Eucharistic miracles

[MarcoPG]

Hello everyone,
after having read about the Miracle of Bolsena, after which the feast of COrpus Christi was instituted, I also read about the bacteria, (sometimes fungus, which was talked about in another thread), Serratia marcescens. As you may know, it attacks bread and the likes, forming a bright red spot and sometimes forms a viscous liquid when the colony is big. Thus, it looks like blood.

Then I read that in 1978 the bishop of Orvieto asked for an analysis, which was refused by the Chapter.

So my questions are:

1. Why was the anaysis denied? Some miracles were given to analize without problems.
2. Since miracles and apparitions are not articles of faith, what is the importance to give to the ones which the Church recognized as true?
3. Can a feast be abolished? Even theoretically, if the Miracle was false, that doesn’t deny the Presence, but could a feast be abolished because based on a falsehood?

Thank you

 

[JeffRFitz]

Just from Wikipedia:

“*This followed celebration of a mass at Bolsena in 1263, led by a Bohemian priest who had doubts concerning transubstantiation, or the turning of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ during the Mass. During the Mass, the Eucharist appeared to bleed and each time the priest wiped away the blood, more would appear. While Serratia possibly could generate a single appearance of red pigment, it is unclear how it could have generated more pigment after each wiping, leaving this proposed explanation open to doubt. *”

Pax
Jeffrey

 

[MarcoPG]

Just from Wikipedia:

“*This followed celebration of a mass at Bolsena in 1263, led by a Bohemian priest who had doubts concerning transubstantiation, or the turning of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ during the Mass. During the Mass, the Eucharist appeared to bleed and each time the priest wiped away the blood, more would appear. While Serratia possibly could generate a single appearance of red pigment, it is unclear how it could have generated more pigment after each wiping, leaving this proposed explanation open to doubt. *”

Pax
Jeffrey

Thank you Jeffrey, I read the whole article before posting.
But why was the analysis denied? Doubt would be cast away.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Thank you Jeffrey, I read the whole article before posting.
But why was the analysis denied? Doubt would be cast away.

I think it’s because whenever these “miracles” are actually analyzed by outsiders they turn out to be pretty mundane occurrences or deliberate hoaxes.

 

[MarcoPG]

I think it’s because whenever these “miracles” are actually analyzed by outsiders they turn out to be pretty mundane occurrences or deliberate hoaxes.

It might in some cases, in others science couldn’t conclude anything. In others, it conclude it was a miracle.

So, since miracles are not required to be believed, it is ok to me, but I would like to find an answer.

 

[Sparkythedog]

In others, it conclude it was a miracle.

Which cases were scientifically concluded to be a miracle?

 

[MarcoPG]

Which cases were scientifically concluded to be a miracle?

Lanciano, Siena, Blanot maybe. No scientific explanation could be found.
Lanciano is heart flesh, the blood type is the same as the shroud of TUrin;
Siena is about hosts which look perfectl new, and are 250+ years old.
Blanot is a bit special, since it was spit out by a woman as it had become flesh. This has not been analyzed.

I don’t know of others.