Common Objections

God of the Gaps?: A god of the gaps argument is defined as not knowing how something happens, forming a theology to answer it, and, thus, believing in this theology. This miracle is not the case. The Gospel of Mark, where the Last Supper scene of the Bible is from, was written before 73 AD [10], and the Early Christians, such as Saint Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD, believed in the real, physical presence in the Eucharist [11]. Thus, the theology of the Eucharist was largely formed before the miracle event, not after. And the story of the miracle also occurs before the experiments done (see Historical Dating), thus, there is no clear evidence theologies are being formed to explain the unknown in this situation. While we do have God as the answer to our questions, that is not always a god of the gaps fallacy, as, if there were a God who gave us evidence for Him, and we used this evidence to point to Him, we'd be right. One cannot assume that there is no God before looking into evidence, as, then, even if there is a God, this person will never know.

In terms of the miracle itself, we know enough about bread and wine to know that they do not spontaneously turn into body and blood that never rots. We also know from mummies that proteins show large-scale degradation over large amounts of time [12] [13], and have no evidence of protein blood lasting more than a few days at room temperature before degrading [14]. The samples from Lanciano, though, were superimposable to fresh proteins [3, Page 36], yet no preservatives were detected [3, Page 32]. Few, if any, known secular examples of this phenomenon exist, and we know of no natural explanation that fits all of these attributes. Since it lines up with Catholic Eucharistic Theology well, though, the God of Christianity is the most likely explanation for this event with the data we have. For more information on this philosophy, see Robert Larmer's work in the 15th citation for this page. [15]

Historical Dating: Some claim that the historicity of this miracle is unclear until the 1500s, where known records of it first appear. This could be explained by the fact that there were earlier records, but they were stolen in the 1500's [3, page 9], and had to be replaced. Thus, I argue that it is still likely from the  8th century, but even if the most skeptical claims are true and this happened in the 1500s, there is still preserved tissue and blood that needs explanation. Thus, the validity of the miracle stands, though the history may potentially need updating.

How do we know this is an old sample, and not fake?: Reduced levels of Phosphorus, Sodium, and Potassium are consistent with an old sample [3, Page 37, 38], indicating that this is not newly-made. Histological analysis also shows that there is normal cell morphology [3, page 25-32] As the latest possible date for this specimen to appear is the 1500s, and Robert Hooke, the man who discovered cells, was born in 1635 [16], these specimens are very unlikely to have been manufactured by people. Thus, I conclude that this is an old sample, and likely not faked. While the proteins were superimposable to fresh blood [3, Page 36, Control sample [17], it could be that God wanted to make a sample appear both new and old, to distinguish it from normal old tissue, but also disprove claims of fresh material being used for the test instead of the Lancaino samples. It is also important to note that no preservatives were detected in the samples [3, Page 32], and that the Electrophoretic Analysis done on the proteins would normally detect large-scale degradation had there been any. [18] In addition, the Catholic Church has debunked alleged Eucharistic Miracle claims in the past, including one in Tyrol, Austria [2], so, when it does say yes to one, like in Lanciano, the yes is more valid.

Could it be a Mummy?: This objection is often raised to explain the lack of nuclei from the H&E staining in this experiment, as mummifying substances leads to inconsistent stain results. [19] The sample was searched for mummifying chemicals, such as the ones used in Egyptian Mummies, and none were found [3, Page 32]. In addition, old, naturally mummified samples, such as ones found in northern German bogs 1600-2300 years ago, or Korean ones from 500 years ago, show decayed outer cell layers and excessive collagen [20]. The Lanciano sample, however, showed none of these signs [See Fig. 10 of the Third citation on this page]. Drying is the only thing to have happened to this sample [3, Page 24]. In addition, previously dry samples do show nuclei when treated with H&E stain [21], so, if the Lanciano sample had nuclei, the staining would have revealed it. More on the lack of DNA can be found below. Thus, the evidence strongly suggests that no known natural or chemical mummification process can sufficiently explain the Lanciano samples.

Did the WHO confirm this?: Many claim that over 500 tests were done on this sample by the World Health Organization (WHO), but this was discovered to be mislabeled papers about Egyptian Mummies. [2] It is unknown how this hoax was started, but, as many Catholics say, it is, "terrible deception". [22] Either way, the report from Dr. Linoli and the English summary [3] is sufficient evidence, thus, this miracle stands.

The AB Blood Type might be fake: Many individuals bring this objection up about the claimed AB blood type [2]. While this seems to be the strongest objection, even if it does have validity, though, there still body and blood that need explanation, regardless of the blood type. Thus, while this objection may, at worst, disprove a minor detail, it does not disprove the overall claim of this miracle.

How do we know it was originally bread?: To say that it was not originally bread and wine would need an alternative explanation; a naturalistic, non-miraculous method for how this event could happen. But, as discussed in the second paragraph of the God of the Gaps? section, there are none we know of.  Even though the specimen was dry, even freeze dried food only lasts 2-6 months when opened [23], and this sample is at least hundreds of years old, and not sealed as well. This makes a purely natural  cause for this highly unlikely, and less likely than the miraculous alternative. Thus, the simplest explanation with the data we have is the story and theology that existed before the tests were done: that the Monk, on that day, asked if Jesus (יֵשׁוּעַ) was there, and He said, "yes," and preserved His,"yes," for future generations to see.

Why did the Samples Lack Nuclei/DNA?: Jesus (יֵשׁוּעַ) was fully God and fully Man [24], thus, He had human DNA while on Earth [25], though probably not through natural means, as Mother Mary (מרים) was a virgin at the time of His birth (CCC §498).

In the Miracle samples, to avoid people sequencing Jesus (יֵשׁוּעַ)'s genes, cloning Him, etc. the DNA could have been present, but veiled in the same way as in normal Eucharists in transubstantiation [1], so people could not detect it. Despite no DNA found, it is still known that the sample is human, because of the results of the Zonal Precipitation test ([3], Page 34) and the Electrophoretic Analysis [3, Page 36]. Thus, the DNA was likely veiled to make cloning Jesus (יֵשׁוּעַ) impossible, but does not affect an overall result of this experiment.

Which tests Confirmed what?:

- Normal morphology/tissue type: Histological Studies, H&E staining.

- Blood present: Thin Layer Chromatography

- Human Species: Zonal Precipitation

- Normal Protein Composition/Structure: Electrophoretic Analysis

- No Preservatives: Histological Studies [3]

How can I learn more about this?: Visit Google, and search: "The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano Historical, Theological, Scientific and Photographic Documentation"". This article was written by Fr. Nicola Nasuti, and details all of the experiments, tests, and photographic evidence for the claims made in this page. Much of the information here used this source. You can also click here.