[CynicalBear]

>>Already pointed you to the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.<<

So a piece of Jesus heart was preserved for hundreds of years having been nailed to a board and saved ey? Yeah, that lines up with what scripture teaches. NOT!

[Campion]

You asked for a miracle, I gave you a miracle. Now you complain that it's not the right kind of miracle. Oy vey ...

[boatbums]

Re: the Eucharistic "miracles"

Catholic Eucharistic Doctrine hinges on a quasi-Aristotelian understanding of reality,[1] in which the core substance or essential reality of a given thing is bound to, but not equivalent with, its sensible realities or accidents. In the celebration of the Eucharist, by means of the consecratory Eucharistic Prayer, the actual substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. This change in substance is not, however, a physical change; the physical aspects or outward appearances of the bread and wine—their accidents—remain as before. This substantial change is called transubstantiation, a term reserved to describe the change itself. This differs from most Protestant Eucharistic theologies, which believe that the substance of the sacramental elements do not undergo such a change. Protestant views on the fact of Christ's presence in the Eucharist vary significantly from one denomination to another: while many agree with Roman Catholics that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, few would acknowledge that the nature of that presence comes about by a substantial change or transubstantiation.[2]

According to Thomas Aquinas, in the case of extraordinary Eucharistic Miracles in which the appearance of the accidents are altered, this further alteration is not considered to be transubstantiation, but is a subsequent miracle that takes place for the building up of faith. Nor does the extraordinary manifestation alter or heighten the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as the miracle does not manifest the physical presence of Christ: "in apparitions of this sort. . . the proper species [actual flesh and blood] of Christ is not seen, but a species formed miraculously either in the eyes of the viewers, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle

If the claim is that this "tissue" is truly from the body of Jesus Christ, then it is either his pre-glorified body - which was what was broken for our sins, and blood - which was shed for our sins, or it is Jesus' glorified body which is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. So which is it? If it is the pre-glorified body, then such theology is what Monophysites were accused of heresy for separating the humanity of Christ from His deity. The conundrum is discussed HERE:

"It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite." Monophysitism holds that Jesus Christ, who is identical with the Son, is one person and one hypostasis in one nature: divine.

Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which among other things adopted the Definition of Chalcedon (often known as the "Chalcedonian Creed") stating that Christ is the eternal Son of God "made known in two natures without confusion [i.e. mixture], without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]--not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism)