn’t this actual flesh and blood be contrary to this so-called unbloody sacrifice? I mean there is so many contradictions here it’s hard to keep track of them.

The miraculous samples aren’t to suggest that if this doesn’t happen at every Mass, something is wrong. Did the accidentals transform at the Last Supper? Not as far as I know. Seeing can very well mean believing, and God knows that. People were in doubt, so He decided to remind them gently of the Real Presence… “This is my body… Seriously, look at it. It’s flesh and blood. You mistook it for mere bread before, now you cannot do so.”

 

[Radical]

That is a pretty interesting approach. I’d love to see the results of that one.

wouldn’t it be grand?

The CC didn’t seem to have a problem with having the shroud tested, so there shouldn’t be any issue wrt the principle of having alleged miracles tested scientifically

Catholics seem to be quite pleased to refer to the scientific testing that was done on some of the Eucharistic miracle samples, so there shouldn’t be an issue wrt such testing being improper as it relates to such samples (I believe the official position is that the samples are not substantially the body of Christ, but are the accidents only of such body).

There are a host of Eucharistic miracles endorsed by the Vatican ( see its exhibit ) so there should be no shortage of samples.

This could be the clincher! How could one possibly explain away a result that showed that these samples all shared the same DNA? I guess some (frothing-at-the-mouth) anti-Catholics could insist that it was Satan’s miracle, but I have to think that if the testing was controlled (such that a rigged conspirarcy could be ruled out) most Evangelicals (who deny a real bodily presence) would have to admit that such a result would pretty well prove the Catholics right. Agnostics, atheists and other non-Christians would be hard pressed to deny Catholicism (and Orthodoxy et al) their due. It could be a wonderful tool to convince people of the truth…if these miracles are legitimate.

 

[JonNC]

On ther topic of Eucharistic miracles, a question for my Catholic siblings:
My (limited) understanding of Transubstantiation is that the substance changes, but the accidents remain. With this in mind, are Eucharistic miracles in contradiction of Transubstantiation since, ISTM, the accidents no longer remain?

Jon

 

[Marc_Anthony]

On ther topic of Eucharistic miracles, a question for my Catholic siblings:
My (limited) understanding of Transubstantiation is that the substance changes, but the accidents remain. With this in mind, are Eucharistic miracles in contradiction of Transubstantiation since, ISTM, the accidents no longer remain?

Jon

Well, supposedly it’s a mricle because both the substance AND accidents change.

It’s not transubstantation as we Catholics understand it, but it doesn’t need to be. It is the true body and true bood of Jesus Christ, except this time the accidents changed too.

I’m doing a bad job explaining this, I think…but basically it’s still the real presence, just with the accidents changed.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

wouldn’t it be grand?

The CC didn’t seem to have a problem with having the shroud tested, so there shouldn’t be any issue wrt the principle of having alleged miracles tested scientifically

Catholics seem to be quite pleased to refer to the scientific testing that was done on some of the Eucharistic miracle samples, so there shouldn’t be an issue wrt such testing being improper as it relates to such samples (I believe the official position is that the samples are not substantially the body of Christ, but are the accidents only of such body).

There are a host of Eucharistic miracles endorsed by the Vatican ( see its exhibit ) so there should be no shortage of samples.

This could be the clincher! How could one possibly explain away a result that showed that these samples all shared the same DNA? I guess some (frothing-at-the-mouth) anti-Catholics could insist that it was Satan’s miracle, but I have to think that if the testing was controlled (such that a rigged conspirarcy could be ruled out) most Evangelicals (who deny a real bodily presence) would have to admit that such a result would pretty well prove the Catholics right. Agnostics, atheists and other non-Christians would be hard pressed to deny Catholicism (and Orthodoxy et al) their due. It could be a wonderful tool to convince people of the truth…if these miracles are legitimate.

I’m with you. I say do it.

 

[Publisher]

Well, supposedly it’s a mricle because both the substance AND accidents change.

It’s not transubstantation as we Catholics understand it, but it doesn’t need to be. It is the true body and true bood of Jesus Christ, except this time the accidents changed too.

I’m doing a bad job explaining this, I think…but basically it’s still the real presence, just with the accidents changed.

If the “accidents” are changed…they are no longer bread and wine…isn’t that “illicit matter”?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If the “accidents” are changed…they are no longer bread and wine…isn’t that “illicit matter”?

What do you mean?

It got changed into Jesus’s PHYSICAL body and blood. And nobody eats it…