0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
76 tayangan1 halaman
In 1996, a priest in Buenos Aires, Argentina noticed that a fragment of the Holy Eucharist had turned into flesh. When scientifically analyzed, it was determined to be heart muscle. However, the graduate student reacted skeptically to this reported Eucharistic miracle, believing there was not enough evidence presented and only one expert analyzed the specimen. They conclude that further investigation would be needed to prove it as a true miracle.
In 1996, a priest in Buenos Aires, Argentina noticed that a fragment of the Holy Eucharist had turned into flesh. When scientifically analyzed, it was determined to be heart muscle. However, the graduate student reacted skeptically to this reported Eucharistic miracle, believing there was not enough evidence presented and only one expert analyzed the specimen. They conclude that further investigation would be needed to prove it as a true miracle.
In 1996, a priest in Buenos Aires, Argentina noticed that a fragment of the Holy Eucharist had turned into flesh. When scientifically analyzed, it was determined to be heart muscle. However, the graduate student reacted skeptically to this reported Eucharistic miracle, believing there was not enough evidence presented and only one expert analyzed the specimen. They conclude that further investigation would be needed to prove it as a true miracle.
Marist Avenue, General Santos City Graduate School
Course Title: Formation of Moral Values
Professor: Leopoldo Lacson Graduate Student: Jona Phie D. Montero
Reaction Paper on the Miracle on Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires
In 1996, a local priest in Buenos Aires, Argentina noticed that a fragment of
the Holy Eucharist miraculously turned into flesh. Archbishop Bergoglio, (now Pope Francis) had the sample photographed and scientifically analysed in New York City where it was determined it was of heart muscle and "...remain an inexplicable mystery to science." With this phenomenon I am quite skeptic. I am a believer of God but I am not a Catholic. Although many claimed that this event was a sign of Eucharist that reminds the People the God is alive and not just a symbol still I dont think that the specimen is really like that. For me, there were many ways to prove that God is existing. I dont know if it can be called as miracle because there is not enough evidence presented and there was only one expert who tested the specimen. Additional investigation may be done. Besides in a church where I belong, this kind of miracle did not happen in our history and bread and wine were only powerful symbols of Christ's covenant not the covenant itself. I believe in Miracles such as faith in God may cure the sick but if the said miracle was only focus on symbolism, sometimes its hard to believe since they can be man-made. As a conclusion, I think further investigation may be done so that it can be proven as a true miracle.
Orthodox Afterlife: 2,000 Years of Afterlife Experiences of Orthodox Christians and a Biblical and Early Christian View of Heaven, Hell, and the Hereafter