Eucharistic Miracles

[Bklynguy]

I have a general question regarding eucharistic miracles. Why are there dozens, perhaps more, of documented claims of eucharistic miracles in the Catholic Church, and yet they are unheard of in non-Catholic churches? For example, I have never heard of a eucharistic miracle in the ELCA or LCMS Lutheran churches, yet they believe in the real presence. I would be particularly interested to hear what non-Catholic Christians who believe in the real presence have to say about this.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

They may believe in some kind of Real Presence, but generally not in Transubstantiation, so one would not intuitively expect many fake Eucharistic miracles in a community that believes the bread remains bread, whatever else may also be there. It would all seem too Catholic for most Protestants, I dare say.

As for why no real Eucharistic miracles, that’s obvious: no valid Eucharist.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I have a general question regarding eucharistic miracles. Why are there dozens, perhaps more, of documented claims of eucharistic miracles in the Catholic Church, and yet they are unheard of in non-Catholic churches? For example, I have never heard of a eucharistic miracle in the ELCA or LCMS Lutheran churches, yet they believe in the real presence. I would be particularly interested to hear what non-Catholic Christians who believe in the real presence have to say about this.

You are making one obvious error and that is to assume that Eucharistic miracles are objectively true. They are not. The Church does not recognize Eucharistic miracles, with the exception of transubstantiation, as being part of the deposit of faith.

Those who believe in any number of Eucharistic miracles do so at their own accord and not by the backing of the Church.

 

[Telstar]

They may believe in some kind of Real Presence, but generally not in Transubstantiation, so one would not intuitively expect many fake Eucharistic miracles in a community that believes the bread remains bread, whatever else may also be there. It would all seem too Catholic for most Protestants, I dare say.

As for why no real Eucharistic miracles, that’s obvious: no valid Eucharist.

I agree. Some of the numerous examples of Eucharistic miracles are truly amazing. Many of them have been verified by independent doctors and scientists that were dumbfounded by what they found.

I might also add that I’ve never heard of any other authenticated miracles being performed by anyone outside the Catholic faith. The greatest sign that Jesus was the true Son of God was His ability to perform impossible miracles that were undeniably from God. All through the centuries, many great Saints of the Church have also performed the same kinds of miracles, that have been documented and proved to be authentic miracles by experts from within the Church, and also verified by experts outside the Church (doctors, scientists, etc.).

Padré Pio is one of the most recent example of such an amazing miracle worker. He was a Capuchin Priest that lived in Italy until 1968. His most famous miracle was healing a man that was born without any pupils in his eyes, but he could see perfectly well after he was healed by Padré Pio, even though he still had no pupils in his eyes. That one completely baffled the entire medical community, because it was impossible for him to ever be able to see without them. Where is the solid evidence that anything like this has ever happened in other Christian churches?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Padré Pio is one of the most recent example of such an amazing miracle worker. He was a Capuchin Priest that lived in Italy until 1968. His most famous miracle was healing a man that was born without any pupils in his eyes, but he could see perfectly well after he was healed by Padré Pio, even though he still had no pupils in his eyes. That one completely baffled the entire medical community, because it was impossible for him to ever be able to see without them. Where is the solid evidence that anything like this has ever happened in other Christian churches?

There are many, many myths surrounding Padre Pio’s life and the miracles he supposedly performed. It’s unfortunate that he is subject to this. One myth, for example, was that Padre Pio prophesied that Karol Wojtyla would be a future pope (Pope John Paul II). If you do your research, you’ll find that many of the claims of Padre Pio’s miracles are unsubstantiated and without proof.

In addition, performing miracles is not evidence of truth. As Scripture says, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:22-23). Even the Devil can appear as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so I wouldn’t take purported miracles too seriously if I were you.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

There are many, many myths surrounding Padre Pio’s life and the miracles he supposedly performed. It’s unfortunate that he is subject to this. One myth, for example, was that Padre Pio prophesied that Karol Wojtyla would be a future pope (Pope John Paul II). If you do your research, you’ll find that many of the claims of Padre Pio’s miracles are unsubstantiated and without proof.

In addition, performing miracles is not evidence of truth. As Scripture says, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:22-23). Even the Devil can appear as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so I wouldn’t take purported miracles too seriously if I were you.

You simply do not believe. And you are quoting scripture as a protestant would.

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary.
To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
-Thomas Aquinas

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have a general question regarding eucharistic miracles. Why are there dozens, perhaps more, of documented claims of eucharistic miracles in the Catholic Church, and yet they are unheard of in non-Catholic churches? For example, I have never heard of a eucharistic miracle in the ELCA or LCMS Lutheran churches, yet they believe in the real presence. I would be particularly interested to hear what non-Catholic Christians who believe in the real presence have to say about this.

Can I simply ask you to take a moment to ask if these miracles are really miracles before you start your attack on your fellow believers in your saviour Jesus Christ

 

[StrawberryJam]

You simply do not believe. And you are quoting scripture as a protestant would.

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary.
To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
-Thomas Aquinas

Chris,

With all due respect, Catholics have every right to quote scripture, and are not less than Catholic for doing so.
Protestants can differ on interpretation of scripture.
Quoting scripture is not their sole domain.

You give them too much credit they are not due when you state such.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It’s true that even if a Eucharistic miracle is “approved” or “authenticated” or any such word that doesn’t mean it’s obligatory for Catholics to believe it. It’s up to your own discernment, though it would be wise to take the investigations and conclusions of Church officials into account.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It’s true that even if a Eucharistic miracle is “approved” or “authenticated” or any such word that doesn’t mean it’s obligatory for Catholics to believe it. It’s up to your own discernment, though it would be wise to take the investigations and conclusions of Church officials into account.

It is wise to look at everything very carefully, as you would agree.

 

[Telstar]

There are many, many myths surrounding Padre Pio’s life and the miracles he supposedly performed. It’s unfortunate that he is subject to this. One myth, for example, was that Padre Pio prophesied that Karol Wojtyla would be a future pope (Pope John Paul II). If you do your research, you’ll find that many of the claims of Padre Pio’s miracles are unsubstantiated and without proof.

In addition, performing miracles is not evidence of truth. As Scripture says, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:22-23). Even the Devil can appear as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so I wouldn’t take purported miracles too seriously if I were you.

Actually, I misspoke. I was confusing two different stories about a blind man and a little girl. It was the little girl that had no pupils in her eyes and was healed. Her name is Gemma Di Giorgi. You can believe whatever you choose to believe (or not), but I know that Padré Pio performed true miracles. If performing miracles was good enough for Jesus, then they’re good enough for me to believe as being proof of the real power of God. I’m sorry if you disagree.

 

[Bklynguy]

Can I simply ask you to take a moment to ask if these miracles are really miracles before you start your attack on your fellow believers in your saviour Jesus Christ

Can I ask how my post is an attack? I am trying to engage in a dialogue. If you think it is an attack, maybe it is because you have feelings of guilt over your own beliefs.

 

[agnes_therese]

You are making one obvious error and that is to assume that Eucharistic miracles are objectively true. They are not.

That is your opinion, and I think you should label it as such.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

That is your opinion, and I think you should label it as such.

No it isn’t my opinion. The Church does not recognize any Eucharistic miracles as being part of the deposit of faith, because that is not in the Church’s remit. Same goes for incorruptibility of saints, personal prophecy, rosaries turning gold, roses from heaven, and so on and so forth.

If you believe that a Eucharistic miracle has taken place, you do so on your **own **accord and not by the backing of the Church; and neither should you try and deliberately misrepresent your view so as to seem it has Church backing, because it doesn’t.

 

[KathleenGee]

Bohm,

What made you leave the Church?

 

[Marybeloved]

No it isn’t my opinion. The Church does not recognize any Eucharistic miracles as being part of the deposit of faith, because that is not in the Church’s remit.

The bold is true. But it does not mean that the church does not officially recognize miracles, apparitions and private devotions- only that these things don’t constitute the public revelation of God that must be believed by everyone.

If you believe that a Eucharistic miracle has taken place, you do so on your **own **accord and not by the backing of the Church;

This is misleading. You certainly can believe in these things on your own accord, as you say, but certainly also with church backing.

The church celebrates many of these things, and gives official recognition to many, to the level of inclusion in the liturgy and feasts, sometimes actively “encouraging” belief in them and piety in their regard by the faithful, So, saying that those who believe them do so without the church’s backing is truly misleading. It may be true for those that have received no official recognition (and they are many) but not for those that do.

“Not being a part of the deposit of faith” means only that there is no obligation to believe it, and no sin in disbelieving it. It does not mean at all that those who believe it, do so without church backing. When the church holds something up to the faithful as “worthy of belief”, I’d say there was very good and solid Church backing to believe it.

 

[agnes_therese]

You didn’t simply say that the Church does not recognize them. You flatly stated that they are not true. That is opinion.
Please point out exactly where I even gave my view on them, much less stated that my view has Church backing.

No it isn’t my opinion. The Church does not recognize any Eucharistic miracles as being part of the deposit of faith, because that is not in the Church’s remit. Same goes for incorruptibility of saints, personal prophecy, rosaries turning gold, roses from heaven, and so on and so forth.

If you believe that a Eucharistic miracle has taken place, you do so on your **own **accord and not by the backing of the Church; and neither should you try and deliberately misrepresent your view so as to seem it has Church backing, because it doesn’t.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

You didn’t simply say that the Church does not recognize them. You flatly stated that they are not true. That is opinion.

I said they weren’t objectively true. You omitted that part of my post to misrepresent the point:
Bohm Bawerk (Post #3:

You are making one obvious error and that is to assume that Eucharistic miracles are objectively true. They are not. The Church does not recognize Eucharistic miracles, with the exception of transubstantiation, as being part of the deposit of faith.

Eucharistic miracles and miracles like them are subjectively true - they may be true for one Catholic, and false for another Catholic. The same can not be said for infallible dogmas of the Church, which are binding on the universal faithful and have been, is, and will be objectively true.

 

[JonNC]

I have a general question regarding eucharistic miracles. Why are there dozens, perhaps more, of documented claims of eucharistic miracles in the Catholic Church, and yet they are unheard of in non-Catholic churches? For example, I have never heard of a eucharistic miracle in the ELCA or LCMS Lutheran churches, yet they believe in the real presence. I would be particularly interested to hear what non-Catholic Christians who believe in the real presence have to say about this.

Perhaps one can explain the purpose of reason for a Eucharistic mircacle. My understanding is the Spirit uses them to convince priests or others whose faith in the real presence is wavering.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

They may believe in some kind of Real Presence, but generally not in Transubstantiation, so one would not intuitively expect many fake Eucharistic miracles in a community that believes the bread remains bread, whatever else may also be there. It would all seem too Catholic for most Protestants, I dare say.

Whether or not the bread remains bread, Christ did not say. Whether or not the bread remains bread would not limit God’s ability to perform a miracle, even a Eucharist one.

And the idea is not too Catholic for me, as I believe that anything is possible by Him.

As for why no real Eucharistic miracles, that’s obvious: no valid Eucharist.

I am not aware of any Eucharist miracles among the Orthodox, or the PNCC, or Old Catholics, (though there may be) yet their Eucharists are valid according to the CC. So, it seems your cause and effect here is faulty.

Jon