The vatican have formally approved a lot of things that can instead be ‘tacitly approved’ as merely a matter of ‘private revelation’. But not this shroud. Probably its because they were/are not so sure themselves. Playing safe.
Examples.
I am only sure about doctrines, not with relics.
Belief in the Shroud is not a matter of doctrine.
Again, the intellect over the soul. There has to be a leap. You stated you believe in love. Is love also elusive, not real, virtual? Where is your sense of mystery and soul? What do you think about this?
Get into relics, they are great, man.
Did you meet Aristotle? How do you know he’s rea?. You took his name. Do you equate yourself with him?
And whose book do you follow? Do you really believe the writings of Aristotle were written by him?
I’ll leave the rest to you
Love is neither physical nor virtual. Love is an idea, an emotion, and is very real.
life itself, the sense of self, and the wonders of the universe is my greatest sense of mystery.
First of all how can anyone be sure that there was no switching involved before the tester was called in?
so abstract
what was switched. the same product is there today that was there yesterday.
You’ve just ignored my entire post. I’ve already answered your question. If you insist on ignoring my answer, I really can’t help you.
You cannot “prove” the miracles of Christ beyond the testimony of scripture. If you are a genuine person of faith, you simply have to trust in scripture.
and this thing all happened some 1300 years ago. how do we know that long ago somebody switche the host for a flesh thing, an old switheroo thingie to persuade the Basilian monk?
I believe miracles could happen. And if God really wants to convince people then he would have made a miracle that is available for everyone to observe. Not just something that passes as an old gossip written down on paper.
Did you read the whole article. It is still there today!
Yes, you wish you could believe in miracles. Every miracle thrown in your face, you throw an obstacle.
I found his name connected to some books. People said he wrote them. I believe it.
I do not understand.
So indeed you are making the case that God is somehow proving what the Eucharist is by changing just the accidents into something the Eucharist itself still is not.
you didnt get my point. what if what you see today was a hoax? thats not a miracle, the miracle is the actual transformation itself. if there was one.
leather can last for a long time as well. The article described the preservation as extraordinary, not miraculous. afterall some fleshy stuff sometimes become extraordinarily preserved too.
please describe.
c’mon the vatican itself wont just believe every claims of miracle thrown at its face. it has strict guidelines because some claims are actually hoaxes. i am just being careful too.
It makes sense to me. Christ called the Eucharist his “body” and “blood”. As such, the appearance of body and blood points to this truth.
Are you purposely being dense? It is one thing if you don’t agree - but you don’t even acknowledge comprehension of what has been repeatedly told to you.
You are correct. The communion is nothing but bread and wine. And Jesus is no more than dust and bones.
You are absolutely wrong. I believe in those things which can be proven by Scripture. The Resurrection of Jesus is Scriptural. The Assumption of Mary is not. Period, end of argument. I don’t care what you say, this is the overwhelming difference not just for me but for millions of Christians besides. It is very clever and quite simple for Catholics to attempt to encompass all of which that is of this argument by saying that they wrote and canonized Scriture but again, this is VERY debatable and has been debated for centuries.