3

Here are the basics of the miracle of Lanciano:

One day, a certain monk was offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Although we do not know his identity, an ancient document described him as ...versed in the sciences of the world but ignorant in that of God. Apparently, he had been plagued by doubts about transubstantiation: he agonized over whether the bread and wine changed substantially into the Body and Blood of our Lord at the words of consecration, and whether our Lord was truly present in the Holy Eucharist.

This time, when the monk pronounced the words of consecration, the host was miraculously changed into flesh and the wine into blood. The monk was awestruck. Weeping joyously, he regained his composure. He called the congregation around the altar and said, O fortunate witnesses, to whom the Blessed God, to confound my unbelief, has wished to reveal Himself visible to our eyes! Come, brethren, and marvel at our God, so close to us. Behold the Flesh and Blood of our Most Beloved Christ. Those who witnessed the miracle soon spread the news throughout the surrounding area.

The flesh and blood were preserved for posterity. Later on, the Catholic church investigated it more:

The most thorough study occurred in 1970-71. Pope Paul VI permitted a series of scientific studies on the precious relics to verify their nature. Dr. Odoardo Linoli, professor of anatomy and pathological histology, chemistry and clinical microscopy, and head physician of the hospital of Arezzo, conducted the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, professor emeritus of human anatomy at the University of Siena. The analyses were performed in accord with scientific standards and documented, and Dr. Bertelli independently corroborated Dr. Linolis findings. In 1981, using more advanced medical technology, Dr. Linoli conducted a second histological study; he not only confirmed the findings but also gathered new information.

Specifically I'm interested in an evaluation of the following:

  1. The integrity of the investigations done by Dr. Linolis and those who preceded him. If this piece of the question is too subjective to answer well, that's an acceptable answer.

  2. The accuracy of this statement: "The blood, if taken from a cadaver, would have deteriorated rapidly. Given that these samples were centuries old, free of preservatives, and never hermetically sealed in the reliquaries, they should have deteriorated."

  3. The accuracy of this statement: "Only the skill of a trained pathologist could have obtained such a sample, a tangential cut of the heart a round cut, thick on the outer edges and lessening gradually and uniformly to the central area." And do they mean a trained pathologist in modern times or at the time of the miracle?

Mr. Bultitude
  • 922
  • 8
  • 27
  • It has been suggested this isn't a duplicate. If it is to be re-opened, it needs some work. The title of the question is very meta. It should address a claim. I believe the notable claim here is "that bread and wine turned into blood and flesh" and that this is why I marked it as a duplicate. – Oddthinking Feb 11 '15 at 23:04
  • Asking us to "evaluate" the "integrity of the investigations" is restrictive. What matters is whether the conclusion reached is correct - i.e. did bread turn to flesh? - not the techniques that other people used to reach that conclusion or their motivations/honesty. – Oddthinking Feb 11 '15 at 23:08
  • The source of the two quoted statements are not clear. They should be referenced. – Oddthinking Feb 11 '15 at 23:09

0 Answers0