How to convince R. Catholics that the ('host' wafer) is not Christs flesh and bone? (2)

[Tyndale]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "How to convince R. Catholics that the ('host' wafer) is not Christs flesh and bone?"

 

[Musa80]

Well now we know how to get another "Tyndale" post. Let's get ready for another round of 1000.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How to convince R. Catholics that the ('host' wafer) is not Christs flesh and bone? How can we convince Roman Catholics that the ('host'/wafer) is simply a wafer and it doesn't mystically transform into Christ's actual bone, when a Priest commands it to?

Hmm maybe we can answer this question . or perhaps it is one of those questions with no true answer .. but only time will tell . RC Wafer convincing thread Round Two! *ding ding*

 

[laconicstudent]

I'm disappointed no one addressed the video I offered on Hemostasis or the clotting cascade. Ah well.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

i must've flipped past that when i was at work cannot watch vids at work .

many a time i'd come back on break and there were five+ pages of updates to examine .

apologies .

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Just something for some to think about. Eucharistic miracles..

There have been wafers that have turned into corporeal blood and flesh.


Sienna, Italy -- August 17, 1730
Consecrated Hosts remain perfectly preserved for over 250 years. Rigorous scientific experiments have not been able to explain this phenomena.

Amsterdam, Holland 1345
Eucharist thrown into fire overnight miraculously is unscathed.
Blanot, France -- March 31, 1331
The Eucharist falls out of a woman's mouth onto an altar rail cloth. The priest tries to recover the Host but all that remains is a large spot of blood the same size and dimensions as the wafer.

Bolsena-Orvieta, Italy
Again, a priest has difficulties believing in the Real Presence, and blood begins seeping out of the Host upon consecration. Because of this miracle, Pope Urban IV commissioned the feast of Corpus Christi, which is still celebrated today.


Lanciano, Italy -- 8th century A.D.
A priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This miracle has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB! Histological micrographs are shown.

Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - (Zenit)
"Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE2ytX-mUJw

John 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (John 6:55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.)


Just some info. Lets try to keep the bashing down

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm disappointed no one addressed the video I offered on Hemostasis or the clotting cascade. Ah well.

but thinking of it i recall a number of things i said that weren't responded to . perhaps those can come to the forefront now for everyone .

just a suggestion tho

bless .

 

[Albion]

Just something for some to think about. Eucharistic miracles..

There have been wafers that have turned into corporeal blood and flesh.

It probably is possible to preserve bread for 500 years, but even if it were the case that some Eucharistic bread miraculously turned into real flesh, that wouldn't have anything at all to do with the Real Presence. It would be a miracle, but no more than roses blooming in the snow or weeping icons, etc. The Transubstantiation theory is that it remains bread to all intents and purposes EXCEPT that it is actually Christ's body in a way that we cannot perceive empirically. IOW the appearance stays, the substance changes but not in any way that we can demonstrate. But if it changes into flesh, bleeds, an/or is verifiably meat according to a scientific test, that's not the claim made by the church about what is suppoed to happen at Mass.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Wafers like Manna . on the next episode of .

mysteries of the universe .

 

[Rhamiel]

It probably is possible to preserve bread for 500 years, but even if it were the case that some Eucharistic bread miraculously turned into real flesh, that wouldn't have anything at all to do with the Real Presence. It would be a miracle, but no more than roses blooming in the snow or weeping icons, etc. The Transubstantiation theory is that it remains bread to all intents and purposes EXCEPT that it is actually Christ's body in a way that we cannot perceive empirically. IOW the appearance stays, the substance changes but not in any way that we can demonstrate. But if it changes into flesh, bleeds, an/or is verifiably meat according to a scientific test, that's not the claim made by the church about what is suppoed to happen at Mass.

I would say that if the Eucharistic miracle is from God it proves the Apostolic view of the Eucharist, held by the RC and EO, now we know that the devil will use fake miacles to confuse people and lead people away from God.
If the Eucharist does not turn into the Body of Christ, God would not give Roman Catholics signs of the true Bodlily nature of the Eucharist by changing the accidents as well as the substance, it would be like a father using a metaphore with a small child, the child getting confused, and then the father goes out and buys big symbol of it, like a little kid hears a dad say "a mans home is his castle" and then thinks the father really has some kind of fudal title, then the next day the father comes home with a big sword and a suit of armour, sounds like something from a family sitcom, well that is how it would be if the miracle was from God and the RC view of the Eucharist was false, God would not send miracles to further confuse us Catholics

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
I would say that if the Eucharistic miracle is from God it proves the Apostolic view of the Eucharist, held by the RC and EO, now we know that the devil will use fake miacles to confuse people and lead people away from God.

Well, just color me "cynical/skeptical", just as ole doubting Thomas was in the Gospels.

Rotherham] John 20:25 The other disciples, therefore, were saying unto him--We have seen the Lord!
But, he, said unto them--Except I see, in his hands, the print of the nails, and press my finger into the print of the nails, and press my hand into his side, in nowise will I believe.

 

[Tangible]

Well, just color me "cynical/skeptical", just as ole doubting Thomas was in the Gospels.

Rotherham] John 20:25 The other disciples, therefore, were saying unto him--We have seen the Lord!
But, he, said unto them--Except I see, in his hands, the print of the nails, and press my finger into the print of the nails, and press my hand into his side, in nowise will I believe.

LLOJ I'll color you well on your way ...

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[Albion]

I would say that if the Eucharistic miracle is from God it proves the Apostolic view of the Eucharist, held by the RC and EO

I wouldn't...because there is no connection. If an icon weeps, does that show us that God turns oil paint into a bodily secretion? I don't think very many people would conclude that.

So also with Communion bread. It could be seen as indicating that the Communion is important, but that's aboaut all. And this assumes, strictly for the purposes of the discussion, that these so-called miracles are not fakes, which we cannot really say.

If the Eucharist does not turn into the Body of Christ, God would not give Roman Catholics signs of the true Bodlily nature of the Eucharist by changing the accidents as well as the substance,

If God didn't want the Mormons to locate their church in the valley of the Salt Lake, he wouldn't have given them the sign of it being his will by the miracle of the Gulls and Locusts. (or so they say with equal logic).

well that is how it would be if the miracle was from God and the RC view of the Eucharist was false, God would not send miracles to further confuse us Catholics

It could be nothing more than that Catholics need such alleged miracles in order to believe. They flock to them and believe, even when their own church has said that the events have not been verified as being real miracles.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ I'll color you well on your way ...

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Wiseguy!

 

[Rhamiel]

the point was, God would not send a miracle to support a false teaching
so either the Eucharist is really the Body of Christ and these mircles of the Host looking like flesh and blood are from God
or the Eucharist is not really the Body of Christ, and these miracles are fake and from satan

 

[Rhamiel]

It could be nothing more than that Catholics need such alleged miracles in order to believe. They flock to them and believe, even when their own church has said that the events have not been verified as being real miracles.

wow that was rather harsh
anyway, even under this understanding, I do not think that God would use Eucharistic miracles in such a way, it would only further devotion to the Euchrist, there are many other types of signs that He has used over the years, healings, bi-location of holy men and women, visons of angels and saints, incorruptable bodies, if the apostolic teaching on the Eucharist was false, then He would not send us such signs, God corrects His Children.
Are there any miracles that have happened in Protestant Churches that show the Eucharist is not really the Body of Christ?

 

[Albion]

wow that was rather harsh

There's no need to see it that way IMO. It's a speculation that's been made by many people for a long time and I did nothing more than pass it along as one possible explanation while we are trying to come up with one.

Why, it is asked, do Catholics have all these miracles and even treat non-miracles (as defined by their own church) as if they were miracles? One guess that has been made is that they need them somehow, that's all. You know, Catholic writers have reinforced this idea themselves, pointing out that all the famous miracles (Lourdes, Fatima, etc.) have occurred in coutries that were traditionally Catholic but, at the time of the miracle, had become rather lax. The obvious meaning there is that the miracle is an inspiration intended to revitalize religious life or devotion.

anyway, even under this understanding, I do not think that God would use Eucharistic miracles in such a way, it would only further devotion to the Euchrist,

So what you are saying, I take it, is "Why would he encourage in this way devotion to the sacrament on the part of people who wrongly believe in Transubstantation?" That seems reasonable to ask, I agree.

Are there any miracles that have happened in Protestant Churches that show the Eucharist is not really the Body of Christ?

Why would there be a miracle -- or COULD there be a miracle -- that DISproves some particular devotion to the sacrament? I don't think that makes sense, really. Would God make a miracle that diminishes anyone's attachment to him?

And the flip side of that "needs" coin is obvious--the Protestants are confident in the Bible's revelation and don't look to the same kind of evocative signs that Catholics get excited over.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
And the flip side of that "needs" coin is obvious--the Protestants are confident in the Bible's revelation and don't look to the same kind of evocative signs that Catholics get excited over.

The Jews are still seeking signs to this day me thinks

Luke 11:29 Of the yet throngs being convened, He begins to be saying "the generation this, wicked, is a Sign seeking and a Sign not shall be being given to it except the Sign of Jonah the Prophet.
30 For according as became Jonah a Sign to the Ninevites, thus shall also the Son of the Man to the generation this.

 

[Rhamiel]

Why would there be a miracle -- or COULD there be a miracle -- that DISproves some particular devotion to the sacrament? I don't think that makes sense, really. Would God make a miracle that diminishes anyone's attachment to him?

And the flip side of that "needs" coin is obvious--the Protestants are confident in the Bible's revelation and don't look to the same kind of evocative signs that Catholics get excited over

the confidance of Protestants in general seems to be over stated, i have known many who after reading the Bible have been pleaged about doubts about their denominations understanding of the Eucharist, also, how would such a miricle happen? easy, someone venerates the Eucharist, and have a vision of Jesus where he explains that it is just symbolic,