Eucharistic Miracles

What’s a non-Catholic perspective on Eucharistic Miracles?

Here’s my favorite :slight_smile:

And here’s the page I got it from:

Probably you may not be able to get a truly informative view from non-Catholics who do not believe in the Eucharist in the first place. Miracles can be subjective in the eyes of the non-believers so they can never be regarded as the ultimate scientific evidence that they actually happen.

Perhaps you will get more repsonse from Catholics on this subject.

God bless.

well, I am highly skeptical…but here is something all you faithful adherents could do for us skeptics:

  1. pick the five Eucharistics miracles that enjoy the greatest confidence of Catholics;

  2. run DNA tests on the flesh and blood samples from those five miracles;

  3. the results should either:

         a) prove to the rest of us that all the DNA samples came from a single person, a male semite to be precise; or
         b) prove that the adherents are a gullible and mistaken lot (when it comes to Eucharistic miracles)

We have the technology, let’s do the test for the good of all of us…until then, don’t expect me to buy into the claims…there are just too many holes in them.

I’m not an expert on the matter, but I don’t think that there’s been a lot of experimentation on them in awhile. However, I do believe they’re all blood type AB :slight_smile:

I don’t mind the idea of “frosting on the cake”, but considering the colossal miracle already inherent in the transubstantiative Eucharist, I would think that all other events are by nature superfluous and even perhaps a bit paltry… like parlor tricks; like standing by a great waterfall and thinking that pouring water from your thermos will somehow support or enhance the waterfall’s magnificence. I am not Catholic or Christian, but if I believed as Catholics do that Jesus is Really Real and Really Present in the Eucharistic Species, I just might find any other “miracle” attaching to the Elements as an unnecessary distraction…

Well, look at the context of the miracles; they all tend to happen when somebody (often the consecrating priest?) is in doubt of the Real Presence, so I wouldn’t call it a “distraction” per se.

I’ve tried to find the same answer as the OP is looking for. I think some of the problem is that there is a lack of what you would call accessible hard science. The WHO report that apparently is out there somewhere was discussed in a previous CAF thread here: The upshot was that it’s not available in a translated form readily available on google, and thus is essentially worthless when trying to “prove” the miracle - to English speakers at least.

If you search around on google, many of the first pages you’ll find are atheists making fun of the miracle. One claimed to have read the report and dismissed the presence of human flesh as saying the Catholics planted it there. So essentially it’s the same thing as always; people are going to believe their pre-dispositions unless something radical happens or if they have a personal experience that shows them there is something to believe in the miracle. It also doesn’t help that most of the “pro” sites are Catholic and are merely summations or bullet points of the report, not citations, pictures of it, etc that can be independently verified.

For more discussion, here’s one of my favorite youtube videos talking about another Eucharistic miracle and the study regarding the miracle:

I wasn’t calling it a distraction per se. I wasn’t evaluating, say, for a doubting priest, but for my own reactions to said “miracles”.

Dear Thomas,

If this makes your faith in the Real Presence stronger or creates it in the first place, that’s fantastic and I’m glad that it works for you.

As for this Lutheran, I have no doubt that when I recieve the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, I truly am recieving the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and that any further “proof” is totally unnecessary.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the host in the mass is changed to actual flesh and blood? I have eaten flesh, not human flesh, but cooked animal flesh and the host in the mass bore little resemlance to flesh. Didn’t taste anything like it either. So I’m pretty sure it wasn’t actual flesh. In your example of a miracle, isn’t the flesh and blood supposed to be eaten? So why has this speciman been lying around for so long? And would you be willing to eat this speciman?

When Catholics speak of the “echaristic miracles”…I wonder…I thought the “bread and wine” remained under the guise of bread and wine.

I am skeptical…no…no skeptical…I am an “unbeliever” in any way shape or form in such “miracles” to be quite honest.

If they build your faith and cause one to “love your enemies”…and “love your neighbor as yourself”…and “love the Lord your God…” then wonderful…for me…the “proof is in the pudding”…if they cause no inward change to the person believing them…the “miracles” are of little use.


Are you saying His words were proof enough? :eek:
Agreed. :thumbsup:


His words are the words of eternal life. What more do I need?

I wonder if my Lord is trying to tell me something as I ask why do all these “miracles” only happen to the Catholic Church?

if he is the son of God, let him come down from the cross and save himself. sound familiar? it is interesting that protestants claim by faith only, then when it comes to a matter of faith, they ask for scientific proof. even if such were offered, it is doubtful you would still believe. Peace :slight_smile:

hi Richard. you know that we believe it is changed to the actual body blood soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. the reason the Host has been lying around for so long is a witness to those that do not believe. Peace :slight_smile:

originally posted by Drew0426
Well, look at the context of the miracles; they all tend to happen when somebody (often the consecrating priest?) is in doubt of the Real Presence, so I wouldn’t call it a “distraction” per se.


That’s just it Ben. You believe that the host transubstantiates into the body and blood of Jesus. Now we know or should know, irregardless of that belief, that the host does not turn into actual flesh and blood. So now we have this so called miraculous sample. That supposedly is real flesh and blood. So what is this a witness for. Is it saying that at all masses the host should be turned into actual observable flesh and blood? And if that is so wouldn’t that invalidate all masses where that does not occur? And again would you eat this flesh and blood? And does not the CC say that the mass is an unbloody sacrifice? Wouldn’t this actual flesh and blood be contrary to this so-called unbloody sacrifice? I mean there is so many contradictions here it’s hard to keep track of them.

As I understand it, it would not be observable flesh and blood, as the accidents of the bread and wine remain.
But your point is well accepted; the more we try to define and explain this mystery, the more there is to explain. John of Damascus said;
*“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit” *

Christ’s words should suffice: “This IS my body.” And so it is.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit