Altar wine could push Irish priests over new drink-drive limit

Run_to_da_hills

I was reading in the Independant the other day that clergy members are fearful of loosing their driving licence over drinking too much wine. Surely this can be solved by either by using unformented grape juice or by passing the remainder of the chalice around to members of the congregation rather than drinking it all themelves.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-fear-altar-wine-may-put-them-over-limit-1209613.html

Ciaran500

Did you read the article?

"What option do I have but drink the wine, as the chalices have to be emptied before being put back in the tabernacle?" he said.

"The only other possibility would be to ask some members of the congregation to drink the excess wine. This would be unseemly and certainly not Church practice."

"But the use of non-alcoholic wine is not an option according to Fr Brian, as the Vatican banned its use in the Eucharist in the past."

So what are the priests asking to be done?

Run_to_da_hills

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Did you read the article?

I have read the article. It may not be "Church practice" to pass the cup around but it is certainly practiced in scripture. It is an ordinance in scripture for Christians to participate in our lords supper which includes both the bread & wine. There is nowhere mentioned in the Bible where the cup not to be passed around, in fact as a former Catholic I have taken wine from the cup on several occasions at a Mass. Another obvious option is to just fill the bare minimum in the chalice chalice.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

So what are the priests asking to be done?

The Catholic Church may have to change "church practice" so that they may not break the law.

Zombrex

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Did you read the article?

"What option do I have but drink the wine, as the chalices have to be emptied before being put back in the tabernacle?" he said.

"The only other possibility would be to ask some members of the congregation to drink the excess wine. This would be unseemly and certainly not Church practice."

"But the use of non-alcoholic wine is not an option according to Fr Brian, as the Vatican banned its use in the Eucharist in the past."

So what are the priests asking to be done?

The priest has to drink the excess wine after the mass? Wow, you learn something new every day.

Nevyn

There is a line of non alcoholic wine which priests who have issues with drink are allowed use so this is really a non issue.
http://www.cpsonline.co.uk/acatalog/Non-Alcoholic_Wine.html

I found the tee totaler who had never had drink in their life getting done after two bowls of sherry triffle to be more intresting.

JimiTime

Well actually, I think Catholic priests have absolutely nothing to fear. Is it not the literal blood of Jesus after blessed?? Now unless his blood has a high alchahol content, its not an issue:rolleyes: 'Officer I swear, I haven't been drinking, just indulging in some canabalism'. (Mods feel free to edit if you see this is in bad taste. Just be aware that i am mocking the transubtansiation scenario to make, what I would consider, a valid point.)

keano_afc

I would have made the same point, does transsubstantiation no teach that its no longer wine but blood?? Or is it just one big faux pas?:eek:

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Well actually, I think Catholic priests have absolutely nothing to fear. Is it not the literal blood of Jesus after blessed?? Now unless his blood has a high alchahol content, its not an issue:rolleyes: 'Officer I swear, I haven't been drinking, just indulging in some canabalism'. (Mods feel free to edit if you see this is in bad taste. Just be aware that i am mocking the transubtansiation scenario to make, what I would consider, a valid point.)

Luke 23:34 And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

seamus

Walk or take public transport. If there's a significant distance, arrange for a member of your congregation to collect/transport you.

Problem solved.

Dave!

A priest on the radio the other day mentioned that in Jesus's time there was no cars, and he managed just fine Get a horse and cart!

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Luke 23:34 And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

I know what I'm doing alright. I'm calling to question what I see as one of the most ridiculous teachings of the RCC. You clearly say its not symbolic, it is the 'literal blood and body of Christ'. Maybe you could enlighten us? Is it alchaholic or not? If you are correct, then a priest could drink the wine he has blessed(which is no longer wine but blood), and no alchahol should be present. Also, to eat a member of ones own species in canabalism. You might not like the association, but if it is 'literally' flesh and blood then it is canabalism by definition. You can therefore suggest that canabalism is ok in certain circumstances, like this scenario, but you can't say its not cannabalism. Now how about answering the question instead of taking the moral highground, comparing me to those who put 'My' King and 'My' Lord to death.

Owen

I suspect Jimitime, that the answer you'll be given is that it's one of the 'mysteries' of the Sacrament. So no answer at all really.

JimiTime

ned78 wrote: »

I suspect Jimitime, that the answer you'll be given is that it's one of the 'mysteries' of the Sacrament. So no answer at all really.

Well I'm hoping I'll get something more than that. But alas, I can't see any answer coming apart from 'mystery' alright. 'Ladies and gents, I have before me a glass of wine, I have now transformed it into a glass of blood. Its amazing, but this blood still tastes like the wine. It also can make me drunk. It raises the alchahol levels in my body, and has the very same colour, consistency and properties as the original wine that was in the glass.' Very mysterious indeed. I remember asking my religion teacher this in school, and it was simply, 'we don't know, its the mystery of the blessed sacrament'. It confuses the head off me that folk believe it I mean seriously?? When he was in the upper room, why did he take bread and wine? Why not just saw off a finger and pass it around? Does that sound offensive? If it does, then why? what is the difference?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I'm hoping I'll get something more than that. But alas, I can't see any answer coming apart from 'mystery' alright. 'Ladies and gents, I have before me a glass of wine, I have now transformed it into a glass of blood. Its amazing, but this blood still tastes like the wine. It also can make me drunk. It raises the alchahol levels in my body, and has the very same colour, consistency and properties as the original wine that was in the glass.' Very mysterious indeed. I remember asking my religion teacher this in school, and it was simply, 'we don't know, its the mystery of the blessed sacrament'. It confuses the head off me that folk believe it I mean seriously?? When he was in the upper room, why did he take bread and wine? Why not just saw off a finger and pass it around? Does that sound offensive? If it does, then why? what is the difference?

Careful Jimi, you are beginning to sound like a skeptic atheist

TBH the wine turning into the blood of Christ during mass is no more or less ridiculous than anything else in the religion, so I'm not sure why you would attack kelly over his belief in this specific supernatural claim. I'm pretty sure you believe equally wacky supernatural things are real and happened.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

TBH the wine turning into the blood of Christ during mass is no more or less ridiculous than anything else in the religion, so I'm not sure why you would attack kelly over his belief in this specific supernatural claim. I'm pretty sure you believe equally wacky supernatural things are real and happened.

Well, I can't answer such a vague claim. If you wish to raise the point. Open a thread and engage the Christians about the 'wacky supernatural things' that are the same as believing is transubstantiation. But for here, I'd rather keep it on the question of 'if its the blood of Christ, then it wont raise the alchahol in your blood'.

Owen

JimiTime wrote: »

I remember asking my religion teacher this in school, and it was simply, 'we don't know, its the mystery of the blessed sacrament'.

You remind me of me! I was 'excused' from Religion class in secondary school in a Catholic school, because I kept asking questions the Brothers in the school just couldn't answer. Logical, well posed questions. Why Logic gets replaced by faith befuddles me time and time again, surely, both can co-exist if there is a supernatural deity leading our development?

biko

The priest can go have a meal and a quick nap after the mass.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd rather keep it on the question of 'if its the blood of Christ, then it wont raise the alchahol in your blood'.

Yes but what are you basing that assertion actually on? Scientific study? The natural laws of the universe?

All these things are routinely ignored by yourself when it comes to your own supernatural beliefs.

Are you saying that God cannot do this because it breaks natural laws? And if you are saying that, do you apply that same standard equally to everything you believe in?

JimiTime

ned78 wrote: »

You remind me of me! I was 'excused' from Religion class in secondary school in a Catholic school, because I kept asking questions the Brothers in the school just couldn't answer. Logical, well posed questions. Why Logic gets replaced by faith befuddles me time and time again, surely, both can co-exist if there is a supernatural deity leading our development?

Gladly, I was never expelled from religion class. But thats probably because I was and am still, a Christian. So my angle was not really 'Logic', it was more reasoning scripture with them. Though the transubtantiation was probably both. As wicknight says, there are other things I as as a Christian would believe, that an atheist may find just as ludicrous. I, however, see a distinct difference.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but what are you basing that assertion actually on? Scientific study? The natural laws of the universe?

All these things are routinely ignored by yourself when it comes to your own supernatural beliefs.

Are you saying that God cannot do this because it breaks natural laws? And if you are saying that, do you apply that same standard equally to everything you believe in?

As I said Wicknight, if you really want this to be discussed, open a thread. I'm not going to be led off topic discussing how I reason my faith etc. If you really want it answered pose the question in a new thread.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said Wicknight, if you really want this to be discussed, open a thread. I'm not going to be led off topic discussing how I reason my faith etc.

Its not your faith, its Kelly's faith. That is the whole point. :rolleyes:

You are attacking his beliefs as ridiculous. Based on what?

On what possible grounds do you say that the wine cannot be both alcoholic wine and the blood of Christ? Are you rationally arguing that that can't happen? Are you saying that God cannot physically do that? Are you saying that wine cannot be the blood of Christ without changing substance and alcohol content?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I'm hoping I'll get something more than that. But alas, I can't see any answer coming apart from 'mystery' alright. 'Ladies and gents, I have before me a glass of wine, I have now transformed it into a glass of blood. Its amazing, but this blood still tastes like the wine. It also can make me drunk. It raises the alchahol levels in my body, and has the very same colour, consistency and properties as the original wine that was in the glass.' Very mysterious indeed. I remember asking my religion teacher this in school, and it was simply, 'we don't know, its the mystery of the blessed sacrament'. It confuses the head off me that folk believe it I mean seriously?? When he was in the upper room, why did he take bread and wine? Why not just saw off a finger and pass it around? Does that sound offensive? If it does, then why? what is the difference?

Jimi, on the night before Jesus died, He gave us the greatest possible gift that He ever gave to humanity. i.e. His body, blood, soul and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Chrsitian life according to the Catholic Church. So I'm sure you can see how your remarks could be deeply offensive.

I just don't understand how people can ignore the whole history of the Church going back to the time of the apostles. Was everyone who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament a fool? Were all the Church Fathers living under an illusion? Why, do you think, was this doctrine doubted by so few up to the time of the reformation?

And yes the Eurcharist is a big mystery. But nothing is impossible with God. If the physical nature of the wine and bread did change during the consecration, it would be proof that God exists. Of course God would never reveal Himself so obviously.

The reason I quoted Luke 23 was to ask God's mercy in forgiving your mockery of the greatest gift every given by God to the world.

Please do yourself a favour by reading this:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

1 Cor 11:7 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Here is an OT prediction of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

Malachi 1:10 .... I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. 11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation [the Lamb of God]: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Chrsitian life according to the Catholic Church. So I'm sure you can see how your remarks could be deeply offensive.

I don't wish to cause offence Noel. Though i could have been a little more tactful i suppose. But the bones of my question still remain unanswered. At the end of the day we have a catholic priest saying he might be over the limit if he drinks the wine. But if its blood, then how can this be?

I just don't understand how people can ignore the whole history of the Church going back to the time of the apostles.

Over this ground before.

Was everyone who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament a fool?

Foolish, decieved or ignorant.

Were all the Church Fathers living under an illusion?

If they believed this, they were believing a falsehood anyway.

Why, do you think, was this doctrine doubted by so few up to the time of the reformation?

A few things. priests were powerful, and reverred. The average serf was not allowed read the bible in his native tongue, i.e. couldn't understand it. A big issue in disagreing with the RCC involved alot of wood and a match! So any such 'dissenter' was either too afraid to speak, or hounded out to be murdered as a heretic by the RCC.

And yes the Eurcharist is a big mystery.

To you and yours. not to me.

But nothing is impossible with God.

Lies are.

If the physical nature of the wine and bread did change during the consecration, it would be proof that God exists. Of course God would never reveal Himself so obviously.

So it continues to look, smell, taste and have the properties of wine. but it is actualy blood. You don't see how A christian like myself see's an issue here?

The reason I quoted Luke 23 was to ask God's mercy in forgiving your mockery of the greatest gift every given by God to the world.

Well once again thank you for making suplication for me. What is the greatest gift he gave to the world?

Please do yourself a favour by reading this:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

only if you do yourself a favour by reading a well translated bible?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Its not your faith, its Kelly's faith. That is the whole point. :rolleyes:

You are attacking his beliefs as ridiculous. Based on what?

On what possible grounds do you say that the wine cannot be both alcoholic wine and the blood of Christ? Are you rationally arguing that that can't happen? Are you saying that God cannot physically do that? Are you saying that wine cannot be the blood of Christ without changing substance and alcohol content?

Can you stop it now wicknight. Either ask your questions on another thread as i suggested, so as not to take this off on a tangent, or leave it drop!! i have given you an option if you genuinely want your question answered. I request you stop hassling me. I am not refusing to answer, i am asking you not to drag the thread away, so please stop making points about it here.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Can you stop it now wicknight. Either ask your questions on another thread as i suggested

My question is relevant to this thread. you have posted two rather condescending posts to kelly ridiculing his belief that the wine is the blood of Christ

I want to know on what basis do you base your assertion that if the wine was the body of Christ it should not be alcoholic in nature after the transformation if this was actually taking place?

Is that a scientific assessment? Is it a logical assessment?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

My question is relevant to this thread. you have posted two rather condescending posts to kelly ridiculing his belief that the wine is the blood of Christ

I want to know on what basis do you base your assertion that if the wine was the body of Christ it should not be alcoholic in nature after the transformation if this was actually taking place?

Is that a scientific assessment? Is it a logical assessment?

Now you're just being a weasel! You said that i believed 'equally wacky superstitious claims'. i have invited you to specify such things on another thread so that they may be answered, and so as not to pull this thread off on a tangeant. You insist on trying to belittle my view based on your assumption that i believe in 'equally wacky superstitious claims'. You are trying a bit of Ad hominem. Now please ask your questions on another thread if you want, i will not be responding to anymore of this stuff here.

BrianCalgary

Now for my two cents worth.

Jesus instituted two practices while doing His ministry. The first was baptism, the outward demonstartion of one's faith which includes the presence of the Holy Spirit. When I was baptised as an adult I can tell you for certain that teh Holy Spirit was present.

When Jesus instituted the Communion as an act of remembrance of His sacrifice, He makes two statemnts: This is my body, and This is my blood.

If God is as omnipotent as we claim He is a spiritual transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood is well within the realm of possibilty, and since Jesus Himself said that it was His body and blood we have to make that consideration.

The other end of the scale is that both are symbolic of the body and blood. I have huge trouble with that stance as it reduces the act of the Lord's supper by removing Jesus' presence completely.

Since baptism involves the presence of the Holy Spirit, I conclude that because Jesus says it is His body and blood that He is most definitely present within the elements.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I conclude that because Jesus says it is His body and blood that He is most definitely present within the elements.

Ok. Now you must define what 'present' is? Is it 'literal' blood and flesh? Is there holy spirit in the bread and wine? How is such a presence manifested?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok. Now you must define what 'present' is? Is it 'literal' blood and flesh? Is there holy spirit in the bread and wine? How is such a presence manifested?

Jimi, I presume you believe:

- Jesus cured people of disease, raised the dead.
- Turned water into wine
- Fed thousands of people with only a few loaves and fishes
- Walked on water and calmed a storm
- Walked through doors/wall after His resurrection
- Rose from the dead and ascended into heaven
- Christ is both God and man.
- etc

So why is it so hard to believe that Christ's humanity and divinity is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament? Is it not you faith that is lacking? Why put a limit on God's power?

Blessings,
Noel.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok. Now you must define what 'present' is? Is it 'literal' blood and flesh? Is there holy spirit in the bread and wine? How is such a presence manifested?

I can't define what 'present' means.

I can not limit God in not changing spiritually the bread and wine. My expectation was not to taste meat and blood, but to receive Christ in some way shape or form and communing with Him during this sacred time.

JoeB-

kelly1 wrote: »

And yes the Eurcharist is a big mystery. But nothing is impossible with God. If the physical nature of the wine and bread did change during the consecration, it would be proof that God exists. Of course God would never reveal Himself so obviously.

God can only do what is logically possible, i.e he cannot create square circles or dry water.

I wonder why God would be so against offering direct proof of his existence, after all it would allow him to cause many more people to be saved who are currently destined for hell... is this not what he wants? But apparently God delights in being as obscure as possible... (and only revealing himself to those who already believe, thus doing nothing for those who don't believe)

On the issue of the wine turning into blood... it either does or it doesn't... the definition of 'real' and 'reality' would need to be redefined if the wine turns into blood but is still wine.

As I said God can only do what is logically possible.. it is not possible for a liquid to be both wine and water for example, it may be a mixture, or it may be one or the other, but it cannot be both simultaneously.... and so God cannot turn wine into blood which is also wine.

So if the wine after conscrecration is Gods blood, then Gods blood is chemically and in every other way the same as the wine used, this has problems in that different wines are used in different churches and after conscrecration they are still chemically different to each other so it would appear that they haven't changed at all... most certainly they haven't both changed into the same thing as they could be shown to be different.

On the original problem....
Priests surely are not so stupid as to not be able to solve the original conundrum as to drink driving, they can simply use less wine, they don't have to use half a bottle.

bonkey

from the article wrote:

The north Galway priest, who asked not to be named, said the problem is greater in rural parishes.

"Even if I only took a mouthful of wine from the chalice at all three Masses I feel that this could put me over the legal limit for driving.

"But if a call comes in that somebody is nearing death, I have no choice but drive to where that person is and give him or her the last rites."

To be honest, this strikes me as little more than hyperbole for a slow news day.

I'm more surprised that the priest isn't arguing he should be allowed drive without having a valid license, given the currency of that topic. After all, even without a license he would still have no choice but to drive, apparently.

One wonders where the clergy contributing to this article would draw the line in terms of what laws can be broken in the name of things that "have" to be done. Speeding? Driving without a license? Driving under medication? Driving someone else's car without permission? Driving without insurance?

Mrs. MacGyver

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I can't define what 'present' means.

I can not limit God in not changing spiritually the bread and wine. My expectation was not to taste meat and blood, but to receive Christ in some way shape or form and communing with Him during this sacred time.

I agree with you on that one Brian

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi, I presume you believe:

- Jesus cured people of disease, raised the dead. YES
- Turned water into wine YES
- Fed thousands of people with only a few loaves and fishes YES
- Walked on water and calmed a storm YES
- Walked through doors/wall after His resurrection YES
- Rose from the dead and ascended into heaven YES

My answers in bold.

So why is it so hard to believe that Christ's humanity and divinity is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament? Is it not you faith that is lacking? Why put a limit on God's power?

Blessings,
Noel.

Its not that its 'hard' to believe, its that there is no reason to believe its not symbolic. Also, you have changed your language to 'present' in the sacrament rather than the 'actual, literal blood and body'. Is there a difference? Also, you have avoided my questions. Is there alcahol present in it? and if its is 'literally' blood and flesh then it is by definition canabalism is it not?

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I can't define what 'present' means.

But you believe its Christs literal blood and body?

I can not limit God in not changing spiritually the bread and wine.

Ok, so you are saying he changes the wine and bread 'spiritually'? have you any idea what you mean by that?

Run_to_da_hills

Even as a former Catholioc I always had my doubts on the docterine of transubstanciation on several grounds.

The first was logical, ie it looks like wine and tastes like wine and dose not loose any of its alcoholic content despite this "miraculous" change over.

The fact that a closet sex offending priest that spiritually speaking is already on the "highway to hell" has the capabilities of transformimng wine into blood irrespective of his lifestyle.

If Christians are asked regularly to participate in our lords supper as an ordinance, what is the position for a group of christian believers or trapped in a foreign prison for life where there is no priest ever availible? are these Christians supposed do do without the breaking of bread altogether?

Thank God I found true meaning in this ordinance since I became Christian, every time I take the bread and wine (Grape Juice) among fellow believers I think back and look at the change Christ has done in my own personal life.

Fanny Cradock

I have always considered this as an obvious symbolic gesture. Drinking orange juice and eating crackers would serve the same purpose imo.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Now you're just being a weasel! You said that i believed 'equally wacky superstitious claims'. i have invited you to specify such things on another thread so that they may be answered, and so as not to pull this thread off on a tangeant. You insist on trying to belittle my view based on your assumption that i believe in 'equally wacky superstitious claims'. You are trying a bit of Ad hominem. Now please ask your questions on another thread if you want, i will not be responding to anymore of this stuff here.

Well kelly has listed off some of the "equally wacky" supernatural events you believe literally happened so I don't see much point. I know you believe them. You know you believe them. What is there to discuss?

You readly accept that the most amazing rule of nature defying supernatural events can and have happened as a direct result of the interaction of God into the natural state of the universe.

TBH you seem to just be now simply attempting to avoid answering a very straight forward and simple question -

Given your acceptance of supernatural events that defy or alter the natural laws of the universe, on what grounds do you ridicule Kelly's belief that the wine and bread at mass could be changed into the literal blood and body of Christ at some point during the process?

The very fact that you are skirting around this question to me demonstrates my point.

If you are ridiculing the event because you think it makes little sense or that it is implausable (it makes no logical sense, but then neither does a human being arising from a state of death and decay, or water molecules being transformed into the fermented juice of grapes, or a man defying gravity and pressure by walking over water) you need to have a long hard look at what you yourself accept can be done by God when he wants to.

Spyral

the physical wine and bread are callled the 'accidents' that is metaphysically if you subtracted bread from the consecrated bread you would have flesh.

robindch

Spryal wrote:

the physical wine and bread are callled the 'accidents'

Haven't heard that terminology before -- where does it come from?

Spryal wrote:

[...]that is metaphysically if you subtracted bread from the consecrated bread you would have flesh.

How does one metaphysically subtract one physical substance from another?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well kelly has listed off some of the "equally wacky" supernatural events you believe literally happened so I don't see much point. I know you believe them. You know you believe them. What is there to discuss?

Well then go away!

TBH you seem to just be now simply attempting to avoid answering a very straight forward and simple question -

Rather than skirt around a question, I actually invited you to ask a question on another thread. What you are doing is quite simply trying to hound me. Rather than trying to add to the subject on this thread, you are trying to attack the poster (me), on the grounds that, 'well if you believe this you've no right to argue that'. Now have some class please, and stop this juvenile behaviour. Whatever you wish to ask, Ask on another thread. I am inviting you. Categorically, to ask your question. this will be the 3rd or fourth time i have invited you to do this. But obviously, your intent is more than looking for an answer, take down the poster.

Given your acceptance of supernatural events that defy or alter the natural laws of the universe, on what grounds do you ridicule Kelly's belief that the wine and bread at mass could be changed into the literal blood and body of Christ at some point during the process?

i will engage with you on this question if you want to ask it on another thread. Not here. There you go again. Another invite.

The very fact that you are skirting around this question to me demonstrates my point.

Oh is that what your looking for. ok, sorry. Wicknight is right, his point has been proven, i am stupid and inconsistant. now, is your ego fed enough!

If you are ridiculing the event because you think it makes little sense or that it is implausable (it makes no logical sense, but then neither does a human being arising from a state of death and decay, or water molecules being transformed into the fermented juice of grapes, or a man defying gravity and pressure by walking over water) you need to have a long hard look at what you yourself accept can be done by God when he wants to.

Grand, I'll take a long hard look so. Will you go away now?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well then go away!

I will not "go away" Jimi.

You made a number of condescending posts with regards to Kelly1's beliefs. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your remarks and asking that you explain yourself.

Of course if you refuse to do so I can't make you.

Its a pretty simple question Jimi - On what grounds do you say that the wine and bread cannot literally be the blood and flesh of Jesus?

Are you saying it cannot be so from a scientific position? Are you saying it cannot be so from a logical or rational position?

Or are you simply saying that it can but you don't believe it is, in which case why then were you ridiculing Kelly1's beliefs because he does believe it is the literal blood and flesh of Jesus?

JimiTime wrote: »

Rather than skirt around a question, I actually invited you to ask a question on another thread.

The question is relevant to this thread, it should be answered in this thread.

JimiTime wrote: »

What you are doing is quite simply trying to hound me.

You are darn right I am.

Jimi you seem to think you should be just able to say what ever you wish without anyone calling or challenging you on it.

Sorry but that's not how it works. Well come to the Internet, I hope you enjoy your stay :rolleyes:

Owen

Spyral wrote: »

the physical wine and bread are callled the 'accidents' that is metaphysically if you subtracted bread from the consecrated bread you would have flesh.

So, it is canabalism?

EamonnKeane

"It's a spiderbaby: it has the body of a spider and the mind of a baby."

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not that its 'hard' to believe, its that there is no reason to believe its not symbolic.

Jimi, could you ask you to please read this passage carefully and slowly (I'm not being patronizing):

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 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. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 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. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

Jimi, this is as clear as day. His disciples were scandalized at what He was saying but He still didn't correct His meaning by saying that He was speaking metaphorically.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, you have changed your language to 'present' in the sacrament rather than the 'actual, literal blood and body'. Is there a difference? Also, you have avoided my questions. Is there alcahol present in it? and if its is 'literally' blood and flesh then it is by definition canabalism is it not?

To be honest I'm not qualified to fully answer your questions so I'll have to refer you to two articles which can explain better than I can. All I'll say is that the Eucharist is Christ. The substance of the bread and wine are changed into His body and blood while still retaining all appearances of bread and wine. So I would say that alcohol isn't present after the wine is changed into blood and that what you see as wine becomes a very convincing illusion of wine. And on the question of cannibalism, yes consuming the Eucharist could be considered cannibalism (I presume). Please see:

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/realpres.htm

God bless,
Noel.

Biro

JoeBallantine wrote: »

God can only do what is logically possible, i.e he cannot create square circles or dry water.

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.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I will not "go away" Jimi.

Why? You've made your point. You think I am being hypocritical. Everyone can see your point and can decide if I am or not. If they have any questions regarding this, in order to confirm their belief, they can ask it on another thread.

You made a number of condescending posts with regards to Kelly1's beliefs. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your remarks and asking that you explain yourself.

And I am saying, If you want an answer, ask on another thread so as not to detract from this thread. Kelly1 is a big boy, and has engaged me, like he has on other threads. Initially, I did not direct anything at Kelly1, just responded to a concern of a priest about being over the drink drive limit after drinking the mass wine (blood). It was Kelly1 who then directed the 'forgive them father for they know not what they do' scripture at me for calling into question the belief that its literally blood and flesh. Like I said, he's able to stand up for himself.

Of course if you refuse to do so I can't make you.

yes but you can scream and scream and just try irritate.

Its a pretty simple question Jimi - On what grounds do you say that the wine and bread cannot literally be the blood and flesh of Jesus?

Are you saying it cannot be so from a scientific position? Are you saying it cannot be so from a logical or rational position?

Or are you simply saying that it can but you don't believe it is, in which case why then were you ridiculing Kelly1's beliefs because he does believe it is the literal blood and flesh of Jesus?

Like I said. Ask it in another thread if you want an answer. You just want to show me up as a hypocrite, but if you truly want to engage me, ask in another thread.

The question is relevant to this thread, it should be answered in this thread.

And you are entitled to believe that. I don't think it should be answered in this thread. As I said, everyone knows your point. 'I am being hypocritical'. If people believe that, so be it. However, if you want an explaination, ask........on another thread. Simple. If you'd rather not, then I would request you stop hounding me about it, because I am not going to deal with your accusation here, so our silly debate is just taking up space.

You are darn right I am.

I know, thats why I said it.

Jimi you seem to think you should be just able to say what ever you wish without anyone calling or challenging you on it.

You seem like a smart bloke, you obviously have your reasons for believing this. Thats your perogative.

Sorry but that's not how it works. Well come to the Internet, I hope you enjoy your stay :rolleyes:

Thanks. Now shall we call it a day, so we take up no more columns? Actually if you're agreeable, we could ask the mods to remove these posts so they're not in the way of everyone else? Otherwise its just you saying 'answer my question' and me saying 'not here'. You could even just make one clear post that you think its hypocritical of me to believe Jesus turned water into wine, but ridicule the RCC for saying that they turn the altar wine into blood. Your point will be out there for people to discern, and all this sillyness will be over. What you reckon?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Your point will be out there for people to discern, and all this sillyness will be over. What you reckon?

Well as I said a few posts ago I think your responses to my question speak for themselves. I'm happy to move on

Dave!

Start a new thread Wicky! He's eager to explain

PDN

Spyral wrote: »

the physical wine and bread are callled the 'accidents' that is metaphysically if you subtracted bread from the consecrated bread you would have flesh.

So if the priests keep drinking the 'accidents' they are just as likely as any other drink driver to cause an accident. Therefore they should obey the law like anyone else.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well as I said a few posts ago I think your responses to my question speak for themselves.

Exactly. Its out there. People know the point, and can see if they agree with you or not. If anyone is unsure, they can ask. On another thread of course:)

I'm happy to move on

Gr8.

kelly1 wrote:

Jimi, this is as clear as day. His disciples were scandalized at what He was saying but He still didn't correct His meaning by saying that He was speaking metaphorically.

A few things Noel. He said at the beginning piece you quoted 'I am the living bread'. So being consistent with your literal reasoning, He is actually made of flour and water. I suppose that means its not cannabalism, but it means that Jesus was made of bread. You see what I'm saying. Or do you think he was symbolic then, and literal later?

Tbh, I would not even say one needs scripture to know that it is not 'literally' blood and flesh. When Jesus turned water to wine, it became wine. When he walked on water, he walked on water. When he raised up lazarus, lazarus was dead, and came back to life. When the priest claims to be turning wine to 'literal' blood, it continues to have 'all' the properties of the wine. Unlike Jesus' signs, there is no sign. Just someone telling you that though it still looks, tastes, smells etc like wine, its blood. It also then means that Jesus is asking us to indulge in canabalism. Do you think that we would be asked to do this by him? The apostles had faith, which is why even though they were taken aback by what he said, they stuck with him. The ones who didn't, left. He said things in symbolism all the time to keep meaning from those who did not deserve it.