From: "Santosh Helekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Fr. Ivo C da Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consulted by ZENIT, Dr.Odoardo Linoli explained that "as regards the
flesh, I had in my hand the endocardium. Therefore, there is no doubt at
all that it is cardiac tissue."
The above claim belies the denial below:
***This I have not learned from the Internet, but from historical books and
from Theology.
This is a good example of another blatant contradiction. ZENIT is a
religious news website, not a historical book. Here is the link to that
site:
> http://www.zenit.org/article-12933?l=english
*** I am getting used to the amateurichs, un-scientific statements of
Dr.Santosh. He is harping on his mistakes.
Zenit is a news website. What I am quoting is not a religious authority, but
a scientific authority of Dr.Edoardo Linoli. Again, I cannot see any
"contradiction", because there is none. I have read books on Eucharistic
Miracles written by authors with scientific background. Since I did not have
the book with me presently and could not cite the page, I have given the
reference to Zenit. Dr.Linoli examined the host turned into "flesh and
blood" and concluded that it was "cardiac tissue". The scientific value of
the statement comes from the research of Dr.Linoli. It is based on the
historical report of the miraculous phenomenon. "Dr.Linoli's analysis
revealed no traces of preservatives in the elements, meaning that the blood
could not have been extracted from a corpse, because it would have been
rapidly altered. Linoli's report was published in "Quaderni Sclavo di
Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori" in 1971. In 1973, the Higher Council of
the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed a scientific commission to
verify the Italian doctor's conclusions. The work was carried out over 15
months with a total of 500 examinations. The conclusions of all the
researches confirmed what had been stated and published in Italy. The
extract of the scientific research of WHO's medical commission was published
in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science's inability to explain
the phenomenon".
The Church authorities do acept it as a miracle. Pope Benedict XVI referred
to it recently. We challenge Dr.Santosh to examine it at Lanciano and
explain the 'scientific' phenomenon. What is worse is that Dr.Santosh relies
on the website for the theological statements of philosophers, like
Baruch/Benedict Spinoza...
It is simple for anybody to understand that historical books, religious
websites and theological publications are not credible sources of
scientific information. And yet, Fr. Ivo relies on them for his
"scientific" knowledge, and believes without the least amount of
skepticism everything that they say.
***I do not believe everything that others say. We are not credulous.
"Scientific illiteracy" is his device and bogey to dodge out the real
answers. If we cannot rely on historical books, how can we write history?
Critical historiography is needed, but this means that one has to rely on
historical books, coupled with comparison and discernment with the help of
modern means.
The fact that these non-scientific sources cannot impart legitimate
knowledge of science is strikingly evident from the following astounding
question of Fr. Ivo:
> "Historical evidence is not scientific evidence?"
***It is absurd to say that historical evidence is not scientific evidence.
History will be well documented and scientifically recorded.
It appears that all it takes for Fr. Ivo to claim that something is
scientific is merely the fact of its having been written in some old
historical or parochial theological document.
***Dr.Santosh is changing his point of reference from time to time. "Old
historical documents" are history to be confirmed with all the modern
gadgets and scientific methodologies. Theological documents are also based
on historical facts... They are not 'parochial', they are universal, for all
to see. Today there is historical criticism, based on excavations, documents
and monuments.
Regarding the rest of the rehashed material in his latest post, the
contradictions and errors in it have already been pointed out before.
***Let Dr.Santosh learn what is the meaning of a contradiction and re-learn
the scientific historiography before he points out to 'contradictions and
errors"...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
