The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

[lyrikal]

perhaps a dove could appear above the altar and a voice could be heard announcing that “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased”…consistent with scripture and does not confict with the teaching of a whole presence.

A dove? How would you confirm that an actual dove and an actual voice was there 1200 years later? If Christ did it this way, I can easily see you saying something like:

“How can you prove that an actual dove was seen or an actual voice was heard?”

I really don’t think that would have done it for you based on what you are asking for here. You could even raise another objection about the voice and say:

“How do we know that when the voice says ‘THIS is my Son’ that He is actually pointing to the bread?”

I can come up with a 100 problems with that type of miracle and reasons why you won’t believe it based on what I have read from you here.

I do want to thank you for making this thread. Ironically, you have made a believer out of a non-believer of the miracle and I am sure you have read his/her post. In case you missed it, you can find it in post #21 of this thread. God really does have a sense of humor.

 

[lyrikal]

Luke 16:31

[31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’"

2 Corinthians 5:7

[7] for we walk by faith, not by sight.

Hebrew11:

[1]Now **faith **is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
[2] For by it the men of old received divine approval.
[3] By **faith **we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.
[4] By **faith **Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his **faith **he is still speaking.
[5] By **faith **Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.
[6] And without **faith **it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
[7] By **faith **Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.
[8]By **faith **Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.
[9] By **faith **he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise.
[10] For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
[11] By **faith **Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.
[12] Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
[13]These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
[14] For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.
[15] If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.
[16] But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
[17]By **faith **Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son,
[18] of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.”
[19] He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
[20] By **faith **Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau.
[21] By **faith **Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.
[22] By **faith **Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his burial.
[23]By **faith **Moses, when he was born, was hid for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful; and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
[24] By **faith **Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter,
[25] choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.
[26] He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked to the reward.
[27] By **faith **he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king; for he endured as seeing him who is invisible.
[28] By **faith **he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the first-born might not touch them.
[29]By **faith **the people crossed the Red Sea as if on dry land; but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.
[30] By **faith **the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days.
[31] By **faith **Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.
[32]And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets –
[33] who through **faith **conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
[34] quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.
[35] Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.
[36] Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment.
[37] They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated –
[38] of whom the world was not worthy – wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
[39]And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised,
[40] since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

God bless.

 

[hosemonkey]

Radical’s problem can be summed up in one word,"protestant."As has been stated before, miracles are not necessary for faith, but I believe that they are given to us by God to sometimes sharply remind us of His power. My Church does not lie, and any allegations of miracles are deeply investigated, as illustrated by the occurances at Fatima and Lourdes. Of the millions of pilgrims who have gone there seeking a miracle, very few have been authenticated. It is obvious to me that Radical has not been given the grace to see the manifestation of the power of God and to recognize the truth of the Catholic teaching on the nature of the Holy Eucharist. After all, that is why they are called “protestants.”

 

[Radical]

I have personally read and translated the paper published in Quad Sclavi. Your original assertions, or rather protests are unfounded. For example your point that Linoli said this was consistent with mummies (in regards to the blood) is not found in the paper. What he does say about mummies is this;

And 'also point out that nowhere in the histological section appeared to be indicative of an impregnation of the fabric by mummification substances, which were used in ancient times for the preservation of tissues.

go to the link for Linoli’s paper that I gave on page one of this thread …page 671, first sentence of the 4th paragraph. Doesn’t it read:
This study confirms the possibility that organic material (such as proteins) may be kept for a very long period, as if the fatal destiny of Flesh could be overcome.
The discovery of blood group AB proteins and antigens in the ancient Flesh and Blood in Lanciano after 1200 years, is in agreement with the discovery of proteins in Egyptian mummies dated since 4000 years (Hanseman), and since 5000 years (Meyer),…

More than that you questioned Linoli’s credentials, without questioning Simmons. You were seduced by the words “Grad Student”, and “Microbiology”, but never questioned anything beyond that. I mean if he is an Atheist,…

I actually read what Simmons had to say…it made sense and I think it was right. You said you could truthfully say that my points wrt Linoli’s paper were in error and that Simmons’s comment was also wrong. So be precise what exactly did I get wrong? What was wrong with what Simmons said?

… than you already agree he is not right on a lot of things, particularly everything that you agree with as a Christian. You are skeptical of Linoli, but simmons you welcome with welcome arms? Why not put your standards on him? It wouldn’t be convenient would it?

If Simmons was writing a paper on this issue I would surely wonder how he was qualified to do the job…I quoted his assertion that “That means that no cellular structures were identified,…” from Linoli’s “no cellular element can be detected”. Simmons was explaining what Linoli’s test meant. Again, how did he get that wrong?

Linoli and Bertelli’s conclusions are more reliable then Simmons, and yours, since they actually have first hand experience, and have the credentials to back it up. I mean after all we are arguing over there conclusions.

wrt Linoli I have said:

1. the AB blood type could be a false positive due to the deterioration of the samples…did I get that right or wrong?
2. the fact that the heart sample had nail holes in its outer edge does not mean that it was living tissue when it appeared on the altar 1200 years ago…to be precise, nail holes do not establish that it was ever on an altar or that the sample even existed 1200 years ago (those would be assumptions)…and tissue need not be living to be tacked…did I get that right or wrong?
3. the samples were not fresh tissue or blood…seems extremely obvious, but still, did I get that right or wrong?
4. the fact that the heart sample was a nice clean slice doesn’t mean that it was miraculously produced and not produced by the human hand…did I get that right or wrong?.

If you have a problem theologically with it, be honest about it…

I have acknowledged it

… and research it, but don’t come under the guise of honesty and put forth such obviously biased assertions.

just b/c I have a bias doesn’t mean I got things wrong. Linoli had a bias, but I didn’t leave it at that, I made the 4 points set out immediately above…are they right or wrong, regardless of whatever bias I may have?

 

[Jcnava15]

go to the link for Linoli’s paper that I gave on page one of this thread …page 671, first sentence of the 4th paragraph. Doesn’t it read:
This study confirms the possibility that organic material (such as proteins) may be kept for a very long period, as if the fatal destiny of Flesh could be overcome.
The discovery of blood group AB proteins and antigens in the ancient Flesh and Blood in Lanciano after 1200 years, is in agreement with the discovery of proteins in Egyptian mummies dated since 4000 years (Hanseman), and since 5000 years (Meyer),…

See the thing about mummies is that they undergo a preservation process. From what I’ve read about those mummies you mentioned was that the proteins that were found were found at the nano level, or as fragments.

The Eucharist of Lanciano’s (which did not have any preservatives) proteins were not measured at the nano level, and the proteins were still found. More than that they were found at the same ratio as fresh blood, a phenomenon that is not in line with the mummified proteins of other sources.

Also most mummies tend to lose the hemoglobin properties that weren’t lost in the Eucharist of Lanciano.

I actually read what Simmons had to say…it made sense and I think it was right.

Of course it made sense…because it’s what you wanted to hear.

How are you qualified to make a professional assessment?

If Simmons was writing a paper on this issue I would surely wonder how he was qualified to do the job…I quoted his assertion that “That means that no cellular structures were identified,…” from Linoli’s “no cellular element can be detected”. Simmons was explaining what Linoli’s test meant. Again, how did he get that wrong?
wrt Linoli I have said:

I don’t have an issue with that. He restated the obvious (“He runs into the endzone”:: “that means he scored a touch down”). I have issue with your glorification of him as a Grad student over Linoli’s expertise, and your obvious hypocrisy at every turn. You question Linoli’s credentials and accept Simmons no questions asked.

1. the AB blood type could be a false positive due to the deterioration of the samples…did I get that right or wrong?

What difference would it make if the sample contained a different blood type? The issue was over it being human or animal blood, or just some fake substance.

1. the fact that the heart sample had nail holes in its outer edge does not mean that it was living tissue when it appeared on the altar 1200 years ago…to be precise, nail holes do not establish that it was ever on an altar or that the sample even existed 1200 years ago (those would be assumptions)…and tissue need not be living to be tacked…did I get that right or wrong?

If anyone is seriously making the case that nail holes determine the age of something than I would join you in disagreeing with them.

1. the samples were not fresh tissue or blood…seems extremely obvious, but still, did I get that right or wrong?

No one is saying it was fresh tissue or blood. I don’t know where you and the atheists are getting this. The only thing that is alleged is that the sero-proteic make up is in the same proportions of freshly shed blood, a phenomenon particularly because it is not fresh blood.

1. the fact that the heart sample was a nice clean slice doesn’t mean that it was miraculously produced and not produced by the human hand…did I get that right or wrong?.

If it was produced in the 700’s yes it would be something akin to miraculous, but a small degree of reservation could be applied. If you are disputing the dating can you please provide some facts to back up your opinion?

just b/c I have a bias doesn’t mean I got things wrong. Linoli had a bias, but I didn’t leave it at that, I made the 4 points set out immediately above…are they right or wrong, regardless of whatever bias I may have?

What evidence do you have to assert that Linoli had a bias? His findings were published in a peer reviewed journal. Even if he had a bias, at least his science was sound.

It is because of your bias theologically that this just can’t be a miracle. So please stop pretending that you are doing honest research, and that based on your honest research this miracle is probably a fraud.

You are being dishonest, and it’s saddening. I am not trying to be rude by saying that. I am saddened because someone who doesn’t have the time to be as thorough as I and others have been in investigating this research might take you seriously, and it could cost them their faith. And all just so that you can say Catholics are wrong.

 

[Radical]

And who were the 500 that St. Paul pointed to? What were their names? Did you talk to any of them? What did they tell you? Did you confirm that these eye witness accounts were actually real?
What kind of scientific studies were done to show that the DNA of Christ before death was the same as the DNA after the Resurrection?

there aren’t any…but if there were and I pointed to them as proof of his divinty, then I would make sure that they were done with as much integrity and professionalism as possible…I wouldn’t settle for third rate stuff. We Christians look the fool all too often.

I am aware that you would like to continue talking about the scientific evidence, but my agenda at this point is to show your inconsistencies. There is nothing really left to be said about the scientific evidence. You have rejected what you have seen. We both see the same results and interpret them differently.

regarding the 4 points I asked Jcnava about…do you think I got anything wrong?

You do no different than one who interprets the Gospel accounts of Christ resurrecting differently. Some say His disciples hallucinated (not possible), some say the Apostles in the Gospel weren’t really His Apostles but were followers who came way later, and some even say that Jesus never existed in the first place. They dismiss the whole thing entirely and interpret everything differently. I don’t think you should ever blame an atheist for saying these things if you’re going to interpret the scientific results differently with regards to the miracle in discussion.

I accept the testimony of the gospels on faith…I have never said otherwise. I think it a reasonable faith, but I certainly can’t point to the gospels as a proof of Jesus’s divinity (for a non-believer). The gospels testify to Christ’s resurrection etc…they don’t prove it. I can’t say that an Atheist is acting unreasonably simply b/c he does not share my faith. We can trace Paul’s testimony about seeing our risen Lord back to within a generation of the alleged event…when eye witnesses were still alive. We can say with considerable confidence that we have a reliable record of what Paul claimed. The record we possess is recognized by your church as infallible. WRT the EMOL I believe that the first written record of the event that you have is seperated from the alleged event by centuries (I am not sure, but isn’t it 900 years +/- ?). The records of the EMOL event are not recognized by your church as infallible. …but you won’t seem to acknowledge that there is any difference between the two situations.

Let’s see: In the 1970s, studies were done to see if the flesh is actually flesh. Why? Because if it is, then that would quiet the critics of this being fake. The critics accused the Catholics of it not being actual flesh and blood. That has been proven false. What now? Critics like you come up with more doubts. Again, you have ZERO scientific evidence for the Resurrection. So please stop acting like the Resurrection is a fact while this Eucharistic miracle is a possible hoax when scientific studies have been done to the latter and not the former.

It seems that you have wrongly assumed what I believe. The scientific tests on the EMOL most certainly haven’t proven a miracle…the resurrection and the EMOL are both things one accepts on faith. Nevertheless, the evidence WRT the EMOL isn’t the same as the evidence WRT the resurrection. Therefore, it isn’t inconsistent or Atheistic to accept one as valid and reject the other as doubtful.

I will go ahead and show you the inconsistencies of these differences.
You assume Christ did all these things based on eye witness accounts. You don’t accept the eye witness accounts of the Eucharistic Miracles today. Inconsistency.

Regarding the resurrection, the records of the eyewitness accounts go back to within 50 years of the event and are contained w/i scripture (the latter shouldn’t matter to an Atheist, but the former must be acknowledged). Regarding the EMOL, the written records of the eyewitness accounts go back to within 900 years of the alleged event and are not contained within scripture. Protest all you want, but that is a difference…it is a huge difference and you will see Christian apologists stressing the fact that the gospels and Paul’s letters were written so soon after the events…it is a reason to believe in their reliability.

Again, you assume this about Christ based on eye witness accounts.

Yes, I accept it on faith that Christ could say, “Be healed” and the fellow would be healed based on rather contemporary eyewitness accounts.

As far as the Catholic Church goes, as I pointed out in another post, just because you have 1 bad priest, doesn’t mean all priests are bad. You can’t deny every single miracle that has been done based on the bad one that have been fraud.

well, there is more than one that has been a fraud. I have no idea what percentage of alleged miracles the CC has ended up classifying as fraudulent. In any event, the fact that a good number do exist is reason to acknowledge that it is a possibility wrt the EMOL. A fraud is something that the custodians of the EMOL samples greatly feared…it was (and still is) a very real possibility. Further, regarding the EMOL we have evidence that a past claim (the one you cited regarding the weight of blood stones) isn’t valid. Now you may believe that that particular part of the EMOL stop working, but I believe that it was a false claim from the very start. There isn’t a counterpart to that “no longer working or always was false” claim in the resurrection. Protest all you want, but that is a difference…a huge difference.

 

[Radical]

Now you say that the Eucharistic miracle does not have an entire bodily presence. Well, ringil brought that issue up and here is how I responded:
Think about it this way: If Christ were to perform a miracle to show us that He is truly present in the Eucharist, how else could He have done it?

just b/c you can think of only ridiculous alternatives doesn’t mean that God is so limited. Glowing like Moses’s face at Sinai would also do the trick. Blood that is actually still fresh…you know in liquid form, with cells intact would be an improvement.

Since you probably won’t accept this as a good answer, I will provide you yet with another point. What is the story of the Lanciano miracle? THE PRIEST DOUBTED THE REAL BODILY PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. Since he doubted, and since your argument assumes the miracle happened, then we can put 2 and 2 together.

well, that the EMOL is just the ticket to establish a RBP is merely your private interpretation of the situation and how God would act…and we all know what you think of private interpretations. Further, your private interpretation simply doesn’t change the fact that you have a little piece of heart appearing, when the entire body is supposed to be present. You may want to ignore that inconsistency, but I don’t have to follow your lead…and that type of inconsistency doesn’t taint the resurrection. Protest all you want, but that is a difference.

But I find it highly ironic for you to bring up the doubting Thomas story. Here is why:
[29] Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”
Where would that verse fall if we run these DNA testing that you would like us to do? If we run them and they come out to be from one person, then we would have proof of the following:

1.) The Eucharist is the Body of Christ and not just a symbol.
2.) The Resurrection of Jesus is now a fact since it would be impossible for the DNA testings to point to one person. If the Eucharistic miracles are confirmed, that would confirm the Resurrection.

And you would come to believe and many would come to believe based on facts. Jesus could then as us “have you believed because you have seen the facts? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Where does that verse fall under with what you’re asking for us to do? I personally do not need any of these miracles in order to believe in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. In fact, I have believed in it before I even knew of such miracles.

so, I guess that would make you one of the more blessed…You might have had a point if Jesus told Thomas to get lost. Jesus gave Thomas what he asked for and what he needed to believe.

My interpretation is consistent with the historical context of the miracle. The priest doubted the REAL BODILY PRESENCE OF CHRIST and that’s when the miracle happened.

yep…it is your personal interpretation…and not particularly convincing from over here.

It is unfortunate and I apologize for this. Radical, you know I respect your intelligence and respected it a lot during our Augustine discussion; however, when I see inconsistencies and double standards put forth (and not just me but other people are seeing this) then please understand that it gets frustrating.

understood…and please understand that I think you are trying too hard to see an inconsistnecy in my approach so that my opinion doesn’t detract from the EMOL in any possible way…I have spelt out the differences as obviously as I can

I would like to say that we should really drop the whole discussion all together. We keep going in circles and I don’t think that this is going to stop anytime soon and it may get more heated. For the sake of charity, please consider dropping it. But if you insist, I will continue with the discussion as to your liking.

well, I think I have pretty well said all I have to say regarding the distinction I make between the evidence for the resurrection and the evidence for the EMOL…if you still can’t see it, then I doubt I can make it any clearer.

A dove? How would you confirm that an actual dove and an actual voice was there 1200 years later? If Christ did it this way, I can easily see you saying something like:

“How can you prove that an actual dove was seen or an actual voice was heard?”

because he could keep doing it… there are a few Eucharists per day, right? Maybe such an announcement every year at the Easter Mass at the Vatican.

I do want to thank you for making this thread. Ironically, you have made a believer out of a non-believer of the miracle and I am sure you have read his/her post. … God really does have a sense of humor.

You are welcome…the claim (even though the scientific evidence doesn’t even begin to establish a miracle) does indeed appeal to some people…it is very possible, that around here, with the audiences one receives on these threads, the angry and insulting efforts to defend the EMOL may have done more damage to its reputation than my remarks.

God bless you.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I used to be skeptical of the miracle of Lanciano myself until, ironically, I started reading the evidences Radical described in his post. They seem very convincing to me. Almost frightening.

Praise be to God!

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

I used to be skeptical of the miracle of Lanciano myself until, ironically, I started reading the evidences Radical described in his post. They seem very convincing to me. Almost frightening.

You know id say that all of us have been there at some point. But just as you say, once you start reading the evidences, and not only of this but of other miracles that have happened in our Church as well, it is indeed incredible and frightening at the same time

 

[CopticChristian]

And if you want something more modern (year 2000s) that does involve DNA samples, here is an article for you:

moralyluces.wordpress.com/2007/06/14/instrumento-para-fortalecer-nuestra-fe/

QUOTE]

Here is the Spanish Translation. Where can I find the Italian Translation. I can translate it with Systran Professional translator.

CAMINEO.INFO) – the Dr Ricardo Casta6nón Gómez, clinical psychologist with knowledge specialized in the relation between the brain and the human behavior, has taken ahead an investigation about the wafers that they have bled in 1996 in Buenos Aires – Argentina; after more than five years of study and investigation one has reached the conclusion that the samples of wafers are heart muscle. Next he is the own Dr Casta6non who narrates all the process to us of investigation that has taken ahead.

The 15 of August of year 1996 a person agrees in the parish of Santa Maria in Buenos Aires and the wafer falls to him of the hand when agreeing; as it considers that this wafer is dirty not wants it to raise then another more pious person puts it to a side and it warns the parish priest P. to him Alexander Weighs the happened thing.

The priest places the wafer in I deposit of water and she puts it in the tabernacle because it is norm that if a consecrated wafer has some incident must put it to it in water soon so that it dissolves and throw the water in a plant.

When to the eleven days the priest is going to look for that she is what is past, is that the wafer has reddish spots and in the following days east reddish color by all the wafer extends. The priests of this parish go to the archbishop of Buenos Aires to tell the happened thing him and the archbishop of that then please requests to wait for better times since it is a very delicate subject.

Year 1999 being already archbishop the Cardinal Jorge aware Bergoglio and that I make these investigations of gratuitous way writes a letter to me inviting to me to occupy to me of this investigation.

He travels the 6 from October to Buenos Aires and entrevisé to five priests witnesses of all the happened one, already in that year are two wafers those that they were bleeding, volume the samples of both wafers; during the extraction of samples is present the notary of the archbishopric that certifica legally this action asked for by authorities of the Church in Argentina.

I must clarify that when invited to me, the archbishopric of Buenos Aires I properly communicate with Santa Sede with Mons. Gianfranco Girotti who was the deprived secretary of the Cardinal Ratzinger in the office of the Congregation for Doctrina and the Faith and was Mons. Girotti that gave references them of my person to take ahead this investigation.

The 21 of October of 1999 I travel to the Forence Analitycal of San Francisco a genetics laboratory that can make the analysis of the samples that I have taken.

The 28 of January of the 2000 find human DNA in the samples, is human blood that has human a genetic code.

In March of the 2000 they communicate to me that they wish that forense expert histopatólogo participates in this analysis the Dr Robert medical Lawrence in weaves.

To my he gave to fear the participation me of the Dr Lawrence by the cost that could imply and they commented to me that they wished his participation because in the sample they found substances that seem human weaves, then the Dr Lawrence studies the sample and finds white skin and globules human.
In December of the 2000 the Dr Lawrence comments to me that he can obtain more DNA samples, but as they say to me that he is human skin I travel to Italy because desire to speak with the Dr Oduardo Ardonidoli who has studied the wafer of Lanciano; a wafer that it bled in century VIII, the Dr Ardonidoli study to order of the Episcopal Conference Italian this ostia. I consulted my samples before Ardonidoli and he says to me: " probably this is woven of heart, is not epidermis, that is it is not human skin "

As I cannot work with probabilities we sent the sample to professor Jhon Walker of the University of Sydney in Australia and she informs to me that the sent samples are muscular cells and also finds white globules intact.

The investigations show that these weaves are inflamed therefore this person has had a suffering.

The 2003 this same professor says to me that these samples can correspond to weave of inflamed heart, this investigator says to me " can correspond "
In order to leave doubts we go away where the greater expert in pathologies of the heart, Professor Federico Stigibe of Columbia University in New York
Its report is sent the 26 of March of the 2005 five years and means from the beginning of the investigation: " one is heart weave has degenerative changes of the myocardium and these degenerative changes must to that the cells are inflamed and is the left ventricle of the heart "
The samples that I have are of muscle of the heart; I mean that the result of this sample is meat and blood, the muscle is of the myocardium the center that makes annoy the heart of the left ventricle where this the purified and clean blood.

The Dr Stigbe says me that the patient of where comes these samples has undergone much, - I must clarify again that he does not know that these samples come from one ostia- and this patient has undergone much because they have struck to him to the height of the chest and an infarct has caused him.
It is important to make notice that I have mentioned the existence of white globules, if one extracts the blood of a person, to the 15 minutes the white globules are disintegrated; then as it is possible that until the 2005 we have white globules in the sample that has been extracted in 1996.
It is therefore that the conclusion is that the heart alive dynamic active tapeworm at the moment in which volume the samples.

 

[CopticChristian]

lyrikal;8365416:

And if you want something more modern (year 2000s) that does involve DNA samples, here is an article for you:

moralyluces.wordpress.com/2007/06/14/instrumento-para-fortalecer-nuestra-fe/

QUOTE]

Here is the Spanish Translation. Where can I find the Italian Translation. I can translate it with Systran Professional translator.

.

Continued

The final result of this investigation gives to Bergoglio Cardinal the day to it Friday 17 of March of the 2006 and is when it authorizes to me that I spread this investigation. Ostia that has been studied is venerated every day Thursday in the parish of Santa Maria in Buenos Aires.

 

[CopticChristian]

just b/c you can think of only ridiculous alternatives doesn’t mean that God is so limited. Glowing like Moses’s face at Sinai would also do the trick. Blood that is actually still fresh…you know in liquid form, with cells intact would be an improvement.
well, that the EMOL is just the ticket to establish a RBP is merely your private interpretation of the situation and how God would act…and we all know what you think of private interpretations. Further, your private interpretation simply doesn’t change the fact that you have a little piece of heart appearing, when the entire body is supposed to be present. You may want to ignore that inconsistency, but I don’t have to follow your lead…and that type of inconsistency doesn’t taint the resurrection. Protest all you want, but that is a difference.
so, I guess that would make you one of the more blessed…You might have had a point if Jesus told Thomas to get lost. Jesus gave Thomas what he asked for and what he needed to believe.
yep…it is your personal interpretation…and not particularly convincing from over here.
understood…and please understand that I think you are trying too hard to see an inconsistnecy in my approach so that my opinion doesn’t detract from the EMOL in any possible way…I have spelt out the differences as obviously as I can
well, I think I have pretty well said all I have to say regarding the distinction I make between the evidence for the resurrection and the evidence for the EMOL…if you still can’t see it, then I doubt I can make it any clearer.
because he could keep doing it… there are a few Eucharists per day, right? Maybe such an announcement every year at the Easter Mass at the Vatican.
You are welcome…the claim (even though the scientific evidence doesn’t even begin to establish a miracle) does indeed appeal to some people…it is very possible, that around here, with the audiences one receives on these threads, the angry and insulting efforts to defend the EMOL may have done more damage to its reputation than my remarks.

God bless you.

So it would be safe to say that since this happened in 700 that Zwingli was not moved by this miracle either. Did Zwingli know of this?

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical…

To repeat, if Catholic want to use this “miracle” as proof of the legitimacy of Catholic claims wrt their Eucharist, then:

a) they should report the matter thoroughly and accurately and in a scholarly manner;

Who should have been the one to report the matter so that the investigation could have been done in a thoroughly and accurately and in a scholarly manner?

b) test the samples properly (independently, with safeguards) to see if there is indeed anything baffling about them.

Who should have been the one to test the samples properly (independently, with safeguards) to see if there was indeed anything baffling about them.

c) subject any claims of a miraclous finding or of a baffling phenomenon to expert critical evaluation.

Who would have been qualified as giving a trustworthy expert critical evaluation? Specificity would be much appreciated.

 

[Wildkit]

You know id say that all of us have been there at some point. But just as you say, once you start reading the evidences, and not only of this but of other miracles that have happened in our Church as well, it is indeed incredible and frightening at the same time

Is someone trying to tell me something?

 

[Radical]

Hey Radical…
Who should have been the one to report the matter so that the investigation could have been done in a thoroughly and accurately and in a scholarly manner?

I think you might be misinterpreting my use of “report”. I am using it in the manner which describes how a newspaper “reports” the details of an accident to its readers. The history of it should be reported accurately and thoroughly…say akin to an article published in a history journal. The science of it should be reported accurately and thoroughly…say akin to an article published in a science journal. Again, this requirement should be met in the event that Catholics (when talking to outsiders in particular), want to use this “miracle” as proof of the legitimacy of Catholic claims wrt their Eucharist. As to “who”,…any Catholic with the time and ability for the benefit of the rest. Given the number of Catholics who look to the EMOL for encouragement, somebody somewhere should have done a better job of it.

Who should have been the one to test the samples properly (independently, with safeguards) to see if there was indeed anything baffling about them.

The custodians of the samples should have two goals in mind. 1) they would want somebody that they could trust to do the job properly and produce reliable results. 2) they should want somebody that the rest of the world wouldn’t doubt, so that the rest of the world would also believe that the job was done properly so as to produce reliable results. People/labs do make mistakes, so having at least two labs run the tests would be good. At this point in time, only two or three things need testing in MHO: a) age and b) blood type and maybe c) mineral and protein content (if someone wants to assert that there is something miraculously irregular about either of them). Ideally, the custodians could find a couple of labs which are competent in all required areas. Look to how the Shroud was tested to get an idea…I haven’t looked at the Shroud testing in great detail, but I believe that they approached the matter correctly, but botched the gathering of samples…hence the continuing debate.

Who would have been qualified as giving a trustworthy expert critical evaluation? Specificity would be much appreciated.

Any Lab that has the ability and the respect of the scientific community…again, if the believers in the EMOL want to present the scientific testing as proof of a miracle, then they should put the best possible foot forward. Picture yourself as a defense lawyer at a murder trial where you are going to present DNA evidence to establish the innocence of your client. In that case, 1)you would want an expert that you could trust to do the job properly and produce reliable results; and 2) you would want an expert that the judge/jury wouldn’t doubt, so that the judge/jury would also believe that the job was done properly so as to produce reliable results…Two such experts is always better than one. What you don’t want is some expert that has done such a poor job of it, that the prosecutor could easily and soundly rebut his evidence. If you are going to present an “expert witness” so as to convince the “judge and jury” of the miraculous, then do a proper job of it

 

[brumano]

I think you might be misinterpreting my use of “report”. I am using it in the manner which describes how a newspaper “reports” the details of an accident to its readers. The history of it should be reported accurately and thoroughly…say akin to an article published in a history journal. The science of it should be reported accurately and thoroughly…say akin to an article published in a science journal. Again, this requirement should be met in the event that Catholics (when talking to outsiders in particular), want to use this “miracle” as proof of the legitimacy of Catholic claims wrt their Eucharist. As to “who”,…any Catholic with the time and ability for the benefit of the rest. Given the number of Catholics who look to the EMOL for encouragement, somebody somewhere should have done a better job of it.

The custodians of the samples should have two goals in mind. 1) they would want somebody that they could trust to do the job properly and produce reliable results. 2) they should want somebody that the rest of the world wouldn’t doubt, so that the rest of the world would also believe that the job was done properly so as to produce reliable results. People/labs do make mistakes, so having at least two labs run the tests would be good. At this point in time, only two or three things need testing in MHO: a) age and b) blood type and maybe c) mineral and protein content (if someone wants to assert that there is something miraculously irregular about either of them). Ideally, the custodians could find a couple of labs which are competent in all required areas. Look to how the Shroud was tested to get an idea…I haven’t looked at the Shroud testing in great detail, but I believe that they approached the matter correctly, but botched the gathering of samples…hence the continuing debate.
Any Lab that has the ability and the respect of the scientific community…again, if the believers in the EMOL want to present the scientific testing as proof of a miracle, then they should put the best possible foot forward. Picture yourself as a defense lawyer at a murder trial where you are going to present DNA evidence to establish the innocence of your client. In that case, 1)you would want an expert that you could trust to do the job properly and produce reliable results; and 2) you would want an expert that the judge/jury wouldn’t doubt, so that the judge/jury would also believe that the job was done properly so as to produce reliable results…Two such experts is always better than one. What you don’t want is some expert that has done such a poor job of it, that the prosecutor could easily and soundly rebut his evidence. If you are going to present an “expert witness” so as to convince the “judge and jury” of the miraculous, then do a proper job of it

Who was it that said "To those who believe no explanation is necessary, but to those who don’t believe no explanation will suffice?

You have not made one single point that arises to a disproof of the Eucharistic Miracle, it does not matter that you want extensive testing to be permitted. Flesh decomposes rapidly after death, the substance of the miracle was exposed to the air for a long period of time, it would have long ago become rotten no matter how it was contained. The Church has no need and I hope no intention of subjecting the material to possible destruction at the hands of maniacal enemies of the Catholic Faith, who will not in any case admit that the substance is of a supernatural cause.

 

[Radical]

You have not made one single point that arises to a disproof of the Eucharistic Miracle, it does not matter that you want extensive testing to be permitted.

agreed, it is impossible to prove that a miracle didn’t happen in 700 AD…even if the samples had turned out to be non-human, it wouldn’t prove that the miracle (host turning to bit of human heart) didn’t occur, it would just prove that the miraculous bit of human heart had been lost.

Flesh decomposes rapidly after death, the substance of the miracle was exposed to the air for a long period of time, it would have long ago become rotten no matter how it was contained.

well, I guess this means that you haven’t heard of the natural mummification of whole bodies The natural mummification of whole bodies is remarkable, but not miraculous…and that happens with whole bodies and not just a slice of flesh or a few drops of blood where natural mummification would be so much easier. BTW, if God is miraculously preserving these samples, why have the custodians made efforts to protect the samples from exposure to the environment?..does God need help in preserving the samples? Do the custodians doubt whether God is serious about the continued preservation of the samples? Further, if God is miraculously preserving these samples, why have they deteriorated so much? It is kinda like God is only doing half a miracle…

The Church has no need and I hope no intention of subjecting the material to possible destruction at the hands of maniacal enemies of the Catholic Faith, who will not in any case admit that the substance is of a supernatural cause.

So, not just your garden variety enemies, but maniacal enenmies are involved?..Perhaps the custodians could find some non-maniacal fellows to do the testing. They managed to pull it off once, why couldn’t it be done again?

 

[brumano]

QUOTE=Radical;8383235]agreed, it is impossible to prove that a miracle didn’t happen in 700 AD…even if the samples had turned out to be non-human, it wouldn’t prove that the miracle (host turning to bit of human heart) didn’t occur, it would just prove that the miraculous bit of human heart had been lost.

well, I guess this means that you haven’t heard of the natural mummification of whole bodies The natural mummification of whole bodies is remarkable, but not miraculous…and that happens with whole bodies and not just a slice of flesh or a few drops of blood where natural

mummification would be so much easier

.

BTW, if God is miraculously preserving these samples, why have the custodians made efforts to protect the samples from exposure to the environment?..does God need help in preserving the samples?

Do the custodians doubt whether God is serious about the continued preservation of the samples ?

Further, if God is miraculously preserving these samples, why have they deteriorated so much? It is kinda like God is only doing half a miracle…

So, not just your garden variety enemies, but maniacal enenmies are involved?..Perhaps the custodians could find some non-maniacal fellows to do the testing. They managed to pull it off once, why couldn’t it be done again?

Glad we’re agreed on that, because with that burden to prove what it is if it is not a miraculous substance becomes yours; the possibilities you choose to believe instead of the honestly reported testimony of the witnesses and the church examiners are just that, possibilities that remain in the realm of theory, not fact.

Natural mumification is the hope you retain to try to explain away the incorruptible bodies of some of the saints. I’m not agreeing that whatever purely natural mumification phenomena that can take place, can take place so much more the easier in small specimens of blood and tissue than it possibly can on an entire corpse. Off hand I would think internal organs would despoil sooner when exposed to airborn bacterium, yeast, spores, mold, but that 's a very involved question. I’ll say this, the Egyptian morticians knew what they were doing worked well when they eviscerated the corpse, and retained the organs in airtight containers. Natural mumification as you call it does not normally occur, it is not a natural process, decomposition most definitely is!
Natural mumification when it does occur to an evident degree is more happenstance than organic process, this has to do with several variable factors; the age of the person, the cause of death, but most of all to the environment of the “natural tomb” most importantly to temperature and air exposure. The colder and more airtight the body is kept, generally speaking, the more the process of decomposition is retarded, it is also doubly beneficial to preservation that frozen ground is less likely to to hold liquid H2o and vermin. So, natural mumification is not at all a likely explanation for the miraculous material.

No, God gave the miracle of the Eucharist as He gave it, where and when He gave it; just as all authentic miracles in the Scriptures and after them, to understand we must believe. The signs and works we call miracles are given in time which is also under the control of God, His control of it is a law which He can dispense or adjust imperceptively to our senses, but His basic law is not controverted; what He has created for us He has created in time and the fact that the material may exhibit it’s own time in existence does not preclude it from being a definitive miracle, also sometimes for other reasons a miraculous artifact may change in form because a miracle is essentially an expression of God; for instance some of the incorruptible saints remained so, St. Cecilia I think no quotes, for hundreds of years but then full or some partial decomposition took place from a point in time onward. There are nonphysical reasons which are very enigmatic as to why an artifact might change,so I repeat the miracles are expressive. For us to accept that the substance has deteriorated from being non-miraculous though, we would have to have kept a duplicate or near exact duplicate of organic material at all times under the exact conditions and time durations as the miraculous to make a comparative assessment.

The custodians are doing what they should do yes protecting it from dust, bugs, acids and the rest, but they are also reverencing it and keeping it suitably for what it is. we are concerned more with the spiritual and devotional, not the coldly scientific. The custodians participate in the works of God by filling this very important role of service.

 

[lyrikal]

there aren’t any…but if there were and I pointed to them as proof of his divinty, then I would make sure that they were done with as much integrity and professionalism as possible…I wouldn’t settle for third rate stuff. We Christians look the fool all too often.

Your use of “if” kind of proves my point more than it does yours. “IF there were…” Which suggests that there aren’t any. Yet, you expect the Eucharistic miracles of Lanciano to have some. So you set a higher standard for the EMOL than you do of the Resurrection. Those are your double standards and inconsistencies that we keep pointing out to you.

I accept the testimony of the gospels on faith…I have never said otherwise.

I think you just trapped yourself here. What you expect from the EMOL is proof and not only from the EMOL but from the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. You expect it to turn into flesh and blood in order for you to believe it and yet you say that you accept the testimony of the gospels on faith. I don’t blame you for accepting them on faith, because every Christian should do likewise. I blame you for expecting proof for the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist while you only expect a “reasonable faith” for the Resurrection. That is where your double standards come into play and where your inconsistencies are shown to exist. How you can deny this from here on out is baffling to me.

I think it a reasonable faith, but I certainly can’t point to the gospels as a proof of Jesus’s divinity (for a non-believer).

Then why do you expect us to point anywhere for proof of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist?

The gospels testify to Christ’s resurrection etc…they don’t prove it.

Bingo! So why do you ask for PROOF from us regarding out doctrines? How do you NOT see your double standards and inconsistencies here?

I can’t say that an Atheist is acting unreasonably simply b/c he does not share my faith.

You JUST said that your faith is reasonable so why can’t you argue with him about him believing it’s unreasonable?

We can trace Paul’s testimony about seeing our risen Lord back to within a generation of the alleged event…when eye witnesses were still alive. We can say with considerable confidence that we have a reliable record of what Paul claimed. The record we possess is recognized by your church as infallible. WRT the EMOL I believe that the first written record of the event that you have is seperated from the alleged event by centuries (I am not sure, but isn’t it 900 years +/- ?).

Two things here:

1.) First of all, you’re preaching to the choir. I believe both, the Resurrection AND the EMOL to be true miracles. No need to go into why you believe in the Resurrection.
2.) You says 900 year difference: Well, let’s throw out the EMOL because of the 900+/- year thing and move on to a more modern Eucharistic miracle that has been studied by scientists. That miracle has eye witness accounts that are less than 20 years old. I have mentioned this miracle to you here prior so I let’s not pretend like we only have the EMOL to go by.

Yes, I accept it on faith that Christ could say, “Be healed” and the fellow would be healed based on rather contemporary eyewitness accounts.

Good. I am glad that you accept it by faith. Then I wouldn’t expect you to accept the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist by faith.

well, there is more than one that has been a fraud. I have no idea what percentage of alleged miracles the CC has ended up classifying as fraudulent.

And there’s more than one that has been shown not to be fraud. So what?

just b/c you can think of only ridiculous alternatives doesn’t mean that God is so limited. Glowing like Moses’s face at Sinai would also do the trick. Blood that is actually still fresh…you know in liquid form, with cells intact would be an improvement.

If you think that the alternative that I gave is ridiculous then you need only look at your request, not my alternative. What I gave you went along with what you requested. You don’t think that the miracle testifies to the Real Bodily Presence of Christ because the whole body is not there. Well, I gave you a scenario where the whole body would be there and you count it as ridiculous. Perhaps you should give me a less ridiculous request then.

Furthermore, you admitted earlier that if the DNA of EMOL and the DNA of the Shroud of Turin were the same, you would believe in the Real Bodily Presence of Christ. Here, you are saying that the miracle is not a RBP of Christ because the whole Body is not there. You contradict yourself. So, if the DNAs matched, would you or would you not believe it? If so, why would you if the Eucharist doesn’t have the full body? I can’t judge but I can speculate and give an opinion that if the DNAs did match, you would not believe in the RBP of Christ. You would come up with another excuse and perhaps would use the “it’s not a full body” as an excuse to continue disbelieving. I can’t prove this but your posts are certainly giving evidence to this.

 

[lyrikal]

well, that the EMOL is just the ticket to establish a RBP is merely your private interpretation of the situation and how God would act…and we all know what you think of private interpretations.

Actually, my “private interpretation” goes well with the story. The priest doubted the RBP and here comes the miracle.

Further, your private interpretation simply doesn’t change the fact that you have a little piece of heart appearing, when the entire body is supposed to be present. You may want to ignore that inconsistency, but I don’t have to follow your lead…and that type of inconsistency doesn’t taint the resurrection. Protest all you want, but that is a difference.

I have already dealt with this above in the last post. But I would like to further add this:

Christ did many physical miracles that pointed to spiritual realities. If one were to take these miracles to have a meaning that is literal, then we would have no spiritual gain from them. Let’s take the healing of the blind. What does Jesus do? He heals a blind man. What does this miracle point to? The spiritual blindness that we have can be healed by Jesus. If one was to focus on the physical reality of the miracle, one could very well miss the spiritual. When we are healed from spiritual blindness, it doesn’t take away from the physical blindness that Jesus healed people from, it only affirms it. Although the two are different, they don’t contrast but support each other. You can take any miracle of Jesus and use this same mindset. The healing of the def, the raising of the dead, etc. all point to a spiritual reality in a spiritual way, NOT in a literal way.

so, I guess that would make you one of the more blessed…You might have had a point if Jesus told Thomas to get lost. Jesus gave Thomas what he asked for and what he needed to believe.

That’s correct, He did give Thomas what he asked for. There are a lot of people who ask the same thing that Thomas asked and does Jesus give these people that same proof? I don’t think so. So my point still stands. Actually, not my point, but Jesus’ point: “Do you believe because you have seen? Blessed are those who don’t see and yet believe.”

You and I are not Thomas, are we? Can we ask for the same proof Thomas asked? No. What do we do? We take it by faith. What I am trying to make you see is that you shouldn’t expect anything more from our Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Yet, you expect the bread to turn into flesh and the wine to turn into blood in order to believe it.

yep…it is your personal interpretation…and not particularly convincing from over here.

Considering the fact that the only thing that would POSSIBLY be convincing from over there would be a DNA match of the Shroud and of the EMOL, I shouldn’t really expect you to be convinced. My apologies.

understood…and please understand that I think you are trying too hard to see an inconsistnecy in my approach so that my opinion doesn’t detract from the EMOL in any possible way…I have spelt out the differences as obviously as I can

Your rebuttals as to why you aren’t being inconsistent have further convinced me of your inconsistencies. It is very ironic. I’m not the only who sees this either, many share in my argument here.

Regarding the resurrection, the records of the eyewitness accounts go back to within 50 years of the event and are contained w/i scripture (the latter shouldn’t matter to an Atheist, but the former must be acknowledged). Regarding the EMOL, the written records of the eyewitness accounts go back to within 900 years of the alleged event and are not contained within scripture. Protest all you want, but that is a difference…it is a huge difference and you will see Christian apologists stressing the fact that the gospels and Paul’s letters were written so soon after the events…it is a reason to believe in their reliability.

We can point to Eucharistic Miracles that have eye witness accounts testifying to the miracle closer than the 50 years of the events that are contained within Scripture. But that wouldn’t matter to you would it? Because you have already accepted one and denied the other. I have shown you the other miracle and we also have the Buenos Ares, Argentina miracle from 1996 that has been studied by science and has eye witnesses. Your request has been granted and we have something a lot closer than 50 years.

Also, do you think the book of Genesis was written within 50 years of the event? How many years do you suspect passed by until a creation record was penned down? I’m thinking thousands. What do you think?

well, I think I have pretty well said all I have to say regarding the distinction I make between the evidence for the resurrection and the evidence for the EMOL…if you still can’t see it, then I doubt I can make it any clearer.

You’ve made it worse actually. The distinction you have made only further supports my accusation of your double standards. If you still can’t see it, then I doubt I can make it any clearer as well.

because he could keep doing it… there are a few Eucharists per day, right? Maybe such an announcement every year at the Easter Mass at the Vatican.

The Orthodox church claim to have a miracle that happens once a year. Something to do with fire? Perhaps you can look into that miracle? Would that convince you of anything even if it were to be proven to you? I don’t think so. I think you are already convinced of what you believe and no miracle would change your mind. This is evident by the comical requests that you make in order to believe in a doctrine. Yet, you accept the Resurrection miracle by “reasonable faith.”