Funny that that isn’t seen as important enough to mention in a description hereWhy is growing a new limb “the one irrefutable proof”?? St Gerard Majella grew a new limb. I’m sure somebody purported to “refute” that, as they would purport to refute any miracle you can name, no matter how well-documented.
I notice your signature. Of course he said it amongst a bunch of WASPS. Had he done so in Saudi Arabia, or Aztec Mexico, he might have rethought it.Funny that that isn’t seen as important enough to mention in a description here
catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg06.htm
or here
newadvent.org/cathen/06467c.htm
or here
cin.org/majella.html
I would think that growing a new limb would be at least as miraculous and merit at least as much mention as having survived being falsely accused of getting a girl pregnant.
As the quote goes:It means lets get real! People claim miraculous healing at Lourdes and yet there are ample explanations and the one irrefutable proof (growing a new limb has NEVER occured).
This article in no way proves it was not tampered with (etc) at the time of the miracle.
Rev North
and thats a dumb quote. even in your bible the unbelieving thomas required proof.“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”
It’s only dumb for those who fall in the second category.and thats a dumb quote. even in your bible the unbelieving thomas required proof.
What in the world does my signature have to do with the question at hand?I notice your signature. Of course he said it amongst a bunch of WASPS. Had he done so in Saudi Arabia, or Aztec Mexico, he might have rethought it.
What is the Eucharistic Miracle of Laciano proof of?Hello,
It’s only dumb for those who fall in the second category.
Asking for some proof is not an absolute evil. Of course Jesus did say to Thomas “blessed are they who have not seen and still believe”. The error is those who see the proof and obstinately refuse to believe - they won’t even countenance the possibility.
Actually, if you read closely, it DOESN’T say he stuck his fingers in, althought told to do so, but said “My Lord and My God.” And the response was…?and thats a dumb quote. even in your bible the unbelieving thomas required proof.
Lanciano, however, only has a bit of petrified heart tissue.
It is not petrified. The Heart tissue is alive - the scientific studies have shown this. The Heart has all the sections of heart tissue that are essential in structure (myocardium, endocardium, etc.).What we have at Lanciano is nothing of the sort. Old petrified heart tissue is not Jesus Christ.
This just shows that you don’t fully understand Catholic teaching. Yes, Jesus is whole and entire - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in every particle of the Host and every drop of the Blood.The Catholic Church officially teaches that the consecrated Eucharist is Jesus Himself, WHOLE and ENTIRE…with every part that constitutes a real body.
A true Eucharist can be NOTHING less than this - not a bit of nose or a bit of bone.
Ah, now that one, in 726, is at least described.Speaking of limbs growing back - Saint John Damascene had his hand cut off and it miraculously grew back; in gratitude he crafted a golden hand and attached it to an icon of Mary (the three-handed Madonna).
The Priest was having serious doubts that Jesus was really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist. God gave the Priest, and the world, this miracle to take away the doubts in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.What is the Eucharistic Miracle of Laciano proof of?
What belief does it, is it intended to strengthen or uphold?
I am asking this seriously. Sometimes the purpose/meaning of some much aclaimed Catholic miracles isn’t clear to me.
Some say to show the power of God, but none of them are more compelling than what I see around me every day to show that the Divine is indeed powerful and magnificent.
Just noticed it. I have a thing for Jefferson.What in the world does my signature have to do with the question at hand?
A person like that is a fool. But thats not what the quote says.Hello,
The error is those who see the proof and obstinately refuse to believe
What matters is that he saw the evidence with his own eyes. thats all that matters. Faith and Reason.Actually, if you read closely, it DOESN’T say he stuck his fingers in, althought told to do so, but said “My Lord and My God.” And the response was…?
of course, he said that but me thinks he doth protest too much…I asked said atheists, that Jefferson also said that blacks smelt bad and were naturally inferior to whites, and would they like to cite with pride that quote too.
thanksHello,
The Priest was having serious doubts that Jesus was really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist. God gave the Priest, and the world, this miracle to take away the doubts in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
He did? My understanding is that this event was supposed to have taken place several centuries ago. And all the article proves, if you believe every word of it, is that the item that the doctor examined several years ago was flesh. It doesn’t prove that it was flesh that used to be bread.What matters is that he saw the evidence with his own eyes. thats all that matters. Faith and Reason.
just making an example from the bible of how an evidence convinced a disbeliever.He did? My understanding is that this event was supposed to have taken place several centuries ago. And all the article proves, if you believe every word of it, is that the item that the doctor examined several years ago was flesh. It doesn’t prove that it was flesh that used to be bread.