Via Media

Via Media


Miracle in Dallas?

posted by awelborn

People are wondering..

"I believe it’s a miracle. In my heart, I believe it’s a miracle." That’s what Angela Neywick said about what happened. She witnessed it. They say about a month ago, a boy who was receiving communion spit out the bread when it wouldn’t dissolve in his mouth.

Father Juan Vicar is the priest at the church. He said that after the service they put the bread in a cup of water and it turned into a blood clot.

The story has spread across the country, and people have come from as far as Kansas to witness what they are calling a miracle.

Spit out the host when it wouldn’t dissolve. Doesn’t sound like the beginnings of any Eucharistic miracle I’ve heard of…



Advertisement
Comments read comments(46)
post a comment
Dan

posted March 23, 2006 at 2:16 pm


In my parish the hosts are often pretty stale. I never thought to call it a miracle.



report abuse
 

Josh

posted March 23, 2006 at 2:23 pm


We all must wait the Church’s determination of the issue, but if the photos are to be believed (and being local, I think there may be reason to believe them), the bloody item didn’t look like any stale host I’ve ever seen.



report abuse
 

thomas tucker

posted March 23, 2006 at 2:40 pm


Josh- out of curiosity, what does being local have to do with believing the photos?



report abuse
 

Tim

posted March 23, 2006 at 2:42 pm


Anyone ever read “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carroll Cruz? Full of stories like this one, with the Eucharist changing from bread & wine into literal flesh and blood. Miracles dating from as far back as 1,000 years ago to the 1970’s. Incredible reading, and a lot of these miracles are similar to this.
Definitely something to think and pray about.



report abuse
 

Victor

posted March 23, 2006 at 2:53 pm


As far as I heard, the boy got sick – a small but, IMHO, important difference, as he did not spit it out voluntarily.
But still I don’t believe it. There is a special fungus that causes bread to turn red. Of course, everything is possible…



report abuse
 

bruce cole

posted March 23, 2006 at 2:54 pm


I think it is perfectly plausible (the spitting out). If something well, unusual, was taking place, why might not someone (especially a kid) have precisely that reaction?



report abuse
 

Josh

posted March 23, 2006 at 2:55 pm


Credible people are indicating that it appears to be real. Obviously, being local means I have a better chance of judging their credibility. Does that mean I am right? No. But casual dismissal (like Amy’s and Dan’s) is unwarranted at this time.
Also, I have seen the photos and would venture to say that they are either a well done fraud or a miracle. You just don’t get from a host to what is shown in those pictures without something happening. The key thing isn’t that the host wouldn’t dissolve, it is that they claim it turned into a piece of bloody flesh. The pictures do show what looks like a piece of bloody flesh.
If you would like, I will email them to you.



report abuse
 

thomas tucker

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:01 pm


Josh- yes, please e-mail them to me. One question- after the boy spit it out, did it still look like just a regular host at that time, before it went into the water?



report abuse
 

Anonymous Teacher Person

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:04 pm


I guess I don’t understand why God would work this way. Doesn’t it seem like He would be allowing Himself to be desecrated if He manifested his humanity at just the right moment to induce vomiting in the boy? I’m not trying to be irreverent, I just can’t get my head around this whole idea.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:13 pm


What struck me about this story was that it happened in the parish I attended when I was growing up in NH, in almost exactly the same way. The pastor found a host (presumed to be consecrated) that someone had taken out of their mouth and left on a pew. He scraped it off the pew and put it into water to disolve and then discard into the sacrarium. When he looked at the glass of water the next day, he said the host had turned into blood. He buried it on the Church grounds.
He preached about it the next week–against the blaphemy of discarding communion. No one else witnessed the bloody host at the time, but this Dallas story reminded me of this event and a tale from a priest who was very trustworthy and holy.



report abuse
 

Dan

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:15 pm


My comment was made in jest. I wasn’t seriously suggesting that this report involved nothing more than a stale host. No one who has only read the about this has any basis for knowing one way or the other whether any miracle has occurred. That said though, a very high percentage of things of this sort are ultimately determined to be something other than divine.



report abuse
 

chris K

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:27 pm


Doesn’t it seem like He would be allowing Himself to be desecrated
It appears that the process of putting the discharged host in water was to prevent desecration – the usual process for a “tainted” host. The boy, apparently was unable to swallow the host. When it didn’t dissolve in water as what usually happens, after many days more water was added. It’s being investigated – but the bishop has to approve the more in depth investigation that would penetrate a host enough to examine for flesh or blood. Many bishops won’t go that far because they don’t want to look silly or simple…sad.
more from eyewitnesses or close to the situation:
http://www.spiritdaily.com/eucharistmiracledallas.htm
Since this host was handled well and with respect for the Real Presence by the priest, it could be a sign to all those who have received unworthily or taken the host home, or mixed it with their chewing gum, or stuck it in a pocket, etc. But suppose it’s too soon to tell. Hopefully there will be complete and objective studies. There are recorded instances of various mystics who after receiving the host on their tongue have it become enlarged, turning to bloody flesh. We really are rather prudish in the good ol U.S.



report abuse
 

Cathy M

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:27 pm


There is a miracle known as the “Miracle of Amsterdam” that originated in sort of the same manner. Except for a passing mention under their entry for Amsterdam, I could not find official mention of it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. However, here is a site that describes it: http://www.paulprins.com/english/amsterdam/miracle.htm
“It happened on March 15th, 1345, the Tuesday before Palm Sunday. Ysbrant Dommer is sick and dying. The priests gives him the Holy Sacrament, but he vomits it up a couple of hours later. The women who take care of him throw his vomit into the fire. The next morning it appears that The Host (the wafer given during Sacrament) is not at all blemished by the fire. Even more so: it floats above the fire! The Host is than placed into a shrine in the dying man’s home. The priest takes The Host ceremoniously to the Old Church located at the Oudezijds Voorburgwal.
There the host disappears and is later found in the house where the wonder had occurred.
This, to the priest is a sign from God that He wanted the wonder to be known publicly.
The Host is once again returned to the Old Church in a ceremonious procession.
Once The Host is returned a number of other unexplained wonder occur in the church.
The next year Bishop Jan van Arkel declared that indeed an unexplained wonder has occurred. Since it is now recognized by The Catholic Church, it can be declared a miracle!

During The Great Fire of 1452, which destroyed one third of the city, the Chapel was also destroyed. However, The Host was once again miraculously saved!

History tells of eleven wonderous curings and salvations.”
When I came across the story while visiting Amsterdam, I too, questioned why such a humble (gross) encounter would be an opportunity to manifest the Real Presence and God’s mercy through subsequent miracles. But then, I don’t know that I would have the courage to allow a son to be scourged and crucified either.



report abuse
 

Caroline

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:37 pm


So what would be the point of this “miracle”?
The same Lord who in the parable had Abraham tell Lazarus that his brothers would not listen even to someone who rose from the dead if they would not listen to Moses and the prophets, will now be said to be saying something to us in mysterious blood clots because our faith in His words has gotten so weak. We need a stunt and a stunt He will perform out of pity for us; sometimes He even sends His mother do to them to sway us, yet in His years on earth He refused to do stunts for his contemporaries. Downright refused to go that way. I don’t get it.



report abuse
 

Ambrosius

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:47 pm


We’ve got a purported picture of this supposed miracle hosted on our blog



report abuse
 

Josh

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:47 pm


As to the question of why, well, assuming it is real, it obviously emphasizes the Real Presence. Also, though no one seems to be mentioning it, this did occur on the Solemnity of St. Joseph. It was observed on the 20th this year, but the actual day is the 19th. Where someone could go with that, I leave to those who have more time to meditate on the issue and who perhaps know a bit more about what happened.



report abuse
 

chris K

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:53 pm


There was such a happening that occurred not far from my stomping grounds. Our Sunday visiting priest also filled in at the parish of the occurrence. He was a very liberal, rational type. After I heard about the event I inquired of him as to just what happened to the host since not that many people were aware of it. He looked at me and said “you don’t really believe in such things”. I still asked him what happened to the host. He said…”oh, the bishop buried it…that priest was old and imagining things”. The event:
Marlboro, New Jersey has been the site of purported Marian apparitions for nearly ten years. On April 10, 1994, the feast of Divine Mercy, Father Robert Rooney, the spiritual director of the visionary, was celebrating morning Mass in nearby Yardville, New Jersey at Saint Vincent de Paul Church. As he raised the Host and said the words of consecration, blood flowed out of the Eucharist. The altar boys present and a number of parishioners saw this occur and Father Rooney was understandably shaken by the bleeding host. After showing the Host to the parish priest, it was decided that the Host should be retained in the tabernacle until the head of the local Episcopate, Bishop Reiss, could decide what actions should be taken. Several days later the Bishop decided not to investigate the phenomena and Fr. Rooney gave the Host to his spiritual director Father Valenta.
Father Valenta had the Host photographed and then examined by two medical doctors using non-invasive microscopic analysis. Non-invasive techniques were used since a bishop’s approval is required for any invasive examination. The doctors stated:
“There is no scientific explanation, the red material came from within the Host and it has the microscopic characteristics of human blood; the Church must make the determination as to any miracle.”
On June 6, 1994, the feast of Corpus Christi, Father Rooney stated that the Blessed Virgin appeared, in her first and only appearance to him, in his dining room and told him that her Son had sent him a gift – the gift of the bleeding Host – and from now on his spiritual director would take care of everything. Father Rooney died six weeks later on July 16, 1996 – the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Father Valenta delivered the bloody Host to Bishop Reiss of the Diocese of Trenton where it still resides.



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:54 pm


Joan Carroll Cruz is hardly a discriminating source for miracle stories.
Thee is indeed a bacterium, serratia marcesens, that will turn bread to “blood.” The bread can look normal on the outside while the bacterium is growing on the inside, becoming visible when the durface is broken. The effect was described even in pre-Christian times by the Greeks, although they obviously didn’t know the cause.



report abuse
 

midwestmom

posted March 23, 2006 at 3:55 pm


“Spit out the host when it wouldn’t dissolve. Doesn’t sound like the beginnings of any Eucharistic miracle I’ve heard of…”
Read about the Eucharistic miracle in Zaragoza, Spain in one of Bob & Penny Lord’s books. A woman stole a Host to bring to her husband who was into sorcery. They tried to burn it and it wouldn’t burn. It was in a sack at the time and when they opened the sack there was a baby inside.
They were terrified and took the baby to the bishop. He deduced that it must be the infant Jesus, processed into Mass holding the baby aloft soon after and at the consecration, the baby turned into a Host again!



report abuse
 

Mrs. Nash

posted March 23, 2006 at 4:18 pm


Somehow Im quite sure the God I know and love is not wasting His time, doing bloody, gross-me-out, “excuse me why I go throw up” parlor tricks.



report abuse
 

Sr Lorraine

posted March 23, 2006 at 4:28 pm


Of course it’s possible for God to perform such a miracle. But did he in this case? I don’t know. But all natural causes need to be ruled out first.
St John of the Cross was quite adamant that to look for such signs is a sign of a lack of faith.



report abuse
 

chris K

posted March 23, 2006 at 4:30 pm


Here’s an approved eucharistic miracle of just a few years ago and still on view for pilgrims.
http://www.monksofadoration.org/Betania.html
A local boy went down on pilgrimage and while videotaping the miracle he saw through the lens that it was on fire with a flame bursting forth. He has it on the video tape and made it available for those interested. It was witnessed by the priest in charge.
I guess today people might get “grossed out” by a Jesus spitting and having to make a paste to stick on an eye to heal a blind man…which took a little while for the process to be completed – hmmm, wonder why it took so long…after all He could do whatever He wanted. Guess He does some things that just don’t match our expectations….for His own reasons.



report abuse
 

Joe

posted March 23, 2006 at 4:52 pm


I agree with Mrs. Nash’s comments. I also concur with the observation of John of the Cross cited by Sr. Lorraine. I would not make a “big to do” about this purported miracle. Everything we ultimately need to know about God and our relationship with him can be found in the gospels. I suspect most folks would confess, if pressed, to having weak faith, but God loves each of us unconditionally anyway, regardless. I can think of two ongoing miracles: the Incarnation and our continuing efforts at conversion of heart.



report abuse
 

Adam

posted March 23, 2006 at 4:55 pm


Why and how should bread “dissolve”? I thought we were supposed to eat the stuff?



report abuse
 

Fr Martin Fox (Septimus)

posted March 23, 2006 at 5:33 pm


I seem to recall a couple of stories of Eucharistic miracles that occured to priests who confessed they hadn’t had much faith in the Eucharist at the time they happened.
As to whether God would “gross us out,” several of these miracles were kinda gross — bleeding hosts, or a host turning to a chunk of flesh. I guess, from God’s point of view, this may not rate very high on the gross-o-meter — compared with, say, war, violence, economic oppression, etc.



report abuse
 

Bill Q

posted March 23, 2006 at 5:35 pm


Wouldn’t it be relatively easy for some scientists to determine if it was an actual blood clot and, perhaps, whose DNA it was?



report abuse
 

pml

posted March 23, 2006 at 6:53 pm


So if I put my country white in some water and let it sit for 30-days I might get this red fungus? Scientific project for the kiddies
Must wait to see what they tested for and the results. If it did turn to “flesh w/blood” … DNA should be done …
There was a report on Spirit Daily several months back regarding the bleeding ICONS and they did do some DNA type test, the results extremely interesting.



report abuse
 

Michael Barber

posted March 23, 2006 at 7:09 pm


Miracles can help people believe. But the desire for miracles can also inhibit belief. Recall how Jesus disappeared at Emmaus after the disciples believed – he was still present, in the Eucharistic species. Remaining visibly present would have been an obstacle to faith.
“Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed”(Jn.20:29).



report abuse
 

Susan Peterson

posted March 23, 2006 at 7:33 pm


Since it is the essential being of the bread which becomes Jesus, and not any of its attributes, I really can’t understand why a sudden change in the attributes would in any way “prove” or demonstrate the truth of the eucharistic presence. I have always looked upon these stories of bloody hosts as coming from those who think the “substance” in transubstantiation means “the stuff it is made out of”, where as the stuff it is made out of is clearly an “accident,” which isn’t supposed to change. God can do anything but why he would do something like this I can’t imagine. He can show people the reality of his presence in deeper ways; there are all kinds of stories of people who walked into a church and “saw” the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist…even atheists who were converted by this…and something like this happened to me at my conversion also….what I experienced is indescribable, but certainly had nothing to do with pieces of bloody flesh. It was more like direct knowledge of the truth of His presence, and His glory, of the existence of heaven and everlasting life, all at once, was put right into my understanding.
Why do people get all excited about this sort of thing when they already know about…the resurrection, the acension into heaving, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost….the sacraments…
I don’t get it.
Susan Peterson



report abuse
 

Eileen R

posted March 23, 2006 at 8:18 pm


Eucharistic miracles like this are (when authentic), I think, always most effective on those who have a close connection to them. At a distance in time or space, the authenticity is difficult to judge. I feel that such miracles are meant particularly for those to whom they come, and thus feel no compulsion to go out trying to figure out which is real and which is not.



report abuse
 

JACK

posted March 23, 2006 at 8:23 pm


It’s one thing to say to wait and see whether this is demonstrated to be a miracle.
But some of the comments on this thread are quite surprising — in essence, replacing God Himself with an image we have created of God, based on describing what He does (or would or wouldn’t do). Not the way it works.



report abuse
 

chris K

posted March 23, 2006 at 8:56 pm


Eucharistic miracles like this are (when authentic), I think, always most effective on those who have a close connection to them. At a distance in time or space, the authenticity is difficult to judge. I feel that such miracles are meant particularly for those to whom they come, and thus feel no compulsion to go out trying to figure out which is real and which is not.
Apparently the Church has not agreed. There is a responsibility to find out and discern the whys of such events, such gifts from God throughout history. And there are more pilgrimages today to such “distant” places that continue such miracles to the present. People travel huge distances to have their faith refreshed. They are just as impressed today as those who were closest to the miracles. In fact it is often for those at a distant that such out of the way places are selected. Just a few of such remarkable places:
Sienna, Italy — August 17, 1730
Consecrated Hosts remain perfectly preserved FOR OVER 250 YEARS. Rigorous scientific experiments have not been able to explain this phenomena.
Bolsena-Orvieta, Italy
Again, a priest has difficulties believing in the Real Presence, and blood begins seeping out of the Host upon consecration. Because of this miracle, Pope Urban IV commissioned the feast of Corpus Christi, which is still celebrated today.
Lanciano, Italy — 8th century A.D.
A priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This miracle has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB! Histological micrographs are shown.
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano – (Zenit)
“Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.”

I think the revival of interest is mostly due to Pope John Paul’s emphasis on the renewal of Eucharistic adoration and the Eucharist’s central importance to the faith. Many parishes that have begun adoration have used these miracles to revive the faith and to teach a generation that was taught to believe that it’s only bread. Again today, Jesus comes for the unbelievers rather than the believers. Thomas who lived with the Real Presence couldn’t believe in the words of Jesus after all he had witnessed. Yet today many people receive solace in their own doubts from that event…and again, God reaches out. Jesus had to transfigure Himself before those who would have the most responsibility in beginning His teachings to the world so they’d have something supernatural to fall back on in times of trial. Who am I to think I’m better than His own apostles. Even if one has faith himself, one should have charity for those who struggle.



report abuse
 

Eileen R

posted March 23, 2006 at 9:30 pm


chris K:
Apparently the Church has not agreed.
Err… no, it has. Catholics are not required to believe in *any* revelation, apparition, or miracle.
Now, there are definitely miracles and apparitions which have a great deal of solid evidence for them, the Church promotes etc. But no one is required to believe them *or* to make them part of their spiritual life.
Furthermore, there are many, many false miracles which have had good effects. For instance, for many centuries people were much affected by the miraculous preservation of St. Claire of Assisi. Only a few years ago, the Vatican’s medical expert in these matters examined the body and discovered that Claire’s body was a mannequin, made by the nuns to house her bones. St. Zita’s so-called incorrupt body turned out to be artificially mummified, with all the interior organs taken out and the body sewn up again with thread. (In both cases, there probably wasn’t a motive of deceit, but these facts were obscured by time.)
So did the Host in Bolsena-Orvieta really shed blood? Possibly. And possibly not. Corpus Christi does not depend on its importance on whether we know if the original miracle happened.



report abuse
 

Eileen R

posted March 23, 2006 at 9:34 pm


Anyway, what I was trying to say at first is that miracles have a different effect on different people in different situations. Not every message is meant for everyone.
Now I’ve no idea of the authenticity of this story but it means a great deal to me, since it happened to my ancestors, Elie Godin and Esther Ramage, who converted from the Hugeonot faith in the seventeenth century. To others, it might not have the same relevance.
Translated from the French and taken from a genealogy book:
“The history of Elie Gaudin and his wife Esther Ramage, couple from which you descend, is interesting and is identified with that of the beginnings of the parish of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré.
About forty years after the founding of Québec, a hugonot family, that of Gaudin, came to settle in the seigneurie of Beaupré. Elie Gaudin and his wife, Esther Ramage converted to catholicism and, the Providence which had guided them to these shores, wanted to confirm the faith of your ancestors by providing favourable signs.
In 1662, Esther Ramage, aged 46, had sufferred for 18 months of a very painfull sickness. She was so bent by the pain that she could only get around by dragging herself with a cane. She had lost all hope of recovery when she remembered the story her husband had told her about Louis Guimont who, in his presence, was suddenly cured of a very painful kidney disease as he was laying, in devotion, three stones on the foundation of the church of Sainte- Anne which was just being built. The poor cripple then prayed to the saint and implored her to grant to her the same miracle that was given to that man. At that same instant, forgetting her cane which disappeared, she found herself on her feet standing straight up, walking with all the ability that she ever had. From that moment, your ancestor remained in perfect health.
This miracle, adds the old cripple from whom we have gleaned this story, served to confirm the faith of that family who had always lived within the reformed religion.
Two years later, in 1664. the husband of Esther Ramage, Elie Gaudin, aged 50, was ill of a debillitating sickness to which the remedies brought little pain relief or cure, thought himself near dead and summoned the missionnary of Saint-Anne, who was then Father Thomas Morel to give him the last rights.
The missionnary counselled your ancestor to pray to the Virgin Mary and Sainte-Anne, and, proceeded to the church to say a mass for his intention. Upon returning to provide holy communion, Elie Gaudin, with a serene look said to him: “Sir, I am healed, please let me get up. While you were at the church, as I was praying with my beads, I gently fell asleep
and I saw two venerable ladies approach me. One held a box in her hand which she opened and showed it to me. Inside I saw a long and narrow road which led to Heaven. At this sight, I found myself filled with consollation and completely free of my ailment.”
After holy communion, Elie Gaudin praised God, got up, and went to church and before he finished his novena, was in a state of health as before his sickness.
Your ancestor Elie Gaudin lived for another eight years after this miraculous cure. His body was buried in the old cemetary of Sainte-Anne January 5 1672.
Elie Gaudin had four children with Esther Ramage. Jacques Gaudin, born in 1658, consecrated his life to the seminary of Québec as a lay person and died at Saint-Joachim in 1735. With him died the name of this good and brave family. The descendants of the miraculous Gaudin-Ramage are through their daughter Anne, your ancestor.”



report abuse
 

James Kabala

posted March 23, 2006 at 9:57 pm


I agree with Susan Peterson. (I have heard other people make this point before as well.) The transformation of a host into a hunk of flesh or a blood clot would seem to indicate that the host is just a part of Christ’s body, not the entire “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.” I don’t want to claim dogmatically that no such miracle has ever happened, but they do seem to not reflect a proper Eucharistic theology.



report abuse
 

Sarah Beth

posted March 23, 2006 at 10:06 pm


I had planned on blogging on this after work when there were (hopefully) some developments, but there don’t appear to be any. I first read about it here:
http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/archives2/013889.html#more
where there is a bit more in the way of information. My own thoughts are few and tentative on the investigation (whatever that means) of course, but are logged in post form at my blog. Suffice it to say, I don’t think there’s enough information out there for me to feel confident in either direction, though my first was one of skepticism. I’d like to hope that that is the product of my age and inexperience, though.



report abuse
 

Jeff Milelr

posted March 23, 2006 at 10:14 pm


“Communion “host” in Dallas church grew fungi, bacteria naturally”
According to Texas Catholic online and the results of a lab report given to the bishop.
http://www.texascatholic.com/default.asp?NodeId=834



report abuse
 

Whitcomb

posted March 23, 2006 at 10:48 pm


Someone asked why anyone would expect the bread to dissolve and why the communicant wouldn’t simply eat it.
When I was a boy preparing for First Communion in 1963, the Sister of Mercy giving us instruction told us very firmly that a) the host was not to touch our teeth and b) that we were to let it dissolve in our mouths. We were not to treat Jesus, she said, like snack food.



report abuse
 

Jon W

posted March 23, 2006 at 11:30 pm


When I was a boy preparing for First Communion in 1963, the Sister of Mercy giving us instruction told us very firmly that a) the host was not to touch our teeth and b) that we were to let it dissolve in our mouths.
And stuff like this is why we’re forced to put up with liberal BS now.



report abuse
 

dhoff

posted March 24, 2006 at 3:06 am


Whitcomb – I also made my First Communion in 1963 (OLBS, Bayside, NY)and was taught by the Sisters of Mercy (who taught alot of fear back then). We were most definitely told not to chew or touch the host with our hands and were led to believe that the host would bleed if we did.



report abuse
 

Maureen

posted March 24, 2006 at 8:10 am


Sounds like the parish and its hostmaking company will have to do some cleaning.
On the bright side, we now know that the kid was right to feel sick and spit it out. Also, since the host had gone bad, it was never really consecrated. So everything is cool.
Also, we now have seen what this sort of fungus looks like, which will be useful for future occurrences.



report abuse
 

dhoff

posted March 24, 2006 at 9:43 am


Maureen – From what I’ve read, the host didn’t grow the fungus until a month later.



report abuse
 

chris K

posted March 24, 2006 at 10:10 am


Apparently the Church has not agreed.
Eileen R.: Err… no, it has. Catholics are not required to believe in *any* revelation, apparition, or miracle.
That wasn’t the question. The point made was that such Eucharistic miracles declared by the Church have not been seen by the Church as only important or useful for the faithful in the immediate locale or only to the original witnesses…for which you felt personally their effect was mainly meant. They have been preserved and displayed for the entire Church’s benefit and that has been attested to by the thousands if not more who have traveled over oceans to have their faith renewed by such gifts. The question of forcing such faithful to believe in them had not even come up. That always seems to be the come back AFTER people speak to other beneficial effects of such gifts that they may personally have experienced, never asking that others believe the same or even stating that the Church orders it. And because the Church has used them as tools of the faith speaks to the devotion and respect the Church has given to such gifts wherever in the world they may have appeared. I think these little discussions at least serve a purpose of educating those who may never have heard about certain happenings recorded in the history of their Church. The Church, thankfully, has not concentrated only on the intellectual acceptance of truths but knows that humans often need a more human and personal touch.
The transformation of a host into a hunk of flesh or a blood clot would seem to indicate that the host is just a part of Christ’s body, not the entire “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.” I don’t want to claim dogmatically that no such miracle has ever happened, but they do seem to not reflect a proper Eucharistic theology.
Then would you say that devotion to the Sacred Heart as a way of understanding the “essence” of Love/Christ/Trinity – or the Divine Mercy Image which again concentrates on that part of the body to explain the whole of the mystery of the Incarnation is theology in error? The very material used by Christ to remain in our midst is in itself a block to the faith of many before their faith agrees. In fact, the earthly existence of the Man/God only seen in that bodily manifestation does not convey, in and of Itself the whole mystery of the Trinity to the limited human observer. Thomas’ need to touch the wounds of Christ did not convey to him the entirety of the mystery of his redemption. Because a physical portion of the whole is all that is permitted to be revealed, at certain times, of the supernatural, does not mean that that portion is not at the same time the whole that it represents, but it immediately reveals the truth of the mystery of transubstantiation to the observer in the most “economical” way. That purpose is of God’s intention to put forth…not ours to be satisfied.



report abuse
 

Rosemarie

posted March 25, 2006 at 8:29 pm


+J.M.J+
My sister-in-law says that she was told by the nuns back then that chewing the Host was like crunching Jesus’ bones! I guess the good sisters were just using rather colorful language to discourage the kids from chewing the Host, but it struck my sil as kinda weird.
In Jesu et Maria,



report abuse
 

Dhoff

posted March 25, 2006 at 10:08 pm


Rosemarie – The Sisters of Mercy also required us to put +J.M.J.+ at the top of all our work.
We moved the summer after I finished 2nd grade and was surprised to find this no longer required at my new school, which was run by Dominican nuns.



report abuse
 

patrick mcdonald, md

posted March 25, 2006 at 10:32 pm


As a physician, we are taught to read/analyze data and information critically. The boy in this story most likely coughed up the eucharist. When people cough, they break small blood vessels in the lungs that would easily explain the blood. If DNA sampling showed that the blood was other than the boy’s, then that would truly be a miracle. Being a doctor, I hear on so many occasions “it is a miracle.” Each time I can explain it by science. I am the first to want to discover a “hard miracle”…(something that cannot be explained by man’s current mind-map), but, I am at the same time, intolerant of gimmicks like this. My faith as a Catholic carries me through life without having to rely on this human desire to grasp for un-truths…it directs people’s energy and attention from the miracle of daily living and all of the graces on-going around them while they are blinded to them.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.