Talk:Eucharistic miracle

NPOV Dispute
This article has some grammatical and typographical errors. It is definitely not a Catholic Propaganda. Based on the facts and information presented, this article is incomplete and needs further sources. Scientific facts seemed to be accurate but need some more details.

-- This page appears to be Catholic Propaganda. The 'Eucharistic Miracle' is written about as fact. I would suggest that some controversy should be added to the article.

-- Sorry to tell you, but I do not agree with you that this is a Catholic Propaganda. I believe that the facts that have been reported here are correct, as I have already searched and checked with other sites online, which totally agree to the "Eucharistic Miracle" content. Thank you.

--

Sorry but I recently saw a NG documentary on this, the miracle is a FAKE. I'll try to look it up somewhere else, and bring back some real proof

--

This article has the makings of a great article, if only it was toned down from an assertion to a history of the claims. PhatJew 10:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The section about the Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano is historically accurate and has definitely been verified. It IS fact.

---

Nothing in science is ever 'verified.' Gravity, despite all the evidence around it, is known still as the "Theory of Gravity." There may a preponderance of evidence supporting it, but in scientific language, we maintain a lexicon of precise wording that differentiates between law and theory. Similarly, there may be a preponderance of evidence supporting the miraculous nature of the phenomena described in the article, but since the language of science is used to describe the 'veracity' of the claims, we must use such words as 'evidence,' 'support,' 'suggest,' etc., not 'fact,' 'definitive,' or 'proof.' That a host bleeds does not logically suggest Transubstantiation. It may suggest that the material examined may have been flesh, but we cannot explain how this happened. The crux of the issue is the 'how,' not so much the 'what.' It may have been a simple switch of material at an opportune moment. It may have been bona-fide Divine Intervention. We just do not know, so to use such definitive language in this otherwise well-written article is inappropriate and borders on irresponsible.

Know that I say this a both a scientist and a believer.

---

This article is accurate. It is not biased. If you feel that the information in this article is not accurate then feel free to provide substantial evidence that it is not. - Perhapse some of these refrences can help the discussion.

http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/tableofcontents.html http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/photorecognition.html http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/voiceofscience2.html

There are hosted at an academic institution in itially. They page contians significant amounts os sientific data.

--chistofishman 18:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

--

I would like to see some examples of evidence against the miracle. Surely there are more than the single investigation you describe here? What is the official stance of the catholic church on this miracle? Are there any scientists that speak out against the claims of the investigation you cite, or any other, and why? It seems to me, upon reading this article, that you describe only one side of the story, and not only this, that this side of the story is irrefutable... The description you give here, due its biased nature, only serves to cast doubt on the validity of the miracle.

--A concerned Roman Catholic 13:36, 31 July 2006 (GMT)

--

"Unquestionable scientific precision?" That section, by the way, was lifted word-for-word from one of the sites mentioned under "plagarism. --

Catholic here. I must say however, that this article is very lacking in both sources and a neutral (skeptical) examination. I have searched for a National Geographic piece on Lanciano and so far haven't found any. Regardless, I'm sure there is some information out there that could be presented as evidence against the actuality of a miraculous Eucharistic phenomena. I do however, find it hard to believe that Lanciano could be proven correct or incorrect, as it was 1300 years ago, and we have no witnesses to it, only Church history. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church would not compell any believers to accept Lanciano or any other miracle not associated with Jesus' earthly sojourn, including Fatima, Lourdes or Kiehbo. I would suggest better citations for the information that exists on this page and a better inspection of skeptical arguments against the phenomena including that of people whose credibility is questionable. Try a site called madredelaeucharista.com. I think that's what it is called. Looking at this, you have trouble not being a doubter. However, try for Fr. Lawrence Sweeney of Ogden, Utah. Just google it. That's a modern occurance, real or unreal that occured in 1992. Good luck.

FOR ONE: EVERYONE NEEDS TO SIGN their posts. Just place four consecutive tildas at the end of the post. (~). Second, I am a devout Catholic who personally belives this miracle, but the article is not in an acceptable standard for Wikipedia. No scientific experiments are done with absolute and unquestionable certainty. Even the highly contested and highly repeated Miller-Urey experiment, is now coming under scruitiny.

Second, I thought the Catholic Church wouldn't define any pilgrimage sites as dogmatic, but the author seems to think the church takes that position. Pilgrimage "worthiness" is matter left to the faithful, but the church may issue a statement if the miracle is "credible" or "worthy of belief". See Shroud of Turin or Our Lady of Fatima. Trevor 14:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When reading the Summary it became painfully obvious, that the professors only confirmed that what they had investigated was actually flesh and blood. How was it confirmed that this wasn't put into the glass thingy directly before the research ? Which is probably the oldest trick in the book, just ask any stage magician.195.124.114.36 10:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seemed that there is not much article regarding the Eucharistic Miracle of Julia Kim. Here is some source http://www.apparitions.org/Naju.ch.html. 210.187.3.170 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a few things that were clear NPOV problems, but what we really need is some information from more skeptical sources. All sources I've been able to find for any of this stuff are very clearly pro-Catholic. 208.107.215.8 07:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

--

The brief definition of transubstantiation made reference to physical change, which is not a point in Catholic doctrine. I nuanced that point with my own synthesis of material from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Thomas Aquinas. I also added Thomas' note regarding such miracles, in which he denies that the appearance of flesh and blood that often accompany such miracles are just that -- appearances -- and do not make Christ physically present. 76.23.69.69 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)  Fr. Cody Unterseher, B.A., M.A., S.T.M., Ph.D. Cand. (Notre Dame, IN)


 * OK, can you provide your sources also? That will help prevent your contributions from getting removed. And also, original synthesis is not accepted on Wikipedia, please see: WP:ORIGINAL SYN --Aronoel (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I undertook to find and insert sources as requested; however, both points are in fact common knowledge. I have more profitable things to do with my "original research," thank you very much. 76.23.69.69 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) +CU

who cares its not real and if sombody could prove that to me id be alot more happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.25 (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of "alleged" in definition
The text currently says "A Eucharistic miracle is an alleged miracle ...". This is inaccurate. The text should read "A Eucharistic miracle is a miracle ...". The reason is that in order for something to be a miracle (Eucharistic or otherwise) it has to actually happen not just be alleged. As the text currently reads it implies that the act of alleging a Eucharistic miracle makes it into a Eucharistic miracle.

I realize it is a subtle point so a parallel example would be "A murder is an alleged killing ..." which is clearly wrong. An "alleged murder" is an "alleged killing" but a "murder" is just a "killing". In the same way an "alleged Eucharistic miracle is an alleged miracle" but a "Eucharistic miracle" is a "miracle".

I will go ahead and make the appropriate edit, if you dispute that it can be further worked out here. Mdmkolbe (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation
There does seem to be a problem with material taken word-for-word from http://www.tldm.org/misc/HolyHour.htm. What is the procedure for dealing with this? -- Cat Whisperer 19:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of this same content, with large sections copied verbatim, seems to exist on a large number of web pages, so it's hard to tell where it came from originally. 208.107.215.8 07:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The miracle of Lanciano
In the main article, we find, among others, the following affirmation (supposedly based on the results of the exams performed in "1970-71, by Professor Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena", who "conducted a scientific investigation into the miracle", and whose "report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1971, and reaffirmed by a scientific commission appointed by the Higher Council of the World Health Organization in 1973"):


 * The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart, which would be impossible to obtain through dissection.

As I am not familiar with "Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy", I would like some expert to clarify why it "would be impossible to obtain through dissection" the "muscular tissue of the heart" into which apparently the Host was miraculously transformed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miguel de Servet (talk • contribs) 14:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC). - Hi, I may offer you a few answers ;-) You are right on your doubts, Miguel and Jamesblythe. In fact, the exact words of prof. Linoli (http://www.lanciano.it/?p=146) may be translated: "little acceptable would be the 'fake' hypothesis, given that only an expert hand could have done it, and not without serious difficulties". Is this enough to 'prove' a miracle! Basically, this article on Lanciano seems to be somewhat POV and not well scrutinized: 1) the episode is not chronicle but legend 2) the studies are really one (in 2 parts), Linoli's, where the ONU/WHO study is a urban legend: -a) the photo shown doesn't look anywhere 'official', the italian language is incorrect and conclusions vague for an Onu scientific study -b) the 1982's article from 'Osservatore Romano' (Holy See newspaper) doesn't cite it -c) two official webistes in Italy (http://www.miracoloeucaristico.com/ and http://www.lanciano.it/) do not cite it (but talk extensively of Linoli's) -d) in the web I can't find any source cited for the study, let alone the study itself -e) when asked directly by a friend of mine, a woman in charge at Onu's did not know anything about that. 3) uppercased words 4) an Eucharistic Miracle happens when during consecration during the Catholic Mass, the bread and wine physically become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (as correctly stated above). Of course this has not been and cannot be tested today. 5) results of Linoli's study are a sort of surprised observation of a rather good conservation of the relic, he didn't certify it was 'supernatural'. I guess this means that the article is not complete nor precise. Also this answers the requests made correctly for a skeptic opinion, I think. By the way, it is never up to skeptics to bring 'evidence against the miracle', but the other way around, of course. ;-) I think it is necessary to review the article, but even faster to take the Onu's study photo offline, for the sake of Wikipedia and its readers. Unless of course proof of it can be shown! Ciao, Sepa - Hi! For the reasons stated above, the presumed 'Onu/Who study' doesn't seem a qualified source for a WP article standards. I thought correct to cancel the photo. Before any rollback, stronger evidence should be provided, than a plastified, home-made like, print on a wall. I think we can agree there. Bye! Sepa

The miracle of Lanciano (II)
Despite believing this miracle to be one of the most remarkable, I would like to see a sceptical response. The article seems to suggest that none exists: this seems unlikely. Also, is there evidence the flesh could not be obtained by dissection? Jamesblythe 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we really use 'Zenit' and 'The Real Presence' as sources for factual information, given the websites' religious bias? Zenit alone states in they "are convinced of the extraordinary richness of the Catholic Church's message".

What's particularly dodgy is that it claims that the blood type is shared with that of the blood on the Shroud of Turin as the Shroud itself has been dated at roughly 1300 CE. Antisora 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the radiocarbon dating indicated the Shroud is much younger than 2000 years. However, there are alternative explanations.  One is that a large percentage of the mass of the shroud consists of living bacteria.  Another is that it was washed in oil at some point.  In any case, that has no bearing on the authenticity of the miracle of Lanciano.  Vegasprof (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Eucharistic Miracles In Other Church Traditions
Hi everyone. I think there should be a section on Eucharistic miracles in other Church traditions if any have ever been reported. --PaladinWriter (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Look up the Hindu Milk Miracle gantech

I'm removing the tag because there are no factual errors here. Be specific, what in thsi article is wrong and can you prove it?

paper by Sammaciccia
Hi all,

There's a detailed paper on the miracle by Bruno Sammaciccia, called "il miracolo eucaristico di Lanciano" published in 1977. A french version is available online ( http://www.christ-roi.net/index.php/Le_miracle_eucharistique_de_Lanciano_(Bruno_Sammaciccia) ), and I've added this reference to the bibliography. Perhaps a physician or biologist should look at this. For my part, I find the evidence convincing enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardaiinalto (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Very important : Buenos Aires 1996
Look at the French or the Polish articles : there has been something very interesting in Buenos Aires. There is a video in Spanish with text in English ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs --Plijno (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only that: There happened another one in Poland in 2008, see here or here! This really should be added!--Der Spion (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eucharistic miracle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=70440
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102131821/http://www.zenit.org/article-12933?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-12933?l=english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Legnitz / Legnica?
Isn't it time someone added Legnitz? See for example here (and all over some bits of the internet):

https://thecatholictravelguide.com/destinations/poland/legnica-poland-eucharistic-miracle-st-jack-church-st-hyacinth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.236.40.77 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

--

In the end, there are many more we could add. Ukrainian page has some 92 examples in a table. Italian page, on the other hand, has it organized into paragraphs. Should we do it as in one of those? Use-boiled-water-for-ironing (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why no Critical Scientific evaluations?
I was surprised that no debunking views are provided. There should be a critical response section by scientists. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessisArt (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of against "debunking" any religion. I haven't gone very deep into this article and don't plan to, but miracles should IMHO be neutrally explained as something that some people believe, without endorsing that belief. My guess would be that no debunking has been linked to because none exists. I doubt it is even a question, even for the most ardent of the faithful, whether or not a communion wafer *really* becomes human flesh. From the scientific point of view it's a priori ridiculous. Elinruby (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ron Tesoriero lawyer and documentarist make a video documentary about Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires happened in 1992-1996 studied by prof Frederick Zugibe, prof Robert Lawrence and prof Odoardo Linoli that confirmed the phenomenon. Also you can read the book of Italian doctor Franco Serafini that studied eucharistic miracles of Lanciano, Buenos Aires, Tixtla in Messico, Sokolka & Legnica in Poland. 80.183.112.61 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

MoS re host vs Host
i left this alone, but dislike the capitalization of "Host". Yet "host" is such a common word it may be necessary. Isn't there a better English equivalent for the French hostie? Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (After some googling) how do people feel about "wafer"? Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)