Non-Catholic view of Apparitions, Incorruptibles, Miraculous Healings, etc.

[Reuben_J]

I don’t know if you saw the quoted bit in Post #84 (which I found after my first post), but apparently Aquinas had philosophical reasons for thinking that the accidentals of human flesh observed in a Eucharistic miracle were not the actual flesh of Jesus. See Article 8 for the context for the quoted bit. Granted, this is just one opinion, but I doubt many would challenge Aquinas on the subject of transubstantiation.

Of course Aquinas was right. For it is to be a miracle, all it needs is the changing of the host to flesh. That is a miracle by itself as it is impossible for the bread to change into flesh.

We seem to argue much about nothing about what a miracle should be. Those are only our presumption and rationale. God obviously has his own way. We try to guess the purpose of the particular miracle. We will not make any headway in that too.

Miracle is for the faithful concerned. It is not the most important thing. Jesus had done the most important part. Sometimes miracle does increase the faith of the believers; sometimes it open the mind of the unbelievers for them to notice and maybe open their own faith. Other than that it may be just a passing thing that does not affect anybody. Because of that, it can be said that miracle is for those who believe because these are the people who can really appreciate it. No motive should be attributed to a miracle unnecessarily.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Of course Aquinas was right. For it is to be a miracle, all it needs is the changing of the host to flesh. That is a miracle by itself as it is impossible for the bread to change into flesh.

We seem to argue much about nothing about what a miracle should be. Those are only our presumption and rationale. God obviously has his own way. We try to guess the purpose of the particular miracle. We will not make any headway in that too.

Miracle is for the faithful concerned. It is not the most important thing. Jesus had done the most important part. Sometimes miracle does increase the faith of the believers; sometimes it open the mind of the unbelievers for them to notice and maybe open their own faith. Other than that it may be just a passing thing that does not affect anybody. Because of that, it can be said that miracle is for those who believe because these are the people who can really appreciate it. No motive should be attributed to a miracle unnecessarily.

The only reason I brought up the issue was because some here seemed to believe that the tissue in Eucharistic miracles was a piece of Jesus – which would not (so far) appear to be the Church’s position. If the OP was interested in non-believer’s opinions of miracles, I thought it was important to clearly set out exactly what the nature of Eucharistic miracles is.

I’m now trying to track down confirmation that at one time the Church automatically accepted an uncorrupted body as evidence of sainthood – until uncorrupted bodies * of non-Christians began turning up.

• Bodies that were no more corrupted than the ones put forward by the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

Scientists can only test/work with “accidents”. Your Church claims that the accidents of the body are not present, that the accidents of the bread are present and that the substance of the body (and not the bread) is present.

And this is true, until the accidents change from bread to human heart tissue. The tests were done on flesh, not bread.

 

[Radical]

I don’t know if you saw the quoted bit in Post #84 (which I found after my first post), but apparently Aquinas had philosophical reasons for thinking that the accidentals of human flesh observed in a Eucharistic miracle were not the actual flesh of Jesus.

no I hadn’t…thanks for giving Aquinas’s opinion.

Granted, this is just one opinion, but I doubt many would challenge Aquinas on the subject of transubstantiation.

…it seems that if they think that they would have a trump card, then Aquinas would be ignored in a heartbeat. Take for example, the Catalogue of the Vatican International Exhibition - The Eucharistic Miracles of the World The promoters are described as:

Under the kind willingness of Antonia Salzano Acutis of the Pontifical Academy Cultorum Martyrum, this photographic Eucharistic miracles exhibition is presented to the people of the United States of America by the Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association. A great promoter of the exhibition is S.E. Rev. ma Mons Raffaello Martinelli of the St. Ambrose and St. Charles Basilica, an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and member of the editorial commission of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. With an extensive assortment of photographs and historical descriptions, the exhibition, sponsored by the Institute of St. Clement I, Pope and Martyr, presents some of the principal Eucharistic Miracles that took place throughout the ages in various countries of the world and have been recognized by the Church.

…some pretty official guys in that lot. Then, if you look at the Lanciano pages of the brochure you find these claims:

…The Flesh is still intact and the Blood is divided into five unequal parts which together have the exact same weight as each one does separately…

…The immunological study shows with certitude that the flesh and the blood are human, and the immuno – hematological test allows us to affirm with complete objectivity and certitude that both belong to the same blood type AB – the same blood type as that of the man of the Shroud and the type most characteristic of Middle Eastern populations…

the first claim is interesting in that the samples have been actually weighed and this claim is known to be false for over a century…yet, it is still being made…am I to believe that nobody thought to verify this claim?..that nobody advised the learned promoters that the claim was false?..please remember that I am repeatedly being told about how thoroughly these miracles are investigated by the Vatican.

The second claim is the one that touches on your point…one can see the implication (Aquinas’s opinion notwithstanding) => the Shroud would have Christ’s actual blood and it is type AB …the Eucharist sample is also AB (both slice and clots)…it is the type most characteristic of Middle Eastern populations so the sample wasn’t from someone around Lanciano…and as such, like the blood on the shroud, the heart piece is from Christ himself.

 

[Radical]

And this is true, until the accidents change from bread to human heart tissue. The tests were done on flesh, not bread.

you aren’t getting it Steve, it is only the accidents of the flesh and blood that can be tested…not the substances

 

[Reuben_J]

The second claim is the one that touches on your point…one can see the implication (Aquinas’s opinion notwithstanding) => the Shroud would have Christ’s actual blood and it is type AB …the Eucharist sample is also AB (both slice and clots)…it is the type most characteristic of Middle Eastern populations so the sample wasn’t from someone around Lanciano…and as such, like the blood on the shroud, the heart piece is from Christ himself.

So what. There is no way anyone can prove that they are from Christ himself. Simply because we don’t know Christ’s blood type. Blood type does not prove anything. Jesus blood type could be another type altogether for all we know.

The miracle is the host, which is a piece of bread, a wafer rather, that was changed to flesh. That’s all. The only thing that need proof is whether it was a hoax or not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

mir·a·cle

noun
1.
an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that “surpasses all known human or natural powers” and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
a wonder; marvel.

Should we know the complete explanation of what is defined as a Miracle, then it would not be a Miracle. That’s why its defined as a “wonder” since it “surpasses all known human or natural powers”

Seems to be the issue since it requires belief without proof. I guess you had to have had been there.