Eucharistic Miracles

[concretecamper]

 

[Jipsah]

the claim that Jesus said that they are his blood and body is rather spurious

I think St. Paul's testimony in 1 Corinthians 11 provides sufficient evidence that it's far from "spurious" if the testimony of the Gospels strikes you as unconvincing.

considering there is no need to supply symbolic intent if the circumstances make it clear its a symbol(for an example, I can say "this is an apple." and show you a picture of an apple and you will know I do not mean to say that it is an apple but that it represents an apple.

That's not even a very good sophistry.

 

[Fervent]

I think St. Paul's testimony in 1 Corinthians 11 provides sufficient evidence that it's far from "spurious" if the testimony of the Gospels strikes you as unconvincing.

Nothing in the language there is inconsistent with a symbolic view.

That's not even a very good sophistry.

It's a simple fact of language, if I show you something that clearly is not the thing I say it is but say that is what it is I am holding it as a representation. It's called context clues, and why we can understand things like metaphors. And it's why the symbolic view has some merit, as often there is more superstition in the "real presence" views than anything else.

 

[fhansen]

Nothing in the language there is inconsistent with a symbolic view.

It's a simple fact of language, if I show you something that clearly is not the thing I say it is but say that is what it is I am holding it as a representation. It's called context clues, and why we can understand things like metaphors. And it's why the symbolic view has some merit, as often there is more superstition in the "real presence" views than anything else.

”A simple fact of language”; quite the definitive argument there. The problem is that you’re just guessing, purely speculating-about something that can be plausibly enough understood either way-and meanwhile against the continuous historical belief and practice of the church for some reason. Any EO or Catholic partaker, whether they personally believe it or not, know what the church teaches, that they’re experiencing the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist: His body and blood is what they’re partaking of, and definitely not merely symbolically even as the CC, for its part, teaches that the Eucharist is also symbol, as all sacraments are.

There're no muddy waters here except for those who might prefer muddying the waters themselves-or for whom truth holds no particularly great value IMO. You really seem to be swayed more by anti-Catholicism than by a real desire to know the facts on this matter, grasping at straws in the process. Anyway, your position comes across as a bit affected.

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[Fervent]

”A simple fact of language”; quite the definitive argument there. The problem is that you’re just guessing, purely speculating-about something that can be plausibly enough understood either way-and meanwhile against the continuous historical belief and practice of the church for some reason. Any EO or Catholic partaker, whether they personally believe it or not, know what the church teaches, that they’re experiencing the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist: His body and blood is what they’re partaking of, and definitely not merely symbolically even as the CC, for its part, teaches that the Eucharist is also symbol, as all sacraments are.

My entire point was that it is plausible to read it either way, as are the vast majority of the statements by the ECF. It's not until we get to Augustine that statements start moving towards a metaphysical change in the elements, and it's not until the scholastics that we start getting substance/accident language.

And in case you missed it, I don't believe in a symbolic view and I agree that the symbolic view often overemphasizes the notion of symbolism to its own detriment. My own position is a mediating position that what is symbolized is made manifest, I only reject the phrasing "real presence" on the grounds that Christ is always present with the believer and the superstitious elements that developed around the metaphysics where the elements themselves have become objects of worship.

 

[fhansen]

My entire point was that it is plausible to read it either way, as are the vast majority of the statements by the ECF. It's not until we get to Augustine that statements start moving towards a metaphysical change in the elements, and it's not until the scholastics that we start getting substance/accident language.

And in case you missed it, I don't believe in a symbolic view and I agree that the symbolic view often overemphasizes the notion of symbolism to its own detriment. My own position is a mediating position that what is symbolized is made manifest, I only reject the phrasing "real presence" on the grounds that Christ is always present with the believer and the superstitious elements that developed around the metaphysics where the elements themselves have become objects of worship.

Alright, and yet the Eucharist has been understood to be a unique meeting point for man and God, where, as with the other sacraments, we can physically "work out" our spiritual realtionship such that we know that contact/union/partaking is made in that moment, as certain criteria are met such as examining oneself to see if that intimate union would be acceptable. This keeps us on our spritual toes, so to speak, while aligning with the fact that our relationship with God is not something we should take for granted; it can be compromised and lost-meaning His presence can be lost and abandoned by us.

 

[Fervent]

Alright, and yet the Eucharist has been understood to be a unique meeting point for man and God, where, as with the other sacraments, we can physically "work out" our spiritual realtionship such that we know that contact/union/partaking is made in that moment, as certain criteria are met such as examining oneself to see if that intimate union would be acceptable. This keeps us on our spritual toes, so to speak, while aligning with the fact that our relationship with God is not something we should take for granted; it can be compromised and lost-meaning His presence can be lost and abandoned by us.

I disagree with none of that, in fact that's a large part of why I defend the actual impetus of symbolic theories while not holding to their conclusions. When we get caught up in talking about the composition of the elements we have lost sight of the miracle taking place, in that we consume the body of Christ and through that action are joined with Christ and become partakers of His life. That this unifying element has been such a cause for division is rather ironic.

 

[fhansen]

I disagree with none of that, in fact that's a large part of why I defend the actual impetus of symbolic theories while not holding to their conclusions. When we get caught up in talking about the composition of the elements we have lost sight of the miracle taking place, in that we consume the body of Christ and through that action are joined with Christ and become partakers of His life. That this unifying element has been such a cause for division is rather ironic.

Yes-I don't think it was signifcantly divisive in the very distant past- although obviously there were already objections by some early on.

 

[Careyap87]

I'll take that as a no.

I really would like to know if someone could answer yes or no.

I agree with you as well.

 

[concretecamper]

WHEN SCIENCE CONFIRMS THE REAL PRESENCE

Dr. Ricardo Castañon is not well-known to many Catholics. But he should be.

Atheist Richard Dawkins has apparently never heard of Dr. Ricardo Castañon Gomez either. Dawkins tweeted recently that Catholic belief in the Eucharist is madness. Had Dawkins heard of Gomez and the results of Gomez’s scientific investigations into the Eucharistic Miracles of Argentina and Tixtla, Mexico, he might not have tweeted his tweet!


Dr. Gomez is a scientist. He’s also a former atheist. He became a Catholic after leading his first scientific investigation to examine what appeared to be a bleeding consecrated host. Recently he led a second investigation. Both investigations, as far as I’m concerned, provide proof of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Eucharistic Miracles

Dr. Gomez led the scientific investigation into the 1996 Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He also led the investigation into the 2006 Eucharistic Miracle in Tixtla, Mexico.

In both instances, consecrated hosts appeared to be bleeding. In both instances samples taken from the hosts proved to be blood and living human tissue. And in both instances the tissue was living muscle tissue from an inflamed human heart. Also in both instances, the blood was type AB.

These findings match the findings of a 1971 scientific investigation into the 8th Century Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. What’s more, the AB blood type in all three cases matches the AB blood type found on the Shroud of Turin.

And even more recently, in 2013, in Legnica, Poland, samples taken from a consecrated host that appeared to be bleeding were also scientifically examined. The tests once again showed that the samples were of inflamed heart muscle.

So in four separate scientific investigations, in four different countries, samples of consecrated hosts that appeared to be bleeding have been scientifically examined. And in all four instances scientists said the samples were living human heart muscle tissue. If this does not prove the Real Presence in the Eucharist, I don’t know what would.

In 2004, eight years after the host in Argentina was first found to be bleeding, Dr. Gomez brought another sample of the host to Dr. Frederick Zugibe. Zugibe was then one of the United States’ most prominent forensics experts. Gomez asked him to examine the sample, but Gomez did not tell Zugibe anything about the sample.

Dr. Zugibe told Dr. Gomez that the sample he examined was that of living muscle tissue from a human heart. Zugibe also said the tissue came from a person whose heart had been severely traumatized.

Dr. Zugibe was amazed when Dr. Gomez informed him that the sample had been obtained eight years earlier. Zugibe told Gomez that the cells were still living when he examined them. He asked Gomez to explain how this could be so when the sample was eight years old. Gomez then told Zugibe that the sample was from a Consecrated Host. Zugibe’s amazement turned to astonishment.

Also, in the samples taken from the hosts in both Lanciano and Argentina, live white blood cells were present. Yet white blood cells ‘die’ within a few hours after being exposed to air. The Lanciano blood samples were over 1,200 years old

To me these miracles show that what the Catholic Church teaches on Transubstantiation and the Eucharist is true. And no other religion on earth can say that science has proven what it teaches is true.

But atheists like Dawkins think Catholics are mad to believe in the Real Presence. Practitioners of other religions may think Catholics are crazy as well. And even members of other Christian denominations might think Catholics are crazy to believe in Transubstantiation.

But every Catholic should know that we are receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist when we receive Communion. Yet as the July 2019 Pew research revealed, many Catholics also do not believe in the Real Presence.

If only more people knew what science has to say about the Eucharist!

As Catholics, we believe in the Real Presence, whereby Jesus Christ is made literally present in a consecrated Host through transubstantiation.

“Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.'” – John 6:53-54

Since its earliest inception, many have been intensely skeptical of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. However, over the centuries there have been many reports and accounts of the Host miraculously turning into physical flesh and blood. When studies were performed on these miraculous Hosts, along with relics of Christ, an astonishing discovery was made – the same blood type was found every time – type AB+.

The earliest recorded event of a consecrated Host miraculously turning into physical flesh and blood dates back to the 8th century in the city of Lanciano, Italy. Called the Miracle of Lanciano, a monk was skeptical about the Real Presence and transubstantiation. When he celebrated Mass and said the Words of Consecration with doubt in his soul and heart, before the monks eyes he saw the the Host changed into living flesh and the wine change into coagulated blood.

In 1971, scientists performed a study on these relics which had been perfectly preserved throughout the ages. The Host was human heart tissue with the blood typeAB+, the rarest of all. The blood was found to have no preservatives, and also was blood type AB+.

Another miraculous occurrence took place in 1996, when a women in Buenos Aires found a desecrated Host in a candle holder in her parish church. She turned the Host into her priest who went to dissolve it into water per Canon Law. When the priest went to do so, the Host turned into flesh and blood. 3 years later, the Bishop of Buenos Aires sent the host to the US for testing. The results came back the same – human heart tissue with blood type AB+. At the time, the Bishop of Buenos Aires was Jorge Bergoglio – Pope Francis.

Additional tests of trace amounts of blood on the Shroud of Turin along with traces from the Shroud of Oviedo (the cloth wrapped around Christs face shortly after his death) also were shown to be of blood type AB, lending credence to the evidence that Christs blood type was AB, and Hosts literally turn into His flesh and blood when consecrated.

Amazing coincidence or proof? Blood type AB+ is the universal recipient for blood transfusions, and all tested Hosts were found to be heart tissue. As we know, Christ will receive anyone into His heart who is willing.


 

[RileyG]

I wonder if there are any members of the Charismatic Episcopal Church here. Perhaps they have more Eucharistic miracles in their Anglican communion because they put a deep emphasis on the Holy Spirit working miracles.

I agree the Eucharist itself is a miracle.

 

[Strong in Him]

He’s really there, in the Host, not just symbolically represented by it.

He's really with us, and in us, every day, all the time; if we ask him to be.

We don't have to wait til Sunday to ask the Lord to be with us, to refill us with his Spirit and live in us.
We don't have to wait for a communion service before we remember Christ's death.
He is really present when we commemorate his death in a communion service, just as he is at any other time.

 

[concretecamper]

I wonder if there are any members of the Charismatic Episcopal Church here. Perhaps they have more Eucharistic miracles in their Anglican communion because they put a deep emphasis on the Holy Spirit working miracles.

I agree the Eucharist itself is a miracle.

absolutely the Eucharist is in itself an extraordinary miracle. These other Miracles (Laciano) are graces to help those who may not believe.

 

[RileyG]

absolutely the Eucharist is in itself an extraordinary miracle. These other Miracles (Laciano) are graces to help those who may not believe.

Absolutely agreed!

 

[RileyG]

He's really with us, and in us, every day, all the time; if we ask him to be.

We don't have to wait til Sunday to ask the Lord to be with us, to refill us with his Spirit and live in us.
We don't have to wait for a communion service before we remember Christ's death.
He is really present when we commemorate his death in a communion service, just as he is at any other time.

Yes. But for those who believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist (communion) he is with us in a real, physical way. (Although how some Christians who believe in the real presence interpret it differently). When we receive Holy Communion, we unite our souls and bodies with him from the RCC perspective.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes. But for those who believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist (communion) he is with us in a real, physical way.

Even if Christ could be with us in a physical way - and he does not now have a physical body; is that better than being IN us?

 

[RileyG]

Even if Christ could be with us in a physical way - and he does not now have a physical body; is that better than being IN us?

Yes, that's definitely important. Which is why Communion prep is so important- but I am getting off topic. When he is physically present in us, he floods our souls with his grace- his very life- in a very special way. From the sacramental POV.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, that's definitely important. Which is why Communion prep is so important- but I am getting off topic. When he is physically present in us, he floods our souls with his grace- his very life- in a very special way.

He does that when he fills us with his Spirit, each day.
He came to give us life, he gives us eternal life and he, himself, is the Life. When we receive him into our lives, we have life.

 

[RileyG]

He does that when he fills us with his Spirit, each day.
He came to give us life, he gives us eternal life and he, himself, is the Life. When we receive him into our lives, we have life.

Theologically, I agree with this statement. Yes.

 

[fhansen]

He's really with us, and in us, every day, all the time; if we ask him to be.

We don't have to wait til Sunday to ask the Lord to be with us, to refill us with his Spirit and live in us.

We don't have to wait for a communion service before we remember Christ's death.

He is really present when we commemorate his death in a communion service, just as he is at any other time.

Christ is always with us, as any loved one is even when physically away, except that He actually resides in us spiritually to the extent that we remain in Him. And yet that can be a bit of a subjective determination for us even as this truth can also be profoundly immediate at times.

So the early church, in both Scripture and in ECF writings, held a very special and reverent place for this unique regular event, of partaking of the bread and wine: the body and blood. There, it’s as if we're coming to meet our loved one, the Object of our desire, directly, and for that meeting we need to be prepared, we want our robes to be clean, almost as if we were now at the end of our lives, soon to meet Him “face to face”. This makes the state of our souls, of our worthiness in relationship to Him, an all the more pressing concern, keeping us vigilant, on our toes. Because we’re to refrain if in serious sin where partaking would amount to mocking Him and His sacrifice. God saw the importance of this “sacrament” and established it so that even the simplest and most illiterate could know and live out His will down through the centuries in this most basic manner.

This has been the belief and practice of the Christian church, east and west, since day one.