to those who don't believe in the Eucharist

could you please watch this video, and if you want, then post and say what you think about it ? :slight_smile: it’s about a doctor in Argentina who found scientific evidence for the Eucharist, and he talks about Eucharistic miracles and such… he examined a Host that started bleeding.

youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

it’s very interesting to watch for Catholics as well :thumbsup: I think it’s awesome!

God bless!

It doesn’t pass the smell test. Just a short while ago, there was another thread on this youtube offering…you might want to check it out to see the comments of others. I didn’t participate.

It seems that, by referring to scientific testing, the speaker is trying to present what he has as scientific evidence…but what he supplies does not qualify as proper scientific evidence (perhaps he does better in the book). For example: He should produce the actual test results. The scientists involved should certify their findings. Continuity of the sample must be established from the church all the way along the line to the laboratory. An independent lab should have verified results…(the Dr he went to I think has a repuation of studying the shroud of Turin).

The speech raises a number of practical questions such as, “How does the Dr know that the sample is from the left ventricle as opposed to the right? What findings led to this declaration?” and “What about the sample indicated that the person (that it was taken from) was tortured? Again, what findings led to this declaration?” and “If the sample was beating, why didn’t the Dr. immediately report such an usual thing and why didn’t he try to extend his investigation to an attempt to determine how that was possible?”

It also raises some doctrinal problems and questions. For example: I understand those that hold to a RP assert that Christ’s body is fully present in each and every bit and so a bit of the host would not be a bit of his body (ie a bit of the left ventricle), but should still be the whole of his body. So if I am to accept this fellow’s report as evidence of a RP, shouldn’t I then also accept it as evidence that Catholic doctrine is wrong and each bit is actually just a bit of the body?

Finally, if I allowed myself to accept this as evidence of the validity of Catholic claims wrt the Eucharist, then to be consistent I would have to accept various other claims to the miraculous as establishing the validity of the doctrinal claims of those claimants…and many of them deny a RP. In short, what is offered is not proper evidence and it needs to be. Also, it is not qualitatively better than what the charismatics offer to validate what they do. I wish that some Christian group would finally produce proper scientific evidence of a miracle of the same quality as those preformed by Christ…show me the family pictures of the little boy with the whithered legs (from cradle to college)and then show me the pictures of that same man after his legs are made whole (all pictures to have been attested by numerous witnesses of varied beliefs who knew the boy throughout his whole life). Is this too much to ask?

Scence has no competence in such matters - the accidents are no clue to the state of the substance: so it’s a waste of time expecting scientists to find proof of what is not perceptible to the senses.

(I haven’t watched - there is no need to, when the point of watching is to confirm a meaningless idea such as having scientific evidence of a reality that is not within the competence of science to examine.)

The questions you raise about the testing are good questions.

The video reported that the lab results indicated the sample was from the myocard in the left ventricle. Cardiac muscle tissue is a unique type of muscle tissue in that it can form in two different structured ways, and it contains additional things other muscle tissue (such as skeletal) do not have. The layering of the muscle tissue and the quantity of these additional structures are pointers to where in the heart the tissue is from. Identifying to a specific ventricle is not that difficult with a good sample.

The lecture didn’t address the specifics of the evidence used to determine the heart was from a person “very wounded,” only that the person reporting those findings is some sort of expert in the effects to the heart of pathological symptoms. Obviously it had to be something particular about the damage to the muscle in the sample, but exactly what isn’t specified.

Consider also the purpose of the lecture; it seems like it was a presentation for informational purposes, not some sort of scientific presentation, thus it is difficult to weigh the science when the data is just a summary of it.

It also raises some doctrinal problems and questions. For example: I understand those that hold to a RP assert that Christ’s body is fully present in each and every bit and so a bit of the host would not be a bit of his body (ie a bit of the left ventricle), but should still be the whole of his body. So if I am to accept this fellow’s report as evidence of a RP, shouldn’t I then also accept it as evidence that Catholic doctrine is wrong and each bit is actually just a bit of the body?

The doctrine of the Real Presence defines Christ’s body and Soul and Divinity as being fully present. That, in concert with other dogmas, compel a conclusion that His presence is fully in each and every particle of both species. But you seem to be overlooking the basic idea of transubstantiation. When the species are consecrated, that presence of Christ happens without any change to the accidents, meaning (in the case of the host) it still has the physical appearance and characteristics of the wheat bread it was a minute before. There isn’t supposed to be any heart muscle there at all physically. I don’t think you can necessarily demand a sort of reverse-transubstantiation, where because Christ is fully present in the species, that should one of them miraculously change to a physical human substance, it must then be ALL of the human or it isn’t valid. Both go way beyond the established doctrines.

One particular peculiarity about this is that it is not the first time it has happened, as the video points out. I’m not exactly sure how any one of them relates to the other, but there is a certain compulsion when something physically impossible seems to happen many times, each time centered around the Eucharist. It is compelling that it just so happens to turn into what we believe is really present in it, as opposed to turning into an acorn or a rosary bead.

Scence has no competence in such matters - the accidents are no clue to the state of the substance: so it’s a waste of time expecting scientists to find proof of what is not perceptible to the senses.

Are you saying that science cannot distinguish between a substance that is supposed to be (physically) bread and has become heart tissue? Certainly they can do that, being that it is within their competence. What makes you think science is being asked to conclude anything beyond the lab analysis on several substances they were asked to conduct? :confused:

It is indeed awesome. From time to time, miracle of the Eucharist does happen because God loves us so much - it is indeed gifts for the faithfuls especially those who take Eucharist as devotion. It is God’s mercy for those in doubt so that by the miracle their faith in the real presence may be strengthened.

For some of us we do not need the miracle but should it occurs we will always be thankful to God for affirmimg our belief and our faith that Jesus, Emmanuel, God with us, in truly with us.

Praise the Lord.

thanks for the explanation…and this is exactly the sort of thing that is lacking. A claim of such precision is always well received by “the choir” and is used to present the entire claim as possessing the support of precise scientific verification. A sort of “this has gotta be legitimate, b/c (after all) the investigation was sophisticated and precise enough to place the sample at a tiny corner of the heart” reaction is achieved. W/o a hard copy of the lab results, however, what we have is nothing but “hearsay” evidence…which isn’t good evidence in this sort of case. A slide of the sample should have been shown with pointers to the “additional things” which would substantiate the claim involved.

The lecture didn’t address the specifics of the evidence used to determine the heart was from a person “very wounded,” only that the person reporting those findings is some sort of expert in the effects to the heart of pathological symptoms. Obviously it had to be something particular about the damage to the muscle in the sample, but exactly what isn’t specified.

again, this is an unsubstantiated claim (likely) made to obtain the “this has gotta be legitimate” reaction…and those inclined to accept this should wonder…why is it that this portion of Christ’s body hasn’t recovered…or is it that cells have “scars” just like Jesus’s hands? What would those “scars” be?

Consider also the purpose of the lecture; it seems like it was a presentation for informational purposes, not some sort of scientific presentation, thus it is difficult to weigh the science when the data is just a summary of it.

I think more was intended than just “informational purposes” and I am quite certain that those directing people to the YouTube link are often doing so b/c they think it serves as proof/validation of a RP and the CC’s view. As it stands, it is on the level of an anecdote.

The doctrine of the Real Presence defines Christ’s body and Soul and Divinity as being fully present. That, in concert with other dogmas, compel a conclusion that His presence is fully in each and every particle of both species. But you seem to be overlooking the basic idea of transubstantiation. When the species are consecrated, that presence of Christ happens without any change to the accidents, meaning (in the case of the host) it still has the physical appearance and characteristics of the wheat bread it was a minute before.

exactly…so this isn’t transubstantiation at all (and therefore, shouldn’t be viewed as a verification of it)…it is (the claimed) change of a bit of a wafer to a bit of a body (accidents and all). What the CC claims (wrt transubstantiation) is that the whole substance of the wafer is changed to the whole substance of the body (accidents remaining unchanged). Two entirely different changes. For a symbolist, the bread becomes the symbol of Christ’s body…a third sort of change. God (if he worked this miracle as claimed by the video) could work the same miracle on the bread of a symbolist and it wouldn’t mean that the view of the symbolist is wrong, b/c different changes are involved. What would be needed for a verification of transubstantiation is for God to give us another sense that can detect substance and then for us to observe the transformation.

There isn’t supposed to be any heart muscle there at all physically. I don’t think you can necessarily demand a sort of reverse-transubstantiation, where because Christ is fully present in the species, that should one of them miraculously change to a physical human substance, it must then be ALL of the human or it isn’t valid. Both go way beyond the established doctrines.

I think we agree…this isn’t transubstantiation and one shouldn’t claim that it validates that doctrine.

One particular peculiarity about this is that it is not the first time it has happened, as the video points out.

See now, this is the problem…if the speaker is only presenting something for information purposes, why are you using a phrase such as “not the first time it has happened”? Given what has been provided it is far from established that it has happened in this case.

I’m not exactly sure how any one of them relates to the other, but there is a certain compulsion when something physically impossible seems to happen many times, each time centered around the Eucharist.

For us who are very skeptical, I would point out that there is no good evidence offered that it has happened at any time…let alone many times.

It is compelling that it just so happens to turn into what we believe is really present in it, as opposed to turning into an acorn or a rosary bead.

three things…first it doesn’t actually turn into what you believe is really present. Rather it is claimed that it turns into a odd little bit of what you believe is really present. Second, if it did turn into a bit of Christ’s body, shouldn’t the faithful object to the very flesh of Christ being shipped, handled and subjected to testing? Third, it seems that these sort of claims of the miraculous are always associated with with what the devout focus their attention upon and a beating bit of heart is exactly what would be the most desirable thing to advertise (as opposed to a bit of the big toe with a nail still growing).

According to the teaching of the Church, the SUBSTANCE of the Body and Blood of Christ exists under and simultaneously with the ACCIDENTS of bread and wine.

That means that if the accidents no longer exist, then it’s no longer the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ. This is why a dissolved host can be poured into the scararium, or a stained purificator need not be eaten or burned, but only washed.

If it doesn’t resemble bread and wine, therefore it’s not the Body or Blood of Christ.

Period.

W/o a hard copy of the lab results, however, what we have is nothing but “hearsay” evidence…which isn’t good evidence in this sort of case. A slide of the sample should have been shown with pointers to the “additional things” which would substantiate the claim involved.

I am not saying the lecture “proves” anything. All I am saying is that I believe it was simply a lecture, a talk, and it presented a summary of different findings. I don’t believe the purpose of that talk was to substantiate the findings, only tell of them. This is no different that when a high-profile legal case is concluded and someone steps from the courthouse and says, “He’s innoncent!” (of guilty, as the case may be). Assessing whether or not the jury followed the correct legal procedures or correctly evaluated the evidence presented to it is not the purpose of the announcement; that would be a separate matter. Likewise with this video, it is giving you the summary rather than the lab results for you to agree/disagree with.

As it stands, it is on the level of an anecdote.

Yes, exactly what I am saying. I think that if you wished to validate it, you would have to contact the Dr. and inquire of the results yourself.

I think we agree…this isn’t transubstantiation and one shouldn’t claim that it validates that doctrine.

The changing of a consecrated host into human tissue when, in ordinary circumstances, it would be expected to dissolve, is something remarkable. My comments re: transubstantiation was only to point out that because this particular host only turned into part of a human body does not make the remarkableness of it invalid just because it didn’t turn into a whole human body. The only thing about it where transubstantiation really applies is the original host. Once that changed into something else it is beyond any established doctrine of presence or transubstantiation. There is no doctrine of the Holy Ventricle.

What would be needed for a verification of transubstantiation is for God to give us another sense that can detect substance and then for us to observe the transformation.

This is akin to saying if God wants me to believe in Him, I will just as soon as He appears right in front of me. There is a reason they call it “faith.” :wink:

See now, this is the problem…if the speaker is only presenting something for information purposes, why are you using a phrase such as “not the first time it has happened”? Given what has been provided it is far from established that it has happened in this case.

If you note in the video, the investigation of which this Dr. speaks involves TWO cases, not just one, although he only described one of them. The video also includes pictures of other similar instances, one of them from the 8th century in Italy that is on public display. So I’m not sure why you find the statement “not the first time…” so appalling.

For us who are very skeptical, I would point out that there is no good evidence offered that it has happened at any time…let alone many times.

This is precisely what I say to evolutionists or to astrophysicist types who claim that stars are forming in nebulae. We’ve never seen life spontaneously generate, we’ve never seen a cat give birth to anything other than a cat, and we’ve never observed a single star form anywhere. So why should I believe in those paragon beliefs of science only to turn around and reject this claim which rests on better evidence? We actually have these changed hosts in hand as opposed to theoretical extrapolation only. If what the Dr. says is true, and I have no good reason to doubt him, there also exists lab results and sample records confirming his claims.

…first it doesn’t actually turn into what you believe is really present.

Catholics like myself take it as a matter of faith that it does in fact do that, only that the form of the accidents remains intact.

Second, if it did turn into a bit of Christ’s body, shouldn’t the faithful object to the very flesh of Christ being shipped, handled and subjected to testing?

In a way, we do. You don’t see consecrated hosts being shipped to laboratories every day, do you? Only when a host, using the ordinary and proper means of disposal fails to dissolve and appears to turn into something else, a very rare and extraordinary event, do these substances - with proper approval - go anywhere for testing. You might note that the Bishop called the Dr. in on this case.

Third, it seems that these sort of claims of the miraculous are always associated with with what the devout focus their attention upon and a beating bit of heart is exactly what would be the most desirable thing to advertise (as opposed to a bit of the big toe with a nail still growing).

Agreed, but that does not, in and of itself, have an automatic negating effect on what exists. If anything, the similarity of these events happening more than once suggests a purposeful reason as opposed to a random, disconnected series of events.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.