R
robertmidwest
Guest
Would the church handle an ivestigation by shipping Jesus Fed Ex?
- Status
F
Faith1960
Guest
The CC didn’t.
R
robertmidwest
Guest
Exactly. The church lost custody of the Eucharist.
F
Faith1960
Guest
So what? Again, is there a rash of criminals tampering with FedEx?
F
Faith1960
Guest
If the CC had it their possession it would biased.
J
josh987654321
Guest
I understand what your saying, it’s my understanding that it was blind tested, so the lab didn’t know where it had come from in order to remove any biases regarding the results and thus I assume why it was shipped from that lab to Dr Robert Lawrene via FedEx which I also feel a little uncomfortable about but also understand why it happened like that.
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m not sure I follow you. You seem to be saying that the Eucharist – that is, the true presence of Christ – is what was shipped via FedEx. Yet, it seems that this is not the case.
The Eucharist exists from the moment of consecration up through the time that the Eucharistic species subsist (cf CCC 1377). In other words, while it is still recognizable as the species (i.e., ‘bread’, ‘wine’), the Eucharist exists. The typical way that the Eucharist ceases to be the Eucharist is through digestion or dissolution in water.
However, in this case, it would seem that the species ceased to exist once alleged Eucharistic miracle took place. In other words, once the accidents of flesh were present, we had something, but that something wasn’t the Eucharist (after all, the Eucharist is substance of Christ & appearances of bread/wine). Therefore, I’m not seeing how we might claim that the profanation of the Eucharist took place.
(A foreseeable response might be, “well, ok… but once the accidents of bread were gone, we had the accidents of Christ’s body!!!”. That, of course, might be something that might be piously believed… but it’s nothing that we could state with certainty. Scientists might be able to affirm the presence of human tissue… but neither scientist nor priest could assert that the tissue is Jesus’s.
)
F
Faith1960
Guest
I think I read somewhere that the flesh in eucharistic miracles isn’t actually jesus’ flesh for some reason, but I can’t remember why.I’m not sure I follow you. You seem to be saying that the Eucharist – that is, the true presence of Christ – is what was shipped via FedEx. Yet, it seems that this is not the case.
The Eucharist exists from the moment of consecration up through the time that the Eucharistic species subsist (cf CCC 1377). In other words, while it is still recognizable as the species (i.e., ‘bread’, ‘wine’), the Eucharist exists. The typical way that the Eucharist ceases to be the Eucharist is through digestion or dissolution in water.
However, in this case, it would seem that the species ceased to exist once alleged Eucharistic miracle took place. In other words, once the accidents of flesh were present, we had something, but that something wasn’t the Eucharist (after all, the Eucharist is substance of Christ & appearances of bread/wine). Therefore, I’m not seeing how we might claim that the profanation of the Eucharist took place.
(A foreseeable response might be, “well, ok… but once the accidents of bread were gone, we had the accidents of Christ’s body!!!”. That, of course, might be something that might be piously believed… but it’s nothing that we could state with certainty. Scientists might be able to affirm the presence of human tissue… but neither scientist nor priest could assert that the tissue is Jesus’s.
F
Faith1960
Guest
<<<<<<<<<<< Eucharistic Miracles of the World - The Eucharistic Miracles
Eucharistic miracles are God’s extraordinary interventions, meant to confirm faith in the real presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist. We know the Catholic teaching on the real presence. With the words of consecration: “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” the substance of bread becomes the body of Christ, and the substance of wine His blood. This marvelous change is called transubstantiation, that is to say, the passage of substance. Of the bread and wine there remain only the appearances or species, which, with a philosophical term, are called accidents. In other words, only the dimensions, color, taste, smell and even the nutritive capacity remain. But the substance, that is to say, the true reality does not remain, for it has become the body and blood of the Lord.
Transubstantiation can in no way be experienced by the senses; only faith assures us of this marvelous change.
The Eucharistic miracles are meant to confirm this faith, which is based on Jesus’s words according to which what seems like bread is no longer bread, and what seems wine is no longer wine. In fact, in the Eucharistic miracles the flesh and blood—or one or the other—appear, depending on the situation. The purpose of these miracles is to show that we must not look at the external appearance (bread and wine) but at the substance, to the true reality of the thing, which is flesh and blood.
Medieval theologians have carefully examined the matter of Eucharistic Miracles (which were very frequent in their day) and have given various interpretations; but the best founded and most reasonable one seems to be that of St. Thomas Aquinas, the “Eucharistic Doctor” par excellence (Summa Theolgica III, q. 76, a. 8).
He says that the body and blood which appear after a miracle are due to the transformation of the Eucharistic species, namely, of the accidents, and do not touch the true substance of the body and blood of Christ. In other words, the species of bread and wine are miraculously changed into the species of flesh and blood; but the true body and true blood of Jesus are not those which appear but those which, even before the miracle, were hidden beneath the species of flesh and blood.
If, in fact, the flesh and blood which appear were truly the flesh and blood of Christ, we would have to say that the risen Jesus, who reigns impassibly at the right hand of the Father, loses a part of his flesh and blood, something which in no way can be accepted.
We must therefore say that the flesh and blood which appear in the miracles are in the order of species or appearances, neither more nor less than the order of the species of bread and wine.
The Lord performs these miracles to give us a sign, easy and visible to all, that in the Eucharist there is the true body and true blood of the Lord.
But this true body and this true blood are not those that appear, but rather those that are substantially contained under the species or appearances, species and appearances that, before the miracle, were those of bread and wine, and after the miracle are those of flesh and blood.
Under the appearances of flesh and blood Jesus is truly and substantially contained as He was before the miracle. For this reason we can adore Jesus truly present under the species of flesh and blood.
Father Roberto Coggi, O.P.>>>>>>>>>
Eucharistic miracles are God’s extraordinary interventions, meant to confirm faith in the real presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist. We know the Catholic teaching on the real presence. With the words of consecration: “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” the substance of bread becomes the body of Christ, and the substance of wine His blood. This marvelous change is called transubstantiation, that is to say, the passage of substance. Of the bread and wine there remain only the appearances or species, which, with a philosophical term, are called accidents. In other words, only the dimensions, color, taste, smell and even the nutritive capacity remain. But the substance, that is to say, the true reality does not remain, for it has become the body and blood of the Lord.
Transubstantiation can in no way be experienced by the senses; only faith assures us of this marvelous change.
The Eucharistic miracles are meant to confirm this faith, which is based on Jesus’s words according to which what seems like bread is no longer bread, and what seems wine is no longer wine. In fact, in the Eucharistic miracles the flesh and blood—or one or the other—appear, depending on the situation. The purpose of these miracles is to show that we must not look at the external appearance (bread and wine) but at the substance, to the true reality of the thing, which is flesh and blood.
Medieval theologians have carefully examined the matter of Eucharistic Miracles (which were very frequent in their day) and have given various interpretations; but the best founded and most reasonable one seems to be that of St. Thomas Aquinas, the “Eucharistic Doctor” par excellence (Summa Theolgica III, q. 76, a. 8).
He says that the body and blood which appear after a miracle are due to the transformation of the Eucharistic species, namely, of the accidents, and do not touch the true substance of the body and blood of Christ. In other words, the species of bread and wine are miraculously changed into the species of flesh and blood; but the true body and true blood of Jesus are not those which appear but those which, even before the miracle, were hidden beneath the species of flesh and blood.
If, in fact, the flesh and blood which appear were truly the flesh and blood of Christ, we would have to say that the risen Jesus, who reigns impassibly at the right hand of the Father, loses a part of his flesh and blood, something which in no way can be accepted.
We must therefore say that the flesh and blood which appear in the miracles are in the order of species or appearances, neither more nor less than the order of the species of bread and wine.
The Lord performs these miracles to give us a sign, easy and visible to all, that in the Eucharist there is the true body and true blood of the Lord.
But this true body and this true blood are not those that appear, but rather those that are substantially contained under the species or appearances, species and appearances that, before the miracle, were those of bread and wine, and after the miracle are those of flesh and blood.
Under the appearances of flesh and blood Jesus is truly and substantially contained as He was before the miracle. For this reason we can adore Jesus truly present under the species of flesh and blood.
Father Roberto Coggi, O.P.>>>>>>>>>
R
robertmidwest
Guest
It looks to me like Jesus is still present event after the Miracle.
Jesus was shipped Fed Ex. Somewhere in the world there is a glass microscope slide with The Real Presence stuck on it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
In this statement, Fr Coggi is answering a different question than the one raised here. He’s answering whether the visible ‘flesh’ and visible ‘blood’ that are present in a Eucharistic miracle are the “Body and Blood of Christ.” He answers, using Aquinas’ words, that what happens in a Eucharistic miracle is a transformation. (This word is used in everyday speech, so it’s important to recognize it’s technical meaning here.) Just as ‘transubstantiation’ technically means that the substance has been changed (from the substance of bread and wine to the substance of Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity), ‘transformation’ means that the physical appearances of bread and wine have given way to the physical appearances of flesh and blood. That’s all he’s saying here.It looks to me like Jesus is still present event after the Miracle.
faith1960:
And, of course, that fits well within my assertion. We see, in the Church’s documents, that the Eucharist remains the Eucharist while the appearance of bread and wine persists; once that appearance is no longer present (e.g., when we digest the Eucharist), the Eucharist itself is no longer present.
The case I’m making, then, is that, if all they tested (or shipped FedEx) was the ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’, then all they dealt with was non-bread and non-wine appearances (and therefore, no longer Eucharist). If there was bread or wine that came along for the ride, then I’d agree with you – the Eucharist was mishandled. However, I don’t see that assertion in the report Robert cited.
With all due respect to Fr Coggi (whoever he is), I think I’d prefer to see a magisterial document asserting that something that is not appearance-of-bread and not appearance-of-wine might possibly be the Eucharist.Faith1960:
Jesus was shipped Fed Ex. Somewhere in the world there is a glass microscope slide with The Real Presence stuck on it.
(I’m not saying that I must be considered correct; just that this is how it appears to me, and I’m open to seeing a document from Church teaching that provides clarity (or, as it were, a rejection of my thesis) before I acquiesce…)
R
robertmidwest
Guest
Good luck on your search.With all due respect to Fr Coggi (whoever he is), I think I’d prefer to see a magisterial document asserting that something that is not appearance-of-bread and not appearance-of-wine might possibly be the Eucharist.
(I’m not saying that I must be considered correct; just that this is how it appears to me, and I’m open to seeing a document from Church teaching that provides clarity (or, as it were, a rejection of my thesis) before I acquiesce…)
F
Faith1960
Guest
Do you mean they’d have someone guarding it or that in this case they’d probably send FedEx?
S
schaeffer
Guest
Fed Ex aside, is it truly proper protocol to let the Body of Christ rot in a container of water for weeks on end as opposed to breaking it up in water and pouring it into that special sink straight into the ground?
Burial seems more respectful to me than letting a host, that clearly has already been contaminated with saliva, vomit and the floor, mold and rot in a glass of water.
I can understand fully putting the host in water to soften it so it will easily and fully be properly reposed, but this? I mean, is it kept in the tabernacle all that time while it’s moldering away?
Burial seems more respectful to me than letting a host, that clearly has already been contaminated with saliva, vomit and the floor, mold and rot in a glass of water.
I can understand fully putting the host in water to soften it so it will easily and fully be properly reposed, but this? I mean, is it kept in the tabernacle all that time while it’s moldering away?
R
robertmidwest
Guest
Yes, I believe that in each case that is where the host has been kept.
Imagine that! Who would have ever thought that bread that was kept in a warm moist environment would turn color?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Would any devout Catholics like to take this and explain?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Anyone at all?
- Status