Eucharistic Miracles

[ThomasPeter]

what do prodestents say about Eucharistic miracles? how do they say they happen? what can we sayto that? side question- i have noticed a lot of time sthat the bloodtype given has been AB and maybe AB+; do you know if this is always the case? thank you
tom

[Adeodatus]

I don't suppose many Protestants have heard of Eucharistic miracles, and so wouldn't comment.

There seem to be 2 categories of Eucharistic miracles (well 3 actually, if you count the most obvious miracle which I'll start with).

1. The Eucharist itself.
This is a miraculous transformation of gifts of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is a [i]sacramental[/i] change, and so cannot be detected empirically by the senses. We believe this on faith alone, because Jesus said so.

2. Miraculously preserved Hosts.
Some hosts (consecrated Eucharistic bread) are reported to have endured long periods of time miraculously and not to have decomposed. As long as the 'species' (i.e. appearances) of bread remain, we believe it is the Body of Christ. Such hosts are therefore reserved and adored because it is Christ Himself.

3. The transformation of bread and wine into real human flesh and blood.
In a way, this is a poorer miracle to the regular Eucharistic transformation (i.e. transubstantiation).
In miracle no. 1 (transubstantiation), what you get is the real Body and Blood of Christ present under the appearances of bread and wine. It really is Jesus, and so we worship Him. But He is present to us [i]in a sacramental mode[/i]. In His [i]natural mode[/i] Christ is risen and glorified, sitting at the right hand of the Father. We partake of Christ's Body and Blood, but [i]in a sacramental way[/i]. We don't actually nibble on Christ's big toe and make it disappear. We eat the whole Christ, but eat Him sacramentally.
But miracles in this category are not sacramental changes, but physical. You have real bits of flesh and real blood. [b]I do not think this could be Christ's own flesh and blood[/b] because His own flesh and blood is risen and glorified, and [i]in its natural mode[/i] is in heaven, and [i]in a sacramental mode[/i] is in the Eucharist throughout the world. So who's flesh and blood is this in miracles of category 3? I don't know. Just generic flesh and blood maybe. And if these are genuine miracles, they serve only to show that God can do such things. [b]The greater miracle, greater by far, is the miracle of transubstantiation.[/b] That is the truly greatest miracle of all, because by it we are able to feed on God's own flesh and drink God's blood, and we commune with Him. We abide in Him, and He abides in us.

[Guest Guest]

hi i have a question based on your answer from the eucharistic miracles answer. you said that when the miracle of the eucharist actually changing into flesh and blood happens, it's not literally christ's flesh. i don't get it. if the eucharist is literally christ's blood and body, then how can it not be if it's not in bread/wine form?

[Adeodatus]

I checked my reply, and I can't find anywhere where I said "The Eucharist is not [b]literally[/b] Christ's Body and Blood". The Eucharist [b]is[/b] the Body and Blood of Christ, [b]and literally so![/b]

Maybe it was my comment about eating the Eucharist not causing bits of Christ's risen and glorified flesh to disappear?

Let me put it this way: the Eucharist is really, truly, literally Christ's flesh and blood. It is the WHOLE Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity.

But we can distinguish the presence of Christ in terms of [b]modality[/b], i.e. in which [b]mode[/b] is Christ present. In its [b]natural mode[/b] Christ's Body is in heaven, risen, ascended, glorified, sitting at the right hand of God the Father. In a [b]sacramental mode[/b] Christ's body, [u]the same one which is glorified and in heaven[/u] is given to us [b][i]to eat[/i][/b]. So the Eucharist is truly, really, completely and literally Christ's body. But we do not eat Him in His [i]natural mode[/i]. We eat Him in a [i]sacramental mode[/i]. We truly eat Him and commune with Him, but our eating does not detroy His Body.

One day, on the last day, we shall see Christ "as He really is", i.e. in His natural mode, and then the need for all the sacraments will cease. We will no longer need the Eucharist then, because the reality which is given to us now in a sacramental way, will then be given to us in direct vision. As Scripture says, "Now we see as in a glass, darkly. Then, we shall see Him face-to-face". Now we see the apperances of bread and wine (although the reality is literally Christ). Then, we will see that reality, Christ, as He is in heaven.

[CreepyCrawler]

okay, i'm not quite clear on the whole thing about sacramental vs. physical changes. this is what you said:


[color=red]But miracles in this category are not sacramental changes, but physical. You have real bits of flesh and real blood. I do not think this could be Christ's own flesh and blood because His own flesh and blood is risen and glorified, and in its natural mode is in heaven, and in a sacramental mode is in the Eucharist throughout the world. So who's flesh and blood is this in miracles of category 3? I don't know. Just generic flesh and blood maybe. And if these are genuine miracles, they serve only to show that God can do such things. The greater miracle, greater by far, is the miracle of transubstantiation. That is the truly greatest miracle of all, because by it we are able to feed on God's own flesh and drink God's blood, and we commune with Him. We abide in Him, and He abides in us. [/color]

how can it be that if the eucharist, which is in sacramental mode and IS christ's flesh, turns into real flesh and blood is no longer christ's flesh but is "generic flesh?" i don't get it. why would christ's flesh in the eucharist disappear and then this generic stuff appear? and would you have to receive eucharist in the form of bread/wine in order to actually receive christ on sunday if this happened to you at mass or something? why does jesus leave?

[Adeodatus]

The category I was discussing here is Eucharistic miracles like that at Lanciano, i.e. real and physical human flesh and real and physical human blood kept in a reliquary.

You are assuming that this miraculous change occured AFTER the sacrament of the Eucharist had been celebrated, i.e. bread and wine turned into Christ's body and blood (sacramentally present), AND THEN turned into physical body and blood. I didn't suggest that because I don't know that. As far as I can ascertain, the story behind Lanciano is that a priest doubted the mystery of transubstantiation as he was celebrating Mass. And then he found that the Eucharistic gifts had turned into physical flesh and blood when he uttered the words of consecration.

Was this a Eucharistic transformation, i.e. transubstantiation?
1. First of all, the flesh and blood cannot be the real, physical flesh and blood of Christ (in His natural mode) because that flesh and blood are united to Christ's soul and divinity and are present in glory in heaven.

2. Second, it cannot be the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is human food (bread and wine) changed by the power of God into the sacramental body and blood of Christ.

3. So it isn't Christ's body and blood according to a natural mode or a sacramental mode. What is it? Assuming that the accounts of this miracle are true and certain, then it is a miracle of a lesser order than the Eucharist. It is the transformation of bread and wine into physical flesh and blood----and 1. and 2. rule out that the flesh and blood belong to Christ.

Furthermore, in the 1960s the Vatican allowed scientists to perform tests on the flesh and blood, which seems unlikely to have happened IF the Vatican believed they were Christ's body and blood and not 'generic' flesh and blood.


[quote]why would christ's flesh in the eucharist disappear and then this generic stuff appear? ... why does jesus leave?[/quote]
If this miracle happened AFTER the consecration, then it would mean that the sacrament of the Eucharist changed into physical flesh and blood. Christ is sacramentally present in the Eucharist [b]so long as[/b] the 'species' of the Eucharist subsists, i.e. as long as the Host and the Precious Blood [b]look[/b] like bread and wine, they are truly, really, literally, sacramentally Christ's Body and Blood. When you eat the Eucharist, your body starts to digest the 'species', the appearances of bread. When there is no longer anything recognisable as bread in your stomach, the sacramental presence of Christ also ceases. So if in this miracle the Host turned into physical human flesh, then the sacramental species would have ceased, and so would the sacramental presence of Christ.