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

[Rev Randy]

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.

I have a feeling you raised an eyebrow or two with that post.You raised a smile on my face.

 

[Standing Up]

" "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

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

Here's your chance. Where does the bible or tradition or catechism say: to be saved, devote yourself to the immaculate heart?

Please show us. Many people are interested.

 

[Standing Up]

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

Eh? To be saved, devote yourself to the immaculate heart (Fatima vision), that sounds like a new doctrine. But maybe an RCer can show the rest of us illiterates where that doctrine is in the catechism or tradition or bible?

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

I thought as a believer that the eucharistic metaphor is literal, you already believed that the bread & wine are the hidden reality of His physical presence revealed in the sight of His faithful.

 

[Albion]

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

That's right. What happens at these apparitions is not really in the category of prophesy because it doesn't introduce much that could be called an alteration to the faith.

And they clearly do have the ability to inspire the faithful. But it's undeniable that those who are believed to have seen and heard the mysterious woman--the children at Fatima, for instance--are anything but special...and the predictions supposedly made by the Virgin are nothing to make mankind joyous.

 

[Stryder06]

Christ is fully divine. We're eating divine flesh and drinking divine blood. You're committing judgement. It's that simple.

Christ is also fully human. Paul says we'll receive bodies like His. And given that the bible tells us to judge in righteousness, I don't have a problem with you saying I'm "judging".

That said, digesting human flesh and human blood is cannibalism. You can't get around that.

Pretty simple, really. God ordained the Apostles, and they, and those they ordained, bestowed with the Holy Spirit, gave us Sacred Tradition. In OT times, the Prophets spoke for God. After God was cruicified and rose, in the NT Times, they gave us the interpretations of the Scripture written about Christ.

Not that simple. God ordained Israel. Set them apart as His son. Gave them an actual priesthood and entrusted them with His oracles. If you think the Holy Spirit wasn't with them then you misunderstand the working of the Spirit. Their tradition would hold more validity than yours. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is that just as Israel missed out because they held to their traditions in place of scripture, so too your church is missing out because they exalt the man made doctrines based on tradition, over the scriptures. You can say you're teaching what the disciples taught, but even a cursory glance at the bible will show that to be false.

So you judge. Only God knows how close to Christ they are. You most certainly don't.

You're right, only God knows the heart. I'm not saying how close someone is or isn't. I am however saying that what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. Many a person steeped in deception, will have an outward appearance of piety, and a close walk to God, but their fruit bears testimony as to who they actually belong to. That's that righteous judgment I was telling you about earlier.

No, it was real.

Really symbolic. You think Paul would have been complaining about an actual thorn? Do you know how small a thorn is? If it was literally stuck in his body, it would get callused over. Eventually the pain would stop. Paul's thorn was one of circumstance.

Again, if you think life is so beautiful, you must be living in Lala land. Life is tough. Every day is a struggle. Some struggle more than others. I know a guy who lives with Down's Syndrome. He's 63 years old, and he's a joy to be around. I'm sure he is challenged every day.
Why would God make us struggle so much? Why did God put Paul through so much pain? Why did He allow Peter to be crucified upside down? Why did he allow Joan of Arc to be roasted at the stake? Why does he allow witnesses for the faith be butchered? I guess he's trying to show us that this world isn't anything to desire, that the next one is.

The world is beautiful, for as much as it can be. God has left remnants of beauty for us to see and hold onto. That said, I wasn't talking about life experiences as being all fine and dandy. Never said that. These things happen so that the revolting nature of sin may be revealed in its fullness. Being martyred for Christ is much different than a stigmata. No one looked at the death of the faithful and called it a miracle.

 

[Albion]

Christ is fully divine. We're eating divine flesh and drinking divine blood. You're committing judgement. It's that simple.

That would be the simplistic answer, true, but it falls on several points. Mainly, we have no reason to insist that it is literal flesh just because we believe that Christ is present in some way.

BTW, the Catholic Church will back down from its Medieval definition in the future, just as she has already done with indulgences, Limbo, and--currently--the meaning of Purgatory.

Already, Catholic theologians are describing Transubstantiation as just a more emphatic way of expressing the meaning of Real Presence.

 

[Stryder06]

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

His Divinity? Yeah so where in the scripture will you find that?

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

There's no where that says she didn't either.

 

[Albion]

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

His Divinity? Yeah so where in the scripture will you find that?

Agreed. That's a weird theory.

There's nowhere in the Bible that says that Mary had other children.

There's no where that says she didn't either.

We don't need to settle for that. There are a number of places in scripture where Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned. It's only in the Catholic churches that this would be explained away by the much less credible theory that they are either half brothers or step brothers or, worse, "cousins."

It would be amusing, if it weren't so serious, that there's a church which requires its people to believe, completely literally, that Jesus' very flesh is what they are eating...yet when it comes to some other part of Scripture that is inconvenient, taking the Bible in its clear and obvious meaning is ruled out.

 

[Stryder06]

Agreed. That's a weird theory.




We don't need to settle for that. There are a number of places in scripture where Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned. It's only in the Catholic churches that this would be explained away by the much less credible theory that they are either half brothers or step brothers or, worse, "cousins."

It would be amusing, if it weren't so serious, that there's a church which requires its people to believe, completely literally, that Jesus' very flesh is what they are eating...yet when it comes to some other part of Scripture that is inconvenient, taking the Bible in its clear and obvious meaning is ruled out.

Agreed

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

There's no where that says she didn't either.

We don't need to settle for that. There are a number of places in scripture where Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned. It's only in the Catholic churches that this would be explained away by the much less credible theory that they are either half brothers or step brothers or, worse, "cousins."

.

That particular subject is one hotly debated issue on CF

http://www.christianforums.com/t7400512-77/
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary [poll thread]

View Poll Results: Did Mary have children after Jesus was born

Yes, I/we believe Mary had children after Jesus was born

86 47.51%

No. I/we believe she did not have children after Jesus

72 39.78%

I am not sure

17 9.39%

Does it matter?

25 13.81%


http://www.christianforums.com/t2224755-63/
Did Mary have children after Jesus?

Originally Posted by Jig

Now, I must admit that I'm still confused on this one. I've heard both yes and no. I'm asking those who believe this for biblical proof.
​

.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Agreed. That's a weird theory.




We don't need to settle for that. There are a number of places in scripture where Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned. It's only in the Catholic churches that this would be explained away by the much less credible theory that they are either half brothers or step brothers or, worse, "cousins."

It would be amusing, if it weren't so serious, that there's a church which requires its people to believe, completely literally, that Jesus' very flesh is what they are eating...yet when it comes to some other part of Scripture that is inconvenient, taking the Bible in its clear and obvious meaning is ruled out.

Jesus' brothers and sisters, whatever they were, are not Mary's children. It's two separate things. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention Mary's children, therefore she had none, and furthermore, we believe she remained virgin. Secondly, at the Cross, Jesus placed his mother in John's care. Had there been other children or Mary, Jesus would have left her in their care.
BTW, Albion, there is only one Catholic Church. not churches.
Regarding Bible interpretation, we believe the Word literally-we believe it means what the author meant it to mean. How do we know what the author meant it to mean? That's where Sacred Tradition comes in.

 

[Albion]

Jesus' brothers and sisters, whatever they were, are not Mary's children.

You don't know that for a fact.

BTW, Albion, there is only one Catholic Church. not churches.

There are many Catholic Churches whether or not you care to recognize the others.

Regarding Bible interpretation, we believe the Word literally

If that were the case, Catholic posters here would not be calling the Bible "just a book" and saying, repeatedly, that you can't go by what's in it, etc. So if you say you believe the Word of God, i.e. the Bible, I'll accept you at your word, but I can't say that for Catholics generally--if I also take them at their words. And none of you takes it literally, despite what you just wrote. Part of it, yes, and parts of it absolutely not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You don't know that for a fact.


There are many Catholic Churches whether or not you care to recognize the others.


If that were the case, Catholic posters here would not be calling the Bible "just a book" and saying, repeatedly, that you can't go by what's in it, etc. So if you say you believe the Word of God, i.e. the Bible, I'll accept you at your word, but I can't say that for Catholics generally--if I also take them at their words. And none of you takes it literally, despite what you just wrote. Part of it, yes, and parts of it absolutely not.

We do because it never says "Mary's children".

There are several rites, but only one Catholic Church.

I've never seen a Catholic say it's just a book, and you can't go by what's in it. Care to point to a few?

Again, the Bible is a literal work. It says what it says. It means what it says. The context is important, just as context is important to know when reading any document. Even reading fiction, you have to understand the circumstance. Finding the context, the proper context, is critical. For example, Revelation. We believe the context of Revelation points to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. If you read it in that context, you get a different point of view than if your context is something that hasn't happened yet. Same is true of the entire Bible. We know the context because we have writers who provide it.

 

[Albion]

We do because it never says "Mary's children".

It never says "Trinity," either. You DO believe in the Trinity, I take it.

There are several rites, but only one Catholic Church.

There are a number of Catholic Churches. One of them, the Roman Catholic Church, has over twenty different rites.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It never says "Trinity," either. You DO believe in the Trinity, I take it.

And for the same reason, because you can find bits and pieces of the doctrine in Scripture, and put them together.

There are a number of Catholic Churches. One of them, the Roman Catholic Church, has over twenty different rites.

There's a lot that claim and use the term Catholic. There is only one Catholic Church. Lots of things claim to be something and are not the same, just a vestige, of what they claim...

 

[Stryder06]

We do because it never says "Mary's children".

There are several rites, but only one Catholic Church.

I've never seen a Catholic say it's just a book, and you can't go by what's in it. Care to point to a few?

Again, the Bible is a literal work. It says what it says. It means what it says. The context is important, just as context is important to know when reading any document. Even reading fiction, you have to understand the circumstance. Finding the context, the proper context, is critical. For example, Revelation. We believe the context of Revelation points to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. If you read it in that context, you get a different point of view than if your context is something that hasn't happened yet. Same is true of the entire Bible. We know the context because we have writers who provide it.

Funny, scripture says that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Now what I would think is that if Joseph had other children, wouldn't they have traveled to Bethlehem during the taxing time? And since the bible doesn't say Joseph was married before hand, does that mean he was taking care of children he had outside of wedlock? I'm thinking that if that were the case he wouldn't have been fit to marry Mary.

While the bible does say what needs to be said, it doesn't preclude us from using a bit of common sense every now and then. There's no reason to assume these were cousins or children from a previous relationship when the bible doesn't say that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Funny, scripture says that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Now what I would think is that if Joseph had other children, wouldn't they have traveled to Bethlehem during the taxing time? And since the bible doesn't say Joseph was married before hand, does that mean he was taking care of children he had outside of wedlock? I'm thinking that if that were the case he wouldn't have been fit to marry Mary.

While the bible does say what needs to be said, it doesn't preclude us from using a bit of common sense every now and then. There's no reason to assume these were cousins or children from a previous relationship when the bible doesn't say that.

I don't know whether Joseph was a widow, or his family status. I never spoke about Joseph.

It is funny, you speak of spiritual discernment, then you say "I would think..." That doesn't seem spiritual at all, to me. We don't have anything set in stone about Joseph, all we know is that Jesus worked with him. We know he did what angel Gabriel told him to do-take Mary to Bethlehem.

What we preclude is that Mary is the type of the Ark of the Covenant, which God had built as sacred and undefiled. Why? Because it contained sacred things-manna, the Ten Commandments, and the staff of the High Priest Aaron. It was sacred. Mary also contained the sacred-the Bread of Life, the Word of God, and the High Priest. We also know, from Revelation, that God cannot abide anything sinful-there is no sin in heaven. So Mary could not have been sinful.

 

[Albion]

What we preclude is that Mary is the type of the Ark of the Covenant, which God had built as sacred and undefiled. Why? Because it contained sacred things-manna, the Ten Commandments, and the staff of the High Priest Aaron. It was sacred. Mary also contained the sacred-the Bread of Life, the Word of God, and the High Priest. We also know, from Revelation, that God cannot abide anything sinful-there is no sin in heaven. So Mary could not have been sinful.

Even if all that were agreed to, it doesn't make a case for the "Immaculate Conception" (which I'm guessing is what you are driving at).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Even if all that were agreed to, it doesn't make a case for the "Immaculate Conception" (which I'm guessing is what you are driving at).

To you, I guess not. But it does make the case.

From what we believe about Mary, she was consecrated, as a child, to be a temple virgin. Consecration is a permanent thing-something sacred. This is why Mary says "How could this be since I know not man?" She's not going to renege on her vows. So...before the Holy Spirit came over her, at the time of Jesus' birth, and after His birth, she did not know man.