Scientifically tested eucharistic miracles

alma73

Sorry to do the long quote, it appeared on my news feed and I found it interesting. I had know that blood tested from different eucharistic miracles was the same, what I didn't know was that the DNA centuries apart was also the same. The same DNA of the Lanciano miracles to the Buenas Aires Miracle.

After scientific investigation, a eucharistic miracle in Poland was recently confirmed as authentic by the local bishop of the area. Initially, the Host had fallen on the ground, so it was placed in water, as is customarily done in such cases. Not long afterward, the Eucharist began turning red, as if bloody.

Tests subsequently done on the subject indicated it came from human tissue "most similar to the heart muscle ... as it appears under the strains of agony."

The case is similar to one that occurred in Buenos Aires, Argentina years ago. In 1996, when then-Bishop Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) was an auxiliary bishop there under Cdl. Antonio Quarracino. A consecrated Host was found on the ground and soon placed in a glass of water to dissolve. Days later, the Eucharist wasn't dissolved at all — it had turned into bloody Flesh.

Cardinal Quarracino and Bp. Bergoglio took a photograph of the bloody Host for the record, then stored it in a tabernacle to decompose. In 1999, three years later, that same bloody Flesh remained. That's when Dr. Ricardo Castañón, a Bolivian neurophysiologist, was called in to have samples from the Host examined in a laboratory environment.

Doctor Castañón took it to the San Francisco Forensic Institute without telling anyone there what it was or where it came from. After testing, he was told the samples constituted heart muscle, specifically from the myocardium of the left ventricle. Further, the tests showed the blood was human, with human DNA, and of the rare AB-positive type — the same as found on the Shroud of Turin.

Following those results, the Host was taken to Dr. Frederick Zugibe, an esteemed cardiologist and forensic pathologist at Columbia University in New York. According to Dr. Castañón, Dr. Zugibe tested the samples he was given and said the person whose heart it came from must have been tortured. Further, Dr. Zugibe was reportedly amazed that when he studied the samples, they were pulsating like a living, beating heart.

When Dr. Castañón first came across the miracle in 1999, he was an atheist. Today, he's a Catholic.

After that, the results of the tests were compared to samples from another eucharistic miracle that took place in Lanciano, Italy roughly 1,300 years ago. The Body and Blood from that miracle are still preserved at a church in the town. In 1970, they were examined scientifically and, like the Buenos Aires sample, found to be from a human heart with AB-positive blood.

Image
The miracle of Lanciano on display
The comparison indicated that the samples from both Buenos Aires and Lanciano must have come from the same man. They both had the exact same DNA.

solodeogloria

Good evening all!

I think Catholics overblow the significance of the Lord's Supper. The primary focus of which is to draw us to remember the sacrificial death of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 ESV wrote:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

This is what the Bible centres on. My views on the Lord's Supper have grown as the years go on. I think it's essence is in it's simplicity. We are remembering the previous death of our Saviour. I would hold to a memorial view of The Lord's Supper instead of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. It's clear that the Bible doesn't deal much with the substance at communion, therefore I think it's fair to say that Christ and the Apostles weren't massively concerned with it.

We had The Lord's Supper this evening at church. I love the Anglican liturgy as it brings great attention to the grace alone salvation the Gospel brings. This is called the prayer of humble access:

We do not presume
to come to this your table, merciful Lord,
trusting in our own righteousness,
but in your manifold and great mercies.
We are not worthy
so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table.
But you are the same Lord
whose nature is always to have mercy.
Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord,
so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ
and to drink his blood,
that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body
and our souls washed through his most precious blood,
and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us.
Amen.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The_Valeyard

Very interesting read OP. Further investigation is needed on article. But it's one of those things that stop and make you think.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Can you provide a link to the actual study? The study itself if possible, with the analytical methods in it, not a synopsis. Please.

gctest50

alma73 wrote: »

Sorry to do the long quote, it appeared on my news feed and I found it interesting. I had know that blood tested from different eucharistic miracles was the same, what I didn't know was that the DNA centuries apart was also the same. The same DNA of the Lanciano miracles to the Buenas Aires Miracle.

After scientific investigation, a eucharistic miracle in Poland was recently confirmed as authentic by the local bishop of the area. Initially, the Host had fallen on the ground, so it was placed in water, as is customarily done in such cases. Not long afterward, the Eucharist began turning red, as if bloody.

Tests subsequently done on the subject indicated it came from human tissue "most similar to the heart muscle ... as it appears under the strains of agony."

The case is similar to one that occurred in Buenos Aires, Argentina years ago. In 1996, when then-Bishop Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) was an auxiliary bishop there under Cdl. Antonio Quarracino. A consecrated Host was found on the ground and soon placed in a glass of water to dissolve. Days later, the Eucharist wasn't dissolved at all — it had turned into bloody Flesh.

Cardinal Quarracino and Bp. Bergoglio took a photograph of the bloody Host for the record, then stored it in a tabernacle to decompose. In 1999, three years later, that same bloody Flesh remained. That's when Dr. Ricardo Castañón, a Bolivian neurophysiologist, was called in to have samples from the Host examined in a laboratory environment.

Doctor Castañón took it to the San Francisco Forensic Institute without telling anyone there what it was or where it came from. After testing, he was told the samples constituted heart muscle, specifically from the myocardium of the left ventricle. Further, the tests showed the blood was human, with human DNA, and of the rare AB-positive type — the same as found on the Shroud of Turin.

Following those results, the Host was taken to Dr. Frederick Zugibe, an esteemed cardiologist and forensic pathologist at Columbia University in New York. According to Dr. Castañón, Dr. Zugibe tested the samples he was given and said the person whose heart it came from must have been tortured. Further, Dr. Zugibe was reportedly amazed that when he studied the samples, they were pulsating like a living, beating heart.

When Dr. Castañón first came across the miracle in 1999, he was an atheist. Today, he's a Catholic.

After that, the results of the tests were compared to samples from another eucharistic miracle that took place in Lanciano, Italy roughly 1,300 years ago. The Body and Blood from that miracle are still preserved at a church in the town. In 1970, they were examined scientifically and, like the Buenos Aires sample, found to be from a human heart with AB-positive blood.

Image
The miracle of Lanciano on display
The comparison indicated that the samples from both Buenos Aires and Lanciano must have come from the same man. They both had the exact same DNA.

alma73 wrote: »

..............After scientific investigation,

Stop being a facebook dingbat or Rev. Monsignor M. Francis Mannion might kick yer ass :

................


A crucial element of these events was the fact that the host in question was left unprotected and unattended in a dish of water from approximately Nov. 8 – 14, 2015.
In an expeditious but careful manner the committee enlisted the services of a competent and credible scientist to conduct controlled testing of the host. Great care was taken to ensure the reverent handling of the consecrated host throughout the scientific examination. Upon completion of the prescribed tests, the scientist, with the assistance of a blind observer, concluded that the observed change in the host could be satisfactorily and conclusively explained by natural causes, namely the growth of what is commonly known as “red bread mold,” or red bacteria, most likely Neurospora cressa or Serratia marcescens.
..............

Rev. Monsignor M. Francis Mannion,
Chairman
Ad Hoc Investigation Committee

.

alma73

The host in question on this Thread is the Buenas Aires Miracle.

Yes.. red mould can appear on bread, but it became clear the red colour was not mould it was tested.

Same blood type and DNA as lanciano.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC7RPJC4uDA

alma73

Here is another link regarding the scientific conclusions of Dr. Castanon .

http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/A-Matter-of-Faith-a-Matter-of-Fact-5114

gctest50

alma73 wrote: »

The host in question on this Thread is the Buenas Aires Miracle. ................

It ain't a Miracle unless the Vatican says it is

alma73

gctest50 wrote: »

It ain't a Miracle unless the Vatican says it is

Bread turns to heart muscle tissue in Buenas Aires and its DNA is the same as bread that turn to flesh 1400 years ago in Italy.

Also it was Cardinal Bergoglio who approved the miracle.

EirWatcher

gctest50 wrote: »

It ain't a Miracle unless the Vatican says it is

And even then, it is considered private revelation by the Church, and hence places Catholics under no obligation to believe it.
Private revelations are regarded only as aids to devotion made available by God to the faithful.

alma73

EirWatcher wrote: »

And even then, it is considered private revelation by the Church, and hence places Catholics under no obligation to believe it.
Private revelations are regarded only as aids to devotion made available by God to the faithful.

Correct. Its not part of the faith. Catholics don't have to believe it. However the Church as not said that it was a hoax. its the same with all apparitions over the ages.

Its just interesting that the DNA from the 2 locations was the exact same.

EirWatcher

alma73 wrote: »

Correct. Its not part of the faith. Catholics don't have to believe it. However the Church as not said that it was a hoax. its the same with all apparitions over the ages.

Its just interesting that the DNA from the 2 locations was the exact same.

I agree. As a Catholic, I find miracles like this as possible reinforcement of the doctrine of transubstantiation. What's interesting, and different (in this age), is that we have it in such scientific terms.

gctest50

alma73 wrote: »

....................

Its just interesting that the DNA from the 2 locations was the exact same.

bit like HeLa cells

they have turbo-telomerase enzyme , rebuilds the telomerases, so they continue to multiply ferociously

One of the most popular bladder cancer cell lines has been KU7, which was isolated from a patient with low-grade papillary bladder cancer at the Keio University (KU) in 1980. KU7 has been widely used due to its robust growth in vitro, its amenability to molecular manipulation, and its reliable growth characteristics in xenograft models.

Interestingly, KU7 has behaved over many years as a highly invasive and rapidly growing cell line, which is quite disparate to its original description as being derived from a low grade papillary tumor. This discrepancy, however, was not recognized until we had already determined the true identity of KU7. This highlights the importance of bearing the disease context of cell lines in mind when using them for pre-clinical modeling. The widespread contamination of KU7 clones determined here makes us believe that all KU7 in the urologic literature since at least 1984 is likely HeLa.

alma73

Also the blood type of Lanciano, Buenas Aires and the Shroud of Turin happen to be the same.

gctest50

alma73 wrote: »

Also the blood type of Lanciano, Buenas Aires and the Shroud of Turin happen to be the same.

which type ?

O-positive: 38 percent
O-negative: 7 percent
A-positive: 34 percent
A-negative: 6 percent
B-positive: 9 percent
B-negative: 2 percent
AB-positive: 3 percent
AB-negative: 1 percent

usa

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Forgive me for being confused, but how are these events meant to immediately draw someone to the conclusion that transubstantiation is the only way to understand the Lord's Supper?

Even if these bizarre events occurred (and I doubt at present) surely this can't tell us about the state of communion every time? Surely we're not saying that every time the host physically becomes human flesh?

I appreciate that this question might be slightly clumsy, if it is forgive me. I still think the simple truth that The Lord's Supper leads us to remember Jesus' passion and death is more powerful than having to go looking for all these miracles.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

EirWatcher

gctest50 wrote: »

O-positive: 38 percent
O-negative: 7 percent
A-positive: 34 percent
A-negative: 6 percent
B-positive: 9 percent
B-negative: 2 percent
AB-positive: 3 percent
AB-negative: 1 percent

It would best to read it in full before scrambling to debunk it - it said AB-positive.

EirWatcher

solodeogloria wrote: »

Surely we're not saying that every time the host physically becomes human flesh?

You are conflating transubstantiation with transmutation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

gctest50

EirWatcher wrote: »

It would best to read it in full before scrambling to debunk it - it said AB-positive.

The original post is from a news feed somewhere :

alma73 wrote: »

Sorry to do the long quote, it appeared on my news feed and I found it interesting..................

just looking for where that was

solodeogloria

EirWatcher wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Surely we're not saying that every time the host physically becomes human flesh?

You are conflating transubstantiation with transmutation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Good evening!

Please flesh it out for me then! (No pun intended!)

I'm still thinking that the memorial view makes a lot more sense.

Edit: To your question - I do wonder how much we should be inviting Plato and Aristotle into our theology.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Please flesh it out for me then! (No pun intended!)

I'm still thinking that the memorial view makes a lot more sense.

Edit: To your question - I do wonder how much we should be inviting Plato and Aristotle into our theology.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

@solodeogloria --> Solo Scriptura.

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them......

... On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Take this, and eat it. This is my body

EirWatcher

alma73 wrote: »

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

And further...
"After this, many of his disciples left him and stopped going with him." Jn. 6

As it was in beginning, is now ... and ever shall be...

Good night.

solodeogloria

EirWatcher wrote: »

And further...
"After this, many of his disciples left him and stopped going with him." Jn. 6

As it was in beginning, is now ... and ever shall be...

Good night.

Good morning!

John 6 doesn't refer to communion or the the Lord's Supper at all. The context is depending on Jesus' death. He even says that the words he has spoken are spirit and life in 6:63. The flesh counts for nothing.

This is why careful Bible reading and handling are key.

My questions about what transubstantiation actually is haven't been answered.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

EirWatcher

solodeogloria wrote: »

John 6 doesn't refer to communion or the the Lord's Supper at all. The context is depending on Jesus' death. He even says that the words he has spoken are spirit and life in 6:63. The flesh counts for nothing.

This is why careful Bible reading and handling are key.

My questions about what transubstantiation actually is haven't been answered.

I would direct you Summa Theologica III: Q75 for answers to what you just stated, but I suspect you would wonder how much you should be inviting Thomas Aquinas in your theology, if contradicting Luther et. al.

The text is available online, if truly curious; search and you shall find.

keano_afc

John 6:63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Transubstantiation is a myth and should be rejected. If true it "re-sacrifices" Christ and this is directly contradictory of scripture. Christ died once and for all and there is no need for this ritual to be performed. We take the bread and wine to remind us of this. Thats all they are. There is nothing mythical taking place.

solodeogloria

EirWatcher wrote: »

I would direct you Summa Theologica III: Q75 for answers to what you just stated, but I suspect you would wonder how much you should be inviting Thomas Aquinas in your theology, if contradicting Luther et. al.

The text is available online, if truly curious; search and you shall find.

Good evening!

I've read quite a bit of the Summa Theologica actually. Thomas clearly was quite a thinker but including Aristotle's non-Christian philosophy caused the Catholic Church quite a number of issues over the years. It also formed the basis for why Galileo and Copernicus were condemned for heliocentricism. Aristotle and Plato weren't Christians, we shouldn't mix their philosophy with the Gospel.

I'm quite concerned that nobody seems to want to give me their own explanation. We should be confident enough to explain our convictions to others.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

John 6 doesn't refer to communion or the the Lord's Supper at all. The context is depending on Jesus' death. He even says that the words he has spoken are spirit and life in 6:63. The flesh counts for nothing.

This is why careful Bible reading and handling are key.

My questions about what transubstantiation actually is haven't been answered.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Lets park your views on transubstantiation/Aristotelian-Aquinas for a moment. The real presence Body&Blood soul&divinity of Christ in the Eucharist has been affirmed by all the Church for 1500 years before Luther took exception. Copts, Orthodox, Armenians, eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Melikites, Assyrians...

And its pretty clear in the Gospel.

τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.

Not the appearance, not a symbol. IS.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I think keanoafc and I are asking you to read the whole chapter in context rather than isolating the verse. The verse doesn't mention communion.

Jesus says his words are spirit and life in 6:63.

Can you please explain what transubstantiation actually is as that would help greatly. Is it not that the bread literally becomes Christ's flesh?

The memorial position for The Lord's Supper was held by many. However it was primarily argued for by the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I think keanoafc and I are asking you to read the whole chapter in context rather than isolating the verse. The verse doesn't mention communion.

Jesus says his words are spirit and life in 6:63.

Can you please explain what transubstantiation actually is as that would help greatly. Is it not that the bread literally becomes Christ's flesh?

The memorial position for The Lord's Supper was held by many. However it was primarily argued for by the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I have read the whole gospel many times. I prefer the Eastern Churchs view of the transformation as a mystery of Christs love. This is my body, I am the bread of life. Doing in his memory. Taking Christ by his literal word as he said in the last supper.

The Eurcharist is fundamental to most Christians of true faith.

alma73

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/eucharistic-miracle-confirmed-in-poland

lazybones32

alma73 wrote: »

... I had know that blood tested from different eucharistic miracles was the same, what I didn't know was that the DNA centuries apart was also the same. The same DNA of the Lanciano miracles to the Buenas Aires Miracle.

I'd never heard of the Argentinian case but I read (kinda) recently of similar results between the Lanciano host and another case - which I can't recall now. I must fish out the book and the case, but it is quite similar in results as what you've posted.

recedite

alma73 wrote: »

I had know that blood tested from different eucharistic miracles was the same, what I didn't know was that the DNA centuries apart was also the same. The same DNA of the Lanciano miracles to the Buenas Aires Miracle.

Is there any evidence that either of these relics was actually DNA tested?
Let alone proven to have the same DNA.
If the RCC did allow a DNA test, the results would be very controversial, because they might indicate details of the donors, such as their racial origins.

alma73

recedite wrote: »

Is there any evidence that either of these relics was actually DNA tested?
Let alone proven to have the same DNA.
If the RCC did allow a DNA test, the results would be very controversial, because they might indicate details of the donors, such as their racial origins.

They church did allow the DNA to be tested, twice.

At a Mass in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on August 15, 1996, an elderly Eucharistic minister accidentally dropped a Host on the floor. He informed the priest celebrant, who reverently picked up the Host and placed it in a small container of water, which he then put in the tabernacle. The priest’s intention was to wait until the Host had dissolved, and then pour the mixture down the sacrarium—a special sink which empties directly into the ground below, and allows the proper and sacred disposal of Eucharistic elements in this sort of situation. However, a week later the priest discovered to his great surprise that instead of dissolving, the Host had grown in size, and was covered with red spots that looked like blood. After several more days, the Host continued changing in appearance and finally looked like a piece of human flesh. A sample of this tissue was sent to a lab in Buenos Aires, which reported that it found human red and white blood cells, and tissue from a human heart. The lab report also stated that the tissue sample appeared to be still alive, as the cells were moving or beating as they would in a live human heart.

Three years later, in 1999, the Church arranged for a noted scientist to conduct further tests; he sent a sample of the tissue to a lab in New York City, but without telling it where the sample came from. This lab reported the sample was living muscle tissue from a human heart. Five years later yet another test was performed, with the same result— though the doctor conducting it, without knowing the sample’s origin, also added that the muscle tissue appeared to have been taken from someone whose heart had been severely traumatized or beaten. At this point the doctor in Buenos Aires remembered hearing about the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy—where, during a Mass in the 8th century, a priest who had doubts about the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist elevated a Host at the moment of consecration, only to have the Host turn into a piece of living human flesh. These Eucharistic elements have been preserved in Lanciano for over 1200 years, and have undergone scientific analysis several times. Accordingly, the doctor in Buenos Aires arranged for the recent lab tests to be compared with those made of the Eucharistic flesh in Lanciano, again without revealing the origin of the lab samples. The experts making this comparison reported that, based on a DNA analysis, the two lab samples must have come from the same person—someone with blood type AB positive. As if that weren’t enough, these two blood samples proved to be identical with blood samples taken from the Shroud of Turin, which tradition identifies as the burial cloth of Jesus (from an on-line article by Deacon Donald Cox, posted March 30, 2012).

gctest50

alma73 wrote: »

Originally Posted by recedite
Is there any evidence that either of these relics was actually DNA tested?

Let alone proven to have the same DNA.
If the RCC did allow a DNA test, the results would be very controversial, because they might indicate details of the donors, such as their racial origins.

They church did allow the DNA to be tested, twice.

At a Mass in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on August 15, 1996, an elderly Eucharistic minister accidentally dropped a Host on the floor. He informed the priest celebrant, who reverently picked up the Host and placed it in a small container of water, which he then put in the tabernacle. The priest’s intention was to wait until the Host had dissolved, and then pour the mixture down the sacrarium—a special sink which empties directly into the ground below, and allows the proper and sacred disposal of Eucharistic elements in this sort of situation. However, a week later the priest discovered to his great surprise that instead of dissolving, the Host had grown in size, and was covered with red spots that looked like blood. After several more days, the Host continued changing in appearance and finally looked like a piece of human flesh. A sample of this tissue was sent to a lab in Buenos Aires, which reported that it found human red and white blood cells, and tissue from a human heart. The lab report also stated that the tissue sample appeared to be still alive, as the cells were moving or beating as they would in a live human heart.

Three years later, in 1999, the Church arranged for a noted scientist to conduct further tests; he sent a sample of the tissue to a lab in New York City, but without telling it where the sample came from. This lab reported the sample was living muscle tissue from a human heart. Five years later yet another test was performed, with the same result— though the doctor conducting it, without knowing the sample’s origin, also added that the muscle tissue appeared to have been taken from someone whose heart had been severely traumatized or beaten. At this point the doctor in Buenos Aires remembered hearing about the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy—where, during a Mass in the 8th century, a priest who had doubts about the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist elevated a Host at the moment of consecration, only to have the Host turn into a piece of living human flesh. These Eucharistic elements have been preserved in Lanciano for over 1200 years, and have undergone scientific analysis several times. Accordingly, the doctor in Buenos Aires arranged for the recent lab tests to be compared with those made of the Eucharistic flesh in Lanciano, again without revealing the origin of the lab samples. The experts making this comparison reported that, based on a DNA analysis, the two lab samples must have come from the same person—someone with blood type AB positive. As if that weren’t enough, these two blood samples proved to be identical with blood samples taken from the Shroud of Turin, which tradition identifies as the burial cloth of Jesus (from an on-line article by Deacon Donald Cox, posted March 30, 2012).

Huge breaks in the chain there :

the priest celebrant..... picked up the Host and placed it in a small container of water, which he then put in the tabernacle

However, a week later the priest discovered to his great surprise that instead of dissolving

Not only did someone else pick it up ( chance of swapping it out ), it was left for a week somewhere

Then something something lab

You can grow "beating" heart cells from a bit of skin, just reprogram and manipulate them a bit :

alma73

@gctest50. The Priest did what many priests do when a host can't be consumed. Are you saying he then exchanged it for heart tissue? even further the same heart tissue that is sitting in Italy for the last 1000 years? Same DNA. Cells that were also alive?

I suppose its just a case to he who believes no explanation is necessary, to he who doesn't no explanation will suffice.

recedite

alma73 wrote: »

They church did allow the DNA to be tested, twice.

What were the results then, what was the lab, and were the results ever released?

A sample of this tissue was sent to a lab in Buenos Aires, which reported that it found human red and white blood cells, and tissue from a human heart....

Three years later, in 1999, the Church arranged for a noted scientist to conduct further tests; he sent a sample of the tissue to a lab in New York City, but without telling it where the sample came from. This lab reported the sample was living muscle tissue from a human heart....

Five years later yet another test was performed, with the same result— though the doctor conducting it, without knowing the sample’s origin, also added that the muscle tissue appeared to have been taken from someone whose heart had been severely traumatized or beaten.

Above you have cited 3 third party quotes alleging "scientists" tested some material that was sent to them. Nothing about a DNA test. Nothing from the labs themselves. Nothing to say what kind of tests were carried out.

Even within "DNA testing" there is the kind of testing the food industry does which determines the proportion of horse:pig:beef:donkey meat in processed meat products. That would not be very helpful in this case. It would simply say that a sample sent in was "human".

Then there is the kind used in paternity testing etc. which establishes a lot more information about the precise genetic identity of the donor. That would be very interesting.

alma73

The Papers from the Lanciano Miracle

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9kNbgL3NNN1YTdmYzQ0ZTUtNjAxMS00NWI3LTgwOTgtOWMyNzgzOGY4MTNj/view?ddrp=1&hl=en&pli=1#

solodeogloria

Good morning!

To ask something rudimentary.

What is the expected outcome of the accounts of these miracles? Why do they matter and why should they change our thinking?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

To ask something rudimentary.

What is the expected outcome of the accounts of these miracles? Why do they matter and why should they change our thinking?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

There hasn't been just these, there are also many other Miracles. Its a message from God to those who doubt his real presence in the Eucharist.

http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

There hasn't been just these, there are also many other Miracles. Its a message from God to those who doubt his real presence in the Eucharist.

http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

Good morning!

I think you've missed the point of my question. I agree that you might believe this is from God and that these count as miracles. Why should I believe that? The challenge I have is that the Bible seems to emphasise that The Lord's Supper is for remembering the death and resurrection of Jesus. That remains even if these miracles are true - which I still very much doubt.

Why should my beliefs change on this issue? That's the key question.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think you've missed the point of my question. I agree that you might believe this is from God and that these count as miracles. Why should I believe that? The challenge I have is that the Bible seems to emphasise that The Lord's Supper is for remembering the death and resurrection of Jesus. That remains even if these miracles are true - which I still very much doubt.

Why should my beliefs change on this issue? That's the key question.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Why not take the Lords literal word written in the Gospel instead of what you think it might mean?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

keanoafc and I raised issues with isolating quotes from the wider context of John chapter 6. Particularly verse 63.

We're still hoping for a reply I suspect.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh."


The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 "This is My Body." 26:27 "This is My Blood…" Mark: 14:22 "This is My Body." 14:24 "This is My Blood…" Luke: 22:19 "This is My Body." 22:20 "This … is the New Covenant in My Blood." Jesus' next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 "Do this in remembrance of Me."

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh."

Good afternoon!

This is referring to the cross. The Lord's Supper doesn't give life. He's comparing His crucifixion to the bread they received in the desert from Moses. That's the context.

alma73 wrote: »

The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 "This is My Body." 26:27 "This is My Blood…" Mark: 14:22 "This is My Body." 14:24 "This is My Blood…" Luke: 22:19 "This is My Body." 22:20 "This … is the New Covenant in My Blood." Jesus' next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 "Do this in remembrance of Me."

All in memory of His death!!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

recedite

alma73 wrote: »

The Papers from the Lanciano Miracle

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9kNbgL3NNN1YTdmYzQ0ZTUtNjAxMS00NWI3LTgwOTgtOWMyNzgzOGY4MTNj/view?ddrp=1&hl=en&pli=1#

Its mostly in Italian. Is it not considered important enough to have been fully translated? The summary says they looked at a tissue sample under a microscope and decided it looked like human heart tissue.
There's no DNA test.

alma73

@solodeogloria Up to the 16th century virtually all Christians believed that the bread and wine truly becomes the body and blood of Christ. Christ didn't say take this and eat it as a symbol?

"Truely, Truely I say to you, unless you Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his Blood, you have no life in YOU; he who eats my Flesh and Drinks my Blood has Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day. For my Flesh is real food indeed and my Blood is real Drink indeed." (John 6: 53-55)

solodeogloria

Good morning!

John 6 isn't referring to the Lord's Supper. As we've said already. The bread that Jesus gives up for the life of the world is His flesh. This is referring to the cross. Quote mining doesn't help. The context of the chapter is that Jesus is a new Moses and a better Moses. That's why we see the life giving bread that Jesus offers the world in His flesh compared to the manna of Moses in the desert.

As for the majority believing it you only really mean that Catholics believed it until the 16th century. The Apostles didn't put any stock in it from what we see in the first century source texts in the New Testament. Many things went wrong in church teachings since the first century. That's why there was a Reformation. We need constant Reformation and we need to conform ourselves to God's Son.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the majority believing it you only really mean that Catholics believed it until the 16th century. T

Really only Catholics, What about the Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and others which were not in communion with the Pope.

You argue based on a 500 year old interpretation of the Bible, I argue based on 2000 years of teaching. I doubt we will ever agree, and such is life.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I think you're missing my point somewhat.

Irrespective of Luther or Calvin or anyone else. There is no good reason on Biblical grounds to accept that the bread at The Lord's Supper is given or received for any other reason than to remember the death of Christ.

Transubstantiation is Aristotelian philosophy shoehorned into the Gospel. I'm sure that Aristotle and Plato were interesting. In fact I know they were from reading their writings but there is no reason why we should contaminate Christian belief with non-Christian philosophy. Doing that led to the condemnation of Galileo and Copernicus as the church held to Aristotelian geocentricism rather than heliocentricism. History tells us that it is very dangerous to be carried away with philosophy when speaking of Christian things.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think you're missing my point somewhat.

Irrespective of Luther or Calvin or anyone else. There is no good reason on Biblical grounds to accept that the bread at The Lord's Supper is given or received for any other reason than to remember the death of Christ.

Transubstantiation is Aristotelian philosophy shoehorned into the Gospel. I'm sure that Aristotle and Plato were interesting. In fact I know they were from reading their writings but there is no reason why we should contaminate Christian belief with non-Christian philosophy. Doing that led to the condemnation of Galileo and Copernicus as the church held to Aristotelian geocentricism rather than heliocentricism. History tells us that it is very dangerous to be carried away with philosophy when speaking of Christian things.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The real presence of Christ in the eucharist is not a non-christian philosophy, as I said the Orthodox don't believe in transubstantiation, yet they believe in the same eucharist.


I think you are expecting me as a catholic to be dragged into defending my Catholic faith with protestant terms of reference. That is never going to happen.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'm making the case against transubstantiation. Orthodoxy split from Catholicism. However just because it may hold to the same view on this doesn't mean it is apostolic or Biblical.

I'm not going to apologise for being Reformed in outlook. Even if we leave the Reformation aside there's no reason to believe that transubstantiation came from the Apostles.

I only expect you to answer the questions we have with clarity.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria