The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

[lyrikal]

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.

You have no evidence nor any proof for that statement. I actually have proof that you made a convert out of someone. As you have noticed, my “angry efforts” don’t have much to do with EMOL and more to do with your double standards that you set for us Catholics.

God bless you.

God bless you too.

 

[lyrikal]

When I said:

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.

I meant “would expect…” not “wouldn’t expect…”

 

[Radical]

Your use of “if” kind of proves my point more than it does yours. “IF there were…” Which suggests that there aren’t any.

the “there aren’t any” that preceded the “if” kinda removes the need to speculate about what it suggests

Yet, you expect the Eucharistic miracles of Lanciano to have some.

I don’t know how you miss this…please note how I said it: “if there were** and I pointed to them as proof of his divinty**”…that is the key here. Certain Catholics claim that the scientific studies validate the EMOL…my expectation is that if a claim is made, then it should be true.

So you set a higher standard for the EMOL than you do of the Resurrection.

the Catholics have claimed that they have a extra level of proof.

Those are your double standards and inconsistencies that we keep pointing out to you.

and again you are oblivious to the actual situation (that Catholics are claiming scientific validation) and to the differences that I have listed.

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.

no, I expect that if one points to Eucharistic miracles as supporting the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and adds that scientists are baffled by these miracles, then I expect scientists to actually be baffled. There is nothing baffling about the EMOL from a scientific perspective:

1. the AB blood type could be a false positive due to the deterioration of the samples
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
3. the samples were not fresh tissue or blood
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…it is consistent with being sliced.
5. that the tissue and blood are human in origin, doesn’t eliminate the use of human blood and tissue in a fraud.

Further, if you are going to introduce science, then there are certains standards that are appropriate to follow. .

I blame you for expecting proof for the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist while you only expect a “reasonable faith” for the Resurrection.

I require proof, bc/ scientific proof has been claimed…if Catholics didn’t claim to have scientific proof, then I wouldn’t require it. Technically, I don’t expect proof to ever be offered b/c I think the miracles are bogus.

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

Did you miss that my opening 6 posts on this thread ended with:
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.
my requirements in regard to the EMOL all hinge on it being presented as PROOF…and in particular, a proof that enjoys scientific validation

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

you do not understand that opposing positions can both be reasonable? I suppose I might argue that mine is more reasonable…but I surely wouldn’t suggest that millions of Atheists (who all reject the gospels’ story) are unreasonable…there are plenty of really bright and informed Atheists out there and often you find them concentrated in scholarly circles.

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.

OK, so you have introduced science again…where are the scientific papers that resulted from these studies?..again, if you are going to appeal to a science then comply with the standards of science so that it can legitimately be called science. The Buenos Aires Miracle (BAM) seems to be even more poorly reported than the EMOL…it seems to be little more than the posting of the same video over and over again. Is there more to it than the testimony of this one guy?

Good. I am glad that you accept it by faith. Then I would expect you to accept the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist by faith.

I look at the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist scripturally, historically and philosophically…IMHO it fails on all three…and it isn’t rescued scientifically…therefore, it doesn’t strike me as a reasonable faith

 

[Radical]

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

for the same reason that if a witness is shown to be lying about one thing in court, it taints his credibility about another thing.

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.

No, I think that the piece of heart conflicts with the claim advanced by the CC that the whole body is present. The CC has made a big deal about the whole body being present in each and every bit…using that claim to justify quite a bit. You have an inconsistency…claim regarding presence vs. sample from miracle

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.

I have already given you two.

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?

I would believe…

If so, why would you if the Eucharist doesn’t have the full body?

I would then have to find a way to reconcile the inconsistency of the claim of a whole body with the fact that only a piece of heart is present…perhaps I would do like you and just deny that any inconsistency exists. In any event, I will happily cross that bridge when I come to it, but I would hope to do better than mere denial.

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

manufactured stories do tend to work well for what they are intended to achieve.

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 do realize that you are the one claiming that Jesus gave Lanciano and you (through Lanciano) something akin to what he gave Thomas? I am saying, that we have an opprtunity to improve the testing that has been done, to provide better than what the CC has provided until now: Science now stands in a position to conduct DNA tests on the products of the Eucharistic miracles and those tests would show if the blood and flesh samples all came from the same Semitic male. This doubting Thomas proposes that test for the samples of the Eucharistic miracles. Run the tests and if all the samples come from the same body, then the previously described Differences fade into the background. Until then, your eucharistic miracles are of the same calibre as those claimed by the various Charismatic Christians…where the grand miracles (resurrections from death) occur in the third world where verification and validation is problematic and the local miracles tend to be of the “the soft-tissue injury to my back is healed” variety (impossible to objectively validate). Jesus didn’t tell Thomas that he had provided enough. Jesus, supposedly didn’t tell Lanciano that they had been provided with enough…why do a half baked job of the testing, b/c you want to claim that you are blessed b/c you have believed w/o DNA testing?

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.

No, what I expect is reality to match the claims. No more. No less.

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.

other things could also work…something actually baffling to scientists would be a start

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.

So you mean to tell me that in this forum dominated by hard-line Catholics (all determined to prove wrong any one who doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine) that more than one has latched onto, out of desperation(?), something, anything that enables them to dismiss an opposing view…go figure

 

[Radical]

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.

I’ll wait to see if you at least have the laboratory reports so that we can at least begin to consider what science had to say…IIRC, the story is that the host was dropped, then put in water to dissolve and then, days later when someone came back, where the host had been was now flesh. Is that about it? While I await lab reports, perhaps you could tell me, how the BAM is more believable than these wondrous miracles: a Nigerian pastor being raised from the dead , an old woman being raised from the dead and still others raised from the dead.

Further, by abandoning the EMOL in favor of the BAM (so as to have contemporary eyewitness reports) you have solved only one problem…and, of course, opened the Charismatic-miracle-can-of-worms. More importantly, you still haven’t solved these problems:

a) 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 BAM. Protest all you want, but that is a difference.

b) 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 to admit that I haven’t researched the BAM all that much. I googled “eucharistic miracle buenos aires” and the first page and a half seemed to be the same video over and over again together with what appeared to be one or two very brief summaries (perhaps bits taken from the video…I don’t know). If this is the case, then more witnesses need to step forward to put it on par with the scriptural reference to the resurrection. If you eliminated that one video, how much “evidence” is left?

You’ve made it worse actually. The distinction you have made only further supports my accusation of your double standards.

well, I don’t want to have a double standard…so how do I place the eucharistic miracles above the Charismatic miracles…or do I simply accept them all?

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.”

again, just curious…I see accepting an Orthodox miracle would be fine…are there any miracle claims that you would reject in the entirety of Christendom? and if so, on what basis? …wanting to see what you do to avoid that dreaded double standard. Maybe if you explain it from the practical end of things, I’ll be able to see your point.

You have no evidence nor any proof for that statement.

so? it was speculation

I actually have proof that you made a convert out of someone.

it seems that I am gifted

As you have noticed, my “angry efforts” …

I didn’t have you in mind…are you angry?

…don’t have much to do with EMOL and more to do with your double standards that you set for us Catholics.

no double standards…mainly an expectation that you walk the walk after talking the talk. If you claim some science, then have some science.

 

[lyrikal]

the “there aren’t any” that preceded the “if” kinda removes the need to speculate about what it suggests

And the fact that “there aren’t any” also helps my case and hurts yours.

I don’t know how you miss this…please note how I said it: “if there were and I pointed to them as proof of his divinty”…that is the key here. Certain Catholics claim that the scientific studies validate the EMOL…my expectation is that if a claim is made, then it should be true.

And I don’t know how you miss the fact that you keep saying “If there were” which means there aren’t but you expect proof for the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Please note that I never intended to use the EMOL as PROOF for the Eucharist but only evidence that supports it. Let’s think back a little, shall we Radical? Perhaps people are wondering how this discussion came about? How about we remind them and/or inform them.

In a previous thread called “The Real Presence” you kept saying that you don’t believe in the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist because the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. In case you had forgotten about this, let’s go ahead and show some posts from you from that Thread:

First of all, a thread was made asking “Why don’t Protestants believe in the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist?”

Here is how you responded:

well, it has been asked with a good bit of frequency (and often with the tone of, how could you be such a spiritual idiot so as to not believe in the real bodily presence)…but for a fellow Canuck I’ll be happy to respond. My reasons are:

a) I don’t think it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles (and therefore, obviously not back to Christ)…if you are interested I’ll be happy to provide the Titles of some scholarly works that support my position;

**b) the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…no scholarly works needed in support of this position as any one with the senses of sight, touch, smell/or and taste can easily verify the matter and I find the philosophy used to support the inconsistency (between what is observed and what is claimed) to be more than seriously lacking; **and

c) the efforts to support the claim of a real bodily presence from scripture (IMHO) are flawed and do not overcome the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he likely said (probably in Aramaic), “This - my body”

Furthermore, a month or so after that, in the same thread, you said:

well let’s simplify it then: if it is a choice between it being bread or a human body and it has the weight of bread, the feel of bread, the appearance of bread etc. and does not have the weight of a body, the feel of a body , the appearance of a body, then it is bread…

So you keep wanting the bread and the wine to change to flesh and blood. THAT is the big picture here and THAT is why this thread had been made. I pointed you to this Eucharistic miracle as EVIDENCE for what you are asking for NOT as proof. Furthermore, THAT is my point in a big picture when I say that you require PROOF for the Eucharist and yet you settle with “reasonable faith” with the Resurrection. You require to SEE the Eucharist change before you believe it and yet you have never seen Christ rise from the dead nor ascend into heaven. THAT is where you have a double standard in a bigger picture. T

he EMOL miracle was given as evidence. If the evidence is lacking in your opinion, then so be it. That doesn’t take away from the fact that there are still evidence the same way that if an atheist isn’t convinced of the evidence of the Resurrection does not take away from the fact that the Resurrection happened. Like I said before, if the eye witness accounts of the EMOL is lacking in your opinion, I gave you two other miracles that happened in the 1990s! Whether or not I give you a scientific report has nothing to do with it. Why? Because you cannot produce any scientific report for the Resurrection because you only go by the eye witness accounts. Those accounts are sufficient for you and so you believe in the Resurrection while the eye witness accounts of the modern day Eucharistic miracles are not sufficient because you don’t believe in it. IT IS A DOUBLE STANDARD.

the Catholics have claimed that they have a extra level of proof.

I don’t know who claimed they have “proof” but I never intended it to be proof. If I ever said “proof” then I apologize. The reason why Catholics gave you this miracle to look at is because YOU REQUIRED PROOF. You require a miracle to be done for you the way you think it should be done in order to believe it. You believe that the bread and the wine should turn into flesh and blood. I’ll bring this up again in a bit.

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

and again you are oblivious to the actual situation (that Catholics are claiming scientific validation) and to the differences that I have listed.

We are also claiming eye witness accounts which seem to be sufficient for you to believe in the Resurrection. Or how about the story of Jonah and the Whale? Do you believe this story? Do you believe it based on an eye witness account or do you believe it based on scientific evidence? We do not only claim to have scientific evidence, we also claim to have eye witness accounts. Please stop ignoring the fact that we have TWO things here. If you reject one (the science) then why not accept the other (the eye witness accounts)? That’s the standard you set on the Resurrection, is it not? And just because you reject the science as PROOF (which is good), does not mean that the science doesn’t HELP CONFIRM (not prove) the eye witness accounts.

no, I expect that if one points to Eucharistic miracles as supporting the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and adds that scientists are baffled by these miracles, then I expect scientists to actually be baffled. There is nothing baffling about the EMOL from a scientific perspective:

How about the WHO report?

All things considered, it follows that:

• The “findings of Lanciano” are absolutely not part of any tissue, whose preservation is due to Nature or the hand of Man. From the point of view of conservation, it can be said, without fear of refutation, that those “findings” **are clearly against any law of Nature. **

Also, the cutting of the heart was baffling to Lioni. Just because it’s not baffling to you does not mean it isn’t legitimately baffling. Also, I believe Lioni was baffled by the same thing WHO was baffled about which is the above posting. And if WHO was not baffled by the findings then WHY would they even do a study on it following Lioni’s? Surely, something must have baffled them.

Also, wasn’t Lioni baffled by the blood? I am too lazy to go back and look at his reports but if memory serves me right, he was baffled by the blood.

I require proof, bc/ scientific proof has been claimed…if Catholics didn’t claim to have scientific proof, then I wouldn’t require it. Technically, I don’t expect proof to ever be offered b/c I think the miracles are bogus.

You required proof of the Catholic Eucharist prior to this miracle.

Did you miss that my opening 6 posts on this thread ended with:

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

my requirements in regard to the EMOL all hinge on it being presented as PROOF…and in particular, a proof that enjoys scientific validation

You keep throwing the word proof out there…I sincerely ask: Did I ever say proof? If so, I apologize because I don’t believe these things are PROOF; they are evidence.

OK, so you have introduced science again…where are the scientific papers that resulted from these studies?..again, if you are going to appeal to a science then comply with the standards of science so that it can legitimately be called science. The Buenos Aires Miracle (BAM) seems to be even more poorly reported than the EMOL…it seems to be little more than the posting of the same video over and over again. Is there more to it than the testimony of this one guy?

You’re the one who wants them. Why don’t you contact the people involved and ask for the reports? Furthermore, science is not the only thing here, is it? The eye witness accounts also follow which is sufficient for you to believe in the Gospels. The science in this case are there to give evidence to validate the eye witness accounts. That is something that the Gospels don’t have and yet you believe them. I believe them too so I don’t blame you at all. I only blame you for a double standard.

I look at the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist scripturally, historically and philosophically…IMHO it fails on all three…and it isn’t rescued scientifically…therefore, it doesn’t strike me as a reasonable faith

Really? You do? You didn’t say you expect the bread and wine to turn into actual flesh and blood? You didn’t expect that as proof for the Eucharist in order to believe it the way Catholics believe it?

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

for the same reason that if a witness is shown to be lying about one thing in court, it taints his credibility about another thing.

You’d have a point if the Catholic Church was one guy.

No, I think that the piece of heart conflicts with the claim advanced by the CC that the whole body is present. The CC has made a big deal about the whole body being present in each and every bit…using that claim to justify quite a bit. You have an inconsistency…claim regarding presence vs. sample from miracle

So here you say that there is an inconsistency. Then I ask you this:

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?

and you say:

I would believe…

Then I ask you:

If so, why would you (believe) if the Eucharist doesn’t have the full body?

and you answer with:

I would then have to find a way to reconcile the inconsistency of the claim of a whole body with the fact that only a piece of heart is present…perhaps I would do like you and just deny that any inconsistency exists. In any event, I will happily cross that bridge when I come to it, but I would hope to do better than mere denial.

So in other words: “it’s ok for me (Radical) to believe it even if there is an inconsistency but if you (lyrikal) believe it, then you need to explain yourself…”

Awesome.

where the grand miracles (resurrections from death) occur in the third world where verification and validation is problematic and the local miracles tend to be of the “the soft-tissue injury to my back is healed” variety (impossible to objectively validate). Jesus didn’t tell Thomas that he had provided enough. Jesus, supposedly didn’t tell Lanciano that they had been provided with enough…why do a half baked job of the testing, b/c you want to claim that you are blessed b/c you have believed w/o DNA testing?

Perhaps you should look at the miracle of Lordes. Not only that, but the hundreds or thousands of healing that have occurred from the water at Lordes. From the hundreds or thousands that have happened, the Catholic Church only says 67 of them are true miracles. Why? Because they don’t count the “the soft-tissue injury to my back is healed” as actual miracles that count. And what is required for these miracles to be actual miracles? DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS. We can pretend that these miracles didn’t happen or we can praise God for them. You pick.

So you mean to tell me that in this forum dominated by hard-line Catholics (all determined to prove wrong any one who doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine) that more than one has latched onto, out of desperation(?), something, anything that enables them to dismiss an opposing view…go figure

Sorry, but I have no idea what that means.

I’ll wait to see if you at least have the laboratory reports so that we can at least begin to consider what science had to say…IIRC, the story is that the host was dropped, then put in water to dissolve and then, days later when someone came back, where the host had been was now flesh. Is that about it? While I await lab reports, perhaps you could tell me, how the BAM is more believable than these wondrous miracles: a Nigerian pastor being raised from the dead , an old woman being raised from the dead and still others raised from the dead.

I have said this before and will say it again: I do NOT put God in a box and think that He only works miracles in the Catholic Church. God is free to do whatever He pleases and I am not one to say “He can’t”. Whether or not these “miracles” that you linked me to are true or not neither hurts my claims nor supports them. They are possibly miracles. If so, good for them, and praise God. If not, oh well.

Further, by abandoning the EMOL in favor of the BAM (so as to have contemporary eyewitness reports) you have solved only one problem…and, of course, opened the Charismatic-miracle-can-of-worms.

The one problem that I have solved is the eye witness account which is sufficient for you to believe in the Resurrection.

No cans were opened. See above…

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

b) 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 guess if you ever do believe in Eucharist, it would be ok for you to ignore the inconsistencies, huh? But as for me, it is a big no-no. More double standards?

I have to admit that I haven’t researched the BAM all that much. I googled “eucharistic miracle buenos aires” and the first page and a half seemed to be the same video over and over again together with what appeared to be one or two very brief summaries (perhaps bits taken from the video…I don’t know). If this is the case, then more witnesses need to step forward to put it on par with the scriptural reference to the resurrection. If you eliminated that one video, how much “evidence” is left?

The eye witness accounts which are sufficient for you to believe in the Resurrection.

well, I don’t want to have a double standard…so how do I place the eucharistic miracles above the Charismatic miracles…or do I simply accept them all?

Well as far as the Eucharistic Miracles go, you certainly haven’t disproved anything. These Eucharistic miracles have the science that supports these eye witness accounts. Can you produce any scientific evidence that supports the Charismatic claims? If so, by all means go on believing them. If not, then there is your answer.

again, just curious…I see accepting an Orthodox miracle would be fine…are there any miracle claims that you would reject in the entirety of Christendom? and if so, on what basis? …wanting to see what you do to avoid that dreaded double standard. Maybe if you explain it from the practical end of things, I’ll be able to see your point.

Sure. I would take a look at the evidence from science and combine them with the eye witness accounts. If they are consistent, if science is baffled by such findings and if science can’t explain these things, then I would highly consider it a miracle. The people that studied the EMOL were baffled. Radical is not baffled but you are not a scientist so it doesn’t really matter to me what Radical thinks about the EMOL. It really doesn’t matter to me what anyone who hasn’t studied the miracle thinks. It only matters what EMOL and the WHO reported. You can side with the atheist here all you want but it only shows that you would do anything just to prove yourself right.

so? it was speculation

Cool.

it seems that I am gifted

Perhaps.

I didn’t have you in mind…are you angry?

No. That is why I put “angry efforts” in quotations to indicate that “i am not angry but assuming that I am then…”

no double standards…mainly an expectation that you walk the walk after talking the talk. If you claim some science, then have some science.

We have science, just not science that you accept. If you don’t accept it, then what is left to be said? I am even more convinced of your double standards and your inconsistencies. You have also failed to answer the Genesis question. How many years after do you think the creation account happened before it was penned down? You do not need to give me an exact number. But you can tell me “thousands” or “hundreds” or what have you.

Frankly, I have no idea why we are having this discussion still. You have looked at the evidence and you are not convinced. How about we move on with our lives? I am tired of going around in circles about this.

God bless.

 

[lyrikal]

Radical,

I’d like to suggest dropping this unfruitful conversation. It is obvious that I am not going to make you a believer of the Catholic Eucharist and you’re not going to make me a believer of the Calvinistic Eucharist. Perhaps, the time we spend replying to each other’s posts and going in circles, we can devote to prayer.

My apologies for my harsh comments and my mean tone. I will be praying for you and I hope you do the same for me.

God bless you, brother.

 

[CompSciGuy]

for the same reason that if a witness is shown to be lying about one thing in court, it taints his credibility about another thing.

Umm…
Ok so that argument would work if we were talking about one person…
but we are talking about the Catholic Church which happens to be made up of billions of individuals throughout the world and history…
So to say “because a member of the Church lies that means that the Church is not credible” is more than a little ridiculous. Just saying.

 

[CompSciGuy]

It seems to me like a lot of the complaints you made against the miracle are sort of arbitrary standards that you came up with for poor reasons, like “it’s just a piece of the heart instead of the whole body.” Obviously a Eucharistic miracle is supposed to be a sign to make people more aware of a reality. It isn’t supposed to conform exactly to a certain specification.

 

[Radical]

In a previous thread called “The Real Presence” you kept saying that you don’t believe in the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist because the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…let’s go ahead and show some posts from you from that Thread:

First of all, a thread was made asking “Why don’t Protestants believe in the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist?”

Here is how you responded:well, it has been asked with a good bit of frequency (and often with the tone of, how could you be such a spiritual idiot so as to not believe in the real bodily presence)…but for a fellow Canuck I’ll be happy to respond. My reasons are:

a) I don’t think it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles (and therefore, obviously not back to Christ)…if you are interested I’ll be happy to provide the Titles of some scholarly works that support my position;

b) the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…no scholarly works needed in support of this position as any one with the senses of sight, touch, smell/or and taste can easily verify the matter and I find the philosophy used to support the inconsistency (between what is observed and what is claimed) to be more than seriously lacking; and

c) the efforts to support the claim of a real bodily presence from scripture (IMHO) are flawed and do not overcome the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he likely said (probably in Aramaic), “This - my body”

Okay, so to be clear, my reasons fell into these categories: a) historical considerations b) observations and the philosophy to explain observations away; and c) scriptural considerations…that kinda matches what I just said on this thread with: **I look at the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist scripturally, historically and philosophically…IMHO it fails on all three…and it isn’t rescued scientifically…therefore, it doesn’t strike me as a reasonable faith ** I could have also ended with: …and it isn’t rescued by the miraculous

Furthermore, a month or so after that, in the same thread, you said:
well let’s simplify it then: if it is a choice between it being bread or a human body and it has the weight of bread, the feel of bread, the appearance of bread etc. and does not have the weight of a body, the feel of a body , the appearance of a body, then it is bread…

and?..this has to do with a closer look at category (b) observation and the philosophy to explain the observations away…it sure doesn’t mean that I no longer consider categories (a) and (c).

So you keep wanting the bread and the wine to change to flesh and blood.

I keep wanting the claim to match reality…If you claim a real bodily presence, then a real body should be present…IMHO, for the sake of honesty and clarity, Catholics need to find new terms to describe their beliefs. I fully understand what Catholics claim happens via transubstantiation…I just don’t think a “real bodily presence” remotely approaches an accurate description of it. IMHO a lot of the conflict w/i Christendom on this matter would be eliminated if proper descriptions were used instead of inaccurate slogans.

THAT is the big picture here and THAT is why this thread had been made. I pointed you to this Eucharistic miracle as EVIDENCE for what you are asking for NOT as proof. Furthermore, THAT is my point in a big picture when I say that you require PROOF for the Eucharist and yet you settle with “reasonable faith” with the Resurrection.

keep in mind that I look at the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist scripturally, historically and philosophically…IMHO it fails on all three…and it isn’t rescued by the miraculous…By the time I get to considering miraculous claims, I have already dismissed the Catholic understanding for scriptural, historical and philosophical reasons. It then becomes a question of whether there is sufficient evidence of the miraculous that would justify a re-evaluation of the scriptural, historical and philosophical reasons. Regarding the resurrection, there are no philosophical considerations from my POV, the miraculous claims are entirely within scripture, and the historical evidence is largely within scripture. To deal with your accusation of inconsistency, I have tried to seperate out the miraculous aspect of the resurrection (b/c you want to compare it to the EMOL), but for my ultimate conclusion, I don’t treat it independently from the historical and scriptural. I hope that clarifies something.

If the evidence is lacking in your opinion, then so be it.

it is, but we have flogged that deceased equine quite enough

Like I said before, if the eye witness accounts of the EMOL is lacking in your opinion,…

another thing that doesn’t need any more flogging

I gave you two other miracles that happened in the 1990s!

I hadn’t looked at Methuen, but Buenos Aires seems sketchy to me. Methuen deserves a better look and at this point I would rate plausibility at Methuen first, then Lanciano and lastly Bueno Aires.

Whether or not I give you a scientific report has nothing to do with it. Why? Because you cannot produce any scientific report for the Resurrection because you only go by the eye witness accounts. Those accounts are sufficient for you and so you believe in the Resurrection while the eye witness accounts of the modern day Eucharistic miracles are not sufficient because you don’t believe in it. IT IS A DOUBLE STANDARD.

It seems b/c you are prepared to ignore a) previous Catholic frauds, and b) the inconsistency between the little piece that is present and the claim that the entire body is present, that you think that I must do likewise. I don’t think it works that way, but that is a third dead horse that has been flogged sufficiently.

 

[Radical]

We are also claiming eye witness accounts which seem to be sufficient for you to believe in the Resurrection.

The eye witness accounts are part of the package that includes all the historical evidence.

Or how about the story of Jonah and the Whale? Do you believe this story?

I accept the OT (Genesis to Jonah) primarily b/c of how Christ treated it…w/o Christ’s endorsement, I would not recognize it as scripture…likewise, if Christ endorsed the EMOL…

How about the WHO report?

All things considered, it follows that:

• The “findings of Lanciano” are absolutely not part of any tissue, whose preservation is due to Nature or the hand of Man. From the point of view of conservation, it can be said, without fear of refutation, that those “findings” are clearly against any law of Nature.

If you are going to rely on this report, then it needs to be produced in its entirety…who produced the report for WHO? what were his/their qualifications? Was the conservation clearly against the law of Nature b/c they assumed the samples to be 1200 years old as opposed to 600 years old? Would they call natural mummification against the law of Nature and if not, then how do the EMOL samples differ from the incidences of natural mummification?

Also, the cutting of the heart was baffling to Lioni. Just because it’s not baffling to you does not mean it isn’t legitimately baffling. Also, I believe Lioni was baffled by the same thing WHO was baffled about which is the above posting. And if WHO was not baffled by the findings then WHY would they even do a study on it following Lioni’s?

good question…how does the mandate of the WHO even include an examination of the EMOL? The WHO’s involvment seems quite odd…which makes full disclosure of all details even more important

You’d have a point if the Catholic Church was one guy.

see my response to CompSci to follow.

So in other words: “it’s ok for me (Radical) to believe it even if there is an inconsistency but if you (lyrikal) believe it, then you need to explain yourself…”

this is how I said it at post #64:

This doubting Thomas proposes that test for the samples of the Eucharistic miracles. Run the tests and if all the samples come from the same body, then the previously described Differences fade into the background.

and this is how I just said it:

keep in mind that I look at the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist scripturally, historically and philosophically…IMHO it fails on all three…and it isn’t rescued by the miraculous…By the time I get to considering miraculous claims, I have already dismissed the Catholic understanding for scriptural, historical and philosophical reasons. It then becomes a question of whether there is sufficient evidence of the miraculous that would justify a re-evaluation of the scriptural, historical and philosophical reasons
essentially it comes down to acknowledging that irrefutable scientific evidence would neccisitate a re-evaluation.

I have said this before and will say it again: I do NOT put God in a box and think that He only works miracles in the Catholic Church. God is free to do whatever He pleases and I am not one to say “He can’t”. Whether or not these “miracles” that you linked me to are true or not neither hurts my claims nor supports them.** They are possibly miracles. If so, good for them, and praise God. If not, oh well. **

the bold bit is exactly how I view the Catholic claims wrt physical healings at Lourdes.

Well as far as the Eucharistic Miracles go, you certainly haven’t disproved anything. These Eucharistic miracles have the science that supports these eye witness accounts. Can you produce any scientific evidence that supports the Charismatic claims? If so, by all means go on believing them. If not, then there is your answer.

Charismatics possess the same sort of scientific evidence…it is after the fact evidence. EMOL’s scientific evidence says the sample is human…there is no scientific examination of the transformation, cause science wasn’t there at the time. Same for Methuen and Buenos Aires

Radical is not baffled but you are not a scientist so it doesn’t really matter to me what Radical thinks about the EMOL. It really doesn’t matter to me what anyone who hasn’t studied the miracle thinks. It only matters what EMOL and the WHO reported. You can side with the atheist here all you want but it only shows that you would do anything just to prove yourself right.

in response to your last remark one might observe that you can side with the willfully gullible all you want, but it only shows that you would do anything just to prove yourself right…but I don’t think either remark is fair or warranted.

 

[Radical]

Radical,

I’d like to suggest dropping this unfruitful conversation. It is obvious that I am not going to make you a believer of the Catholic Eucharist and you’re not going to make me a believer of the Calvinistic Eucharist. Perhaps, the time we spend replying to each other’s posts and going in circles, we can devote to prayer.

agreed…hopefully my last effort here has clarified a bit…I got the feeling that you hadn’t quite got where I was coming from.

My apologies for my harsh comments and my mean tone. I will be praying for you and I hope you do the same for me.

God bless you, brother.

back at you in all respects. Cheers

 

[CompSciGuy]

Honestly I wonder how many people would believe in any miracle that conflicts with their own personal theology.

 

[Radical]

Umm…
Ok so that argument would work if we were talking about one person…
but we are talking about the Catholic Church which happens to be made up of billions of individuals throughout the world and history…
So to say “because a member of the Church lies that means that the Church is not credible” is more than a little ridiculous. Just saying.

well, let’s battle test this claim of yours.

Suppose we are stationed in Afghanistan with a UN force. Our job is to man an outpost on Friday that is situated at a pass which leads to 25 different little villages. Every day from Monday to Friday five of those towns send a water truck past our outpost. (one from each town during the 5 days) As we take up our position on Friday, we are told that from Monday to Thursday, snipers fired at the outpost from 10 of the 20 water trucks. Now as the first water truck approaches on Friday morning, I duck for cover. Do you a) duck for cover like me b/c you think that there is a good possibility that a sniper is on board, or do you b) look down at me and say, " There’s no need to take cover…we are talking about a valley which happens to be made up 25 separate villages. To think that this approaching water truck might hold a sniper, simply because 10 of the previous 20 water trucks (from different villages in this same valley) had a sniper on board, is more than a little ridiculous. This water truck doesn’t come from one of those 20 villages." My bet is that if you decide to go with option (b) 5 times on Friday, then you’re dead before quitting time. Just saying…but it is your life, take the risks that you want.

So it isn’t really: “because a member of the Church lies that means that the Church is not credible”

Instead it is: “Because quite a few members of the CC have committed a fraud by falsely claiming a miracle, we have to acknowledge that the member of the CC now claiming a miracle may be perpetrating a fraud.”

I am not sure if that is called profiling or not…but it would recognize a greater likelihood for a member of the CC than it would for a member of a group that never has claimed a false miracle in all of its history. If you still haven’t got it, ask your mom if she would want you to duck for cover or to stand tall and wave at the water truck.

It seems to me like a lot of the complaints you made against the miracle are sort of arbitrary standards that you came up with for poor reasons, like “it’s just a piece of the heart instead of the whole body.”

I tust that you realize that your church makes a really, really big deal about claiming that every bit contains the whole body…so pointing out that the “miracle” only has a little piece vs. the whole body is not arbitrary as it compares the actual claim to reality.

Obviously a Eucharistic miracle is supposed to be a sign to make people more aware of a reality. It isn’t supposed to conform exactly to a certain specification.

Now this could just be your arbitrary rationalization which allows you to dismiss the inconsistency. The “certain specification” is produced by your church. “Conform exactly”? It’s less than 1%.

Honestly I wonder how many people would believe in any miracle that conflicts with their own personal theology.

There would be some that haven’t thought it through, but not many. I wonder, how many people there are like Paul, who have had their personal theology changed by a miracle.

 

[pneuma07]

Hi Radical, and all,

first I’d like to second Verbum Caro in reminding that we have no right, IMHO, to consider that you are showing obstinacy in asking whether alleged miracles are real miracles. That is, in itself, in the interest of truth and Christianity.

My second thought is to thank both Lyrical and you, as well as other contributors, for the exchange.

Let me add some remarks from a lurker’s POV.

We are taught ( eg by debates on Resurrection ) that a simple and …maybe unavoidable
methodology in assessing the likelihood of an event, is considering the likelihood of the alternative cases. In the present case. if we do not expect the samples to have a natural origin ( eg they were just found somehow the way they are, or were ), our alternative case seems to be forgery. tbc

 

[pneuma07]

That means among other things:

1. the forgers decided to use a human heart. Were they really so afraid of an analysis in the Middle Ages as to carefully avoid hearts from pigs or deers or any animal ? Who would know human hearts so well to be able to compare human versus non-human on the mere basis of a slice, even in the unlikely case an expert eye could imagine to detect similarities of the slice with one that could come from the heart of a given non-human species ?
2. Even if we admit that obtaining that specific slice was not an impossible achievement for a medieval butcher, but only a hard one, that likely means having to cut and cut human hearts from recent corpses until getting that precise kind of slice. Wow. Moral doubts on the practice aside, that sounds repulsive ( besides seeming very probably unnecessary to the goal ) doesn’t it ?
3. If we want to neglect what above , it seems still nevertheless hardly plausible that a group of religious and laymen had engineered the fraud, without anybody of them, even on his deathbed, ever finding the strength to denounce the forgery, giving any sign of repentance, with consequent elimination of the hoax.
4. The goal was something about displaying a piece of heart to be sold as coming from an Eucharist. Now, among things not easily understandable is that: how could they imagine the meat would remain preserved ? Its eventual putrefaction would be rather embarassing for the forgers…… .
   We have been reminded here that natural mummifications do occur.
   But, even IF we assumed we have a mummification-like process in our case, in what environments, in what climates do natural mummifications take place ? If something is sure on the present issue , is that meat cannot be expected to undergo mummification or anything like a long term natural conservation in the climate near italian coasts. Hence noone could ever bet on the possibility of conservation.
   We’re not even speaking about centuries: here even years would suffice. Tbc

 

[pneuma07]

Now, self-refuting nature of the alleged fraud aside, the very fact we do have that sample after 13 or 4 or whatever number of centuries, cannot really be dismissed as business as usual, or even a reasonably probable event. We do have to deal with that.

On a side note, I was once in Lanciano. Far from being a life –changing experience, that was nevertheless remarkably inspiring.
A friend of mine who was there with me ( a not particularly religious fellow of catholic background ) commented, specifically on the preservation of the sample, something like “Well, that might mean that God exists”.

While you do not need Lanciano for this conclusion of course, you might see Eucharistic miracles at large , when and if confirmed, rather than just endorsing a specific doctrine, as a potential help for many people whose Christian ( rather than specifically catholic ) faith isn’t as solid as yours.
tbc