The Eucharist. 50 Questions From The Pews

I was reading this book, The Eucharist… bought at Pauline Books and Media, and on page
47 it says that Aquinas was clear that if blood did flow from a consecrated host, it was surely not the blood of Christ. He acknowledged that these occurrences might happen.

Based on studies and investigations on Eucharistic miracles, it does seem like it’s Christs’ blood.

Thoughts?

St Thomas Aquinas was a very holy man who was trying to understand a very sacred mystery. As such, he was bound to make mistakes. I personally, and I believe the church also, teaches that The Bread and Wine have truly become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Its why it is essential to not let the Euchrist fall on the ground. In the Eastern Catholic Church, we have a tradition that if the body or blood falls on the ground we burn the carpet. So we certainly acknowledge it as the Body and blood.

coptsoldier,

You misunderstand Faith’s question, I think.

The question has to do with Eucharistic miracles. When there is the appearance of blood or of flesh in the consecrated species, the question is “whose blood or flesh is it?”

Aquinas answers that it is not Christ’s literal blood, but that a miraculous change to the physical species has taken place, in order to demonstrate the truth of the belief in the Real Presence.

Faith: although one could test the blood or flesh that are part of a Eucharistic miracle, how could one test whether it is Christ’s physical body?

They couldn’t. It’s just an assumption. BTW, sorry to the mods…I accidentally put this question here on the wrong forum, then when I didn’t see it in the forum I meant to put it, I wrote another near duplicate post.

Am I wrong? Aren’t EMs assumed to be Jesus’ blood and heart tissue?

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