Explain This - Non Catholics?

[Zooey]

Well, maybe some of you naysayers will find one of these Eucharistic miracles more to your liking. Not so “creepy”. Not so “dreadful”, maybe not so “wrong”, something that won’t “sicken” you.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

Sienna and Amsterdam.
I find the Amsterdam one particularly interesting. It is the kind of miracle that is in the Scriptures. Sienna might have another explanation (though I can’t imagine what it might be). But Amsterdam?? Fascinating. Moving…that one grabbed my attention immediately.
You all need to tell that story more often; its very special.:yup:

 

[AgnosTheist]

It may depend on what subject one is speaking about as to which camp one is most likely to fall into. I tend to be close to camp two.

Yes everything is a case to case basis. I think there are very few people (both from the believers or disbelievers) who would actually reject hard proof when it is shown to their face.

With the ‘evidence’ presented at the beginning of this thread its more like a hear-say thingie. First I want to make sure if it is what its supposed to be. Either I see it for myself or that an independent unbiased reputable professional scientific organization formally clears it as a genuine unexplainable miraculous phenomena.

You said you belong to camp 2. Are you still a christian because you found an objective proof that supports it, or are you just hanging on because you were born into its tradition & is comforable with it?

 

[aristotle]

No scientist understands, really understands, how water works, let alone how the hydrocarbons in wine work, or how blood works.

It does not surprise me some eager scientists got it in their head that something “cannot be explained by science”. If the elements you are looking into cannot be explained, then the conclusion is worthless.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

With the ‘evidence’ presented at the beginning of this thread its more like a hear-say thingie. First I want to make sure if it is what its supposed to be. Either I see it for myself or that an independent unbiased reputable professional scientific organization formally clears it as a genuine unexplainable miraculous phenomena.

The scientists who worked on this, such as the committee organized by WHO, cannot explain by science certain aspects of the Lanciano miracle (i.e. the weight of the blood).

This is similar to the scientists who studied the Shroud of Turin who stated that they just can’t explain it with science.

You said you belong to camp 2. Are you still a christian because you found an objective proof that supports it, or are you just hanging on because you were born into its tradition & is comforable with it?

I don’t understand what you are saying.

 

[justasking4]

Hello,

Implicitly it does. And, you should know this by now by hanging out here, Catholics do not subscribe to the erroneous teaching of sola-scriptura.

Where does it say this implicitedly in scripture?

 

[justasking4]

Hello,

All Church teaching must not contradict the Scriptures - and no Church teaching, including the Assumption, contradicts Scripture.

There is no evidence in scripture for her assumption. Its not there.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Where does it say this implicitedly in scripture?

Many places. One such example is Revelation 12:1.

 

[lukewarm]

There is no evidence in scripture for her assumption. Its not there.

There’s a big difference between not being in scripture and contradicting scripture…

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

There is no evidence in scripture for her assumption. Its not there.

No direct evidence - that is not explicitly.

But where did I say that all doctrine must be found in Scripture. I said that no doctrine can contradict Scripture. Please show where the Bible says Mary was not assumed into Heaven.

 

[justasking4]

You’ve missed the point. At its core, this argument is really about sola scriptura.

How so. All you need to do is to bring forth those verses that show she was assumed into heaven. The fact of the matter is that there is none and her so called assumption was unknown for centuries. There are not even any eyewitness accounts for it.

 

[justasking4]

You use the logic of “it can happen” instead of what is needed here, “it did happen”. This is the same logic Catholics use to explain the Assumption of Mary. Catholics when faced with how to prove this actually happened merely say that if God could do it for Enoch, then he must be able to do it for Mary. Well duh!! But the question is, did he?? We know he can but we don’t know if he did. Same thing.

Good point. There is a major difference in saying what you think God can do and evidence that He did do it. Where is the evidence that He did. There is none.

 

[aristotle]

How so. All you need to do is to bring forth those verses that show she was assumed into heaven. The fact of the matter is that there is none and her so called assumption was unknown for centuries. There are not even any eyewitness accounts for it.

A good point.

There are no eye-witness accounts, that we know of, for Jesus’s resurrection. Just a book that claims there are.

There are certainly no eye-witness accounts of the Trinity, in a way we could understand the concept.

It’s pretty easy to write down false things.

Your argument is good, but it stops short. Not only should it cause questioning of Catholic beliefs, like the assumption nonsense, but all Christian beliefs, like the resurrection nonsense.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The scientists who worked on this, such as the committee organized by WHO, cannot explain by science certain aspects of the Lanciano miracle (i.e. the weight of the blood).

I wanna see WHO’s formal findings on this, not just from one of its employees.

Got a link?

This is similar to the scientists who studied the Shroud of Turin who stated that they just can’t explain it with science.

There is no formal scientific finding on this. The test results vary. And the RCC have never claimed it to be from jesus.

I don’t understand what you are saying.

never mind.

 

[justasking4]

Dauphin;2637014]We know with certainty that she was assumed into heaven because the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church has defined this infallibly under the protection promised to her in blessed Peter.

This is not proof though but a statement. It has no facts to back it up. There is no eyewitness accounts for this and is only mentioned centuries later.

You could dismiss the entire faith if you placed any of the acts of Christ under the same scrunity which you place marian dogma. Your insistence on scientific proof or documentary evidence (beyond direct witness) is unreasonable.

It is not unreasonable. Since the scriptures never teach such a thing then you must go outside of them into history. There are no eyewitness accounts for this. Without historical facts you have myths.

For protestants, it ultimately comes down to “cus the Bible says so”. I could easily tell you: “we know that Jesus was capable of ascending into heaven, but we don’t know that he did”

Most protestants would answer “Yes we do! The Bible says so!”

I’d have to agree. Thankfully, I’m not limited to sola scriptura, so I can also affirm the assumption because of the statements of the magesterium and sacred oral tradition.

Actually the problems are on those who go beyond what is written to base their beliefs on. When you do so, you must trust the speculations of men and this claim about Mary is one of many. There is no proof and no matter how much you may believe in the authority of your church that does not make it true. Remember the magesterium is composed of fallen men who can and have erred.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I wanna see WHO’s formal findings on this, not just from one of its employees.

Got a link?

There is no formal scientific finding on this. The test results vary. And the RCC have never claimed it to be from jesus.

never mind.

I don’t know when and where the WHO commitee published their findings. Professor Luini published his in an Italian journal in 1973. I can get you the exact date and name of the journal if you want, but no links - you’d have to probably get it through an Italian library that deals in those kind of publications.

There is no formal finding on the Shroud about this because the scientist gave up saying that they couldn’t explain it - not much of a journal article.

 

[AgnosTheist]

There is no formal finding on the Shroud about this because the scientist gave up saying that they couldn’t explain it - not much of a journal article.

Its not their explanations that I want to hear, its the undeniable verification that the shroud and blood is 2000 years old and that there is no evidence whatsoever of anything artificial.

And may I remind you that the RCC never officially verified that this was from Jesus. I wonder why.

 

[justasking4]

aristotle;2645451]A good point.

There are no eye-witness accounts, that we know of, for Jesus’s resurrection. Just a book that claims there are.

Not so. These accounts even though written down in the scriptures are very good documents that tell the truth. Extremly reliable.

There are certainly no eye-witness accounts of the Trinity, in a way we could understand the concept.

Did the “persons” of the Trinity appear in history? Did Jesus believe in it?

It’s pretty easy to write down false things.

True. However the NT is historically reliable on so many points.

Your argument is good, but it stops short. Not only should it cause questioning of Catholic beliefs, like the assumption nonsense, but all Christian beliefs, like the resurrection nonsense.

Not sure what you are saying here. The resurrection of Christ is thee best historical fact of the ancient world. The supposed assumption of Mary has no eyewitness accounts at all and is only referenced until centuries later.

 

[aristotle]

Not so. These accounts even though written down in the scriptures are very good documents that tell the truth. Extremly reliable.

How do you know this? Did you meet these people?

Why not accept the Cyclops in Homer’s Oddessy? There supposedly were witnesses to this also.

Did the “persons” of the Trinity appear in history? Did Jesus believe in it?

Good question. Haven’t got a clue. Neither have you, if all you have is an old book.

True. However the NT is historically reliable on so many points.

And likely unreliable on others. Just like any document with a mixture of history and myth.

Not sure what you are saying here. The resurrection of Christ is thee best historical fact of the ancient world.

According to what non-Christian historian?

The supposed assumption of Mary has no eyewitness accounts at all and is only referenced until centuries later.

Except that there were claimed eye-witness accounts, which can be found in other old books.

But I don’t blame you for disbelieving them. Floating up into heaven does seem pretty hoaky.

 

[RebeccaJ]

All the tests show is that it is a human heart and blood. There is no proof as to where it came from. Miracle, or the priest plopping a human heart and blood into the containers? Or was it any number of non-miracle explanations? Choose to believe which ever you like.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Its not their explanations that I want to hear, its the undeniable verification that the shroud and blood is 2000 years old and that there is no evidence whatsoever of anything artificial.

You’re not going to find it from scientists. They don’t know. Those within the science community who have studied the Shroud have varied and contradictory opinions on this. They don’t know how old the Shroud is - they can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint a date. They don’t know how such an image could have been produced - technologically or historically. They can’t explain a number of things associated with the Shroud.

And may I remind you that the RCC never officially verified that this was from Jesus. I wonder why.

You mean like the Church declaring that 100% this is definitely it - you must believe that this is the Shroud which was used to bury Jesus? You’ll never hear that from the Church because it is part of private revelation. But, the Church has declared it worthy of veneration by the faithful - so there is at least tacit approval of its authenticity.