Actually, this has happened.
I don’t think this is the reason. It has more to do with whether faith is seeking understanding.
Actually, the CC does not deny all these things. These are just not the sum total of what happens at communion.
I do not believe this is true. The CC does not take issue with non-Catholic services and gatherings. The CC teaches the faithful to experience spiritual communion when they cannot physically receive the Lord. It is no different for Protestants. He did promise where two or three were gathered, He would be present.
I think this is the case for all the Divine Mysteries. For example, I believe that Jesus was incarnate of Mary, and was physically born. I don’t know how this occurred (except that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her). He took flesh of her flesh, but where did He get a Y chromosome?
I believe that Jesus put mud on the eyes of the blind, and they were healed, but I can’t explain it.
I believe that many bodies of the dead were raised at the time Jesus was, but I can’t explain it. If they were seen by man around Jerusalem, what happened to them? Did they just hang out around town until Jesus ascended and go with Him, or did they go back into their graves? Did they die again?
Jesus was 'known" to the disciples in Emmaus in the breaking of the bread, but then He disappeared. Where did He go? Was he actually physically present on the journey?
How is it that Phillip found Himself at Azotus? How can someone believe that things occur without knowing how or being able to “explain”? Because we accept them in faith. We accept the source of of the report.
Right, but what made His clothes shine? How did Moses and Elijah appear, since the gates of heaven had not yet been opened? You seem to admit here that you can accept that a miracle can occur and be written about, but this does not seem to apply to Eucharist?
This is not necessarily the case. I don’t like the term, and I would rather not see it formally adopted, but I am willing to submit to the Church as the authority appointed by Christ. So long as I do not make a public opposition to the title, and exercise obedient acceptance, I would not be considered a heretic.
This title is the least of our worries, though. We have heretics who are masquerading as faithful Catholics in the pews, in the media, and in politics. They openly reject the teachings of the Church, and some have excommunicated themselves.
Yes, but that significance lies in the reality that He gave His real body and His real (not symbolic) blood for our salvation.
If this priest has any heart for the divisions that have rent the Body of Christ then he will so long for unity.
I believe in this miracle and other miracles. I don’t have a problem accepting that miracles happen. I just don’t know what is miraculous in Catholic Communion specifically. What changes? All of these miracles here and in the last post are about a perceivable change. What change is perceived in Catholic Communion?
Jesus/God --> man
Blind man --> able to see
Dead --> alive
Jesus present --> Jesus disappeared
Philip here --> Philip there
Jesus appears typical --> Jesus shines
I am fine with leaving the --> unexplained.
But with the Eucharist I see
wafer --> ???
What is it? It is still a wafer by our world’s standards. All of the other miracles had a scientifically detectable change. This change is not detectable by science. But it is not just spiritual. What realm does it change in?
You are focusing on the seen. The unseen realities are also there.
They (the apostles) were ordained, given the authority, the power, by Jesus, to do exactly what Jesus just did. Namely change bread and wine into His body and blood.
do, make, manufacture, construct, cause, ordain.
Jesus ordained them here.
Obviously symbolists and Catholics can agree about this. Its a matter of what eating His real flesh and blood has to do with accepting the Word of God (which is the figurative aspect of eating the bread of God).
Also, as susanlo is concerned about, what real change happens in the Eucharist that makes it more than symbolic?
Yes, we know a symbol does not represent a symbol…
Isn’t transubstantiation the transfiguration of His Eucharist?
No. Transfiguration was an appearance. Transubstantiation is a vhange in what it truly is, apart from appearance.
I am not understanding why the priest and your Mother had to be in private. If you had been able to take her to church you would have been able to witness her receiving.
Is there any other incidence of Transubstantiation that takes place in our world other than in your Eucharist?
The Word became flesh
Could you detect with science that Jesus was God?
No I understand that and accept it. It was a one time happening in history. I am asking about ongoing practice happening now in 2018.
Actually you could refute my example by saying science could have detected a virgin conceiving.
But im not sure how the Virgin conceived…
Well, Jesus’ miracles were seen and perceived by those around Him. Merely touching the fringe of His garment allowed a woman to be healed. We don’t know if Jesus has the DNA of man or if he has different DNA. His appearance was that of a typical man, but what He was capable of doing far surpasses what any mere man could do.
Thats two different things. His moracles, and the unoticed fact that He was God became flesh.
You know there have been Eucharistic miracles, right? Have you read about any of them?
Yes, I read a book about them. It took 600-700 years for the first to be recorded. Sometimes there was a visible change, and other times there were various things that occurred including the wafer floating away or visions happening.
17 times there was a change in chemical substance and appearance.
You mean aside from St Luke’s record of the first instance?
And what do you make of those claims?
Not sure…perhaps also to hear confession, though he says"to give her communion"…I could ask also but feel restrained, by the separate understandings/rules.
From what you say, there should be no reason to be private. You should ask your mother.