I see we agree when we say 'the church' is made up of those in the 'household of God' as accordng to 1 Timothy 3:15 and we likely agree that more than RCs are in this household. So, when you say that the 'Catholic Church has a final interpretive authority', I would agree with you in that also as catholic means universal but I differ if you mean the Roman Catholic church has final interpretive authority.
Speaking of incontestable miracles, I believe the word 'saint' is also something we use differently. If I understand correctly, for someone to be called a 'saint' they must be associated with an incontestable miracle. I believe we are all saints and priests as believers but some may be more 'saintly' in their practise. When letters in scripture are addressed to 'the saints' in a location, I don't think this applies only to those associated with an incontestable miracle.
I thought the opening thread was a challenge to why some don't see Jesus in the eucharist as an RC would. My point is that some non-RC believers can and do differ with RC understandings of what scripture is saying. IMO, these differences are not a big deal but when it comes to what our salvation is based on, to me, that is a big deal. What group has the most incontestable miracles, IMO, matters not but is interesting in considering what level of proof actually exists.
Sudsy wrote:I see we agree when we say 'the church' is made up of those in the 'household of God' as accordng to 1 Timothy 3:15 and we likely agree that more than RCs are in this household. So, when you say that the 'Catholic Church has a final interpretive authority', I would agree with you in that also as catholic means universal but I differ if you mean the Roman Catholic church has final interpretive authority.
Speaking of incontestable miracles, I believe the word 'saint' is also something we use differently. If I understand correctly, for someone to be called a 'saint' they must be associated with an incontestable miracle. I believe we are all saints and priests as believers but some may be more 'saintly' in their practise. When letters in scripture are addressed to 'the saints' in a location, I don't think this applies only to those associated with an incontestable miracle.
I thought the opening thread was a challenge to why some don't see Jesus in the eucharist as an RC would. My point is that some non-RC believers can and do differ with RC understandings of what scripture is saying. IMO, these differences are not a big deal but when it comes to what our salvation is based on, to me, that is a big deal. What group has the most incontestable miracles, IMO, matters not but is interesting in considering what level of proof actually exists.
As pertaining to the OP, as I said earlier I do agree with you that this particular miracle even if officially pronounced as a miracle does not constitute proof of transsubstantiation for there is no proof of it.
The rest belongs in a different thread.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
j9j9j9j9 wrote:Some miracles are found only in the catholic church, such as the Lanciano miracle of the transformation of the bread into flesh and the wine into blood. These miracles had been studied by scientists and the conclusions are just amazing: it is real blood and real flesh, they are from the same person, they are from the gruop AB+, they are still alive(the cells are alive, move, they are not mummified...) So, how can some guys say Jesus is not in the eucharist? If someone says so, please tell me how con it be. If some one needs information about Lanciano, just google: eucharistic miracle at lanciano, and you will get it.
In my view transubstantiation is completely false and any attempts to argue for it invariably end with the person getting himself philosophically tongue-tied. Even the great Thomas Aquinas, and one of his followers, the late, great Herbert McCabe ended up speaking gobbledegook when trying to defend it.
Thank you for your replies. But my question still arises: Let us say we can not know, as neo-x said, that it was bread and wine, ok. But how can it be alive? That thing shows the properties of flesh blood after twelve centuries. Normal blood gets decomposed after twenty minutes, this thing does not. Why?
Thank you for your replies. But my question still arises: Let us say we can not know, as neo-x said, that it was bread and wine, ok. But how can it be alive? That thing shows the properties of flesh blood after twelve centuries. Normal blood gets decomposed after twenty minutes, this thing does not. Why?
well, it's congealed which means it can retain its biological compounds and they must replace it after sometime (as blood and organ banks do). not to sound rude but that might be the only way it can be explained.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
If someone says so, please tell me how con it be. If some one needs information about Lanciano, just google: eucharistic miracle at lanciano, and you will get it.
