What is the non Catholic view of this?

[The Liturgist]

I don't have an issue with reserving consecrated elements but doing so does create an enticement for those who wish to desecrate and profain the Christian faith to do so.

My view is that we should avoid making the mistake the Assyrian Church made in response to Muslim desecrations by not putting icons on display in their church, because even though they are not doctrinally iconoclastic, some members of the church have become opposed to icons and the result is complicating their efforts to reintroduce icons in North America. Likewise I believe the Oriental Orthodox churches, where the idea of a presanctified liturgy came from (specifically from St. Severus of Antioch, the most important theologian falsely accused by the largest number of people of being guilty of a heresy he actually anathematized, that being Monophysitism - St. Severus of Antioch was one of the leading proponents of Theopaschitism and the principle of Communicatio Idiomatum which is so important to Lutheran theology, and which is also what makes Lutheran Orthodoxy so deliciouosly Patristic-flavored, probably stopped having a presanctified liturgy after the Islamic conquest of all of their lands except Ethiopia, which I think might still have one, due to desecrations, although the Malankara Independent Syrian Church has reconstructed the Syriac Orthodox presanctified liturgy known as the Signing of the Chalice, and it also survives in the Maronite and Syriac Catholic churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East has been trying to bring it back as well, celebrating it at the monastery they tried but failed to establish in the central valley of California about a decade ago.

Using a pyx or other appropriate container, the priest could remove the presanctified elements. I have also seen a recently constructed Catholic church which has a chapel for Eucharistic Adoration with a stunning gilded tabernacle which is doubtless worth a small fortune, and it just occurred to me this is in a separate chapel with lockable doors, probably because the glass is reinforced and in this manner it would be harder to break in and steal.

I also believe newly built churches should require all people to pass through a Narthex or after the liturgy, exit via a secondary mezzanine, and ideally put a tertiary lobby on the Narthex, so that sacred icons, holy water and candles kept in the Narthex for certain services conducted there are protected by two layers of locked doors, and the Nave with its icons and the Apse where the altar and tabernacle are is protected by another, and the sacristy should only be accessible from the nave or Apse.

 

[The Liturgist]

You make some very good points about miracles.

And of course the Gospel is filled with miracles that were done as confirmation/affirmation of Christ as Messiah.

Clearly the Bible does not condone the idea of "condemn all miracles so you will always be on the safe side".

==========================================

However in Acts 17:11 Paul has his own teaching/doctrine tested by non-Christians who "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

In Gal 1:6-9 Paul says "even though WE (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what has been given - let him be accursed".

In those cases the standard of measure is not "well if they can do a miracle it must be good" -- but rather it is scripture as the measure.

In Mark 7:7-13 Jesus shows again how he measured all magesterium tradition and practice against the Word of God -- and condemned whatever was contrary to scripture.

When Moses put out his staff a miracle happened and it became a serpent. When the Pharaoh's magicians did that - those staffs also appeared to turn into serpents. The Bible does not teach that demons cannot do miracles.

Matt 24:23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘He is over here,’ do not believe him. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and will provide great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance.

Note that @Athanasias has not posted here for some time it looks like. Also, by the way, this is the Traditional Theology forum, so please remember to read the SOP, since this forum is intended as a safe space for traditional liturgical Christians, such as Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Orthodox, and other churches of that sort, just as there are safe spaces for Sabbatarians and SDA members.

 

[dzheremi]

While I'm too old to be in its target audience, I cannot put it any better than Fr. Maritius Anba Bishoy puts it in this video from Christian Youth Channel (one of the Coptic Orthodox satellite TV channels): "A faith based on miracles is not a mature faith."

We have many miracles that we believe are true in the Coptic Orthodox Church, of course, but our faith is not based on them. Rather, they confirm what we already believe. So if other churches like the Roman Catholic Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church, or various Protestant churches have their own miracles, who am I to say one thing about them one way or another? I don't believe in them, but that is beside the point, since if the presence of miracles cannot even be used to say that my own faith is true (which it can't; again, miracles confirm what we already believe -- they don't somehow establish anything for anyone who doesn't already believe), then how much less are they able to do so to 'prove' things that I already don't believe in?

This is precisely why it is so silly to get into 'miracle duels' with anyone, no matter their background or your background. To some Muslims, finding a cow or tree branches or a pattern of seeds in a tomato or whatever naturally-occurring thing that seems to spell out "Allah" if you already happen to know how to read the Arabic language and believe in Islam is a 'miracle'. I'm going to guess it's not a miracle to any of us, since we're Christians and Islam is ridiculous and not in any way salvific, no matter what your apophenia tells you.

Miracles are for the strengthening of believers, not the convincing of unbelievers. As Fr. Mauritius points out in the video, God performed many miracles in the past, and most people did not believe then, so when miracles happen today, the result is largely the same.

 

[Valletta]

OH God does miracles for all who call on him. But what makes the Catholic ones so special are they seem to be doctrinal in nature and point toward Catholic doctrine. I think your kindas dodging the issue here. Either they are false and satanical and the Catholic Church is a huge liar and needs to repent and so are those who are healed(including the medical community who approved them) or its Satanical and the Catholic Church is evil. Or they are real and the Catholic Church is right. There can be no middle ground here.

The "doctrinal" comment got me thinking. There have been all kinds of miracles, such as healings and apparitions. Many apparitions were of our Lady, the first I know of is Our Lady of the Pillar which took place while the Apostles were still alive. I wonder, were most or all of such previous miracles discounted by Protestants at the reformation? I know today that there is an Anglican shrine at the site of Our Lady of Walsingham, but perhaps no other Protestants religions accept that miracle. I wonder what the Anglican timeline was.

 

[FireDragon76]

If they are highly anti-Catholic, they probably see it as from the Devil.

Most I have known either don't know about them / don't believe in them, or they simply believe that God is also at work in religions outside their particular denomination.

It doesn't really affect Protestant epistemology either way. Protestantism is based on the Bible as the rule of faith and practice.