You know what? You got us. Yep, the Pope and all his cronies sit in a back room twisting their moustaches, dreaming up ways they can pull one over on the world.
Awesome. May the name of the Lord be blessed.
yah, I guess I did…you claimed scientific validation…I explained what that would entail and asked for some actual scientific validation…and it seems that you have nothing left say. That is unfortunate…I would like to see what is the best that Catholics have to offer. I note Fred Conty gave a list of 10…are they the ones that were in the book that you read?
just to be clear…is this sarcasm or are you claiming that the Pope has a miraculously invisible moustache?
have you thought this one through at all? Scientists can only test/work with “accidents”. Your Church claims that the accidents of the body are not present, that the accidents of the bread are present and that the substance of the body (and not the bread) is present. So were the accidents of heart tissue present in the one piece of host? If so, that goes against what your Church claims happens…to remind you, it claims that no accidents of the body are present and that the whole body (and not just a very small piece of tissue) is present. Were the accidents of bread present in the second piece?..oh and why was it necessary to test something that smelt, tasted and looked like bread to determine that it was just plain bread?
) It was also in spanish so if you dont read or speak spanish it will be hard to understand. But I can see you dont believe in the miracles of God, the same God we worship. But ill pray for your conversion and your soul friend. 
It was 3 years ago when I recieved the email (same time I returned to Catholic Church) It was also in spanish so let me try and find it!!!
Catholics are not required to believe in any " miracle " outside those found in Scriptures or handed down from Tradition. However, it would be a sign of weak faith not to believe in the miracles used as evidence in promoting the cause of the Blessed or the Saints and certain appearances of Our Lady approved by the Church. So in this sense they are not undeniable proofs for the existence of God for those who do not believe. But for those who do , they provide a strengthening of faith. I believe in some but not in others. I believe in the recent miracle of the eucharist in Argentina and the appearance of Mary in Myanmar. These strengthened my faith in a way.
It was a group email now that I think back on it. I did find some things out about Mexico but they were old and not current. Ill continue my search!
I know you’ve retracted this story because you can’t find a reference. But I’d point out that based on Catholic teaching I don’t think this should happen. If the non-believer was not a Catholic then I would imagine the priest would not give a consecrated host to such a man. Also aren’t you supposed to immediately consume the host? Giving the host to a person who does not believe to be transported somewhere for testing is very likely to cause sacrilege.
There are wacky people who might do just that perhaps out of strong but naive belief and accepted it as a challenge. And yes, rightfully and ordinarily, the host should be consumed immediately.
So there is no way one can go over this. I think that’s the reason for the priest to do so. Sometimes you may come across such people.I am glad to learn that you left over a falsehood, rather than something that the Church actually believes and teaches. This being the case, it would seem that reconciliation is more likely.
That is God’s choice…not yours. Besides, demanding this of God is putting God to the test…and He is much wiser than you and me.
Then there would be counter argument as said by cornbread.
I agree. As defined, God could do those things but, as I wrote, there may be theological/philosophical reasons why it’s better to interpret these types of events as symbols of the original rather than duplications of the original.
believe it or not, from a Catholic philosophical point of view this would not actually follow. If the entire body of Jesus can be substantially present behind the accidents of bread, then the entire body of Jesus can be substantially present behind the accidents of a slice of his heart….accidents having nothing to do with substantial presence as far as the Catholic Eucharist is concerned….this is not to say that your dim past recollection is wrong, but the philosophy doesn’t prohibit it from being the accidents of a slice of Christ’s heart. Also, please note how the Catholics will try to validate the alleged miracle with this sort of claim:
Now SteveVH is not the official voice of the Vatican and apologists will quite often try and have their cake and eat it to…but you will see the implication that they have Jesus’s type AB middle-eastern heart slices present in all these various miraculous samples.
this isn’t a problem for the same reason as for #1….if it was only a miraculously created symbol then (it would seem to me) the sample wouldn’t be worthy of worship (only veneration perhaps?)…if they are worshipping it, wouldn’t the entire body of Jesus need to be substantially present behind the accidents of a slice of heart?
I don’t know if you saw the quoted bit in Post #84 (which I found after my first post), but apparently Aquinas had philosophical reasons for thinking that the accidentals of human flesh observed in a Eucharistic miracle were not the actual flesh of Jesus. See Article 8 for the context for the quoted bit. Granted, this is just one opinion, but I doubt many would challenge Aquinas on the subject of transubstantiation.