Author Topic: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka  (Read 2605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4976
  • Reputation: +4224/-1511
  • Gender: Male
Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
« on: May 17, 2019, 05:05:01 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!2


  • On October 12, 2008, in St. Anthony's Church in Sokolka, the 8:30 Mass was celebrated by a young vicar, Filip Zdrodowski. During Communion, one of the priests dropped the Host. The priest didn't even notice. He was told by a woman who was kneeling when she was about to receive the Eucharist.

    The priest was paralyzed with fright and thinking that it had got dirty, he put it in the vasculum, a small silver container that contains the water that priests use to wash their fingers after having given Communion.

    At the end of the Holy Mass, the sacristan, Mother Julia Dubowska, took the vasculum with the Host and, for greater security, put it in another container that she then locked in the safe where the chalices were kept.

    A week later, on Sunday, October 19, at about 8:00 a.m., the nun opened the safe, found the Host practically dissolved but with strange red clots.

    She immediately summoned the priests to show what she had discovered. The Host had practically dissolved. Part of the Host was attached to this "strange red clot".

    Then the parish priest of Sokolka contacted the Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok. Archbishop Edward Ozorowski together with the Chancellor of the Curia, the priests and the doctors examined the Host and, disconcerted, decided to wait for the events to unfold and to observe.

    On October 29, the container containing the Host was taken to the parish chapel and locked in the tabernacle; the following day, at the request of the Archbishop, Father Gniedziejko placed it on a corporal. The corporal was placed in the tabernacle.

    With the passage of time the Host "fused" with the corporal and the red "clot" dried up. Only then were two world-renowned scientists and specialists in pathological anatomy from Bialystok Medical University questioned.

    The Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok has left this statement:  

    "On October 12, 2008, a consecrated Host fell from the priest's hands while giving Communion. He picked it up and placed it in a container filled with water in the tabernacle. After Mass the container containing the Host was placed in a safe in the sacristy.

    2. On October 19, 2008, when the safe was opened, a red stain could be clearly seen on the fallen Host, which at first glance gave the impression that it was a blood stain.

    3. On October 29, 2008, the container containing the Host was transferred to the tabernacle in the chapel of the parish house. The next day, the Host was taken out of the water in the container and placed on a corporal inside the tabernacle.

    4. On January 7, 2009, the sample of the Host was extracted and examined separately by two histopathology professionals from the Medical University of Bialystok. They have left the following common statement: "The sample sent for your examination looks like myocardial tissue. In our opinion, of all the tissues of living organisms, it is the one that most resembles it.

    5. The Commission noted that the host under analysis is the same as that which moved from the sacristy to the tabernacle in the chapel of the parish house. The intervention of third parties has not been detected.

    The case of Sokolka does not oppose the faith of the Church, but confirms it.

    "At first I was convinced it was a clot," said Dr. Sobaniec-Łotowska. However, the reality was much more surprising!

    The two scientists from Bialystok, who used the most modern optical microscopes and the transmission electron microscope for their independent research, came to the same conclusion (Dr. Sulkowski did not know that the sample he was analyzing came from a Host): the sample analyzed was neither a clot nor blood... it was a human heart muscle tissue still alive. And, even more incredible, it was a heart muscle with typical indications of the extreme phase before death.

    However, some people, who have not only never analyzed the material but have not even seen it with their own eyes, have claimed that the red color of the Host is due to prodigyosin, a red pigment produced by the bacterium Serratia marcescens. "Obviously this is absurd," said the Bialystok specialists, because the material analyzed corresponds to the heart muscle and not to a bacterium.

    Some accusations were even more absurd, such as the one promoted by the group of so-called "rationalists" according to whom the tissue analyzed belonged to a murdered man. The doctors reacted with a statement in which they expressed "deep indignation that public opinion was misled by false pseudo-scientific hypotheses about the analyzed phenomenon, especially by people who ignore the details of the analysis, have not had access to the analyzed material or the documentation collected, and often do not even know the applied analysis techniques.

    The drafting of the protocol by the two Bialystok scientists took two weeks. When the Bialystok Curia was informed of the incredible results of the analyses, it set in motion a special Ecclesiastical Commission convened by the Archbishop on March 30, 2009. Its task was to examine the miracle from a theological point of view and to listen to all those who had seen the Host or witnessed these extraordinary events. The commission was also in charge of dispelling any doubt of mystification and of verifying that no one had secretly substituted the Host in the Tabernacle. The representatives of the commission questioned all the witnesses and checked the veracity of their testimonies. The work carried out by the Ecclesiastical Commission gave rise to the following statement: "The Host from which the sample was taken for the expertise is the same as that from which the sacristy was transferred to the tabernacle in the chapel of the parish house. The intervention of outsiders has not been noted". This is also categorically excluded by the two scientists from Bialystok. It was not possible that someone had deposited a fragment of the human body in the tabernacle. What led you to think so? The [normal] fragments that formed the Host were intimately interconnected with the fibers of human tissue, penetrating one into the other as if a fragment of "bread" had suddenly become a "body".

    It is not possible to manipulate such an event. No one, absolutely no one, would have been able to do it. "Even NASA scientists, who have the most modern analysis techniques, would not have been able to artificially recreate something like this," said Dr. Sobaniec-Łotowska, adding that this fact has been especially important to her.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4976
    • Reputation: +4224/-1511
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #1 on: May 17, 2019, 05:09:51 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • After reading this account, I have very little doubt as to this miracle's authenticity. 
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 285
    • Reputation: +134/-50
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #2 on: May 17, 2019, 10:29:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I take it this took place at a Novus Ordo Mass by a New Rite priest?
    Humble thy spirit very much: for the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms. - Ecclesiasticus 7:18

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9710
    • Reputation: +3861/-888
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #3 on: May 18, 2019, 06:17:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • After reading this account, I have very little doubt as to this miracle's authenticity.
    Based on the article, I'm not sure who could possibly disagree, yet this miracle only actually serves to prove that either all NO priests / sacraments are not invalid or not always invalid. Which is to say that all the sacrileges that happen as part of the NO business as usual "mass", can be confidently presumed to be valid sacrileges.

    Seems the main purpose of this miracle would be that all the conciliarist devotions that will likely take place on account of this miracle to prompt them to abandon the sacrilegious NO altogether and get back to the true faith. What other purpose could there be? - Honest question.        
    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 Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 672
    • Reputation: +218/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #4 on: May 18, 2019, 06:58:47 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • Funny how there’s been a push to validate the NO “mass” recently. I wonder why?


    Offline Mr G

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +453/-47
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #5 on: May 18, 2019, 07:34:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Funny how there’s been a push to validate the NO “mass” recently. I wonder why?
    I have not seen any "push to validate the NO 'mass' recently" as the above story is shown by Non Possumus to demonstrate that God can work a miracle during a (not all) Novous Ordo mass.

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 672
    • Reputation: +218/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #6 on: May 18, 2019, 08:12:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • I have not seen any "push to validate the NO 'mass' recently" as the above story is shown by Non Possumus to demonstrate that God can work a miracle during a (not all) Novous Ordo mass.
    God proves the trueness of His Church through miracles and prophecy. If you are correct, then it follows that God not only approves of the NO supposed “mass”, but He also positively wills that you attend it. If the NO “mass” is valid and that miracles happen though it, I would be going down the street to the local “conservative” NO “parish”. Sorry, I’d much rather die.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18840
    • Reputation: +10371/-4883
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #7 on: May 18, 2019, 08:25:21 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!3
  • After reading this account, I have very little doubt as to this miracle's authenticity.

    Pffft.  I don't even trust that the article is true and not completely made up.  Ever hear of "fake news"?  You guys believe everything you read on the Internet and base theological conclusions on it?

    Let's assume for a moment that there was indeed heart tissue in the host, eh?  What would prevent the devil from obtaining said tissue and putting it in place, hmmm?

    Answer:  Nothing.

    That's why the Church uses the context to help determine authenticity ... e.g. the orthodoxy and the personal virtue of those involved with it.

    And God perhaps allowed the devil to do this to test the faith of people like yourselves regarding your own convictions regarding the Mass.  Hint:  you're failing.  Quo vadis is absolutely correct.  If this is in fact an authentic miracle performed by God ... then you have no choice but to accept the fact that God approves of the Novus Ordo Mass.  But I know that God does not approve of it.  Therefore, the miracle must be false, likely diabolical in origin.  See how the CHURCH would reason it out?  You START with Catholic principles and THEN make inferences about the miracle.  You do not start with a miracle and draw principles from IT.

    Would you guys like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn from me?  I'll post a link on the internet and give you a good price.  


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 672
    • Reputation: +218/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #8 on: May 18, 2019, 08:44:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • Pffft.  I don't even trust that the article is true and not completely made up.  Ever hear of "fake news"?  You guys believe everything you read on the Internet and base theological conclusions on it?

    Let's assume for a moment that there was indeed heart tissue in the host, eh?  What would prevent the devil from obtaining said tissue and putting it in place, hmmm?

    Answer:  Nothing.

    That's why the Church uses the context to help determine authenticity ... e.g. the orthodoxy and the personal virtue of those involved with it.

    And God perhaps allowed the devil to do this to test the faith of people like yourselves regarding your own convictions regarding the Mass.  Hint:  you're failing.  Quo vadis is absolutely correct.  If this is in fact an authentic miracle performed by God ... then you have no choice but to accept the fact that God approves of the Novus Ordo Mass.  But I know that God does not approve of it.  Therefore, the miracle must be false, likely diabolical in origin.  See how the CHURCH would reason it out?  You START with Catholic principles and THEN make inferences about the miracle.  You do not start with a miracle and draw principles from IT.

    Would you guys like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn from me?  I'll post a link on the internet and give you a good price.  
    Excellent post! I remember when I was in Chicago around 1987 (before my conversion to tradition about 6 years later), I had a Greek Orthodox friend who brought me to an Orthodox church that had a supposed weeping Madonna icon. Even then I was trying to figure out how they faked it. It looked so real! Was it a fake? Was it diabolical? Was it a combination of the two? One thing is for certain, it didn’t come from God, as this supposed “miracle” would have, and I’m sure did in many cases, confirmed those adherents in their false religion.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4976
    • Reputation: +4224/-1511
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #9 on: May 18, 2019, 10:06:36 AM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!3
  • I find that men are so emotional in response to the issue of Eucharistic miracles transpiring from within conciliar environs, that it is almost pointless to address their sophistries, so this will be my only shotgun response to all the above:

    1) No miracles are possible at a NOM: If the Mass is valid (and only sedes allege the per se invalidity of the NOM; certainly no Resistance or SSPX theologians do), then a miracle is already present at every valid NOM, via the miracle of transubstantiation.  Consequently, there are really only two choices available to the sophists: Change their positions to allege the per se invalidity of every NOM, or, acknowledge that since miracles are present at every valid NOM, the principle that Eucharistic miracles are not possible, lest it infer God's promotion of the NOM, is false.

    2) A Eucharistic miracle at the NOM would mean God is promoting the NOM: Sheer nonsense and pure imagination!  It is human sophistry to box God into that position.  As I argued in the Catechetical Refutation, God can intervene to bolster the faith -in his mercy- of those whose faith in transubstantiation is under seige from the very rite which implicitly denies it.  God by intervening in the form of a Eucharistic miracle is combating the Novus Ordo, not promoting it.

    3) Maybe the devil did it: A negative doubt is not a reasonable doubt.  Those who advance this theory do so with no evidence behind it.  Their ill disposition is one which prejudices them against the evidence, and to seek for rebuttals without any positive doubt whatsoever (and without any analysis of the evidence).

    4) Since the priests are not priests (or the Mass is not valid), it is impossible for there to have been a eucharistic miracle: Let's say for the moment it were true that the priest was invalidly ordained, and consequently, the "Eucharist" was not validly confected.  Would it stand to reason, therefore, that God could not work a miracle in the bread?  No.  God could make a Pepsi can, pumpkin, brick or thin air bleed if it suited His purposes.  Which is all another way of saying, the issue of validity is entirely besides the point.  If God so chose to directly intervene and place his substance into what was bread, there is no theological (or other) argument which impedes us from accepting He could do so.  

    In short, this made-up notion that a Eucharistic miracle in a NOM somehow necessarily means that God is promoting that rite is ridiculous.

    The good fruits (e.g., increase in faith and fervency in devotion to the Eucharist) stemming from this miracle show that it is not a prodigy of the devil (Does the devil bear good fruit, and bolster faith in transubstantiation??), but very probably a true miracle of God.

    We must not let our opposition to the NOM (and I have not attended one in 20 years, nor would I advise anyone to do so except in the most unusual or extreme circumstance) blind us to the possibility that God is God, and He is perfectly able to interject Himself into a NOM consecration as an act of mercy to combat the faithlessness of that rite, and restore the faith of His sheep.

    I have no objection to people exercising a prudent reserve in the matter (I myself hold out the possibility it could all be illegitimate, but the evidence points toward the opposite conclusion).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4960
    • Reputation: +2872/-1317
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #10 on: May 18, 2019, 10:23:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    I myself hold out the possibility it could all be illegitimate, but the evidence points toward the opposite conclusion)
    What evidence have you corroborated personally?  Are you a scientist who independently studied the sample?  Were you a lawyer who cross examined the priest, after reviewing all the facts?  Or are you making up your mind based on a magazine article which tells a good story and which presumed the “facts” are true?

    The Church always, always, always presumes these stories are fantastic until there is no physical explanation.  Those of us who are skeptics and scoffers are taking the proper stance.


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2477
    • Reputation: +2669/-330
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #11 on: May 18, 2019, 11:08:38 AM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!3

  • Lad:
    Quote
    If this is in fact an authentic miracle performed by God ... then you have no choice but to accept the fact that God approves of the Novus Ordo Mass.  But I know that God does not approve of it.  Therefore, the miracle must be false, likely diabolical in origin.  See how the CHURCH would reason it out?  You START with Catholic principles and THEN make inferences about the miracle.  You do not start with a miracle and draw principles from IT.


     
    Sorry, Lad, your thinking may be way off, as it sometimes inclined to be. You, along with a coterie of ‘true Mass’ trads on CI, can’t bear the idea that a NO consecration might be valid. But this NO miracle obviously took place, and the devil doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it. The miracle does not automatically show that God approves of it. Quite simply, it might show, that even in the new Mass, God is bound by the words of Consecration. It might, also, testify to the ‘fact’ that that God honors the Eucharistic intentions of Catholic faithful, who have not yet achieved your level of  traditional Catholic enlightenment.

    Online Merry

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 447
    • Reputation: +264/-73
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #12 on: May 18, 2019, 12:37:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quo Primum still says NO to the "N.O." - NO matter what.
    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4715
    • Reputation: +2179/-1051
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #13 on: May 18, 2019, 02:00:06 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3
  • For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 672
    • Reputation: +218/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
    « Reply #14 on: May 18, 2019, 04:49:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
    How true these words are.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16