Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Altar wine could push Irish priests over new drink-drive limit
Comments
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »OK wicknight. Learn when to get off the pot.
Please!!!!! ask your question in a new thread and save us all from this.
He started it:D TBH, I'm finished with it. I'm sure wicknight would not have an objection if you wanted to delete our silly goings on?
Apologies to all. My intention was not to ruin the thread, the effect was the opposite. My hands are up.0 -
I don't think there is any need to apologise. It's been an interesting thread. I'm looking to reading your reply on the other thread.0
-
-
OK but don't you mean we WILL have spiritual bodies at the resurrection which the above verses refer to.BrianCalgary wrote: »We have spiritual bodies. So they can be.
1 Corinthians 15 talks of a spiritual body:
43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Jesus is the 'last Adam' who is th elife giving spirit.0 -
OK but don't you mean we WILL have spiritual bodies at the resurrection which the above verses refer to.
We will. But at the moment Christ has a spiritual body. We have a soul.
The connection during the sacrament of communion happens between Christ and our soul.
That tingly peaceful feeling that comes over you as you partake?0 -
Advertisement
-
That sentence there is part of the problem. If God can only do what is logically possible, then by who's logic is he governed by? Yours? If you limit your beliefs to what you understand, then you're blinkered. The best scientists in the world are open to whatever they find out, no matter how illogical it may seem at first, then try to find logic to support it.
There are a lot of mysterious things in existance, and just because they haven't been explained as yet, doesn't make them not exist or not true.
To say that it's categorically not possible for Jesus to be present in body and blood through the substances of bread and wine, is to limit yourself to only looking at the atomic structure of the substances in question. But does a certain atomic structure always have to be only what everything else with that same basic DNA and atomic structure? I've seen genitically produced burgers for example, and although they have the same genetic pattern as a normal beef burger, they certainly look nothing like one. Inversly, surely something that looks like and consists of the genetics of one thing can possibly be another, if you're truly open to possibilities?
In my mind the phrase "if it looks like a duck.... etc" is outdated, as modern technology has proven time and again that things can look like and sound like something without actually being that item.
I didn't come up with the phrase 'logical imposibility', that is a Catholic response to the following...
If I asked 'Can God create a circle which is square in shape' it is quite clear that he cannot... a circle is, by definition, circular in shape.. if it is square in shape it is not a circle... and so even God cannot create square circles...
So have I proven that God cannot be omnipotent?, i.e I have found something he cannot do...
No, because the roman catholic response is that God can only do what is logically possible...
So, can a substance be two pure substances at the same time... no, by definition it cannot.. it can be a mixture of two substances but it cannot be 100% wine and 100% blood. This is clear as day, if a substance is said to be 100% water it cannot also be 100% Budweiser at the same time as, by definition it then wouldn't be 100% water. It cannot even be .01% Bud while being 100% water. (besides rounding errors!)
And so God cannot turn wine into blood which is also wine... it is logically impossible and so cannot exist.
And so the Catholic church and the Vatican have made a claim which can be proven to be false, unlike most of their claims which are unprovable and unfalsifiable.. i.e can it be proved that God didn't create the universe... NO, but likewise it cannot be proven that a giant red teapot didn't create the universe... or that the sun is a God.
And so the RC church is wrong, quite simply they are wrong.
I was only made aware quite recently that the RC church claim that the wine actually changes into blood... I was shocked, surely it was only a symbolic change, but no, the wine actually changes into blood.
This is a claim which can, and has been, proven to be false, the wine doesn't change into blood. This is a fact not an opinion. And so the RC church is leading gullible people up the proverbial garden path.
Cheers
Joe0 -
Joe, you're putting a human limit on God. Why couldn't the creator of the universe transform bread and wine into flesh and blood and still retain the appearance and apparent phyical properties of the bread and wine? To me it's a kind of inverse illusion. I realize that a chemical analysis of the species before and after consecration won't reveal any difference but I still don't see this as a problem for almighty God.JoeBallantine wrote: »I didn't come up with the phrase 'logical imposibility', that is a Catholic response to the following...
If I asked 'Can God create a circle which is square in shape' it is quite clear that he cannot... a circle is, by definition, circular in shape.. if it is square in shape it is not a circle... and so even God cannot create square circles...
So have I proven that God cannot be omnipotent?, i.e I have found something he cannot do...
No, because the roman catholic response is that God can only do what is logically possible...
So, can a substance be two pure substances at the same time... no, by definition it cannot.. it can be a mixture of two substances but it cannot be 100% wine and 100% blood. This is clear as day, if a substance is said to be 100% water it cannot also be 100% Budweiser at the same time as, by definition it then wouldn't be 100% water. It cannot even be .01% Bud while being 100% water. (besides rounding errors!)
And so God cannot turn wine into blood which is also wine... it is logically impossible and so cannot exist.
And so the Catholic church and the Vatican have made a claim which can be proven to be false, unlike most of their claims which are unprovable and unfalsifiable.. i.e can it be proved that God didn't create the universe... NO, but likewise it cannot be proven that a giant red teapot didn't create the universe... or that the sun is a God.
And so the RC church is wrong, quite simply they are wrong.
I was only made aware quite recently that the RC church claim that the wine actually changes into blood... I was shocked, surely it was only a symbolic change, but no, the wine actually changes into blood.
This is a claim which can, and has been, proven to be false, the wine doesn't change into blood. This is a fact not an opinion. And so the RC church is leading gullible people up the proverbial garden path.
Cheers
Joe0 -
Joe, you're putting a human limit on God. Why couldn't the creator of the universe transform bread and wine into flesh and blood and still retain the appearance and apparent phyical properties of the bread and wine? To me it's a kind of inverse illusion. I realize that a chemical analysis of the species before and after consecration won't reveal any difference but I still don't see this as a problem for almighty God.
i would not say that he can't do this. i would ask, why? What evidence is there that he operates in such a manner? As I said to you previously, When Jesus turned water to wine, it turned from water to wine. Other than the RCC saying it is flesh and blood, everything else says otherwise. As I also said previously, he said 'i am the living bread'. what does that mean if we remain consistent with such literal interpretation? The bible uses food in symbolic language a few times. Spiritual food at the proper time etc.0 -
The answer is in scripture:i would not say that he can't do this. i would ask, why? What evidence is there that he operates in such a manner?54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
We eat Christ's flesh in order to have spiritual life.
If Holy Communion were only symbolic, how would eating it give us "everlasting life"?
Are you forgetting about the Orthodox Churches? They make the same claim.Other than the RCC saying it is flesh and blood, everything else says otherwise.
Jesus uses the word bread metaphorically because obviously He's not bread but His body provides spiritual nourishment. He contrasts the bread(flesh) which He gives with the manna in the desert which only gave bodily life. See:As I also said previously, he said 'i am the living bread'. what does that mean if we remain consistent with such literal interpretation? The bible uses food in symbolic language a few times. Spiritual food at the proper time etc.
"52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world."
"56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed."
There it is in black and white. If the words flesh and blood are symbolic, what do they symbolise?
God bless,
Noel.0 -
Jesus uses the word bread metaphorically because obviously He's not bread but His body provides spiritual nourishment. He contrasts the bread(flesh) which He gives with the manna in the desert which only gave bodily life. See:
So he's speaking metaphorically here, but not a couple of verses later.If the words flesh and blood are symbolic, what do they symbolise?
God bless,
Noel.
They symbolise his death and sacrifice. Through his death i.e. flesh and blood, the world was saved.
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
He's still calling it, the fruit of the vine.0 -
Advertisement
-
Getting back on topic,
A scenario that could well happen.
A local parish priest down the country has a very busy day, He is under pressure and holds two morning masses, two requium masses and a wedding service. He is exhausted that afternoon and as he is driving back to the rectory and accidentally pulls out in front of a biker and kills him. The new laws are in place i.e. mandatory breath testing and a reduced level of consumption to .05% , The cops are on the scene within minutes and arrest the priest for dangerous driving causing death and being over the limit.
At the court hearing dose the priest admit that this is only wine that he consumed? Or dose he tries to explain to the court that in fact it is consecrated "blood of Christ". If he tries to convince the court that it is not wine but the "blood of Christ" he is in fact a liar if the blood samples are sent off to a forensic laboratory and proven to be only wine.
The Roman Catholic Church is responsible encouraging their clergy to drink more wine by their unbiblical doctrine that the remainder chalice must be consumed. No where is this mentioned in the Bible, this is a doctrine of the Devil. It is also deceiving their clergy members and the public that they are doing "something holy" when in fact they could break the law and put lives at risk. “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess" (Ephesians 5:18)0 -
RTDH, did you read any of my posts? As I said already that after the wine is transformed into the blood Christ, it will still be intoxicating. It is in fact the Blood of Christ but according to science it will be no different from wine so will have the same, appearance and chemical properties and intoxicating effects. God has created an illusion but changing one thing into another but retained its original appearance.Run_to_da_hills wrote: »At the court hearing dose the priest admit that this is only wine that he consumed? Or dose he tries to explain to the court that in fact it is consecrated "blood of Christ". If he tries to convince the court that it is not wine but the "blood of Christ" he is in fact a liar if the blood samples are sent off to a forensic laboratory and proven to be only wine.
With respect, this is a load of nonsense. Would you expect the priest to throw the remaining Blood of Christ down the sink and commit sacrilege? And when was the last time you were at mass and saw how much wine they put in the chalice? It's about a third of a glass!Run_to_da_hills wrote: »The Roman Catholic Church is responsible encouraging their clergy to drink more wine by their unbiblical doctrine that the remainder chalice must be consumed. No where is this mentioned in the Bible, this is a doctrine of the Devil.
What doctrine of the devil are you talking about? You see to be very fond of that phrase!
God bless,
Noel.0 -
LOL @ Run to da hills. (Not at you personally, at the image of the priest explaining in court he was drinking blood not wine, just like dracula!)
The priests must have the intelligence of blades of grass if they can't see their way out of this... they could get taxis everywhere.. they could drink less wine, they could merely wet their mouths.
Could they not just eat the bread or do they have to drink the blood? The vatican must allow exceptions to drinking wine for driving priests as they do for alcoholic priests... after all grape juice is fruit of the vine, does the bible specifically say 'fermented' fruit oif the vine?
If a priest was caught driving while over the limit I would hope he would recieve a punishment similar to anyone else, the fact he is a priest shouldn't make a difference.
It is an interesting point about the employers liability... could the Vatican be in trouble if it requires its employees to drink alcohol while working? The only other profession I can think of that does this would be wine tasting and beer quality control etc. .etc.
But I'd say the priesthood has exceptions to many aspects of labour law, like the Working Time Directive regarding maximum working hours and breaks.0 -
I was born and bread on Roman Catholic docterine and read all of your posts so there is nothing that I dont know about, but sorry I dont fall for any of them. There is only one person that could ever have the power to transform ordinary house wine into the blood of Christ and that is Jesus himself.RTDH, did you read any of my posts? As I said already that after the wine is transformed into the blood Christ, it will still be intoxicating. It is in fact the Blood of Christ but according to science it will be no different from wine so will have the same, appearance and chemical properties and intoxicating effects. God has created an illusion but changing one thing into another but retained its original appearance..
A third of a glass multiplied by several times in one morning all adds up! and is enough to make an issue of it which got into the press which this thread is all about. Wine is alcohol and remains alcohol no matter what the priest dose to it. I would rather see the remainder poured down the sink or at least put back into the bottle where it came from rather than have someones life put in jeopardy.With respect, this is a load of nonsense. Would you expect the priest to throw the remaining Blood of Christ down the sink and commit sacrilege? And when was the last time you were at mass and saw how much wine they put in the chalice? It's about a third of a glass!.
There are many "docterines of Devils" spoken of, in fact when Paul was writing to timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils". 1 Timothy 4:1. Paul was referring to all those man made docterines and rituals that are not found in the word of God.What doctrine of the devil are you talking about? You see to be very fond of that phrase! ..0 -
Could I remind everybody that wine is consumed at OTHER Christian Services as well as at Roman Catholic Masses......and if the limit were to be lowered to Zero (like in some other countries) then Christians, other than Roman Catholics, could also be unable to legally drive home from their religious services as well.
......and with mandatory testing after even minor / no fault accidents, the chances of losing one's license could be significant for anybody who flouted a zero alcohol law and drove home from church after a communion service.
To make the issue even more complex, I have read recently that you can fail a breath test after only gargling your mouth.....as the alcohol content of conventional mouth wash will 'cling' to your buccal cavity and it apparently can give a very high (false) reading, because the breathaliser is calibrated to measure the tiny fraction of blood alcohol exhaled via the lungs.....and not the relatively much larger levels of volatile alcohol present in your mouth, if you have recently mouth washed!!!
I don't know how valid this may be in practice......but it said it in the papers.....so it must be true!!!:eek::D
Different Christian denominations believe the Communion Wine to be permanently the Blood of Christ, temporarily the Blood of Christ or symbolically the blood of Christ.
Either way, MANY Christians of MANY different denominations 'drink and drive' on Sunday mornings at present.
The problems for Roman Catholic priests saying multiple Masses and having to consume all left-over consecrated wine would appear to be particularly acute ...... but a zero alcohol limit would affect many non-catholics as well.
Ministers of other denominations conducting multiple Communion Services could experience similar difficulties to Roman Catholic priests...but they would not have similar obligations to consume left-over wine ......and they might be able to have their wives drive them as well.0 -
I'm pretty sure they just give you the breathalyzer on the side of the road, and then give you a more thorough exam at the station... blood test maybe?0
-
I'm pretty sure they just give you the breathalyzer on the side of the road, and then give you a more thorough exam at the station... blood test maybe?
I understand that failure at the roadside breathalyzer will trigger your arrest but the legally critical test for your license is a special breathalyzer at the Garda Station .... and if you fail that you are gone!!!
I also understand that a person who is arrested DOESN'T have an option to undergo a blood or a urine test IF the 'station breathalyser' is working......
.......but IF it isn't working, the Garda may then offer you a choice of undergoing a blood or a urine test.0 -
It's interesting that you should say that because that's exactly what happens at the consecration! The priest acts "in persona Christi". The priest says the words of the consecration but Jesus changes the bread and wine into His body and blood.Run_to_da_hills wrote: »There is only one person that could ever have the power to transform ordinary house wine into the blood of Christ and that is Jesus himself.
Pot calling the kettle black. IMHO, Protestants departed from the true faith at the time of the reformation. Why don't you just come out with it and say which devilish doctrine you're talking about?Run_to_da_hills wrote: »There are many "docterines of Devils" spoken of, in fact when Paul was writing to timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils". 1 Timothy 4:1. Paul was referring to all those man made docterines and rituals that are not found in the word of God.
God bless,
Noel.0 -
If Jesus had any thing to do with the consecration at mass it would taste like blood, but it DOSENT! It just tastes like ordinary supermarket wine.It's interesting that you should say that because that's exactly what happens at the consecration! The priest acts "in persona Christi". The priest says the words of the consecration but Jesus changes the bread and wine into His body and blood.
Jesus is the son of God, a priest is just an ordinary man dressed up in a religious costume with seven years training of religious rituals and tradition. The Bible says it all, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". 2 Timothy 2vs7
True Christians were about since Acts, These broke bread and took wine in memorance rather than idolise these substances, they were spirit filled followers of Christ who repented FIRST and were baptised later by full immersion and followed strictly to the epistles written to them at the time.Pot calling the kettle black. IMHO, Protestants departed from the true faith at the time of the reformation. Why don't you just come out with it and say which devilish doctrine you're talking about?
The Roman Catholic Church was the one that departed from the truth, It was invented approx three centuries later and was responsible for twisting scripture, Ie they done away with repentance before baptism, they changed full immersion to just splashing the head of a baby with a spoon of water. They invented rituals and docterine not found in the Bible, such as "Purgatory", "Extreme Unction" and "Eucharist". They filled all their churches with statues and graven Images contary to Gods word, they then persecuted and burned at the stake those that rejected their claims ie that Jesus was present in a bit of wafer and that the pope was Christs Vicar on earth, (translation for Vicarius Fili Dei). I could write a book about the Catholic Church.
What happened during the Reformation is that with the invention of the Guttenbourg press, Bibles were translated and mass produced in the common tongue. This was an awakening for the truth, unfortunitally many of these "reformed" churches have inherrited much of the poisons of the mother church, such as Infant baptism and pagan fesivities such as Christmas and Easter.0 -
RTDH, your post doesn't merit a response.0
-
Advertisement
Advertisement