From the Wikipedia article on [Eucharistic miracles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle) : > In Christianity, a Eucharistic miracle is any miracle involving the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the fact that Christ is really made manifest in the Eucharist is deemed a Eucharistic miracle; however, this is to be distinguished from other manifestations of God. The Catholic Church distinguishes between divine revelation, such as the Eucharist, and private revelation, such as Eucharistic miracles. **In general, reported Eucharistic miracles usually consist of unexplainable phenomena such as consecrated Hosts visibly transforming into myocardium tissue, being preserved for extremely long stretches of time, surviving being thrown into fire, bleeding, or even sustaining people for decades**. The same article includes a list of [extraordinary Eucharistic miracles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#Extraordinary_Eucharistic_miracles) . What is the Protestant view on these miracles? _______ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/22765/50422

Are there any scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles? If there are, please provide sources / references (papers, articles, etc).

A write-up in cherishrecatholic.org states that Jesus belonged to AB type of blood group, as per official announcement of Catholic Church. The article cites a eucharistic miracle that happened in Lanciano City, Italy in the 8th century. The Holy Eucharist, preserved since then, was examined by scientists in 1971 who determined the blood type to be AB. My question therefore is: **Has the Catholic Church officially pronounced that Jesus, in his human body, belonged to certain type of blood group?**

The question of “are Catholics cannibals due to their view on transubstantiation” question cropped up quite some time ago. The top [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/30327/56226) on this question makes a distinction between substance and accidents. >In other words, if the wine becomes the Blood of Christ, why isn't there hemoglobin in it? > >Aristotelian philosophy made a distinction between what (in modern philosophical jargon) is called "substance" (from Latin substantia, the essence or nature of something) and "accident" (from Latin accidens, something that happens to be true of an entity). Aristotle of course used Greek, but Aquinas used the Latin. The substance of something is what makes it what it is: I am a human being because I am human "in substance"; that is, because I have "humanness". I look the way I do as a human because I have particular accidents—my eyes are a given color, my hair and skin, I'm a given height. Any of those things could change, or could have been different; that would change what I looked like, but not what I am (i.e. human). > >The Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is that during the Eucharistic celebration, the substance of the bread and wine—what they truly are—is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But their accidents—what they look and act like physically—remain the same. So I have a question. I’ve seen many cases of Eucharistic miracles, that is, where traces of real blood are found in the consumed Eucharist. Many people claim this as evidence of transubstantiation. But how does this fit with the substance vs accidents view? Because wouldn’t a Eucharistic miracle be a change in accident, not substance? Beyond that, do proponents of Eucharistic miracles think this happens all the time, or is it a rare occurrence? And if it is a rare occurrence, are these cases cannibalism?