Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires

twg73 · 16-06-2013 01:10PM #1

What is the general consensus about the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires?

The scientific report from New York is really interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs&feature=player_embedded

skimpydoo · 17-06-2013 05:35PM

twg73 wrote: »

What is the general consensus about the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires?

The scientific report from New York is really interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs&feature=player_embedded

This video is nearly 5 years old and there was me thinking it might have something to do with the current pope.

twg73 · 17-06-2013 07:08PM

skimpydoo wrote: »

This video is nearly 5 years old and there was me thinking it might have something to do with the current pope.

Well actually yes it does have a lot to do with the current Pope. Why did he keep the miracle hidden for so long? The practice is if the Eucharist is defiled that you place in water and later once its dissolved you can pour over a plant. However in this case the Eurcharist didn't dissolve it turned to flesh. Cardinal Bergoglio who is now Pope ordered that the flesh be kept hidden in the Tabernacle for a number of years. He finally asked for a sample to go to New York where they found it was flesh from a living heart, that is to say the cells were alive.

Zombrex · 20-06-2013 02:17PM

twg73 wrote: »

The scientific report from New York is really interesting.

The scientific report from New York is horrific, if accurate.

Someone took this sample from a man who was still alive and under a huge amount of stress. One would hope that it comes from a medical procedure carried out by professional, rather than a criminal act.

It is weird that people automatically jump to the conclusion that this was a miracle, rather than the much more likely and much more disturbing conclusion that someone placed the sample there after recently extracting it from a living person.

twg73 · 20-06-2013 03:08PM

Zombrex wrote: »

The scientific report from New York is horrific, if accurate.

Someone took this sample from a man who was still alive and under a huge amount of stress. One would hope that it comes from a medical procedure carried out by professional, rather than a criminal act.

It is weird that people automatically jump to the conclusion that this was a miracle, rather than the much more likely and much more disturbing conclusion that someone placed the sample there after recently extracting it from a living person.

If they did the same test today from the same tissue in buenos aires they would get the same results because the tissue in Buenos Aires still has not decayed. The Cells are still in a state of living tissue.

Infact the tissue is pretty similar to the tissue in Santarem Portugal, which has also not decayed after several hundred years.

georgieporgy · 20-06-2013 03:37PM

Zombrex wrote: »

The scientific report from New York is horrific, if accurate.

Someone took this sample from a man who was still alive and under a huge amount of stress. One would hope that it comes from a medical procedure carried out by professional, rather than a criminal act.

It is weird that people automatically jump to the conclusion that this was a miracle, rather than the much more likely and much more disturbing conclusion that someone placed the sample there after recently extracting it from a living person.

If the sample was extracted from a living person and exchanged for the Buenos Aires sample as you are inclined to believe, would the tissue remain alive or be dead and undergoing decomposition once removed from its host?

Zombrex · 21-06-2013 01:14PM

twg73 wrote: »

If they did the same test today from the same tissue in buenos aires they would get the same results because the tissue in Buenos Aires still has not decayed. The Cells are still in a state of living tissue.

And you know this how?

twg73 wrote: »

Infact the tissue is pretty similar to the tissue in Santarem Portugal, which has also not decayed after several hundred years.

Again you know this how?

Zombrex · 21-06-2013 01:18PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

would the tissue remain alive or be dead and undergoing decomposition once removed from its host?

No.

Let me guess, someone told you this tissue is still alive and has not started decomposing. And you believed them.

twg73 · 21-06-2013 05:36PM

Zombrex what is the point of your 2 posts above?

Gumbi · 23-06-2013 05:19PM

twg73 wrote: »

Zombrex what is the point of your 2 posts above?

That there was no miracle.

Zombrex · 23-06-2013 10:41PM

twg73 wrote: »

Zombrex what is the point of your 2 posts above?

I pointed out that the most likely explanation for this "miracle" is that someone carried out a criminal act, and that that act was at best unethical and at worst horrific.

Your response was to say that this flesh was still alive and growing.

It seems logical and reasonable to ask how you know this, since it seems very unlikely that what you say is true.

Again the most likely explanation is that someone carried out a criminal act, certainly not something we should be celebrating or encouraging.

If you have already decided that this was an act of God then that won't mean much to you, but then if you have already decided that this was an act of God what exactly is this "miracle" demonstrating?

Zombrex · 23-06-2013 10:44PM

Gumbi wrote: »

That there was no miracle.

Well more how do they know it was a miracle.

If all someone needs to believe a miracle took place is to be told by someone else a miracle took place, then that would suggest to me that they are already in a state of mind of searching for a miracle (fitting the facts around a conclusion, not a conclusion from the facts).

And if that is the case this "miracle" hardly leads to faith, more like faith leads to concluding this was a miracle. Which raises the point of what is, well, the point.

But my original point was that the most likely explanation for this "miracle" is that a crime has taken place, and that is certainly not something to celebrate. If you find a body on the ground you think someone has been murdered, not an angel has fallen to Earth. Unless you are looking for angels of course.

Gumbi · 23-06-2013 11:17PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Well more how do they know it was a miracle.

If all someone needs to believe a miracle took place is to be told by someone else a miracle took place, then that would suggest to me that they are already in a state of mind of searching for a miracle (fitting the facts around a conclusion, not a conclusion from the facts).

And if that is the case this "miracle" hardly leads to faith, more like faith leads to concluding this was a miracle. Which raises the point of what is, well, the point.

But my original point was that the most likely explanation for this "miracle" is that a crime has taken place, and that is certainly not something to celebrate. If you find a body on the ground you think someone has been murdered, not an angel has fallen to Earth. Unless you are looking for angels of course.

Yup, I agree. I also think it's easy to positively argue that there was no miracle, simply because I find the word itself to be largely nonsensical/meaningless. You want me to believe something that's otherwise impossible occurred, and is therefore possible? I mean if that's the case it's not very miraculous. Eh, no thanks.

Fanny Cradock · 23-06-2013 11:54PM

Zombrex wrote: »

If you have already decided that this was an act of God then that won't mean much to you, but then if you have already decided that this was an act of God what exactly is this "miracle" demonstrating?

Whatever about this particular claim, miracles in the NT are, at least in part, simply signs of God's intervention. In passages like Acts 5:12 the word used is sēmeion - which means a sign of things to come or events that transcend the common course of nature.

In answer to your question, I think that a miracle could potentially demonstrate many things both to non-Christians who are willing to allow for the possibility that miracles happen and to believers who already think as much.

For more on a discussion between an Irish sceptic, Geoff, and a Christian continualist, Craig Keener, on the topic of miracles click here. It's a very fair and respectful discussion and all the more valuable for it.

For more about Keener's 2-volume book, Miracles, that is at the centre of the above discussion see here.

Fanny Cradock · 24-06-2013 12:05AM

Gumbi wrote: »

Yup, I agree. I also think it's easy to positively argue that there was no miracle, simply because I find the word itself to be largely nonsensical/meaningless. You want me to believe something that's otherwise impossible occurred, and is therefore possible? I mean if that's the case it's not very miraculous. Eh, no thanks.

You have just begged the question by assuming the thing that you are trying to demonstrate. This is the equivalent of your argument pulling itself up by its own bootstraps. Miracles aren't impossibilities that happen. This would be an illogical clam much like the claim that you saw a married bachelor getting into her colourless green car. Instead, miracles are defined as some manner of intervention by God.

On another note, why do you think that the world (and here I assume you mean existence itself) is largely nonsensical/meaningless? (BTW, nonsensical and meaningless are not necessarily interchangeable in terms of meaning. So if you are going to answer my question perhaps you can parse those out. Cheers.)

Gumbi · 24-06-2013 12:24AM

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, a miracle isn't very amazing if it can be explained by natural means.

I said word, not world, unless you meant word? Meaningless would be more precise as to what I was trying to say.

Fanny Cradock · 24-06-2013 12:41AM

Gumbi wrote: »

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, a miracle isn't very amazing if it can be explained by natural means.

If something is explained entirely by natural means then it isn't a miracle. However, a miracle, as I've loosely defined previously, can be understood to involve natural processes that are themselves used by God to some end. I think that a miracle is in part amazing because of what has happened and also because Christianity teaches that God, the highest conceivable being, actually did something for your (direct or indirect) benefit.

Gumbi wrote: »

I said word, not world, unless you meant word? Meaningless would be more precise as to what I was trying to say.

So you did. My apologies. Time for bed! While I'm slipping into my onesie perhaps could you explain to me why the word miracle is meaningless? And how you can defend this view to those who think otherwise.

Zombrex · 24-06-2013 09:59AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In answer to your question, I think that a miracle could potentially demonstrate many things both to non-Christians who are willing to allow for the possibility that miracles happen and to believers who already think as much.

Well that is the thing? Leaving aside the fact that an interventionist omnipotent creator deity is very silly (see post below), what does a miracle demonstrate to someone who has already decided to believe, or that they want to believe, in an interventionist deity?

Claims of miracles seem to speak more about the person making the claim, and those who believe it, than the circumstance of the claim itself. It is a bit like people who are really really into winning the lottery, and convinced they have a chance. The first question someone observing someone like that would be "having financial troubles, by any chance?"

But anyway, my main point was not about the mind set of those who subscribe to miracles, but rather that this particular miracle seems to most likely involve a criminal act, which few who are celebrating it seem all that bothered by.

Zombrex · 24-06-2013 10:09AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that a miracle is in part amazing because of what has happened and also because Christianity teaches that God, the highest conceivable being, actually did something for your (direct or indirect) benefit.

Which in itself is a nonsensical believe. God is supposed to be omnipotent. He is aware of every move of the chess game before he makes his first move. He knows exactly what will happen. The idea that he would interven in existence at any point is like saying he knows exactly how the game of chess will play out but on move 34 he still decides to cheat anyway. Rather silly.

But then that isn't the point of miracles. Miracles speak to human psychology, to hyper-active agency detection, and the notions are found throughout human cultures not just the Judeo-Christian religions. While the idea of God needing to cheat his own laws of nature is nonsensical, we still find it deeply comforting because he ourselves have no control over these systems and as much as we subscribe to the idea of all powerful gods, it is actually the rigid structure of nature that we fear the most. The idea that someone, be it a god, a magician, luck etc can over come these rules for our benefit is deeply comforting and reassuring.

Fanny Cradock · 24-06-2013 01:34PM

Zombrex wrote: »

what does a miracle demonstrate to someone who has already decided to believe

As I said, miracles can demonstrate many things. One of the obvious things is that God had acted. Miracles might also be thought of acts of good with themselves and do not as such have to demonstrate anything beyond this.

Fanny Cradock · 24-06-2013 01:49PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Which in itself is a nonsensical believe. God is supposed to be omnipotent. He is aware of every move of the chess game before he makes his first move. He knows exactly what will happen. The idea that he would interven in existence at any point is like saying he knows exactly how the game of chess will play out but on move 34 he still decides to cheat anyway. Rather silly.

God isn't supposed to be omnipotent. Classical or orthodox Christianity claims that omnipotence is part of God's nature. It doesn't require belief in God to understand the difference. (And at this point the word "omnipotence" should be qualified to mean that which is logically consistent. So no squared-circles and colourless green cars.) You then go on to state that a miracle is cheating and God needs to do something with respect to his interaction in this world. I don't know if this is a case that you simply don't understand what Christians say about miracles and the nature of God or if you are misrepresenting your opponents beliefs.

Ken bryan · 26-06-2013 09:40PM

In 1996 in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, Argentina, when the present Pope Francis was Auxiliary Bishop under Cardinal Quarracino, an amazing Eucharistic miracle took place. He himself had it photographed and investigated and the results are astonishing. At seven o’clock in the evening on August 18, 1996, Fr. Alejandro Pezet was saying Holy Mass at a Catholic church in the commercial center of Buenos Aires. As he was finishing distributing Holy Communion, a woman came up to tell him that she had found a discarded host on a candle holder at the back of the church. On going to the spot indicated, Fr. Alejandro saw the defiled Host. Since he was unable to consume it, he placed it in a container of water and put it away in the tabernacle of the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament.

On Monday, August 26, upon opening the tabernacle, he saw to his amazement that the Host had turned into a bloody substance. He informed Bishop Jorge Bergoglio(Now Pope Francis, Auxillary Bishop that time), who gave instructions that the Host be professionally photographed. The photos were taken on September 6. They clearly show that the Host, which had become a fragment of bloodied flesh, had grown significantly in size. For several years the Host remained in the tabernacle, the whole affair being kept a strict secret. Since the Host suffered no visible decomposition, Cardinal Bergoglio(Who became Archbishop by that time) decided to have it scientifically analyzed.

On October 5, 1999, in the presence of the Cardinal’s representatives, Dr. Castanon took a sample of the bloody fragment and sent it to New York for analysis. Since he did not wish to prejudice the study, he purposely did not inform the team of scientists of its provenance(the source of sample was kept secret to the scientists). One of these scientists was Dr. Frederic Zugiba, the well-known cardiologist and forensic pathologist. He determined that the analyzed substance was real flesh and blood containing human DNA. Zugiba testified that, “the analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. It should be borne in mind that the left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflammatory condition and contains a large number of white blood cells. This indicates that the heart was alive at the time the sample was taken. It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism. They require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.”

Two Australians, journalist Mike Willesee and lawyer Ron Tesoriero, witnessed these tests. Knowing where sample had come from, they were dumbfounded by Dr. Zugiba’s testimony. Mike Willesee asked the scientist how long the white blood cells would have remained alive if they had come from a piece of human tissue, which had been kept in water. They would have ceased to exist in a matter of minutes, Dr. Zugiba replied. The journalist then told the doctor that the source of the sample had first been kept in ordinary water for a month and then for another three years in a container of distilled water; only then had the sample been taken for analysis. Dr. Zugiba’s was at a loss to account for this fact. There was no way of explaining it scientifically, he stated. Also, Dr. Zugibe passionately asked, “You have to explain one thing to me, if this sample came from a person who was dead, then how could it be that as I was examining it the cells of the sample were moving and beating? If this heart comes from someone who died in 1996, how can it still be alive?

Then did Mike Willesee inform Dr. Zugiba that the analyzed sample came from a consecrated Host (white, unleavened bread) that had mysteriously turned into bloody human flesh. Amazed by this information, Dr. Zugiba replied, “How and why a consecrated Host would change its character and become living human flesh and blood will remain an inexplicable mystery to science—a mystery totally beyond her competence.”

Then Doctor Ricardo Castanon Gomez arranged to have the lab reports from the Buenos Aires miracle compared to the lab reports from the Lanciano miracle, again without revealing the origin of the test samples. The experts making the comparison concluded that the two lab reports must have originated from test samples obtained from the same person. They further reported that both samples revealed an “AB” positive blood type. They are all characteristic of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East region.

Only faith in the extraordinary action of a God provides the reasonable answer—faith in a God, who wants to make us aware that He is truly present in the mystery of the Eucharist. The Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires is an extraordinary sign attested to by science. Through it Jesus desires to arouse in us a lively faith in His real presence in the Eucharist. He reminds us that His presence is real, and not symbolic. Only with the eyes of faith do we see Him under appearance of the consecrated bread and wine. We do not see Him with our bodily eyes, since He is present in His glorified humanity. In the Eucharist Jesus sees and loves us and desires to save us. (Archbishop Bergoglio became a Cardinal in 2001, this miracle was published after many researches, by that time he became a Cardinal, that's why he is addressed as cardinal in this post) Also watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APz1v8oz1ms where Dr.Castanon, Atheist turned Catholic explains this miracle!

darjeeling · 26-06-2013 09:48PM

All very sciency sounding, but is it published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Until then, any scientist would discount it as not having any scientific basis.

It is interesting that so many people want their miracles to be backed up by science these days. I think it's a tacit admission that faith is not enough any more, and that scientific validation has become the new standard of truth.

Ken bryan · 26-06-2013 09:57PM

"but rather that this particular miracle seems to most likely involve a criminal act"

I wish you read the events before posting . It might help your position .
As when read the article you will find you are Factually wrong .

Important facts
Firstly Fr. Alejandro saw the defiled Host. He placed it in a container of "water" and put it away in the tabernacle of the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament. for 3 years . Mike Willesee asked the scientist how long the white blood cells would have remained alive if they had come from a piece of human tissue, which had been kept in water. They would have ceased to exist in a matter of minutes, Dr. Zugiba replied. The journalist then told the doctor that the source of the sample had first been kept in ordinary water for a month and then for another three years in a container of distilled water; only then had the sample been taken for analysis. Dr. Zugiba’s was at a loss to account for this fact.

Dr. Frederic Zugiba, the well-known cardiologist and forensic pathologist
Could not explain It .

also
he said Zugiba testified that, “the analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. It should be borne in mind that the left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflammatory condition and contains a large number of white blood cells. This indicates that the heart was alive at the time the sample was taken. It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism. They require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.”

Ken bryan · 26-06-2013 10:04PM

I have no doubt that , Dr Zugiba would be happy to give all the information you . As to his methods he used in analysing the sample .
As this person is a highly regarded cardiologist and forensic pathologist .

Ken bryan · 26-06-2013 10:07PM

Frederick Thomas Zugibe (/ˈzʌɡɪbi/; born 1928) is an American expert in forensic medicine. He was the chief medical examiner of Rockland County, New York from 1969 to 2002.[1] Zugibe is one of the United States' most prominent forensics experts, known for his research and books on forensic medicine as well as his crucifixion and Shroud of Turin studies.

Zugibe holds a Bachelor of Science, Master of Science (Anatomy/Electron Microscopy), and a PhD (Anatomy/ Histochemistry), and an M.D. degree. He is a diplomate of the American Board of Pathology in anatomic pathology and forensic pathology, and a diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice. Zugibe is an adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and is a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists, a Fellow of the American Academy of the Forensic Sciences, Forensic Pathology Section, and a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners.[1]

He was formerly Director of Cardiovascular Research with the Veteran's Hospital in Pittsburgh, and is a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology, Fellow of the Council on Arteriosclerosis of the American Heart Association, Fellow of the New York Cardiological Society, and Member of the International Atherosclerosis Society.[1]

Zugibe spent most of his career as the chief medical examiner of Rockland County, New York, appointed on August 15, 1969, to his retirement on December 31, 2002, and continuing as Acting Medical Examiner from January 1, 2003, to March 31, 2003, until his successor, Lone Thanning, was confirmed.

Zugibe is well known for his research into crucifixion and the Shroud of Turin, which modifies the theories of Pierre Barbet regarding crucifixion, and the Catholic Church regarding the Shroud of Turin. He has made numerous television appearances on these subjects, including How Jesus Died - the Final 18 Hours (Learning Channel and History Channel), The Shroud of Turin (CBC), Jesus, the Man (Discovery Channel), Son of God (BBC), Stigmata and the Shroud (In Search Of), The Stigmata (Learning Channel), The Shroud of Turin (60 Minutes, Australia), DaVinci and the Shroud (National Geographic), The Mystery of Jesus (CNN) and The Naked Archaeologist.[1][2]

In 2003 Rockland County dedicated the Rockland County Medical Examiner's Office as the

darjeeling · 26-06-2013 10:09PM

Ken bryan wrote: »

I have no doubt that , Dr Zugiba would be happy to give all the information you . As to his methods he used in analysing the sample .
As this person is a highly regarded cardiologist and forensic pathologist .

If it is to be regarded as science and not anecdote, whoever has the data should write it up and submit it for review by the relevant experts, who will then have their say on whether or not the scientific claims are founded.

Authority doesn't cut it in science, so whether Dr Zugiba is an authority or not is not really relevant. Also, all we have heard here is someone else reporting what he claims Dr Zugiba has said, and not even what the man himself has to say.

Ken bryan · 26-06-2013 10:19PM

I think this man . Knows what Cuts it in Science .
What qualifications in science do you have .
If so please state them so that others may compare them and Judge who is the most credible . Authoritative Scientist in this area of science .

endacl · 26-06-2013 10:47PM

I really don't get miracles. I know this may come across as a bit trollish, but I can assure you its not. My natural tone is...... flippant(?) at best.

Firstly, where have all the cool CGI miracles gone? If the Red Sea could be parted for Moses, why not for us? If the Sun danced at Fatima, why won't it dance now that we have the Solar Dynamics Observatory to monitor it? It seems to me that the better we get at verifying stuff, the more unverifiably just-take-my-word-for-it they become.

Secondly, where have all the useful miracles gone? Surely making just one blind child see, or one lame man walk, would be a more productive use of divine resources than turning a little bit of bread into a little bit of meat? Do we not get the useful miracles now that we have medical science? Or are we being told that we should all be on the Atkins diet? If so, why not tell the Pope or somebody who could pass the word on?

Thirdly, y'all believers don't need them. It's we godless heathens who do. Frankly, speaking as a common-or-garden godless heathen, I remain entirely unconvinced. What's the point of miracles? To impress the already faithful? Or to demonstrate divine power so as to win over the infidel? Wasn't that what they were used for in Bible stories? Old Testament: 'These are my people. Don't fcuk with them!'. New Testament: 'He's my dad. Come follow me'.

Soooooo..... If it was a miracle, and to me it clearly wasn't, why such a flimsy and unimpressive one? Question for those that believe it. Why do you? What's the point of it? If you believe there is a god, what do you need miracles for? Seriously?

darjeeling · 26-06-2013 10:48PM

Ken bryan wrote: »

I think this man . Knows what Cuts it in Science .
What qualifications in science do you have .
If so please state them so that others may compare them and Judge who is the most credible . Authoritative Scientist in this area of science .

If these people know what cuts it - and they should - then they know that it is peer-reviewed publication. That this is not a peer-reviewed study is the reason it is kicking around on Youtube and not headline news in the world media.

Anecdote is fine and all very interesting, but it is not science.

Ken bryan · 27-06-2013 06:53PM

Based on this Paragraph .
It was peer reviewed .

The "experts" making the comparison concluded that the two lab reports must have originated from test samples obtained from the same person. They further reported that both samples revealed an “AB” positive blood type. They are all characteristic of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East region

Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires

Comments