Monday, 7 October 2013


Would you eat it?

Background to this article: A few years ago, I answered a challenge in an Irish newspaper to disprove that the consecrated wafer literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. My reply was that the onus of proof was on the Roman Church, not on those of us who disagree with their doctrine. I pointed out that none of the five senses perceived the consecrated wafer to be anything other than bread. I got two letters sent to my home from people who disagreed with me. The first simply scolded Protestant churches for their unbelief of Roman doctrine. The second was some what different and has led to this short article.The writer sent me a tract entitled "The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano" It may be read word for word on a website promoting the Lanciano incident.

To summarise, a RC monk back in the 8th Century expressed doubt about the reality of the "real" i.e. physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. During "Holy Mass" after the "twofold consecration" the host or wafer was turned into live flesh and the wine was changed into live blood. This has been preserved now for twelve centuries and when subjected to scientific investigation in 1970-71 and partly again in 1981 the analyses sustained the following conclusions:

* The Flesh is real Flesh.

* The Blood is real Blood.

* The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

* The Flesh consists of the muscolar tissue of the heart.
* In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left    ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

* The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.

* The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima   Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

* In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

* In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

* The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

The tract concludes with the following words: In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

The man who sent me this tract in response to my letter to the newspaper obviously feels that it answers my other observation that none of the five senses perceive the wafer to be anything than bread and not the physical flesh of the Son of God. Has he a case? I think not and here, briefly is the recent why.

Working on the assumption that this incident is not an elaborate hoax - some of Rome's so called miracles fall into this category - all this case does is show that the wafer became flesh. In the absence either of divine revelation or DNA from the body of the Son of God while He was alive on this earth, the answer is that there is no proof that this is the body of Jesus Christ. No matter who else takes over the case at this point, science with all of its limitations cannot go any further.

The Bible simply does not teach the Roman doctrine of the Mass. The words of Christ "This is my body" and "This is my blood" are figurative words. Just as when He said; "The field is the world etc.," (Matthew 13:38) or "I am the door..." (John 10:9) It is worth pointing out - as I did in my reply - that the miraculous must always take second place to scripture (Luke 16:31) We test the "miracles" by the scripture and not vice versa.

All things being equal, all Rome can produce a piece of human flesh. Scientific tests show it to be the muscular tissue of the heart etc., According to RC doctrine, it is to be eaten. Every other mass wafer is (according to Rome) really human flesh - just it isn't as obvious to the eyes or scientific investigation - but it is the same substance after consecration. People are expected to eat it. If you were a Roman Catholic, would you eat it? Why not? Your church puts the following words of Jesus in an Euarcharistic setting. Jesus said "Except ye eat my flesh…you have no life in me." (John 6:53) To take these words symbolically puts you into the Protestant camp. But to follow the teaching of your Church means that if it were placed on your tongue by your priest, then you would be required to eat it i.e. the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium and all. Does a sickly feeling creep over your stomach as you read these words? It does over mine as I type them. I cannot help think of the words of St Augustine who wisely wrote:
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." [John 6:53] This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." Christian Doctrine (3:16)

Better still, the word of God itself says:
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say. (1 Corinthians 10:14-15)


No comments:

Post a Comment

All are welcome to comment here provided that the usual principles of Christian comment e.g. politeness etc. are observed.