'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats

WFTV ^ | July 7, 2008

[NYer]

So what does it taste like? Pork, Beef, some other meat?

It tastes the way it looks.

Is this human flesh that can be demonstrated as a meat product or is it the Body of Christ only in belief?

This is real flesh and real blood. Throughout the centuries, there have been many disbelievers like yourself, including Catholics. Not surprisingly, there have been priests who doubt. From time to time, miracles occur as did in Lanciano Italy. Here is the story and the scientific facts.

---

Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
  
  
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
  
  
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
  
  
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
  
  
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
  
  
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
  
  
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
  
  
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
  
  
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

	Fig. 1 - Eosine x 200. Overall histological aspect of a Flesh sample with fibers collected in bundles with longitudinal orientation as it occurs in the outer surface layers of the heart.
	Fig. 2 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 250. An artery and, very close, a branch of the vagal nerve.
	Fig. 3 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 400. Evidence of the "Rough" aspect of the endocardium; the syncytoid structure of the myocardial tissue
	Fig. 4 - Elution-absorption test x 80. Above: Hemagglutination test on blood sample in Lanciano: on the left, anti A serum used; on the right, anti-B serum. Below: hemoagglutination test on a Flesh sample in Lanciano: left, with anti-A serum, right,with anti-B serum. It appears thus that the Flesh and the Blood in Lanciano belong to AB blood group.
	Fig. 5 - Electro-phoretic pattern of Blood proteins (Cromoscan photometer). The profile of serum fractions is normal and superimposable to that of a fresh serum sample.

In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

[NYer]

Baptists do believe in Scripture. Obviously we interpret it differently, or we would become Catholic.

Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself?  No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). 

[Marysecretary]

Is it proper for a group of men who may or may not know the proper interpretation to tell you what it says? You don’t really know if they are interpreting it correctly either.

[chesley]

I'm not sure that that particular passage is relevant to the issue at hand. We are NOT talking about prophecy. Prophets had God speaking directly to them.

You neglected to add the very next verse

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Notice, it says 'men', not 'the Church', and especially not 'the Roman Catholic Church'

Dangers of quoting out of context.

However, you may well be right. But I am unwilling to accept any interpretation on the authority of anybody, preferring to "rightly divide the word of truth" for myself, hopefully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I may make errors, but then so may any man, or group of men, such as the Pope or the RCC.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it a bit pagan to symbolically feast on the flesh and drink the blood of someone as a form of remembrance?

[Quix]

[Judith Anne]

Thank you for posting that here. I hadn’t seen it before, althought I had read about the miracle. AFAIK, AB is the blood type found on the Shroud, as well.

[Judith Anne]

According to natural law, parthogenetically conceived offspring of vertebrates are always female.

[Judith Anne]

Meant to add: parthenogenesis has to be ruled out, because Christ was male. So He had a male Parent. The Gospels tell us God was His Father.

q.e.d. God is Male. (I always thought so, I mean, “Our Father, Who art in Heaven...”)

[NYer]

But I am unwilling to accept any interpretation on the authority of anybody, preferring to "rightly divide the word of truth" for myself, hopefully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I may make errors, but then so may any man, or group of men, such as the Pope or the RCC.

There can be only one interpretation of the Bible. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth".

Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Exactly.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's actually a bit ... compllicated. God is Father, of that we are sure; Jesus is Son, of that we ae sure. The masculine would seem to apply to Our Lord the Holy Spirit as well ("Lord and Giver of Life.")

But "masculine" is a ---I squinch my eyes up and grimace briefly to say this, believe me --- a "gender" term, meaning it has to do with how one functions in a social role, how one presents oneself, while "male" is a biological term, defined by chromosomes, anatomy, physiology.

And since only Jesus HAS chromosomes, anatomy and physiology, only Jesus is a male, i.e. possesses a male human nature.

God is neither male nor female, because God is a Spirit, not an organism.

Unpacking and speculating and ramifying any further might be interesting, but it's beyond my beanbag brain.

Maybe Doctor of the Church Edith Stein has something good to say about it. (Mark? Are you reading St. Benedicta?)

[chesley]

There can be only one interpretation of the Bible. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth".

I agree, there is only one "truth". And that is what, with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, we have to dig out. OK, so out of those 20,000 and 1 dominations, what, exactly, makes the RCC, the one that has the truth. Why not the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons? (OK, I don't really believe either is actually a Christian denomination, but still, they claim they are).

Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

No, I don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope. I don't believe in my own infallibility, either. But I would rather trust it than the office of the Pope. AS for your question, perhaps not every individual is equally influenced by the Holy Ghost.

Further, we differ on the definition of the "church", which, in my view is not a formal organization at all, but is instead the body of believers. Only by constant study, prayer, and debate will we determine what it is that the Holy Spirit wants us to know.

Both the verses that you quoted again seem to be directed to individual believers, not "the Church"

My mention of the Jehovah's Witnesses brings up a point. My grandmother was one. We had many discussions, debates, and even arguments about our different beliefs.

Here's the thing. Over time I realized that we used the same words, but we spoke different languages. They didn't mean the same thing to us.

You and I are in a similar situation. I simply see the words differently than you do. Who is right? Perhaps you are. When I become convinced of that, I will convert. Don't hold your breath, though. My theological positions, like my political ones, are not something that I arrived at lightly.

IN the meantime, why don't we both rejoice in the fact that, through Christ, we are saved and will meet in Heaven, where such disputes will be settled once and for all. God bless you. :0

[Lord_Calvinus]

***The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.***

It would be comical if it weren’t so sad. Obviously, that is dead flesh. So, when did Jesus die according to Catholics?

[NYer]

what, exactly, makes the RCC, the one that has the truth.

Let's begin with what our Lord instructed. Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 ) Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be exactly the same as there can only be one Spiritual Truth for the plural of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).

my view is not a formal organization at all, but is instead the body of believers.

You have been imbued with free will and may choose to believe what you will but here again, multiply your view x the number of christians who feel they have a legitimate right to interpret scripture and you have confusion. Scripture clearly established "offices" and a "hierarchy" among Christians. The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7 ). This is clearly "organization". The word "office" is specifically used in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1) to describe these positions. Webster defines "office" as "A special duty, trust, charge, or position, conferred by authority or God and for a public purpose; a position of trust or authority." And the office of "apostle" is to be continued (Acts 1:20-26) to the present day. The Church is a "visible, earthly" entity for Christ would not direct us to the Church for disputes if it were not here on Earth (Matthew 18:17). There to be a visible "head" of the Church here on earth; Scripture clearly points out St. Peter as Christ's representative on earth. Christ did not ask the other Eleven to feed and tend His sheep. since the Apostles are to be replaced as they die (Acts 1:20-26), then it follows that whoever succeed(s) St. Peter is leader of the Church. There is only to be one shepherd of the Church (John 10:16). For the Apostles did not argue amongst themselves whether there was a "greatest" at all, but who amongst them was the greatest (Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46).

Is there to be only one Church or many? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many.

When I become convinced of that, I will convert. Don't hold your breath, though. My theological positions, like my political ones, are not something that I arrived at lightly.

I am not out to convert you simply to help you understand why the words Christ spoke at the Last Supper hold such great significance for Catholics which is how this exchange began. You have already seen the other thread about the Minnesota professor who intends to desecrate a consecrated host. To put this into perspective, if you saw the movie The Passion of the Christ, Catholics would consider this professor's threats as if Christ were physically going through the process again.

IN the meantime, why don't we both rejoice in the fact that, through Christ, we are saved and will meet in Heaven, where such disputes will be settled once and for all. God bless you. :0

Absolutely! Pax et Bonum.

[chesley]

I am not out to convert you simply to help you understand why the words Christ spoke at the Last Supper hold such great significance for Catholics which is how this exchange began.

Well, we're just going to have to disagree on the Church. However, while I do not share your perspective on what to me is just a piece of bread, the act of taking it hostage was a deliberate insult to the Catholic Church and the entire Christian community.

My reaction to almost all insults is to ignore them ("sticks and stones"). I just consider their source, and it becomes easy.

You have already seen the other thread about the Minnesota professor who intends to desecrate a consecrated host. To put this into perspective, if you saw the movie The Passion of the Christ, Catholics would consider this professor's threats as if Christ were physically going through the process again.

This professor is, in my opinion, a different kettle of fish. He is not a student, but an adult man in a very responsible position. He is abusing & misusing his position.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is a little belated, but I think I wrongly and rather acerbically dumped your argument in toto, Lord C., for which I apologize.

I can't remember why I was so impatient (search function on conscience turns up nothing really exculpatory) but I did want to get back and acknowledge this: that the main point you were trying to defend --- that Jesus is truly Man and his flesh and human nature were truly the same as ours in every way except without sin --- is an important point and one which I am glad to acknowledge fully.

Please forgive me. I'm pinging other partcipants in the discussion so they can see my apology; and I'll try to respond with greater care in the future.

By the way, Steve86, yours at #287 provides some good food for thought. Makes me wonder (a) what our First Parents' preternatural human capabilities really were, before Sin, and (2) what the characteristics of our transformed bodies after our own Resurrections really will be,--- may God in His mercy grant it to us all.

[markomalley]

Mark? Are you reading St. Benedicta?

Nope. Currently working on +Francis de Sales and Dom Lorenzo Scupoli.

From what I've seen, she's a little bit deep for light reading (and that's all I have the time for).

[Mrs. Don-o]

I haven’t done more than 1 tsp. and a dash. If I run into something particularly accessible, I’ll ping you.

[Lord_Calvinus]

I realize that there are those posters on this forum whose only goal is to simply throw gas on the fire. It is hard sometimes to discern the difference. I never lay my head down at night thinking I’d like to yank some Arminian’s/ Charismatic’s/ Catholic’s tongue out so no need to apologize. But, it is appreciated.

Laying out a Biblical definition of Omnipresence, the fact that the Holy Spirit can be everywhere doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit IS everywhere. He, for instance, doesn’t make his home inside the wicked. Therefore, the argument that omnipresence necessitates that presence everywhere is false. It is the correct theological term to describe human flesh that is present in an uncounted number of places around the world.

Regarding post #287, is it your contention that ordinary human flesh, once sinless, also possesses divine attributes? And, if so, is this YOPIS or do you have a cite from your teaching authority?