How Eucharistic Miracles Reveals Christ’s Blood Type




Scientific testing on a wide variety of Eucharistic miracles consistently shows human flesh with blood group AB




Catholic doctrine has always held that, upon consecration at Mass, Christ becomes truly and substantially present in the bread and wine on the altar.

Over the centuries, however, there have been numerous reports of consecrated Hosts literally turning to physical flesh and blood.

One such miracle happened in 8th Century Lanciano, where a priest who was doubting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist saw the bread and wine transform into human flesh and blood as he said the words of consecration.

Over 1,200 years later, that flesh has not decomposed and is still preserved at the Church of San Francesco in the Italian town. Odoardo Linoli, a professor of anatomy, conducted a scientific analysis in 1971 and concluded the flesh was human cardiac tissue of blood group AB. The blood was still fresh, yet contained no trace of preservatives.

The AB blood group, which is relatively uncommon, does indeed keep appearing in reported miracles.

In 1996, a woman approached a priest in a Buenos Aires parish to say she had found a desecrated Host in a candleholder at the back of the church. When the priest put the Host in a glass of water to dissolve, as is specified in canon law, it appeared to turn into a piece of bloody flesh.

Three years later, after the flesh had not decomposed, a certain Bishop Jorge Bergoglio sent a sample for testing in California. The results came back that the blood was group AB, and was indeed human.

Another sample was later to Dr Zugiba of Columbia University, a renowned cardiologist, who concluded the tissue was a fragment of heart muscle that had “been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest”.

A later analysis of the results from the Buenos Aires miracle and that of the Lanciano miracle over a millennium earlier, found the tissue samples had the same DNA.

Meanwhile, tests in the mid-1990s on a third miracle, the Corporal of Bolsena (13th century), also found that traces of blood were group AB, the same result as tests on blood specks on the Shroud of Turin among others.

Of course, this could all just be a massive coincidence, or Dan Brown-style Church conspiracy to plant fresh blood and tissue samples on miracles across the world just before they are tested, but the chances are remote.

As the Church celebrates the feast of Corpus Christi, Catholics should remember this key doctrine of the faith – scientifically verified, it seems.





wpsd_autopost:
1

21 comments

  1. Tom Rafferty Reply

    These are extraordinary claims. Please provide links to the primary sources for these claims (NOT church propaganda, but independent scientific analysis).

    1. Shilo Stigen Reply

      Tom, I found the original scientific report on Lanciano here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/2j2j8qalrmcrlb4/Lanciano+Article+16-45-35.pdf

      I had to download it, but it worked, and although the original article is in Italian, there’s an English summary on Page 20 of the PDF (Page 672 of the Journal).

      This article was footnote #4 on Wikipedia’s article “Miracle of Lanciano.” That article has other helpful info for your research, too.

      When I searched for “Linoli O[Author]” in PubMed, it came back with 48 articles published by him, covering various disciplines, so he seems legit to me as a scientist.

      Is this the sort of info you were looking for, Tom?

      1. Tom Rafferty Reply

        This “evidence” from over 1000 years ago and totally under the control of the RCC is so full of scientific holes that there is no way I would seriously consider it a miracle. “Most illustrious scientist” is never an introduction of a serious scientist, especially when there is no evident that he was so. I place this in the pile of all other claims of such miracles, including the Shroud of Turin fraud. Here is a question: why are all of these “miracles” happening in circumstances that can be fully explained by fraud or an overactive confirmation bias impulse? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/05/catholic-presents-evidence-for-eucharist-transformation/

        1. Shilo Stigen Reply

          Thanks for the reply, Tom. I agree that “Most illustrious scientist” may be an awkward description of Dr. Linoli, but 48 articles in PubMed is pretty good in my book. I for one don’t have any articles in PubMed 🙂

          In regards to the Buenos Aires miracle scientist (the above article said Zugiba, but I found it elsewhere as Zugibe), here’s a link to Dr. Frederick Zugibe’s PubMed articles (I searched “Zugibe FT [Author]): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Zugibe++FT+%5BAuthor%5D
          Dr. Zugibe has 49 PubMed articles where he is listed as an Author, and his articles appear to focus on forensics and autopsies, so he seemed well-qualified to examine a specimen which may be human flesh.

          I actually read the Patheos article you just linked to before I posted yesterday. I also happened to notice (today) that James Engel’s comment on the Patheos article is very similar to mine. It was at the top when I organized them by Best, it had 24 upvotes. That was not my intention, I didn’t even notice it until I looked at the comments for the first time today.

          Tom, I agree that many purported miracles may be fully explained by natural causes, but I disagree that ALL purported miracles may be full explained by natural causes. Do you believe that God exists, Tom, and if you do, do you believe that God is able to perform miracles?

          1. Tom Rafferty

            Shilo, first of all I want to thank you for you reasonable, researched and respectful response to my comments. No, I don’t accept the claim that there is an interventionist God as there is no evidence for such. Thus, I do not accept any supernatural claims, including miracles. FYI, I was a very Devout Catholic most of my 72 years. I even seriously considered entering the Maryknoll Brotherhood after graduating from college. Since I was a science-based thinker since college, but the professor I most respected, and who exposed me to skepticism, was also a Devout Catholic with a house full of kids, thus, I was reinforced in my faith while I accepted science. I began to really doubt the dogma of Christianity as I saw my mother die slowly of Alzheimer’s Disease: where did she go?; would she be like she was most of her life or the way she was at the end. I investigated widely and deeply the dogmas concerning the soul and the afterlife. I found nothing supporting a soul separate from the brain. My doubt increase exponentially from there.

          2. Tom Rafferty

            Oh, one more thing, Shilo. The difference between you and me essentially is that when the evidence ends, I simply say, “I don’t know and you don’t either.” Faith adds no more knowledge, and is the classical logical fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance, or the God of the Gaps argument.

    2. Shilo Stigen Reply

      Tom, I may have had a previous reply disallowed because it had links, so I have to tell you what I did versus giving you links.

      I found the original 1971 article on Lanciano from Dr. Odoardo Linoli by clicking on footnote #4 on Wikipedia’s article “Miracle of Lanciano.” It was a 22-page PDF download, and although it was mostly in Italian, there’s a few images and graphs, and Page 20 of the PDF (Page 672 of the Journal) had an English summary. It seemed to match what the above article said about Lanciano.

      I also went to PubMed and searched “O Linoli[Author],” and he appeared to have 48 articles to his name, covering a variety of topics over several decades, so he appears to be a legit scientist to me.

      Finally, if you find the website for the National Catholic Register and Search “Bleeding Host Phenomenon,” the first article that comes up from Dec 11 2015 has some helpful info, in my opinion. The Register article talks mostly about the Buenos Aires miracle mentioned above, but it also talks about some purported Eucharistic miracles that were actually ruled out as having natural explanation.

      Is this the sort of info you were looking for, Tom?

  2. Patrick Gannon Reply

    I searched around and can’t find any official reports confirming scientific analysis of something that wasn’t bread.
    .
    The Eucharistic miracle says nothing at all about the host magically transforming to real flesh with a real blood type. This so-called event, if it really happened, would seem to discount the actual eucharistic miracle that the Church insists on.
    .
    In any event, the author here, certainly hasn’t made any case. His or her article is completely lacking in sources, and thus can be dismissed without further consideration. If forces or particles existed that could turn bread into human flesh, we would know about it by now.
    .
    The author should be ashamed of him/herself for taking advantage of ignorant or uneducated people who believe in superstitious nonsense.

  3. Ed Lim Reply

    Tom, I’d been to Lanciano and went to see the old Host in the Church. When I was taking a picture, the Host was pulsating right before my eyes.

    1. Tom Rafferty Reply

      Sure it was. You expected it to do that. Now, can you produce what I asked for, as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Testimony from a believer alone will never impress a science-based thinker. Why? The brain plays tricks with us.

  4. Blaine Reply

    Yes, the Church is ridiculous & teaches nothing but superstitious nonsense yet some are so drawn to it that I see their names commenting on every article I read. Truly amazing, maybe even a miracle.

      1. Shilo Stigen Reply

        Tom, how do you define religion, and what do you believe makes it harmful?

        1. Tom Rafferty Reply

          I use the narrow sense of the word religion: an organized group promoting the claim that there is an interventionist deity.

          Why do I think it is harmful? I do suggest that you take a good amount of time to read the many posts in the link to my blog. In short, religion promotes the notion that one can accept claims without evidence. BTW, besides religion, alternative to medicine promoters and all others who promote pseudo-scientific ideas are also guilty of this action.

          I strongly accept the claim that the present state of the Republican party’s failure to accept evidence against its ideology is directly related to its hijacking by the religious right. Also, the more serious one takes their religion, the more the tendency to proselytize (which is the spreading of its false dogma as Truth) and attempt to break the Constitutional wall of the separation of church and state.

          BTW, I answered you question regarding how I account for compassion and it is awaiting moderation.

  5. Shilo Stigen Reply

    Tom, I’m not sure where Catholic Say will put this comment, but thank you for your gracious reply. I’m sorry about the loss of your mother and the pain that it caused you. I can tell that you went to great lengths in wrestling with questions on life/death/soul/brain, and although I have different conclusions on those topics, I admire your honesty.

    Based on your consideration of the Maryknoll Brotherhood, and the story you shared about your mom, you seem like a compassionate person. How do you account for compassion now that you seemed to have eliminated the possibility of a personal God from your worldview?

      1. Shilo Stigen Reply

        Hi Tom! Sorry for the slow reply. I’ve read many of your links and done some thinking. I agree with you that people with a greater tendency towards compassion may be naturally more likely to survive and bear children who also tend towards compassion, but I also believe that it is more reasonable to believe that God created nature to function as such, than to believe that this “pro-compassion” function of nature was merely accidental.

        Regarding Darwin’s quote, “those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring,” I looked at the LA Times Zuckerman article, and I found one significant problem with it:

        I compared the least and most religious countries listed by Zuckerman by going to http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?year_high_desc=false. The least religious countries had a 2015 per-woman fertility rate of 1.7 (Range 1.2-2.0), whereas the most religious countries had a 2015 per-woman fertility rate of 3.3 (Range 1.8-5.7).

        Furthermore, a brief look at http://worldabortionlaws.com/map/ also shows that the least religious countries are far less restrictive about abortion laws than the most religious countries.

        I acknowledge that other factors brought up by Zuckerman may favor less religious societies, but how can you claim that religion is harmful and detrimental to society when more religious countries have nearly twice as many children than less religious ones?

      2. Shilo Stigen Reply

        Hi Tom! My last comment is stuck in moderation again, but I’m sorry for the slow reply. I’ve read many of your links and done some thinking. I agree with you that people with a greater tendency towards compassion may be naturally more likely to survive and bear children who also tend towards compassion, but I also propose that it is more reasonable to believe that God created nature to function as such, than to believe that this “pro-compassion” function of nature was merely accidental.

        Regarding Darwin’s quote, “those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring,” I looked at the LA Times Zuckerman article, and I found one significant problem with it:

        I compared the least and most religious countries listed by Zuckerman by going to http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?year_high_desc=false. The least religious countries had a 2015 per-woman fertility rate of 1.7 (Range 1.2-2.0), whereas the most religious countries had a 2015 per-woman fertility rate of 3.3 (Range 1.8-5.7). I had to make a spreadsheet to compile the data, but it’s easy to find for individual countries on Zuckerman’s list by just searching for their names on the World Bank website (ex. Ctrl+F, then “Sweden”)

        I acknowledge that other factors brought up by Zuckerman may favor less religious societies, but how can you claim that religion is harmful and detrimental to society when more religious countries have nearly twice as many children than less religious ones?

        1. Tom Rafferty Reply

          Shilo, you said, “I also propose that it is more reasonable to believe that God created nature to function as such, than to believe that this ‘pro-compassion’ function of nature was merely accidental.” Upon what evidence do you place this belief? Can’t you see that this is the classical “God of the Gaps” argument?
          Your comments equating a higher birth rate with success is comparing apples with oranges. Some societies have more children and, coincidentally, may be religious, BUT, you are assuming that they are the happiest. Darwin’s quote was in the general context of the more compassionate and cooperative groups SURVIVED, thus had more total children. As you read in one of my links, today, the happiest societies are the least religious.

Leave a Reply