The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

[Radical]

On a recently closed thread the Eucharistic miracles (including the one from Lanciano) were mentioned in support of Catholic claims wrt the Eucharist. I dismissed the Eucharistic miracles and commented:
they haven’t been open to proper independent testing, have they? I could find a bit of heart tissue and get it independently tested to verify that it is human heart tissue and claim that it came from the transformation of a piece of bread in my kitchen a year ago…the test doesn’t verify the transformation b/c it can’t speak to what did or didn’t happen in my kitchen and in fact, the test couldn’t determine if the tissue sample was ever even in my kitchen
In response, Lyrikal posted (color coded by me for future reference):

Lyrikal:

That’s not what is baffling the Scientists, Radical. I would have thought you had looked into the study that has been done before commenting on it. The one that has been studied is the Miracle of Lanciano which happened in 8th Century AD. As you know, the claim is that, during Mass, the bread and the wine turned into the Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps you can help the scientists out because there are some things that they just cannot answer. Here they are:
• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

So who did this study? Dr. Edoardo Linoli, a professor of anatomy and pathological histology, and of chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena.

When was this study done? 1970.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

Continued…

 

[Radical]

continuing with Lyrikal’s continued response…again colored by me for future purposes:

Also: The blood, as we have it today, is now dry blood and it is now blood clot. There are actually 5 balls of blood clots. They are all different sizes and yet they all weigh the same. Not only that, but if you weigh one blood clot, it weighs the same as if you put all 5 blood clots on a scale.

Now that you know a little bit of the background to the studies done, I will post an article that dates back to 05/05/2005 in which Dr. Lionli spoke out about the study he had done.

Article is as follows:
Edoardo Linoli Verified Authenticity of the Phenomenon

ROME, MAY 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.

The phenomenon dates back to the eighth century. A Basilian monk, who had doubts about the real presence of Christ in the sacred species, was offering Mass, in a church dedicated to St. Legontian in the town of Lanciano.

When he pronounced the words of the consecration, the host was miraculously changed into physical flesh and the wine into physical blood.

Later the blood coagulated and the flesh remained the same. These relics were kept in the cathedral.

Linoli, a professor of anatomy and pathological histology, and of chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo, is the only doctor who has analyzed the relics of the miracle of Lanciano. His findings have stirred interest in the scientific world.

At the initiative of Archbishop Pacifico Perantoni of Lanciano, and of the provincial minister of the Franciscan Conventuals of Abruzzo, and with authorization from Rome, in November 1970 the Franciscans of Lanciano decided to have the relics examined scientifically.

Linoli was entrusted with the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena.

Linoli extracted parts of the relics with great care and then analyzed the remains of “miraculous flesh and blood.” He presented his findings on March 4, 1971.

His study confirmed that the flesh and blood were of human origin. The flesh was unequivocally cardiac tissue, and the blood was of type AB.

Consulted by ZENIT, Linoli explained that “as regards the flesh, I had in my hand the endocardium. Therefore, there is no doubt at all that it is cardiac tissue.”

In regard to the blood, the scientist emphasized that “the blood group is the same as that of the man of the holy Shroud of Turin, and it is particular because it has the characteristics of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East regions.”

“The AB blood group of the inhabitants of the area in fact has a percentage that extends from 0.5% to 1%, while in Palestine and the regions of the Middle East it is 14-15%,” Linoli said.

Linoli’s analysis revealed no traces of preservatives in the elements, meaning that the blood could not have been extracted from a corpse, because it would have been rapidly altered.

Linoli’s report was published in “Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori” in 1971.

In 1973, the Higher Council of the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed a scientific commission to verify the Italian doctor’s conclusions. The work was carried out over 15 months with a total of 500 examinations. The conclusions of all the researches confirmed what had been stated and published in Italy.

The extract of the scientific research of WHO’s medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon.

Today, Linoli participated in a congress on Eucharistic miracles organized by the Science and Faith master’s program of Rome’s Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, in cooperation with the St. Clement I Pope and Martyr Institute, on the occasion of the Year of the Eucharist under way.

“Eucharistic miracles are extraordinary phenomena of a different type,” Legionary Father Rafael Pascual, director of the congress, told Vatican Radio. “For example, there is the transformation of the species of bread and wine into flesh and blood, the miraculous preservation of consecrated Hosts, and some Hosts that shed blood.”

“In Italy, these miracles have occurred in several places,” he said, "but we also find them in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain " and some in North America.
Source: zenit.org/article-12933?l=english

I think Lyrikal’s summary is pretty typical of what I have seen on the internet and my comment and Lyrikal’s response were as follows:
"Radical:

and what is presented as substantiating the miracle is pitiful. I’ll go into a detailed explanation of that remark, but this thread could be closed by then, so I’ll put it on another thread where that miracle has been cited or start a thread for it.

Lyrikal:

I can’t wait to see this. You do realize that science is puzzled at such miracles and can’t explain them. You do realize that what you will come up with has probably already been thought of by these Scientists who know more about science than you and me do. Perhaps you can write a book refuting all these scientific findings. I find it funny that you think it is really that easy and “pitiful” that you can refute it with no problems. Good luck, Radical.

That is where the exchange stands at present. Also, I was invited on another thread to look at the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano:

… And to provide you with an ample example of a Eucharistic miracle you should look into the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano.

 

[Radical]

So what follows will be my look into the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (hereinafter the “EMOL”)…and an explanation as to why I believe that what has been “what is presented as substantiating the miracle is pitiful”

** Problem One - disclosure regardng the historical record**

The EMOL has been put forward on the internet’s court of public opinion as proof of the legitimacy of Catholic claims wrt its Eucharist. I have described what has been offered by Catholics as “pitiful”. My reasons for doing so are varied, but begin with how terribly incomplete the Catholic sites are wrt what they report. For a blood sample to be admitted in a real Court as evidence for the prosecution (so as to place the accused at the scene), the prosecution would have to show that the sample was obtained from the crime scene and then the integrity of the sample would have to be established from when it was obtained at the crime scene up to and including the testing. With the EMOL, the miracle is said to have happened in the 8th century, but what is typically missing from Catholics presentations wrt the EMOL is information as to when the EMOL is first mentioned in the historical record. Can we say with any certainty that the samples have been around 1200-1300 years? I have seen claims that the first mention of the EMOL (in the historical record) is from the 17th century. Is that true? Are we dealing with a 800-900 year gap…if so, that is rather problematic. I haven’t found a site (in English) that properly described the history of the samples …let alone one that provided sources for the alleged history. I did find an Italian site that provides the type of detail that one should expect…though I must rely on Google to translate (and I suspect it could be considerably more scholarly in its presentation…but it is way,way better than any english language site that I found).

Now, given the the EMOL is supposed to have happened in the 8th century we simply cannot expect that the Catholics would be able to properly prove that a) the Eucharistic samples were in fact obtained from the Church at Lanciano in the 8th Century (as opposed to fabricated in the 13th century) and b) that it is those exact same 8th century samples that were delivered to Dr.Linoli in 1970 for testing. For those of us who are skeptical, we must acknowledge that it would be entirely unreasonable for us to expect compliance with modern evidential standards. Conversely, for those who are Catholic enthusiasts, they must acknowledge that no matter what modern tests reveal, those modern tests can’t trace the samples back to the 8th century and then down through the years to the laboratory…and so there will always be a question of: Where did these samples really come from? (I should point out that I believe accurate dating of the samples would be impossible due to contamination of the samples). What bothers me about all of this is that, if the EMOL is being presented (to the english speaking internet audience) as a reason to believe or as a validation of Catholic claims, then the presenter should try to be as scholarly and open as possible and should disclose whatever problems exist in the historical record wrt tracing the samples all the way back to the 8th Century. Sources (complete with dates for the sources) should be provided for each event in the alleged history of the samples for the EMOL. ** Instead, all I found were sites that related some anecdotal history wrt the samples with the expectation that these stories should be accepted without question. Now perhaps some Catholic site (in english) does do a good job of disclosing these issues, but if so, then that site wasn’t one of the many that I looked at. For such a highly regarded Eucharistic miracle, the english language Catholic interent sites have done a extremely poor job providing a good history of the samples…a history that would track them, as well as sources allow, from the alleged event to Linoli’s laboratory **

 

[Radical]

** Problem Two - credentials and safeguards and feedback**

As Lyrikal reports, in 1970/71 a study was performed by “Dr. Edoardo(sic) Linoli, a professor of anatomy and pathological histology, and of chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena.” In a real court, the defense is given the opportunity to check the credentials of the witness that the prosecution hopes to have qualified as an expert. So again, it is MHO that the Catholics sites touting the EMOL should do a proper job of presenting Linoli’s curriculum vitae so that his capabilities can be properly assessed. Further, as with the testing of the Shroud of Turin, it shouldn’t just be one laboratory that runs the tests, but independent tests should be done (ideally with the public informed that these are underway so that results will be published notwithstanding what results are obtained). I managed to find one site that provided translations of part of Linoli’s paper. Sadly, b/c I couldn’t find a Catholic site that made the paper available (let alone translated it), I am left relying on David Simmons (who I am sure is an Atheist and appears to be a graduate student in Molecular Biology) to do the job. Now again, perhaps there is a Catholic site that provides a copy of the paper (original in Italian) and perhaps there is even one out there somewhere that provides a translation of the paper, but in the dozens of Catholics sites that I looked at and that cited the report, none provided the report, let alone a translation of it. It might be paraphrased (largely of partially) on the Italian site that I linked above. (hereinafter the “good Italian site”)

In the paper we find Linoli referring to the samples as “the Miraculous tissue” and “the Miraculous heart fragment”. Although he performed no test validating the age of the samples, he described them as 1200 years old. Such fawning terminology and unquestioning acceptance of the age of the samples is less than professional and leaves Linoli’s work suspect. ** In any event, IMHO if Catholics want to tout the EMOL as proof, then they should arrange for proper testing to be conducted. As with the Shroud of Turin, publicize the event, get the best laboratories involved and make the findings available for critical review. With that being done various experts could weigh in on the matter to review methodolgy, ensure the validity of results and evaluate conclusions. ** Some Catholic sites report that in 1973 the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted 500 tests on the samples and verified Linoli’s findings…but again, the report from the WHO is hard, if not impossible, to locate. I haven’t found it and the good Italian site, doesn’t even mention the WHO tests. . It strikes me as odd that 500 tests were run. That is a lot of tests to verify Linoli’s findings…suspiciously high. It would sure be nice if the WHO report was made readily available. Again, the Catholic interent sites (in english) have done a extremely poor job of providing information (the scientific paper(s) in particular), but want their readers to swallow their presentations on the EMOL hook, line and sinker. One Italian site (not the good one) summarized the WHO report as stating (regarding the samples): Their preservation after almost twelve centuries, relics of glass and in the absence of preservatives, antiseptics, and antifermentatives mummificanti, not scientifically explainable: for the vessels that contain these relics do not prevent access of air and light or the 'Order of entry of plant or animal parasites, ordinary atmospheric air vehicles. As the nature of the piece of meat, the commission declares without hesitation that it is a living tissue that responds quickly to all clinical reactions of living beings. If that accurately summarized what the WHO report stated, then the WHO report was also an unprofessional effort. It appears that the age of the samples was accepted at 12 centuries w/o question. There is no way for them to have verified that the samples were preserved for 12 centuries. The “living tissue” comment is also odd in that Linoli described the heart sample as deteriorated - dried out, shrunken, marred with nail holes, infested with mircoorganisms/fungi. (see Simmons’ translation for the details). It appears that neither Linoli nor the WHO performed a proper unbiased investigation. Proper, unbiased testing needs to be performed. It does appear as if a biased expert (Linoli) was sought out and employed to make the case for the miracle look as good as possible…and the (missing in action) WHO report just smells fishy.

 

[Radical]

**Problem Three - overstating the findings in Linoli’s paper **

As indicated, I could only gain access to Linoli’s paper through D Simmons’ blog b/c I didn’t find a Catholic site that made the paper available. If you go to the summary page of the paper (the one page in English) you will note that of all the stuff that Lyrikal claimed, only the stuff that I have highlighted in green above is actually advanced in the summary of the paper. Simmons provides a translation of portions of Linoli’s paper at his blog . Here again are the “findings” that Lyrikal listed (and that are often repeated on Catholic sites) including the ones that weren’t in the paper… with my remarks in bold:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.This I don’t challenge. Linoli’s work, however, does not and could not possibly determine whether the samples were the result of a miracle or whether they were the produced by a fraudster acquiring and planting human heart tissue and blood centuries earlier.

• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.** this may or may not be in the report**

• The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.this is just nonsense…the paper described a mummified slice of a bit of a human heart…anything but complete…where are the valves, the atriums, the right ventricle?

• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).** in tracking this matter down I came across the claim that as samples deteriorate they all start to produce AB type readings: Al Adler, a blood specialist from Western Connecticut State University, and another Shroud scientist, pointed out that all old blood tended to test AB because the compounds that generated the test response were also in the cell walls and if the walls degraded the blood started to test AB. But it was possible, he felt, to discern false AB positive readings from real AB type readings. Source …and I saw that claim often enough that I believe it to be valid. Further, it is no longer certain that the Shroud contains AB blood. This is where peer review would be very useful. As it stands, this finding IMHO is suspect in regard to the blood type of the heart tissue, of the blood pellets and as to matching the Shroud’s blood type. **

• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.** and?..the paper makes it clear that the blood isn’t fresh blood…it has deteriorated substantially**

• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium yes, they varied from what would be found in fresh blood because of deterioration. The calcium was much higher and everything else was lower

• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.** Linoli stated that the proteins that he found in the samples agreed with what is found in Egyptian mummies…in other words, it is not unique at all.**

As such, this paper that is referenced over and over again by Catholic sites, does little more than establish that the samples consist of deteriorated human blood and deteriorated human heart tissue…nothing at all that would require (or even suggest) the miraculous. Regarding aged blood all tending to test positive for AB type, it is likely that that tendency was not known in 1971 when Linoli did his tests. The tests should be redone and done properly.

 

[Radical]

Problem Four - exaggerated claims such as scientists being baffled etc.

After looking at this, I expect that Catholic enthusiasts think that one or more of the following five matters (some from the red highlighted stuff above) must be baffling:

A. The blood, as we have it today, is now dry blood and it is now blood clot. There are actually 5 balls of blood clots. They are all different sizes and yet they all weigh the same. Not only that, but if you weigh one blood clot, it weighs the same as if you put all 5 blood clots on a scale.

Response: This would be baffling if it were true, but it is false. In 1574 Archbishop Rodriguez made this claim, but in 1886, the weight of the five clots was found to be: 8, 2.45, 2.85, 2.05 and 1.15 grams respectively. The five clots contiune to each have a different weight and in all likelihood Archbishop Ridriguez lied or was grossly incompetent. Source

B. In regard to the blood, the scientist emphasized that “the blood group is the same as that of the man of the holy Shroud of Turin, and it is particular because it has the characteristics of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East regions.”

“The AB blood group of the inhabitants of the area in fact has a percentage that extends from 0.5% to 1%, while in Palestine and the regions of the Middle East it is 14-15%,” Linoli said.

Response: This isn’t remarkable until the consensus in the scientific community is that: a) the Shroud of Turin has AB type blood on it and that any positive result for AB type blood was not the result of the degradation of the cell walls; and b) that the samples from the EMOL are actually type AB blood and that any positive result for AB type blood was not the result of the degradation of the cell walls (Please note that the cell walls in the Lanciano samples had, in fact broken down). It should also be noted that the percentages provided for regional inhabitants are the modern percentages and not the percentages of the first century, or the 8th century. I have even found claims that the AB blood type did not exist in the first century…originating sometime around 700 AD or later. I have no idea as to whether there is any substance to that claim of late origin for the AB type.

C. I have seen where some sites have expressed amazement at the preservation of the samples…suggesting that was something stated in the WHO report

Response: The preservation of these sorts of samples for 12 centuries is remarkable, but far from miracluous. Now, if this is a forgery from 1300, then the preservation of these sorts of samples for 7 centuries is considerably less remarkable. In any event, I sure didn’t notice a gathering of baffled scientists wrt the matter of preservation…it is simply not that amazing.

D. Somes site claim that Linoli concluded that the heart sample of the EMOL heart sample was not a medieval forgery, b/c “even if the heart was taken from a corpse, it must be concluded that only an expert hand of anatomical dissection could have, and not without serious difficulties, get a hollow viscus, a “slice” uniform and continuous, taking into account that the first human dissections were had back in 1300.” It is hard to tell, what exactly Linoli said w/o having access to good translations…

Response: This doesn’t seem baffling and if Linoli made that conclusion, then it was a pile of subjective speculation! Linoli’s area of expertise does not extend to medieval butchering skills. Please note, it isn’t that the sample doesn’t nicely match a piece of the heart produced by slicing it, but it is claimed that the slice is too good to be produced by the average Joe… What, they didn’t have sharp knives back then? It seems more than reasonable to me that if a Medieval forger was going to plant some heart tissue for the devoted, he would take a fresh heart, slice it a number of times and then pick the best piece…not one that was poorly sliced. It seems that the sample is consistent with that expectation…

E. It seems that Linoli concluded that the heart sample of the EMOL must have been living flesh when it appeared. This is how the good Italian site puts it with the help of Google’s translation: “Brownish in color, has a large irregular opening in the center, for feedback to the outside, and marginally thicker, circular folds for lifting devices . In this area you can see 14 small holes left by the nails used to take the Host expanse - some meat on the tablet in order to counteract the curling due to rigor mortis, or stiffness following a succession shortly after the death from physical and chemical changes . This suggests that, at the time of the miracle, the Host appeared meat and had been living in the Heart.” Simmons’ translation agrees.

Response: The idea that nail holes on the edge of a sample suggest that the heart sample was alive is ridiculous. If one followed that logic, the beef sate that I get from the Thai restaurant must have been living flesh when it went on the skewers, b/c there are skewer holes in the beef…all it suggests is that someone tried to keep the sample from curling up while it was still somewhat fresh.

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;

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

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

…in other words, do the job right.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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;

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

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

…in other words, do the job right.

Honestly, if these are your criteria for establishing whether a miracle took place or not, you might as well just stop believing in Christ, as the details surrounding the Incarnation and the life of Christ fit none of these criteria. Why would you believe the possibility that the Incarnation might be true but deny the possibility that the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano might also be true?

 

[lyrikal]

Cavaradossi, This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this.

Radical keeps playing the role of an atheist who requires proof when it comes to the Eucharist and plays the role of a Christian who has faith when it comes to the Resurrection.

Most of the objections made by Radical are basically Radical’s view vs the scientists who actually did the studies. I think I’ll go with the scientists on this because they were actually there. The skeptics that try to discredit the miracle are people who don’t believe in miracles and who are for the most part atheists. They would discredit the Resurrection and the Christian faith as a whole. They dismiss all sorts of miracles. Those too were not there to investigate the miracle so they cannot prove anything to be a fraud.

Radical, you remind me of an atheist when there is a miracle that is shown to him/her. What they do is first doubt. They ask questions about the miracle and say things like “if it really was a miracle, then this and that should have happened.” They only accept miracles that meet their impossible standards which you have seemed to set for yourself. Let me show you your contradiction and let me show you why you will never accept this miracle to be a fact. I will do this simply by using your own post:

First, you said:

Where did these samples really come from? (I should point out that I believe accurate dating of the samples would be impossible due to contamination of the samples).

and then you say:

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;

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

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

…in other words, do the job right.

Is it me, or is there a major contradiction there? First, you say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the accurate dating of these samples and then you go on to say that in order to know if the miracle is true, a better study should be done.

You have already set a standard for yourself that makes it impossible for you to believe this even if it were true. The scientists could test the sample and date it to the 8th century AD and you would come to the conclusion that:

I should point out that I believe accurate dating of the samples would be impossible due to contamination of the samples

There is nothing that I can do or say to you at this point that would make you believe in this miracle. Even if I go to school, get my PHD, become a scientist, study the miracle, come up with the conclusion that it really does date back to 800 AD, you would dismiss it due to the statement you made above. I am not going to tire myself arguing with you about this because you’re as skeptical as an atheist who requires proof for the Resurrection and for God in general.

I would encourage you to watch the video that I showed you with regards to the Catholic miracles. The video is presented by a scientist who was an ex-atheist who converted to Catholicism after examining and testing miracle after miracle. I am not asking you to give a response to his claims but to simply watch it. I’m not sure if it’ll do much because I’m sure you will set a standard so high for yourself that you will dismiss any scientific studies done.

But one question to consider: Why would an atheist, who is a scientist, become Catholic after doing first hand studies on such miracles? Not only that, but a lot of times he takes the samples to a lab and have them do the studies without telling them what the context is. So what they report is unbiased.

But my question to you would be this: If you do somehow come to believe in such miracles, would that shake your faith with regards to what you believe about the Eucharist? Would that convince you that it is the Real Bodily Presence of Christ?

Also, while we’re at it, why not answer this question that you have not answered yet:

Sorry, Radical, you must provide a solution. Here is what is being claimed by us Catholics:

1.) The bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ
2.) The appearance is still bread and wine but it is no longer bread and wine but it is now Body and Blood of Christ.

Here is what you want to happen in order for you to believe it:

1.) The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.
2.) The appearance of bread and wine are no longer there but now it must be actual flesh and actual blood.

Here is what your claim would suggest:

1.) That we would eat actual raw flesh and drink actual blood (that can’t be healthy…)
2.) Faith would no longer be necessary since we now have proof of everything. If the bread and wine turned into actual flesh and blood in every Catholic Mass, then there would no longer be a necessity for faith for we would have proof. We would then live by sight and not by faith…

My original question was: How could Jesus convince you that it is His flesh and His blood without taking faith away from it? Go ahead, give it a thought and pose a solution. Here is what you need to come up with:

1.) The bread and wine become actual flesh and actual blood
2.) Faith is still necessary and has to be there. There cannot be a proof of this miracle for us to see (since faith is a big part of Christianity, we can’t just throw it away).

Please try again and pose a solution for Jesus. How else could it have been done? IF, IF, IF (big IF), IF Jesus’ intention was to have us eat His body and drink His blood, do you think he would have given us actual flesh and blood to consume? If not, then how ELSE could He have done it?

God bless.

 

[lyrikal]

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/

Google Translation is your buddy.

That’s from the same guy who is on the video (the ex-atheist). He has books written about this but unfortunately, they are in spanish. I’m sure his books give the research in more detail.

Also, regarding EMOL, there’s the result of the study online somewhere and it’s 22 pages. Unfortunately, it’s in Italian. So I don’t think you can knock such claims that the scientists made until you can translate all 22 pages and read the study yourself as a whole.

 

[Link0126]

You sound like an atheist.

You have two different standards when it comes to miracles. Why would you believe in any miracles at all, including those in the Bible, when none of them meet those requirements? I would say this miracle is more greatly attested to than almost any other I’ve ever seen…

 

[wmscott]

What all this really boils down to is, Protestants view the Eucharist as symbolism. Why, because Catholic’s have got it all wrong. They believe the Word of God as written in the Bible, but question the very Church Christ instituted and the very Church that was entrusted to discern the true divinely inspired books of the Bible and complied them for the world. How could the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that Christ founded possible have the capacity or the intellect to get it right concerning the Most Holy Eucharist or any miracle associated with It. Begs the question: how is it that the miracles surrounding the Most Holy Eucharist are found only in the Catholic/Orthodox Churches? Why are there no miracles involving the grape juice and crackers ceremony.

 

[Radical]

Honestly, if these are your criteria for establishing whether a miracle took place or not, you might as well just stop believing in Christ, as the details surrounding the Incarnation and the life of Christ fit none of these criteria.

I called for thoroughness, objective testing, honesty in reporting, and for a level of presentation which surpasses the quality of a middle school science project. WRT the history surrounding the incarnation, I have plenty of resources that are done with those things (except for the objective scientific testing which doesn’t apply).

Why would you believe the possibility that the Incarnation might be true but deny the possibility that the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano might also be true?

when presenting the story of the incarnation we should strive to achieve thoroughness, honesty etc. There is nothing wrt the incarnation that can be subjected to a scientific study. In contrast, there is such a thing wrt the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. What’s more, Catholics point to their scientific study as if it validates the EMOL. If you are going to present a study as proving a miracle, then do so with honesty, thoroughness, objectivity etc. Those are very good things (if you haven’t noticed).

 

[Radical]

lyrikal:

Radical keeps playing the role of an atheist who requires proof when it comes to the Eucharist and plays the role of a Christian who has faith when it comes to the Resurrection.

So this is what it has come down to? Calling for thoroughness, calling for objective testing, calling for honesty in reporting, calling for a level of presentation which is above the quality of a middle school science project…these things put one in the role of an Atheist? When exactly did we Christians yield the moral and intellectual high ground to the Atheists? I point out the shoddiness that is endemic to the Catholic internet presentations of this miracle, I point out that a miraculous claim that you presented (the weighing of the blood stones) has been proven false for more than a hundred years and I am accused of acting like an Atheist. Nice.

Most of the objections made by Radical are basically Radical’s view vs the scientists who actually did the studies.

where exactly do Linoli and I disagree?

He said that the blood and flesh are human, not animal …I agree

He said that the blood and flesh samples test positive for the AB blood type…I agree and point out that false positives for the AB type appears to be a tendency in aged samples. Linoli neither affirms or denies my additional point…perhaps b/c it hasn’t been made to him (is he still alive?)…and that is the problem when reports like his aren’t peer reviewed.

He said that the quaility of the slice was equal to what a trained hand would produce…Although this is only his non-expert opinion, I don’t disagree and add that a selection from a number of slices could achieve the same result. Linoli neither affirms or denies my additional point…and, again that is the problem when reports like his aren’t peer reviewed

He said that the nail holes on the periphery of the slice of heart suggest that it was alive when it appeared on the altar in the 8th century…One doesn’t need scientific training to point out the silliness of this claim. First, it isn’t one that has anything to do with his area of expertise and secondly, he is showing his bias by disclaring his belief that the samples were the result of a miracle back in the 8th century. Meat does not need to be alive for it to be tacked to a board.

I think I’ll go with the scientists on this because they were actually there.

well, I guess you can lead a horse to the waters of thoroughness and scientific integrity, but you can’t make it drink

Radical, you remind me of an atheist when there is a miracle that is shown to him/her.

well at least you didn’t call me a Nazi…thanks.

What they do is first doubt.

well, when the Catholics (medieval variety) have a history of forgeries, there is reason to doubt

They ask questions about the miracle and say things like “if it really was a miracle, then this and that should have happened.”

Where did I say that? I said this is how it should be presented…this is how it should be tested.

They only accept miracles that meet their impossible standards which you have seemed to set for yourself.

I suggested running the tests in the fashion utilized with the Shroud of Turin…That isn’t impossibly high, it has been done and it is done all the time in labs accross the globe.

Let me show you your contradiction and let me show you why you will never accept this miracle to be a fact. I will do this simply by using your own post:
Is it me, or is there a major contradiction there?

It is definitely you

First, you say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the accurate dating of these samples and then you go on to say that in order to know if the miracle is true, a better study should be done.

first, I said it was my belief…but then I have never seen the samples, I was relying on Linoli’s description of the presence of fungi. Perhaps areas are free of contamination…tests should at least be tried. Further, just b/c one test might not yield accurate results, it doesn’t mean that the AB blood type can’t be properly checked to see if is a false positive. Procedures have improved quite a bit in the last 40 years.

. The scientists could test the sample and date it to the 8th century AD and you would come to the conclusion that…

No, I would accept the results of a properly conducted study that has endured peer review.

I would encourage you to watch the video that I showed you with regards to the Catholic miracles. The video is presented by a scientist who was an ex-atheist who converted to Catholicism after examining and testing miracle after miracle. I am not asking you to give a response to his claims but to simply watch it…

I have seen it before, it suffers from the same problems as the EMOL

Why would an atheist, who is a scientist, become Catholic after doing first hand studies on such miracles?

b/c it pays better?..I don’t know the fellow and can only speculate on what motivated him

Not only that, but a lot of times he takes the samples to a lab and have them do the studies without telling them what the context is. So what they report is unbiased.

Zugibe was a Shroud guy…but again, what is needed is 1) Zugibe’s statement that he saw the sample beating etc. and 2) some independent verification of that phenomenon

But my question to you would be this: If you do somehow come to believe in such miracles, would that shake your faith with regards to what you believe about the Eucharist? Would that convince you that it is the Real Bodily Presence of Christ?

I have already told you this…run DNA tests on the Eucharist miracles’ samples…do it with safeguards in a couple of labs as suggested…and if the rsults show that the DNA is all from the same semitic male…you would have yourself a winner…

 

[Defender1]

Honestly, if these are your criteria for establishing whether a miracle took place or not, you might as well just stop believing in Christ, as the details surrounding the Incarnation and the life of Christ fit none of these criteria. Why would you believe the possibility that the Incarnation might be true but deny the possibility that the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano might also be true?

Dr. Linoli did thorough testing in Lanciano Italy the blood type was the same as the blood type on the Shroud of Turin . i have a great blog on this miracle among others

www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com

 

[Defender1]

So this is what it has come down to? Calling for thoroughness, calling for objective testing, calling for honesty in reporting, calling for a level of presentation which is above the quality of a middle school science project…these things put one in the role of an Atheist? When exactly did we Christians yield the moral and intellectual high ground to the Atheists? I point out the shoddiness that is endemic to the Catholic internet presentations of this miracle, I point out that a miraculous claim that you presented (the weighing of the blood stones) has been proven false for more than a hundred years and I am accused of acting like an Atheist. Nice.

where exactly do Linoli and I disagree?

He said that the blood and flesh are human, not animal …I agree

He said that the blood and flesh samples test positive for the AB blood type…I agree and point out that false positives for the AB type appears to be a tendency in aged samples. Linoli neither affirms or denies my additional point…perhaps b/c it hasn’t been made to him (is he still alive?)…and that is the problem when reports like his aren’t peer reviewed.

He said that the quaility of the slice was equal to what a trained hand would produce…Although this is only his non-expert opinion, I don’t disagree and add that a selection from a number of slices could achieve the same result. Linoli neither affirms or denies my additional point…and, again that is the problem when reports like his aren’t peer reviewed

He said that the nail holes on the periphery of the slice of heart suggest that it was alive when it appeared on the altar in the 8th century…One doesn’t need scientific training to point out the silliness of this claim. First, it isn’t one that has anything to do with his area of expertise and secondly, he is showing his bias by disclaring his belief that the samples were the result of a miracle back in the 8th century. Meat does not need to be alive for it to be tacked to a board.
well, I guess you can lead a horse to the waters of thoroughness and scientific integrity, but you can’t make it drink
well at least you didn’t call me a Nazi…thanks.
well, when the Catholics (medieval variety) have a history of forgeries, there is reason to doubt
Where did I say that? I said this is how it should be presented…this is how it should be tested.
I suggested running the tests in the fashion utilized with the Shroud of Turin…That isn’t impossibly high, it has been done and it is done all the time in labs accross the globe.
It is definitely you
first, I said it was my belief…but then I have never seen the samples, I was relying on Linoli’s description of the presence of fungi. Perhaps areas are free of contamination…tests should at least be tried. Further, just b/c one test might not yield accurate results, it doesn’t mean that the AB blood type can’t be properly checked to see if is a false positive. Procedures have improved quite a bit in the last 40 years.

No, I would accept the results of a properly conducted study that has endured peer review.
I have seen it before, it suffers from the same problems as the EMOL
b/c it pays better?..I don’t know the fellow and can only speculate on what motivated him
Zugibe was a Shroud guy…but again, what is needed is 1) Zugibe’s statement that he saw the sample beating etc. and 2) some independent verification of that phenomenon
I have already told you this…run DNA tests on the Eucharist miracles’ samples…do it with safeguards in a couple of labs as suggested…and if the rsults show that the DNA is all from the same semitic male…you would have yourself a winner…

Your begin a skeptic to be anti catholic not realizing that your taking the side of the non believer . Your protest against this miracle is wishful thinking more then anything . Look up my bog defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com I give a great argument for it .

 

[Jcnava15]

Radical, you seem to be quick to throw out skepticism in order to satisfy your pseudo-intellectual ego, but maybe if you could show a little humility for a little bit you might see the irony in your thinking that others have pointed out.

Now I have personally spent countless hours studying this miracle, translating the original article into English, and contacting various mentioned institutions to verify these events occurred and these people exist.

If you want to assess Dr. Odoardo Linoli’s credentials, one way to do this is to search the PubMed database. He has quite a few medical reports published that have nothing to do with religion.

As regards to the date, we do have an inscription that dates from 1631 that describes the miracle. This, even if you doubt the 700-750 date provides a few hundred years of verification. Coupled with the findings that no preservatives were present you are still talking about a miracle.

What I have seen you do to this miracle is nothing different than what I have seen the Atheists say about it, that should send up a red flag to you.

Now the primary reason I believe that this miracle is true is because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

One night, when I was losing my faith in God, I prayed that God would be more than an intellectual idea, and be a real presence in my life. That night as I went to bed, he presented me with this miracle. Before that night I was not Catholic, I had never even heard of this miracle. I even had to look up what a Eucharist was.

I believe the Holy Spirit presented this miracle to me, and after that night I was converted. I can never say that the Holy Spirit lied to me, that would be blasphemy. And I feel sure of this because the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is very biblical.

You don’t have to believe it, but since you only have access to the same information everyone else is privy to with regards to this miracle, please stop pretending like your hypothesis holds any more weight than of those who believe.

 

[lyrikal]

So this is what it has come down to? Calling for thoroughness, calling for objective testing,

It’s not so much the need for thoroughness of the studies that I blame you for but so for the double standard you have set on the Resurrection vs. the Eucharistic Miracles.

What evidence do we have for the Resurrection? What can we go by? Answer: Eye witness accounts. Do you go around thinking “I will believe the Resurrection only if we can take DNA samples of Jesus before death and DNA samples of Jesus after the Resurrection.” No. You rely on the EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS and not on any scientific studies done in the lab. Paul says that 500 people saw the Resurrected Christ. How do you know he is telling the truth? Did he take any of it to a science lab and prove it to you? Obviously not since this is impossible to do. Did he tell you who these people are so we can go question them? Nope. Do you know any of them and have talked to any of them? Nope. Do you accept Paul’s words? Yup. By faith? Partly yes. By scientific lab studies? Obviously not. What do you mainly go by? Faith. Is the faith reasonable? Absolutely. Can we back it up with logic? Yes. Is it proof? No. None of it is proof but all of it is logical and there is good reason to believe it. But you are left with one problem. You are relying on eye witness accounts of people you’ve never met.

Guess what, Radical? If those standards are enough for you to believe in the Resurrection, then you should not require a “thorough scientific testing” done on the Eucharistic Miracles. Do you know why? BECAUSE WE HAVE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF THESE MIRACLES TODAY. Do you think there has only been one miracle? There have been countless Eucharistic miracles that have happened. One that happened in Boston, MA in the mid 90s. Eye witness accounts saw it and witnessed to it. If that’s what you require in order to believe in the Resurrection, then why do you require scientific studies done on the Eucharistic Miracles? Guess what, though? Scientific studies WERE done on the Boston Miracle as well and they verified it was real blood. But that is just a bonus. We shouldn’t need any scientific evidence to believe in the miracle but if they’re there, then that’s even better. But if we’re going to accept the Resurrection based on eye witness accounts of people who lived 2000 years ago, then why not accept eye witness accounts of the Eucharistic miracles of people who are STILL ALIVE TODAY AND CAN TESTIFY TO THESE THINGS THAT THEY SAW.

You are absolutely right, there were hoax and frauds when it comes to some of the miracles. That doesn’t take away from every miracle. That’s like saying “I met a priest and he was a bad person and a big sinner! That means all priests are bad!” Nope. It means that he is bad, but not all priests are bad. The person that is on the video has verified some things to be miracles and some things to be fraud. So he is not being biased at all. He is reporting what he has seen in his scientific studies. I have never said that every single one of them are miracles. But if they keep giving samples for scientists to study and scientists keep telling us that these things are actual flesh and actual blood then there’s got to be something to it.

Regarding the preservation of the Lanciano Miracle: The scientist was amazed at the preservation of the flesh. The preservation was as if the flesh is one day old. It was kept in a jar! You can’t compare that to a mummy where they did careful preservation inside a pyramid outside of the sun (i think?). I’m not an expert on mummies but one does not need to be an expert to know that there is a big difference between preserving something in a jar and preserving a mummy.

If you want some info on the MA miracle in the mid 90s, here you go:

Methuen, Massachusetts was the site of another inexplicable Eucharistic phenomena in 1995. In preparing to distribute Communion, a Eucharistic minister at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church opened the tabernacle to discover a Consecrated Host “bleeding” inside. The host was transfered to a container, apparently still bleeding, and retained there for further examination. Aside from a number of witnesses who observed the bleeding Host, the Host itself was sent to Dr. B. Lipinski, a biochemist, for non-invasive examination. He ascertained that the reddish substance was human blood. With this determination, a small sample of the crusted blood was sent to the California Laboratory of Forensic Sciences. After several preliminary tests confirmed the presence of blood, on August 30, 1995, a crossover electrophoresis was conducted on the sample which unequivocally identified the reddish substance as human blood. The local bishop is presently evaluating all the circumstances surrounding the appearance of this blood.

Source: circleofprayer.com/eucharistic-miracles.html

If you’d like to watch a video on it, click here.

 

[lyrikal]

Here is a good example of a Eucharistic “miracle” that was naturally explained as fungai. Which shows that not all of them that science studies is a miracle. Take a look at what the Bishop says. The Catholic Church is NOT afraid of being proven wrong with these miracles. If they were afraid, they would not give it to science in the first place. You act like the Catholic Church TOLD these scientists how they are to examine these tests. You act like they told them specifically NOT to use DNA testing. They did not know what type of testing was going to take place. They just want to know the facts. It is up to the interpreter to judge what these findings mean.

But I love how you keep dismissing these tests as “I don’t have the studies so there’s no proof that some of these studies were done.” Guess what? You also don’t have a word from the 500 people that saw Christ resurrected. All you have is the word from St. Paul. That’s enough for you to believe. Why isn’t a word that these studies have been done enough for you?

By the way, if you’d like a copy of the WHO/UN study of the Lanciano miracle online, you can find it here. I am not sure if it is authentic but you can see on the top left, there is a stamp of the WHO/UN logo on it. I guess we can never be sure if any of these tests have really been done. Someone could very well be making it all up, huh? If you’d like the English translation, click here.

Grace and peace.

 

[lyrikal]

If you want to assess Dr. Odoardo Linoli’s credentials, one way to do this is to search the PubMed database. He has quite a few medical reports published that have nothing to do with religion.

Radical can find it here.

 

[lyrikal]

Here is a good example of a Eucharistic “miracle” that was naturally explained as fungai. Which shows that not all of them that science studies is a miracle. Take a look at what the Bishop says. The Catholic Church is NOT afraid of being proven wrong with these miracles. If they were afraid, they would not give it to science in the first place. You act like the Catholic Church TOLD these scientists how they are to examine these tests. You act like they told them specifically NOT to use DNA testing. They did not know what type of testing was going to take place. They just want to know the facts. It is up to the interpreter to judge what these findings mean.

I forgot to give a link to this. You can find it here.