Eucharistic Miracles in Non-Catholic Apostolic Churches?

[ContraMundum]

I remember hearing about one of those eucharisitic miracles where the host was believed to have turned into actual flesh- and when it was tested it was found to be pig meat. Not only was this about the most blasphemous prank one could think of it would clearly have been motivated by Satan.

I struggle with a lot of claims to such manifestations because of the carnal/cannibalistic nature in which they degrade the miracle of the eucharist which is truly sufficient initself without outward signs. Obviously only the weak in faith would need such things.

Anyway, would not such a "miracle" undermine the doctrine of transubtantiation? According to the doctrine, the elements are to maintain their appearance, only the "substance" changes. If both the element and the substance were to change, this would call for a new doctrine, one not taught in scripture or the Fathers- and let's not go into what the Bible teaches about the consuming of actual human flesh!

 

[prodromos]

My favorite Eucharistic miracle is, of course, a Catholic one. It is a Catholic one because I do not know of any other Eucharistic miracles. The Eucharistic miracle I speak of is the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano.

I'm afraid I must disappoint you. This so called 'Catholic' miracle occurred under the jurisdiction of Constantinople as Lanciano was at that time part of the Roman Empire (which is often erroneously termed the Byzantine Empire)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanciano

During fall of the Western Roman Empire, Lanciano was sacked by the Goths, and was destroyed during the Lombard invasion (c. 571 AD). A new settlement was then created around a castle built by the new rulers. In 610, however, it was conquered by the Byzantines, who annexed it to the Duchy of Teate (Chieti) and allowed the trades to restart. In the late 8th century Lanciano was conquered by the Franks, who included it in the Duchy of Spoleto.​

It should be noted that the "host" was leavened bread. It wasn't until the Normans came stormin in that the Latin use of unleavened bread was forced on the churches of Southern Italy.
From the link provided it is apparent that this miracle occurred due to unbelief. Since Christ gives us His Body and Blood for us to eat and drink, it is never considered good if it actually takes the form of human flesh and blood since we cannot possibly consume it in that form. It is through God's great mercy and compassion that He gives it to us in the form of bread and wine, else we would never be able to partake.

 

[Albion]

Anyway, would not such a "miracle" undermine the doctrine of transubtantiation? According to the doctrine, the elements are to maintain their appearance, only the "substance" changes. If both the element and the substance were to change, this would call for a new doctrine

...an excellent point. What, therefore, would be the purpose of such a "miracle?"

 

[Akathist]

...an excellent point. What, therefore, would be the purpose of such a "miracle?"

As the post above yours says:

Since Christ gives us His Body and Blood for us to eat and drink, it is never considered good if it actually takes the form of human flesh and blood since we cannot possibly consume it in that form. It is through God's great mercy and compassion that He gives it to us in the form of bread and wine, else we would never be able to partake.

Its purpose is to help the Church know that there is a problem with lack of faith. That is what we described in posts above as well.

 

[WarriorAngel]

AS I did say above...
IT was due to a lack of faith.

Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.


Lanciano is in Italy.
Here are some excerpts from the link of the Op...which i dont think were read.



In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

Pictures are also available close up.
It remains incorruptible.

Also there have been other Eucharistic miracles...
Which were approved and also when a miracle f this magnitude happens, the Host is always contained as Holy and sacred so as not to corrupt the Lord's Body and Blood.
Usually in some container that is sacred.

 

[WarriorAngel]

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

More miracles....which are a testament not only to those in the Church who lack faith, but to the world who lack faith in the Eucharist.

God is ever merciful....showing us Himself when we fall or need to see...as Thomas once did.

 

[Albion]

As the post above yours says:

Its purpose is to help the Church know that there is a problem with lack of faith. That is what we described in posts above as well.

That's what was claimed. I asked how this would be accomplished. How would "a lack of faith" be countered? Faith in what? Real Presence? OK, but the church was teaching Transubstantiation, you say, and these miracles refute Transubstantiation.

 

[prodromos]

That's what was claimed. I asked how this would be accomplished. How would "a lack of faith" be countered? Faith in what? Real Presence? OK, but the church was teaching Transubstantiation, you say, and these miracles refute Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic churches 'analysis' of the real presence. Just because this particular "changing of substance" (aka transubstantiation) did not occur along the same lines as their doctrine specifically describes, I don't follow how it in any way refutes or undermines their doctrine. Some people need to see with their physical eyes what others are able to accept on faith. Bread and wine was seen to physically change into flesh and blood. It changed substance visibly, just as the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation claims happens invisibly.

 

[Albion]

Just because this particular "changing of substance" (aka transubstantiation) did not occur along the same lines as their doctrine specifically describes, I don't follow how it in any way refutes or undermines their doctrine.

As was noted by someone before me, if the APPEARANCES of bread and wine are eliminated by the "miracle," that is contrary to the Roman Catholic church's teaching about what the sacrament is all about.

This may not be a major point for those who want "proof" and magic in order to believe. For them, the more fabulous the vision, the better. Nevertheless, for the accidents to change along with the substance is a refuation of Transubstantation, and it is worth mentioning that those whose belief is supposed to be strengthened by these "miracles" are actually witnessing something that, if believed, refutes it instead.

Some people need to see with their physical eyes what others are able to accept on faith. Bread and wine was seen to physically change into flesh and blood. It changed substance visibly, just as the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation claims happens invisibly.

But, if you know about Transubstantation, the bread and wine are supposed to retain all the exterior appearances of bread and wine., These "miracles" miraculously show that this is NOT what is happening at the Eucharist. IOW the "miracle" can be an assertion of the Real Presence but at the same time it is equally a denial of Transubstantiation.

Now why, do you suppose, a miracle would take place in order to refute what the witness is told to believe by his church?

 

[Akathist]

But the EO are not Roman Catholic so I don't see how our miracle would have much of an impact on their beliefs.

Further, it is just fine if an EO miracle defutes a CC church doctrine.

Do you perhaps have some confusion that the Eastern Orthodox do not follow all of the same beliefs as the CC?

 

[Albion]

But the EO are not Roman Catholic so I don't see how our miracle would have much of an impact on their beliefs.

Further, it is just fine if an EO miracle defutes a CC church doctrine.

Do you perhaps have some confusion that the Eastern Orthodox do not follow all of the same beliefs as the CC?

The thread began with RC "miracles," and I have responded with that in mind. When EO posters join in, of course I assume that they will disassociate themselves from Transubstantiation, for example, or not, according to their own beliefs. I continue to speak to the matter of the miracles themselves.

 

[Akathist]

The thread began with RC "miracles," and I have responded with that in mind. When EO posters join in, of course I assume that they will disassociate themselves from Transubstantiation, for example, or not, according to their own beliefs. I continue to speak to the matter of the miracles themselves.

The title of the thread says "Eucharistic Miracles in Non-Catholic Apostolic Churches? " So, it is not about Catholic Miracles.

I don't know any EO who believes in transubstantiation. We believe in the Real Presence but consider how a mystery to be treasured.

Therefore, no EO miracle would have any bearing on the doctrine of transubstanitation, unless someone was trying to defute a nonEO belief.

 

[Albion]

The title of the thread says "Eucharistic Miracles in Non-Catholic Apostolic Churches? " So, it is not about Catholic Miracles.

Right. The OP was from a Roman Catholic who presented material about miracles that occurred in Western Europe and have been acclaimed by Roman Catholics. The discussion mainly has been about these particular miracles, although the question was asked if there are similar miracles in other communions.

I don't know any EO who believes in transubstantiation. We believe in the Real Presence but consider how a mystery to be treasured.

I know that.

Therefore, no EO miracle would have any bearing on the doctrine of transubstanitation, unless someone was trying to defute a nonEO belief.

That is correct, but at no time did anyone say that EO believe in Transubstantiation, so there is no issue there at all. Other Christians who are represented here DO believe in Transubstantiation, however.

 

[WarriorAngel]

That's what was claimed. I asked how this would be accomplished. How would "a lack of faith" be countered? Faith in what? Real Presence? OK, but the church was teaching Transubstantiation, you say, and these miracles refute Transubstantiation.

Let me get this straight...
God shows a miracle through His Body and Blood, but you are saying the doctrine, which you probably do not understand evidently, is in error. It still happened.

Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic churches 'analysis' of the real presence. Just because this particular "changing of substance" (aka transubstantiation) did not occur along the same lines as their doctrine specifically describes, I don't follow how it in any way refutes or undermines their doctrine. Some people need to see with their physical eyes what others are able to accept on faith. Bread and wine was seen to physically change into flesh and blood. It changed substance visibly, just as the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation claims happens invisibly.

 

[Albion]

Let me get this straight...

OK. More than happy to help.

God shows a miracle through His Body and Blood, but you are saying the doctrine, which you probably do not understand evidently, is in error. It still happened.

It is you who has already admitted to not being able to understand, but that aside, here's what you are not grasping.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation--which I assume that you believe in, so correct me if that is not the case--not only says that the body and blood are present but that the bread and wine cease to exist while continuing to appear as bread and wine.

These miracles, however, show us the DISAPPEARANCE of the bread and wine. When the host, for example, turns into what LOOKS LIKE flesh, that is the opposite of what Transubstantation says happens, i.e. that the APPEARANCES of bread and wine are to remain.

So it is as simple as this: why would a miracle that is supposed to be happening in order to strengthen the faith of the onlooker actually refute the belief that he is supposed to believe in?

If you do not understand, let me know what part of your own belief system is escaping you, and I'll try to explain it another way.

 

[prodromos]

This is the problem with defining things which are indefinable, which is the main issue we Orthodox have with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I still don't believe you have an argument though Albion. The mere fact that the body and blood were not in a form which the faithful could consume (the whole point of the Eucharist) makes it pretty plain that what occurred was not the sacrament as described by the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation.

John

 

[ContraMundum]

This is the problem with defining things which are indefinable, which is the main issue we Orthodox have with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I still don't believe you have an argument though Albion. The mere fact that the body and blood were not in a form which the faithful could consume (the whole point of the Eucharist) makes it pretty plain that what occurred was not the sacrament as described by the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation.

John

I think Albion's point is exactly that: if the elements changed into actual flesh, then what is the point of the miracle? We already agree that this would invalidate the sacrament- but what would it be "proving"?

 

[prodromos]

I think Albion's point is exactly that: if the elements changed into actual flesh, then what is the point of the miracle?

The bread and wine change into the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ every Divine Liturgy. That is a core Orthodox belief.

We already agree that this would invalidate the sacrament- but what would it be "proving"?

We have stated it plainly enough. Every instance I know of has been to correct the doubt of someone who should have known better.
For example, a priest in Romania began to have doubts about the presence of God's grace in the Holy Mysteries of his church after visiting a renowned and pious nun who had remained on the Julian Calendar while most of the Church in Romania had changed to the Gregorian. The nun claimed that the Churches on the new calendar were without grace, and so began his doubt, first being manifest in the loaves he blessed quickly going rancid while the loaves blessed by the other priests remained fresh for a long time. It was for his benefit that the bread and wine changed to visible flesh and blood, and from that point on he repented of his doubt.
Every eucharistic miracle I have ever heard of was under similar circumstances.

John

 

[prodromos]

Looking at the site linked to in the OP, I find it interesting that prior to the schism there is virtually no occurrence of such miracles in the West yet after the schism there is a veritable explosion of them. Could this be a testimony to the lack of faith brought about by scholasticism in the Western Church?

They also get their facts wrong about St Mary of Egypt which should not even be listed under the title of Eucharistic Miracles.

 

[Albion]

The bread and wine change into the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ every Divine Liturgy. That is a core Orthodox belief.
We have stated it plainly enough.

I think that the problem here is that several different views on the matter of Real Presence are getting mixed together. The thread began with an RC person talking about "miracles" that have affected RC history. There was some response to that. Then some EO people began posting as though the EO view of Real Presence ought to be included and understood by us all. While that is fair, it doesn't mean that discussing the RC view is wrong to engage in.

When Transubstantation came up, the reference was to RCs and their belief as it might be affected by acceptance of these particular miracles. Yes, the OP asked for other people of other churches to comment on similar miracles, if any, that they accept and believe in, but the point of comparison still was, undeniably and logically, with these particular RC miracles.

The RC view is that the substance changes BUT THAT THE ACCIDENTS--APPEARANCE, FEEL, SMELL, ETC. -- DON'T CHANGE BUT REMAIN THOSE OF BREAD AND WINE.


These miracles show the ACCIDENTS CHANGING!


That means, as Contramundum first noted, that the effect of the miracles would be to DISprove Transubstantiation as RCs are supposed to believe it...and DISprove it to those people (RCs) who acclaim these miracles as genuine and meant for them and their fellow Roman Catholics.