L
laylow
Guest
I’ll play along and pretend I believe this. Why is this only a one time event? Why not make it the actual body and blood every time as to make believers of all?
- Status
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
It’s far from a one time event. The history of the Church is full of instances of Eucharistic miracles, usually in response to great doubt or sacrilege.
As for why not all the time, it because we can’t actually eat it if it’s under the accidents of human flesh. The point of the Eucharist is for us to literally consume the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. It is much simpler for us to do that under the accidents of bread and wine than flesh and blood.
The Eucharist isn’t generally meant to be a proof of faith, it’s consumption is meant as the summit of our faith.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
It has happened multiple times. But not all of them have been tested because sometimes the Bishop or local Church where it’s located do not want it touched.ProdglArchitect:
I’ll play along and pretend I believe this. Why is this only a one time event? Why not make it the actual body and blood every time as to make believers of all?
Also, others have been reported throughout history
To be honest - many priests do not report miracles (any kind of miracle) because they do not want the scrutiny of the Bishop and/or media.
God Bless
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Because on faith we believe that what it is has changed even if its appearances have not. And Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist isn’t localized, such that one part is his head, another his hand, another his thigh. Each particle, so long as it has the appearances of bread, is miraculously fully his living self, and he’s not broken or divided or harmed even if the host is broken. I’m not sure I would say it’s “not physical,” but I think Gorgias’ point was that we’re not tearing through the accidents of flesh and blood, or consuming Jesus as if (sorry for the gruesome imagery) we tore an arm from his physical body and started carving it up to share and eat.Gorgias:
Then how exactly is it Jesus’ body?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Well, one aspect for the appearances remaning those of bread and wine is that bread and wine are consumable and palatable, let alone the other Biblical roots for bread and wine being used in sacrifices and offerings. It would be abhorrent to have to eat the accidents of human flesh and blood.ProdglArchitect:
I’ll play along and pretend I believe this. Why is this only a one time event? Why not make it the actual body and blood every time as to make believers of all?
L
laylow
Guest
But not every time…and obviously it could. If it happened every time…I would believe. But since it doesn’t, I cannot think my intuition can be blamed for concluding this appears to be another Jim Jones type brainwashing attempt.
W
Wesrock
Guest
The Eucharistic Miracles are a special event and type. I think it’s fair for skeptics to question them, but let’s keep in mind that these are meant to be worthy of belief and reinforcing of belief for many Catholics, but are not the reason we believe in transubstantiation, or representative of the normal sacrament.
I’m not trying to end the discussion, I just want to state the fact so people proceed knowledgeably.
I’m not trying to end the discussion, I just want to state the fact so people proceed knowledgeably.
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
So what is done with these instances of flesh and blood? Are they just left to rot? Wouldn’t that be sacrilege not to consume them?
L
laylow
Guest
I respect that you at least acknowledge my point.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Not really, no. If we disrespected them or discarded them, then that would be sacrilege. Usually attempts are made to preserve the flesh as an article of devotion. If that can’t be accomplished for whatever reason, the flesh is likely buried in consecrated ground and allowed to decompose naturally. The same thing happens with consecrated hosts that cannot be consumed.
God gives us the Eucharist under bread and wine because He understands we would have trouble consuming physical flesh and blood. As I said above, Eucharistic miracles are the exception, and not the main purpose of the Eucharist.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
They aren’t consumed, I know that. Others might know better, but I assume they’re generally either preserved or disposed of in a reverent manner.Wesrock:
So what is done with these instances of flesh and blood? Are they just left to rot? Wouldn’t that be sacrilege not to consume them?
P
phil19034
Guest
These miracles are USUALLY for the Priest. Most stories about them involve a priest who was questioning his belief in the Real Presence.phil19034:
But not every time…and obviously it could. If it happened every time…I would believe. But since it doesn’t, I cannot think my intuition can be blamed for concluding this appears to be another Jim Jones type brainwashing attempt.
P
phil19034
Guest
Some are kept on display for the faithful, some are kept in hiding, and others are properly buried.Wesrock:
So what is done with these instances of flesh and blood? Are they just left to rot? Wouldn’t that be sacrilege not to consume them?
L
laylow
Guest
I hope you can all at least see the reason for skepticism on this topic? Sorry, I do not want to take any more from the OP, I’m not sure if he/she had their question answered.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
We understand your reason for skepticism, it’s a hard thing to accept. Even people with faith can sometimes have troubles with it.
However, there is substantial evidence in favor of these miracles, and I highly suggest you look into them more deeply. They might not be the most common thing, but they have a long and storied history.
However, there is substantial evidence in favor of these miracles, and I highly suggest you look into them more deeply. They might not be the most common thing, but they have a long and storied history.
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
The bread could still show DNA…and all of the DNA could be the same, which would be a nice feather in the cap for the believers. You can bet if it did, you all would be parading it as evidence!
L
laylow
Guest
Of course there is a long storied history…but keep in mind…they are not exclusive to Christianity. So if your miracles prove your God, by that logic, their miracles prove theirs.
Last edited:
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
You’re right, it could, but there’s no reason it must. Sure, we would parade it as evidence, but as with all evidence we put forward, people who don’t want to believe would find a way to dismiss it.
Please don’t take this personally, but to be frank, if a person doesn’t want to believe, no amount of evidence can change their mind. There’s always some explanation they can conceive of that doesn’t involve God. I used to have frequent discussion with an atheist friend I had, and when I presented him with something he couldn’t dismiss, he would always just say “well, some explanation exists, we just don’t know what it is yet.” I’m not saying this is you, or that you would reject this evidence if it existed, but this is a common response I’ve seen from Atheists when presented with something they can’t explain.
I never claimed they proved God, I put them forward as article of faith for believers, and a starting point for non-believers. No one’s faith should be based on miracles, that is a poor foundation liable to dissolve is a miracles is proven to be false. There have been tons of purported miracles that have been found to have natural explanations, and anyone whose faith was based on that miracle was left disappointed and disillusioned.
N
Neithan
Guest
As someone who worked in secular news for years, it’s (as in, the Eucharist) not “mainstream” news because 1. It’s not new and 2. unless the tone is skeptical, it’s perceived as religious propaganda. Catholic media reports on it, but then non-Catholics don’t pay attention. (E.g. https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-jesus-christ)
L
laylow
Guest
Well, obviously there is a lot to unpile here. Most atheists I know are always willing to consider evidence and base their decisions and beliefs on the evidence. However, just because something cannot be explained, does not make it “God” by default. All evidence must be considered on its own merit.
Are their stubborn people who will never change their minds? Sure. Most of them are not skeptics or logic-driven individuals. This is why it is not good to group atheists. All atheism is, is a rejection of one claim. There does not need to be common ground in any other idea in the world.
No, but inevitably, it must be based on SOMETHING. I found I only believed because someone told me. When I realized that wasn’t a good reason, I looked for more, but didn’t find what I needed.
You can have the last word, I have hijacked the thread enough.
Last edited:
- Status