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.”
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.