Supposed Catholic Miracles?

[pianoperformer]

I've been going through the process of separating myself from Catholicism, after exploring it for a while. I've beend oing pretty well, but one thing I"m not sure about is the supposed Catholic miracles. For instance, there are numerous accounts of Eucharistic miracles where the Eucharist actually turns into flesh or blood, or I heard of one where the host was dripping with blood. Or what about the many apparitions of Mary, especially the one in Fatima, and others?

I'm just not sure how to respond logically to such events.

[Solipsist]

Despite what my Roman Catholic friends would say, I don't believe that Roman Catholicism holds a monopoly on miracles.

I see no reason to dispute or refute the Eucharistic miracles, or the miracles at Fatima. But there are other, non-Roman Catholic miracles, also. Small miracles happen everyday that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

To me, miracles themselves are a product of faith, which is but the acceptance of Reality.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Despite what my Roman Catholic friends would say, I don't believe that Roman Catholicism holds a monopoly on miracles.

I see no reason to dispute or refute the Eucharistic miracles, or the miracles at Fatima. But there are other, non-Roman Catholic miracles, also. Small miracles happen everyday that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

To me, miracles themselves are a product of faith, which is but the acceptance of Reality.

Yeah, I like what you are saying. The problem is when Catholics use these miracles to claim that their church is the one and only true church, and through the Eucharistic miracles, say that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ.

But yes, I've seen my own fair share of miracles, and I'm sure other religions have their miracles as well.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Yeah, I like what you are saying. The problem is when Catholics use these miracles to claim that their church is the one and only true church, and through the Eucharistic miracles, say that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ.

But yes, I've seen my own fair share of miracles, and I'm sure other religions have their miracles as well.

If it was the blood of Christ, I wouldn't want to drink it. I'd throw up. Blood cannot be digested by the human body.

There are a lot of miracles that we manifest.

(Random thought... if the bread was turned into the body of Christ, wouldn't we be committing cannibalism? )

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by st33med

If it was the blood of Christ, I wouldn't want to drink it. I'd throw up. Blood cannot be digested by the human body.

There are a lot of miracles that we manifest.

(Random thought... if the bread was turned into the body of Christ, wouldn't we be committing cannibalism? )

They don't actually consume it if they see it's been turned into flesh and blood. That'd be a little weird.

[Merrick1]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

...but one thing I"m not sure about is the supposed Catholic miracles. For instance, there are numerous accounts of Eucharistic miracles where the Eucharist actually turns into flesh or blood, or I heard of one where the host was dripping with blood. Or what about the many apparitions of Mary, especially the one in Fatima, and others?

I'm just not sure how to respond logically to such events.

Miracles have nothing to do with a religion, no matter whether Catholic or any other. Most people simply need miracles to have faith or to strenghten their faith in God. So, God fulfills that need.

As far as Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ or any other high Beings are concerned, there are many people in this world who are permanently connected with these personifications of Love because they themselves live or strive to live in Love. And they help anyone who turns to them for help. I know people who have had personal encounters with Lord Jesus. He appeared to them, talked with them, gave them some encouragement.

The great yogi paramahansa Yogananda had many encounters with Lord Jesus in his life. One of them, probably the most beatiful one, he described in his book The Autobiography of a Yogi:

"At the Encinitas hermitage I spent much of 1938 in dictating to secretaries my interpretation of the New Testament. Fervently I implored Christ to guide me in divining the true meaning of his words, many of which have been grieviously misunderstood for twenty centuries.

One night while I was engaged in silent prayer, my room became filled with an opal-blue light. I beheld the radiant form of the blessed Lord Jesus. A young man, he seemed, of about twenty-five, with a sparse beard and moustache; his long black hair, parted in the middle, was hallowed by a shimmering gold.

His eyes were eternally wondrous; as I gazed, they were infinitely changing. With each divine transition in their expression, I intuitively understood the wisdom that was being conveyed. In his glorious eyes I felt the power which upholds the myriad worlds. A Holy Grail appeared at his mouth; it came down to my lips and then returned to Jesus. After a few moments he spoke to me in beautiful words of reassurance, so personal in their nature that I keep them in heart."

To those people who are able to see their energy body, they usually appear that way. To those who aren't, they sometimes appear in flesh. There is nothing unusual about it. In Slovakia there is a place called Turzovka where both Virgin Mary and Lord Jesus appeared to a man several times in a short span of a time and then springs of a healing water suddenly appeared in that place which are there since and people come there to worship and drink the water. The man is still alive, although he is already old.

There is another place I know of in Slovakia where Virgin Mary appeared to some children and a movie has been made about it. And I'm sure, there are many places like that in the world.

I believe, such apparitions are actually quite frequent but to most people they are very sacred and they keep them in their hearts or tell about it only to some of their closest friends, who understand. But they don't run with it immediately to the media.

Merrick

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Yeah, I like what you are saying. The problem is when Catholics use these miracles to claim that their church is the one and only true church, and through the Eucharistic miracles, say that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ.

I personally see no reason to dispute that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, but when such is used to proselytize, I start questioning motive.

I, myself, would be happy to partake of the Eucharist again, were it not for the Church itself excluding me from it through its dogmatic interpretations. The Eucharist is what led me to Roman Catholicism to begin with. Yet, one thing I've long asserted is that Jesus himself offered the Eucharist to even Judas, even after the prophecy of his betrayal.

The fundamental issue with the assertion of Eucharistic miracles isn't that they're not authentic, but rather the motive behind the often vehement assertion that they are.

[pianoperformer]

Merrick,

Thanks for your reply. That is very interesting; I will have to try to find that book.

The thing is that in many of these apparitions, people report that Mary is telling them messages that is encouraging others to join Catholicism specificly. I guess I would understand if the messages were more universal, and not specific to one religion. Also, the thing that really bothers me is that, for instance in Fatima, they sometimes get a vision of hell, which I personally don't think really exists. That doesn't seem to be about love at all, even though the message overall is.

Maybe it is just God trying to meet people where they are, but I'm not sure why people would have visions of hell.

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I personally see no reason to dispute that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, but when such is used to proselytize, I start questioning motive.

I, myself, would be happy to partake of the Eucharist again, were it not for the Church itself excluding me from it through its dogmatic interpretations. The Eucharist is what led me to Roman Catholicism to begin with. Yet, one thing I've long asserted is that Jesus himself offered the Eucharist to even Judas, even after the prophecy of his betrayal.

The fundamental issue with the assertion of Eucharistic miracles isn't that they're not authentic, but rather the motive behind the often vehement assertion that they are.

If the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ, then generally the deduction is that therefore, the body and blood of Christ are necessary for "salvation." If Jesus didn't die for the sins of humanity, then there seems there would be no purpose for a Eucharist wherein it is actually his body and blood. What do you think?

Regarding receiving, I still am, for two reasons: firstly, I think that to not recieive isan admission of guilt, and I have none for the decision I made. Secondly, it would really hurt my fiance if I stopped receiving, and she seems to see no problem with it. Technically I know that I shouldn't, but I still do for now.

In ceremonial magick, there is also the idea of a Eucharist, that has magickal importants and is beneficial for the magickian to receive. I don't think they think it is really the body and blood of God, but this is how I'm treating the Catholic Eucharist for now, just mostly for my own sake, to have somewhere to file it in my mind.

[Merrick1]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Merrick,

Thanks for your reply. That is very interesting; I will have to try to find that book.

As far as I know, this part of the book has been left out from some editions. It is, for example, in the edition I have from 1969 (third impression 1972), published by Rider&Company, London.

When I asked my spiritual teacher why he thought this part had been left out from some editions, he answered that, as to him, the reason was not to provoke the Christians, showing that a yogi could have such a beautiful relationship with Lord Jesus when they claim to have a monopoly on Him.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

The thing is that in many of these apparitions, people report that Mary is telling them messages that is encouraging others to join Catholicism specificly. I guess I would understand if the messages were more universal, and not specific to one religion.

I don't know how to answer this one. I could ask Lenka, she also has a beautiful relationship with Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ and she can ask them any question. Or she can ask God. But she is very busy now. I also apologize for not having answered some other things yet. I haven't forgotten, just have been inundated with work. I will definitely get back to you by Christmas.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Also, the thing that really bothers me is that, for instance in Fatima, they sometimes get a vision of hell, which I personally don't think really exists. That doesn't seem to be about love at all, even though the message overall is.

Maybe it is just God trying to meet people where they are, but I'm not sure why people would have visions of hell.

Well, if you have a look at the buddhist Wheel of Samsara, you'll see that in the buddhist teachings there are many different worlds, including hell.

And from my own personal experience it is true. Regions which may be called hell do exist. But only to teach the lost souls. It is not meant to be a permanent damnation. Even hell is supposed to bring man back to Love, however drastic this may seem. But people have free choice. We all get plenty opportunities to turn back to the Light along the way. It doesn't have to go that far. It looks like though, some people do need that experience. Or most of us, perhaps, in the course of many incarnations? :-)

Merrick

[pianoperformer]

Thanks Merrick, that makes a lot of sense.

No problem about not getting back to me. I know you are busy.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

If the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ, then generally the deduction is that therefore, the body and blood of Christ are necessary for "salvation." If Jesus didn't die for the sins of humanity, then there seems there would be no purpose for a Eucharist wherein it is actually his body and blood. What do you think?

Sounds like a good question for the protestants, who believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol, yet that Jesus still died "for the sins of humanity." All of that is a matter of inference and interpretation, and we could discuss that until we're blue in the face. All of Christendom has already done that. Which is one reason why I am completely irreligious, anymore.

However, I still maintain the question that if Jesus "died for the sins of humanity," and that if, by means of the Eucharist, our "sin" is absolved, then why not make the Eucharist available to all of humanity? If, as Jesus said, "if you do not eat My body and drink My blood, you have no life in Me, nor I in you," then why exclude anyone from that? The answers I get from Catholicism are only dogmatic justifications for the Church. Again, I question motive, first and always.

Regarding receiving, I still am, for two reasons: firstly, I think that to not recieive is an admission of guilt, and I have none for the decision I made. Secondly, it would really hurt my fiance if I stopped receiving, and she seems to see no problem with it. Technically I know that I shouldn't, but I still do for now.

I can understand the fiance thing, but I don't understand the guilt thing.

I have no guilt, either, for renouncing religion, yet, I do not partake because, to me, it would slap the Church in the face, by assuming that it wasn't the sacrilege they assert it to be, and I have no cause to do that. When I was Catholic, I received the Eucharist often enough (I was once very devout), and who's to say that I don't still have life in Jesus, and he in me, as a result? I am certainly at much more at Peace within myself since renouncing religion. Who's to say that that Peace isn't a result of receiving the Eucharist as often as I did in the first place?

To be honest, the last time I received the Eucharist, I realized that it was just an unleavened bread wafer. I was so intensely happy, I actually started laughing aloud, right there in the Church! To me, that was the day that I truly found my life in Christ. Yet, to the Church, such joy was a sacrilege, and a loss of faith. Since then, I've yet to ascribe to any other dogma, and I've had more Love and more Peace in my heart that at any time I held my faith Roman Catholicism.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Sounds like a good question for the protestants, who believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol, yet that Jesus still died "for the sins of humanity." All of that is a matter of inference and interpretation, and we could discuss that until we're blue in the face. All of Christendom has already done that. Which is one reason why I am completely irreligious, anymore.

You actually reversed my question. I meant that if we acknowledge that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ, ahen we have to admit that it means something, that there is a reason that it transforms into that. Usually people believe that it is because his body and blood were sacrificed for our sins. But if we don't believe that, then there is also no reason for the Eucharist to be his body and blood.

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I have no guilt, either, for renouncing religion, yet, I do not partake because, to me, it would slap the Church in the face, by assuming that it wasn't the sacrilege they assert it to be, and I have no cause to do that. When I was Catholic, I received the Eucharist often enough (I was once very devout), and who's to say that I don't still have life in Jesus, and he in me, as a result? I am certainly at much more at Peace within myself since renouncing religion. Who's to say that that Peace isn't a result of receiving the Eucharist as often as I did in the first place?

I do see what you mean, but really, if we're going by who should receive, I think they'd have a very short Communion line. Technically, as much as I understand it, any Catholic who uses contraception shouldn't receive, which last I heard was over 90%. That's just one example; I'm sure I could cut even more out. If you cut out those who have had sex before marriage, I'm sure those left over would be even less. The reality is that the Catholic Church is very strict, but few people actually follow every law.

Originally Posted by Solipsist

To be honest, the last time I received the Eucharist, I realized that it was just an unleavened bread wafer. I was so intensely happy, I actually started laughing aloud, right there in the Church! To me, that was the day that I truly found my life in Christ. Yet, to the Church, such joy was a sacrilege, and a loss of faith. Since then, I've yet to ascribe to any other dogma, and I've had more Love and more Peace in my heart that at any time I held my faith Roman Catholicism.

I agree. I, also, have felt a lot freer and happier since I made the decision to leave, even though it's made it awkward between Christine and me at times. Still, I feel like the lesson of the last several months has been to believe what I want to believe, and not be ashamed to admit it to others. It is a lot harder to do that when you go to a Catholic university, but it is what I'm trying to deal with.

Can I ask what made you so happy when you realize the Eucharist was just bread? Was it just the relief of not having to worry about it anymore, or not having to feel guilty?

[NavyBlueFlower]

First, let me say to Solipsist and PianoPerformer that I think that anything that increases your awareness of connection to the Divine - however it manifests in your life - is a genuine spiritual experience, no matter what Vatican City may say about it.

Just wanted to throw into this thread that about two hours ago, I was cleaning and I shot up a prayer to St. Joseph to help me find a lost article I'd been missing for a few weeks - and then I got an impulse to look around a corner, I swept into a dark crevice, and there it was! I don't remember clearly whether it is St. Joseph or St. Anthony who is considered the patron saint of lost articles, but somebody certainly helped me. And I'm not what you would call a currently practising Catholic. I'm glad they seem to take an interest in such seemingly trivial matters as lost cat toys!

I would hazard a guess that whatever your experience is with the Eucharist, the sacraments, prayer, or miracles, if the saints do exist as we know them, it's fine with them as long as they know you're safe and okay.

[Merrick1]

Originally Posted by Merrick1

I don't know how to answer this one. I could ask Lenka, she also has a beautiful relationship with Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ and she can ask them any question. Or she can ask God. But she is very busy now.

Well, Lenka was quite happy to "jump off" cooking and browsing a Christmas catalogue to ask Virgin Mary that question . And I when I saw her happy smile talking with her also after we had finished, I was very glad that this opportunity had arisen.

What came to my mind was that the apparitions of “Virgin Mary“ telling people to join the Catholic Church may sometimes in reality be some spiteful phantoms or false gurus who seek to mislead people. And one way of doing that is to pretend to be someone else. We have had a personal (and definitely not nice) experience with such beings. And there are many „schizophrenics“ out there who are being controlled by entities pretending to be Jesus Christ, Virgin Mary or God.

Nevertheless, Lenka asked Virgin Mary herself. And this is what she told us:

“To me Love is important. My task is to help you find God.“ Then she said that faith is important but that she does not divide people to Catholic and non-Catholic. “I see the human being in the first place. Each of you is invited to come to God. It is rather about that that someone prefers to look for God on their own, whereas someone else needs to be a part of a group in their search. And religion may help here too.“

So, in certain particular cases she may recommend to someone to join a church. But only when she knows that it is the right path for the person and that the concrete congregation is pure. Although the church in general is profaned, there, nevertheless, still exist congregations, where the original ideal is alive in its purity, where people seek God with their hearts open. Not everywhere religion is politics. So, it depends on a concrete place, on the priest, on the people there. So, she may recommend to a particular person in a particular place to join the Catholic Church. But this is not meant in general, it is not meant to say that this is the only true path.

Virgin Mary also confirms that which I have said above about those phantoms etc. This is another reason why we should have our hearts open and stay present as much as possible. Only then are we able to clearly distinguish between the reality and the illusions.

Merrick

[pianoperformer]

Merrick, thank you, and thank Lenka as well on my behalf please, for that insight. That does make a lot more sense now, and it is encouraging and comforting.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

You actually reversed my question. I meant that if we acknowledge that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ, then we have to admit that it means something, that there is a reason that it transforms into that.

Not necessarily. We may still acknowledge transubstantiation, merely because Jesus said it, and if we believe that Jesus was God, then how can we expect to know the reason? Wouldn't we then know the mind of God? You can try to find a reason, and even think you know the reason, but whether you do or not, Jesus said it, and that's that. Not to say that I maintain such faith, but we don't "have to" do anything, except what is laid down in Canon Law, which is, again, according to the Church. If you want a reason for anything, you can always ask the Church--they've got a reason for everything.

I do see what you mean, but really, if we're going by who should receive, I think they'd have a very short Communion line. Technically, as much as I understand it, any Catholic who uses contraception shouldn't receive, which last I heard was over 90%. That's just one example; I'm sure I could cut even more out. If you cut out those who have had sex before marriage, I'm sure those left over would be even less. The reality is that the Catholic Church is very strict, but few people actually follow every law.

I see what you're saying, of course, but all you have to do is go to confession and do your pennance, and you're good to go. That in itself is enough to increase the communion line.

Can I ask what made you so happy when you realized the Eucharist was just bread? Was it just the relief of not having to worry about it anymore, or not having to feel guilty?

This is a good question, yet a difficult one to answer.

Some weeks before that mass, I had become aware of the concept of Oneness, and was exploring that at the time. Such a concept treats of idea that we are all One in Reality (while in actuality, we separate ourselves through ego). Oneness meant one in Christ, also, and as I knelt in a sort of contemplative prayer, it suddenly dawned on me that I was one with God, in Reality, and truly One with Christ. The quotes, "I and the Father are one," and "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father," suddenly made perfect sense to me, in that, I and the Father are one, also. You and the Father are one. The whole congregation was One with God, the whole world was One with God, whether it realized it or not.

Such a realization was so incredibly liberating, that I simply couldn't help but laugh hysterically. I got a few looks, indeed, from some in the crowd who no doubt felt that such a moment should be experienced in all solemnity, but I really didn't care. I knew the Truth, and the Truth had set me free. I can't help but chuckle, even now, as I think about it.

At that point, the wafer became a just a wafer to me. "It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing."