Talk:Eucharistic miracle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
[edit] NPOV Dispute
This article has some grammatical and typographical errors. It is definitely not a Catholic Propaganda. Based on the facts and information presented, this article is incomplete and needs further sources. Scientific facts seemed to be accurate but need some more details.
This page appears to be Catholic Propaganda. The 'Eucharistic Miracle' is written about as fact. I would suggest that some controversy should be added to the article.
Sorry to tell you, but I do not agree with you that this is a Catholic Propaganda. I believe that the facts that have been reported here are correct, as I have already searched and checked with other sites online, which totally agree to the "Eucharistic Miracle" content. Thank you.
Sorry but I recently saw a NG documentary on this, the miracle is a FAKE. I'll try to look it up somewhere else, and bring back some real proof
This article has the makings of a great article, if only it was toned down from an assertion to a history of the claims. PhatJew 10:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The section about the Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano is historically accurate and has definitely been verified. It IS fact.
Nothing in science is ever 'verified.' Gravity, despite all the evidence around it, is known still as the "Theory of Gravity." There may a preponderance of evidence supporting it, but in scientific language, we maintain a lexicon of precise wording that differentiates between law and theory. Similarly, there may be a preponderance of evidence supporting the miraculous nature of the phenomena described in the article, but since the language of science is used to describe the 'veracity' of the claims, we must use such words as 'evidence,' 'support,' 'suggest,' etc., not 'fact,' 'definitive,' or 'proof.' That a host bleeds does not logically suggest Transubstantiation. It may suggest that the material examined may have been flesh, but we cannot explain how this happened. The crux of the issue is the 'how,' not so much the 'what.' It may have been a simple switch of material at an opportune moment. It may have been bona-fide Divine Intervention. We just do not know, so to use such definitive language in this otherwise well-written article is inappropriate and borders on irresponsible.
Know that I say this a both a scientist and a believer.
This article is accurate. It is not biased. If you feel that the information in this article is not accurate then feel free to provide substantial evidence that it is not.
Perhapse some of these refrences can help the discussion.
http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/tableofcontents.html http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/photorecognition.html http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/voiceofscience2.html
There are hosted at an academic institution in itially. They page contians significant amounts os sientific data.
--chistofishman 18:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see some examples of evidence against the miracle. Surely there are more than the single investigation you describe here? What is the official stance of the catholic church on this miracle? Are there any scientists that speak out against the claims of the investigation you cite, or any other, and why? It seems to me, upon reading this article, that you describe only one side of the story, and not only this, that this side of the story is irrefutable... The description you give here, due its biased nature, only serves to cast doubt on the validity of the miracle.
--A concerned Roman Catholic 13:36, 31 July 2006 (GMT)
"Unquestionable scientific precision?" That section, by the way, was lifted word-for-word from one of the sites mentioned under "plagarism.
Catholic here. I must say however, that this article is very lacking in both sources and a neutral (skeptical) examination. I have searched for a National Geographic piece on Lanciano and so far haven't found any. Regardless, I'm sure there is some information out there that could be presented as evidence against the actuality of a miraculous Eucharistic phenomena. I do however, find it hard to believe that Lanciano could be proven correct or incorrect, as it was 1300 years ago, and we have no witnesses to it, only Church history. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church would not compell any believers to accept Lanciano or any other miracle not associated with Jesus' earthly sojourn, including Fatima, Lourdes or Kiehbo. I would suggest better citations for the information that exists on this page and a better inspection of skeptical arguments against the phenomena including that of people whose credibility is questionable. Try a site called madredelaeucharista.com. I think that's what it is called. Looking at this, you have trouble not being a doubter. However, try for Fr. Lawrence Sweeney of Ogden, Utah. Just google it. That's a modern occurance, real or unreal that occured in 1992. Good luck.
FOR ONE: EVERYONE NEEDS TO SIGN their posts. Just place four consecutive tildas at the end of the post. (~). Second, I am a devout Catholic who personally belives this miracle, but the article is not in an acceptable standard for Wikipedia. No scientific experiments are done with absolute and unquestionable certainty. Even the highly contested and highly repeated Miller-Urey experiment, is now coming under scruitiny.
Second, I thought the Catholic Church wouldn't define any pilgrimage sites as dogmatic, but the author seems to think the church takes that position. Pilgrimage "worthiness" is matter left to the faithful, but the church may issue a statement if the miracle is "credible" or "worthy of belief". See Shroud of Turin or Our Lady of Fatima. Trevor 14:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
When reading the Summary it became painfully obvious, that the professors only confirmed that what they had investigated was actually flesh and blood. How was it confirmed that this wasn't put into the glass thingy directly before the research ? Which is probably the oldest trick in the book, just ask any stage magician.195.124.114.36 10:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
