While doing research on the transubstantiation, I came across mention of a miracle which is said to have occurred with the Eucharist at a small Italian church in Lanciano around the year 700. The story goes that there was a monk who was doubting his faith, and asking God for a sign. So while he was consecrating Mass for the townspeople, suddenly the wafer he was holding turned into an actual piece of flesh, and the wine turned into actual blood. Or so the story goes, anyway.

Evidently, they preserved the piece of flesh and the blood, and it still exists today. There are pictures and stuff online. There were “scientific” tests run on it in the 1970’s, which determined that it was actually flesh from a heart, and that the bloodtype of the flesh and the blood were both AB, and a bunch of other findings.

Anyway, it sounds like fun, but it also sounds totally made up. I mean, from the standpoint of supporting Church doctrine in the hearts and minds of the people, it just seems way too convenient. It’s like they realized people were having trouble - even back then - with this doctrine of transubstantiation, so they made up a little story to teach them. In the story, the hero is a priest, a servant of god, but even he has doubts. This of course validates the doubts of ordinary people hearing this tale. And then to prove himself, God supposedly converts the Eucharist. Which dogmatically, doesn’t really even fit in with the doctrine - because you’re supposed to believe in it even though your senses tell you otherwise. That’s like part of the whole point. And anyway, isn’t there some passage in the Bible (Matt 4, I think) where they say something about how you’re not supposed to “test” God? Yeah, I don’t know.

In any event, my point is that its convenient from a doctrinal standpoint, and that makes its historicity as a miracle kind of questionable for me, even though I still think it’s cool.