Non-Catholic Explanation

[Faith1960]

Hi to all the non-Catholics out there. Question: For those of you who do not believe in transubstantiation, how do you explain the Eucharistic Miracles the Catholic Church has approved? Just curious. I wrote another post about the Miracle of Lanciano on Apologetics but only one person replied. Maybe this question, posed to those who aren’t Catholic might be more informative.

 

[Wesley7]

In the orthodox church its called a mystery and is not defined by any specific council.

 

[Contarini]

Hi to all the non-Catholics out there. Question: For those of you who do not believe in transubstantiation, how do you explain the Eucharistic Miracles the Catholic Church has approved? Just curious. I wrote another post about the Miracle of Lanciano on Apologetics but only one person replied. Maybe this question, posed to those who aren’t Catholic might be more informative.

Obviously the fact that Rome has approved a miracle isn’t going to carry much weight outside the Roman Communion.

The fact is that a number of Christian churches, and a number of religions for that matter, claim miracles. In my opinion miracles are not much evidence for the truth of a religion unless one sees them with one’s own eyes, performed by a person whose character can be ascertained to exclude the possibility of deception or demonic activity.

Never having seen a miracle myself as far as I know, I don’t put a lot of trust in alleged miracles, although a case can be made that the absence of miraculous claims is evidence against traditional Protestantism, including Anglicanism for the most part. (I say “traditional” Protestantism because this is not the case with regard to Pentecostals/charismatics.)

Edwin

 

[ljubim]

If I might add to the question - not silly little take-your-word-for-it miracles but ones we can regularly see, such as the Blood turning liquid once every year in that one shrine (?) where it became a Eucharistic miracle 1500 years ago, or the Holy Fire (that doesn’t burn and appears sometimes out of nowhere at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre). Once a year we can go to each of these places and see an unexplainable miracle - what do Protestants (i.e. those without the Real Presence) think of this?

 

[Soldier_X]

The Protestants who automatically deny such things do so because it is crucial to their belief system for all non-Protestant claims to be bogus. It’s sad that this attitude is so prevalent.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi to all the non-Catholics out there. Question: For those of you who do not believe in transubstantiation, how do you explain the Eucharistic Miracles the Catholic Church has approved? Just curious. I wrote another post about the Miracle of Lanciano on Apologetics but only one person replied. Maybe this question, posed to those who aren’t Catholic might be more informative.

Catholics don’t need to believe (in the true sense of the word) in transubstantiation. What Catholics do believe in is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

If I might add to the question - not silly little take-your-word-for-it miracles but ones we can regularly see, such as the Blood turning liquid once every year in that one shrine (?) where it became a Eucharistic miracle 1500 years ago, or the Holy Fire (that doesn’t burn and appears sometimes out of nowhere at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre). Once a year we can go to each of these places and see an unexplainable miracle - what do Protestants (i.e. those without the Real Presence) think of this?

Can you answer to the criticism on the Wikipedia article on the “Holy Fire”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire

Regarding the liquefying blood…

infidels.org/library/modern/joe_nickell/miracles.html

 

[Faith1960]

Catholics don’t need to believe (in the true sense of the word) in transubstantiation. What Catholics do believe in is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

But for the Real Presence to be in the Eucharist, transubstantiation must occur, or am I mistaken?

 

[choy]

But for the Real Presence to be in the Eucharist, transubstantiation must occur, or am I mistaken?

you are correct, but i think digger’s point is that our belief is not about transubstantiation, but the Real Presence. transubstantiation just explains the whys and the hows of bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of our Lord. but its not essential to our faith. what is essential that we believe that the bread and wine has become the Body and Blood of Jesus, regardless of the process

 

[ljubim]

Can you answer to the criticism on the Wikipedia article on the “Holy Fire”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire

Regarding the liquefying blood…

infidels.org/library/modern/joe_nickell/miracles.html

The criticism is historical opinions. Just cause they’re old doesn’t make them right - just like the dead sea scrolls and such. That is a logical fallacy.

Article 2… well what do you want me to say? “Marian zealots” sounds like a bit of personal bias, not an objective study.

Let me just say that these are examples. I haven’t seen them - yet

 

[Nine_Two]

Can you answer to the criticism on the Wikipedia article on the “Holy Fire”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire

Second hand hearsay and proof that certain elements can be duplicated, but no actual evidence of anything, unfortunately.

 

[diggerdomer]

But for the Real Presence to be in the Eucharist, transubstantiation must occur, or am I mistaken?

God is really present regardless of what philosophical terms humans use to try to explain it.

 

[JonNC]

Catholics don’t need to believe (in the true sense of the word) in transubstantiation. What Catholics do believe in is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Originally posted by choy
you are correct, but i think digger’s point is that our belief is not about transubstantiation, but the Real Presence. transubstantiation just explains the whys and the hows of bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of our Lord. but its not essential to our faith. what is essential that we believe that the bread and wine has become the Body and Blood of Jesus, regardless of the process

=diggerdomer;
God is really present regardless of what philosophical terms humans use to try to explain it.

I think it is this kind of approach that will lead us more and more to unity. Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others all confess the true doctrine of the real presence. Human expressions, Transub., Sacramental Union, Metabole, all point to this one truth we, together, confess. " He broke it and gave it to them saying, 'Take and eat. This* is** my body*.’ "
Thank you both.

As for Eucharistic miracles, They may well be true, but I do not need them to know that the Catholic Eucharist is valid. Nor does there need to be miracles in other traditions, such as mine, to know His true and substantial body and blood in the Eucharist. If the SPirit uses these kinds of miracles for the benefit of the faithful, and to being others to Him, then so be it.

Jon

 

[LBKat]

Hi to all the non-Catholics out there. Question: For those of you who do not believe in transubstantiation, how do you explain the Eucharistic Miracles the Catholic Church has approved? Just curious. I wrote another post about the Miracle of Lanciano on Apologetics but only one person replied. Maybe this question, posed to those who aren’t Catholic might be more informative.

As a non-catholic, whatever the Catholic Church has approved would make little difference to me. I have no reason, as a non-catholic, to take their word for what they interpret.
As a Protestant, communion has a very different and special significance. The need for transubstantiation is unnecessary. If Jesus Christ is alive in body and is sitting on the Right Hand of the Father, the “miracle” of transubstantiation would discount this particular Biblical truth; and since the Bible supercedes all else–tradition and interpretation, I follow and believe the Bible–especially since it claims to be sufficient.

 

[Jon_Hus]

In John Ch 6, Jesus spoke the word and instantly created (out of nothing) enough loaves and fishes (food that had the genuine look, feel and taste) to feed 1000s of hungry people complete with leftovers. This was the real thing and could be rightly called a miracle.

The day that a Roman Catholic priest turns 1 wafer and 1 cup into a meal for 1000s of hungry people, I will instantly become a believer in the Roman Catholic mass. Until then it is just a wafer.

 

[JonNC]

In John Ch 6, Jesus spoke the word and instantly created (out of nothing) enough loaves and fishes (food that had the genuine look, feel and taste) to feed 1000s of hungry people complete with leftovers. This was the real thing and could be rightly called a miracle.

The day that a Roman Catholic priest turns 1 wafer and 1 cup into a meal for 1000s of hungry people, I will instantly become a believer in the Roman Catholic mass. Until then it is just a wafer.

*Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
*

Transubstantiation, as a human expression of the real presence, makes far, far more sense to me, scripturally, than the idea of a symbolic remembrance. Or, as Luther once said, “Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss, I shall drink blood with the pope”.

Jon

 

[Big_Dummy]

A “miracle” can be faked, man made, from God, from Satan or from space aliens(urantia book). If one is catholic they likely think they are of God, if one is anti-catholic than any of the other choices will do.

 

[diggerdomer]

As a Protestant, communion has a very different and special significance. The need for transubstantiation is unnecessary. If Jesus Christ is alive in body and is sitting on the Right Hand of the Father, the “miracle” of transubstantiation would discount this particular Biblical truth; and since the Bible supercedes all else–tradition and interpretation, I follow and believe the Bible–especially since it claims to be sufficient.

What, in your opinion, is so “very different”?

By the way, Catholics do not teach that transubstantiation is necessary.

And also, regarding the Bible, how can you possibly claim the Bible supersedes tradition, when the Bible was obviously a product of tradition?

 

[diggerdomer]

In John Ch 6, Jesus spoke the word and instantly created (out of nothing) enough loaves and fishes (food that had the genuine look, feel and taste) to feed 1000s of hungry people complete with leftovers. This was the real thing and could be rightly called a miracle.

The day that a Roman Catholic priest turns 1 wafer and 1 cup into a meal for 1000s of hungry people, I will instantly become a believer in the Roman Catholic mass. Until then it is just a wafer.

It wasn’t out of nothing, according to the Bible. See John 6:9

 

[Jon_Hus]

It wasn’t out of nothing, according to the Bible. See John 6:9

According to the Bible, Jesus Christ, the second person of the triune Godhead and thus fully God spoke the word and “created all things that were created”.

Is it your position that Jesus needed some small “source material” to expand into a larger meal? Did Jesus need the help of a small boy and his lunch?