Another Eucharistic miracle.

[chevyontheriver]

I was just being mischievous - using Darwin's words against him!

I can appreciate that.

 

[dqhall]

Why don't don't they send communion wine to the blood bank? I think the last supper was blessed because Jesus was speaking there. His speech and actions brought life. Many who have food and beverage enough will perish.

John 6:63 (WEB) Jesus said: "It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Kind of the opposite of that. The physical perception is (in all but the rare case) the same but we admit that it stops being actual bread and wine. Instead we know it is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, that is Christ with us.

Well, if I stopped being an actual person I would definitely not actually be a person. I might be a cadaver, but I would not be a person. It would be verifiable that I actually had ceased to be a person.

So if someone asserts that the cyanide that they just mixed into my drink had now ceased to actually be cyanide I would probably suggest that they drink if for me. If they immediately died as a result I would know that the cyanide had actually remained cyanide. However, if they smacked their lips and had a good night's sleep and woke up in perfect health in the morning I would believe their statement.

Now, shen someone comes to me and tells me in utter sincerity that a piece of bread ceases to be a piece of bread and really and truly becomes an actual piece of human flesh but only when a certain individual performs a prescribed ritual over it that piques my curiosity. However, when the selfsame individual, when questioned, informs me that the piece of bread really and truly retains all of the physical aspects of a piece of bread after the religious ritual, then I find him to be contractory. If, in the present instance, that individual adamantly insists that it really and truly is human flesh, but actually and truly is physical bread, I give him up as either highly deranged or intensely devious.

Add to that, if the same individual comes and declares a miracle when a piece of bread really and truly becomes a piece of human flesh following the same religious ritual, I shrug my shoulders and say, "So what? You told me this happens each and every time that the religious ritual is performed."

So, either it does happen consistently according to the divine formula or it does not. If it does, then God is consistent in keeping His word. If it does not, then He is, at best, unreliably inconsistent.

 

[Mountainmike]

But then, perhaps the miracles revealing the true nature are aimed at the sceptical, a sceptical world that seemingly trusts what scientists tell them, not the believers like me!

So now forensic science is saying it!

I urge you to study the forensic reports, that is all.
Make up your own mind.

If you take for example tixtla, castarnons book not only contains the history dogma and conclusions, but also a large number of appendices, the originals of the forensic reports, and discusses the institutions, that created them. National ( criminal) forensic labs in some cases.

Sadly the reports are not in one place and not even in English - the above is Spanish.

Thanks. I seem to have missed your "Yes" to the question.

Given the fact that you do believe this, then why all the fuss about one out of millions of masses where the bread was transformed into physical flesh and the wine was transformed into physical blood? It happens all the time in the Catholic Church, according to the dogma you profess to believe. Thus, one can go to any Catholic mass and receive the same flesh and blood that was given at the "miraculous" mass in Argentina.

 

[kepha31]

Scientists don't declare miracles. Studies are done by top histologists or various related experts. Then they report to the bishop that no scientific explanation can be found for the occurrence. Then the Church decides whether or not to declare a miracle.
This is a nutshell of a complex procedure.
Mary on a taco is not a miracle.
More details on scientific evidence for miracles is here, but it is about Lourdes and not the Eucharist. Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracle acceptance.

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree with you, and indeed, as a scientist I am appalled how little is taught if the philosophy of science and how little it can actually tell you!

But whilst the world listens to this false God, perhaps our Lord is putting a few words into the mouth of science,


I am well aware of the evidential issues in scientific investigation of miracles, I have a substantial library.
I also chase down original sources, I am one a
Of the few that actually have a copy of Quad Sclat on Lanciano.

But the worlds response is to forget.
There are many inexplicable phenomena, that stand scrutiny, , far more than ever make the secular press.

Scientists don't declare miracles. Studies are done by top histologists or various related experts. Then they report to the bishop that no scientific explanation can be found for the occurrence. Then the Church decides whether or not to declare a miracle.
This is a nutshell of a complex procedure.
Mary on a taco is not a miracle.
More details on scientific evidence for miracles is here, but it is about Lourdes and not the Eucharist. Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracle acceptance.