|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 8, 2023 7:36:22 GMT
www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/look-scientific-proof-for-the-real-presence-of-christ-in-the-eucharistNever mind where the story comes from. Just read it. (Incidentally, the miracles in Argentina and Poland are from Hosts consecrated in the Novus Ordo, by priests who were presumably ordained in the post-Vatican II rites, most likely by bishops who were consecrated likewise. So much for the claims of some traditionalists that these orders are doubtful or invalid, a stance I do not take.) The part about the DNA not indicating a human father is the real kicker. As I said in another thread, I would welcome analysis done by scientists who are neutral about the Real Presence and the divinity of Christ, or better yet, by scientists who are positively hostile to it. I would welcome the scrutiny. Think of how many conversions could come from this kind of proof. Wouldn't it be ironic if secular scientists could end up being the ultimate "proselytes"?
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 8, 2023 12:32:54 GMT
From what I have read, the scientific testing of some recent Eucharistic miracles was done by doctors who received a sample having zero idea where it came from. Their personal views on religion are irrelevant (indeed, some of them might have been unbelievers) when they don't know what they're analyzing. At least one was reportedly shocked when he found out.
As for conversions, a lot of people still won't believe it or will think that the samples were switched or "doctored" in some way or that the tester made a mistake etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 8, 2023 14:12:19 GMT
From what I have read, the scientific testing of some recent Eucharistic miracles was done by doctors who received a sample having zero idea where it came from. Their personal views on religion are irrelevant (indeed, some of them might have been unbelievers) when they don't know what they're analyzing. At least one was reportedly shocked when he found out. As for conversions, a lot of people still won't believe it or will think that the samples were switched or "doctored" in some way or that the tester made a mistake etc. I was just presenting a best-case scenario where nobody could deny that the strictest scientific protocols were followed. I don't know how you prove such a thing and leave no room for anyone to be able to challenge it. As far as refusing to see the evidence, some people are just so determined to believe what they want to believe, to think what they want to think, that they will go to ridiculous lengths to do so. An example would be if you were to challenge someone to defend abortion for sex or even race de-selection (the mother could have liaised with a man of a race she didn't mind having a fling with, but wouldn't want to have a child of his race). Some of them won't be trapped into a "gotcha" situation and will say, yes, a woman should have a right to have an abortion even then. As the jailer said in Cool Hand Luke, "some men you just can't reach". |
|
|
|
Post by hakutaku on Mar 10, 2023 3:30:34 GMT
I agree, it really shows how motivated the author is with his reasoning. If you had something that looked like white blood cells, had them chemically tested and found they weren't, the scientific conclusion isn't--Ron Tesoriero.
That's quackery from someone with an agenda.
The real lesson of the Lanciano evidence is how to identify scientific theater. Tesoriero is selling to an audience that wants to hear that "real" scholars on "team catholic" know better than those other scientists.
A quick comment on Frederick Zugibe, who shows up in these articles all the time. He's typically introduced like "hey we got in touch with some random reputable forensic cardiologist." In reality, he was the president of an organization dedicated to studying the Shroud of Turin, and had written a book on the subject. In that book he makes several wildly speculative claims, just like Tesoriero's above.
One thing you can almost always use to tell science from science theater is how the findings are published. In Tesoriero's case we don't get to see the actual reports he received from scientists; everything gets filtered through the Ron lens. We don't get data, we get the quotes from scientists that Ron has deemed worthy to share with us. Instead of a concise report with concrete claims, we get long documentaries with shots of people looking in microscopes and animations of documents.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 10, 2023 5:55:11 GMT
I agree, it really shows how motivated the author is with his reasoning. If you had something that looked like white blood cells, had them chemically tested and found they weren't, the scientific conclusion isn't--Ron Tesoriero.
That's quackery from someone with an agenda.
The real lesson of the Lanciano evidence is how to identify scientific theater. Tesoriero is selling to an audience that wants to hear that "real" scholars on "team catholic" know better than those other scientists.
A quick comment on Frederick Zugibe, who shows up in these articles all the time. He's typically introduced like "hey we got in touch with some random reputable forensic cardiologist." In reality, he was the president of an organization dedicated to studying the Shroud of Turin, and had written a book on the subject. In that book he makes several wildly speculative claims, just like Tesoriero's above.
One thing you can almost always use to tell science from science theater is how the findings are published. In Tesoriero's case we don't get to see the actual reports he received from scientists; everything gets filtered through the Ron lens. We don't get data, we get the quotes from scientists that Ron has deemed worthy to share with us. Instead of a concise report with concrete claims, we get long documentaries with shots of people looking in microscopes and animations of documents.
And this is why I say, subject the specimens to the most rigorous scrutiny possibly, done by people who are either neutral, or to keep everybody honest, who are positively hostile, who are determined to find some other explanation than one that would indicate that the specimens are identical and come from a Palestinian Jewish man who died as Our Lord did. Assuming that they are honest with what they disclose, what more proof could you ask for? |
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 10, 2023 11:23:50 GMT
I really doubt that skeptics would be converted even with super-rigorous science. In any event such miracles are generally not about them, but instead from what I have read occur in churches where someone close to the action, such as the priest, is having doubt. The miracle is targeting that person/ people, not the world at large.
As yesterday's gospel noted again, skeptics gonna skeptic no matter what happens, even if someone rises from the dead.
I do care about skeptics from a standpoint of them being my neighbors and siblings in Christ, but I couldn't care less about convincing them, arguing with them, or any of their drivel. They just don't get it and never will unless/ until they open their hearts to God.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 10, 2023 14:06:14 GMT
I really doubt that skeptics would be converted even with super-rigorous science. In any event such miracles are generally not about them, but instead from what I have read occur in churches where someone close to the action, such as the priest, is having doubt. The miracle is targeting that person/ people, not the world at large. As yesterday's gospel noted again, skeptics gonna skeptic no matter what happens, even if someone rises from the dead. I do care about skeptics from a standpoint of them being my neighbors and siblings in Christ, but I couldn't care less about convincing them, arguing with them, or any of their drivel. They just don't get it and never will unless/ until they open their hearts to God. You never know what is going on in a skeptic's mind or heart. They may fight it precisely because it poses such a threat to some other idea they want to hold, or because embracing the miracle would require them to confront the truth of the Faith in general, and they don't want to do that because XYZ (they would have to give up a lifestyle, they would have to repudiate a behavior that they love or which has a hold upon them, they would have to swallow their pride, the list goes on). They may be so close to the edge that it would take just this much to push them from doubt to acceptance, and that eucharistic miracle may just be the fillip they need. Again, you never know. It depends upon the individual skeptic. Actually, the most vigorous objection I've heard to the recent eucharistic miracles is... drum roll, please... from some traditionalist Catholics who maintain that any miracle that confirms the validity of post-Vatican II priestly and episcopal orders (or, among the most extreme of them, even the Novus Ordo itself), is not of God, but is of the evil one, a prodigy straight out of hell, to deceive people into thinking that these sacraments are valid. Talk about building a Procrustean bed for oneself! Making the evidence, and the conclusions, fit the stance that you take in the first place. (To be fair, extreme fundamentalists of the Jack Chick ilk could maintain the same thing. Some of them claim that Fatima is of satanic origin precisely to trick people into accepting Catholicism.) You could point to the DNA evidence, and they'd reply "yes, Satan's intelligent enough, he could do that". (Just to clarify, while I am a traditionalist in many ways --- not all --- I do not deny the validity of post-V2 sacraments. Some aspects are troubling and cringe-worthy --- why, oh why, was it necessary to change the rite of ordination, to take out "ut"? --- oh, let me guess, it was an unnecessary accretion that flew in the face of "noble simplicity", right? --- but that is not the same thing as making them invalid. It is as though there was a compulsively Strangelovian impulse to change "a little something" about absolutely everything. Got to wonder why. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".) Just to be totally fair, I'd be interested to know if such miracles have ever happened in eucharistic species confected by sects that do not have valid orders, and that profess some sort of Real Presence, such as Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists (yes, the latter surprised me too, I'd never been used to thinking of Methodism as being that close to Catholicism, but in some ways, it is, learn something new every day). Anyone ever hear of it? |
|
