How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles

[AlNg]

In fact, finding Hinduist (or Budddhist) miracle claims is hard.

Not really, take Buddha for example. He is reported to have performed many miraculous feats including miraculous healings, teleportation. The Buddha ascends into heaven and yet he still preaches on earth by means of a duplicate of himself. The Buddha creates a jeweled walkway in midair, then emits fire from his body and alternates that with the emission of water from his body. He has performed the miracle of levitation over the Rohini river. There are so many miracles attributed to the Buddha. Some are given here:

Miracles of Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia

Hinduism also has miracles performed by its saints. For example, here is a list:

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/hindu-list-of-miracles

 

[mythbuster1]

Does it not suffice to see that the heart tissue is alive? How could a piece of a human heart survive for months or years separated from the rest of the body? And what of the evidence of deadly agony in the heart tissue? The heart cells show signs of fatal trauma, yet they live; there is but one explanation: Behold the Lamb of God who was slain, yet lives!

 

[Kaninchen]

The heart cells show signs of fatal trauma, yet they live; there is but one explanation: Behold the Lamb of God who was slain, yet lives!

Are Catholics required to believe in this particular ‘miracle’?

 

[mythbuster1]

We are required to believe that the Eucharist is the selfsame Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ which was crucified for us and rose from the dead. There is no requirement to believe in any particular miracle of the veil of bread and wine being lifted.

 

[Kaninchen]

There is no requirement to believe in any particular miracle of the veil of bread and wine being lifted.

Whatever the last bit means.

Meanwhile, the Church doesn’t believe enough in these ‘miracles’ (yes, we’re all aware of the whole transubstantiation thing) to make them a creed requirement but everybody else is supposed to take them as ‘gospel’?

 

[mythbuster1]

The Church believes enough in Christ’s words, “This is My Body,” and “This is the Chalice of My Blood,” to make them a creed requirement. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ regardless of any visible change. If we should observe a visible change, it is a sign to increase our faith in the invisible Presence.

 

[Kaninchen]

The Church believes enough in Christ’s words, “This is My Body,” and “This is the Chalice of My Blood,” to make them a creed requirement.

We all know that’s a requirement, what obviously isn’t a requirement is belief in the ‘eucharistic miracles’ that are the subject of this thread.

 

[mythbuster1]

The truth is that Eucharistic miracles shouldn’t be needed. We should have enough faith to take Christ at His word, and historically, Eucharistic miracles have occurred in response to doubt or sacrilege toward the Eucharist. As Christ said to Thomas, “Blessed are they who have not seen, yet still believe.”

 

[Kaninchen]

The truth is that Eucharistic miracles shouldn’t be needed.

Oh, I think you’re quite right there - which makes them even more ‘suspect’.

I don’t see why some people seem so terribly attached to private revelations of one kind or another - believing without props of various kinds seems much more genuine to me.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I think there are several hundred million Buddhists (not all of them) who are non-theists. Spiritualists I have met are very strong on the afterlife but generally don’t believe in a personal God.

Well to me, Buddhists and Spiritualists are not atheists. There is no personal God true but there is some kind of soul paradise or soul collective. Most atheists would stick to the material world only and deny the immortal soul because the supernatural cannot be proven in their view.

 

[GordonP]

Well to me, Buddhists and Spiritualists are not atheists. There is no personal God true but there is some kind of soul paradise or soul collective.

Buddhists don’t believe in the concept of a “soul”. It’s an essential feature of their philosophy.

 

[FiveLinden]

Well to me, Buddhists and Spiritualists are not atheists. There is no personal God true but there is some kind of soul paradise or soul collective. Most atheists would stick to the material world only and deny the immortal soul because the supernatural cannot be proven in their view

Well you can self-define words to your heart’s content but that does not change their meaning.

 

[MPat]

Not really, take Buddha for example. He is reported to have performed many miraculous feats including miraculous healings, teleportation. The Buddha ascends into heaven and yet he still preaches on earth by means of a duplicate of himself. The Buddha creates a jeweled walkway in midair, then emits fire from his body and alternates that with the emission of water from his body. He has performed the miracle of levitation over the Rohini river. There are so many miracles attributed to the Buddha. Some are given here:

Hinduism also has miracles performed by its saints. For example, here is a list:

That would be an adequate answer if I said “Hinduist miracles” or “Buddhist miracles” are impossible to find. But I said they are hard to find (by which I mean that they are much harder to find than Catholic miracles).

And that they cause more trouble for Hinduism and Buddhism themselves than to Catholicism.

For example:

The Buddha ascends into heaven and yet he still preaches on earth by means of a duplicate of himself. The Buddha creates a jeweled walkway in midair, then emits fire from his body and alternates that with the emission of water from his body. He has performed the miracle of levitation over the Rohini river.

So, we see that here Buddha is showing off.

And that leads to two questions: why is he able to, and why is he choosing to do so?

And “Buddhist” answers to those questions seem to be hard to reconcile.

Isn’t the Buddhist sage supposed to be free from vanity? But isn’t that same vanity the most likely explanation for showing off?

And so, Buddhist miracle claims cause far more trouble to Buddhism than to Catholicism.

Thus one should not be surprised that Buddhist miracle claims are not that easy to find.

Furthermore, it is not clear if those “miracle claims” are truly claims that a miracle has happened. One Buddhist in this very forum has referred to one text (presumably, representative) with such “miracle claims”. But that text did not look like eyewitness report. It was less like a gospel and more like “Divine Comedy”.

And I did not manage to get him to answer anything concerning how their authorities interpret the genre of that text.

Anybody got a list of eucharistic miracles that Catholics are required to believe in?

And in exchange you will provide an exhaustive list of propositions that mathematicians are required to believe?

What makes you expect that such a list would exist?

 

[MPat]

Is the list of eucharistic miracles that Catholics are required to believe anywhere near the number of mathematical propositions?

No.

But is the infinite number of true mathematical propositions the only reason (or even the relevant reason) why there is no “exhaustive list of propositions that mathematicians are required to believe”?

How many reasons can you list?

 

[Kaninchen]

What makes you expect that such a list would exist?

Oh, I’m pretty confident that no such list exists, that’s the point, the Catholic Church is much smarter than to fall into that sort of trap.

But I’d suggest that it’s rather much to expect outsiders to be too bothered about ‘phenomena’ that the Church, itself, isn’t willing to make an article of faith.

 

[MPat]

But I’d suggest that it’s rather much to expect outsiders to be too bothered about ‘phenomena’

And yet, you seem to be an “outsider” as well, yet you bothered enough to write several posts in this thread.

Nor are you the only one.

that the Church, itself, isn’t willing to make an article of faith.

Well, the Church also isn’t willing to make “2+2=4” an article of faith, but it is still silly and unreasonable to disbelieve that proposition.

Also, “a list of X that Catholics are required to believe in” is not something that Church likes to make.

For example, the common way to define dogmas is not “All Catholics are required to believe X.”, but “If anyone says that not X, let him be anathema.”.

For, after all, a baby that has just been baptised is a Catholic, but is not going to believe any dogma explicitly - after all, he does not know any words yet.

 

[Kaninchen]

And yet, you seem to be an “outsider” as well, yet you bothered enough to write several posts in this thread.

I’m a Jew who joined CAF in 2006, I’ve very rarely commented on ‘private revelations’ but, for once, I thought I’d do some nudge reminding about the “having its cake and eating it” position that the Church takes itself.

 

[Kaninchen]

Makes no sense.

I think it was supposed to be a smokescreen.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

“Not as decayed as we would have expected” seems a better fit, but less miraculous.

I agree, and this is the situation with most relatively-incorrupt bodies. I do not know of a single instance where a saint’s body has remained absolutely incorrupt from the time of their death until the present day.

As far as +Dmitri, no, his hands don’t look as good as they did when he had just died, but they are nowhere near as decomposed as you would expect. What we see with incorruptibles is just this, yes, eventually the body either decomposes or mummifies, but far more slowly than nature would indicate. Bear in mind, too, that the Church does not hold that incorruptibility equates to sanctity, nor that normal decomposition indicates lack of holiness.

St John Henry, Cardinal Newman’s body and coffin both totally disintegrated — when they went to disinter him, there was simply nothing there, aside from (I believe) some casket parts and fragments of vestments. The soil and conditions were such that everything — bones, teeth, and so on — were just gone. Totally returned to the elements.

So much for extracting first class relics.

 

[AlNg]

we see that here Buddha is showing off.

But it is still a miracle for the Buddha to ascend into heaven, is it not? And it is still a miracle to create a jeweled walkway in midair? Suppose that, just hypothetically, the Buddha were to walk on water. Would walking on water be showing off?

One Buddhist in this very forum has referred to one text (presumably, representative) with such “miracle claims”. But that text did not look like eyewitness report.

A Catholic priest, Father Jaki, has raised questions about the Fatima miracle, as to whether or not the claims are accurate. He also raises questions about the eyewitnesses. If one Catholic priest raises questions about a miracle claim, does that mean that the miracle never happened and that the eyewitnesses were deceived?
There are Hindu miracles also, even posted on you tube. For example, Lord Krishna appeared in a cloud after a storm.
It appears that you are somewhat skeptical of Buddhist and Hindu miracles? Well then why be surprised if atheists are skeptical of Catholic miracles, when even a Catholic priest, such as Father Jaki, has raised doubts about the Fatima miracle?