Protestant Eucharistic Miracles

[Traveller1534]

You are all convinced that only yourselves possess the eucharist. I hear it over and over again and I too was onc Catholic so I do understand the concept. But, I can assure you that not only Roman Catholics possess the eucharist. I have witnessed the outpouring of the holy spirit from the eucharist on two occassions and neither one was in a Catholic church. I received the eucharist for the better part of 34 yars in a Roman Catholic church and experienced nothing.

 

[puzzleannie]

you are all wrong if you think Eucharistic miracles, feelings, emotions, “outpourings of the Holy Spirit” or any other manifestation of the senses are necessary for belief in the Real Presence. If you faith rests on these things you have no faith. Bleesed are they, Thomas, who have not seen yet have believed. Such things, if genuine, are private experiences of those present, granted for their benefit. Cease looking for miracles and believe on the Word of Christ, who himself said This is My Body and This is My Blood. If you need a sign you are no better than those hypocrites he scolded.

 

[Truthstalker]

You are all convinced that only yourselves possess the eucharist. I hear it over and over again and I too was onc Catholic so I do understand the concept. But, I can assure you that not only Roman Catholics possess the eucharist. I have witnessed the outpouring of the holy spirit from the eucharist on two occassions and neither one was in a Catholic church. I received the eucharist for the better part of 34 yars in a Roman Catholic church and experienced nothing.

I don’t know that Catholics assert only they possess the Eucharist. God pours out His grace as He wills. I will say that I have profoundly experienced the presence of God at Protestant services in the Eucharist - but what I have experienced at Mass seems to have several additional dimensions, for lack of a better term, to it. I have also been to Catholic and Protestant services where there was no subjective “wow” factor to the Eucharist. which leads me to my point, and that is that we cannot base our theology on what we experience. We must base what we believe is true on the Word of God, not on anything else, like how many tingles you get in a service or how many people are slain in the Spirit, or even how many people jump out of wheelchairs and run across the auditiorium. What is true is true, regardless.

 

[Catholig]

I don’t know that Catholics assert only they possess the Eucharist. God pours out His grace as He wills. I will say that I have profoundly experienced the presence of God at Protestant services in the Eucharist - but what I have experienced at Mass seems to have several additional dimensions, for lack of a better term, to it. I have also been to Catholic and Protestant services where there was no subjective “wow” factor to the Eucharist. which leads me to my point, and that is that we cannot base our theology on what we experience. We must base what we believe is true on the Word of God, not on anything else, like how many tingles you get in a service or how many people are slain in the Spirit, or even how many people jump out of wheelchairs and run across the auditiorium. What is true is true, regardless.

If God appointed bishops, and indirectly priests to lead his Church, and gave them special faculties why would he then allow people who aren’t of that priesthood to celebrate these same faculties? I mean - when he celebrated the first eucharist it was within the Church, with his diciples, the apostles, around him. Protestant ministers can no more celebrate the holy Eucharist than I can.

Catholig

 

[Truthstalker]

If God appointed bishops, and indirectly priests to lead his Church, and gave them special faculties why would he then allow people who aren’t of that priesthood to celebrate these same faculties? I mean - when he celebrated the first eucharist it was within the Church, with his diciples, the apostles, around him. Protestant ministers can no more celebrate the holy Eucharist than I can.

Catholig

This is a whole different issue and I am reluctant to derail this thread. I will say that I do not think that what happens in the Catholic Eucharist and what happens in, say, a Presbyterian Lord’s Supper are identical. I will also say that there is a great deal of mystery at work. Also, in a certain specific sense, priests do not cause transubstantiation: God said, “Ask this,” and He responds when priests do. Priests in themselves have no power as God is the One at work, not the priest. The priest is only a bystander at Calvary, an obedient servant, not a worker of miracles. What the priest does is Christ working in and through Him. Christ can work through anyone.

 

[KarenNC]

Yeah but at your average Catholic Mass the host, at least in my experience , doesn’t actually start to bleed real human blood nor take on the appearance of a piece of human flesh (later tested and confirmed to be heart muscle).

Nor do the contents of the chalice take on the look, taste etc of human blood. These are the sort of things that have happened at Lanciano and the other Catholic Eucharistic Miracles: therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

All flesh and blood so far tested turns out to be of the fairly rare type AB, by the way, which is interesting in itself

Congratulations. You have just permanently convinced me that, in the very unlikely event that I should ever return to the Christian Church, under no circumstances would I ever be able to become Catholic if there were the absolute remotest chance in the universe that this might occur to anyone in the congregation, much less me.

If these are the stories of miracles that missionaries are telling to potential converts, no wonder the Church has a history of being accused of cannibalism. And people think ancient animal sacrifice by pagans is unsavory?

 

[Catholig]

Congratulations. You have just permanently convinced me that, in the very unlikely event that I should ever return to the Christian Church, under no circumstances would I ever be able to become Catholic if there were the absolute remotest chance in the universe that this might occur to anyone in the congregation, much less me.

If these are the stories of miracles that missionaries are telling to potential converts, no wonder the Church has a history of being accused of cannibalism. And people think ancient animal sacrifice by pagans is unsavory?

KarenNC,

I don’t know what to say, but if this did occur to you, when (hypothetically, having become catholic, and being in a state of grace) you received the Eucharist, why would you be disgusted? It would definitely be a miracle. You might think it unusual, but it would still be a MIRACLE.

In any case - Jo 6:48-62

48I am the bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

60These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62*But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

Catholig

 

[LilyM]

Congratulations. You have just permanently convinced me that, in the very unlikely event that I should ever return to the Christian Church, under no circumstances would I ever be able to become Catholic if there were the absolute remotest chance in the universe that this might occur to anyone in the congregation, much less me.

If these are the stories of miracles that missionaries are telling to potential converts, no wonder the Church has a history of being accused of cannibalism. And people think ancient animal sacrifice by pagans is unsavory?

It’s not like we’re so ghoulish as to actually EAT a host or drink from a chalice to which this happens! At least not knowingly. They’re preserved for posterity instead.

There’s a reason, I think, why the form reamins that of bread and wine 99.999% of the time :yup:

I have nothing particular against animal sacrifice in principle, though. God himself in the Old Testament asked for it in particular situations. Although I suppose the animals don’t exactly volunteer to be sacrificed, and depending on the method it can be cruel.

Human sacrifice is something different of course (especially in the cases where it was known to involve children )

The main point is that sacrificing animals and humans became unnecessary after Christ’s self-sacrifice. Being God it was sufficient to last for all time and render further animal offerings unnecessary.

 

[Traveller1534]

I still never got my question answered from before. If Catholics trully believe and assert that their priesthood can actually change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation),then why would it be considered a miracle if the eucharist looks like flesh and in the chalice it appears to be blood. You already believe that the change took place right???

 

[Catholig]

I still never got my question answered from before. If Catholics trully believe and assert that their priesthood can actually change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation),then why would it be considered a miracle if the eucharist looks like flesh and in the chalice it appears to be blood. You already believe that the change took place right???

Simply because God has decided to manifest the transubstantiation in such a way.

Catholig

 

[Traveller1534]

Come on… That’s no answer. Why would you call it a miracle regardless of the physical characteristics?? If you believe it is flesh and blood than isn’t it so??

 

[LilyM]

Come on… That’s no answer. Why would you call it a miracle regardless of the physical characteristics?? If you believe it is flesh and blood than isn’t it so??

To be sure it is always a miracle, because it is a supernatural doing of God. In these cases, however, there are simply additional miraculous happenings added to the ‘usual’ miracle of the Mass

As an example, I might choose to call Pentecost a miracle because tongues of flame appeared over the Apostles’ heads and they received the gift of languages. This is regardless of the fact that you and I say EVERY believer is gifted with the same Holy Spirit at some point.

It’s because their case was much more dramatic and different in these points that we might call Pentecost a ‘miracle’.

Sometimes even this is unnecessary - there are what we often called ‘miracles of nature’. Don’t we speak of the miracle of birth? Which happens to every person? And isn’t it truly a miracle?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Sacraments are by definition mysterious means of grace. At any sacrament, a miracle takes place: Christ is re-presented and made real, using ordinary elements.

I just don’t get this question. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Any other “miracle” pales by comparison. Christ is present at the eucharist, and is present when two or three are gathered in his name.

O+

 

[Lampo]

I still never got my question answered from before. If Catholics trully believe and assert that their priesthood can actually change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation),then why would it be considered a miracle if the eucharist looks like flesh and in the chalice it appears to be blood. You already believe that the change took place right???

Traveller…Yes, the change took place; both are miracles. During EVERY consecration by a Catholic priest, transubstantiation occurs - It is actually Jesus’ body and blood, but the species of the bread and wine remain. Apparently, on some occasions, the ENTIRE host turned to human flesh - no more species of bread. Did that answer your question?

 

[Nevarlander]

Traveller,
We do think it’s flesh and blood, but IMNSHO because God is kind and merciful He lets it look and taste like something else because of the sheer squick factor of eating people. God makes it look like what it actually is on occasion in miracles so as to reiterate the point that this is actually someone’s body and not a symbol. At least, that’s my opinion. Other Catholics correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Traveller1534]

You just stated what Martin Luther said about the Eucharist (co-substantiation). This is what the scriptures say as well.

 

[LilyM]

You just stated what Martin Luther said about the Eucharist (co-substantiation). This is what the scriptures say as well.

Wrong wrong. The ACCIDENTS (look, taste, physical properties) of bread and wine remain. None of the SUBSTANCE of it remains.

My understanding of consubstantiation is that you believe Christ is present in the Eucharist ‘in and under’ the bread and wine. Transubstantiation means that don’t believe that there is actual bread and wine any more, just something that looks and behaves like bread and wine (except for those occasions when it starts bleeding and so on )

And what do scriptures say? Jesus gave the Apostles bread and wine. He then said ‘this IS my body … this IS my blood’, not ‘this is still bread, but is also my body … this is still wine but is also my blood’. So we believe the entire substance changed and changes with those words and none of the substance of bread or wine remain.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Wrong wrong. The ACCIDENTS (look, taste, physical properties) of bread and wine remain. None of the SUBSTANCE of it remains.

My understanding of consubstantiation is that you believe Christ is present in the Eucharist ‘in and under’ the bread and wine. Transubstantiation means that don’t believe that there is actual bread and wine any more, just something that looks and behaves like bread and wine (except for those occasions when it starts bleeding and so on )

And what do scriptures say? Jesus gave the Apostles bread and wine. He then said ‘this IS my body … this IS my blood’, not ‘this is still bread, but is also my body … this is still wine but is also my blood’. So we believe the entire substance changed and changes with those words and none of the substance of bread or wine remain.

We are often so stuck in Western thought. Mysteries are by nature mysterious. It’s not either/or, it’s a both/and!

That’s why, at least for me, transubstantiation is at best an inadequate explanation of what happens at the table. It’s too limiting of the sacrament. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Period. No explanation needed… and none was needed for almost 1100 years until rationalism, Thomistic thought, and Aristotelianism was en vogue. What a tragedy to limit a mystery, in fact THE Mystery of faith.

To [attempt] to explain it is to [attempt] to explain a mystery.

O+

 

[eliasaph99]

Why would it matter what it looks like or more so be considered a miracle if that is what actually takes place at every mass?

The additional miracle is that the accidents were also transformed. This does not normally occur when the bread and wine are consecrated.

 

[Traveller1534]

Wrong wrong. The ACCIDENTS (look, taste, physical properties) of bread and wine remain. None of the SUBSTANCE of it remains.

My understanding of consubstantiation is that you believe Christ is present in the Eucharist ‘in and under’ the bread and wine. Transubstantiation means that don’t believe that there is actual bread and wine any more, just something that looks and behaves like bread and wine (except for those occasions when it starts bleeding and so on )

And what do scriptures say? Jesus gave the Apostles bread and wine. He then said ‘this IS my body … this IS my blood’, not ‘this is still bread, but is also my body … this is still wine but is also my blood’. So we believe the entire substance changed and changes with those words and none of the substance of bread or wine remain.

f this isn’t the biggest act of mental gymnastics I have ever seen! Face it, it is both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ, the scriptures say exactly that!!!