Posted on 11/03/2003 7:55:23 PM PST by narses
|
|
|
|
==================================================
QUESTION OF THE WEEK: WHY DO CLAIMS OF EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES GO UNINVESTIGATED?
It seems mysterious, why there are so many reports of Eucharistic miracles and yet so few of them -- virtually none -- made public. There's hardly a region of the U.S. where one has not occurred in the last 15 years, but also not one that has achieved formal ecclesiastic recognition. One example: a Michigan priest named Father Mark A. McQuesten claimed that over the course of a week a Host turned to actual flesh -- as in the famous miracle at Lanciano, Italy. There are other cases of bleeding Hosts or Hosts with miraculous images in Connecticut, Arizona, New Jersey, Texas, New York, and other states.
Through history, there have been dozens of such miracles. To us, most mysterious is a report that in 1995, a Eucharistic minister opened the tabernacle at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Methuen, Massachusetts, and spotted blood on a Host. According to a report, the Host was then sent to a laboratory for analysis. The mystery: where is the Host now? What happened to it? If it is true, why is there so little known about it?
We tried to track this down, but are informed that the parish is no longer a functioning one -- eliminated due to lack of priests and attendance, which sort of adds to the mysterious nature of the alleged phenomenon in the first place. A bleeding Host in a soon-to-be closed church in a diocese about to be torn asunder by scandal! "I checked our diocesan archives, and there was no official investigation of this by the diocese, nor by the Marist Fathers, who were in charge of the church at the time," Father Brian Mahoney, director of the Office for Worship in the Boston archdiocese, informs us. "It's a church that has been suppressed for no reason other than the numbers." He further relates that Father Andrew Gosselin, who was pastor at the time, had heard something "along that line," that there were "some claims made," but that the priest knows very little about it, and that the priest who was most directly involved has since passed on. "There's no official stand on this," says Father Mahoney in conclusion.
Why there was not an investigation is baffling, since such occurrences, before our time, have been rare -- and merited full Church inquiry. Historically, a bleeding or otherwise miraculous Host has been cause for full-scale veneration. Is this another example of a Church that has veered from its mystical roots? Or was it all just a rumor, a bogus miracle, to start with? Claims one correspondent: "A small sample of the crusted blood was sent to the California Laboratory of Forensic Sciences. After several preliminary tests confirmed the presence of blood on August 30, 1995, a crossover electrophoresis was conducted on the sample which unequivocally identified the reddish substance as human blood."
We will be investigating this further. Why would a Host bleed? Another answer may be found in a reported revelation. "The Sacred Heart of my Divine Son is being offended grievously, especially in the Holy Eucharist," the Blessed Mother allegedly told a victim soul in 19th-century Europe. In 1879 she reportedly said that the Sacred Heart was especially wounded by indifference and ungratefulness -- certainly characteristics of our time.
Such messages may also be conveyed with a statue of St. Padre Pio that allegedly has been bleeding in a home in northern California and has been tested by a laboratory and found to be human blood -- with an effort underway now to see if it matches the blood of the saint himself, who left gloves smeared with his stigmatic blood behind.
[resources: Eucharistic Miracles]
[Please help spread the word by passing this flyer out at your parish or function]
Return to home page www.spiritdaily.com
Now, some Catholics need bleeding hosts?
Superstitious nonsense.
Did anyone say that?
Now, some Catholics need bleeding hosts?
Bleeding hosts exist independently of any Catholic's need for them.
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
The Eucharistic Miracle of Orvieto
Why do some Catholics need to dismiss miraculous events?
"Lewis believes that Christians must not only accept the reality of miracles, but rejoice in them. He challenges rationalists, agnostics and deists, exposing the philosophical flaws in their reasoning, and offers argument upon argument for the existence of the "supernatural" and the plausibility of miracles."
Blessed is he who has not seen, but has believed.
Absolutely right. But on the other hand...
"And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke Me? and how long will it be ere they believe Me, for all the signs which I have showed among them?"
Most claims of "miracles" are not miracles at all, and are not certified by the Church.
Unfortunately, in looking for the big miracles, we tend to miss all the little ones that are part of our mundane, every day lives.
Does a bleeding host signify that Christ is more present there than in a non-bleeding host?
And, what happens to those who are drawn to the bleeding host when the bleeding stops?
Is it the bleeding, or is it the Eucharistic Presence that they are attracted to?
No, it doesn't. But the continuing eucharistic miracle at Laciano originally manifested itself because of a growing disbelief in the Real Presence. How many "Catholics" these days don't believe in the Real Presence? Too many, in my opinion. If there was a proper cathechesis, and people were informed about the true nature of these eucharistic miracles, the current crisis of faith would be greatly alleviated.
You are maybe speaking for yourself here?
Most claims of "miracles" are not miracles at all, and are not certified by the Church.
Right. There will always be people who believe in everything seen and unseen and there will always be people who believe in nothing they cannot see with their own eyes and sometimes even when things are visible, they still don't believe it.
The key is discernment. But this article is "Why do claims of Eucharistic Miracles go uninvestigated?" Some of them are probably false and some of them are probably true. At least some of them should be investigated, don't you think?
For those veering on the edge of disbelief in the Real Presence (an unseen miracle) making it visible may bring the Truth home to them. For those who are firm in their belief in the Real Presence, a bleeding host is a visible sign and a miracle. However, as Newman said, "miracles are no remedy for unbelief."
I'm guessing that He knows we are mostly a hard hearted people and that is why, from time to time, we have Padre Pios, Eucharistic miracles, miracles at Fatima and Lourdes, and so on. For those who already believe they are not necessary but they are a gift.
Maybe they have, and their silence signifies that they're bogus.
I remember back in the 80s, when Michael Sheehan was bishop of San Angelo, Texas. Some people were seeing the Blessed Mother in an aura around the sun. Hundreds of mostly poor migrants were flocking to this field outside of Odessa to blind themselves by looking directly at the sun.
He told them, over and over, that Mary wasn't there, but they didn't listen to him.
Giving some of this stuff any attention at all elevates it in the minds of some folks.
If these things help you, then, by all means, have at 'em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
