Posted on 03/24/2006 6:06:40 AM PST by marshmallow
DALLAS. A “host” kept in a jar of water for four weeks grew fungus and bacterial colonies in a natural process, a laboratory report concluded about an incident in a local parish church that created public speculation.
A March 23 letter from Dallas Bishop Charles Grahmann to the pastor of St. James Parish relayed that what some were calling a ‘miracle’ of a host “contains nothing of a supernatural nature.”
The letter to Msgr. Mario Magbanua states: “At my request the object you submitted to me, around which there was heightened publicity, was presented to Dr. Marcy Brown Marsden, chairman and associate professor of biology, University of Dallas, and Dr. Frank Doe of the same department, for tentative identification and characterization of the object.”
The bishop said that after analysis was done he was provided with their conclusion.
They told the bishop: “We conclude that the object is a combination of fungal mycelia and bacterial colonies that have been incubated within the aquatic environment of the glass during the four-week period in which it was stored in the open air.”
The bishop further wrote: ““From this conclusion the phenomenon was of the natural order and contains nothing of a supernatural nature. Thus, you need to remove yourself from any further activity surrounding this matter and its exaggerated claims.”
The incident began about a month ago when a young boy received the Eucharist at Mass and then became sick in the restroom. Ushers who checked on him found the intact host in the bin.
The ushers reportedly summoned Msgr. Magbanua, who came to retrieve the host. He put the host in water to dissolve, where it remained unseen until March 19. Its appearance had changed, viewers said.
Within hours people were coming to the church to see the host, which is located in a low-income area and has approximately 2,000 registered parishioners.
Fueled by telephone and e-mail stories saying a miracle had occurred, as well as media reports, curious scores of the faithful hoping to see something extraordinary began to show up.
Among those was Shirley Vilfordi, a member of St. Rita Parish in Dallas. She was among those who suggested people should not be too quick to rush to conclusions, and thanked those who took quick action to discover the truth.
“We praise God for our beloved church who wants to investigate these things thoroughly rather than falsely mislead the faithful,” Vilfordi said as the investigation was ongoing.
There have been other cases in past years when a host received fungal and/or bacteria contamination when it was not properly consumed and/or disposed.
Church officials said the matter is now closed and called on faithful to end any further speculation.
It's a miracle
The Catholic Church carefully investigates such claims and makes the findings publicly known.
Not every plastic-haired, TV shyster is so diligent.
That's kind of a relief. The story wasn't pretty...
Who... What... Huh???
I'm confused.
Liberal women can do that in 2 weeks, by not shaving their underarms. No biggie.
Dallas bump
The article seemed clear to me. Some people thought a Communion Host had exhibited signs of a miraculous nature (appearing to be blood and flesh). The Church had it tested and it was just mold. End of story.
SD
I am curious. What would be the proper way to dispose of the host in this instance. If there is mold on it does the mold have to be removed and then the host again put in water to dissolve it. Or would the mold mean the host is now regarded as unconsecrated and can be disposed of by ordinary means. Is there anything in Canon law that says if a vomited host is no longer considered consencrated?
Or maybe this situation has never happened before and no one knows.
If the Host is still discernable as being a Host, it would need to be treated as sacred. Since the normal method of dissolving in water (followed by disposal of the water directly into the ground through a special sink) does not seem to have worked, burial would be proper.
Is there anything in Canon law that says if a vomited host is no longer considered consencrated?
No, or they wouldn't have gotten into this in the first place, would they have? Since it was spit up and still discernable (as opposed to being digested and indistingushable from normal stomach contents) was how they got into this in the first place.
Or maybe this situation has never happened before and no one knows.
The Church has been around a while. Hardly anything happens for the first time.
SD
I'm certain that there have been cases like this where reddish mold has been mistaken for flesh. This just happened not too long ago somewhere else, (a molded Host anyway, not the rest of the story).
I think at this point they could just break it up and pour it into the Sacrarium, but I don't know the official procedure.
I am glad they announced the results of the tests so quickly.
The article seemed clear to me. Some people thought a Communion Host had exhibited signs of a miraculous nature (appearing to be blood and flesh). The Church had it tested and it was just mold.
What a surprise - The wafer was consecrated, but transubstantiation didn't take place. It's still a wafer.
What do you think "transubstantiation" means? What does the doctrine teach us about the observable aspects (i.e. the apearances) of the communion elements?
SD
Thanks for your answer. A few years ago I read a book about Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Cruz. I know that such miracles do happen, especially in times when people need to be drawn back to the faith. So considering the times we live in I was quite willing to accept such a miracle occuring in Dallas. But since we have a natural explanation I will pray that God use even this pseudo Miracle to proclaim the Truth of our Faith.
It teaches us that there are a lot of doctrines in the Catholic Church that are just... not... biblical.
I do find it interesting that so many Catholics are willing to accept the accidents and appearances as fact in regard to the communion, but when it comes to believing that the Earth was created in 6 days, they scoff at the creationist "whackjobs" who actually believe that "despite all appearances to the contrary" that God really did create the heavens and the earth in 6 days.
On the one hand they deny all natural observations to the contrary and insist that what they are consuming is the "literal" flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, yet they scoff at anyone who takes Genesis literally and actually believes that the earth is much younger than it appears.
If "accidents and appearances" can explain the eucharist, then why can't it explain the creation?
It teaches us that there are a lot of doctrines in the Catholic Church that are just... not... biblical.
Yes, thank you for your comments, but I was particularly interested in Mr. Murphy's apparent confusion about what the doctrine states and what conclusions we can draw from it. If you have anything to add in this area, feel free.
SD
Naw, the miracle was Brother Dominic producing those 500 copies of illuminated manuscripts. (Hoo boy, I just told everyone how old I am.)
Everytime I read something about, I taste a little bit of what I had for breakfast again.
What exactly do you think transubstantiation is? What part of this story do you think tends to establish your claim that transubstatiation did not take place?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.