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

[MoreCoffee]

Reading the account of the "Miracle of the Sun" I have a hard time trying to compare that to the account in scripture where Joshua called the sun to stand still. What purpose did the Miracle of the Sun serve?

The miracle of the sun at Fatima served the purpose of every miracle in sacred scripture; to bring human souls to faith or to deepen the faith of those who already had faith.

For this reason, it is necessary for us to observe more thoroughly the things that we have heard, lest we let them slip away. For if a word that was spoken through the Angels has been made firm, and every transgression and disobedience has received the recompense of a just retribution, in what way might we escape, if we neglect such a great salvation? For though initially it had begun to be described by the Lord, it was confirmed among us by those who heard him, with God testifying to it by signs and wonders, and by various miracles, and by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, in accord with his own will. (Hebrews 2:1-4)​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nice try, but we're still discussing claims based entirely upon allegations. That is not the equivalent of Bible events, so the comparison--as though the two are indeed equal--is misleading.

Your post is not a nice try; it's little more than cynicism about the testimony of witnesses at Fatima for reasons that have nothing to do with what happened there.

 

[seeingeyes]

Much more doubtful? Perhaps. Or much more assuring that Catholicism is the True Church. I'm trying to decided which is true.

Perhaps we should look at how the Catholic Church itself responds to such things. In the case of the Fatima:

"The Vatican withheld the Third Secret until 26 June 2000, despite Lúcia's declaration that it could be released to the public after 1960. Some sources, including Canon Barthas and Cardinal Ottaviani, said that Lúcia insisted to them it must be released by 1960, saying that, "by that time, it will be more clearly understood", and, "because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so."] When 1960 arrived, rather than releasing the Third Secret, the Vatican published an official press release stating that it was "most probable the Secret would remain, forever, under absolute seal."" (From Wikipedia, correct me if this is wrong.)

Now whether the Vatican didn't release the third secret because they didn't believe it, or because it was not as favorable to the Church as the first two, I have no way of saying, but if the Vatican was not willing to submit to the will of this vision of the Blessed Virgin, then I see no reason that anyone else should either. :shrug:

Regarding the Eucharist miracle, the Church insists that while the substance changes, the physical accidents remain the same. So a bleeding Eucharist would tend to indicate that transubstantiation is wrong, I far as I can tell. (That the accidents do change - from bread to something that can bleed.)

So these incidents, even if true and sent from God, don't necessarily point to the Catholic Church. They would point (and should always point) to our Father in heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima#cite_note-36

 

[Stryder06]

The miracle of the sun at Fatima served the purpose of every miracle in sacred scripture; to bring human souls to faith or to deepen the faith of those who already had faith.

For this reason, it is necessary for us to observe more thoroughly the things that we have heard, lest we let them slip away. For if a word that was spoken through the Angels has been made firm, and every transgression and disobedience has received the recompense of a just retribution, in what way might we escape, if we neglect such a great salvation? For though initially it had begun to be described by the Lord, it was confirmed among us by those who heard him, with God testifying to it by signs and wonders, and by various miracles, and by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, in accord with his own will. (Hebrews 2:1-4)
​

The sad thing is that even the most grotesque "miracles" in your church are seen to have brought many to a deeper faith, and are thus seen as legitimate. I guess this is the reason why we are to rely upon the word of God and not what our eyes see.

 

[Albion]

Your post is not a nice try; it's little more than cynicism about the testimony of witnesses at Fatima for reasons that have nothing to do with what happened there.

I'm sure you like that to be the case. But the thing is that the thread is about the credibility of these miracle claims and you haven't been able to offer much that deals with that.

You can liken Fatima to the events in the Bible and you can characterize reasonable doubt about the veracity of these reports to the thinking of religious skeptics and cynics, etc. etc., but that's just hot air.

And that's not to mention that the thread is asking for the judgment of non-Catholics!. It would be nice, to say the least, if those who aren't involved wouldn't rush in to try to derail the discussion.

 

[Albion]

The sad thing is that even the most grotesque "miracles" in your church are seen to have brought many to a deeper faith, and are thus seen as legitimate. I guess this is the reason why we are to rely upon the word of God and not what our eyes see.

That does go to the heart of the matter IMO. The more unbelievable the claim, the more "devout" a person who takes it in uncritically is seen to be--or thinks himself to be. And BTW the RCC itself has declined to authenticate a lot of these apparitions, etc., yet it almost encourages the faithful to go on venerating potatoes that look like the face of Christ, visions that have not been sufficiently studied, and so on.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The sad thing is that even the most grotesque "miracles" in your church are seen to have brought many to a deeper faith, and are thus seen as legitimate. I guess this is the reason why we are to rely upon the word of God and not what our eyes see.

Yes, grotesque miracles like Christ saying "this is my body" after instructing the disciples to eat it. Christ is a scandal and always has been; the Jews of his day accused him of blasphemy on a number of occasions and had him executed for it. Scandal is the nature of the gospel. It is preached to tax collectors and the poor, to prostitutes and all manner of unworthy persons. Yes, the gospel is not what folk expect or want. So gospel miracles are grotesque. It is no surprise that miracles today bring similar reactions of revulsion and rejection by some.

6:61 Therefore, many of his disciples, upon hearing this, said: "This saying is difficult," and, "Who is able to listen to it?" 6:62 But Jesus, knowing within himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: "Does this offend you? 6:63 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending to where he was before? 6:64 It is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh does not offer anything of benefit. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 6:65 But there are some among you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who were unbelieving and which one would betray him. 6:66 And so he said, "For this reason, I said to you that no one is able to come to me, unless it has been given to him by my Father." 6:67 After this, many of his disciples went back, and they no longer walked with him. (John 6:60-66)​

 

[seeingeyes]

Yes, grotesque miracles like Christ saying "this is my body" after instructing the disciples to eat it.

Truth!

Our God ain't even trying to be pretty.

 

[Albion]

Yes, grotesque miracles like Christ saying "this is my body" after instructing the disciples to eat it.

It probably would be better to stick with the topic than to chase after this diversion.

 

[Rhamiel]

as for scientific evidence, here is something

one bit of scientific evidence would be the icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe
it was printed, miraculously, on the back of a cheap cloak make of cactus cloth that was worn kind of like a cloak or a poncho by native americans at that time
the cheap fabric lasts about 20 or 30 years under the best of conditions
the cloak is now almost 470 years old
now it is incased in glass
but for centuries it was hanging up in the open air, with people touching it transferring oils from their hands, smoke from candles and incense, and just the natural corrosive salts and minerals in desert air should have corroded it to dust 400 years ago
some artists added a golden crown and other embellishments to the original icon
those embellishments have long since faded away leaving no damage to the actual icon

 

[Ecclectic79]

nm

 

[Albion]

as for scientific evidence, here is something

The painting has been repainted many times by different artists and bears little resemblance to the crude original that has long since disappeared. But it did apparently serve its purpose by bringing in the contributions!

 

[MoreCoffee]

It probably would be better to stick with the topic than to chase after this diversion.

The topic is Eucharistic miracles. Have you not noticed that?

 

[Clairvoyance]

I know that one case of transubstantiation in south St. Paul was found to be caused by a wafer that was contaminated with a bacterium species making it appear red and flesh-like.

 

[Albion]

The topic is Eucharistic miracles. Have you not noticed that?

Actually, it is not. The topic is the non-Catholic response to claims about such "miracles." Did you not notice that? What's more "Eucharistic miracles" was only one of the kinds of miracles mentioned in the OP.

Look. You don't even belong on this thread, so I'm not going to go along with your game any further.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I know that one case of transubstantiation in south St. Paul was found to be caused by a wafer that was contaminated with a bacterium species making it appear red and flesh-like.

No doubt things like that may happen from time to time. The miracle of the Eucharist is, however, not a matter of the host looking like flesh or looking reddish. There is a difference between Eucharistic miracles and transubstantiation.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION is the scholastic term used to designate the unique change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. “Transubstantiation” indicates that through the consecration of the bread and the wine there occurs the change of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ—even though the appearances or “species” of bread and wine remain.​

 

[Stryder06]

Yes, grotesque miracles like Christ saying "this is my body" after instructing the disciples to eat it. Christ is a scandal and always has been; the Jews of his day accused him of blasphemy on a number of occasions and had him executed for it. Scandal is the nature of the gospel. It is preached to tax collectors and the poor, to prostitutes and all manner of unworthy persons. Yes, the gospel is not what folk expect or want. So gospel miracles are grotesque. It is no surprise that miracles today bring similar reactions of revulsion and rejection by some.

1st) This is my body...this is my blood...are to be understood symbolically. Why? Because it's cannibalism any other way, and that as we know, is a sin.

2nd) The Jews did indeed accuse Christ of many things. What we know however is that thier claims were baseless, and their outrage was due to their inability to prove blasphemy using the word of God. It was the word of God vs their tradition (sound familiar?).

3rd) Scandal - an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage

This is not the nature of the gospel. How fallen man views the gospel is irrelevant given that all morality is defined by God. When I look at the bible I see the lame walking, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, and the mute speaking. We even have a few instances of the dead coming back to life. That sir is not grotesque. Things like bleeding bread and stigmatas? That's not miraculous. That's flat out creepy.

 

[Albion]

Stryder,

The topic is bogus miracles, not the theology of Holy Communion. Let's stay on topic even when there are attempts being made to get us onto something else.

 

[MoreCoffee]

1st) This is my body...this is my blood...are to be understood symbolically. Why? Because it's cannibalism any other way, and that as we know, is a sin.

2nd) The Jews did indeed accuse Christ of many things. What we know however is that their claims were baseless, and their outrage was due to their inability to prove blasphemy using the word of God. It was the word of God vs their tradition (sound familiar?).

3rd) Scandal - an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage

This is not the nature of the gospel. How fallen man views the gospel is irrelevant given that all morality is defined by God. When I look at the bible I see the lame walking, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, and the mute speaking. We even have a few instances of the dead coming back to life. That sir is not grotesque. Things like bleeding bread and stigmatas? That's not miraculous. That's flat out creepy.

"Take and eat. This is my body." is not symbolic.

"Drink from this, all of you. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins." is not symbolic.

Neither are the above two quotes from the gospel of saint Matthew advocating sin.

I will not explain what they teach again because it does not seem to matter how many times incorrect views, such as those stated in your post, are corrected when their advocates simply repeat them after being corrected.

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder,

The topic is bogus miracles, not the theology of Holy Communion. Let's stay on topic even when there are attempts being made to get us onto something else.

I was under the impression that he was calling the echuarist a miracle, which in my book is very bogus. But I'll dirgress.