Evidence for God from Science

Some miracles are found only in the catholic church, such as the Lanciano miracle of the transformation of the bread into flesh and the wine into blood. These miracles had been studied by scientists and the conclusions are just amazing: it is real blood and real flesh, they are from the same person, they are from the gruop AB+, they are still alive(the cells are alive, move, they are not mummified...) So, how can some guys say Jesus is not in the eucharist? If someone says so, please tell me how con it be. If some one needs information about Lanciano, just google: eucharistic miracle at lanciano, and you will get it.

I will appreciate feed back. God bless you: John

From what i remember i've read some where that the blood type on the Shroud of Turin is claimed to be AB.

I would appreciate a link to testable, observable and repeatable proof of transubstantiation.

it would certainly verify a couple of things.

jlay wrote:I would appreciate a link to testable, observable and repeatable proof of transubstantiation.

it would certainly verify a couple of things.

There is no such thing. The bread and wine remain under the accident of bread and wine.

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:I would appreciate a link to testable, observable and repeatable proof of transubstantiation.

it would certainly verify a couple of things.

There is no such thing. The bread and wine remain under the accident of bread and wine.

Can you explain to me what you mean by 'under the accident of bread and wine' ?

by j9j9j9j9 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:13 pm

Some miracles are found only in the catholic church, such as the Lanciano miracle of the transformation of the bread into flesh and the wine into blood. These miracles had been studied by scientists and the conclusions are just amazing: it is real blood and real flesh, they are from the same person, they are from the gruop AB+, they are still alive(the cells are alive, move, they are not mummified...) So, how can some guys say Jesus is not in the eucharist? If someone says so, please tell me how con it be. If some one needs information about Lanciano, just google: eucharistic miracle at lanciano, and you will get it.

i have seen miracles and i agree they happen all the time, doesn't matter if the world believes other wise. but for the "Lanciano miracle of the transformation of the bread into flesh and the wine into blood" i think its more of a "respected belief" unquestioned. i know that these were studied. but even so nobody ever questioned or observed or saw the actual transformation. it was done on the premise (on the priest's testimony) that what was being examined was once bread and wine. this in itself lacks any standard of science and hence not debate-able on facts as it proves nothing.

So, how can some guys say Jesus is not in the eucharist?

Well, technically, Jesus doesn't have to be literally in the Eucharist, it was done in his remembrance and signified the cross on which he was about to offer his body and blood. to me if the bread and wine remains bread and wine and not trans-substantiate, i don't see how it hampers my faith or strengthen someone else's. it doesn't make any difference at all.

Sudsy wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:I would appreciate a link to testable, observable and repeatable proof of transubstantiation.

it would certainly verify a couple of things.

There is no such thing. The bread and wine remain under the accident of bread and wine.

Can you explain to me what you mean by 'under the accident of bread and wine' ?

I know it's a long read but the following link answers your question much better than I ever could. Look particularly at article 5.

Thanks Byblos but can I ask a question in layman's terms as some ofthis is over my head ?

When the bread and wine change to flesh and blood, can we not do an immediate stomach pump and prove they do ? I'm looking for some proof of this change that I can get my head around.

Sudsy wrote:Thanks Byblos but can I ask a question in layman's terms as some ofthis is over my head ?

When the bread and wine change to flesh and blood, can we not do an immediate stomach pump and prove they do ? I'm looking for some proof of this change that I can get my head around.

In laymen's terms the bread and wine remain as bread and wine. There is a difference (in philosophical terms) between a thing's substance (its essence if you wish) and its accident (what it appears as). The bread and wine remain under the accident of bread and wine while their substance is miraculously transsubstantiated. This is all described in greater detail in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica to which I referenced above.

I guess this is where we interpret things in different ways. Jesus also said that He is 'the door'. Some things may not be correct to take in a literal sense. The 'miracle' spoken of in this post raises many questions and one is why this is not a repeatable occurrence.

In the opening post the question was asked 'So, how can some guys say Jesus is not in the eucharist? ' Simply because the proof is not there in this miracle that this is Jesus' flesh and blood. One must also consider that miracles, unexplainable supernatural phenomena, does occur within all kinds of religions and even satan worship. Matthew 7:22 says that 'many' will fall into the category of not having saving faith even though they were involved with miracles. So, how can we rule out that any miracle might be something satan uses to deceive us ?

I do believe remembering what the Lord has done at communion is important and one area we don't look into close enough, IMO, is the verse 'That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.' 1 Cor. 11:30. They had various activities that showed irreverence and lack of respect for others going on in the Corinthian church which is not regarding the body of Christ properly. How might we be doing this same type of thing today ?

Anyway, I guess we do have our differences and emphasis.

Sudsy wrote:I guess this is where we interpret things in different ways. Jesus also said that He is 'the door'. Some things may not be correct to take in a literal sense. The 'miracle' spoken of in this post raises many questions and one is why this is not a repeatable occurrence.

In the opening post the question was asked 'So, how can some guys say Jesus is not in the eucharist? ' Simply because the proof is not there in this miracle that this is Jesus' flesh and blood. One must also consider that miracles, unexplainable supernatural phenomena, does occur within all kinds of religions and even satan worship. Matthew 7:22 says that 'many' will fall into the category of not having saving faith even though they were involved with miracles. So, how can we rule out that any miracle might be something satan uses to deceive us ?

I do believe remembering what the Lord has done at communion is important and one area we don't look into close enough, IMO, is the verse 'That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.' 1 Cor. 11:30. They had various activities that showed irreverence and lack of respect for others going on in the Corinthian church which is not regarding the body of Christ properly. How might we be doing this same type of thing today ?

Anyway, I guess we do have our differences and emphasis.

There's no question we have our differences but you'd be surprised on how much we actually do agree. As you, I would be very skeptical of any claimed miracle and do not take them at face value. Where we differ is where every argument of this nature
eventually boils down to and that is one of authority. Since I hold to the opinion that the Catholic Church has final interpretive authority, I also hold that the Church is able to discern real miracles from demonic ones. So those that have been pronounced by the Church as miracles I (personally) have not the slightest doubt as to their origin. Please note that I offer this as a mere explanation of my position and in no way to either debate the point or to derail the thread.

PS I agree with you that even if this miracle was verified and pronounced as such by the Church, it still would NOT constitute proof of transsubstantiation.

Since I hold to the opinion that the Catholic Church has final interpretive authority, I also hold that the Church is able to discern real miracles from demonic ones. So those that have been pronounced by the Church as miracles I (personally) have not the slightest doubt as to their origin.

So, I'm curious, do you have any interpretations that run contrary to those of the RC Church ? For myself, I don't have any one Christian faith group/denomination/whatever that reflects all of my beliefs. I am probably Anabaptist leaning more than anything but not in everything. It fascinates me when anyone upholds all the interpretations of their faith group amd I know RCs are not alone in this.

Sudsy wrote:

Since I hold to the opinion that the Catholic Church has final interpretive authority, I also hold that the Church is able to discern real miracles from demonic ones. So those that have been pronounced by the Church as miracles I (personally) have not the slightest doubt as to their origin.

So, I'm curious, do you have any interpretations that run contrary to those of the RC Church ? For myself, I don't have any one Christian faith group/denomination/whatever that reflects all of my beliefs. I am probably Anabaptist leaning more than anything but not in everything. It fascinates me when anyone upholds all the interpretations of their faith group amd I know RCs are not alone in this.

Of course. And upon closer examination it is usually the case that I am convinced of the Church's position. If I am not convinced (hasn't happened yet) I will still defer to the wisdom of the Church as it (not I) was proclaimed to be the pillar of truth.

I see. Interesting how we use the term 'Church'. I thought the pillar of truth was Christ. O well, thats probably another topic.