How do non-Catholics explain Eucharistic miracles, such as bleeding, and Marian...

[Standing Up]

I believe both are possible

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

To exercise caution when looking for signs and wonders

I mean after all there is that which is also called doctrine of devils, which come in the form of the forbidding of marrying and abstaining from meats. Even as it speaks of the same working miracles too

Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

So I believe in both as is shown as well.

Good point. We're instructed to discern (exercise our senses) between good and evil (Heb. 6).

 

[Standing Up]

Christ is fully divine. We're eating divine flesh and drinking divine blood.

No human flesh and blood in there? Born of an ever-virgin, right?

 

[Root of Jesse]

No human flesh and blood in there? Born of an ever-virgin, right?

Christ did not give us his human flesh to eat. He gave us his divinity.

Yup, born of an ever-virgin, exactly. There's nowhere in the Bible that says that Mary had other children.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Good point. We're instructed to discern (exercise our senses) between good and evil (Heb. 6).

And you cant speak against what appears as a miracle because regardless of its source, it is what it is. I've just seen far better tricks turned by Chris Angel. Just watched, Chris Angel walks on water (revealed)

But most of it seems more like a circus show.

When graven images made by the hands of men start performing tricks (like speaking), Im outta there

I will say, I am weirded out by using the blood of the saints in some vial as some kind of magic eight ball.

 

[Optimax]

Christ did not give us his human flesh to eat. He gave us his divinity.

Yup, born of an ever-virgin, exactly. There's nowhere in the Bible that says that Mary had other children.

The people that lived in the same town as Jesus did growing up said this.

Matt 13:55-56

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters , are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? KJV

These people that lived in the same town and knew Jesus as the carpenter's son said Jesus had four brothers and sisters.

If they were Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Town people said they were.

Then Jesus' mother called Mary had more children after Jesus.

At least six.

 

[Optimax]

Oh, the movie. Nuff said. Not that it's a bad movie, but it's hard to fit all the facts in a movie.

Nope!

Wasn't a movie.

More of what we would call a documentary.

 

[Standing Up]

Christ did not give us his human flesh to eat. He gave us his divinity.

Yup, born of an ever-virgin, exactly. There's nowhere in the Bible that says that Mary had other children.

At least you are consistent and logical in your theology.

Christ, you say, had no human flesh and Mary, you say, remained an ever-virgin.

If Christ did have human flesh, He received it from Mary, birthing Him with water and blood (1 John). But then you'd have to change your eucharist misunderstanding.

What a pickle between a rock and hard place.

 

[Standing Up]

And you cant speak against what appears as a miracle because regardless of its source, it is what it is. I've just seen far better tricks turned by Chris Angel. Just watched, Chris Angel walks on water (revealed)

But most of it seems more like a circus show.

When graven images made by the hands of men start performing tricks (like speaking), Im outta there

I will say, I am weirded out by using the blood of the saints in some vial as some kind of magic eight ball.

That was in the 3rd vision?

"Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God"
Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any idea where the idea came from that saints' blood makes you pure on your way to God?

 

[Standing Up]

The people that lived in the same town as Jesus did growing up said this.

Matt 13:55-56

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters , are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? KJV

These people that lived in the same town and knew Jesus as the carpenter's son said Jesus had four brothers and sisters.

If they were Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Town people said they were.

Then Jesus' mother called Mary had more children after Jesus.

At least six.

Right. The very early Catholic Church Tradition (not to be confused with the later Roman Church Tradition) was that Mary and Joseph had children. In fact, this fact from scripture was used to prove Jesus' humanity against those who thought Jesus a "divine" phantom, without flesh and blood.

 

[Standing Up]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is nothing in any of the three visions about Christ Jesus. Run people run.

From the second vision (Fatima):

" "I have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. "
Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh, what? God saves sinners by devotion to an entity called Immaculate Heart (IH).

Can anyone find that idea in the Bible or even EO or RC Tradition? Salvation by IH?

Can anyone who believes in IH find what the bible says about who saves?

 

[Fireinfolding]

That was in the 3rd vision?

"Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God"
Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any idea where the idea came from that saints' blood makes you pure on your way to God?

I have no clue SU.

I (personally) wouldn't want the blood of any saints to be found in my possession, let alone be the one playing "magic eight ball" with any of it.

 

[Fireinfolding]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is nothing in any of the three visions about Christ Jesus. Run people run.

From the second vision (Fatima):

" "I have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. "
Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh, what? God saves sinners by devotion to an entity called Immaculate Heart (IH).

Can anyone find that idea in the Bible or even EO or RC Tradition? Salvation by IH?

Can anyone who believes in IH find what the bible says about who saves?

Yeah, that's just weird

 

[Rick Otto]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is nothing in any of the three visions about Christ Jesus. Run people run.

From the second vision (Fatima):

" "I have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. "
Our Lady of Fátima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh, what? God saves sinners by devotion to an entity called Immaculate Heart (IH).

Can anyone find that idea in the Bible or even EO or RC Tradition? Salvation by IH?

Can anyone who believes in IH find what the bible says about who saves?

Ye have little faith in the power of Latin.

 

[Rhamiel]

theology on/devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary is a foreign concept to Protestantism
maybe we should go into that a bit before you just dismiss it as "having nothing to do with Jesus"

I do not know if this has been brought up in this thread, but no one should use miraculous signs as proof of the legitimacy of a Church
this is not the purpose of such signs
it is to encourage the faithful
not to bring new revelation
the Catholic Church acknowledges this

 

[Albion]

I do not know if this has been brought up in this thread, but no one should use miraculous signs as proof of the legitimacy of a Church
this is not the purpose of such signs
it is to encourage the faithful
not to bring new revelation

That's quite the opposite of what is supposed to have happened at Fatima and at the sites of other Marian apparitions. Terrifying predictions about the future, dire warnings, and demands were the main characteristics of the revelations.

 

[Rhamiel]

That's quite the opposite of what is supposed to have happened at Fatima and at the sites of other Marian apparitions. Terrifying predictions about the future, dire warnings, and demands were the main characteristics of the revelations.

I was a bit sloopy with the language
maybe I should have said no new doctrine instead of no new revelation

I mean if you saw Jesus and He told you that you were about to die, well that would be a revelation
but that would not be a new doctrine, I mean everyone knows that people die

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Best. Post. Ever.

I don't agree, but nevertheless amazing.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

...apparitions, such as Fatima. Eucharistic bleeding miracles, that are confirmed with science? I also recently read in OBOB about a certain saint, that on the celebration of his feast day, every single year, a vial of his blood liquifies before the congregation; the one time it didn't liquify, in 1980, there was an earthquake that killed a lot of people in the region in which this miracle takes place.

Then there's also a bleeding Eucharist miracle that was scientifically tested. The Eucharist fell to the floor, where it began to bleed. Testing was positive for a damaged human heart...

Just curious how non-Catholics reconcile these things. And of course, Mary's wish for Russia to convert with her apparition at Fatima apparently came to pass with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Excellent question, and one I've personally struggled with for some time.

I'd like to offer two very different answers that aren't necessarily congruent, if you'll permit me.

The first is the orthodox Lutheran answer. Confessional Lutheranism is insistent that there is an absolute difference between the revealed God and the hidden God. God revealed is God in his grace, mercy, and forgiveness known through his promises and acts of redemptive in history and the scriptures. God hidden is God sought out on human initiative through intellectual inquiry who can only be known in his wrath and condemnation. Therefore, any knowledge of God that comes apart from the scriptures can only ultimately lead to a knowledge of God that provides no balm for guilty consciences.

Ok, now that that's out of the way to satisfy my fellow Lutherans... I think Eucharistic and Marian apparitions within the Catholic Church are entirely valid, because the Eucharist is Christ on earth and Mary is actively interceding for her Son's body, the church, and we should expect nothing less.

Wait, what?

Oh, yes. As a Lutheran, I firmly believe that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood, and if Christ chooses to reveal the hidden reality of his physical presence in the sight of his faithful, that is his prerogative. And as an evangelical catholic (another and more accurate term for Lutheran), I absolutely believe that Queen Mary is in heaven attending her Son, and if he wishes to use her to further his mission to redeem the world by making her concern for his faithful known, then that too is his prerogative. I'm perfectly comfortable with both.

Do I think every instance of Marian and Eucharistic apparitions are valid? No, of course not, and I doubt that every instance are considered valid among Catholics. But many surely are, and that causes me no trouble either as a Lutheran nor as an evangelical catholic.

 

[Rhamiel]

Excellent question, and one I've personally struggled with for some time.

I'd like to offer two very different answers that aren't necessarily congruent, if you'll permit me.

The first is the orthodox Lutheran answer. Confessional Lutheranism is insistent that there is an absolute difference between the revealed God and the hidden God. God revealed is God in his grace, mercy, and forgiveness known through his promises and acts of redemptive in history and the scriptures. God hidden is God sought out on human initiative through intellectual inquiry who can only be known in his wrath and condemnation. Therefore, any knowledge of God that comes apart from the scriptures can only ultimately lead to a knowledge of God that provides no balm for guilty consciences.

Ok, now that that's out of the way to satisfy my fellow Lutherans... I think Eucharistic and Marian apparitions within the Catholic Church are entirely valid, because the Eucharist is Christ on earth and Mary is actively interceding for her Son's body, the church, and we should expect nothing less.

Wait, what?

Oh, yes. As a Lutheran, I firmly believe that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood, and if Christ chooses to reveal the hidden reality of his physical presence in the sight of his faithful, that is his prerogative. And as an evangelical catholic (another and more accurate term for Lutheran), I absolutely believe that Queen Mary is in heaven attending her Son, and if he wishes to use her to further his mission to redeem the world by making her concern for his faithful known, then that too is his prerogative. I'm perfectly comfortable with both.

Do I think every instance of Marian and Eucharistic apparitions are valid? No, of course not, and I doubt that every instance are considered valid among Catholics. But many surely are, and that causes me no trouble either as a Lutheran nor as an evangelical catholic.

earlier in this thread I said basically the same thing

that you can be Protestant and believe that some of these visions are from God and still be Protestant, I think it was on the first page of this thread if you feel like going back and seeing what I had to write

also, you are correct, the Catholic Church does not just accept anyone who says that they saw a vision
for example, there are some people in Medjugorje, Bosnia who claim to have seen the Virgin Mary, these visions have been under investigation for a long time and they are not officially approved yet, because they have not been approved I have not wasted my time learning much about them.
But it is not like the Catholic Church just accepts anyone who says they saw something

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

3 "God knows that you guys go in for that kinda stuff so that is why the members of your church are given visions of Mary"

earlier in this thread I said basically the same thing

that you can be Protestant and believe that some of these visions are from God and still be Protestant, I think it was on the first page of this thread if you feel like going back and seeing what I had to write

also, you are correct, the Catholic Church does not just accept anyone who says that they saw a vision.... [break]

But it is not like the Catholic Church just accepts anyone who says they saw something

Haha. Not exactly what I meant, but sure. Honestly, I'd actually be willing to say that the Catholic Church, being under the authority of the western patriarch, has every reason to be the repository of continued Eucharistic and Marian apparitions, rather than saying that every denomination has equal standing, because I don't think every denomination has equal standing. Honestly, I wish we could all just be Catholic again.

But, even though we aren't (and can't be), I'm happy for Catholics that Christ has continued his work among you, through his manifestations in the Eucharist and through apparitions of his blessed queen mother.