Saint's Dried Blood Liquefies in 'Miracle'

NAPLES, Italy (Reuters) - The substance many Neopolitans believe is the dried blood of their patron saint liquefied right on cue on Thursday, in a twice-yearly "miracle."

Thousands of faithful crammed into Naples cathedral to see the blood of the fourth century Saint Gennaro turn from powder to liquid, which they see as a good omen for the city and the world. The miracle has been recorded almost without fail for the past 600 years -- on September 19, the saint's feast day, and on the first Saturday in May. When the blood has remained dry, tragedies have followed.

Scientists have confirmed that the substance inside the closed vial is blood but cannot explain why it regularly turns to liquid.

Cardinal Michele Giordano told the congregation this year's miracle was particularly good, because the blood had liquefied in less than an hour.

"It's an extraordinary event, also because you can clearly see that the blood has changed color and there's more of it," Girodano said holding up the glass vial.

Disaster has struck at least five times after the blood failed to liquefy. In 1527 the plague killed 40,000 people and more recently in November 1980 some 3,000 people died in a massive earthquake that struck southern Italy.

Here is some more Catholic Theology for you. If you can find anything satanic in this please point it out to us. At the beginning of the Mass we recite the following. We refer to this as the Gloria.

"Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world; have mercy on us. You are seated at the right hand of the Father. Receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the most High, Jesus Christ. With the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen"

>>In case you DARE even try to deny THE WORDS OF CHRIST that all this sould be taken literally, the reaction of the Jews and the Disciples and Saint Peter in verses 53 and 61 and 67, 68. 69 respectiviely bear witness to the truth of it. <<

I dare.

>>If Jesus did NOT mean it literally, why else would they have been scandalized by it and gone away!!!<<

"64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life."

They were scandalized because they didn’t understand. As was the case with Jesus many times, he said it in a way that he knew people would misinterpret it. It weeded out the followers that were just there to “get something.”

>>And DON'T make me waste my time quoting Saint Paul on the same subject or else I will also rub your nose thoroughly in the verse where he tells his converts that THEY HAVE ONLY ONE FATHER IN THE FAITH AND THAT IS HE!!! <<

Gee, I guess you must think you are right and I am evil. I am disappointed, but that is your right

I used to wonder how professing “Christians” could have such hate for other Christians that they would actually go to war against them, like in Northern Ireland. I think I am seeing that here. I still don’t understand it though. You don’t, by any chance, live in Northern Ireland, do you?

I guess after we die we’ll find out, for sure, which one of us was right and how it affected our salvation.

>>You ignorant, mocking of God, rebelious, protestant heretics have no conception which verses are to be taken figuratively or literally!! You are absolutely pitiful!<<

And on that note, you and I are done.

>>Of course, everyone knows RobRoy’s interpretations are infallible don’t they?<<

No, you are right. They are not.

I am frustrated by "myths" of all sects of Christianity. There are baloney stories in the protestant circles and there are baloney stories in the Catholic circles. I am in no way attacking anyones interpretation of the Bible. Rather, I am attacking their belief in “miracles” which were easy to perpetrate on people in a “Christian” culture that were NOT EVEN ALLOWED to read the Bible – backwards and uneducated at best.

But now these should be exposed as the cheap parlor tricks that they are. I repeat, these type of things show up in protestant circles as well. Don’t believe me, just watch the so-called “Christian” television talk shows. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not all bad, but some of it would be downright laughable, if it wasn’t so serious, spiritually.

People have a natural tendency to glom onto any “miraculous proof” as if that is what God needs to win His battle.
I once read a book by Hal Lindsey called “A walk through the holy land.” In it was a photograph of the “upper room” where someone had used a flash and a slow shutter speed in a fairly bright room, accidentally creating some “interesting” effects. It was quite obvious to any serious amateur photographer what caused the effects
Well, the notes below the picture said that the apparent apparition of a winged angel holding a cross was not seen by the photographer when he was taking the picture, but there it was in the picture. It further said that the photo had been analyzed by photography “experts” and they could not explain it.

What a crock. I repeat, it was OBVIOUS to me what had happened before I even read the notes. I was floored.

AND PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS, HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER.

Most of this stuff, on both the Catholic AND protestant side belong on Art Bell, and we should focus on His Word and obeying Christ in Love.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am not quite sure why you think that not being able to read the Bible increased the credulity of medieval Chirstians. The Bible is certainly full of miraculous events. In any case, it is a falsehood that the Bible was not widely available during the Middle Ages, at least to the tens of thousands of people who --the literate--read Latin. For from the 13th Century onwards, tens of thousands of handwritten Latin Bible, the size of the personal ones we have today, were available at booksellers to anyone with the price of purchase. . Hundreds survive today, so they were not cheap. Franciscan and Dominican monks carried them with them along with their breviaries and mined them for texts for their sermons. Long before Wesley, friars of ability would attract large crowds as they preached in the open, in towns squares and even in the fields--like St. Bernardino --and preached the Gospel.

No, you are right. They are not.

A major difference between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians is authoritative interpretation of the Bible. I follow what the scripture tells us in 1 Tim 3:15 that the church is pillar/foundation of truth. Therefore my position is the truth is found in the Church that Christ established, which is the Catholic Church .

I am frustrated by "myths" of all sects of Christianity. There are baloney stories in the protestant circles and there are baloney stories in the Catholic circles.

OK I’m with you on this.

I am in no way attacking anyones interpretation of the Bible. Rather, I am attacking their belief in “miracles” which were easy to perpetrate on people in a “Christian” culture that were NOT EVEN ALLOWED to read the Bible – backwards and uneducated at best.

So do you believe in miracles or not? And also, your statement that Christians were not allowed to read the bible is a myth.

But now these should be exposed as the cheap parlor tricks that they are.

Not all things reported as miracles are accepted by the Catholic Church. I believe the Church to be the pillar of truth, therefore if they certify something as a miracle, I believe it is true. Since you don’t share this view, it is understandable that you are skeptical.

I once read a book by Hal Lindsey called “A walk through the holy land.”

Enough said, I agree he is a charlatan.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Agreed. It also requires faith.

Let's call this what it is, the protestant hatred of God and all things of God is blasphemous and pathetic - and emanates from only one source: satan.

I adore our Lord and am daily humbled that He sent His only Son to die for my sins so that I could spend eternity with Him. I try to be a faithful Christian witness to the people in my life. I loathe satan and his filthy, deceitful ways. I think so-called "tele-evangelists" like Benny Hinn and the Crouch family are in communion with satan and will receive their due punishment in the hereafter.

But I *also* reject the divinity of the Pope and refuse to pray to the dead. I think the Catholic church heirarchy as it is today is corrupt and blasphemous, and is deceiving many good Catholic people into a false faith in men and their works. I normally keep my more negative opinions on Catholicism (notice I didn't say negative opinions on CATHOLICS) to myself, but what you said about Protestants is absolutely hateful and way off base and NEEDS to be rebuked.

But I *also* reject the divinity of the Pope

So do Catholics.

and refuse to pray to the dead.

So do Catholics.

I think the Catholic church heirarchy as it is today is corrupt

There are no doubt some bad eggs in the basket.

and blasphemous,

The doctrine is sound, if only our wayward Priests and Bishops would follow it we wouldn’t be having this dialog.

and is deceiving many good Catholic people into a false faith in men and their works.

This is not even close to Catholic theology.

I normally keep my more negative opinions on Catholicism (notice I didn't say negative opinions on CATHOLICS) to myself,

Your opinions of Catholicism are based on false information.

but what you said about Protestants is absolutely hateful and way off base and NEEDS to be rebuked.

Your portrayal of Catholicism is way off base and needs to be rebuked.

Pegleg and Robbys, I think this responds to both of your posts.

From Robbys:
>>I am not quite sure why you think that not being able to read the Bible increased the credulity of medieval Chirstians.<<

It means they had to go by what they were told - someone elses interpretation - as opposed to what they could discern for themselves.

I firmly believe in miracles and have experienced three myself - I mean, totally unexplainable by any other means as opposed to "we prayed and the operation was a success" type "miracles."

I am less apt to accept things like Mary aparitions or weeping statues, etc. as "miracles." They don't fit the profile or personality of the God I read about in the Bible. Every miracle in the Bible, although primarily manifested to demonstrate His power and authority, also had practical application - healing, bringing back the dead, parting the red sea, the walls of Jericho and the like.

Making a statue weep or making dried blood get wet has no practical application (unless there is a thirsty person under the statue, or someone having an operation has the same type blood, and needs a transfusion). That makes it highly suspect. Therefore, I do not recognize it as from God without extraordinary proof.

Regarding being able to read the Bible in the middle ages, it was NOT available to the general population. It was EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and written in Latin. Most could not even read their own language.

The average Catholic of the middle ages was the equivalent, regarding Bible knowledge (and access to Bible knowledge) of a tribe of new converts in the jungles of the Amazon. Cheap parlor tricks would be easy enough to convince them of a miracle. After all, the missionary says it's true so if they have "faith" they will accept it, hook, line and sinker.

The average Catholic today has more access to the Word of God now and can compare these "miracle claims" with what was recorded in the old and new testaments. They would also like more verification than a single line like "scientists can't explain..." (see my post about Hal Lindsey).

To reiterate, I firmly believe in miracles, I just don't believe something is a miracle because someone high up in some religious organization, ANY religious organization, says it is.

From Pegleg:
>>I believe the Church to be the pillar of truth, therefore if they certify something as a miracle, I believe it is true.<<

I believe the Church is the body of believers and not an organization or particular denomination. Heck, I think there are members of Christ's church in the mormon church. I also believe that Church organizations are ALWAYS suspect and not to be "blindly" trusted, because they are run by corruptable man - and absolute power corrupts absolutely, if you get my drift.

We've seen this corruption in action with the recent problems with homosexual priests in the Catholic church as well as missbehaving on the part of protestants (does the name Jimmy mean anything to anybody). History has plenty of examples of corrupt popes as well. And why not? They are just men, after all.

Psalm 188: 8 says it all, succinctly and directly:
"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (KJV)

nine aint bad either:
"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes." (KJV)

One of the main reasons I go to church is to get teaching and guidance from others regarding my own road towards a personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus Christ. But I have the right and RESPONSIBILITY to reject their counsel if I believe, after prayer, that it is wrong.

Who says the pope is divine?

The "Vicar of Christ?" "He who hears the Pope hears the words of Jesus?" Papal infallibility? Where to start?

And as for false faith in men and works, the constant focus on Mary, the saints, the pope, priestly authority, the sacraments, etc. take the emphasis off of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you don't agree with me, and I wish I could spend all day trying to convince you (out of caring for my fellow child of God . . . if I didn't care, I'd just ignore you and other Catholics).

I guess i'm only venting because I don't like being called satanic. There's a WIDE, WIDE line between Christianity and Catholicism, and satanism. I may disagree with your doctrine as I understand it, but I don't think you're even remotely satanic, nor are 99.9% of Catholics. I think some of your leaders are, though.

It means they had to go by what they were told - someone elses interpretation - as opposed to what they could discern for themselves.

You have no faith in the authoritative Church that Christ established. You have become your own Pope. As a side, how do you think the first Christians learned the message of Christ before the NT was closed?

To reiterate, I firmly believe in miracles, I just don't believe something is a miracle because someone high up in some religious organization, ANY religious organization, says it is.

That’s good, you believe in miracles. It’s a shame you don’t have more faith in Christ when he said he would built his Church upon the Rock, promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it and would be with it until the end of time.

I believe the Church is the body of believers and not an organization or particular denomination.

So are you saying doctrine is not important?

One of the main reasons I go to church is to get teaching and guidance from others regarding my own road towards a personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus Christ. But I have the right and RESPONSIBILITY to reject their counsel if I believe, after prayer, that it is wrong.

As I said, you have become your own Pope. I pray you will continue to seek the truth which will eventually lead you to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Well, well. Alright. I don't care for these arguments because usually people who make such statements, which seem to come up every doggone time, have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and it's like arguing with a brick wall, but just for you, I will make an exception.

The "Vicar of Christ?"

Priest of an unbroken succession. Somebody in the Catholic Caucus has the whole list.

"He who hears the Pope hears the words of Jesus?"

??????? I don't think I've ever heard this one before.

Papal infallibility?

This has nothing to do with being divine. The pope is still a man just like the rest of us.

And as for false faith in men and works, the constant focus on Mary, the saints, the pope, priestly authority, the sacraments, etc. take the emphasis off of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

First, the sacraments (Baptism, Reconciliation, Holy Eucharist, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Annointing of the Sick) are expressions of our life in Christ. It is all done in His name for Him and about Him.

Second, the constant focus is on Christ - as was Mary's and all the Saints. They lived as He wants us to. They are our Christian role-models. We do not worship them. We venerate them and as Christ DIED SO THAT WE MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, that is we physically die, but our souls live on, they are not dead, but are alive and with God. If there wasn't a miracle involved with each of these people, they wouldn't be canonized and the church is amazingly picky about certifying miracles. If a miracle is associated with an individual, that individual must be with God and God is working through them. We ask for their prayers and help when we need a little extra help. But Mary and the saints are not worshiped.

As for being called Satanic, protestants aren't Satanic. But, it is arguable that Satan had a hand in the splits. Divide and conquer.

I don't know if this satisfies you, but there it is.

I'm bashing the same people you are--the evil people who have corrupted the inner workings of the Church.

I agree they need to be weeded out and I have confidence they will be.

The main problem I see with Catholic theology is that it doesn't allow for error or wrongdoing--so it's going to be VERY hard for you to clean things up.

This is not a true statement. If we sin or make errors in judgement, we have the sacrament of reconciliation.

But since I cannot agree with every doctrine or action that the church takes, I must remain "protestant." In fact, your own faith permits me to do nothing else!

I have no issue with people who disagree with Catholicism. My issue is with those who misrepresent our teachings and then state those misrepresentations as a fact. This is what you did with your previous post. Perhaps if you understood our doctrines you wouldn’t be so hostile towards them.

Regarding being able to read the Bible in the middle ages, it was NOT available to the general population. It was EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and written in Latin. Most could not even read their own language.

Well, the Bible was not available to the general population during the first centuries of the Church, either. I don't mean the canon, but the book we know today. It was not until the 13th century that ALL the books of the Bible were bound into a single volume and published in the format we know today. Before that time the books of the Bible were available only as part of a multi-volume collection or in the Great Bible that ws read in Church. But after the "Paris Bible" was published, it became available for the first time to anyone who could read. Wycliff simply took the matter one step further by translating it into English, and his Bible was suppressed, not because it was in the vernacular but because it was unauthorized AND the work of a heretic. How could a person who knew no Latin know it was a true version of the Vulgate? And if he really wanted to know whether Wyclif got it right, where could he get a copy of Scripture in the original languages? In any case, knowledge of the vernacular does not mean one can master the meaning of a written work. Ever wonder how lawyers have got such a stranglehold on our society? It takes training and experience to translate law books.

>>As I said, you have become your own Pope.<<

You nailed it! Although I wouldn't use that word since it really has no meaning to me regarding my relationship with Christ. You see, my relationship is with Christ himself - nobody in between.

>>So are you saying doctrine is not important?<<

The doctrine of the particular group I worship with is important, otherwise I'd just be unitarian. But only to a point, since I will not agree with any particular church organization 100%. I look for key doctrine such as the deity of Christ and baptism by immersion and some other basic Christian tenets (that's why I'm not mormon - they're not even Christian).

After that it comes down to convenience, personalities, teaching opportunities and learning opportunities.

>>It’s a shame you don’t have more faith in Christ when he said he would built his Church upon the Rock, promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it and would be with it until the end of time.<<

I prefer to believe we interpret that scripture differently. Greater minds than ours come down on both sides of this issue. I do have a question, though. What do you think it means when it says the gades of hell will not prevail against it?

>>I pray you will continue to seek the truth which will eventually lead you to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. <<

I would prefer it said, "I pray you will continue to seek the truth which will lead you to a closer relationship and understanding of the one true God."

It's less one sided and more sincere. Let's face it, neither one of us can be ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that he/she is right. That's why it's called faith.

BTW, my wife was Irish Catholic for over 40 years. Strong believer too. We both have come to the position that we no longer put our faith in what church organization we belong to, but rather, God Himself as he chooses to reveal himself to us through His Word and prayer as well as through the teaching of others. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. I like to think of it as iron sharpening iron

Yeah, I hear you. But I believe the message of God is actually quite simple. The rest is icing on the cake. It's like what I finally learned about the ten commandments. I used to think they were the instructions on how to get to heaven. They aren't. They are merely instructions on how to live a happier life as in, do this stuff and you will be happier. Oh, and as Jesus made quite clear, as part of the law, they are also part of what gave sin it's power.

Anyway, I agree that the history of the Bible is interesting, and I also believe one can become a Christian and know quite a bit about God without ever reading a Bible. After all, as you pointed out, the early church had none.

Oh, and whenever I say "church" I simply mean all those who believe in and on Christ as their personal Lord and savior. I am not referring to any official organization, unless I'm making that distinction clear.

You nailed it! Although I wouldn't use that word since it really has no meaning to me regarding my relationship with Christ. You see, my relationship is with Christ himself - nobody in between.

That’s wonderful since we are called to be imitators of Christ. What is your understanding of the Communion of the Saints?

I will not agree with any particular church organization 100%. I look for key doctrine such as the deity of Christ and baptism by immersion and some other basic Christian tenets

If you don’t agree with any Church organization 100% It would seem you consider the promise of Christ to his Church to be worthless and Timothy referring to the Church as the pillar/foundation of truth to be a lie.

What do you think it means when it says the gades of hell will not prevail against it?

The Church will not teach error. Since Christ is the way, the truth and the life, his Church will only teach truth.

Let's face it, neither one of us can be ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that he/she is right. That's why it's called faith.

No, I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE I am right. It’s called faith in Christ and his word.

We both have come to the position that we no longer put our faith in what church organization we belong to, but rather, God Himself as he chooses to reveal himself to us through His Word and prayer as well as through the teaching of others.

You seem sincere and I hope and pray this will lead you to the truth.

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.