Communion "Host" in Dallas Church Grew Fungi, Bacteria Naturally

Texas Catholic ^ | 3-24-06 | Marty Perry

[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.

[Conservative til I die]

So Christ got moldy? One would think God would have an interest in preserving the flesh of his son from mold. But perhaps he got busy elsewhere.

Hey look everyone, it's amateur hour at the Laugh Factory!

Putting aside any miracles, what do you think happens to the Euchrist after we consume it?

[Conservative til I die]

When I was about thirteen, I flattered myself that I had thought of angles to this Eucharist business which had never occurred to dummies like Thomas Aquinas. ("You could toast a host. Does that mean God is toast?") etc. Of course I'm ashamed of that now, but on the other hand, that kind of shallowness is so typical of the know-it-all adolescent.

Sadly you've just summed up the behavior of the average FR evangelical: adolescent. And smarter than Aquinas.

[Conservative til I die]

And that would be the church Christ came to establish and which was first proclaimed at Penticost AD 30. The Catholic church came into being about 200 to 300 years later.

So what happened to the "real" Church that was in existence the first 200-300 years AD?

[Revelation 911]

The Church existed before the bible, the bible is God's Word put in written form for the Church.

please clarify your point - are you saying the church existed before Genesis was written?

perhaps it would help if you defined Church / bible - Im getting the impression you are ignoring the OT

[netmilsmom]

>>Catholics on this forum have time without number been called idolators, their faith has been called :"evil", "false" and "satanic". It is quite natural that such posts would provoke a response.<<

Oh my goodness!!!!!

Bears repeating. Sorry I wasn't here to defend as usual, gave up FR for lent. Gotta love Laetare Sunday.

Anyway, my FRiend, the Catholics on this board have a LONG history of the things you wrote above. The same posters who would never think of going to a Jewish thread to blast their faith have no problem coming to a Catholic thread.

It's rude and uncalled for. It also has been happening for so long, it is just normal.

And it's easy to say that the Catholics should take the high road, but we did that for so long and it got worse and worse.

If the non-Catholics would apply some Christian to their posts, we would all be better off.

[murphE]

please clarify your point - are you saying the church existed before Genesis was written?

Don't be silly.

[murphE]

And that would be the church Christ came to establish and which was first proclaimed at Pentecost AD 30.

Yes and there is only one Church.

The Catholic church came into being about 200 to 300 years later.

This is just a false statement.

[DaveMSmith]

It was just yet another springboard for certain Catholic-haters (and that's all they are at heart) to launch another attack. Just like *every* other Catholic themed thread.

Brother, best check the plank in your own eye.

I've had the most hateful unprovoked statements directed at my religion from you for nothing more than posting a quote. I never posted much anyway, but your attacks made me want to post even less.

The consecrated Eucharist is believed to be Christ Himself...literally.

Let's see - what were your words to me just a few weeks ago.. If you take it as that, then my advice for you is to grow up and find some thicker skin.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1588744/posts?page=135#135

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dear tenn2005, I cordially invite you to read the entire passage in context (in fact, all of chapter 6, which, as I said before, is well worth careful, meditative reading) and see just what it was that so offended Jesus's listeners:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

[tenn2005]

It continues in existence to this day, just as Jesus said that it would. It is comprised of Christians the world over who look to "sola scriptura" as their guide and foundation.

[verity]

"To reiterate: the appearance of bread and wine is symbolic. The presence of Christ is bodily, substantial, and real."

You have that exactly backwards. Otherwise, I would be damned for eating meat on Friday when that was a no-no.

[murphE]

Read: The Final Conclave or The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church

I have. And nothing you say, and certainly not anything Fr. Martin has written, contradicticts what I have said. You should re-read them. You should also listen to some interviews with Fr. Martin recorded by Bernard Janzen.

[tenn2005]

"Dear tenn2005, I cordially invite you to read the entire passage in context (in fact, all of chapter 6, which, as I said before, is well worth careful, meditative reading) and see just what it was that so offended Jesus's listeners:"

Think you for your kind reply. I have read it, studied it, taught it, and even written about it. I realize that the Catholic church believes that this is literal and that you honestly do so also. That is all well and good but if you are going to latch on to this passage to support the doctrine of the wine and bread which Jesus used at the Last Supper being transubstantuated , to be consistent, you must also accept other terms that Jesus described himself in as also being literal.

He told the woman at the well that he was "living water" which if one drank they would never thirst again. Have you also been provided "living water" to drink by the Catholic church and if so have you never again been thirsty?

Jesus used many metaphors to describe Himself. If you are going to make one of them literal, you have to make all of them literal. Again, it is intellectually dishonest to choose one and neglect the others.

In the passage you used Jesus is teaching that he is the living Word of God. It is His word (teachings) that we are to eat and drink, not his flesh and blood. The same holds true of the living water that he offered to the woman at the well.

[ears_to_hear]

For love of us, the Son of God endured being stripped and whipped, crowned with thorns, spat upon, spiked up on a piece of wood, and knifed through the heart.

As ordained by God, for the salvation of the elect .

Now He comes veiled in bread, to be mocked by scorners, handled by the ignorant, imbibed by hypocrites, and received by the unworthy. He's fallen into the hands of sinners again: no, he has placed himself in the hands of sinners, , in obedience to His Father and for our salvation.
His extreme vulnerability --- the Supreme Being's extreme vulnerability --- His willingness to expose Himself to any indignity in order to rescue us from sin and death --- it's unspeakable, unthinkable ---

The ACTUAL REAL flesh of Christ is GLORIFIED. Are you saying that it is no longer GLORIFIED but is again subject to men?

Could I have a scripture on that ? Has even Rome called this a miracle?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I did not intend to say that he could not have that intent though I may have phrased it badly. I meant to ask how likely it is that he would have that intent. In theory it is possible but extremely unlikely to the point of being virtually impossible. Someone truly committed to Satan can scarcely intend to do what the Church intends. Hypothetically, perhaps. Practically speaking, I would say no. The danger of your position is that "intent" becomes so attenuated as to become almost magic, incantation. It is to avoid that that the Church specifies that the priest must have the intent to do what the Church does. To intend that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ for the purpose of Satanic abuse of them strikes me as virtually a contradiction in terms, though I will grant a theoretical/hypothetical possibility, no more.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "The ACTUAL REAL flesh of Christ is GLORIFIED. Are you saying that it is no longer GLORIFIED but is again subject to men?"

Christ is "seated at the right hand of the Father" in glory.

Christ is everywhere in the Universe. ("In Him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 17:28)

Christ is present among believers. (“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” Matthew 18:20.)

Christ is present in the Eucharist. ("I am that bread of life." John 6:48)

Christ is God. He can be present everywhere, in whatever manner He wants to be, because He is not bound by the limits of time and space. ("And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sigh. Chapter and verse: where does the Bible teach "sola scriptura"?