D
Deleted member 11889
Guest
A dear friend of mine, who is a devout Roman Catholic, has lately taken an interest in debating with me over the issue of transubstantiation. In our most recent round, she has brought up the topic of Eucharistic miracles, complete with YouTube videos on the topic - because, of course, all controversial topics can be settled by an appeal to that bastion of truth and scientific rigor.
Modern accounts of Eucharistic miracles share a few things in common: scientific analysis reveals the unexplained presence of living cardiac tissue; the cardiac tissue shows evidence of extreme trauma; and where there is blood, it is type AB. All very well and good; I'm not able to take these claims seriously, and I reject a priori the typical Roman duplicity here of using pseudo-scientific evidence but then claiming that the evidence has to be accepted on faith.
My first question, for those more versed in the intricacies of Catholic theology, is as follows. My understanding is that, per Aquinas and Rome's official teaching on the subject, the accident remains that of bread and wine, while the substance changes into the body and blood of Christ. The taste, feel, and appearance remains that of bread. Presumably, scientific analysis would continue to show the accidental properties of bread and wine. How do the Eucharistic miracles fit in with this paradigm?
Second, given the seriousness with which Rome treats this topic (and while I detest the error, I appreciate the internal consistency of their logic here), how is it in any way acceptable to run scientific tests on the body and blood of our Lord and Savior? Were I Catholic, I would surely detest this as grossly blasphemous and irreverent.
EDIT: It's been pointed out to me that I reversed the terms of substance and accident - corrected now.
Modern accounts of Eucharistic miracles share a few things in common: scientific analysis reveals the unexplained presence of living cardiac tissue; the cardiac tissue shows evidence of extreme trauma; and where there is blood, it is type AB. All very well and good; I'm not able to take these claims seriously, and I reject a priori the typical Roman duplicity here of using pseudo-scientific evidence but then claiming that the evidence has to be accepted on faith.
My first question, for those more versed in the intricacies of Catholic theology, is as follows. My understanding is that, per Aquinas and Rome's official teaching on the subject, the accident remains that of bread and wine, while the substance changes into the body and blood of Christ. The taste, feel, and appearance remains that of bread. Presumably, scientific analysis would continue to show the accidental properties of bread and wine. How do the Eucharistic miracles fit in with this paradigm?
Second, given the seriousness with which Rome treats this topic (and while I detest the error, I appreciate the internal consistency of their logic here), how is it in any way acceptable to run scientific tests on the body and blood of our Lord and Savior? Were I Catholic, I would surely detest this as grossly blasphemous and irreverent.
EDIT: It's been pointed out to me that I reversed the terms of substance and accident - corrected now.
Last edited by a moderator:
