Future pope once called host-turned-to-blood a ‘mark of the Lord’
- Inés San MartínJul 21, 2019
The Church of Santa Maria, in the neighborhood of Almagro, in downtown Buenos Aires, Argetina. (Credit: Ines San Martin/Crux.)
Pope Francis is a throw back not just to the 1970's in terms of his confused progressive theology about the Church and his derogatory comments about tradition which harkens to the 1960's denigration of people who were considered "pre-Vatican II" a sort of "N" word about them, but also back to the 1950's in terms of his love of devotions in general, talk of the devil and supernatural appearances of our Blessed Mother.And now we see that Pope Francis was a promoter of a "Eucharistic Sign" or better yet, Miracle. This story is nothing short of absolutely stunning. This is an excerpt from an article in this morning's Crux, which you can read in full HERE:
As the parish’s fame for such happenings grew, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires at the time - who today is Pope Francis - asked for tests. A local doctor named Ricardo Catañón took a sample from what had become known by then as the “1992 Sign” and sent it to a lab in San Francisco.
When the results came back, the lab reported the substance “could be” human tissue. Another analysis by a doctor in Sydney, Australia, likewise concluded the substance was human tissue and “could” belong to a heart.
Dissatisfied with “could,” and knowing that Bergoglio expected an answer, Catañón sent the material to a third doctor in New York for what he called a “blind sample.”
This last doctor was more definitive: The substance, he reported, belonged to a heart muscle called the myocardium - more specifically, the left ventricle that pumps oxygenated blood from the lungs to the body. The doctor also found the person the sample came from had suffered greatly, including trauma to the chest.
Told the sample didn’t belong to a living patient, the New York doctor said he found the presence of white blood cells inexplicable, since they usually disintegrate minutes after a blood sample is removed from the body. He also reported the sample had a “beat,” which also had been noted in the first report in 1992.
In light of those findings, Catañón swiftly drew spiritual conclusions: The fact that the substance is from the myocardium, he said, suggests the Eucharist is what “pumps blood into [Christ’s] Church.” It being from the left ventricle, he said, is a reminder that Christ “cleans the Church of its sins.”
21 comments:
Why is left ventricle specifically important?
The left ventricle pumps newly-oxygenated blood out to the body at large.
“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” (CCC 1377).
If the "accidents" of bread/wine no longer exist - if they have become human flesh - can the Real Presence be present?
Anonymous @ 2:30PM
"If the "accidents" of bread/wine no longer exist - if they have become human flesh..."
The accidents are what we observe and see - what appears to be to our sense of sight. We believe, we "see by faith" that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. After the consecration, what appears to us as bread (in the form of a host) is no longer so. And once consumed and digested by the body, Christ is then no longer present. What we observe by sight in this miraculous event is always true.
As to your question "can the Real Presence be present?" Since the Flesh and Blood of Christ remain unconsumed, yes, He is still present as He is in Adoration chapels around the world.
But the Church teaches that when the accidents of bread and wine are no longer present, the Real Presence is no longer present. (For example, if a host is allowed to decompose, ceasing to be bread, or if the wine becomes vinegar, the Real Presence is gone.)
If bread and wine have become human flesh, then is the Eucharistic presence of Christ there?
The scientist in me questions the ability to be able to tell which ventricle the cells came from....
Anonymous @ 3:22
Once the bread and the wine are consecrated, only the accidents remain, and this for the benefit of our senses that while both the Body and Blood of Christ are there, the taste and texture of bread and wine remain. It is a miracle provided by a God who can create something out of nothing if he so desired. In normal circumstances, if the accidents are no longer there (say they have been digested in the body) then the Body and Blood of Christ are no longer present. What we have here is a miraculous event that reveals what is behind the accidents. This is what we would see at every Mass if God allowed us to.
We would see left ventricle heart muscle?
I thought the Church teaching is that Jesus is present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Why just left ventricle heart muscle?
You must really hate miracles as these defy rational explanation. This particular miracle and most Bleeding Host miracles lifts the veil by an extraordinary grace of God and goes beyond stage sacramental sign,dogma concerning it and faith since what is present isn’t sacramental but observable by even an atheist.
"I thought the Church teaching is that Jesus is present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity."
Christ is indeed present. If a consecrated host is divided into say, fourths, the Divine substance of Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in each subdivided portion. Christ's presence in the Eucharist is not something that can be circumscribed by applying our standards and units of measurement. It does seem quite fitting that in these Eucharistic miracles it is the Heart of Christ that is disclosed to our sense of sight.
God Is Love, so it is right and proper that it is His Sacred Heart that is revealed to us in this mystery, since it is this heart which is the source of His love from whence emanates His Divine Mercy and Charity. This incomprehensible, boundless, and fathomless Love is ever manifested in His Benevolence and Goodness to us.
Why is it "right and fitting" that the Heart of Christ is revealed in Eucharistic miracles?
Love does not come from the heart - that is not the "source" of love. In some ancient cultures the liver was thought to be the source of love.
I don't hate miracles. I do question sappy sentimentality, especially when it masquerades as doctrine.
Interesting that you don't seem to understand signs in Catholic parlance especially as it concerns the heart,especially the Sacred Heart. Sad that you don't question yourself on this. Catholic culture, which sadly you do not understand, nor Eucharistic Miracles endorsed worthy of belief, does not attribute to the liver what it attributes to the heart. Sad that you don't know this. Interesting too.
What is attributed to the heart is not necessarily an attribute of the heart. Interesting and sad that you don't seem to know this...
Whenever the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary is mentioned or written about, it does not refer to the organ of the physical human heart just in its material nature. We are body, spirit and soul and all work together in a marvelous and mysterious way.
So just as poets and others will refer to a heart which transcends the bounds of human physicality, in the spiritual dimension what the heart refers to is of a different order in what it encompasses, although it has as its reference our conjoining of love with our physical heart. What is written and spoken of in this way is transcendent and heavenly, and so to understand this you must seek to understand by approaching it in just that way.
"Whenever the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary is mentioned or written about, it does not refer to the organ of the physical human heart just in its material nature."
Indeed. However, in this reputed "miracle," it is precisely the organ of the physical heart, specifically myocardial tissue from the left ventricle, that is mentioned...
Anonymous, you are an organ known as the anus
Anonymous @ 6:58 PM
"Indeed. However, in this reputed "miracle," it is precisely the organ of the physical heart, specifically myocardial tissue from the left ventricle, that is mentioned..."
Of course. But whose heart physical heart are we talking about? Does the heart of Christ have any significance for you at all? I consider His heart- because it is His heart and he is God- to have more significance than mine even though materially there is little or no difference.
But, do we know with certitude that it is the myocardial tissue of Jesus?
Anonymous@10:03 AM
So you have another explanation?
You have to believe and accept Transubstantiation. Catholics true to the doctrine Of the Church believe that during the Mass, at the words of consecration, the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul,and Divinity of Christ. We take Jesus words in John 6, Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 13 and 22 and 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 at their face value. Years before the New Testament was a document, it was a sacrament, the most foundational sacrament, the most foundational Christian rite, instituted by Christ given to the Church.
There is no doubt that an event beyond natural explanation occurred in this miraculous event. Something beyond rational explanation became visible to the eyes. After an investigation and analysis, it was found that what was once bread was now heart tissue and blood.
Perhaps what transpired will leave you and others caught in the fog of doubt and uncertainty wondering and befuddled about the whole event. As for me I accept Church teaching and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ were revealed.
I and others can pray for you so that you might come to understand.
"We take Jesus words in John 6, Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 13 and 22 and 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 at their face value."
Actually, we don't take the Bible at "face value."
We believe the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus not because the Bible says so, but because the Church teaches us that it is so. This I absolutely believe.
Also, the most "foundational" Sacrament is Baptism. Without it, there are no others.
"Perhaps what transpired will leave you and others caught in the fog of doubt and uncertainty wondering and befuddled about the whole event. As for me I accept Church teaching and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ were revealed." I am neither befuddled not in a fog about this, or other, Eucharistic "miracles."
But, the reality of this "miracle" is not "Church teaching." It cannot be so since doctrine or dogma is contained in Revelation. Miracles such as this fall into the category of private revelation. Regarding the difference between Public and Private Revelation, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, “The authority of private revelations is essentially different from that of the definitive public Revelation. The latter demands faith; in it in fact God himself speaks to us through human words and the mediation of the living community of the Church. Faith in God and in his word is different from any other human faith, trust, or opinion. The certainty that it is God who is speaking gives me the assurance that I am in touch with truth itself. It gives me a certitude which is beyond verification by any human way of knowing.”
If these miracles are a "genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time," for you, well and good. But they need not be for all.
Anonymous:
Uh...please read what I typed. "We take *Jesus* words in John 6, Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 13 and 22 and 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 at their face value."
Jesus words..which are in the Bible. The revealed Word of God. Part of the Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church.
You commented "But, the reality of this "miracle" is not "Church teaching." It cannot be so since doctrine or dogma is contained in Revelation."
Huh? What occurs at Transubstantiation is a miracle. The bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. To me, that is a public miracle, not a private revelation. One part of the miracle is that the taste texture and appearance remain. God can do miraculous things.
Without Christ's Sacrifice of His Body and Blood, there would be no Sacraments, including Baptism. Baptism is absolutely necessary but there is no need to argue about applying the term foundational. One can disagree on how and in what way it is applied.
Post a Comment