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

[Root of Jesse]

Hi Mike to Michael,
Since you say you are sincere in your line of questioning, I'm giving you a link which will take you to an in depth explanation of what really occurred during Fatima. Please don't think that I dislike Catholics. I love the Catholic people, I just do not like any institution which withholds it's people from a direct line to communication with their God and a personal relationship with Him.
I believe you will find this article of great interest: Are apparitions of Mary, such as Lady Fatima, true messages from God? <-- link

Then you must love the Catholic Church because we have a direct line of communication with Christ available to us every day...

 

[Root of Jesse]

NO. The Lord comes first and last, no one before or after him. Mary holds no place in my worship of the triune God.

Same here. God first, Mary reflects us back to God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Same here prodromos.
Have you been catholic?
I was for years.

If you were, and you feel the way stated, I'd say you were poorly catechised. This is not what the Church does, or teaches.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's correct. If this had happened, there would have been worldwide physical consequences. All that we're actually talking about, then, is a "miracle" that's nothing more than a mass optical illusion--if that. And what kind of a miracle is that?

And by the way, the various claims about bread turning into babies before the eyes of worshippers at Mass or bleeding hosts is a contradiction to the Catholic theory of the Eucharist (transubstantiation), not a confirmation of it which most Catholics suppose these kinds of miracles to be. The meaning of Transubstantiation is that the accidents remain the same while the substance changes. So here we have "miracles" that undo the miracle that God supposedly creates at every Mass.

Sorta like the star appearing in the sky over Bethlehem and nobody noticing, except a few foreigners?

 

[Root of Jesse]

BTW, Catholics expected their prayers to lead to the conversion of Russia to Roman Catholicism, not Russian Orthodoxy. And the conversion was to bring about world peace. Neither of these has happened. Just as with the claims that bleeding hosts have been scientifically verified and that the sun actually danced at Fatima, not only is it unproven that such events occurred, so are the claims that they've been proven.

Has anyone declared that the Secrets of Fatima have been completed and finished?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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)
​

Amen! Well said.

 

[Stryder06]

Christ says otherwise, as does the book of Revelation.

Parables and symbolism, something your church has yet to recognize properly. You're so keen on what Christ plainly said, tell me why is it that you don't recognize His words when He said: "Give place, for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth"?

And notice how the souls under the altar are told to rest. Please don't tell me you think that all the souls in heaven are literally under the altar taking a break?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

The bleeding Eucharist is Christ's temporary revelation that what we state, that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, is true.

BTW, we also have Saints that report that they see the Christ child walking on the altar at the time of the Consecration.

 

[Stryder06]

Sorta like the star appearing in the sky over Bethlehem and nobody noticing, except a few foreigners?

They noticed because they were looking for it. Anyone else could have done the same. That's what happens when you study the scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

If it's credibility you want, you should look at the process the Church uses to determine said credibility. In fact, she often times, at first, denies the veracity. Has been true in all cases. In fact, Medugorje has still not been accepted, and may not be.

 

[Stryder06]

Has anyone declared that the Secrets of Fatima have been completed and finished?

Certainly the Lord will do nothing without making clear his secret to his servants, the prophets.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

As if the Bible event isn't a miracle?

 

[Stryder06]

Then you must love the Catholic Church because we have a direct line of communication with Christ available to us every day...

I'm sorry, I didn't know that prayer was the sole property of the Catholic church. When did that happen?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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!

Bovine excrement. The tilma image is not painted. Has been copied, but not to the detail of the original.

 

[Stryder06]

Same here. God first, Mary reflects us back to God.

Here I was thinking that was the job of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Stryder06]

We're not talking about statues weeping. Or Mary's face in toast. We're talking about substantial, repeat apparitions, and enduring Eucharistic miracles.

The tilma with Our Lady of Guadalupe has existed for 500 + years. The Lanciano Eucharistic miracle happened, and continues to exist 600 years later.

I'm going to have to look those up

Why only to Catholics? We're the only ones who revere Mary and the Eucharist the way it's supposed to be.

So your reverence to Mary is why you're privileged to see these manifestations?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

It ain't cannibalism if we're eating the body of God.

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?).

I've shown you the difference between tradition and Tradition, and you obstinately refuse to realize it.

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.

I think the Lamb slain but standing is a miracle. So are stigmata. The few times stigmatists have been evidenced, it's typically seen that they were that close to Christ Himself.

 

[Stryder06]

It ain't cannibalism if we're eating the body of God.

If you're eating flesh and blood it's cannibalism.

I've shown you the difference between tradition and Tradition, and you obstinately refuse to realize it.

I'm not refusing to realize it. I just don't make the distinction when I type. I was hoping by context you could tell what I was referring to. Either way it doesn't take away from what I said. The Jews had their holy Tradition much the same as your church does now. That Tradition was held above the word of God and lead to them missing out on His first coming. Many will miss out on the second one as well for the same reason.

I think the Lamb slain but standing is a miracle. So are stigmata. The few times stigmatists have been evidenced, it's typically seen that they were that close to Christ Himself.

Every miracle I read from Christ brought healing and relief to suffering. Stigmata, from what I understand, is ridiculously painful. To think that God would put something like that upon one of His children as a "sign" or "miracle" is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Have not seen anyone do what you say here. But there are instances when bread became actual flesh and blood. Most often, not.

 

[sunlover1]

If you were, and you feel the way stated, I'd say you were poorly catechised. This is not what the Church does, or teaches.

Except that I was taken to classes
weekly for many years.
All those years and never given
a bible or encouraged to read one
NO Bible reading by any of us in
the classes all of those years.
Cmon!

Not even a Bible in the church
classrooms..
It's common knowledge Jesse,
that the RCC did not encourage
Bible study, Here's an article
from a RCC Site:

Why Don't Catholics Read the Bible
[FONT=Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif]Its true that many Evangelicals know their Bible upside down and backwards, and compared to them Catholics sometimes seem ignorant of the Bible. But that’s only an appearance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif]The truth is simply that Catholics and Evangelicals use the Bible in different ways and therefore have different kinds of Bible knowledge. Evangelicals use the Bible as a source book for doctrine and right moral teaching, and that’s good. 2 Timothy 3.16 says the Scriptures are ‘useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.’ Evangelicals also use the Bible for personal devotions and inspiration. This too is Biblical. Psalm 119.27 says, ‘Let me understand the teaching of your precepts; then will I meditate on your wonders.’[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif]Ordinary Catholics might not be so adept at quoting chapter and verse, but they do know and use Scripture regularly. Its just that they use it in a different way. For a Catholic, Scripture is not so much a book to be studied as a book to worship with. (Ps. 119.7) For Catholics the Bible is almost always used in the context of worship. Did you know that a survey was done to check the amount of Scripture used in the Catholic Mass? The Catholic service was almost 30% Scripture. When the same writer checked his local Bible-based Evangelical church he was surprised to find the total amount of Scripture read took just 3% of the service.[/FONT]

And that was my experience.
No Bible study