Possible Eucharistic Miracle happened at Saint Thomas Church in Thomaston

WFSB.com Eyewitness News 3 ^ | Published: Mar. 24, 2023 at 2:29 PM PDT | By Mike Cerullo and Evan Sobol

[thecodont]

THOMASTON, CT (WFSB) - The Archdiocese of Hartford is looking into the possibility of an extremely rare miracle at Saint Thomas Church in Thomaston.

This is potentially something incredible, and people Channel 3 talked to in Thomaston are taking notice.

Father Joseph Crowley said there may have been an Eucharistic Miracle at the church earlier this month.

“What happened is our lord multiplied himself,” Crowley said.

Crowley said earlier this month, as an Eucharistic minister was handing out host, which is bread for communion, a miracle happened.

The number of hosts that minister had actually went up instead of down.

“We really do celebrate the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ and the alter, that the Eucharist really is the body soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that all things are possible with God,” said Crowley.

When the minister suspected they were running out of hosts to pass out, Crowley said they glanced around to find more, but when that minister looked back down, more hosts had appeared.

[Campion]

This is a resacrifice of Him.

NO. That is a *lie*. Catholics believe the Mass is one and the same sacrifice of Calvary, which is eternally being offered to the Father, according to Hebrews, and so is outside of time and can be made again present.

That is why it is idolatry, making the wafer into a little god.

No, it isn't a "little god". It _is_ God. We take Jesus at his word when he said, "This is my body ... this is my blood."

[Campion]

And by the way, on this topic, the Orthodox believe the same things we do, although they use different terminology.

[trebb]

Suuuuure...

[RinaseaofDs]

LOL, definitely the case.

[daniel1212]

The Catholic Church is God’s Church, created by and sustained by God. The Mass is a direct connection between mortal man and heaven.

All you are doing is parroting prevaricating propaganda just as so many other refuted RC delusionists have here. The fact remains that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

The increasingly fractured RC church is not the one true church, no matter what misguided mortals may think, but which is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) being the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes every believer into, (1Co. 12:13) as "living stones" in this "spiritual house," (1 Peter 2:5) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

Jesus’s sacrifice and love for mankind is never ending. Forensic studies done on tissue from Eucharistic miracles where the wafer clearly changed form shows it is heart tissue under extreme stress, as what Jesus suffered in His passion.

Even if such rare claims were true - and bloody flesh is what needs to be what is eaten what if "take, eat, this is my body" is to be taken plainly literally - yet while allowed in Catholic theology, that is not what the unscriptural metaphysical contrivance of the Lord's supper teaches. In which RCC (and basically EOs) profess,

that at the moment of the Consecration which is when the priest says, "This is my body," "This is the cup of my blood" the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ who is then really present as God and as Man sacrificing himself for us on the altar as he sacrificed himself on the cross (The Mass Explained - Catholic Education Resource Center)

At “consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood,” thus becoming the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965)

Notice the words “present” and “reality/real,” for unlike how Christ was manifestly present and real in His incarnation described in Scripture, and which manifest physicality is emphasized ( 1 John 1:1; cf. 1 John 5:8) in contrast to a Christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He was as regards incarnation (as within really Docetism and or Gnosticism), in Catholicism the Eucharistic Christ is not what He appears, feels, tastes and would scientifically test to be, for what He appears to be is mere bread and wine. But which itself does not exist, being replace by Christ, until this non-existent bread and wine begins to manifest decay, and then He no longer exist/is present under that appearance either.

The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

"If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation")

"Christ's presence in the Eucharist challenges human understanding, logic, and ultimately reason. His presence cannot be known by the senses, but only through faith." (Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America)

"the Most Holy Eucharist not only looks like something it isn’t (that is, bread and wine), but also tastes, smells, feels, and in all ways appears to be what it isn’t." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 22)

"the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration: " (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ Article 2) "On the altar are the body and blood of Christ; the bread and wine no longer exist but have been totally changed into the body and blood of the Saviour... - https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doc (https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doc).

"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist;" (CCC 1377) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." ibid, Mulcahy, p. 32)

In contrast, the only Christ of Scripture has a manifestly physical body, even after being glorified:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life:” 1 John 1:1; cf. 1 John 5:8)

“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” (1 John 5:6)

“Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:38-39)

A purely literal reading of the “this is my body/blood” that is broken/shed for us said at the last supper would mean that the apostles were consuming the same literally manifest human flesh and blood of Christ which attested to His incarnation, in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was, meaning a metaphysical meaning.

Note that support for the Catholic miscontruance of the Lord’s supper largely relies upon reading the gospels in isolation from the rest of the NT, as well as so-called “church Fathers.” However, the uninspired (versus wholly God-inspired Scripture) words of men whose teaching came after the apostles had died, and which to varying degrees testifies to a progressive accretion of traditions not seen in the only inspired record of what the NT church believed, cannot be determinitive of what that NT church believed.

As pertains to the Lord’s supper, in Catholicism it is presented as "the heart and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1407) “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) providing “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ” (CCC #1405) and only conducted by Catholics priests who offer it “in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC 1414) “cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins.” (CCC 1393) ;

But rather than the NT church understanding the Lord’s supper as being the life-giving central hub and focus of the Christian life, what we see in the the only inspired and substantive record of how the NT church understood it is that it only being actually only taught in one epistle (aside from the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts and the “fest of charity” in Jude 1:12, which is in 1 Corinthians. In which the Lord’s supper is that of remembering His death by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing union with Christ and each other as being "one bread," analogous to how pagans have fellowship in their dedicatory feasts, (metaphorical or metaphysical? 1Cor. 10)

Therefore in the next chapter the Corinthians are rebuked as not actually coming together to eat the Lord’s supper, for while they did come together for that purpose, yet they were not actually having the Lord’s supper due to how they treated the body of Christ, the church.

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)

The apostle Paul thus reiterates what the Lord said at the institution of the Lord’s supper, an adding the interpretive conclusion, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27)

Catholics actually invoke this section in support of the Catholic interpretation, but the nature of the elements is not the contextual focus, though in v. 26 the bread is still called bread and the cup represents its content, while the purpose of the Lord’s supper is stated, and with the focus continuing to be that of the corporate body of the church (and which focus continues into the next chapter) .

Which is to do “show the Lord’s death till He comes,” which was by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing affirmation of them and themselves in union with Christ, with the church being as "one bread."

Therefore, by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then there not actually having the Lord’s supper, but were acting contrary to the very act that they were supposed to be remembering and showing, and thus in essence were guilty of being contrary to the atoning blood of Christ, by which He purchased the church, (Acts 20:28) and were being chastened for it, some even unto death. For as Paul was very conscious of, to mistreat the church was to mistreat Christ Himself. (Acts 9:4)

This being the offense, not effectually considering/recognizing/discerning the body of Christ by mistreating its members by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then the solution is not some defining of the nature of the bread and wine, but even contrary to requiring fasting before the Lord’s supper, the apostle enjoins:

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

In addition, no where is the Lord’s supper presented as a sacrifice for sins and a means of obtaining spiritual life, nor is the conducting of it a uniquely pastoral function, or their primary unique function, much less that of pseudo RC priests.

Instead the primary work of NT pastors (besides prayer) is preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; cf. Psalms 19:7) thus desiring the sincere milk (1Pt. 2:2; cf. (1Co. 3:22) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, and by the preaching of which pastors “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) by which they are "nourished." (1 Timothy 4:6 ) Glory be to God.

A more extensive examination of the Catholic verses Scripture understanding of the nature of the elements consumed is here, by the grace of God.

[daniel1212]

John 7:53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The verse is actually 6:53, and if taken literally like as other "Verily, verily" statements, then besides excluding all who do not believe the Cath. Eucharist from being born of the Spirit, then this would mean that taking part in the Lord's supper was how souls were to be regenerated, which is nowhere seen or preached as interpretive of this statement, vs. believing the words of the gospel which are spirit and life, and thus living by them, which doing was how Christ lived. (Jn. 4:34; 6:57)

Go study this, by the grace of God.

[kenmcg]

I hope the priest didn’t have a brain fart.

[bert]

Or not

[Zuriel]

The hand is quicker than the eye. Pull an ‘ace’ out of the sleeve?

[metmom]

No way that den of iniquity known as the Vatican and the apostate “pope” is anywhere near the body of Christ on this earth.

With their refusal to deal with sin in their midst for over a thousand years (Father Peter Damian and The Book of Gomorrah), they long ago forfeited any right to call themselves a church, much less the one TRUE church.

They have not held to the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus would not let a church like that continue, as demonstrated in Revelation 2 & 3. He removed other churches for far less egregious sins. No way he’s going to protect any other organization that calls itself a church and keep it going.

Satan is not going to destroy the Catholic church with its track record of destroying lives through it’s long history of homosexuality, moral corruption in leadership, refusal to deal with sin in the camp, etc.

The EO is far more likely and has far more right to call itself a church than the Roman rite. Yes, they both claim to be the TRUE Catholic church with the other in schism, but based on fruit alone, the Eastern Orthodox comes out ahead hands down.

Besides, people don’t need a church to lead them to Jesus. Scripture and the Holy Spirit do that just fine.

[daniel1212]

There is no miracle in a Catholic Church where they bring down Jesus to sacrifice him over and over

Well, though you are close to the target yet your misunderstanding is found intolerable, perhaps being a result of derivative statements from such teachings as,

We, therefore, confess that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross...That the holy sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, is not only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross; but also a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious.. (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Published by Command of Pope Pius the Fifth (New York: Christian Press, 1905), pp. 173-175).

1265. What is the Sacrifice of the Mass?...Christ, the eternal High Priest, in an unbloody way offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross.

1269. How does the Mass re-present Calvary? The Mass re-presents Calvary by continuing Christ’s sacrifice of himself to his heavenly Father. In the Mass, no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father.

1277. Does the Mass detract from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross? The Catechism of the Council of Trent: The Mass in no way detracts from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross because the Mass is the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross, to continue on earth until the end of time...The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins; but now the expiation is experienced by those for whom, on the Cross, the title of God’s mercy had been gained. (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden: Image, 1981).

Thus technically "anew" does not mean again "in the historical sense:"

Of course, RC's are supposed to believe that while the incarnated body of Christ on earth was manifest and would scientifically test to be just as it appeared, in contrast to a Docetist-type christ whose appearance did not conform to what He materially was, yet they are to believe that the consecrated Eucharist is the actual crucified body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine (complete in each and every visible particle, regardless of appearance) though the hosts normally look, etc. and would scientifically test to be just as they appear; yet which bread and wine have ceased to actually exist since the crucified body and blood of Christ (as imagined) have "substantially" taken their place. That is, until the non-existent host begin to manifest corruption, decay (appearance now becoming critical), at which time the Eucharistic Christ also is no longer present in that location.

In contrast to a Docetist-type christ whose appearance did not conform to what He materially was, the NT emphasixes the actual manifestly incarnated nature of the true incarnated Christ, who nowhere appears as a inanimate object.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested.. (1 John 1:1-2)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)
"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:8)
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2:14)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:16).
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:42-43)

And the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of God, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything, and that one "lives by" (upon) God's word as well, having first by repentant faith in the gospel and then by effectually feeding upon the word of God and thus obeying it. For while the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.), the word of God is what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being that which is called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, and with the preaching of which being the primary active function of pastors, whereby they "fed the flock." (Acts 20:28,32) Thanks be to God

[aMorePerfectUnion]

—> The great Padre PIO

Same guy who used acid on his palms to produce the appearance of crucifixion wounds…

[daniel1212]

The EO is far more likely and has far more right to call itself a church than the Roman rite. Yes, they both claim to be the TRUE Catholic church with the other in schism, but based on fruit alone, the Eastern Orthodox comes out ahead hands down.

While EOs have less reports, they also have far fewer members, while neither can claim to be the OTC, no matter how much they pray to their saints and consume their Eucharist.

[Chicory]

Yes, my big thumb hit the wrong number on my keyboard and I didn’t catch it while reviewing—my apologies.

Your interpretation was not that of the early Christians, who had been taught by Christ, and who taught the next “generation” of followers. See the Didache, Chapter 10 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm).

One must be both born of the Spirit through baptism *and* eat of His Body and drink of His Blood, and one must receive baptism first.

[Elsie]

...Eucharistic miracles often happen where there is a lack of Faith- not an abundance of it.

And the Bible states:

11 Then the Pharisees came and began to argue with Jesus, testing Him by demanding from Him a sign from heaven.
12 Jesus sighed deeply in His spirit and said, “Why does this generation demand a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 1

Mark 8:11-12

[Elsie]

... a Catholic Mass is only our chance to witness the birth of Christianity by witnessing Christ's passion.

And this is IMPORTANT in what way?

[Elsie]

What is 'THIS'?

---

Luke 22 :14-20

Douay-Rheims Bible

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down: and the twelve apostles with him. 

15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. 16 For I say to you that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 

17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks and said: Take and divide it among you. 18 For I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. 

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 

20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.  

---

Answer: a standard Passover meal.

[Elsie]

Are you just going to complain?

Or will you also correct??

[Elsie]

We take Jesus at his word when he said, "This is my body ... this is my blood."

And yet Thomas - the doubter - did not lick his fingers after having thrust them into Jesus side.

[Elsie]

...while neither can claim to be the OTC, ...

Actually, BOTH can!