Eucharistic miracles proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter sevenswords
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sevenswords

Guest
We have all read about them from the oldest to the newest in Poland but I’m looking for scientific peer reviewed papers on any of the miracles as it seems every site i read tells me of the scientific findings and reports yet I can never find a peer reviewed paper on any of them.
By the way I’m not saying I don’t believe them it is just for use when debating , I mean If we have proof scientific peer reviewed proof of a miracle, then we should win over many for Christ right? so any that you know off?
 
sevenswords said:
yet I can never find a peer reviewed paper on any of them.
Click to expand...
I’m not an academic and might be wrong here but aren’t peer reviewed articles more geared towards research, methodology and theory?

The articles you are finding are just presenting the scientific evidence, which is what they are meant to do. Basically, the Eucharist was given to an impartial scientist, from my understand the scientist was an atheist, they weren’t told what they were given and asked what it was. Like I said I am not an academic but I’m not sure how one would peer review this since it isn’t really research?

Just my thoughts. Would like to hear what those more knowledgeable have to say.

God Bless
 
I get what your saying and I’m not sure either…but you could be right, maybe these gifts are for Catholics eyes only.? Gifts to his Church…
God Bless you too.
 
The scientific method requires that a test be repeatable… So scientists would typically expect that they could take any consecrated host and “turn it into Flesh and Blood”. God, however, works as he will.
Most of the arguments against Eucharistic miracles Come from the fact that they can’t determine where the samples came from… Was it really a host before it was “flesh”… or did someone take a sample of flesh that was never a host and send it to a lab somewhere?
If you had a skin sample from Jesus, You couldn’t look at that skin sample and determine if Jesus was God, either. So with things that are divine and spiritual, the scientific method has its limitations. That’s why it comes down to faith.
You have to trust where the sample originated - or not.
 
I think while science and faith are very much compatible, they both deal with completely different aspects of our world. One will never prove or disprove the other.

Edited to add: If one doubts the existence of the spiritual, just spend a day or two in Assisi. (I’m sure other places as well) Your heart will be changed.
 
Last edited:
Personally I do believe and have no doubt as to what they are, I only ask for Apologetic reasons
God Bless
 
1I get it… I was just saying that’s why you’ll never find it in a scientific journal or get peer reviewed articles. It’s not reproducible. The primary question of the source of the sample remains. So how can you peer review that? The conclusion that “host turned to flesh” would always be in question. And analysis of determining blood type/type of flesh is so common, theres nothing to be reviewed there.
God bless you too! 🙂
 
Last edited:
MT1926 said:
I’m not an academic and might be wrong here but aren’t peer reviewed articles more geared towards research, methodology and theory?
Click to expand...
I am not a scientist, so I can’t possibly comment on what the OP is asking about, but I am an academic so I will comment on the peer review process.

Every discipline has its own take on peer review, but the basic outlines remain the same. A finished piece of research (article, book, something else, etc.) is submitted to two or more people credentialed (this typically means they have been through the process several times themselves) in the same specialty to review for errors, suitability for whatever organization is thinking about publishing it (is this research sufficiently related to the journal’s focus to be interesting to the readers, etc.), does the author use proper methodology, and various other discipline specific things.

The reviewers will then provide a written report (usually a brutally honest one) to the editor, who will then make a publication decision based on it. Sometimes, depending on the discipline, the editor will send it back to the researcher to make changes or corrections. Having gone through the process many times, on both sides, I can say that it is brutal. It does, however work. Very rarely is peer reviewed research retracted. It might not be the best system, but no one has come up with a better one yet.

Just my two cents.
 
billsherman said:
I am not a scientist, so I can’t possibly comment on what the OP is asking about, but I am an academic so I will comment on the peer review process.

Every discipline has its own take on peer review, but the basic outlines remain the same. A finished piece of research (article, book, something else, etc.) is submitted to two or more people credentialed (this typically means they have been through the process several times themselves) in the same specialty to review for errors, suitability for whatever organization is thinking about publishing it (is this research sufficiently related to the journal’s focus to be interesting to the readers, etc.), does the author use proper methodology, and various other discipline specific things.

The reviewers will then provide a written report (usually a brutally honest one) to the editor, who will then make a publication decision based on it. Sometimes, depending on the discipline, the editor will send it back to the researcher to make changes or corrections. Having gone through the process many times, on both sides, I can say that it is brutal. It does, however work. Very rarely is peer reviewed research retracted. It might not be the best system, but no one has come up with a better one yet.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I think what you say here kind of reinforces or confirms the question I asked. I’m not sure the study of the Eucharistic miracles falls into the “research” category that is generally peer reviewed. Or if it can even bee peer reviewed

Just my thoughts.
 
MT1926 said:
I think what you say here kind of reinforces or confirms the question I asked. I’m not sure the study of the Eucharistic miracles falls into the “research” category that is generally peer reviewed. Or if it can even bee peer reviewed
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not a scientist, but I think you are likely correct. Somehow I imagine you can’t scientifically research miracle because by definition they don’t follow the laws of nature.

As a historian, I can say that miracles present a very difficult problem for us. In the past a lot of historians believed that miracles could be “proven” with the methodology of history, but this idea has now changed completely. Today practically every historian will tell you that the best we can say is that people believed a miracle took place.

Take for example Jesus healing a leper. A historian can’t prove this was a miracle. The Gospels, along with other sources, simply do not provide the needed evidence to prove this historically. We don’t know if the leper really had the disease, we don’t know if he was treated in any other way, we don’t know if the cure was permanent, etc. So today, historians are satisfied with determining whether a miracle is rooted in the earliest oral traditions about Jesus and if people as contemporaneous as possible believed a miracle had taken place. Everything else belongs to the theologians down the hall.
 
I might be wrong, but I think most of the scientists who have confirmed the miracles don’t like to put their findings in official scientific reports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top