4

From the Wikipedia article on Eucharistic miracles:

In Christianity, a Eucharistic miracle is any miracle involving the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the fact that Christ is really made manifest in the Eucharist is deemed a Eucharistic miracle;[1][2] however, this is to be distinguished from other manifestations of God. The Catholic Church distinguishes between divine revelation, such as the Eucharist, and private revelation, such as Eucharistic miracles. In general, reported Eucharistic miracles usually consist of unexplainable phenomena such as consecrated Hosts visibly transforming into myocardium tissue, being preserved for extremely long stretches of time, surviving being thrown into fire, bleeding, or even sustaining people for decades.

The same article includes a list of extraordinary Eucharistic miracles.

What is the Protestant view on these miracles?


Related: How do Protestants view "Catholic" miracles, such as those that attest to a saint?

4
  • Generally, extreme skepticism.
    – curiousdannii
    Nov 10 '21 at 3:36
  • @curiousdannii - why? Nov 10 '21 at 12:20
  • The world is filled with signs and wonders intended to draw us from the simplicity that is in Christ. Nov 10 '21 at 13:13
  • @MikeBorden that seems rather odd, considering Christ did many miracles during his time on earth. Nice catchphrase, but it really doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
    – Luke Hill
    Nov 15 '21 at 2:50
2
+50

I recently answered a question related to Catholicism and then one for Pentecostals/Charismatics, so now I will attempt to complete the trifecta and answer a question on behalf of Protestants, if that is even possible. There are obviously many denominations of Protestants with differing views on the Eucharist.

Protestants feel that Catholics have taken the doctrine far beyond what the New Testament teaches. For most Protestants, communion is a ritual meal of remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The Lutherans go further and say that the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection are distributed through communion and that there is a unity at the most profound level of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. The Catholics go even further and claim that the bread and wine is fully changed into the body and blood of Christ,

Protestants point to 1 Cor. 11:26 to show that the purpose of communion is to proclaim the Lord’s death till the time he returns. The elements in themselves don’t have much material effect on anyone and certainly shouldn't be counted on to sustain life (inedia). In the early church, communion was celebrated as part of meal and was not an elaborate ritual.

Both Luther and Calvin denounced the Catholic practice as idolatrous and the latter in his Treatise about relics (1543) tried to persuade Protestants not to follow what he felt was the cult of relics. He showed that Christ is preferable to anything of his that may have somehow survived through the centuries. He also demonstrated how it was idolatry to worship anything that was not God himself. Protestants would pretty much universally condemn the worship of any object (even a part of Christ's body) whether created or preserved by a miracle or not.

Most Protestants don’t see anything miraculous in the communion elements which could potentially explain why they never see such miracles. It usually requires expectant faith to experience miracles. Many would agree with Curiousdannii's comment that he would view such miracles with extreme skepticism. That could be interpreted to leave the door open at least to the slight possibility that such a miracle could be shown to be true (though most occurred too long ago to authenticate). But even if it were scientifically proven that the host had been supernaturally altered, that would not prove the validity of universal transubstantiation. The fact that human striated muscle fibers and blood are found on a host here and there does not prove that every host is so transformed upon ingestion, for example.

Finally, there are some Protestants who come alongside their Catholic brothers and sisters in search for common ground. If Jesus had not died and been resurrected, there would be no communion at all. Faith in him and what he did for the benefit of all mankind is the basis of salvation. If he has miraculous power to change bread into the body of Christ, he can change a repentant sinner into a sanctified believer.

1

While researching this question, I found reference to this verse, 2nd Thessalonians 2:3-10

3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the son of destruction,[b] 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. (ESV)

But aside from vague end times scripture, Dannii seems to be correct. Extreme Skepticism is the most common response. Looking to miracles is also hard because every single religion has their respective miracle claims.

It seems better to look to more evidential based arguments for the Eucharist rather than untestable miracles.

1
  • I think the extreme skepticism is because the Eucharistic miracles ostensibly validate transubstantiation, which thing most Protestants find indefensible from Scripture. Nov 15 '21 at 12:26
1

To protestants, morality is more important than physical traditions. A soul coming to repentance is more of a miracle than a basilica built by thousands of diamonds. A miracle that doesn't have any moral aspect of salvation, is not more important than some other sorcery of Ancient Egyptian magicians. And coming to Eucharist, what protestants see in Eucharist is the sacrifice of Jesus's flesh and blood, which is perhaps why protestants take both the bread and the grape juice unlike some Roman Catholic churches in which only bread is served whilst the wine is taken by the priest alone, and they may give "because Jesus is everywhere both in blood and flesh, eating bread is enough" kind of justification.

Protestants already are evangelising others and they were very successful for example in the second great awakening of America, etc., laying foundation to movements that ended slavery. Protestants, such as CS Lewis, were in the work of yielding the theology so relevant to the existing generations that even non-christians could understand the essence of theology that had been for several years hidden somewhere in the rabbit hole covered by so many almost irrelevant knowledge such as the knowledge of the number of ecumenical councils, the number of crudades, the number of popes, the obsession towards Latin, etc.

Now, coming to the question, if those Eucharist miracles involved bringing souls to repentance then I think there are many protestants who would care about them. But if it is just another sentiment like how people gave millions of money to Notra Dame church building, just because of 'tradition', despite many people in Africa starving for hunger, then i don't think Protestants would be having much of interest in knowing about it because they are taught to look for heavenly things such as Love, Peace, Patience, etc., I guess.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .