www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West East/West Views of Transubstantiation

Let's get the title right.

"Eucharistic Miracles and Eucharistic Phenomena in the Lives of the Saints" By Joan Carroll Cruz.

Dear MM,

Eucharistic miracles in the Eastern Church do not have the same focus of devotion as they do in the West.

One reason for this is that they are always considered to be an expression of God's anger at the people's lack of faith or an act of disrespect or something like that.

They must have been fairly numerous for St Peter Mohyla to have established a rule for priests and bishops to observe in the event that the Holy Eucharist:

1) transformed into actual Flesh and Blood or:

2) assumed the appearance of a small Child.

There are also Orthodox icons of the Holy Eucharist depicting a small Child in a Chalice and of Christ actually appearing in a Chalice.

St John Chrysostom makes mention of a particular Eucharistic miracle.

When people who had not confessed of their serious sins dared to approach the Sacred Mysteries, the Holy Communion particles turned to little stones!

Alex

Wow I didnt know this would be a popular topic. Thank you all for your comments.

Francis, what you have written below is what i am getting at.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by francis:

I would say that we can "receive" Jesus at any time, in any location, in a spiritual manner. For a sincere believer who receives communion at a Mass that has invalid matter, and therefore no Eucharist, I would say the communicant still "receives" Jesus - however, they do NOT receive him in a sacramental way. Our Faith is based on physical realities due to the Incarnation, so the reality of the physical realm must be consistent with how the Church has outlined, or else the spiritual reality connected to the physical reality would not occur. But it is important to remember that God uses the sacraments for our salvation, but He is beyond the sacraments, so He can enter into a person whenever and however He chooses.[/QUOTE

I have run across some Roman Catholics who assert that Christ cannot be received EXCEPT through the transubstantiated elements. My beef with them was that God can do whatever he pleases and if he wants to feed someone the body and blood of Jesus without the host then he is free to do that.

My thinking on this runs as follows:

Since Jesus is God and Man in hypostatic union it is therefore impossible to share in either his deity or his humanity without sharing in the other. For instance, If Jesus makes himself present, spiritually, to someones soul, he cannot be present according to his divinity ONLY. He must also be present in his humanity.

Turning this round and restating it, it would be like the eucharist where we say that Jesus is present body soul and divinity. Well we arent saying that his divine nature has been turned into bread. But his divinity is made present by the presence of his humanity.

Ok. I may be way off track and im sure you guys will let me know if I am.

What do you all think? Is this correct?

Jason

Hey Jason,

What you are referring to is grace. I know many who have had the experience of Christ being so close they could reach out and touch him. They are in communion with him, he was real, but he did not give them communion, he gave them great grace to be in that communion.

He will give grace as a sacramental, but not as a sacrament to someone that is not in communion. We have free will to make that choice to be or not to be in communion. Many walked away saying this is a hard statement, and chose not to receive at the Last Supper. He then asked Peter if he would go to, and he said Master where would I go, you have life.

Christ gave the authority to the apostles to give the Eucharist. He chose to do it that way and he will not go back on his word. He established the Church for that purpose. God repented as in Amos when he said all of this happens and you still do not call out to me, for be angery because they would not call out to him and there are a few other verses that are similar. He was going to do this, and in John 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. The only time God ever repented of a statement he made was when he was going to do evil against someone, but he only did that because of their actions.

His setting the rules for Eucharistic Communion was not by any means an evil. The problem there is you are saying God is going to give his Eucharist to someone who chooses it not in faith. He would then be lying.

IN 1CORINTHIANS. ST. PAUL APPEALS TO TRADITION, A TRADITION THAT BEGAN WITH EVENTS IN AN UPPER ROOM OF A HOUSE IN JERUSALEM ON THE NIGHT THAT CHRIST WAS BETRAYED. JESUS' LAST MEAL TOOK PLACE
IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE PASCHAL FEAST. CHRIST AT THE LAST SUPPER INSTITUTED A SACRIFICIAL RITE AS A MEMORIAL AND RE-PRESENTATION OF HIS DEATH ON THE
CROSS.

"I HAVE RECEIVED OF THE LORD," SAYS ST. PAUL,
"THAT WHICH ALSO I DELIVERED UNTO YOU, THAT THE LORD JESUS, THE SAME NIGHT IN WHICH HE WAS BETRAYED, TOOK BREAD AND GIVING THANKS BROKE, AND SAID:' TAKE AND EAT: THIS IS MY BODY WHICH
SHALL BE DELIVERED FOR YOU: THIS DO FOR THE COMMEMORATION OF ME.'
IN LIKE MANNER ALSO THE CHALICE, AFTER HE HAD SUPPED, SAYING: 'THIS CHALICE IS THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD: THIS DO YE, AS OFTEN AS YOU SHALL DRINK FOR THE COMMEMORATION OF ME. 'FOR AS OFTEN AS YOU SHALL EAT THIS BREAD AND DRINK THE CHALICE YOU SHALL SHOW FORTH THE DEATH OF THE LORD UNTIL HE
COME." '

HE INSTITUTED A SACRIFICIAL RITE , A MEMORIAL OF HIS SACRIFICE, WHICH WAS TO BE REPEATED BY THEM AND THEIR SUCCESSORS TO THE END OF TIME. THE NEW RITE WAS WELL NAMED THE EUCHARIST (THE THANKSGIVING) BECAUSE OF THE THANKS OFFERED BY CHRIST BEFORE
CONSECRATING THE BREAD AND THE WINE: RAISING UP HIS EYES TO HEAVEN, HE THANKED HIS FATHER FOR MAN'S CREATION, FOR MAN'S REDEMPTION, AND FOR ALL THE BLESSINGS THAT WERE TO FLOW FROM IT THROUGH THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS.

You are right he can break his laws whenever he wants too. He will commune with everyone anytime he wants too. But that particular type of communion, Eucharistic, is given to the Church, establised by the Apostles.

I think to me, if God was going to give Communion to someone, he would have given it to the Saints of the Church. Whenever he came to them, it was communion of grace.

Pani Rose

It came to me that St. Mary of Egypt is the best kown example to me of what I have been trying to show you. She was in the desert for many years, communing with God. He could have given her Eucharist anytime he chose, but he didn't, the link for her whole story follows...

Zosimas threw himself on the ground and asked for her blessing. She likewise bowed down before him. And thus they lay on the ground prostrate asking for each other's blessing. And one word alone could be heard from both: "Bless me!" After a long while the woman said to Zosimas:

"Abba Zosimas, it is you who must give blessing and pray. You are dignified by the order of priesthood and for many years you have been standing before the holy altar and offering the sacrifice of the Divine Mysteries."

This flung Zosimas into even greater terror. At length with tears he said to her:

"O mother, filled with the spirit, by your mode of life it is evident that you live with God and have died to the world. The Grace granted to you is apparent -- for you have called me by name and recognized that I am a priest, though you have never seen me before. Grace is recognized not by one's orders, but by gifts of the Spirit, so give me your blessing for God's sake, for I need your prayers." ...

Zosimas asked her:

"How many years have gone by since you began to live in this desert?"

She replied:

"Forty-seven years have already gone by, I think, since I left the holy city."

Zosimas asked:

"But what food do you find?"

The woman said:

"I had two and a half loaves when I crossed the Jordan. Soon they dried up and became hard as rock. Eating a little I gradually finished them after a few years."

Zosimas asked.

"Can it be that without getting ill you have lived so many years thus, without suffering in any way from such a complete change?" ...

She continued:

"Remain, Abba, in the monastery. And even if you wish to depart, you will not be to do so. And at sunset of the holy day of the Last super, put some of the lifegiving Body and Blood of Christ into a holy vessel worthy to hold such Mysteries for me, and bring it. And wait for me on the banks of the Jordan adjoining the inhabited parts of the land, so that I can come and partake of the lifegiving Gifts. For, since the time I communicated in the temple of the Forerunner before crossing the Jordan even to this day I have not approached the Holy Mysteries. And I thirst for them with irrepressible love and longing. And therefore I ask and implore you to grant me my wish, bring me the lifegiving Mysteries at the very hour when Our Lord made His disciples partake of His Divine Supper. Tell John the Abbot of the monastery where you live. Look to yourself and to your brothers, for there is much that needs correction. Only do not say this now, but when God guides you. Pray for me!"

With these words she vanished in the depths of the desert. And Zosimas, falling down on his knees and bowing down to the ground on which she had stood, sent up glory and thanks to God. And, after wandering thorough the desert, he returned to the monastery on the day all the brothers returned. ...
http://www.monachos.net/monasticism/mary_of_egypt/life.shtml

She lived a life of grace in communion with God, but never receiving Communion until St. Zosimas gave it to her. Hope that helps.

Dear Pani Rose,

You raise fascinating points!

My grandfather was a priest and I know he struggled with what he considered a problem of people coming to Confession every other day to him, telling him the same venial sins.

He related to some of them how St Mary of Egypt and other ascetics lived in the desert and could not attend the Sacraments frequently.

But they struggled with their temptations and prayed ceaselessly. They performed great miracles of healing and other feats etc.

This was only possible if they lived in intimate communion with God and Christ.

We are called to partake of the Sacraments and the Divine Liturgy, but we are also called to ceaseless Communion with Christ through constant prayer, spiritual reading, meditation, service to others and the like.

Christ reveals Himself to us in Church, and He continues revealing Himself to us in other contexts.

It is just that we have to make the extra effort to see Him in those other life contexts.

Alex

Dear Alex,

I do hope you are writing down the things your grandparents taught you. Even if you have to search out old teachings that you have done or check out everything you have shared on the internet (opps wait, that could take another life time ) Please, but it all together in a book. So much wisdom will be lost one day, and it all needs to be in writing for people to read.

If only all of the clergy were aware of this and put it into practice ...

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

Alex,

I would be very grateful if you could provide the citation for this.

thanks

Dear Rev. Fr. Deacon,

Yes, I believe it is contained in Joan Carroll Cruz's book on Eucharistic Miracles.

Alex

Dear Kobzar,

A group of us were in our Diocesan religious goods store talking about this very issue when a priest (with a doctorate from Rome ) overheard us talking about the colour of Communion wine.

He then quickly interjected saying that "But the colour of wine has no effect on the efficacy of the sacramental action etc."

One of the guys there, who is now a priest and professor of theology, quietly retorted that only someone with an immensely Latinized background could make such a statement . . .

I haven't thought about that incident for years, until you mentioned it in your post.

You always bring back fond memories . . .

Alex

Alex,

I was hoping you would have the primary Chrysostom source... TAN is not exactly my idea of a scholarly publishing house.

Then what are we to deduce from the color of the bread, that this is the color of His Body?!?

Dear Father Deacon John,

TAN published her book, but Cruz is solely responsible for the content.

A direct quote is a direct quote - but I'll try and get it for you.

So when I publish my upcoming book, I guess I better hunt for a really respectable publisher, otherwise I'm really in trouble with you I see!

And, Father Deacon, TAN also published the Douay-Rheims Bible.

What part of THAT do you suspect not to be legitimate as a result?

Alex

Dear Fr. Deacon John,

The red colour of the wine is the particular characteristic that relates to the symbolism of the Blood of Christ, to be sure.

That is not to include the alcoholic nature of wine etc.

The bread that has risen underscores the risen Body of Christ and that is the particular characteristic that relates to our Lord in this respect.

I don't think the Church ever intended an "all or none" symbolism!

Have a nice evening!

Alex