Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles  (Read 24405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MiracleOfTheSun

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 766
  • Reputation: +334/-140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
« Reply #45 on: December 17, 2022, 09:06:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can anyone who supports the supposed miracles (Sean?) actually tell us which we should examine?  One occurred in South America, I believe, that looked quite like a putrefying scab.  What others should we know about?

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2312
    • Reputation: +867/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #46 on: December 17, 2022, 09:07:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can anyone who supports the supposed miracles (Sean?) actually tell us which we should examine?  One occurred in South America, I believe, that looked quite like a putrefying scab.  What others should we know about?

    Great idea.
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14632
    • Reputation: +6021/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #47 on: December 17, 2022, 09:14:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can anyone who supports the supposed miracles (Sean?) actually tell us which we should examine?  One occurred in South America, I believe, that looked quite like a putrefying scab.  What others should we know about?
    Apparently there are many. But I do not support them.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #48 on: December 17, 2022, 09:17:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can anyone who supports the supposed miracles (Sean?) actually tell us which we should examine?  

    More lies.

    Please quote me supporting the supposed miracles, or retract.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 766
    • Reputation: +334/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #49 on: December 17, 2022, 10:11:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • More lies.

    Please quote me supporting the supposed miracles, or retract.

    More lies...  Sean, buddy, man-up.  You can do it.

    You believe miracles might have occurred in the Bastard Service because God can do whatever He likes.  Ok.  You can at least point out to the plebians whichever they are so they too can bolster their faith.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #50 on: December 17, 2022, 10:25:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • More lies...  Sean, buddy, man-up.  You can do it.

    You believe miracles might have occurred in the Bastard Service because God can do whatever He likes.  Ok.  You can at least point out to the plebians whichever they are so they too can bolster their faith.

    Don't go changing your story now (more dishonesty).  What you said was:

    "Can anyone who supports the supposed miracles (Sean?) actually tell us which we should examine?"

    Therefore, I await your quote showing me supporting any of these miracles.

    Which means, since you can't, what I'm really aiting for is your retrction.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 766
    • Reputation: +334/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #51 on: December 17, 2022, 10:29:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, I do confess, I forgot to buy you an ice cream cone on the way over.  Hang in there, bud.  The miracles you say you think might've happened will be shown the light of day here sometime.  I have that faith.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #52 on: December 17, 2022, 10:30:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, I do confess, I forgot to buy you an ice cream cone on the way over.  Hang in there, bud.  The miracles you say you think might've happened will be shown the light of day here sometime.  I have that faith.

    I accept your retraction.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 766
    • Reputation: +334/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #53 on: December 17, 2022, 10:51:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I accept your retraction.

    So to be clear, you say they could've happened but aren't interested in showing they actually did. 

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 766
    • Reputation: +334/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #54 on: December 17, 2022, 11:16:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I accept your retraction.

    What's also funny about this is that de Lugo tried the same tactic after calling me a liar.  Nice, lightweight fare that keeps CathInfo moving along...

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #55 on: December 17, 2022, 11:22:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So to be clear, you say they could've happened but aren't interested in showing they actually did.

    Almost.

    I say there is no theological reason they couldn't happen.

    Whether or not any of them are authentic, I will wait for a restored Church to determine.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 45995
    • Reputation: +27088/-5007
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #56 on: December 17, 2022, 11:29:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I say there is no theological reason they couldn't happen.

    There's no theological reason any miracle COULDN'T happen.  God can work a miracle at any time, even if the NOM is invalid.

    What's at issue is whether God WOULD work a miracle if 1) the NOM were invalid or 2) the NOM is as offensive to God and harmful to souls as we say it is.

    I think we all agree that God would NOT work a Eucharistic miracle for an invalid Mass.  That is in fact Bishop Williamson's argument.  But I hold that God also would NOT work a Eucharistic miracle for a Rite of Mass that's not Catholic, offensive to God, and harmful to souls ... even IF it were valid.

    Bottom line is that we're arguing speculations.  BUT ... this does mean that Novus Ordo "Eucharistic miracles" are simply not theological proof of anything.  Period.  Satan can simulate miracles quite easily if permitted by God.  If I were Satan, and I managed to pull off the NOM, one of the first things I'd be looking to do would be to persuade people that it's OK and valid ... by simulating some Eucharistic miracles.

    "Cool.  I pulled it off and replaced that abominable Catholic Mass with this invalid garbage.  Now, some people are questioning its validity.  Let me see.  Hey, I know, let's fake a few Eucharistic miracles to put a stop to that."

    See, this has always been the Church's attitude.  We never alter Catholic theology based on purported miracles or private revelations.  We use Catholic theology to test these alleged miracles and private revelations.  If they fail the doctrinal smell test, or other tests, the Church declares them illegitimate.  Then, if a natural explanation can't be found (including human fraud), the conclusion is that the activity was diabolical.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #57 on: December 17, 2022, 11:49:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's no theological reason any miracle COULDN'T happen.  God can work a miracle at any time, even if the NOM is invalid.

    What's at issue is whether God WOULD work a miracle if 1) the NOM were invalid or 2) the NOM is as offensive to God and harmful to souls as we say it is.

        Yes, and as nobody could refute the applicability of St. Thomas Aquinas, the issue was settled in favor.

    I think we all agree that God would NOT work a Eucharistic miracle for an invalid Mass.  That is in fact Bishop Williamson's argument.  But I hold that God also would NOT work a Eucharistic miracle for a Rite of Mass that's not Catholic, offensive to God, and harmful to souls ... even IF it were valid.

        In addition to being flatly contradicted by St. Thomas, you are also reasserting the refuted notion of the NOM being a non-Catholic rite.

    Bottom line is that we're arguing speculations.  BUT ... this does mean that Novus Ordo "Eucharistic miracles" are simply not theological proof of anything.  Period.  Satan can simulate miracles quite easily if permitted by God.  If I were Satan, and I managed to pull off the NOM, one of the first things I'd be looking to do would be to persuade people that it's OK and valid ... by simulating some Eucharistic miracles.

    "Cool.  I pulled it off and replaced that abominable Catholic Mass with this invalid garbage.  Now, some people are questioning its validity.  Let me see.  Hey, I know, let's fake a few Eucharistic miracles to put a stop to that."

        Aside from your unsupported presumption of invalidity (anf the consequences such would imply for the Church, which concern you in the domain of canonizations, but apparently not in the more important matter of the validity sacramental rites?), St. Thomas says Eucharistic miracles are given by God to increase faith in the Real Presence.  That's their purpose.  Nobody here is advancing the authenticity argument.

    See, this has always been the Church's attitude.  We never alter Catholic theology based on purported miracles or private revelations.  We use Catholic theology to test these alleged miracles and private revelations.  If they fail the doctrinal smell test, or other tests, the Church declares them illegitimate.  Then, if a natural explanation can't be found (including human fraud), the conclusion is that the activity was diabolical.

        The only one altering theology is you, by opposing St. Thomas Aquinas, and attributing to alleged Eucharistic miracles motives and purposes at variance to his own. 

    Comments in red font above
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4884
    • Reputation: +1878/-231
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #58 on: December 17, 2022, 11:59:06 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • There's no theological reason any miracle COULDN'T happen.  God can work a miracle at any time, even if the NOM is invalid.

    What's at issue is whether God WOULD work a miracle if 1) the NOM were invalid or 2) the NOM is as offensive to God and harmful to souls as we say it is.

    I think we all agree that God would NOT work a Eucharistic miracle for an invalid Mass.  That is in fact Bishop Williamson's argument.  But I hold that God also would NOT work a Eucharistic miracle for a Rite of Mass that's not Catholic, offensive to God, and harmful to souls ... even IF it were valid.

    Bottom line is that we're arguing speculations.  BUT ... this does mean that Novus Ordo "Eucharistic miracles" are simply not theological proof of anything.  Period.  Satan can simulate miracles quite easily if permitted by God.  If I were Satan, and I managed to pull off the NOM, one of the first things I'd be looking to do would be to persuade people that it's OK and valid ... by simulating some Eucharistic miracles.

    "Cool.  I pulled it off and replaced that abominable Catholic Mass with this invalid garbage.  Now, some people are questioning its validity.  Let me see.  Hey, I know, let's fake a few Eucharistic miracles to put a stop to that."

    See, this has always been the Church's attitude.  We never alter Catholic theology based on purported miracles or private revelations.  We use Catholic theology to test these alleged miracles and private revelations.  If they fail the doctrinal smell test, or other tests, the Church declares them illegitimate.  Then, if a natural explanation can't be found (including human fraud), the conclusion is that the activity was diabolical.

    I know we've discussed this here before, but I'd like to refresh the topic.  Let's suppose an absolute best-case scenario for the putative Eucharistic miracles, in Poland, Argentina, and possibly elsewhere.  Say that unbiased, neutral DNA research is done on each of these miracles, and they disclose that all specimens, separated in space and time, come from the same person, a human male, and moreover, the haplotypes come from someone who would have been in Palestine and shared these haplotypes with Jews from that region.  Or better yet, assuming this could be done, extrapolate that these haplotypes would have existed, in similar proportions, roughly 2000 years ago.  Go one step further, and see that something about the DNA --- I don't know what that would be, but just for the sake of argument --- indicated there were no human father.  Then, go even another step further, and assume that DNA analysis could be done on other such Species, such as the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano.  Say it all lines up, and all gives us the same answer.  What then?

    I know one might protest "yes, Satan could engineer all of that".  Two thoughts then: (a) we have made Satan almost as omnipotent, almost as omniscient, as Almighty God Himself.  Indeed, a friend of mine in college (Jєωιѕн, BTW) said "you Christians make it almost as though there were two Gods, one good, one evil".  Satan is neither omnipotent nor omniscient --- of a higher intelligence than any human, true, with angelic powers that no human has, true, but even with this conceded, he's not a god. (b) non-Catholic apologists of the Jack Chick variety (and those more cultured and erudite than Jack Chick was) could then come back and say "yes, and your older miracles, such as Lanciano, are of Satanic origin as well, ditto for Fatima, ditto for the liquefied blood of St Januarius, ditto for all your so-called 'miracles', and WRT your apparitions, Satan can indeed manifest as an 'angel of light' ".  Then we're thrown back onto the argument of "if miracles buttress the contentions of traditional Catholics, then they're true, but if they bring one to other conclusions, then they're false".  I hate to say it, but that's not the strongest argument in the world.  Far from it.

    I've had to wonder, then, if eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo can be seen this way --- yes, the Novus Ordo is valid, it confects the Body and Blood of Christ, and post-Vatican II priestly and episcopal orders are valid (because you have to have those for the Mass to be valid, unless you manage to get a pre-V2 priest to offer it), but that does not mean it was good to make those changes, and the Novus Ordo clearly has many, many other problems besides questions of validity.  The whole traditionalist argument (or set of arguments) does not collapse like a cake when the oven door is slammed, or like a house of cards, if one accepts the validity of the NOM and post-V2 orders, and if those things are proved, that does not mean that we all have to run off to the Novus Ordo and abandon the TLM.  

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2312
    • Reputation: +867/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #59 on: December 17, 2022, 02:04:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Comments in red font 


    There's no theological reason any miracle COULDN'T happen.  God can work a miracle at any time, even if the NOM is invalid.

    What's at issue is whether God WOULD work a miracle if 1) the NOM were invalid or 2) the NOM is as offensive to God and harmful to souls as we say it is.

        Yes, and as nobody could refute the applicability of St. Thomas Aquinas, the issue was settled in favor.

    I think we all agree that God would NOT work a Eucharistic miracle for an invalid Mass.  That is in fact Bishop Williamson's argument.  But I hold that God also would NOT work a Eucharistic miracle for a Rite of Mass that's not Catholic, offensive to God, and harmful to souls ... even IF it were valid.

        In addition to being flatly contradicted by St. Thomas, you are also reasserting the refuted notion of the NOM being a non-Catholic rite.

    Bottom line is that we're arguing speculations.  BUT ... this does mean that Novus Ordo "Eucharistic miracles" are simply not theological proof of anything.  Period.  Satan can simulate miracles quite easily if permitted by God.  If I were Satan, and I managed to pull off the NOM, one of the first things I'd be looking to do would be to persuade people that it's OK and valid ... by simulating some Eucharistic miracles.

    "Cool.  I pulled it off and replaced that abominable Catholic Mass with this invalid garbage.  Now, some people are questioning its validity.  Let me see.  Hey, I know, let's fake a few Eucharistic miracles to put a stop to that."

        Aside from your unsupported presumption of invalidity (anf the consequences such would imply for the Church, which concern you in the domain of canonizations, but apparently not in the more important matter of the validity sacramental rites?), St. Thomas says Eucharistic miracles are given by God to increase faith in the Real Presence.  That's their purpose.  Nobody here is advancing the authenticity argument.

    See, this has always been the Church's attitude.  We never alter Catholic theology based on purported miracles or private revelations.  We use Catholic theology to test these alleged miracles and private revelations.  If they fail the doctrinal smell test, or other tests, the Church declares them illegitimate.  Then, if a natural explanation can't be found (including human fraud), the conclusion is that the activity was diabolical.

        The only one altering theology is you, by opposing St. Thomas Aquinas, and attributing to alleged Eucharistic miracles motives and purposes at variance to his own. 

    You keep saying "no one has refuted" your citation of St. Thomas, but that's simply not true. St. Thomas is dealing with an undoubted Catholic sacrament: the objections he's responding to call it "the sacrament." This is clear.

    An argument or reasoning - and since the argument or reasoning concerns God's purpose, God's purpose - that applies to a rite that is not offensive to God and/or harmful to souls doesn't necessarily apply to a rite that is (or at least may be, that is the question) offensive to God and/or harmful to souls.

    Apples and oranges.

    Why don't you see that?
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.