I’m pretty sure that life doesn’t have a meaning
And if there’s a god then he doesn’t look like me
And I’m just a member of the current apex species
But there will be another when the humans go extinct
We’ve only been around two hundred thousand years
Of thirteen and a half billion years
How can we think the pinnacle is here?
Isn’t that arrogant?
There’s a couple hundred billion trillion suns
And we act like it all was made for us
There ain’t no way that we’re the only ones

I’m not important, and neither are you
So let’s do whatever we wanna do
Bask in our cosmic insignificance
Soak up this blip we’re livin’ in
‘Cause nothing matters anyway
Isn’t that great?

The statement contains several true insights: it perceives the link between being made in the image of God and having importance. It also perceives the link between saying “Do what you want” and “You don’t matter.” This lucidity is not all that common. Quite a few people seem to want to hold on to the idea that man has a certain importance while also wanting him to be able to act in a completely undetermined way. If I can be whatever I want, it is probably because what I am ultimately doesn’t matter.

But in this article I wanted to respond to another intuition in this statement: we are so small, how could we possibly be even slightly significant? It should be noted that this intuition finds an echo in the biblical text itself. Psalm 8 declares in verses 3 and 4 :

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? (KJV)

The Bible does not lull man with illusions about his importance. This importance has something paradoxical about it, and one did not need a telescope to notice it. Man is very small, and yet God seems to care about him. But, when you think about it, the association of size and value has little foundation. The paradox is emotional rather than rational: seeing a splendid and majestic landscape can help us put our problems into perspective, even though their importance in reality has no connection with either the size or the beauty of the mountain we are contemplating. It is even only because man is capable of aesthetic judgment, of ranking moral importances, and of other value judgments that the relative size of the galaxies compared with our smallness strikes us. Thus, C.S. Lewis comments very aptly:

However that may be, it is certain that the whole argument from size rests on the assumption that differences of size ought to coincide with differences of value: for unless they do, there is, of course, no reason why the minute earth and the yet smaller human creatures upon it should not be the most important things in a universe that contains the spiral nebulae. Now, is this assumption rational or emotional? I feel, as well as anyone else, the absurdity of supposing that the galaxy could be of less moment in God’s eyes than such an atom as a human being. But I notice that I feel no similar absurdity in supposing that a man of five-feet high may be more important than another man who is five-feet three and a half—nor that a man may matter more than a tree, or a brain more than a leg. In other words, the feeling of absurdity arises only if the differences of size are very great. But where a relation is perceived by reason it holds good universally. If size and value had any real connection, small differences in size would accompany small differences in value as surely as large differences in size accompany large differences in value. But no sane man could suppose that this is so. I don’t think the taller man slightly more valuable than the shorter one. I don’t allow a slight superiority to trees over men, and then neglect it because it is too small to bother about. I perceive, as long as I am dealing with the small differences of size, that they have no connection with value whatsoever. I therefore conclude that the importance attached to the great differences of size is an affair, not of reason but of emotion — of that peculiar emotion which superiorities in size produce only after a certain point of absolute size has been reached.

We are inveterate poets. Our imaginations awake. Instead of mere quantity, we now have a quality — the sublime. Unless this were so, the merely arithmetical greatness of the galaxy would be no more impressive than the figures in a telephone directory. It is thus, in a sense, from ourselves that the material universe derives its power to over-awe us. To a mind which did not share our emotions, and lacked our imaginative energies, the argument from size would be sheer meaningless. Men look on the starry heavens with reverence: monkeys do not. The silence of the eternal spaces terrified Pascal, (4) but it was the greatness of Pascal that enabled them to do so. When we are frightened by the greatness of the universe, we are (almost literally) frightened by our own shadows: for these light years and billions of centuries are mere arithmetic until the shadow of man, the poet, the maker of myth, falls upon them. I do not say we are wrong to tremble at his shadow; it is a shadow of an image of God. But if ever the vastness of matter threatens to overcome our spirits, one must remember that it is matter spiritualized which does so. To puny man, the great nebula in Andromeda owes in a sense its greatness.

And this drives me to say yet again that we are hard to please. If the world in which we found ourselves were not vast and strange enough to give us Pascal’s terror, what poor creatures we should be! Being what we are, rational but also animate, amphibians who start from the world of sense and proceed through myth and metaphor to the world of spirit, I do not see how we could have come to know the greatness of God without that hint furnished by the greatness of the material universe. Once again, what sort of universe do we demand? If it were small enough to be cozy, it would not be big enough to be sublime. If it is large enough for us to stretch our spiritual limbs in, it must be large enough to baffle us. Cramped or terrified, we must, in any conceivable world, be one or the other. I prefer terror. I should be suffocated in a universe that I could see to the end of. Have you never, when walking in a wood, turned back deliberately for fear you should come out at the other side and thus make it ever after in your imagination a mere beggarly strip of trees?

Franciscan theologian and scholastic philosopher John Duns Scotus, living in the medieval period, asked himself the same question that concerns us here. Indeed, in addressing the proof of the truth of Christianity by miracles, he considers two objections, the second one being that miracles cannot be proofs of the truth, since it is said that the Antichrist will perform them.

Scotus’s reply to the objection has a legal shape and is easiest to follow in those terms. A witness who hears false testimony offered in his name and says nothing is naturally taken to assent to it; and likewise, if the accused chooses to remain silent in a situation where an innocent person would normally offer an explanation, one is entitled to infer that the answer would have been unfavorable. Applied to our situation, this principle raises a question about God’s truthfulness. Scotus puts it this way:

“If someone summoned as a witness allowed an ordinary sign of testimony to be presented, and although present did not contradict it, such silence would not be compatible with perfect truthfulness. A miracle is such a sign of God as witness; therefore, if He allowed miracles to be performed by demons and did not contradict them—that is, by declaring that they are not His testimony—He would not appear perfectly truthful.”

Duns Scotus’s answer is that God has already spoken. In this “trial,” God spoke first, announcing in advance that the Antichrist’s miracles are not testimonies to the truth:

“Thus is answered the case of Antichrist: God has foretold that the miracles that will be performed will not be testimonies of the truth, as is clear in Matthew 24:24 and 2 Thessalonians 2:8–9.”

God thus acts in two ways. When Pharaoh’s magicians matched the sign of the staff turned serpent, God answered at once with a greater one: Moses’s serpent swallowed theirs (Exod 7:10-12). To continue the trial analogy, they spoke, and God contradicted them on the spot. But with the Antichrist and false teachers, God opts for a different approach: He contradicts them beforehand, announcing that such wonders will come and are not to be believed. The argument in this latter case is anticipatory. It is true that if God had simply let the demons perform miracles without qualification, we would be left in uncertainty. But since He took the initiative and announced beforehand that they would do so (and since, moreover, divine revelation is itself closed), we have good remedies against these deceptions.

Seventeenth-century French philosopher and Christian apologist Blaise Pascal proposes essentially the same solution:

“If there is a God, faith in God must exist on earth. Now the miracles of Jesus Christ are not foretold by Antichrist, but the miracles of Antichrist are foretold by Jesus Christ. And so if Jesus Christ were not the Messiah, He would have indeed led into error; but Antichrist cannot surely lead into error.

When Jesus Christ foretold the miracles of Antichrist, did He think of destroying faith in His own miracles?

Moses foretold Jesus Christ, and bade to follow Him. Jesus Christ foretold Antichrist, and forbade to follow him. It was impossible that in the time of Moses men should keep their faith for Antichrist, who was unknown to them. But it is quite easy, in the time of Antichrist, to believe in Jesus Christ, already known.”

In the “trial” of miracles, then, God acts either by contradicting the deceptive miracle with a superior one after the fact, or by having announced the false miracle beforehand and warned us to beware of it:

“Either God confounded the false miracles, or he predicted them; and in both cases, he rose above the supernatural in relation to us, and raised us up to him.”

In this way, God does not allow us to be invincibly deceived, for He has given us a means of discernment: His Word, which forewarns us of false miracles. To deceive, after all, is to compel into error:

“There is a great difference between testing and leading into error. God tests, but he does not lead into error. To test is to offer occasions, without imposing constraint; if men do not love God, they will act in a certain way. To lead into error is to place a man under the constraint of inferring and following what is false.”

Let us recall in passing that the question of miracles was a live one in Pascal’s day—especially due to the Jansenist controversy. In 1656, with Port-Royal under pressure from Rome, the Sorbonne, and the Jesuits, the censured party was nonetheless granted the miracle of the Holy Thorn—the healing concerning none other than Pascal’s niece, Marguerite Périer. By most accounts, the Jansenist’s Jesuit opponents did not, in fact, contest the reality of the miracle.

According to Scotus and Pascal, then, the Antichrist or the false teacher performing miracles cannot deceive (in the intensive sense of compelling into error) in such a way that casts doubt on Jesus’s truthfulness—precisely because Jesus announced in advance that false teachers would perform miracles and that they should not be listened to. The strength of this solution is that it spares us the laborious work of evaluating the authenticity of every claimed miracle from this or that sect, and of determining when a demon may be acting vs. when God may be employing His own power to harden the impenitent. For us to identify a given wonder as a false miracle, it is enough that it contradicts the message Jesus has already accredited by His resurrection. The doctrinal criterion therefore seems unavoidable.

If you’re interested in a more detailed discussion of this subject, take a look at the article mentioned earlier!

Muse-Schmid’s reading holds that this text envisions not a prophet claiming to speak in God’s name, but exclusively one speaking in the name of false gods. This claim allows them to set the text aside when a Protestant objects that, even if they had miracles to produce, if those miracles confirm a doctrine that opposes biblical revelation, the Protestant may disregard the miracle in question. We have dealt exhaustively with the various arguments they offer on this point in a long, dedicated article. Here, I would like to gather specifically the exegetical reasons for rejecting this interpretation of Deuteronomy 13.

First, let us note that the burden is on Muse-Schmid to give reasons for restricting the scope of the text in this way. They do so by various non-exegetical reasons, which we addressed in the article mentioned above. If we focus on the exegetical reasons they consider, the main one, if not the only one, is that the prophet calls the people to go and worship other gods. The argument is that such a message could not be uttered by someone claiming to speak on God’s behalf.

1. The Temptation of Syncretism

The first reason to reject this reading is that the main temptation facing the Israelites, according to the Pentateuch’s narrative, is not so much the complete abandonment of the worship of YHWH as the corruption of his worship and its association with the worship of other gods. The call to worship other gods could therefore very well be uttered by a prophet claiming to speak on YHWH’s behalf. When I discussed this with Mario Teffner, a professor of Old Testament in the Netherlands, he told me that this is the majority interpretation among commentators on Deuteronomy. I provide some examples of commentaries to this effect in the long article.

Let us also recall that the two most striking examples of idolatry in the wilderness, the setting of the second giving of the law (Deuteronomy), are the golden calf at the beginning of the journey and the idolatry on the plains of Moab at Balaam’s instigation at the end of it. In both cases, this idolatry was a corruption of the worship of YHWH, initiated precisely by two prophets claiming to speak on God’s behalf. The worship of the golden calf was initiated by Aaron (Exod 32:1-6), whom Exodus had previously called a prophet (Exod 7:1). And Balaam also prophesies in the name of the LORD (Num 22:38; 23:12; 24:13; 31:16). As the commentator Duane Christensen said, the golden calf is presented by Aaron as miraculous : “And, in the narrative itself, Aaron claims that it was a miraculous event: “I threw [the gold] into the fire, and there came out this calf” (32:24).”

2. From Among You

Second, the text of Deuteronomy 13 says precisely that it warns about a prophet arising “from among you,” an expression that generally refers, in the Pentateuch, to the covenant people, that is, the people of the LORD. Since the threat is internal, it is not implausible that the prophet in this context is especially pernicious precisely because he claims to speak on behalf of the LORD.

3. The Superiority of the Written Word in Hittite Treaties

Scholars have often noted that Deuteronomy reproduces in several places the structure of ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties. In this connection, the commentator Tigay observes:

The first case is one in which the instigator’s proposal is hard to resist because he seems to have divine authority for what he proposes. Moreover, even verse 6 it appears that he can claim that the proposal comes from the Lord Himself, not another god. The law puts a rational limit on the authority of prophecy and miracles. It indicates that the prohibition against worshiping other gods is an absolute, eternally binding principle, and that even prophecies and seemingly miraculous proofs to the contrary are to be disregarded. Keeping in mind that a prophet is God’s envoy (see Comment to v. 2), it is noteworthy that in a Hittite treaty, the suzerain tells his vassal that when he sends him messages, if there is a discrepancy between the written text of a message and the oral version given by his envoy, the written message is authoritative and the envoy is not to be believed. Here in Deuteronomy the discrepancy is between the written text of the Decalogue and the oral claims of the false prophets.

If this interpretation is correct, then the text should be understood as a criterion for discerning between two messages that claim to originate from the same source—the true God.

4. The Synecdochic Nature of the First Commandment

The false prophet is presented as inviting the people to worship other gods. This refers to the prohibition of the first commandment. Now, throughout the Old Testament, this commandment serves as a synecdoche for all the divine commandments. The scope of the passage should therefore not be restricted to the sin of idolatry alone. Thus, there is no basis for seeing in this mention a reason to think that the prophet means to speak exclusively in the name of a foreign god.

In Deuteronomy, the evocation of the first commandment stands for the divine Law as a whole. Eugene Merrill argues that the Shema, which restates the first commandment as a call to exclusive love of Yahweh, is the very essence of the Decalogue and of the entire Law. It stands to the Decalogue as the Decalogue stands to the wider corpus of covenant stipulations. The structure of the book supports this analysis. Deuteronomy 5 presents the Decalogue as the basic statement of divine instruction, and the chapters that follow are widely read as its elaboration. Thus, the Old Testament scholar John H. Walton sees the lengthy exposition in chapters 6–11 as corresponding to the first commandment, the other commandments being treated in relation to God’s unique authority and status (a status established, precisely, by the first commandment).

The rest of the biblical canon uses this commandment in the same way, even where the people were guilty of many other faults. Moses concludes the Covenant Code by urging Israel to “pay attention to all that I have said to you,” and then names only one thing: do not invoke the names of other gods (Exod 23:13). Deuteronomy defines serving other gods as a transgression of the covenant (Deut 17:2-3), and when later writers explain Israel’s ruin, they compress the whole indictment into this single charge: the land lies desolate because Israel abandoned the covenant and served other gods (Deut 29:22-26; 1 Kgs 9:8-9; Jer 22:8-9). The book of Judges reduces generations of disobedience to serving the Baals, yet identifies that offense as failing to keep the commandments (Judg 2:11-23). Solomon’s downfall is traced to his going after other gods (1 Kgs 11:9-11), though he had also multiplied horses and gold against the king’s law (Deut 17:16-17; 1 Kgs 10). Ahab murdered Naboth through false witnesses and seized his vineyard (1 Kgs 21:1-16); yet the narrator’s verdict on his whole career is that he went after idols (21:26). Jeremiah charges Judah with oppressing the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, shedding innocent blood, stealing, murdering, and committing adultery (Jer 7:5-9; 22:3), but explains the coming desolation by saying they abandoned the covenant and served other gods (Jer 22:8-9; cf. 5:19). Ezekiel lists bloodshed, oppression, bribery, usury, and profaned Sabbaths (Ezek 22:6-12) and sums it all up as forgetting God (v. 12). The exile itself is traced to the rejection of the statutes and the covenant, with idolatry leading the charge, and the covenant commands are summarized as “you shall not fear other gods” (2 Kgs 17:7-23, 35-38). In each case, the first commandment stands for the whole of what Israel owed to God. Jesus does the same when he calls the Shema “the great and first commandment” and says that all the Law and the Prophets depend upon it (Matt 22:37-40). To cite the first commandment, then, is to invoke the whole covenant.

Indeed, Israel’s worship preserves the same pattern. In Psalm 81, a festival psalm, God recalls the exodus and Sinai and then names only the first commandment: “There shall be no strange god among you; you shall not bow down to a foreign god. I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt” (vv. 9-10). Yet the failure he laments is total: “my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me” (v. 11), and he longs that they would “walk in my ways” (v. 13). Of all the commandments, only the first is cited, but the failure described is total disobedience, and the promised blessing is for total obedience (vv. 13-16).

5. The Old Testament Use of Deuteronomy 13

This reading of Deuteronomy 13 is further confirmed by the way the text is used in the rest of the Old Testament. In Jeremiah 23:25-29, a passage within a larger section against false prophets, there is mention of a prophet who invokes a dream (חָלַ֖מְתִּי). This is one of the few occurrences of this term in connection with a false prophet, the only other instance outside of Jeremiah being Deuteronomy 13. Indeed, the false prophet in Deuteronomy 13 is called a “dreamer of dreams” (חֹלֵם֩ הַחֲל֨וֹם) three times. Yet in Jeremiah 23, there is a clear discussion of prophets who claim to speak on behalf of YHWH and who twist his words. Thus, Jeremiah 23 appears to use Deuteronomy 13 and apply it to a situation involving a prophet claiming to speak in God’s name.

6. The New Testament Use of Deuteronomy 13

To extend the previous argument, the Greek translation of Deuteronomy 13 repeatedly uses σημεῖον ἢ τέρας (“sign or wonder”) to describe the actions of the false prophet in view. This is the only instance, to my knowledge, where this expression is used in the context of false prophecy in the Greek Old Testament. Yet when the New Testament warns against false christs, it uses the same formula (σημεῖα μεγάλα καὶ τέρατα in Matthew 24:24; σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα in Mark 13:22). The same applies to the Antichrist (σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν in 2 Thessalonians 2:9). It seems that, like Jeremiah’s use of it, the New Testament invokes Deuteronomy 13 and applies it to cases where the false prophet purports to speak on behalf of God.

7. Other Comparable Warnings

More generally, this reading of Deuteronomy 13 is made more probable by the existence of comparable passages. When Paul declares that one should not listen to an angel or even an apostle if he were to proclaim a different gospel, when Jesus speaks of false prophets (the standard term in the New Testament for those who proclaim false doctrines) who will have performed miracles, or when he declares that people will claim to be the Christ and will perform miracles, it is clear that these passages are not about people who claim to speak exclusively in the name of a foreign god. And yet these texts speak of miracles and of their deceptive character. Let us recall that a christ is an anointed one of YHWH: the term is never used in Scripture to refer to an emissary of false gods.

Conclusion

If Deuteronomy 13 does envision a prophet who may speak in God’s name and perform a wonder, yet who is not to be heeded because the words he proclaims are contrary to God’s covenant, as the Israelites could judge it from the written form it had taken since Moses’ ministry, then the framework for evaluating miracles that Muse-Schmid propose must be revised. All the arguments given in this article are set out in more detail in the article mentioned in the introduction. All the references mentioned here can also be found there.

Following this, since interest in these miracles was greater among English-speaking audiences, I launched this Substack, where I have published a good ten articles on miracles. These include a response to Dr. Serafini on bacterial contamination, a response to the same Dr. Serafini regarding a personal attack, a note on the Lanciano electrophoresis, and a report on the opinions of 3 pathologists and 1 hematologist whom I contacted personally and who confirmed several of the analyses offered in my Lanciano articles.

In the course of these investigations, I also came across various alleged Eucharistic miracles that nobody promotes, because they have been shown beyond doubt to result from fungal or bacterial contamination. Catholic apologists, naturally, never mention these cases. But this can create the false impression that hosts turning red through a natural phenomenon are extremely rare, and so skew the assessment of the cases that apologists are so fond of.

My idea, therefore, is to list in this article, which I hope to keep up to date, the Eucharistic miracle claims that are unquestionably not miracles. I will offer few comments; the point is simply to gather them in one place.

Dallas (2006)

Few details are available for this case. But the diocese published a statement concluding that the “miracle host” was:

“a combination of fungal mycelia and bacterial colonies that have been incubated within the aquatic environment of the glass during the four-week period in which it was stored in the open air.”

South St. Paul (2011)

At St. Augustine Church, a host that fell to the floor during communion turned red in a cup of water. The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis had it analyzed by an independent laboratory, which concluded that a fungus was responsible. (Initial coverage)

Utah (2015)

In 2015, a consecrated host was left in water. This is the usual procedure when a host that cannot be consumed is found: it must be placed in water until it dissolves, or is unrecognizable, which marks the end of the real presence. After a week, a red substance was present in the water, apparently coming from the host. Parishioners moved the host so that it could be contemplated. The diocese opened an investigation. The red appearance was caused by bacteria known to produce such a color on bread. The result was announced by the diocese (see also Crux).

Tyrol (2016)

The summary of this case is provided by the investigators themselves, since the alleged miracle was the subject of a published study:

In summary, a host was found on the floor, under the pulpit of the Franciscan church, by a woman attending Mass on Saturday, April 16, 2016. She handed the host to one of the monks and, as is customary, the host was then placed in a “vasculum,” that is, a small glass container, in order to be dissolved. It was placed in the tabernacle of the high altar, next to the consecrated hosts.

It was not established whether the host in question was consecrated or not. The monks specified that it was not a “bread host” used for the celebration of the Eucharist, but a type of host called an “oblate host.”

Fourteen days later, on May 1, 2016, one of the monks serving at the altar wanted to throw the dissolved host behind the altar, which is the usual practice, also for consecrated hosts, once they have dissolved.

The three monks witnessed that the host had become partially red, taking on the appearance of a “bleeding host.” Over the following five years, the color of the host partly changed to “brown.” It was in 2020 that we, the scientists, were asked to study the nature of this “bleeding host.”

The first observations made in 2016 by a local physician had helped give rise, among the monks, to the conviction of a supernatural transformation of the host into “blood.”

According to the Fathers concerned, permission to carry out a scientific study of the host had been obtained from the superior of the Austrian Franciscan Order, Father Dr. Fritz Wenigwieser, in Salzburg.

And here is the study’s conclusion:

Five years after the initial discovery of the “bleeding host” by the Franciscan friars, we found bacterial and fungal contamination of the host (unleavened bread), but no formal evidence of mammalian tissue was revealed by the histopathological examination carried out in 2021.

25 other cases (2025)

In 2025, a team of researchers, most if not all of them Catholic, carried out rigorous analyses of 25 cases of hosts that turned red, across several continents. Here is their conclusion:

None of these cases revealed the actual proof of existence of human blood, human material other than single epidermal cells, and erythrocytes (probably very low-level contamination). In one case, insignificant amount of human male genetic material was observed, probably as a result of DNA transferred from a person to a host via contact with the host itself. In several specimens, a variety of microbial and fungal material was identified (Brevundimonas intermedia, Serratia marcescens, Epicoccum spp., Fusarium spp.), including species producing reddish-pink or orange-reddish pigments (Epicoccum spp., Fusarium spp.).

Then, alluding to the Linoli study, which I have analyzed, and to Virgolini’s study of the Tyrol case (2016), the authors make the following remark:

Unfortunately, with the exception of a few isolated cases (Virgolini et al., 2023; Linoli, 1971), the results of this work have never been communicated to the wider scientific community in the form of peer-reviewed articles. Some conclusions were instead disseminated in a form intended for the general public rather than the scientific community, which has given rise to ambiguity and confusion (Chłopkowska, 2017; Serafini, 2021).

(Note their appreciation of Serafini’s work)

Interestingly, the study also notes two cases where fungi closely resembled... human heart tissue under the microscope:

The microscopic characteristics of Fusarium culmorum and Epicoccum nigrum, found as contaminants of the hosts and observed under visible light and UVB light, are summarized in Fig. 4.

In one case, the histopathological image showed bundles of fibers with a red-brown coloration, with visible striations and nuclei, resembling cardiac muscle fibers. Grocott staining did not reveal the presence of fungi (case no. 1, Table 2).

In the second case, the histopathological image was similar to the previous one, but the nuclei were not visible.

Morris, Indiana (2025)

Once again, a host fell to the floor and was discovered shortly afterwards, stained red.

After an investigation, the Archdiocese of Indianapolis concluded:

“The results indicate the presence of fungus and three different species of bacteria, all of which are commonly found on human hands.”

Bonus: Julia Kim’s Eucharistic miracles

Julia Kim is a Korean mystic who also claims to have received visions, to relive the Passion of Christ, and to turn hosts into bloody flesh in her mouth. She is also said to keep statues of Mary at home that shed real tears. A shrine has since opened at Naju and become a pilgrimage site (that is, a site of religious tourism). After years of controversy surrounding the shrine, the Vatican ended up imposing automatic excommunication on those who would go there.

Despite this, the shrine’s website continues to claim the Pope’s support in a document pompously titled “The Vatican’s Official Position on Naju.”

I mention this fraudulent case because images of the Naju Eucharistic “miracles” remain the main source of illustrations used by Catholic apologists when designing the YouTube thumbnail for a video on a Eucharistic miracle. And one can understand why: an image like the first one below sells far better than one like the next, from Buenos Aires.

Honoré Tournély (1658–1729) was a French Catholic theologian, born in Antibes, who became a Doctor of the Sorbonne in 1686. He taught theology at the University of Douai and later at the Sorbonne. He is best known for his opposition to Jansenism and his support for the constitution Unigenitus. His major work, Praelectiones Theologicae, published from 1725 onward, brings together his theological teachings and was widely used as a textbook in seminaries throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the latter work, here is what he says concerning the necessity of judging miracles by doctrine:

This rule St. John prefixed to us in the First Epistle ch. 4 v.1: Beloved, he says, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. Hereby is known the Spirit of God: Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which denies Jesus is not of God, and this is Antichrist. .. .. “We are not of God: he that knows God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.” Hereby we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. The same rule God had already prescribed in the old Testament Deut. 13:1 in these words: If there rise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give you a sign or a wonder, and the thing which he has spoken come to pass, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet or that dreamer, because the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love him or not. Here false prophecy or prodigy is declared false because of the perverse end to which that man referred both; and God forbids that ye listen. p. 135 to do this. Therefore from the truth of doctrine itself the truth of miracles ought to be estimated; and conversely the truth of doctrine is confirmed by miracles: for these two certainly lend mutual light and aid to one another, and ought never to be separated from one another.

Honoré Tournély, Praelectiones theologicae, vol. 4 (Venice, 1729), digital ed. p. 134-135.

Juan José Urraburu (1844–1904) was a Spanish Jesuit and philosopher, professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, best known for his works on Scholastic philosophy and his major Institutiones philosophicae. In this work, specifically, here is what he reports concerning Suárez’s approach to the discernment of miracles:

For as the Excellent Doctor teaches clearly, “it does not pertain to the providence of God not to permit false signs, since they are useful for the testing and progress of the elect: but it does pertain to the providence of God that help be given, and a means by which they may be judged and recognized, because it is not of divine goodness and wisdom that He should permit a man to be tempted beyond that which he can bear.” And therefore, when, after moral diligence and investigation have been performed, it is still evident that the miracles which are performed in confirmation of a doctrine are true, no reason remains for doubting the truth of such a doctrine, especially if the miracles are frequent, and performed with great authority and power, and confirmed by the innocence and holiness of life, and in the doctrine itself nothing appears against honesty, nothing against right reason, and finally nothing against other divine revelations.

Wherefore, “when there are false miracles, as the same Suarez teaches, there is always left some way by which they can be morally judged, if men do what is in them to know the truth. First, by considering well the works and signs themselves and their circumstances. Second, by considering the person, life, and morals of him who speaks and acts in such a way. Third, by considering the doctrine itself, whether it is in any part opposed to reason, or to other divine revelations sufficiently proposed.”

Juan José Urráburu, Institutiones Philosophicae: Cosmologia, vol. III (Rome: APUD F. MELANDRI ET IN TIPOGRAPHIA S. CONGREGATIONIS DE PROPAGANDA FIDE), digital ed. p. 454

The Lanciano miracle, on which I have concentrated most of my efforts when it comes to examining a miraculous claim in detail (I’ll move on to others one day, I promise!), saw a study circulate for more than 50 years before anyone undertook to ask a histologist whether the study’s claims were plausible. It also took nearly 20 years for a fake study, supposedly signed by the WHO, to be exposed, even though in the months that followed an Italian skeptic had already pointed out the absence of any trace of the study in the WHO archives. This tells us that the claims behind this miracle are in reality only just beginning to be examined in depth, and the result is already devastating. That said, several gray areas remain that deserve to be clarified, and my time is limited. So I invite those who wish to help me complete the examination:

1. First, if you know hematologists and histologists willing to give an opinion (and it’s even better if they agree to have that opinion published under their name), get in touch with me privately;

2. Second, although we have public access to Linoli’s original study as well as good English and French translations, to my knowledge there is no public version of his second publication, ten years later in 1982, titled Odoardo Linoli, Studio anatomo-istologico sul « cuore » del Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano (VIII sec.). One document claims to be the French translation of this publication, but I cannot verify the reliability of the translation.

3. Certain widely repeated pieces of information, such as the total weight of 318 mg for the collected blood, do not appear in Linoli’s study. I suspect they come from the second publication, although it is surprising that this kind of basic information was not included in the original study.

4. A reader also posted this comment on one of my post a few months ago, which may indicate another area of research :

It would be good to go through and fact-check some of Nasuti’s other historical references, which seem to actually be drawn primarily from Bruno Sammaciccia’s book. Having made some very preliminary efforts in that regard, myself, I came away slightly suspicious.
For example, Nasuti attributes the story about the theft of the Basilian monks to a local historian of Lanciano named Giacomo Fella. However, he cites two of Fella’s works in his bibliography, “Chronologia urbis Anxani” and “Chronologia civitatis Lancianensis.” Since these titles essentially mean the same thing in Latin (”Anxanum” is the ancient name of Lanciano), I suspect they’re actually the same work. Moreover, I wasn’t able to locate this work under either title in the online catalogues of the few Italian libraries I tried (though other works by Fella did show up). I sent an email to someone at the Lanciano municipal library to see if they knew of its existence in some other, perhaps offline catalogue, but I didn’t hear back. It might be a good idea to try to find an Italian who lives nearby who’d be willing to inquire in person. Sammaciccia also cites this work, though only under the title “Chronologia civitatis Lancianensis,” providing an actual quote therefrom. I did find passing references to the book on a couple other websites which seem independent.
Nasuti also provides a quote directly mentioning the Lanciano relics from a 1589 (really 1586, he seems to have corrupted the date) book called “Historiarum Seraphicae Religionis.” This reference he also seems to be pulling from Sammaciccia, who gives the exact same quote with the correct 1586 publication year, plus specific page numbers helpfully provided. Sammaciccia here takes his own turn erroneously listing the same book twice in the bibliography, this time under two different authors, “Ridolfi P” and “Tossignano P” (these are actually the same person: Pietro Ridolfi da Tossignano). This book is actually available online here[1]; having found the quote after some difficulty, it seems to actually be talking about relics in a place called “Ludani” rather than Lanciano, although they’re geographically located in the same region. Here[2] is the full translation from Google. I’m not sure what the identity of this toponym is. It may well be a place inside Lanciano, but it’s unclear from the text.
I’m guessing both Nasuti and Sammaciccia are getting most of their history and historiography from that Sanna Solaro guy, who was writing in the late 19th century; incidentally, Linoli’s 1971 article also cites this author. But it’s obscure enough that I don’t think the relevant Sanna Solaro 45-page article can be found outside a physical Italian library (its existence is attested in online catalogues).
[1] archive.org/details/gri…
[2] “In that Custody [district] are the places of Chieti and Lanciano. It happened in the past years, in 1584, that a certain woman in Boma (?), hiding her piety and religion under the habit of Saint Francis (which is also said to have happened to certain other Saints), was discovered to be a woman, although she was held by everyone to be a monk.
There is the place of Ortona; the place of Pescara; the place of Palena; and the place of Guardiagrele, where the venerable head of Blessed Nicholas of Maiello is found at the altar of the chapel of the illustrious Lords Orsini.
There is the place of Francavilla; and the place of Ludani, where a host of flesh is found, miraculously converted into the body of Christ. There are also found relics of miraculous blood.”

Some of you know that I have written a few articles about Catholic miracles. My first essay on the subject was my response to Ethan Muse on Lanciano, to which he replied here, and to which I responded again there. A few months on, it seemed appropriate to revisit various objections raised by Ethan, along with some expert opinions I have gathered since my last publications. On the theological side, I would also like to mention a piece on the possibility of demonic miracles, and on the answer that John Duns Scotus and Blaise Pascal gave to the apparent skepticism that this possibility might seem to entail. That article currently exists in French and will be published in English on Javier Perdomo’s Substack in the coming weeks.

So let’s get to the heart of the matter. As usual, I will try to begin each point with a paragraph explaining in accessible terms why the subject under discussion matters, despite its technicality.

1. The Histological Analysis of Lanciano

Linoli, the one and only physician who carried out the study on Lanciano, without any control in the scientific sense of the term, produces various microscopic sections of the relic and states: “The illustrations accompanying this text are sufficient in themselves to confirm this diagnosis, which is irrefutable despite the limitations of the tissue staining.” The diagnosis in question is that the tissue is cardiac tissue, with remarkable precision: he goes as far as naming the vagus nerve in a couple of places, along with various other particularly specific details.

The relevance of this discussion is that if the tissue we are studying is not heart, then the probability of fraud is higher. A good part of Muse’s argument rests on the identification of the tissue as cardiac tissue. His article dwells at length on how improbable it would be for a forger to use human cardiac tissue. He also adds various considerations about the thickness of the section and its supposed orientation, whose lack of foundation I have already denounced. Having only a basic training in histology, the one all French doctors receive, I was skeptical from the outset about the certainty of claims made on sections whose images seemed unspecific. In my view, the precision of the descriptions and the certainty of the assertion made the observation all the more suspect.

In my first article on the subject, I reported the opinion of my former histology professor, who is himself far better qualified than Linoli in the field (I explained why in the article). My professor told me, roughly, that he did not recognize any of the heart-specific structures named in Linoli’s captions. I should point out that his opinion was gathered without telling him where the images came from. I reproduced his entire response in my first article, image by image.

I then obtained a second opinion from another histologist at another Lille hospital, who is a department head there. He also told me that the appearance is comparable to what meat might look like, that the tissue seems aged and mummified, that no cells are visible, and, at the end of our exchange, he wrote “you are right to have doubts about the article in question.” Here again, the start of our exchange, in which he gave his opinion on the sections, took place while he did not know the origin of the tissue.

Having learned more recently that Kerri, who writes on Skeptasmic (go and have a look), had a call with Ethan Muse and with a histologist whom Ethan knows personally, Dr Avi Bitterman, I set about contacting him, since he seemed willing to give his opinion on sections relating to Eucharistic miracles, and had already done so for Ethan regarding the alleged miracle of Buenos Aires and the alleged miracle of Lanciano. Dr Avi Bitterman very kindly gave me some of his time, and we went through the images one by one, in the best-stained version available. He also agreed to let me publish his opinion under his name. The following paragraphs therefore correspond to the opinion he expressed to me during our call, and he reread my summary of it to make sure I had understood it correctly. The entire quoted section below was thus reread and validated by Dr Avi Bitterman before publication:

« The simplest way to summarize his opinion is that he agreed with the other two pathologists I contacted. He pointed out that the images were highly non-specific, without any clearly diagnostic structures recognizable for any specific organ system.

His overall conclusion is that the tissue is of animal origin (neither plant nor fungus)—with a broad differential between fibrous, myofibroblastic, skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, or other non-specified connective tissue. He disagreed with the labels Linoli applied suggesting the clear presence of an artery, a vagus nerve, or syncytial tissue. He noted the findings are too nonspecific to confirm the presence of an artery or a nerve, let alone the vagus nerve specifically (the vagus nerve is not the only nerve that innervates the heart). He also noted that syncytial term is interpretive rather than a direct observation given there are no nuclei present. It assumes that if the nuclei were present, they would be in the location compatible with a syncytium. This assumption is not necessarily true. For example, if the nuclei were present and were on the periphery of the fibers rather than inside the fibers, it would not be a syncytium (and would be more compatible with fibrous tissue).

Regarding slide 16, he noted that the tissue stained heavily blue—indicating a predominance of collagen—whereas muscle tissue would be expected to stain red. Similarly, the Ignesti stain (Figure 5) shows a large portion of blue staining as opposed to a clear cut ochre expected to be found in pure muscle tissue. He noted such staining is still possible with cardiac tissue given additional circumstances such as a heart with a fibrosing disease or a scarred portion of a heart, or homogenization with connective tissue, but these are also compatible with various other tissues such as myofibroblastic tissue, fibrous tissue with smooth muscle, or even just fibrous tissue high background staining. And the mere fact that such trichrome stains (whether it be it Ignesti or Mallory) are staining the tissue do not in it of themselves raise credence in the specificity of muscle here given the non-specific nature of how they are staining the tissue. Like my professor, he noted the possible presence of adipocytes in Figure 10, but observed like him that the structures were somewhat small for adipocytes; he also pointed out that such features could just as easily be found in skin. In short, the findings are non-specific and may be seen in a variety of organ systems and are certainly not conclusively cardiac tissue with any reasonable degree of confidence. »

He provided me with 2 images of skin tissue that closely resemble the Lanciano images. Here they are (and immediately after, comparable image from Lanciano):

Once again, the relevance of this analysis is that the probability of fraud is higher if it is simply connective tissue rather than specifically human cardiac tissue. And all the remarks about the thinness of the section and how unachievable it would be for a fraudster collapse once the identification as cardiac tissue goes. I leave you to consider what would remain of Ethan Muse’s argument if this identification were removed, or if he at least conceded that the identification is far from obvious.

Oh, and for those who followed my exchange with Ethan Muse, you may remember that he suggested in his article that my professor might not be qualified because he had not recognized the Ignesti stain right away. Dr Avi Bitterman confirmed to me that it is natural not to know it outside Italy, that any pathologist would nonetheless be able to interpret it with the information I gave my professor, and that Dr Serafini (quoted by Muse), being a cardiologist, was much less well positioned to give an opinion on cardiac sections.

In short, the opinions I have obtained so far agree perfectly and concur that Linoli’s claim, “The illustrations accompanying this text are sufficient in themselves to confirm this diagnosis, which is irrefutable despite the limitations of the tissue staining,” is unfounded. I have already documented this for the chemical composition of the blood: on several occasions there is a considerable gap in Linoli’s study between what the data show and what he concludes from them, and this brings me to the next subject.

2. Serum Protein Electrophoresis

Ethan claims that the serum protein electrophoresis of Lanciano shows an inexplicable, and therefore miraculous, preservation. I explained in my previous articles that no other element of his argument for a miraculous preservation was plausible, but that this particular piece of data was indeed surprising.

In a dedicated article, I nonetheless explained my skepticism about the figures presented by Linoli, because they do not seem to match the graph he produces to accompany them. In short, my impression is that the graph shows absolutely no presence of the labile compounds, precisely those whose presence would be astonishing. Ethan Muse’s response, in a comment on my article, was twofold.

First, as usual (at least in his interactions with me), he resorted to personal attacks. He said I should refrain from speaking about what I don’t know (a few days earlier, he had added that I was manifestly incompetent in theology as well as in medicine). I replied that any hematologist is more qualified than I am on this subject, but that in my job I am nonetheless led to prescribe and interpret an electrophoresis regularly (several times a month), so I found it rather comical to read this from him.

Second, he maintained that Linoli had carried out a control on fresh blood and had found a superimposable graph.

Let’s address the second point first. Ethan is simply wrong. Linoli’s study shows no graph corresponding to fresh blood, and the protocol described includes no control of this kind. Linoli’s reasoning is as follows:

1. I obtained this graph;

2. This graph corresponds to these figures;

3. These figures correspond to those of fresh blood, and Linoli, to prove it, does not mention a control he carried out but refers to a hematology textbook, which is available on archive.org. This textbook, whose entire chapter on electrophoresis I have read through, contains no comparable graph for fresh blood, but does contain the standard figures corresponding to those of fresh blood.

4. Linoli therefore concludes that his results superimpose on those of fresh blood.

So, if the figures put forward do not match the graph, which is what my article claims (that is, if premise 2 of his reasoning is false), then any notion of superimposition with fresh blood collapses, and there is all the more reason not to bring up a miraculous preservation.

But let’s now answer the first point of his criticism. As I said, it is true that I am not a hematologist. So I contacted a hematologist at a Lille hospital again. This hematology department is the first ward I set foot in during my training; it’s where I learned to draw blood! My friend Javier Perdomo, incidentally, has had access to the entire exchange with the hematologist.

The first response I got from the hematologist was:

“The pattern, with a very narrow and very dominant peak, is compatible with a majority hemoglobin fraction, most often Hb A in a normal profile, or a dominant fraction if the context is pathological.

The finer interpretation would depend on knowing where the peaks are located relative to the reference positions of Hb A, Hb S, Hb C and Hb F.”

Since the hematologist only spoke to me about hemoglobin in his reply, I followed up by specifically mentioning my difficulty in identifying the gamma fractions and the others (that is, what corresponds to the fragile fractions of the blood, the ones that would require a miraculous explanation for their presence according to Muse). He then answered:

“In my view, the analysis performed should rather correspond to a hemoglobin electrophoresis and not a plasma protein electrophoresis.

In the book, does the author present this result as a serum protein electrophoresis?”

In other words, the hematologist was so unable to make out these fractions that he assumed it was solely a hemoglobin electrophoresis and not one of whole serum!

Well, that reassures me: I probably read an electrophoresis better than a philosophy student.

Jokes aside. If the histological identification of the sections cannot be asserted as cardiac on the one hand, and if, on the other, the gamma and beta globulin fractions are not present, consider what remains of Muse’s argument for a miracle at Lanciano. Go through his article and remove those sections. Nothing holds up anymore. A poorly preserved connective tissue is found, together with degraded blood, in a reliquary in Italy. That is all that can be said.

The Bible tells us that the devil disguises himself as an angel of light. This deceptive character of demonic actions is indeed recognized in Catholicism as well. In an aptly titled article The Demon Knows How to Lose a Little to Gain a Lot [Action Familiale et Scolaire, no. 62, 1985, pp. 39–40], we are told the story of Magdalena de la Cruz, from the late fifteenth century. Born in 1487, she claimed from the age of five to have visions of Christ. By twelve she had a reputation as a miracle-worker. At seventeen she entered the Franciscans and would serve as abbess on three separate occasions. She was known for stigmata, ecstasies accompanied by levitation, subsisting solely on the Eucharist, and performing healings (it is recorded that she restored speech to a mute man). She was reputed to have a gentle, humble, and affable character, and all of Spain revered her; cardinals and bishops sought her counsel. Yet fifty-five years later she was discovered eating in secret and confessed to having made a pact with the devil in childhood. A biography of her was even written by Maurice Garçon of the Académie Française, who noted that “her life was so well known to the theologians and demonologists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that they constantly allude to it to illustrate their arguments.”

In France, during the same century, we encounter a very similar case in the person of Nicole Tavernier. She succeeded in bringing about processions in several cities, including Paris. She revealed the secrets of people’s consciences, prompting them to make humble confessions after their faults were disclosed. Numerous clergy praised her virtues. Her demonic possession is said to have been unmasked by Blessed Marie Acarie. The historian and abbé Henri Bremond records:

She was consulted from all sides; the great men of the kingdom commended themselves to her prayers; ecclesiastics and religious held her in high esteem; and no one had yet observed any imperfection in her. She announced that, if people repented of their sins, the public calamities would soon cease. On her word, the people went to confession and received communion; processions were even ordered in several cities of France. She had one held in Paris, attended by the Parlement, accompanied by the other sovereign courts and a great multitude of citizens. [Henri Bremond, Histoire du sentiment religieux en France, II – L’invasion mystique.]

Father Pierre-Xavier Pouplard likewise records:

She spoke of the things of God and explained the most difficult passages of Scripture in a manner that astonished the most learned doctors. She had ecstasies, visions, and revelations; she foretold future events and warned the dying of sins they had not confessed — and what she said proved true. On one occasion she gave an exact description of a religious she had never seen, whom she wished to take as her confessor. Twice she fell dangerously ill, and twice she appeared to recover her health by miracle. [Pouplard, Pierre-Xavier, 1896, Un mot sur les visions, révélations, prophéties, Paris: Pierre Téqui.]

A recent study relates that Nicole Tavernier was employed by the Capuchins to oppose the edict of toleration toward Protestants that King Henry IV wished to impose: “two miracles that took place in the presence of numerous doctors and religious: that of the great light which burst into Nicole’s room when she was gravely ill, and of the voice that said ‘Ave soror‘ and healed her; that of the host which ‘came of its own accord to place itself in her mouth during the Mass of her spiritual director’… Nicole Tavernier was a key piece in an agitation apparatus that was shaking Paris by means of action that the League itself would not have disowned.”

Thus, a recent study on the mystics of that era and the criteria for evaluating false ecstasies given by Teresa of Ávila notes:

Ecstasy, like other extraordinary graces, must be open to a discernment examination all the more careful given that it proves a convenient refuge for diabolical illusion and dissimulation. Examples abound: from the recent and famous case of the Clarisse of Córdoba, Madeleine de la Croix, convicted in 1543 of sorcery after using her ecstasies to acquire a reputation for holiness, to the similar case of Nicole Tavernier in the Paris of the 1590s, to collections of anecdotes gathered since antiquity — all serving to underscore how greatly ecstasies have been used to lend authority to generations of false prophets, counterfeit saints, and magicians who exploited them for their own ends. [Duyck, C., 2021, “Estasi e visione,” Lo Sguardo. Rivista di filosofia, no. 33 (II), p. 282.]

Let us also mention the case of Maria da Visitação in Portugal, during the same period. Here is a brief account of her life:

Daughter of Francisco Lobo, ambassador of King John III to Charles V, and of Blanca de Meneses, both from the high nobility, María de la Visitación was at the center of the greatest religious scandal of the sixteenth century. At eleven she entered the Monastery of the Annunciation in Lisbon, took the novice’s habit, and prepared for religious profession, which she made at sixteen. In 1575 she experienced her first great mystical experience, in the manner of Catherine of Siena, and appeared stigmatized with a crown of thorns. Then, in 1578, God granted her another, still more particular grace: the lance wound in her side, interpreted in the medieval tradition as a gateway into the body of Christ. Bolstered by her reputation for holiness, she was elected prioress in mid-1583. On 7 March 1584, the stigmata of the crucifixion appeared on her hands and feet, and from then on, every Friday, five drops of blood in the shape of a cross flowed from the wound in her side. Countless miracles were soon attributed to her. The fervent prayers of the nun and the application of cloths soaked in the five drops of blood had the power to heal the sick, calm storms, convert unbelievers, and accomplish many other wonders.

Sister Maria’s miracles were examined by eminent theologians and by the Dominican master general, Brother Sixto Fabri, who certified the authenticity of the stigmata. Brother Luis de Granada wrote a hagiography of the nun. The ecclesiastical and civil authorities, led by Cardinal Albert, Archduke of Austria and Viceroy of Portugal, believed in Sister Maria’s miracles. The Inquisition gathered information and came close to formally recognizing her supernatural gifts in a solemn ceremony. Philip II and Pope Gregory XIII joined the chorus of her supporters. In 1586, at the height of her fame, nuns opposed to her ambitions for the priory accused her of imposture. In 1587, Cardinal Albert charged the theologians Brother Luis de Granada and Gaspar de Aveiro with examining the stigmata. All three investigations to which she was subjected reached entirely favorable conclusions. But the accusations of her fellow nuns — who claimed she was simulating stigmata and visions, rigging her re-election, disrupting the convent, and allowing herself to be worshipped — intensified.

Yet the suspicions eventually gave rise to a new inquiry, which ultimately led to the condemnation of the mystic. There is therefore a solid tradition within Catholicism that recognizes as demonic certain mystics whose virtue was nonetheless praised by many and whose actions led some to confess their sins, pray to Christ, and believe themselves healed of various ailments. An article published by the traditionalist Catholic association Cap Fatima, on their website dedicated to the centenary of the apparitions which they ardently promote, notes moreover:

The demon can appear in the forms of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, an angel, or a saint. He can simulate all the gifts of authentic mystics: fervor, ecstasy, levitation, stigmata. He can perform extraordinary phenomena: inexplicable healings, extraordinary luminous phenomena, bilocation, astonishing predictions or disclosed secrets, knowledge or eloquence far beyond the visionary’s natural capacities, speaking in tongues, etc. (According to the Rituale Romanum on exorcism, speaking in tongues is the primary criterion of possession.) He has been known to cause illnesses… which are cured as soon as his action ceases! Knowing full well that one judges the tree by its fruits, he can also bring about numerous conversions, for he is capable of losing a great deal in order to gain even more: it costs him nothing to stir up prayers, penances, fasts, and reception of the sacraments over decades, provided he leads a greater number of souls astray.

Thus, once again, Catholicism must itself contend with deceptive and miraculous manifestations whose fruits were in some cases good from their point of view, yet which were of demonic inspiration.

In that article, and in a few forthcoming ones, I would like to highlight some significant points that, in my view, developed between my first and second responses. In any case, it should not be too difficult for an English-speaking audience to consult a machine translation of my article before it is formally translated into English.

In his two articles on Lanciano, Ethan Muse devotes a significant section of his argument to electrophoresis and what it indicates. In his first article, he states for example:

Immunological testing produced [...] fresh-like serum protein fractions, results that cannot be reconciled with the protein denaturation and antigen loss caused by immersion in alcohol, vinegar, or resinous balsams.

This sentence is intended to show that this result rules out the preservation techniques one might consider. He further states the following (I reproduce the paragraph in full so that the reader does not have to go back and forth between the articles):

Furthermore, the biomolecular preservation of the relics would be extraordinary under any storage conditions, up to and including refrigeration in a laboratory.

• (Abundances) Traces of albumin can be recovered from ancient remains with modern techniques that are sensitive enough to detect nanogram-level quantities of proteins. Globulins, especially α- and β- globulins, almost never register at all. Against that background, Linoli’s results are dumbfounding. The electrophoresis protocol that he employed would not have produced sharp, well-defined peaks unless microgram-level quantities of each type of protein were available. That implies that the Lanciano relics have retained serum proteins in abundances that are orders of magnitude greater than comparable remains.

• (Proportions) Electrophoretic tracings follow a predictable trajectory as blood stains age. Albumin migrates, the α- and β- bands vanish, and the γ- band grows disproportionately large. This ‘gamma inflation’ is so consistent that forensic scientists have suggested using it as a dating technique. Not only did the Lanciano relics preserve astonishingly high concentrations of serum proteins, they preserved them in the same relative proportions as fresh serum. Linoli’s electropherogram was consistent with serum taken from a living patient. That would have been highly unusual for a blood stain that was less than a year old.

• (Selectivity) Teichmann and Takayama tests, which probe for intact heme, both came back negative. Thin-layer chromatography indicated that hemoglobin breakdown products were present. Teichmann and Takayama should have been the last assays to fail: porphyrin rings are chemically resilient, and Teichmann crystals can sometimes be obtained from stains that are decades old, long after labile molecules have disappeared. That leaves skeptics with a paradox: the degradation pathway that destroyed heme should have destroyed more labile proteins, yet serum proteins were inexplicably well-preserved.

As you can see, the entirety of this argument rests on the result presented by Linoli regarding the electrophoresis of serum proteins. In my first response article to Ethan, I provided various elements nuancing the claims made if one takes this result as given. Nevertheless, since writing that article, a reader has drawn my attention to the curve presented by Linoli and the observations one can offer on this curve lead me, in my view, to inferences that entirely nullify the remarks offered by Ethan and should lead him to retract them in full. Furthermore, in my first article I had suggested that the astonishing selectivity noted by Ethan argued rather for an analytical error, but I had not taken the time to examine this possibility. Well, I must say today that this intuition is confirmed. Here is an excerpt from my second response to Ethan Muse:

Ethan Muse cites the opinion of Dr Trasancos, producing the sentence in bold that follows without the reservations that accompany it. He then claims that Dr Trasancos’s reservations are philosophical rather than scientific in nature — I leave it to you to judge:

It is undeniably remarkable that the controls and tests correspond so closely. As with the blood typing test, electrophoresis is a first-line test that must be followed by additional analyses in order to determine whether there are other macromolecules that migrate in the same way as the control molecules. The test results indicate the presence, in the sample, of macromolecules of the size of albumin.

This proximity is used by Ethan Muse to allege a miracle of preservation. Since a section dedicated to this allegation follows in our article, I defer my response to that section.

The preceding paragraphs, however, as well as the remarks of Ethan Muse and those of my first article, assumed that the presentation offered by Linoli on the various components of blood was an accurate summary of the curve he presents. Nevertheless, while I was working on the drafting of this response and following exchanges with several readers, it appears that the figure he presents is highly ambiguous. Indeed, an electrophoresis of the kind my patients can have performed today typically yields a curve such as the following, with 5 to 6 clearly identifiable bands.

Concretely, with agarose gel techniques in the 1970s, one obtained a figure like this, simply merging the C3 band and transferrin:

In Linoli’s study, the electrophoresis looks like this:

In the 1970s the albumin peak was represented on the right, hence the difference from my first diagram. What is more surprising, if one considers what he states in the table accompanying the graph, is that it does not seem possible to me to isolate the 4 other components of blood (at that time there were 5 bands rather than 6). We can clearly see a significant peak, which would then correspond to albumin, but we see nothing else that is clearly distinct.

In the absence of any explanation of the interpretation of this graph where everything appears to overlap, and without a graph of fresh blood for comparison, it seems to me in the end that this result is quite simply uninterpretable. Thus, it seems to me that staying with Dr Trasancos at the sole conclusion that a molecule of comparable size to albumin is present is a far more cautious claim than the one offered by Linoli. Nevertheless, even this interpretation is generous. All that can be said from this graph, which indicates no scale whatsoever, is that a molecule occupies a fraction of the overall curve comparable to what albumin does in fresh blood. In other words, one cannot even assert that the molecule in question truly has a size comparable to albumin. When I raised this with Dr Trasancos, she confirmed to me that the wording of her book had been generous here. To help you visualise the matter, here is what one observes if one reproduces Linoli’s curve and places the fractions he indicates upon it (I thank Mark Grant, a reader, for this montage):

As can be seen, the division of the various coloured bands appears entirely arbitrary. Nothing in the curve justifies this distribution. If you refer to the diagram presented earlier in my article of a normal electrophoresis, you can see that the elements are normally clearly distinct, which is not the case here.

An additional problem is that the right-hand end of the graph does not return to the baseline. In other words, there was still a deposit at that end, and it seems unreasonable to think that this deposit, had we the continuation of the curve, would come to an abrupt stop. In other words, the fact that the curve ends at a height tells us that there were other components that were not accounted for or that accumulated at one end. If this is true, then any claim regarding the fraction occupied by the various components becomes entirely worthless. The sum of these various problems renders the electrophoresis data completely null. I summarise here the problems observed:

• The peak one might be tempted to identify as albumin is in reality a single sharp indistinct peak; a degraded sample can produce numerous migration artefacts;

• It is impossible to identify and isolate the other peaks in order to provide a numerical interpretation as Linoli does in his study. In particular, there is no identifiable gamma zone or beta-globulins — data that a study cited by Ethan Muse in his first article reports as characteristic of aged blood. When the curve is fed into software calculating the area under the curve, the fractions obtained do not at all correspond to those given by Linoli;

• The last portion of the graph ending at height makes it certain that the curve is truncated and does not represent the totality of the molecules present in the analysed sample (or that an abnormal accumulation occurred at that end), rendering entirely void any conclusion about their relative fractions.

In short, it emerges from this examination that my first article had in reality conceded far too much to Linoli by taking as given the numerical results he presented: these figures do not correspond to the curve provided, which in turn bears no resemblance to an electrophoresis of fresh blood. These findings entirely nullify the lengthy developments by Ethan Muse based on the supposedly remarkable preservation of certain blood components of which the graph gives us in reality no trace. Furthermore, a profile with overlapping bands that are no longer identifiable is precisely what one would expect if some blood components had disintegrated and others had agglomerated. In other words, the profile corresponds to what one would predict in the case of degraded blood. This analysis has yet another utility, in that it calls into question the quality of Linoli’s study, certain claims of which do not appear to correspond to the results he presents — something we had already noted in our first article regarding the chemical analysis of blood components. For reasons I cannot explain, Linoli presents as corresponding to fresh blood (in numerical terms) a curve that in no way indicates this; he claims that the proportion of ions is comparable to blood when it is not; and he presents an undifferentiated fibrous tissue as irrefutably cardiac. A repeated pattern seems to emerge of results being stretched toward conclusions they do not support.

Vorilong was a French theologian of the fifteenth century who published notably a commentary on the Sentences, in which he offers the following commentary on the subject that concerns us:

The demons sometimes perform true miracles. Such is expressly the intention of the blessed Augustine in the Book of Questions on the Old and New Testament, where, expounding the passage "And the mages did likewise," he says that just as Moses converted the rods into true serpents, so did the mages. This is why the Gloss on Exodus 7, concerning this conversion of the rods, says that demons roam the world and gather diverse species of things from which various things are made. And if it is said that at the time of Antichrist the power of the devil will be particularly strong, and yet the Apostle says he will come with lying signs, and that therefore all the more he would not now perform true miracles — it must be said that true and false can be taken in two ways. In a first way absolutely: in this sense, one says true gold when it truly possesses the nature of gold, and false when it has only the appearance of gold, like orichalcum or the gold of bad alchemists. In a second way relatively to something else: in this sense, one says true what is done for a good intention and the manifestation of truth, and false what is done for the purpose of deception. In this first sense, the demon sometimes performs true miracles and Antichrist will also perform them; but not in this second sense, for both the miracles of the demon and those of Antichrist are done for the purpose of deception. This is why I do not say either that they always perform them, as Augustine understands it on the verse "sending through evil angels": "We do not dare attribute to evil angels the things that occur marvellously in creatures" — which must be understood of eminent miracles, in comparison with which demons do nothing but simulate (William de Vaurouillon, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, Liber 2, Distinctio 7).

William Estius, whom Pope Benedict XIV called the Doctor Fundatissimus, following in the footsteps of the medieval scholastics, published a Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. In it, he addresses the question of demonic miracles and offers eleven reasons to think that demons can perform miracles. Unlike other authors who debate at length the extent of demonic power, Estius approaches the question from a more fundamental angle, asking whether God can perform miracles through demons, thereby bypassing the debate altogether:

It is most certain that demons cannot perform miracles by their own power, since neither good angels nor holy men can do so. For a miracle, in the usage of the Christian school (for Latin authors use that word in a broader sense) is every work that exceeds the faculty of all nature and occurs outside the common course of things — such as a barren woman being made fruitful, a blind man receiving sight, a dead man being raised, the sun being darkened, and whatever has no causes in nature, provided it also occurs outside the common course of things. We added this qualification because there are certain things that exceed the faculty of nature and are to be referred principally and properly to God alone, which are nonetheless not counted as miracles, because they do not occur outside the common course of things established by God — such as the creation of the world, which was the institution of nature itself; likewise the creation of souls, the infusion of grace, the transubstantiation of bread and wine, and the effects of the other sacraments. For what is customary, though it be above nature, is not called a miracle, as Saint Augustine teaches in De Trinitate, book III, chapter 6. Yet since both these and those surpass every created power, men or angels are nonetheless said to perform miracles — just as they are said to cause the effects of the sacraments — in the manner of an instrument or ministry, that is, whenever such things are done by God at their prayers, or God uses some ministry of theirs to accomplish them, as Saint Thomas explains in Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 178, art. 1.

The question is therefore whether, just as God sometimes works a miracle through good angels, He does so also through demons. And it seems He can.

First, because just as miracles are sometimes worked through holy men, so they are also worked through evil men who are members of the devil — such as those who will say on that day: “Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and perform many mighty works?” and will yet hear: “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of iniquity” (Matthew 7).

Second, because false prophets and false christs, who are specially the ministers of the devil, will perform great signs and wonders (Matthew 24). And the coming of Antichrist himself, who will be the most perfect instrument of the devil, will be “with all power and signs and wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2; Apocalypse 13); and the Apostle, writing to the Thessalonians, expressly attributes to the operation of Satan what Antichrist will do. In the Apocalypse it is said that he will perform great signs, not only causing fire to descend from heaven, but also giving spirit to the image of the beast and causing it to speak. It is even intimated that he will restore himself from death to life — for so some understand what John writes of having seen one of the heads of the beast as though struck to death, and its mortal wound healed, so that all the earth marvelled after the beast.

Nor does it seem to be an obstacle that the Apostle adds the word “lying”; for these signs and wonders are called lies, as some explain, not because they will be merely apparent and illusory rather than real, but because they will lead men into falsehood and error. For what follows is: “and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they did not receive the love of the truth”, and further: “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe the lie”, etc. Augustine indicates that this explanation does not displease him in The City of God, book XX, chapter 19, where he calls them true wonders, though destined to lead into falsehood. These wonders Antichrist will perform, as will the other false prophets, with the help of the devil and his angels. Hence they seem to be attributed to both.

Third: Lactantius, in the Epitome of the Divine Institutions, chapter 8, says that Antichrist will cause not only fire to descend from heaven and the image he will have set up to speak — both of which we have in the Apocalypse — but also the sun to stop in its course, which is established to be impossible except through a miracle in the proper sense.

Fourth: The Fathers commonly acknowledge, and the histories attest, that true miracles occur outside the Church, even through false prophets, heretics, and schismatics — as Saint Hilary in canon 6 on Matthew, Saint Augustine in On the Unity of the Church, chapters 18 and 19, Saint Gregory in Moralia, book XX, chapter 8, Socrates in Ecclesiastical History, book I, chapter 9, and book VII, chapters 17 and 38, Sozomen in book I, chapter 14, Nicephorus in book VIII, chapter 41, book IX, chapter 18, and book XI, chapter 42. These testimonies concern the Donatists, Arians, and Novatians. Now it is not plausible that these miracles were performed without the help and operation of demons, whose associates the heretics are; therefore they were also performed through demons.

Fifth: It seems further that it can be shown that true miracles can be performed by heretics — and therefore also by demons, the masters and co-workers of heretics — not merely in any fashion, but even for the confirmation of error; for the gifts called graces freely given, such as the gift of tongues, the grace of speech and exhortation, can be used to an evil end, even for the confirmation of heresy; therefore so too can the gift of miracles.

Sixth: The same is proved by this reasoning: intention is not part of the nature of the work. Therefore, with God cooperating toward a miracle, a man may have some evil intention, such as seeking his own glory; therefore also the confirmation of error — just as in the sacraments, with God working the effect, the minister may have his mind set on gain or vain glory.

Seventh: God can perform a miracle at any time; therefore He can also raise the dead at the very moment when a heretic prays for that resurrection in order to confirm his heresy by the miracle. For the heretic by praying cannot prevent God from doing so, since no human malice can impede a work of divine power.

Eighth: This seems reasonable and consonant with God’s providence toward His elect — that to prove the strength of their faith, He should also work something above nature through evil men and heretics seeking to overthrow the faith of the elect.

Ninth: One may prophesy in order to lead men away from the true religion to a false one, according to Deuteronomy 13: “If a prophet rises among you”, etc., where Scripture also adds this reason: “because,” it says, “the Lord your God is testing you, to make clear whether you love Him or not, with your whole heart,” etc.; therefore one may also perform a miracle to a similar end. For a new and supernatural operation of God seems no less required for a prophetic act than for a miraculous one.

Tenth: Saint Chrysostom, in homily 5 Against the Jews, says that false teachers are not to be believed even if they raise the dead, because, he says, “God, testing you, permitted them to be able to do this.”

Finally: To this opinion — that through certain familiars of demons, for the purpose of establishing their own divinity, true miracles can be and have sometimes been performed — Jean Gerson appears to assent in a sermon on the Gospel for the nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost, where he also holds that Saint Augustine thinks likewise (Guillelmus Estius, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, Liber 2, Distinctio 7, Capitulum 8).

As you may know, Ethan Muse has offered a comprehensive defense of the Miracle of Lanciano. This was followed by an initial response from me, and then a reply from him. I ultimately responded with a final article which (unlike the first three) is, for now, available only in French.

In that article, and in a few forthcoming ones, I would like to highlight some significant points that, in my view, developed between my first and second responses. In any case, it should not be too difficult for an English-speaking audience to consult a machine translation of my article before it is formally translated into English.

An eight-century blackout

One of the weaknesses of the Miracle of Lanciano lies in the documentary gap between its alleged date (8th century) and its first uncontested mention (16th century). In his two articles, Ethan Muse has attempted to provide arguments for evidence predating the 16th century. I would like here to focus on his reference to an 11th-century text. In his reply, he suggests that this 11th-century text should be connected to Lanciano because (1) Lanciano would be the only miracle involving a transformation of both species, and this text speaks of such a transformation; (2) the miracle in question in this text takes place in Italy. Here is an excerpt from my article on this point (some sources are in the translation that follows, the others in my French article) :

Ethan Muse begins by recalling an essential element of my article, namely that any claim to a miracle depends on the reliability of the historical testimony regarding the origin of the observed relics, to which he responds:

It is simply not true that one “must” accept the “accuracy” of the traditional account “to conclude that a miracle took place.” It is entirely possible that the historical memory of the original miracle was altered over time. Perhaps it did not involve an incredulous priest. Perhaps it occurred in the 10th or 11th century rather than the 8th. Perhaps it took place during eucharistic adoration rather than during Mass. The case for the miracle does not rest on the intrinsic credibility of the historical sources that attest to the traditional account of the miracle; it therefore depends neither on the reliability of those sources nor on the specific details they report.

This response reveals a gross misunderstanding of my argument. What we must trust in order to believe in the miracle is not any particular detail (the century or the moment during Mass — eucharistic adoration did not even exist in the 8th century, incidentally) but rather the fact that what we observe today was once a host. This common-sense observation is offered by numerous commentators on the relic, including Dr. Fuso (Fuso S., Il miracolo eucaristico di Lanciano, CICAP, 2006)

From a scientific standpoint, it is clear that any investigation into the alleged transformation of the host and wine into flesh and blood is impossible. Believing in such a transformation is therefore a matter of pure faith. The only possible analyses concern the current state of the relic, its true nature, and the methods of its preservation.

Or Dr. Trasancos:

None of the scientific investigations can prove that the bread actually transformed into flesh. They merely analyze the substance presented to them. Data are never stronger than their weakest link; and in the absence of verifiable eyewitnesses and an indisputable chain of transmission, scientific tests remain inconclusive on the question of a real physical and chemical change. Everything ultimately rests on the testimony one chooses to believe.

Or Professor Casolari:

[Linoli] was certainly aware of the scientific impossibility of proving a miracle that occurred thirteen centuries ago from materials for which nothing established that they were indeed those of the miracle itself.

He notes that I assert there is no formal record of Lanciano before the 16th century. This is not my claim in the first instance, but that of Dr. Serafini, who titles his section on the history of Lanciano “an eight-century blackout.” Indeed, from the 16th century onward we have an abundance of references to this relic, with precise indications of the city and the nature of the object on display. No mention of a relic at Lanciano exists before the 16th century, nor of any eucharistic miracle. Ethan Muse then cites a testimony from the 11th or 12th century concerning a eucharistic miracle in Italy, as follows:

In Italy, a priest, while celebrating Mass, saw on the altar real Flesh and, in the chalice, real Blood. At this sight, he began to tremble and refrained from consuming them. He immediately reported this unusual event to his bishop and asked his advice on what should be done. The bishop, having assembled many other bishops, recorded the miraculous event and decided to take great care of the chalice containing the Flesh and Blood. Finally, everything was sealed at the center of the altar so as to be perpetually preserved as extraordinary relics.

This testimony appears quite different from what I had consulted or retained when writing my article, and no primary source is provided by Ethan Muse. After some research, it appears that this text comes from a compilation made by Father Nasuti. According to Nasuti, the primary source is to be found in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, volume 149, column 1428. Upon examining the PL, I was actually able to find the excerpt at columns 1449–1450. Nevertheless, the excerpt is no more specific about the location than “Italy” and therefore does not allow for a formal identification with Lanciano. Furthermore, the excerpt in question does not mention the priest’s doubt, which is a classic element of all the accounts of Lanciano we possess and which serves precisely as the narrative framework guiding its interpretation. The mention of a transformation of both species is, he claims, specific to Lanciano. This is inaccurate, as we shall see.

First, one must recall the abundance of eucharistic miracle stories in the Middle Ages. In addition to the many transformations of hosts, some of which were mentioned in my previous article, there are transformations of wine into blood: at Aachen, at Walldürn in 1330, at Fiecht in 1310, at Brussels in 1333, in Croatia in 1411, in Spain in 1231 and in 1010, in Holland in 1400 and in 1380, in Italy in 1412, in Florence in 1230; a similar story is again reported in Italy in 1718. In a good number of these stories, a doubting priest also features: Lanciano does not stand out for the originality of its narrative. (Wallerich, François. « Miracles eucharistiques et prêtres indignes dans quelques recueils cisterciens (1170-1220) ». Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, t. 101, n° 246 (2015), p. 19-40 ; Caesarius of Heisterbach. The dialogue on miracles. Vol. 2. Trans. Pepin RE. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2023) Thus, the historian François Wallerich reminds us:

From the second half of the 11th century, accounts of eucharistic miracles underwent significant and continuous development until the end of the Middle Ages. The Berengar controversy, which dominated the years 1050 to 1070, provided an early occasion for theologians to insert miraculous accounts into their works in order to counter the threat posed by Berengar’s thought. In the 12th century, the rise of dissent movements that in one way or another challenged eucharistic dogma likewise generated narrative production aimed at confronting them. But it is above all from the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries, marked by an intensification of pastoral effort, that eucharistic miracles were widely disseminated, notably through lay preaching that made extensive use of them. While the goal was always to combat heresy, it was also, more broadly, to instill in the faithful the dogma of substantial presence and to encourage acts of devotion toward the sacrament expected during and outside of Mass. From the 13th century onward, most collections of exempla contained a section specifically dedicated to the Eucharist.

Regarding the 13th century, a recent reference work on medieval miracles notes: (Katajala-Peltomaa S, Kuuliala J, McCleery I, eds. A Companion to Medieval Miracle Collections. Leiden: Brill, 2021, p. 167)

Moreover, lay Christians became increasingly interested in new shrines housing relics linked to recognized objects of veneration, particularly those of Christ or associated with eucharistic miracles.

The context of controversy with Protestants that I mentioned in my article as a favorable condition for the emergence of these stories contains remarkable parallels with the Berengar controversy, which is the context of the text cited by Ethan Muse as well. François Wallerich moreover notes that the manuscript he is studying was copied at the time of the controversy with Wyclif to serve a new polemical context (Wallerich F. Des cathares aux lollards. Des miracles eucharistiques inédits dans l’Angleterre du XVe siècle. Revue Mabillon. 2018, pp. 200-201) “The name of Wyclif does not appear in the manuscript, but the polemical themes addressed by many of the texts copied therein leave no doubt.” The historian then continues with the medieval manuscript that is the subject of his study, and states: (Wallerich F. Des cathares aux lollards. Des miracles eucharistiques inédits dans l’Angleterre du XVe siècle. Revue Mabillon. 2018, p. 191)

In most of these miracles, there are individuals who deny or harbor doubts regarding transubstantiation and the real presence of Christ in the host: from the priest assailed by doubt to the blind Jew, passing through the heretic, the copyist seems to have wanted to gather together all forms of challenge to eucharistic dogma.

And this brings us to the allegedly unique character of a double transformation specifically. Let us first note that a quick search shows that at El Cebrero in 1300, there is again a doubting priest before whom wine becomes blood and the host becomes flesh (and this story was famous enough to inspire the coat of arms of Galicia); the miracle of Aninon in Spain in 1300 is likewise listed as “flesh and blood” in various chronological tables. If one continues reading the text of the historian I was citing, however, he reports several miracles recounted in the manuscript in question, one of which allegedly took place in Italy, at Mantua (the original author claims to have learned of it directly from the priest involved), and which he summarizes as follows: (Wallerich F. Des cathares aux lollards. Des miracles eucharistiques inédits dans l’Angleterre du XVe siècle. Revue Mabillon. 2018, p. 192)

During Mass, a miracle occurs: the host takes on the appearance of flesh and the wine that of blood.

And regarding the aftermath of this miracle, the historian reports:

The bishop is sought out. He hastens to the church, consecrates other species with which he gives communion to the priest, and orders that the host and wine miraculously transubstantiated be preserved on the altar.

The original author’s account concludes with:

[The species] remained thus until this day. And I saw them with my own eyes and wrote for the purpose of edification, with the help of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom belong honor and glory forever. Amen.

This account closely corresponds to the one produced by Ethan Muse: there is no mention of a doubting priest, both species are transformed, the bishop intervenes, and the relics are preserved. The account moreover specifies that the relics are preserved “on the advice of the lord cardinal and bishop of Verona.” (Wallerich F. Des cathares aux lollards. Des miracles eucharistiques inédits dans l’Angleterre du XVe siècle. Revue Mabillon. 2018, p. 211) Thus, in both stories the bishop takes counsel with colleagues in the episcopate. Yet it is highly probable that these two accounts are independent, since the one I am discussing concerns a miracle that François Wallerich estimates to have occurred around the year 1300. This shows how little specificity such testimonies possess. I offer yet another testimony to drive the point home — that of Herbert of Clairvaux, in a text recently edited and dated to 1178: (Herbertus Claraevallensis, Liber visionum et miraculorum Clarevallensium, ed. Giancarlo Zichi, Graziano Fois et Stefano Mula, Turnhout, 2017, Corpus christianorum. Continuatio mediaevalis, 277, p. 171)

We have also heard of a similar miracle concerning this same sacrament, but we do not know for certain when or where it took place. While a priest of upright life was celebrating Mass on a Friday, he noticed, before receiving communion, that the consecrated host had taken on the appearance of flesh and that the same sacrament, in the chalice, had taken on the appearance of blood. At this sight, he was seized with fear, yet nonetheless received communion with faithful lips. After the completion of Mass, having revealed to his bishop what had occurred, the bishop rebuked him for not having reserved such a gift of God so that he himself might see it. The following Friday, however, while this priest was again celebrating Mass and the same miracle occurred, he reserved it so that his bishop could examine it. When the latter saw it, he exposed it to the view of all, gave thanks to almighty God, and ordered that this sacrament be preserved in the church with fitting veneration, as an incomparable treasure.

In another Liber compiling miracles, one finds several other mentions of eucharistic miracles, including at least one involving the transformation of both species; they are catalogued by Olivier Legendre in his doctoral thesis, in which he states: (Legendre O. Le Liber visionum et miraculorum. Édition du manuscrit n° 946 de la Bibliothèque municipale de Troyes. Doctoral thesis. École nationale des chartes, 2000, p. 51) “The eucharistic miracles are for the most part extremely typified. A number of them relate the physical transformation of the species, which take on the consistency and taste of flesh and blood (cf. nos. 17, 31, 37, 48, 49, 53).” There is also the story of Aude Fauré, another “doubter/skeptic” to whom the story of a miracle involving a transformation of both species is recounted, according to the journal of a 14th-century inquisitor. It is clear from reading the text that this is one of the versions of the Roman miracle, which we shall address more precisely later in the article. Steven Justice, in presenting this case, notes that it was very popular in its time and that many similar stories were circulating. (Jean Duvernoy, ed., Le registre d’inquisition de Jacques Fournier, évêque de Pamiers (1318–1325), 2:83–84; cited by Justice S. Eucharistic miracle and eucharistic doubt. J Mediev Early Mod Stud 2012, p. 307) Likewise, an edited section of a treatise by Paschasius Radbertus relates a miracle allegedly occurring under Basil (in the presence of a skeptical Jew) that involves a double transformation.”He was truly given flesh that had become flesh. Then he went forward to the chalice filled with blood, as it truly was, and he too became a partaker of it.” (Paulus, Bedae, ed. Pascasius Radbertus. De corpore et sanguine Domini: cum appendice Epistola ad Fredugardum, Corpus christianorum, continuatio mediaevalis 16, Turnholt, 1969) If Ethan considers that the testimony he produces concerning the vision reported in the Apophthegmata Patrum is a relevant precedent, he must also concede that the vision involves both the body of a child being broken and his blood collected in a cup.

In passing, the fact that the country of the source cited by Ethan is Italy is not conclusive either; it is the country for which the greatest number of eucharistic miracles has been recorded, along with Spain.

[Figure: Distribution chart of eucharistic miracles by country — Italy and Spain leading]

Thus, we have no formal mention of a eucharistic miracle at Lanciano before the 16th century, and there is nothing in the account provided by Ethan Muse that is specific enough to compel identification: the story is in fact a commonplace. So much so that the historian Patrick Sbalchiero, in a recent work on Catholic miracles, summarizes: “The common scenario is as follows: after a priest (or bishop) has pronounced the words of consecration, the host and the wine contained in the chalice mysteriously change into (human) flesh and blood.”

I therefore recall the words of Dr. Serafini in his book defending eucharistic miracles: (Franco Serafini, Un cardiologue rencontre Jésus, first chapter. Serafini mentions the text cited by Ethan Muse as presenting a hypothetical link with Lanciano)

There is currently no reliable historical document concerning the origin of these relics. The first written record explicitly mentioning a eucharistic miracle preserved at Lanciano dates from 1574.

To illuminate the nature of the debate, let us draw a parallel with the famous Roman miracle, allegedly occurring under Gregory and concerning a host that was said to have transformed into a finger, which we shall address more precisely in the rest of the article. This miracle is said to have taken place in Rome at the end of the 6th century. Its first mention is found in a section interpolated at a later date into a text that itself dates from the end of the 8th century. It so happens that a church today also claims to present a piece of the relic for the devotion of the faithful, at Andechs in Germany (why not?). If a good doctor were to examine the relic and conclude that it was a genuine human finger, where would that lead us? To the conclusion that a mummified finger is to be found in a church in Germany. One may speculate at leisure on the remarkable nature of the thing; it will not establish that this finger was ever a host, that the transformation dates from the time of Gregory, or that there is anything miraculous about it.

As I conclude this historical section, I would like to recall that the argument from eight centuries of silence carries particular weight because there exists rich documentation on this church, yet that documentation never once mentions a relic before the 16th century. In other words, this is not a silence about this relic that can be explained by the absence of documents concerning the church supposed to contain them. As Enrico Speranza and Silvano Fuso note: (Silvano Fuso et Enrico Speranza, « Il miraculo eucharistico de Lanciano » in In cerca di miracoli, I Quaderni di CICAP, 2009, p. 76)

Even the official act of 1258 concerning the construction of the current sanctuary, in the context of a legal dispute initiated by the Franciscans to acquire the church of Saint Legonziano, mentions neither the presence of the relics nor the eucharistic miracle itself, which is moreover never directly cited in the various legal documents.

Dr. Serafini has nonetheless found a way to turn this textual absence into an argument for their presence! He indeed declares that all this rich documentation testifies to an interest in this church and its “precious, though never mentioned, contents.” It seems that the slightest unfavorable element is skillfully reformulated by our apologists.

As I recently said, I plan to cover what the Christian tradition has said about demonic miracles. Here is a quote from Hildebard of Bingen :

“He will bring illness upon them. They will seek remedies from physicians but will not be healed; thus they will return to him to see whether he can heal them. And when he sees them, he will remove the weakness that he himself had brought upon them, so that they may love him fervently and believe in him. And many of them will be deceived, for they will build their own vision upon what they ought to have received from me.”(Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias, Book II, Vision 11, 27.)

As I recently said, I plan to cover what the Christian tradition has said about demonic miracles. Here are some quotes by Tertullian.

But you will not lack pretexts to uphold the authority of the doctors of heresy. They had given, you will say, the most striking proofs of their mission; they had healed the sick, raised the dead, foretold the future, so that one could not doubt that they were true apostles. As if it were not written that many deceivers would come who would perform wonders to support a false and pernicious doctrine (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 44.)

Marcion : — “These precautions were not necessary. Hardly had our Christ come into the world when He had the testimony of miracles to attest His status as Son, envoy, and divine Messiah.”

Tertullian : — A proof discredited by Himself in later times, I will immediately reply to you, and insufficient to attest His mission. For in warning us that “many false christs will arise who will perform wonders” capable of shaking even the elect, yet that we must beware of their snares, was He not declaring to us that the proof from miracles is equivocal, since wonders and prodigies are easy for impostors?

After this warning, what inconsistency on His part to appeal for Himself to the sole proof of miracles, and to base His mission and its recognition on grounds which He rejected in the case of innovators who were likewise to appear suddenly and without having been foretold by any prophet (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III, 3) ?

In previous articles, I have argued that the use of the doctrinal criterion to distinguish true from false miracles had notable precedents in the history of the Church. One objection to this would be to say that this way of evaluating miracles (shared by many patristic and medieval authors) would provide an excuse for the Pharisees in their rejection of Christ, since he performed miracles and that should have been sufficient for them to abandon their theological objections.

An Unrepentant Hardening

One must simply answer that a good principle can be abused and that abuse does not nullify proper use. Indeed, nothing in Scripture indicates that the Pharisees, in good faith, found Christ’s doctrine to be at odds with that of Moses. Our Lord, who is the judge of hearts, declared to them concerning the writings of Moses: “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:47).

Thus, this objection concedes too much to the Pharisees, as though they were good-faith exegetes who, bound by what appeared to be revealed truth, had assumed that Christ must be a false teacher. On the contrary, the evangelists consistently portray them as men filled with jealousy and hatred who, driven by this disposition and despite their inner conviction that what they were witnessing was divine, preferred to attribute it to the devil rather than submit to it. The notion of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not a mere error of judgment in the discernment of spirits; it is a hardening comparable to that of Pharaoh who, faced with his own magicians telling him that it was the finger of God that had acted, hardened himself nonetheless. Moreover, in Luke 11:20, when the Pharisees blaspheme the Spirit by saying that Jesus casts out demons by Beelzebul, Jesus says he does so by “the finger of God” (δακτύλῳ Θεοῦ), which is the expression used by the magicians after a plague (δάκτυλος θεοῦ, Ex 8:19 LXX). This expression occurs only in these two biblical texts and in the giving of the Decalogue. This parallel is meant to evoke a similarity between the cases.

This attitude of hardening is constant throughout the interactions between Christ and the Pharisees. Faced with the resurrection of Lazarus — a miracle that can only be attributed to divine power (and the Pharisees do not attempt to deny that it was a true resurrection) — we see the Pharisees conspiring to kill Jesus (John 11:47–53). Faced with Christ’s own resurrection, we see them attempting to spread a rumor about the theft of Christ’s body (Matthew 28:13). Faced with his exorcisms, we do not see them advancing a sensible theological objection but simply wielding the demonic origin as an excuse (Matthew 9:34). Even when the Pharisees approach Christ to put theological questions to him, the text emphasizes that their approach does not stem from good faith but “in order to trap him” or “to test him.”(Matthew 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; Matthew 12:2; Matthew 12:10; Mark 2:24; Mark 3:2; Luke 6:2; Luke 6:7; Luke 13:14; Luke 14:1; Matthew 15:1–2; Mark 7:1–5; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16; Matthew 21:23; Mark 11:27–28; Luke 20:1–2; Matthew 22:15–22; Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:20–26; Matthew 22:23–33; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40; Matthew 22:34–36; Mark 12:28; Luke 10:25; Matthew 19:3; Mark 10:2; John 8:3–6; John 2:18; John 8:13; Luke 7:39; Luke 11:53–54; John 10:24.)

The Context of the Signs

All communication takes place within a context. The miracle of Christ’s resurrection is significant because of the context in which it occurs. If the Queen of England were to rise from the dead tomorrow, I am not sure what theological conclusion we could draw from it. It is because Christ’s resurrection took place within a particular pedagogical context that it carries an altogether different significance than the other resurrections in the Bible.

Likewise, one must grasp that the audience of Christ’s miracles is the Jewish people, prepared for centuries by a progressive revelation that had taught them to await a Messiah who could be recognized not simply by the fact that he would be a miracle-worker. The works of Christ, to which he appeals and through which the Pharisees ought to have recognized him as divine, echo in a particular way the announcements of the new creation found in the Old Testament(See C.S. Lewis, Miracles, chapter 16: the miracles of the new creation). It is as supernatural works, performed by a person claiming to be the Messiah and fulfilling the promised expectation, that Christ’s works functioned as sufficient signs for recognizing his divine mission. Thus, one cannot extract from this context the passages that appeal to miracles as grounds for credibility. These miracles are not performed before a skeptical audience wondering whether God exists, but before an audience awaiting the signs of the promised Messiah. Similarly, when Paul enumerates the distinguishing marks of an apostle, he does not mention miracles as sufficient in themselves but as joined to other signs, and he addresses an audience that already acknowledges that apostles must exist but some of whom question Paul’s own apostleship(2 Corinthians 12:12; see also the entirety of chapter 11). The fact that the signs of Jesus must be understood as signs of the fulfillment of the times announced in the Old Testament, rather than simply as miracles, is made explicit when one considers Jesus’s response to the Pharisees who came to ask him for a miracle:

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away (Matthew 16,1-3.).

Jesus’s response does not consist in producing a miracle and saying: see! Rather, he rebukes them for their culpable blindness to the signs of the times being fulfilled before their eyes — signs they had been prepared to await. Likewise, when John the Baptist sent word from prison asking Jesus whether he was the promised Messiah, Jesus responded (1) by his miracles, (2) by the proclamation of the good news, and (3) by citing Isaiah to situate this work within the prophetic announcements. Thus, the miracles did not function here as isolated sufficient proofs but as participating in a cumulative body of evidence.

By contrast, the apparition of Fatima corresponds to no expectation that Christians are called to hold: our expectation is that of Christ’s return in glory. It is therefore altogether different for a first-century Jew awaiting the Messiah to reject him once he came with the promised signs, and for a Christian to withhold belief from a Portuguese apparition that no one was expecting. The asymmetry of contexts is all the greater when one recalls that the New Testament announces as future miracles only those of false prophets. This asymmetry is further evident when one considers that the Old Testament announced a new covenant, while the New Testament proclaims itself the final revelation before the Parousia.

Theological Disputes

Finally, it should be noted that there is not a single instance in the New Testament of a theological objection raised by the Pharisees to which Jesus did not seek to respond. Nor is there any case in which Jesus responded to a theological objection with a miracle. When Jesus declares “believe me for the sake of the works themselves” (John 14:11), he is not addressing the Pharisees but his disciples, in order to strengthen them. Let us recall once more that these works are not wonders stripped of their context of expectation. Thus, the claim that a miracle ought to silence theological objections grounded in already-known revelation cannot be sustained by these passages.

Conclusion

To summarize:

• We never see the evangelists presenting the Pharisees as opposing a miracle of Christ with an objection grounded in prior revelation;

• Even if this were their implicit reason, it would only prove that their theological objection was not a good one, and not that the doctrinal criterion cannot be invoked when evaluating a miracle: the Pharisees were wrong; someone else may be right;

• The New Testament expectation regarding post-apostolic miracles mentions only those of false prophets; the Pharisees were awaiting a Messiah who would perform miracles;

• The Pharisees possessed a doctrinal corpus that announced a coming new revelation. Our doctrinal corpus is closed;

• Miracles functioned as compelling signs within the context of prophetic pedagogy, and not in abstraction from that context.

In the heat of the controversies surrounding the Reformation, authors from the various parties did not cease to produce homiletical or exegetical works with no direct connection to those debates. Yet even in such works, allusions to the controversies of their time still appeared.

Johannes Ferus was one of the most influential Franciscans of his day. In particular, his preaching was regarded as especially brilliant. His written works consist mainly of commentaries on a large number of books of Holy Scripture. When he comes to comment on Matthew 24, where Jesus speaks about false Christs who will perform miracles, Ferus takes the opportunity to launch an attack against his Lutheran opponents. Indeed, some Lutherans were appealing to miracles in support of Lutheranism. Ferus’s response essentially consists in saying: Jesus foretold that false teachers would perform miracles; therefore, we must judge miracles by doctrine (which does not prevent him from affirming that this doctrine was originally confirmed by miracles). Without further delay, here is the text:

Third, you have here a passage that enables you to distinguish true miracles from false ones. True miracles are those performed by someone who acts according to the truth and teaches nothing contrary to the Word of God; false miracles, by contrast, are those by which things contrary to the Word of God are taught—that Word which has long since been confirmed by miracles. Therefore, doctrine must not be judged on the basis of miracles, but miracles on the basis of doctrine.

Thus Moses teaches (Deut. 13): If a prophet arises and performs signs, and seeks to lead you away from God, do not believe him; for the Lord your God is testing you. Fear the Lord your God and listen to Him.

Thus Christ teaches here: “Behold, I have told you beforehand”; do not believe.

If, even in the face of manifest miracles, one must not believe when they run contrary to the Word of God, how much more must one not believe—against the Word of God—dreams, visions, fictitious revelations, spirits, and the like, such as those which the Lutherans of our time have brought forward against the doctrine of the Church. Certainly not.

Moses says (Deut. 18): Let there not be found among you anyone who observes dreams, consults diviners, or inquires of the dead to know the truth; for these things are an abomination before God.

In sum, Christ wills that we adhere so firmly to what He Himself has taught that, even if an angel were to descend from heaven to proclaim another Gospel, we should regard him as accursed (Johannes Ferus, In sacrosanctum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, ed. Miguel de Medina, 1567, 266, right column).

Thus, when confronted with people who appeal to miracles and claim to represent the God of Jesus Christ, Ferus appeals to Deuteronomy 13, which he does not restrict to prophets openly claiming a pagan deity. This is entirely reasonable, for Matthew 24 speaks of false Messiahs—that is, people who claim to be anointed by the God of Israel. The mention of the sin of idolatry in Deuteronomy 13 should therefore be read as metonymic, as is the case with all the casuistic texts of the Pentateuch: if a prophet performs a miracle but commands theft or adultery, he must not be heeded either.

That is all for Ferus; I will treat other doctors in the coming days in order to contribute to the ongoing reflections on demonic miracles.

——————

Latin text :

Tertio, habes hic textum unde internoseas inter falsa et vera miracula. Vera miracula sunt, si qui vera facit, verbo Dei contraria non docet : falsa autem, si contra verbum Dei iam dudum miraculis confirmatum docet. Non igitur doctrina ex miraculis, sed miracula ex doctrina probanda sunt.

Sic Moses docet : Si surrexerit prophetes et faciat signa, etc., et te abducere velit a Deo, noli credere ei, tentat enim vos Dominus Deus. Dominum Deum timete et ipsum audite.

Sic Christus hic docet : Ecce praedixi vobis, nolite credere.

Si miraculis etiam apertis credendum non est contra verbum Dei, quanto minus somniis, visionibus et fictis revelationibus, spiritibus, etc., qualia sunt quae nobis hac memoria contra Ecclesiasticam doctrinam Lutherani attulerunt, credendum est contra verbum Dei ? Non fiat.

Ait Moses (Deut. 18) : Non sit in te qui somnia observet, aut pythones consulat, aut a mortuis veritatem inquirat : haec enim abominatio sunt apud Deum.

Summa, vult Christus ut his quae ipse docuit ita adhaereamus, ut etiam si angelus de caelo aliud evangelizet, anathema reputemus.

I will soon publish in French on Par la foi (the main blog on which I write) as exhaustive a refutation as possible of Ethan Muse’s argument concerning the miracles of demons. One of the points addressed in the article will be the testimony of the Christian tradition regarding the ability of demons to imitate miracles (independently of the debate about their capacity to produce real ones), in such a way that we are not able to distinguish the true from the false by the testimony of the senses alone. This claim is affirmed by dozens of medieval and patristic authors.

Nevertheless, in this article, I found it interesting simply to highlight what Cardinal Bellarmine says on the matter. The following quotations from Bellarmine are accompanied by comments from Johann Gerhard, a sixteenth-century Lutheran theologian.

Therefore, Robert Bellarmine makes an exception in a different way:

« It is believable that such an ailment in its entirety came from the devil, who took possession of the eye of one and of the leg of the other and hindered the use of those members for this purpose: that he might appear to cure when he ceased to harm. »

We respond: this is enough to confirm our position. Because diabolical miracles, as regards their external appearance, agree with true and divine miracles—though they are entirely different with regard to the thing itself—it is therefore dangerous to pass judgment about doctrine on the basis of external miracles alone.

Only the outward appearance of a miracle meets the eyes. The discerning of the thing, and the distinguishing of the difference between divine and diabolical miracles, are obvious neither to the eyes nor to the other senses. Therefore, it can happen that diabolical miracles are considered as true miracles because of the external look and appearance by which they correspond to true, divine miracles.

Robert Bellarmine himself acknowledges this in a certain way. He writes (loc. cit., § est autem):

« Before the approval of the Church, it is not evident nor certain with the certainty of faith that any miracle is a true miracle. This is because it is not evident to us that something false cannot be among it, that it is not the illusion of a demon. Even though a demon cannot perform true miracles, he can do them in appearance—even the greatest ones. »

Therefore, if in miracles the truth of the thing is not always connected with the outward look and appearance, it is a matter of great peril to make pronouncements about the truth of a miracle and about doctrine itself from outward appearance (Johann Gerhard, On the Church, Section XI.).

The first quote that Gerhard is commenting is a commentary made by Bellarmine about the miracles of the emperor Vespasian :

“Vespasian cured the blind man and the lame man in this way : the devil took possession of the eye of the one and the leg of the other and hindered the use of those members. He did this so that he would seem to cure when he ceased to harm (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 14, resp. ad 4). ”

If you have followed the recent debates between Ethan Muse and Sean Luke, you probably have some objections in mind to this way of evaluating miracles. These objections were long ago anticipated and addressed within the Christian tradition, notably by John Duns Scotus and Blaise Pascal. My article will give their answer to the epistemic dilemma.

He is a doctor, but he is also a Protestant, and for some time now, he has embarked on the reckless adventure of discrediting all Catholic Eucharistic miracles. I feel some sympathy for him and respect his courage and honesty in admitting that he is the bearer of a blinding bias. The slightest spark of scientific truth linked to a Eucharistic miracle would be fatal to his Evangelical faith (for us Catholics, conversely, even if all the Eucharistic miracles in the world were false, this would not change our faith in the Real Presence one iota). Best wishes, Dr. Georgel!

This claim is entirely false, and had already been anticipated in my article of general considerations on Eucharistic miracles, in which I explain the three options available to a Protestant when faced with a claim of a Eucharistic miracle. Among these options, two involve recognizing a supernatural phenomenon without concluding to the truth of Catholicism. This proposal should not surprise Dr. Serafini, since he himself states in his book, concerning certain dubious mystical phenomena (including transformations of hosts into bloody matter in the case of the mystic Julia Kim):

This question of spurious mystical phenomena, or of those that are truly inexplicable—whose origins may be, and are probably, diabolical—is certainly interesting, though it would require an in-depth discussion that I will not undertake here.

To reject this hypothesis in principle here would amount to an unjustifiable double standard.

As for my confession of a“blinding bias”, here is what my first article said :

It must be stated from the outset that I am not neutral in this study. In fact, as a Protestant, my stance is almost unique: I am not, in principle, closed off to the supernatural, nor even to miracles. Nevertheless, since I am not a member of the Roman communion—and given that these miracles are put forward mainly in a Roman Catholic apologetic context—I also have a kind of unfavorable bias toward them, which one could call emotional. That said, Catholic apologists have no less of a favorable bias on this topic. So it’s one point for each side—back to the center.

Moreover, the animosity with which Dr. Serafini writes—even when opposing fellow Roman Catholics—reveals who, in fact, is most driven by emotional bias in this matter. This is understandable: Dr. Serafini has devoted a great deal of time and energy to writing a book on this subject and to giving numerous lectures about it. If one of his most cherished miracles were to prove less solid than he believed, his faith in the Real Presence might not be shaken, but part of the energy he has expended would turn out to have been misdirected. This is never a pleasant thing to experience.

3.1. The hypothesis that the Blood was contaminated is erroneous; no such finding has ever been confirmed.

3.2. The hypothesis that microorganisms are the origin of the A and B antigens is completely unconsistent. The Miraculous Heart had few colonies on its surface, and not in the peripheral area from which the small fragment was taken. Furthermore, numerous histological preparations have never demonstrated parasites, which readily appear under basic staining in cases of morbid infection.

And he added the following comment:

In short: “No more fuss!” Linoli states. He, the only person in the world to have handled and studied this Flesh and Blood, saw absolutely no contaminating bacteria or fungi! He states this with calm certainty and also, as we shall see, with a certain annoyance for those who suggest that he has not considered this problem.

I have already dealt on my website, through various articles, with the miracle of Lanciano and will continue to do so. You may find translations of my articles on Javier Perdomo’s substack. Nevertheless, it seemed important to me to point out that this remark by Dr Linoli is no longer valid in light of what we now know. A recent study on blood grouping and bacterial contamination indeed concluded:

Based on the experimental findings, it is evident that even on samples with no visible contamination, extensive microbial colonisation can occur. Such growth can also effect the efficiency of performed tests producing false positives and negatives. This highlights the issue of necessary reformations to current practices to improve quality of investigations.