What do y'all make of these "Eucharistic miracles" associated with the Catholic Church

[Anglicanorthodoxy]

What do y'all make of these claims that bread/hosts used in Catholic communion have sometimes turned into human flesh? Here's an article
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-Jesus-Christ
They call them "Eucharistic miracles." Catholics say that this proves the Christ lives in the Eucharist. I'm very skeptical of this sort of thing, and I don't understand why they make such wacky claims.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think many respond similarly to how they respond to the "miracles" at Benny Hinn crusades.

 

[arapahoepark]

Maybe a priest cut off his finger....reminds me of that Wendy's chili fiasco. I guess miracles are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[RamistThomist]

What do y'all make of these claims that bread/hosts used in Catholic communion have sometimes turned into human flesh? Here's an article
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-Jesus-Christ
They call them "Eucharistic miracles." Catholics say that this proves the Christ lives in the Eucharist. I'm very skeptical of this sort of thing, and I don't understand why they make such wacky claims.

Miracles are usually good things. I'd be creeped out if human flesh (independent of a body?) appeared before me.

 

[TylerRay]

II Thessalonians 2:3-10:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

 

[Dachaser]

What do y'all make of these claims that bread/hosts used in Catholic communion have sometimes turned into human flesh? Here's an article
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-Jesus-Christ
They call them "Eucharistic miracles." Catholics say that this proves the Christ lives in the Eucharist. I'm very skeptical of this sort of thing, and I don't understand why they make such wacky claims.

I would tend to view them in same vein as the ones at fatima, as either satanic, or just blind faith.

 

[dudley]

I am an ex Roman catholic as many know. I have been a Presbyterian, a reformed protestant for many years now. Regarding the Lords Supper I now believe the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is repugnant to the true nature of the sacrament of the Lords Supper as is the ritualistic Roman Catholic mass! It has also led to so many superstitious practices. One is the belief in Eucharistic miracles. “Eucharistic miracles,” plus many, many others, have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, or with the spreading of the gospel. When we assess each one and let the light of Scripture shine upon it, it becomes evident that none of them are beneficial to the body of Christ, but are either demonically-inspired tricks to confuse and seduce people into believing something that is false, or are just flatly untrue stories that have been made up by those who put stumbling blocks in the path of those who might be seeking after the true God of the Bible.

Just because the name of Jesus Christ is invoked does not mean that the person or persons “worshipping” as hosted in a piece of bread is repugnant to the true nature of the Lords Supper not are they focusing on the true Jesus, nor does it mean they even know Him. Jesus is not brought down from heaven to enter into a piece of bread, as the Catholic Church claims. Such an idea has no basis in Scripture and, in fact, is flatly contradicted.

I believe as a Presbyterian Christ’s presence in the Supper but as spiritual for the supper is spiritual food for the soul

I believe as Calvin taught is spiritual food for the soul, not carnal food for the body. According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, what Zwingli taught). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify, transubstantiation taught by the Roman catholic church.. Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

Supposed “eucharistic miracles” are often pointed to by Roman Catholics as evidence for the “real presence” and/or transubstantiation in the Eucharist. Most of the claimed eucharistic miracles involved one or both of the elements miraculously being turned into literal blood or literal human flesh, that is repugnant superstitious non sense.

 

[Dachaser]

I am an ex Roman catholic as many know. I have been a Presbyterian, a reformed protestant for many years now. Regarding the Lords Supper I now believe the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is repugnant to the true nature of the sacrament of the Lords Supper as is the ritualistic Roman Catholic mass! It has also led to so many superstitious practices. One is the belief in Eucharistic miracles. “Eucharistic miracles,” plus many, many others, have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, or with the spreading of the gospel. When we assess each one and let the light of Scripture shine upon it, it becomes evident that none of them are beneficial to the body of Christ, but are either demonically-inspired tricks to confuse and seduce people into believing something that is false, or are just flatly untrue stories that have been made up by those who put stumbling blocks in the path of those who might be seeking after the true God of the Bible.

Just because the name of Jesus Christ is invoked does not mean that the person or persons “worshipping” as hosted in a piece of bread is repugnant to the true nature of the Lords Supper not are they focusing on the true Jesus, nor does it mean they even know Him. Jesus is not brought down from heaven to enter into a piece of bread, as the Catholic Church claims. Such an idea has no basis in Scripture and, in fact, is flatly contradicted.

I believe as a Presbyterian Christ’s presence in the Supper but as spiritual for the supper is spiritual food for the soul

I believe as Calvin taught is spiritual food for the soul, not carnal food for the body. According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, what Zwingli taught). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify, transubstantiation taught by the Roman catholic church.. Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

Supposed “eucharistic miracles” are often pointed to by Roman Catholics as evidence for the “real presence” and/or transubstantiation in the Eucharist. Most of the claimed eucharistic miracles involved one or both of the elements miraculously being turned into literal blood or literal human flesh, that is repugnant superstitious non sense.

The Lord would not be doing any kind of miracles such as that in the mass, as that would be Him testifying to the truth of the sacrament and of the theology of the Church of Rome, which would not be possible, as it holds to another false Gospel.

 

[Herald]

What do y'all make of these claims that bread/hosts used in Catholic communion have sometimes turned into human flesh? Here's an article
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-Jesus-Christ
They call them "Eucharistic miracles." Catholics say that this proves the Christ lives in the Eucharist. I'm very skeptical of this sort of thing, and I don't understand why they make such wacky claims.

Khater,

Simply put, Transubstantiation (the view that the bread turns into Christ's body, and the wine into Christ's blood) is unscriptural. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 makes it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ considered the Lord's Supper as a remembrance:

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

The sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross was a once-for-all-time sacrifice, making "Eucharistic miracles" unnecessary, as well as injurious to those partaking of such a ceremony. Any attempt to offer up Christ as a sacrifice again is a refutation of scripture:

Hebrews 10:11-14 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

 

[Dachaser]

Khater,

Simply put, Transubstantiation (the view that the bread turns into Christ's body, and the wine into Christ's blood) is unscriptural. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 makes it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ considered the Lord's Supper as a remembrance:

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

The sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross was a once-for-all-time sacrifice, making "Eucharistic miracles" unnecessary, as well as injurious to those partaking of such a ceremony. Any attempt to offer up Christ as a sacrifice again is a refutation of scripture:

Hebrews 10:11-14 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

The Church of Rome claims that the mass is not re sacrificing Jesus each time that it is taken, but how could it be anything else though? And their sacramental grace system really does trample the blood of the Son of God who died for our sins, as they are denying that Jesus paid the full price needed to save us.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think the post-V2 guys say they are re-presenting. Not sure how that escapes the difficulty.

 

[ZackF]

I use to be into these "miracles" in my RC days. Sad. A few questions to ourselves ought to put this to rest. Do they make sense? Is turning bread into a hunk of meat consistent with the New Testament record? Should we pray for that to happen?

Junk that stuff and move on as I wish I would have many years earlier. Christ is at the right hand of the Father interceding for His people and not about the world bleeding in small random chunks.

 

[RamistThomist]

Let's assume for the moment that something supernatural happened. What of it? A "miracle" and the interpretation of what it means aren't always the same thing. Further, what would a chunk of flesh look like? Which part of the human body is the chunk of flesh from?

 

[earl40]

Let's assume for the moment that something supernatural happened. What of it?

It would mean that God did something.

 

[RamistThomist]

It would mean that God did something.

But even then that doesn't say much. As Vos taught us, Revelation interprets redemption.

God did something.
or God allowed Satan to do something.
or (most likely) God sent a deluding spirit to them.

 

[earl40]

But even then that doesn't say much. As Vos taught us, Revelation interprets redemption.

God did something.
or God allowed Satan to do something.
or (most likely) God sent a deluding spirit to them.

I agree in that I believe scripture teaches miracles have ceased....completely. Also I do not believe Satan can perform miracles the way Jesus or the apostles did. Nicodemus theology was spot on here

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

 

[arapahoepark]

I agree in that I believe scripture teaches miracles have ceased....completely. Also I do not believe Satan can perform miracles the way Jesus or the apostles did. Nicodemus theology was spot on here

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

I have heard that you and Rev. Winzer had some interesting views on such things. Would you mind explaining more perhaps? I have not kept up, regrettably. Also do define miracle. I was just about to ask Rev. Winzer and then he left
Thanks!

 

[RamistThomist]

I agree in that I believe scripture teaches miracles have ceased....completely. Also I do not believe Satan can perform miracles the way Jesus or the apostles did. Nicodemus theology was spot on here

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

I don't believe miracles ceased, but I also believe miracles have a specific theological term, which content I don't impute to these strange happenings at Rome.

I don't think Nicodemus is infallible at this point. And in any case, God says he will give a strong delusion to unbelievers in the last time. It's God doing it, but I hesitate to say "God is with them" in the redemptive sense.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have heard that you and Rev. Winzer had some interesting views on such things. Would you ind explaining more perhaps? I have not kept up, regrettably. Also do define miracle. I was jjst about to ask Rev. Winzer and then he left
Thanks!

Defining "miracle" is key. He is defining miracle in such a way that it is positive theologically and can't happen anymore. I don't define miracle that way (and I don't think many do). Long story short, these aren't "miracles" in the sense that the term is being used. If someone wants to insist that miracle means supernatural, well, there is no reason for me to continue arguing the point.

Ironically, Rome actually has pretty strict standards on what counts as a "miracle" (most don't make it).

 

[earl40]

I have heard that you and Rev. Winzer had some interesting views on such things. Would you mind explaining more perhaps? I have not kept up, regrettably. Also do define miracle. I was just about to ask Rev. Winzer and then he left
Thanks!

I would define a miracle as a supernatural act of God which can be done directly by Him, or done by Him through other people.

This is why I answered Jacob the way I did concerning Rome and their claim of false miracles. Also as I said earlier Nicodemus was "spot on" because the miracles performed by Jesus and the apostles attested that God was indeed with them.

 

[earl40]

I was just about to ask Rev. Winzer and then he left

Sad to say it would take a "miracle" for Rev. Winzer to come back.

 

[RamistThomist]

Sad to say it would take a "miracle" for Rev. Winzer to come back.

Well done.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

A comment from the article: "I'm getting a little sick of trying to track down the sources of this story, which has been repeated for years. If DNA comparison has been done and a match confirmed it is, bar none, the most significant discovery in the history of science. So why can't we get a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal? Where are the published methods and results? Where are the micrographs we can all review? This kind of thing can't be handled by dilettantes and credulous journalists. Matching DNA between eucharistic miracles is (if you'll pardon the metaphor) the Holy Grail. It's game, set, and match in debates with so-called skeptics. To merely make these claims without precisely detailing their sources, the provenance of samples, methodology, etc. risks scandal, because we'd be perpetuating falsehoods that would discredit the Church and make all Catholics look foolish."

I think it's pretty safe to call hoax on all such claims.

 

[Rich Koster]

II Thessalonians 2:3-10:

Tyler, you beat me to it.

 

[Dachaser]

A comment from the article: "I'm getting a little sick of trying to track down the sources of this story, which has been repeated for years. If DNA comparison has been done and a match confirmed it is, bar none, the most significant discovery in the history of science. So why can't we get a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal? Where are the published methods and results? Where are the micrographs we can all review? This kind of thing can't be handled by dilettantes and credulous journalists. Matching DNA between eucharistic miracles is (if you'll pardon the metaphor) the Holy Grail. It's game, set, and match in debates with so-called skeptics. To merely make these claims without precisely detailing their sources, the provenance of samples, methodology, etc. risks scandal, because we'd be perpetuating falsehoods that would discredit the Church and make all Catholics look foolish."

I think it's pretty safe to call hoax on all such claims.

The "chance" of there having been real miracles performed would be about the same as all of those so called healings in services done by those like a Benny Hinn.

 

[dudley]

The Lord would not be doing any kind of miracles such as that in the mass, as that would be Him testifying to the truth of the sacrament and of the theology of the Church of Rome, which would not be possible, as it holds to another false Gospel.

Amen, I agree with you completely!

 

[TylerRay]

For those who doubt that such "miracles" could be done in the context of a false religion, how do you explain the coming of the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition being "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders?"

 

[earl40]

For those who doubt that such "miracles" could be done in the context of a false religion, how do you explain the coming of the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition being "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders?"

So I take it you believe supernatural acts can be done by people who God is not with?

 

[RamistThomist]

So I take it you believe supernatural acts can be done by people who God is not with?

Doctrine of Providence. God allows stuff to happen. The "supernatural" isn't a force independent of God.

 

[TylerRay]

So I take it you believe supernatural acts can be done by people who God is not with?

You'll have to define supernatural. Are demons supernatural beings?