I seen Catholics ask Anglicans about ever seeing or having Eucharist Miracles. Have you ever seen one? I have read about a few.
Nah, only Roman catholics believe that the host transforms into Christ's physical skin and bones, which is blasphemous but they take it as a high point of doctrine. So to them it's at least possible that their 'skin and bones' can have physical particles of skin and bones in the host. Although it's never been scientifically proven, and thus is just superstition on their part.
What about other miracles in general in the Anglican Church? I have read about a Marian apparition at an Australian Anglican Church. I believe I read about C.S. Lewis's wife having a remission of cancer due to last rites or something. I think it allowed them to go to Greece.
okay the Marian apparition, that's silly, but Miracles, that 100% happens. All the time, even. People get healed, course of nations changes, huge things happen all the time without a natural reason.
Why are Marian Apparitions silly? They are across the spectrum from OO, EO, RCC, and even at least one I know if in the Anglican Church located in Australia.
Because they aren't based in anything provable. But what's worse, they attach a supernatural divine element to Mary. That is blasphemous. Mary is, was, and ever will be, just a woman. She's not a demigod, she's not superhuman, she doesn't have any better nature than you or me. She's a sinner, born of sinners, who died in sin, and was justified and saved by the eternal Logos, just like the rest of us. The fact that many EO, OO and RC will recoil at Mary being called just a woman illustrates how they’ve departed from the apostolic faith, and can’t be trusted to continue it.
I have seen a eucharistic miracle and am well familiar with another. These do not typically take the form of a transformation of the host into a lamb or a bleeding heart or some such thing. Usually, they are related to a healing after someone has received the eucharist. But there are relatively recent reports of the host from modern eucharistic miracles -and even some old ones such as Lanciano- being examined and myocardial (heart) tissue being found.
I don't know that I would call this a miracle per se' as you're asking about but ..... I have MS and other physical problems and I can say that in the several months I haven't been able to partake I feel weaker in body overall as opposed to feeling more strengthened when I was able to partake regularly. I just know I can feel a difference.
Not sure how it attaches a supernatural divine element to Mary. If Jesus wants to send her, your dead mother, or anyone back he most certainly could. After all God sent Moses and Elijah back during the transfiguration. Why could God not send Mary back?
I would say the greatest miracle is how it strengthens us in our faith. If that is not a miracle I don't know what it. It just happens so regular and often that it a miracle that has become the norm.
Obviously God could and can send anyone he wants, that's not the point. The point is the way Mary is claimed to be manifested has all the attributes of divinity: supernatural effects, halo, glowing aura, infinite wisdom. She never says that God, my lord and saviour, told me to say, A, B, C. She always supposedly says, Here is what I say. All of her directives and revelations are self-originated, as if she comes with all these prophetic revelations of her own. The way these visions are manifested is overtly blasphemous, because they are literally indistinguishable from how we would imagine Jesus would come back. Literally the same markers: supernatural effects, halo, glowing aura, infinite wisdom. To ascribe the same visual manifestation to her is to equate God with a mere creature.
I don't knwo a whole lot about them so I can't say how they are usually presented. I will defer to you on that. I do like this on how we should approach her. The Cambridge theologian John Pearson, who was made Bishop of Chester in 1672, in his celebrated book An Exposition of the Creed affirmed both the Immaculate Conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary, writing, "We believe the Mother of our Lord to have been not only before and after his Nativity, but also for ever, the most immaculate and blessed Virgin." Pearson explicated the basis for a proper Marian devotion: If Elizabeth cried out with so loud a voice, 'Blessed art thou among women,' when Christ was but newly conceived in Mary's womb, what expressions of honour and admiration can we think sufficient now that Christ is in heaven and that Mother with Him! Far be it from any Christian to derogate from that special privlilege granted her which is incommunicable to any other. We cannot bear too reverent a regard unto the Mother of our Lord, so long as we give her not that worship which is due unto the Lord Himself. Let us keep the language of the Primitive Church: Let her be honoured and esteemed, let him be worshiped and adored
I was looking at how the EO view such things. They seem to be totally different than the Catholics. The only apparition that they seemed ok with really was the one that took place I believe in the 70's in Egypt. Mary never said anything but just appeared.
A great many people have remained celibate all their lives. Many women have stayed celibate for one reason or another and have died as virgins. They are "ever-virgin," I guess, but I don't think that fact even guarantees all of them a place in heaven; unless they trusted in God they were not redeemed. Mary may be presumed to have been redeemed because she trusted in God her Savior. I do not, however, presume that she has been exalted above all other 'sinners saved by grace.' We believe that Enoch, the man who "walked with God," may have been taken up bodily into heaven. That would be incredibly special, wouldn't it? But we don't pray to Enoch or expect apparitions of Enoch. In comparison, the concept that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven appears to have been an innovation, for there is no mention of such a (presumably very important!) thing for the first couple centuries, and the first mentions are found in heterodox, gnostic-influenced documents. Meanwhile, apparitions attributed by the RCC as genuine Marian appearances have stated things which are quite unscriptural. The apparition has encouraged prayer to her on the Rosary because, as "she" said, "I love this type of chanting." The apparition has claimed to hold the power to dispense saving grace, and the power to obtain remission of all sins for "whosoever shall persevere in the devotion of the Holy Rosary." Mary comes highly recommended by demons, though. On one occasion St. Dominic is alleged to have cast a legion of demons out of a man by the power of Mary, but not before the demons confessed that "the Mother of Jesus Christ is all-powerful...not a single soul that has really persevered in her service has ever been damned with us." (The Secret of the Rosary, St. Louis De Montfort) Honor and esteem for Mary would not be a problem, if it never led to more than that. But it did lead to more, as history tells us. It led to many people being deceived into trusting Mary for redemption. It led to huge amounts of prayer to Mary (the RC rosary is heavily weighted toward Marian prayer at the cost of prayer to God. It led to belief in Marian apparitions, shrines to Mary, and pilgrimages to the sites. These continue to this day. There are more than 40 such shrines in the USA alone. Marianism is spiritually unhealthy.
Thanks for the link to John Pearson, I hadn't come across him before. His view of the BVM appears much in line with that of another 17th century Anglican Divine called Mark Frank. Here's a potted version of quotes from his sermons which refer to the BVM. http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/Theotokos.html With regards to the Anglican attitude towards apparitions of the BVM, the following statement appears in the 2005 ARCIC report 'Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ.' "Many Christians find that giving devotional expression to their appreciation for this ministry of Mary enriches their worship of God. Authentic popular devotion to Mary, which by its nature displays a wide individual, regional and cultural diversity, is to be respected. The crowds gathering at some places where Mary is believed to have appeared suggest that such apparitions are an important part of this devotion and provide spiritual comfort. There is need for careful discernment in assessing the spiritual value of any alleged apparition. This has been emphasized in a recent Roman Catholic commentary... Private revelation … can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use … The criterion for the truth and value of a private revelation is therefore its orientation to Christ himself. When it leads us away from him, when it becomes independent of him or even presents itself as another and better plan of salvation, more important than the Gospel, then it certainly does not come from the Holy Spirit. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Theological Commentary on the Message of Fatima, 26 June, 2000). We are agreed that, within the constraints set down in this teaching to ensure that the honour paid to Christ remains pre-eminent, such private devotion is acceptable, though never required of believers." I Googled for an Australian apparition of the BVM in an Anglican church. If it's the apparition of Our Lady of Yankalilla that you had in mind, it doesn't look convincing to me. It just looks like a problem with the church plasterwork. A couple of years ago we had issues with blown plasterwork on the east wall of our Lady Chapel and that looked pretty similar in effect but no one saw outlines of the BVM or anyone else in it. It was just some water getting in and blowing the plaster.