1. dane said:


    I am a non-Roman Catholic follower of Jesus. Someone had posted this article on Facebook and I read it with interest. It is a subject matter that I have given careful consideration. Although I have reached my conclusions on the topic, I am always interested in what others believe. I certainly respect the opinions and thoughts of those with whom I disagree on the topic.

    That being said I was fairly amazed with the thought process behind the issue in this article. It seems the author was struggling to know whether the elements of the Eucharist became the real presence of Christ or if they simply represented them.

    The author first mentioned that he was deeply affected by his sister’s deeply held conviction in the topic. Then, the author was profoundly affected by the report of an eight century miracle. Reportedly, after offering words of consecration, a monk saw the elements miraculously change into flesh and blood. The author went on to say that scientific tests would later confirm that the flesh was real flesh and the blood was real blood. The author concluded that the testimony of this and other miracles “are great affirmations of the truth of Christianity.”

    What struck me was that this article appeared on a website called, “Reasonable Catholic.” I didn’t investigate the complete website but I had the sense that it was an apologetic-styled web site; one that appealed to the intellect with reasonable responses to challenges. This was odd because this article had nothing to do with any “reasonable” process. Rather, the author was first impressed with his sister’s conviction and then he decided that a reported miracle had only one conclusion.

    The problems are obvious to the critical thinker. First, a person’s conviction might be admirable. But, a person might be wrongly convicted. For example, most ISIS fighter are likely deeply convicted in their faith. Does that make it right? Of course not. Conviction does not mean truth. We would be wrong to assume something is true by looking at another person’s deep conviction.

    Secondly, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the elements in the 8th century miracle truly became flesh and blood. How would anyone know what the meaning of that miracle was? Why should it be assumed that the miracle meant the elements were the real body and blood of Christ? What if God was trying to say that they were obviously not the real presence of Christ by making them become something they were not? Someone could easily take that position, yes? And, why should we even assume that the miracle was from God? 2 Thess. 2:9 warns us that Satan can duplicate lying miracles. How do we know that this wasn’t Satan? We know that God sometimes tests our faith by allowing false prophets and miracles (Deut. 13:1-3). Perhaps this was a false miracle? The critical thinker will consider that possibility.

    Unless the author of the article reached his conclusions by relying on other methods (namely Biblical), then he has proven only that his faith in the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion is unreasonable. My understanding of Christian theology demands a deeper, more reasonable approach.

    August 11, 2015
    • Matt Nelson said:

      Hi Dane, thank you for your comments. First, nowhere in the article do I contend that this miracle alone was or is sufficient reason to believe in the Real Presence. Second, it is merely one blog post – but one seed planted early in my conversion process that opened my mind to further evidence. It is not meant to be a complete defense of the Eucharist by any means. If you want a more substantial defense of the Eucharist, here is another article I wrote. As a critical thinker with an open mind, I’m sure you will find a more reasonable case for the Eucharist here: http://www.reasonablecatholic.com/the-eucharist-and-what-jesus-meant-by-is/

      Thanks again!

      August 11, 2015
      • dane said:

        Hey Matt!

        Thanks for the quick reply. I was relieved to learn that you hadn’t reached your present conclusions on the items mentioned in the above article. I had suspected the same, but wasn’t sure. I read the article that you directed me to and you are correct; I found it much more critical in its approach and far better in presenting a reasonable case for your conclusions.

        I once wrote a blog involving the same issue. I engaged with some of the same evidence in which you did, but reached a different conclusion. You can find mine at: http://www.featheredprop.com/is-jesus-literally-present-in-the-eucharist/



        August 11, 2015
    • Lee said:

      For those without faith no proof is sufficient. For those with faith none is necessary. The church founded by Jesus declares the truth of the Eucharist. That’s good enough for me.

      September 7, 2016
  2. Sam Kylaws said:

    Would you happen to have access to an original and legally-obtained copy of the article written by Prof. Odoardo Linoli in 1971 titled “Ricerche Istologiche, Immunologiche e Biochimiche Sulla Carne e Sul Sangue del Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano”? And would you also have access to his follow-up article of 1981? If so, where did you obtain it/them? Thanks for your kind attention.

    February 2, 2016
  3. Sam Kylaws said:

    Thanks anyway, Matt..

    February 6, 2016

Leave a Reply to dane Cancel reply