Wrong and deceptive, since that claim can only refer to unverified (some claimed names, testimonies, but I find no original source documentation) assertions of claimed Eucharistic miracles (5 by my count), with bleeding hosts being the closest things to what the body of Christ should look if you take the words of consecration literally, but which is contrary to Eucharistic theology. The
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; 75:1) Thus "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation") They taste like bread and wine; they look like bread and wine; they would, if made to react chemically or placed in a mass spectrograph, behave in every way just as bread and wine do. (Stephen M. Barr; https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/does-quantum-physics-render-transubstantiation-meaningless)
Therefore purported "Eucharistic miracles" are not consistent with what the Real Presence via transubstantiation means. Francis Clark, S.J. states that Thomas Aquinas (a "doctor of the church"), considered the issue of such purported miraculous manifestations of the physical flesh of Christ in the hosts and explained that what appeared on those occasions:
could not be the real flesh and blood of Christ, for such a possibility was excluded by the nature of transubstantiation and of Christ’s sacramental presence ; but they were miraculous representations produced by divine power as tokens to direct men’s thoughts to, and to strengthen their belief in, the true flesh and blood of Christ invisibly present under the Eucharistic species. When Catholic theologians today discuss such miracles they are rightly very cautious about the question of fact, which, they point out, must be examined with rigorous canons of historical criticism in each particular instance ; on the doctrinal question they teach that in any such apparitions it is not the true blood or tissue of Christ that appears, but, as St Thomas held, a representative sign caused by divine power ('Bleeding hosts' and Eucharistic theology, Francis Clark, S.J., p. 219-20,22)
Futhermore it is imagined that that at the moment of the completion of the words of consecration by the priest (and only by ordained priests) then the bread and wine no longer exist, while the "Real Presence" of Christ's body that these elements are changed into (which change is said to be occur outside of time) only exists until the bread or wine - which again, are held to no longer exist - begin to decompose, as Aquinas affirms (Summa theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 6) as well as others: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (CCC 1377; Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 32) Thus persons with celiac disease can suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten in the Eucharistic host) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.), in which case "Christ has discontinued His Presence therein." (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
Meanwhile the appearance of the Christ of Scripture always corresponded to what He physically became in the incarnation, and never as an inanimate object, while the idea of Christ bodily appearing with a body which did not correspond to what He physically became is heretical. Thus the emphasis on the manifest physicality of the true Christ of Scripture in contrast to a docetist Christ or gnostic Christ of the anti/alterchrist spirit whose manifest appearance did not correspond to what He physically was.
"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)
"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)
"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)
Now that's funny...
faith = complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament can be detected by your confidence that it's true...
In other words, while there isn't an iota of evidence that this sacrament is legitimate, if you believe hard enough the legitimacy can be detected...Well, no it can't...
Faith alone?????
Where have we heard these words before?????
Funny, isn't it, that we cant take something breathed out by God in inspired Scripture on *faith alone*, but Catholics are expected to take some fabricated, unscriptural nonsense about wheat turning into Jesus by *faith alone*.
What rank hypocrisy.