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

[MoreCoffee]

Proof? Where is the verifiable scientific evidence of any of that?

It's in the same place that proof of biblical miracles resides.

 

[MoreCoffee]

and no scientific proof or evidence of it either.

Yep; just like there's no scientific proof of the parting of the red sea, the sun standing still at Joshua's command, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Are all miracles worthless without scientific approval?

I pray God that it is not so for any who are reading this thread because it cannot be so for any who read and believe the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Albion]

Too many Marian apparitions to name them, but Fatima being most famous.

Even if there are some that might be genuine, there are many more that are known to be bogus.

 

[Albion]

Yep; just like there's no scientific proof of the parting of the red sea, the sun standing still at Joshua's command, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again the attempt to pass off alleged miracles as true by suggesting that they are the equal of events that are known to be true because they are recorded in God's holy word. It still doesn't work.

Are all miracles worthless without scientific approval?

First, let's find out if they are miracles.

 

[Lion King]

It's in the same place that proof of biblical miracles resides.

Yep; just like there's no scientific proof of the parting of the red sea, the sun standing still at Joshua's command, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Are all miracles worthless without scientific approval?

I pray God that it is not so for any who are reading this thread because it cannot be so for any who read and believe the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, are we now just supposed to believe in these supposedly Roman Catholic miracles without a shred of evidence?

The Scriptures testify of Christ's miracles. Who testifies of the RCC miracles?

 

[Albion]

So, are we now just supposed to believe in these supposedly Roman Catholic miracles without a shred of evidence?

Yep. That's what the effort has been all about.

 

[christianmomof3]

Yep; just like there's no scientific proof of the parting of the red sea, the sun standing still at Joshua's command, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Are all miracles worthless without scientific approval?

I pray God that it is not so for any who are reading this thread because it cannot be so for any who read and believe the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Um, this thread is not about Biblical miracles. There are no questions about those. This thread is about the supposed miracles that the RCC claims that there is scientific evidence of. However, I have yet to see any actual scientific evidence offered on this thread for any of them.

So, are we now just supposed to believe in these supposedly Roman Catholic miracles without a shred of evidence?

The Scriptures testify of Christ's miracles. Who testifies of the RCC miracles?

Exactly. The OP asks

How do non-Catholics explain Eucharistic miracles, such as bleeding, and Marian...
...apparitions, such as Fatima. Eucharistic bleeding miracles, that are confirmed with science?

yet then he offers no scientific confirmation of any of these miracles - just states that he has heard of them and says to go google it ourselves.
If one is going to start a thread about scientifically proven "miracles" then one should be able to provide some of that "scientific proof."

 

[MoreCoffee]

<snipped the complaint ...>

First, let's find out if they are miracles.

That's just question begging.

How do you know any of the biblical miracles are miracles?

• Would it be because they are written in the bible? No? Lots of things are written in the bible that are not miracles.
• Would it be because one does not normally see an axe head float on water, or the sun stand still, or a sea part, or a man rise from the grave after a few days? I reckon so.

So, how do you "find out if they are miracles"? Would it be by noting that one does not normally see things like what happened at Fatima? I reckon so.

One of the three children sees a beautiful lady clothed in white and light and she speaks to to the child, reveals her mission, tells of the need to repent and pray for the sake of the world, and when asked "how will the people know that this is so?" The lady tells of a miracle that God will perform on a specific day. The miracle happens on the specified day, tens of thousands see it. After the event, many wrote testimonies of the things they saw. Newspapers carry the story. The Church sends representatives to test the claims, they investigate very carefully, they test the people who - subsequent to the public miracle witnessed by thousands - were healed examining the medical records checking the circumstances of the various instantaneous healings and after a number of years of careful investigation they conclude that the miracles did happen.

Fatima: The Miracle of the Sun, 13-Oct, 1917 - YouTube

 

[Ecclectic79]

Out of curiosity, has anyone here done research to try and figure out what exactly the apparitions of Mary are?

I ask from the standpoint that I see ample evidence that the manifestations themselves are real, just that I'm still on the fence (as I noted on page 14) as to the true and full identity of the apparition.

 

[christianmomof3]

There are plenty of people who have said they have seen aliens too.
And bigfoot.
You still have not offered scientific proof.

 

[Albion]

Some samples of the bread and wine have been scientifically tested and verified to be actual blood and heart tissue. Google it, because I'm not Catholic and I don't know Miracle of "such and such" off the top of my head. There's really ancient examples as well.

I spent some time doing exactly what you asked here. I could find no scientific evidence that proves any of these "flesh" claims. I also found a number of Roman Catholic sites in which claims were made, but again, just claims.

However, I encourage you to continue the search yourself if you think there is any scientific proof of this phenomenon (as opposed to a claim that there is scientific proof).

 

[christianmomof3]

I spent some time doing exactly what you asked here. I could find no scientific evidence that proves any of these "flesh" claims. I also found a number of Roman Catholic sites in which claims were made, but again, just claims.

However, I encourage you to continue the search yourself if you think there is any scientific proof of this phenomenon (as opposed to a claim that there is scientific proof).

Yep. I googled it too. Found nada.
To the OP, you really should look into it yourself.
Don't believe "claims", find actual scientific proof.
If you find some, please post it.
I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[Ecclectic79]

Reading further I probably shouldn't have touched this thread.

I forget sometimes, especially on hot-button issues, that everyone has a right to their own facts.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Perhaps I've gotten biased information. Admittedly, most of the time I read about a Eucharistic miracle being spoken about within Catholic circles and scientific proof that the "red stuff" on the Host is blood. Once I was linked to a Wikipedia page regarding a several hundred year old Eucharistic miracle. The wine was actually solidified and tested positive for blood or heart tissue, or something. I forget the name, so don't jump me!

Christianmomof3: When will you stop continually making the false allegation that I said anything about scientific evidence for any apparition?

 

[Albion]

Perhaps I've gotten biased information. Admittedly, most of the time I read about a Eucharistic miracle being spoken about within Catholic circles and scientific proof that the "red stuff" on the Host is blood. Once I was linked to a Wikipedia page regarding a several hundred year old Eucharistic miracle. The wine was actually solidified and tested positive for blood or heart tissue, or something. I forget the name, so don't jump me!

Has someone jumped you? We just don't have anything but allegations.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Let us be clear on what the words are that you've so sarcastically called magic words.

And so, Father, we bring You these gifts. We ask You to make them holy by the power of Your Spirit, that they may become the Body + and Blood of Your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at Whose command we celebrate this Eucharist. ​

And so that none will be deceived by the highly offensive characterisation of the nature of the Eucharist given in your words quoted above let us also be clear what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharistic presence of the body and blood of Christ.

The Lord Jesus, on the night before he suffered on the cross, shared one last meal with his disciples. During this meal our Savior instituted the sacrament of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the ages and to entrust to the Church his Spouse a memorial of his death and resurrection. As the Gospel of Matthew tells us:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Mt 26:26-28; cf. Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:17-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25)

Recalling these words of Jesus, the Catholic Church professes that, in the celebration of the Eucharist, bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentality of the priest. Jesus said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (Jn 6:51-55). The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist. This presence of Christ in the Eucharist is called "real" not to exclude other types of his presence as if they could not be understood as real (cf. Catechism, no. 1374). The risen Christ is present to his Church in many ways, but most especially through the sacrament of his Body and Blood.

What does it mean that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine? How does this happen? The presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist is an inexhaustible mystery that the Church can never fully explain in words. We must remember that the triune God is the creator of all that exists and has the power to do more than we can possibly imagine. As St. Ambrose said: "If the word of the Lord Jesus is so powerful as to bring into existence things which were not, then a fortiori those things which already exist can be changed into something else" ( De Sacramentis, IV, 5-16). God created the world in order to share his life with persons who are not God. This great plan of salvation reveals a wisdom that surpasses our understanding. But we are not left in ignorance: for out of his love for us, God reveals his truth to us in ways that we can understand through the gift of faith and the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. We are thus enabled to understand at least in some measure what would otherwise remain unknown to us, though we can never completely comprehend the mystery of God.

As successors of the Apostles and teachers of the Church, the bishops have the duty to hand on what God has revealed to us and to encourage all members of the Church to deepen their understanding of the mystery and gift of the Eucharist. In order to foster such a deepening of faith, we have prepared this text to respond to fifteen questions that commonly arise with regard to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We offer this text to pastors and religious educators to assist them in their teaching responsibilities. We recognize that some of these questions involve rather complex theological ideas. It is our hope, however, that study and discussion of the text will aid many of the Catholic faithful in our country to enrich their understanding of this mystery of the faith. -- United Sates Conference of Catholic Bishops: The Real Presence Of Jesus Christ In The Sacrament Of The Eucharist: Basic Questions And Answers​

The reality is that mockery such as is present in the quotes from your post given above is reprehensible on every level and ought to be retracted out of shame for having so seriously misrepresented the teaching of Christ and of the Catholic Church.

Sir, it is the faithful members of your own Church here at CF who are seriously misrepresenting the teaching of the Catholic Church in vigorously asserting that the bread becomes actual, physical flesh in the mass and the wine becomes actual, physical blood. I suggest that you correct their error first before attempting to yank the plank out of my eye.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There are plenty of people who have said they have seen aliens too.
And bigfoot.
You still have not offered scientific proof.

If, as many Catholic posters on this thread have asserted, the wafer in the Catholic mass becomes physical flesh and the wine becomes physical blood, all one needs to do is attend a mass and take a bit of each from the mass and have them tested for human DNA. It could hardly be more simple and it would put the question to rest.

Of course, however, the Catholic Church has backed away from that assertion and now, as MoreCoffee has explained, teaches that the bread actually does remain physically bread and the wine does remain physically wine, even though it is really and truly the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Go figure.

 

[christianmomof3]

Perhaps I've gotten biased information. Admittedly, most of the time I read about a Eucharistic miracle being spoken about within Catholic circles and scientific proof that the "red stuff" on the Host is blood. Once I was linked to a Wikipedia page regarding a several hundred year old Eucharistic miracle. The wine was actually solidified and tested positive for blood or heart tissue, or something. I forget the name, so don't jump me!

Christianmomof3: When will you stop continually making the false allegation that I said anything about scientific evidence for any apparition?

I am not sure what you are calling a false allegation. Your OP is quoted below. It specifically asks about apparitions that are confirmed with science.

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

 

[Rev Randy]

They're going to the Eucharist FOR Jesus, though.

You never hear about these miracles in Orthodoxy, perhaps because the body is mixed with the blood, and they're extremely close to Catholics. And Anglicans and Lutherans believe in the real presence, but we never have bleeding miracles. So are you saying the RCC is demonic?

Love those yes or no questions. Have you stopped beating puppies?

 

[Creech]

I have not seen any of that "scientific evidence".
Can you please post some links to it?
Were the scientists Catholic?
I don't think it is demonic.
I just think it is fake.

I agree.