Holy Hangovers

On this German site (for some reason)  the alarming news that Communion wine, in the tiny quantities the priest must drink at Mass,  may now put them over the new and more severe  Irish drink-drive limit. Some have three or four different villages to say Mass in, and have to travel. ""Perhaps it could be enough for you to fail a drink-driving test," the Rev. Brian D'Arcy, a priest from Enniskillen, told the Irish Times. "I don't like to use the word wine, as it is Christ's blood in the Eucharist -- but it still has all the characteristics of wine when in the blood stream."
     Less respectably,  from the Irish Independent this tale of two retired Irish priests accused of misappropriating millions from a Florida church  and had formed a mortgage company with another priest called Shag Inc.  The two men are now accused of using offertory dollars to keep girlfriends, take gambling excursions and foreign holidays, and buy property.  Honestly, a reverent sip of Communion wine fades into insignificance...

Comments

[guy chiron]

a very strange story. Frankly you will always have "black sheep" in any trade even in prieshood. The devil if not subdued will have its way... So pray God that your soul be preserved !

[Geoffrey Smith]

Perhaps we should be grateful that the scam was not engineered by a quartet of Frs Flanagan, Ussher, Carroll and Kennedy.

[David Boon]

Surely the blood of Christ would not contain sufficient alcohol to put the priest over the limit unless either Christ had been on a bender or transubstantiation is not true?

[alan]

I've had no contact with the ritual practices of the Roman Catholic Church. So could someone (Geoffrey?) please tell me if he really, truly and honestly believes that the Eucharist wine turns into actual blood and the bread into actual flesh? Yes or no. I would like an honest answer - and a truthful one.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"So could someone (Geoffrey?) please tell me if he really, truly and honestly believes that the Eucharist wine turns into actual blood and the bread into actual flesh? Yes or no, I would like an honest answer - and a truthful one".
- Alan, 8 NOV 2007, 13:44:49

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
Is that honest enough for you, Alan?
Now, if you are genuinely interested in why I believe this teaching, I can do no better than recommend that you log on to www. catholic.com and read their essay on The Real Presence, under the heading of Sacraments. It's far too long for me to offer you any quotations on this blog. If you feel that this doctrine is very difficult to understand, be aware that you are not alone. There are Christians on this blog who think as you do: Tom Jackson, Alan Marsh, David Smith, Ruth Gledhill. These folks are in the same category as the disciples of Christ who abandoned Him when He first taught them this 'hard teaching'. If you have access to a Bible, you can read all about it in the Gospel of John, chapter 6. Incidentally, Catholics are not the only Christians who believe in this doctrine of the Real Presence: the Orthodox Churches of eastern Europe also include it in their creed. The Protestants are, in fact, heavily outnumbered by those Christians who accept Our Lord's teaching on the subject. So, Alan, do the research into this fascinating doctrine and, who knows, maybe this one will be a winner for me. Heh.

[William Garrett]

If the wine does not taste like blood, does not test like blood in what way can it be said to be blood? What is the point of Jesus/God arranging for the wine to actually be blood and at the same time arranging for it to be totally indistinguishable from wine? What exactly is the point? At what stage in the digestive process does the blood of Jesus turn back into wine, or doesn't it? If Jesus/God had said that a piece of lead had been transmuted into gold but every conceivable test showed that it was still lead would the faithful treat it as gold? Would they be happy to accept this 'gold' when selling something?

[Christopher Hobe Morrison]

How about the one about the sober Irish priest? No, nobody would believe it.

[Tim]

Alan, Catholics do in fact believe that the bread and wine taken at the Eucharist becomes the actual, physical body and blood of Jesus Christ in a process called Transubstantiation. It is a matter of our faith, that we do believe we are consuming His actual body and blood for the forgiveness of sins as He commanded. As a subnote, most Lutherans believe that the body and blood is physically present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine but does not turn from one to the other. Most other Protestants believe that it is purely symbolical. I hope this helps.

[Pete Day]

Alan. I believe(well I have always thought this) it is purely symbolic.

[Angie]

What rot! Any good Catholic knows that the wine is turned into the blood of christ, and where is the alcohol content in that?

I am certain that they would be able to prove that in a court of law....

[Tony Francis]

I believe the bread and wine are the Flesh and Blood of Christ. As Aquinas wrote: "A difficult concept for many to accept." But, yes, I believe it. The appearance of the wine and bread are accidents.

[Andrew Holden]

As far as Catholic theology goes the 'blood of christ' in the sacramental chalice is 'substantially' exactly that and yet at the same time it retains the 'accidents' of wine, ie it looks, tastes, feels and intoxicates just as it always did.

It's an easy target for dogmatic non-believers who are unprepared to wrestle with the philosophical niceties of Thomist thought and find out what it all actually means. Don't mock what you don't understand - or you are at risk of being as prejudiced as the fundamentalist who denies the theory of Relativity just because he can't get his head round it.

[Sean the Unruly]

Once upon a time, when thinking about the Eucharist, I often used to find myself rolling around on the floor hyperventilating with uncontrolled mirth at the pious stupidity of the devout communicants. Yet now, as a more mature survivor of Catholicism, I merely roll my eyes to the ceiling and shake my head whilst smiling whimsically. But now let’s have a look at this Eucharist thingy.

So what is it? Well, even though it’s concealed behind a façade of pious ritual replete with hymns and incense, and even though it might be disingenuously under-pinned with a lot of metaphysical or theological mumbo-jumbo, it is essentially cannibalism. Every Sunday morning Catholic priests prepare some small white circular wafers and some rather cheap sickly sweet wine, then at a certain point in the proceedings they mumble some magic words, make a few weird hand signals and then BOOF! The wafers and the wine suddenly become transubstantiated into the real and actual flesh and blood of their lord Jesus Christ - a man who is purported to have lived 2000 years ago. And then the priests eat and drink this newly reconstituted human flesh and blood, and after they’ve done this they offer the remainder of it to the people who, knowingly and willingly, also consume human flesh and blood.

If transubstantiation actually happens then this is truly terrible because cannibalism is generally regarded to be one of the most hideous, the most repugnant, of practices that humans can engage in. However, it gets worse, because not only are millions of Christians around the world guilty of eating and drinking human flesh and blood every Sunday, they may also be guilty of performing, or being accessory to, the terrifying black magic art of necromancy or, in plain words, raising the dead, or to be more precise – raising and reconstituting human carrion (Please, lets not have any jokes about food hygiene regulations).

Of course all this may or may not be true, it just depends on what our individual beliefs are, but for the devout Catholic no amount of molecular analysis of the wafers and wine will persuade them that they are seriously deluded. At this point we can also briefly consider what goes on in the so–called High Church of England tradition, here the Eucharist ritual seems to be very similar to that of the Catholics yet with one important exception: in the CofE the cannibalism is merely symbolic. I suppose it’s better to be a symbolic cannibal than an actual cannibal but the trouble is you never know when they’re going to start fighting about it.

[Hugh Conkey]

Can a mere Prot have a go? I understood Transubstantiation to turn on the Platonic distinction between the accidents and the essence of the wine, i.e. its outward characteristics and what it is in its being. The accidents (taste, smell, effect on Breathalyser) remain those of wine, while the essence is changed into that of the Blood of Christ. So it's not just silly but it does kind of depend on buying into Plato's view of reality. Or is there another explanation?

[M. Hoeber]

Catholics really do believe that the Communion wine is the Blood of Christ. The priest through some supernatural agency transforms it into the new substance, and the entire process is called "transubstantiation." The liquid looks like wine, tastes like wine, chemically IS wine-- but it isn't wine anymore. Catholics have to believe in the Real Presence. Not to believe is heresy.

Protestants usually take the words of Scripture at face value: "As often as you do this, do it in commemoration of Me." This replay of the Passover meal in which Christ predicted His death, using bread and wine as symbols for his Body and Blood that would on the following day be poured out for the salvation of the world, is reenacted every Sunday by Christians. The Eucharist for Protestants is symbolic, but nonetheless meaningful.

[Noel Falconer]

'Drunken Irish priest' is a tautology.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"What rot! Any good Catholic knows that the wine is turned into the blood of Christ, and where is the alcohol content in that?
I am certain that they would be able to prove that in a court of law...".
- Angie, 9 NOV 2007, 07:54:42

You are posting too early in the morning, Angie. You are still asleep. What is your point?

[Mark Allen]

I can just see the next ridiculous court case over someone claiming their religion gives them exemption from a law that the rest of society has to follow....

"Ah but my lord, any alcohol showing up in the defendent's bloostream was only there as an absolute requirement of his deeply held superstitions."

[T.D.]

So Catholics are cannibals, then? Or theovores? Or both? How extraordinary they suggest priests might be arrested for drunk-driving, but would not take an interest in their cannibalism. Fair enough, the victim was killed by someone else, so maybe just eating a bit isn't a crime, but tampering with evidence should be.

[Lily]

Believing that the Bread& wine once consecrated are the Body & Blood of Christ is a matter of Faith, Alan, William & others.
And biblical too as Christ compels at the Last Supper, "take & eat this is My Body"
Your scepticism reminds me of Russian atheistic communists who would take a drop of "holy" water & a drop of plain water & show it to children under a microscope & exclaim "look they are both the same"!! These days we have Homer Simpson to thank for the response
"Well DUH"

[alan]

I am - almost - speechless, for once. If you'll excuse my play on words and perhaps have a little chuckle with me, hear the following:
-- I find this almost impossible to swallow and very hard to digest.
-- Seriously though, how is it possible to believe such magical changes can actually do take place?
-- I think this must be proof of the proposition that believers - at some stage - have to abandon logic. They have within themselves a sphere in which reason is absent.
-- This makes a discussion with them difficult. When things get hot, they retreat into this sphere, and logical argument with them becomes impossible.
-- That's why some say it is useless discussing religion with believers.
-- Am I right?

[A human being]

If the wine and bread are turned into the actual blood and body of Christ then all who partake of the sacrament are vampires and cannibals. Since there is no scientific evidence that the wine and bread are the blood and body of Christ then maybe, just maybe it is symbolic? It’s 2007; let’s get beyond this pseudo rationality that attempts to prove something by coming up with overly complicated theology, which in the end still proves nothing. This theology only acts as smoke screen for the fact that they, who came up with all these overly complicated explanations, don’t know the truth themselves. It’s amazing how people can suspend their logic just because they want something to be true. In the realm of beliefs there are no validating criteria except for what the individual wants to believe, which makes potentially anything anyone wants to claim true (true to themselves). The real idiocy is when they claim that everyone else’s beliefs are false when they can’t even offer any scientific evidence that what they believe is true. Even if one wants to believe something they should have the humble realization that they can’t prove anything and keep it to themselves or amongst those who believe in the same thing. Pride (I have the correct religion and you don’t) in thinking one has the truth without any proof is dangerous, egotistical and self delusional.

[Kate]

The doctrine of transubstantiation was made an article of faith by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. The Catholic Church was reacting to Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolution.

If one is "anathema" if one does not believe that the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Christ after the Council of Trent, what about before?

Facts and logic don't change a person's beliefs. But if you are going to have a religious argument, it might be helpful to know the history.

[Meagan]

Ah, but what Libby's NOT saying is that there's some sort of Church law saying that ANY wine left over MUST be drunk by the priest. THAT'S why they're worried that they might get pulled over by police.

Print the WHOLE story, Libby... NOT just what serves your point.

[Jonathan Wilton, Singapore]

Not one person posting here can explain their own existence, yet they are happy to lay down the law as to what is and is not possible.
1. They are not possible, but they are posting here
2. A Faith is a Faith. Trying to prove or disprove a Faith is the height of stupidity.

[Richard C]

Clearly there's no point trying to have a rational discussion with someone who believes in transubstantiation - you must give up an unreasonable amount of reality just to find common ground with a believer.

Every known test of the liquid drunk would show it to be Merlot, yet the believer wants you to ignore this and understand that is actually B type, rhesus positive. Pah! Nonsense!

[Reason Prevails]

"Religion is a neurological disorder"-Bill Maher
Perhaps overly religious (i.e. religious fundamentalists) lack sufficient brain receptors for perceiving reality? Thus they live in a make-believe world of some externally dictated "faith" instead of taking the time and effort of carefully examining the world around them and discovering reality for themselves...

[Henry Trocino Jr.]

The teaching on transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic invention. Jesus did not teach it. Read His words again in John 6 concerning communion. He said His words are spirit, and they are life. They are spiritual words with spiritual meaning. What some religious leaders have done is to make those words on the Lord's supper literal. Hence, millions now subscribe to transubstantiation. The fact that thousands of priests WORLDWIDE get drunk with "holy hangover" is already an abomination to the Lord. What they drink is simply that--alcohol.

[Bill]

Transubstantiation = Paganism

[Early Christian]

The early Christians who held the Catholic faith were also called cannibals and vampires by the pagans who persecuted them.

If Jesus Christ was God, and he said "this is My Body," then that is what it is.

Transubstantiation is a philosophical and theological way to try to explain this mystery of how God can do something like this in human terms.

Is this "magic?" No. Magic is using supernatural means to achieve a human end. Such as invoking spirits to get ones way in some human endeavor.

Holy Communion is rather the opposite. It is the use of human means (bread and wine) to achieve the supernatural end of what God intends.

If you don't believe the initial premise, that Jesus is God; then certainly this is a bizarre and ridiculous ritual.

Is this the first time you've come across people who don't think like you do? If so, you've lived a very sheltered life.

[Richard]

We should not be too interested in
what you think or believe...tell me
what you know.

[Cookie]

well there are a couple of points:

First is that the bible was put together and edited by the romans, to stop the various religious groups from killing each other. Therefore they could say what they wanted and behead anyone that disagreed, thus creating a tradition.

Since Jesus was the son of god he could preform miricals. What if he never turned the bread and wine into body and fleash, but the other way round, i mean it is a 2000 year old story, theres bound to be some variations as language developed, (just look at the names of some towns).

yes i am saying that Jesus could have been a bread man with wine for blood, but havnt there been odder myths in the greek mythology?

[alan]

I must say, with all due respect, that I have my doubts about anyone who can believe that wine can actually change to blood. Or bread to flesh. Sorry.

[gene]

"Magic is using supernatural means to achieve a human end. Such as invoking spirits to get ones way in some human endeavor."

Like exorcism? another Catholic gem.

[bill]

Unsubstantiated transubstantiated bulldust.

[Latif Gaba]

If you will permit a Lutheran to share his perspective on this most important of questions, indeed, there can be no doubt that in the Blessed Eucharist the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is present on the altar, and eaten and drunk by all communicants. For the Lord's all powerful and creative Word stands firm here against all attempts to explain it away. "Take, eat, this is My Body," He said of the bread in the Supper on the most solemn night of His earthly life, words which must be taken as seriously as a last will and testament, for that is what they are; and what He declares He accomplishes. On this important point Luther stands with the full tradition of the Church Catholic.

[Marcella]

Henry Trocino, there are several instances in the Bible when Jesus spoke of "eating his flesh." Many could not accept this teaching, as is the case today, and walked away from Him, including Judas.
The belief in the Real Presence has been fundamental to Christianity since its very beginning.
Go to adoration in a Catholic church and bask in His presence. It will be the poultice for your aching bones - you will never be the same again.
God bless
Marcella

[Marcella]

Check out this website:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

if you really want to find out...it includes accounts of supernatural occurances relating to the Eucharist.

[Mark Allen]

Latif Gaba said "For the Lord's all powerful and creative Word stands firm here against all attempts to explain it away".

Don't you really mean "For my superstition remains despite any facts, common sense or reality".

[Brian Kelly]

The Holy Eucharist was prefigured in the Old Testament by the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden and by the Manna, the "bread from heaven," with which God feed the Hebrews for forty years in the desert. The paschal Lamb prefigured the Body of Christ as Victim, sacrificed. The Manna, some of which was kept miraculously in the holy of holies, along with the rod of Aaron and the Tablets of the Law of Moses, in the temple, prefigured Christ as our nourishment, our Food, by means of which the faithful become His members.

Some of the comments posted here by ignorant non-believers betray a total lack of knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Only a fool attacks what he has not even bothered to know.

In Holy Communion, we receive the Glorified Body of Christ. It is impassible. The same Body that was transfigured in glory at Tabor, that rose from the dead, passed through closed doors, and multilocates at will is what is present under the appearances of bread and wine. Therefore, in the chalice we have not dead blood but the living Body of Christ: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The same wholeness is in the consecrated Bread, which is living, before, during, and after Communion. That is why, if the objectors just asked a Catholic, they would know that the Holy Mass is an Unbloody sacrifice. Christ cannot be slain again, but He can empty Himself even further than He did in the Incarnation, out of love for His children.

Yes, we swallow the Glorified Body, which is real, but this Food is greater than the eater. We do not assimilate His Body into our body, He assimilates us at that very moment when the accidents are attacked as ordinary food by our digestive system.

By making Himself edible, Christ is able to fully assimilate us such that St. Paul could say truly: I live now not I but Christ liveth in me." And Jesus could say to Paul (Saul) prior to his conversion: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Christ Jesus identifies with His members. "You are the body of Christ," St. Paul writes, "flesh of His flesh." Physically speaking, nothing can be closer to a living thing than the food it assimilates.

Included under the appearances (accidents)of bread and wine are all the properties that would inexist in the substance of bread and wine. That includes the accidents of quality and quantity, under the first of which would include the nutritional value that would ordinarily go with the minerals and chemicals that make up the compound that is either bread or wine. The substances themselves, however, of bread and wine, have ceased to exist. They have been replaced by the living Body of the Glorified Christ. The accidents that remain do not inexist in the substance of the Body of Christ after consecration, but they are included in the miracle, existing without inhering in any thing.

God is not subject to the laws of nature that He has established. Why stop at the Eucharist, you non-believers? If you do not want to believe, then start with the Trinity. How can One God be three Persons? Then, go to the Incarnation. How can the Second Person of the Trinity become a man? How can this one Person, who is God, have two natures? "What manner of man is this that even the wind and the sea obeys Him?"

The Jews that left Christ after His sermon in Capharnaum, were scandalized when He proclaimed the Holy Eucharist, recalling the figure of the manna in the desert. What did they says as they "walked with Him no more."? "How can this man give us his flesh to eat"? Yes, if Christ were a mere man, how could he?

[Thomas the Doubter]

I have no wish to enter this almost Pythonesque debate but judging by the two comments on 'drunken Irish priests', it's save to assume anti Catholic and anti Irish sentiment is alive and well. How about getting your noses out of the chalice and looking at the Succession Act? Don't forget Jews believe themselves to be the chosen people, Buddists & Hindus believe in reincarnation,and some of the more offensive contributers on this page actually belive themselves to be Christian! Oh,and apologies if I have offended any Pythonists

[bill]

"In Holy Communion, we receive the Glorified Body of Christ. It is impassible."

A good dose of Epsom salts helps.

[mark]

Bryan, you may consider your post an example of divine truth, but I'd call it unprovable wishful thinking and drivel. [I could have used stronger language, but why bother].

[Tom L.]

Jesus said, This IS my body. This IS my blood." For Catholics, this IS a mystery of faith.

[Phillip Aller]

Luke 24:35 "... and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread."

There is power and mystery in the Breaking of the Bread.

[Matt]

This would not be a problem if Rome would stick to the ancient tradition, and have each priest say Mass at most once a day, and on one altar. Then you would not have one priest having to drive after several Masses.

And if they don't have enough priests to do this then they have a choice: either go back to _another_ ancient tradition and ordain chastely married men, or bring in more Phillipino seminarians (like they do in the US).

Oh: and for people asking about Transubstantiaion: you would have been better off looking it up in the online Catechism of the RCC.

[Fascinating Canuck]

Let's not forget that Jesus was a Jew, as were all his disciples. And for a Jew, drinking blood is an abomination. A Jew would no more drink blood than he would eat pork. I doubt very much that Jesus actually said "this is my blood which is given for you" and meant "this here in my hand, in this cup, this wine, is actually my blood". His disciples would have looked at him and refused to touch it; they were all practicing Jews. The Church has perpetuated this as capital-T Truth, whereas if He said it, it was as a capital-A Analogy.

[Father Ron Smith]

Such a lot of 'hissy-fittin', and all over the words of Christ in the Gospel. If it helps, try using the word 'con-substantiation' rather than 'transubstantiation'. This has the idea of the two realities:
wine and bread together with the Body and Blood of Christ.

But then, this is all a matter of faith - in Christ as Saviour and Redeemer, the incarnate Son of God, who wanted us to be able to know his presence with us in the Holy Eucharist.

This reality of Christ amongst us has become for me a daily reality. But then, I'm only a poor Anglican!

The words of Jesus: "I bless you Father, Lord of heaven and of earth, for hiding these things from the learned and the clever, and revealing them to mere children; for this is what it pleased you to do" - Thank God for the simple!

[Alex Dahn]

Jesus was God learning to be human and making a new human soul. This is the Holy Spirit, i.e.'spirit of truth' or spirit/substance of everything real. When the priest dedicates the Offering he asks God to let his Spirit enter into the bread and wine. Those who have been baptised in the Spirit are more able to discern the Real Presence but whether we feel it or not, the words of Jesus will not pass away. He said This IS my body and my blood. As he was God we can also eat of his flesh and drink of his blood by understanding what he said and did while in the flesh and why His bloodshed was to allow the Holy Spirit to gradually take over the world and bring it back to its original perfection. As Paul said, these things are 'spiritually discerned' and it us useless to argue with someone who doesn't have the Spirit of Truth in their consciousness. Wisdom is the name of life and we have to seek and find it.

[frish]

Dear Mark Allen:
While the inital post is the centerpiece for obvious one-liners,
you said:

"Some of the comments posted here by ignorant non-believers betray a total lack of knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Only a fool attacks what he has not even bothered to know."

I am a Bright. The universe doesn't require anything supernatural in order for it, and our place in it, to be understood.

I don't need to know a thing about "Catholic doctrine" to know that.

Allow me to re-phrase your retort:

Is it MORE foolish to attack what one has not even bothered to know, or to believe anything that you must take on faith alone?

[The Ven. John C.Yanek, O.S.B. Obl., D.D., Dean of Holy Rood,]

Brian Kelly ( 14 Nov., 19:, below, q.v..)said it all, a fine presentation, indeed: among the best I've heard in fifty years. The photo of the "drunken" Irish priest, & concomitant comments were out of order. Imagine the riot on hand if the Times had a "greedy" rabbi counting pound notes or a "Negroe" injecting drugs with analogous disparaging remarks!

[alan]

Back at the beginning of the site I asked if anyone could explain if catholics really, honestly and literally believed wine changed to blood and bread to flesh. I was told yes, yes, yes.
-- Well, I've been amused by the various verbal contortions of believers trying to justify belief in such an obvious absurdity. See, for example, the comment by Brian Kelly.
-- With all due respect, I'm forced to say that this shows how impossible it is for a logically thinking, common-sense person to argue rationally with believers about religious faith.
-- In a word, if you can believe in magic (and let's be quite clear about it, it's magical if water changes to wine), you will literally believe anything. End of discussion.
-- Next I'd like to ask if the believers believe there will soon be a battle of Armageddon. I mean literally, truly and honstly. Maybe somebody could enlighten me as I'm always willing to learn.

[mark]

Tom, in day to day life we often say things that aren't meant to be literal. You point to a photo and say, "this is me, have it. Whenever you have it I am with you", but don't mean to give away your self, your soul, you actual body. There are countless other examples. Don't be so literal!

[Revd Lisa]

When I give my friend a bunch of flowers it changes. It is no longer merely a bunch of flowers. It is now also a gift. This quality has changed that bunch of flowers irrefutably for ever. The change is absolute.

At consecration the bread and wine may not turn into 'flesh' and 'blood' but they do turn into the Body and Blood of Christ, irrefutably, absolutely and for ever.

Alan, you obviously don't know what Christ is - if you could explore that you might start to understand.

[alan]

Matt, you say we'd have been better looking it up in the catechism ... Well, I asked the question that set off the discussion in this site. I wanted to hear, from the horse's mouth so to speak, whether any sane, intelligent person in his right senses could actually, literally and - above all - honestly BELIEVE that the wine changes to blood and the bread to flesh - and then drink and eat them - ugh.
-- I hope the point has been made - that people, who will allow old men in long robes to pull the wool over their eyes to the extent that they believe they're consuming the blood and flesh of the body of someone who died two thousand years ago, will believe literally any nonsense - provided of course that they then think they'll have an afterlife in a blissful paradise.
-- Get the point, Matt?

[Fran]

Don't want to get into the whole transubstantiation (being a good Protestant!) but the fact remains that for any of the churches the bread & wine that has been consecrated - set apart for God's use, symbolic or otherwise - is consumed at the time - it's not a case of just putting it back in the bottle (apart from anything else it has been touched & slightly diluted). If priests are concerned about the drink-drive laws then I suggest they get better at estimating the number of communicants in the congregation, that way there will be virtually nothing to finish and the problem disappears.

[mark]

"When I give my friend a bunch of flowers it changes. It is no longer merely a bunch of flowers. It is now also a gift. This quality has changed that bunch of flowers irrefutably for ever. The change is absolute."

Revd Lisa, with all due respect, this is a stupid example if you expect it supports your argument. Nothing in the flowers changes, and they merely have an added symbolic property as a sign of your gratitude or affection. They stay dead flowers, just as the bread and wine stays as bread and wine with a symbolic role, only.
As Homer would say.... D'oh!

[Tony Francis]

Alan, I believe the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Last time I checked, I was both intelligent and sane.
Mark, When a bunch of flowers are given as a gift, they remain a bunch of flowers, and are also a gift, not a "symbol" of a gift. If they are a symbol of a gift, what is the gift they symbolize? They may represent an emotion or sentiment such as friendship or love, but the fact is, they are two things: a gift and a bunch of flowers.

[jim]

An extension of the debate about the folly of considering that transubstantiation can be proved in any meaningful way, is to consider the morality in general of the sacrifice of JC as one expected or demanded by God.
Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son was immoral, and ignored the rights of his son and wife. Isaac's life was not Abraham's to offer or take, nor would it have been moral for any God to demand it be forfeited in a show of faith.
Human sacrifice was not a standard ritual anywhere in Mesopotamia, and Abraham's recorded actions were an aberration, if they ever happened and he actually existed, which is unknown.
God had no right to demand of JC that he forfeit his life needlessly in a show of faith, either, however freely JC accepted death. It was totally unnecessary for the moral development of mankind.
Cannibalism is immoral as a ritual. The Church idea of the blood and body of JC being actually eaten, rather than JC's death being symbolically remembered, is an abomination, whatever spiritual and magical spin is put on it, and perpetuates the initial immoral demand by God that His son be sacrificed to fulfill His divine plan.

[Robert]

Just for the record. Transubstantiation is a doctrine not only endorsed by Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but also by a substantial part of the Church of England and Scottish Episcopal Church - the so called "Anglo Catholics" People have been trying to rubbish it for 2000 years. Maybe its time they gave up and faced the truth. Jesus is Lord and here with us today.

[Carl Waring]

"Mark, When a bunch of flowers are given as a gift, they remain a bunch of flowers, and are also a gift, not a "symbol" of a gift. If they are a symbol of a gift, what is the gift they symbolize? They may represent an emotion or sentiment such as friendship or love, but the fact is, they are two things: a gift and a bunch of flowers."

Actually the gift *is* the bunch of flowers, the idea that they are 2 distinct entities is misleading. The definition of 'gift' is "a thing given willingly to someone without payment or recompense" (OED). Ergo the 'gift' and the object are one and the same.

[alan]

Tony, I'm sure you're intelligent, and doubtless sane too. But - please excuse me for this - are you really being honest with yourself when you think wine changes to blood in church? That's what I simply can't understand.

[Carl Waring]

That's some smart reasoning there, Robert, the Vatican would be proud: "But we've been doing it for ages, that MUST make it right!"

[Tony Francis]

Jim, you are just re-hashing that garbage Christopher Hithens has recently been putting out. To talk about "God and rights" is just dopey.

[MARY]

OK--another Catholic question. In the Catholic church, why is it that only the Catholics can take Communion? I'm a Christian. I've been baptised. I follow Christ. And yet because I'm Christian but not Catholic, I'm excluded from Communion during mass. Why is that? It makes me sad.

[AndyHayes]

Sir James Frazer, in The Golden Bough, claimed that ancient fertility cults ritually killed and ate their kings. Whether Christians like it or not, the parallels with their Eucharist are unmistakeable.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "To talk about "God and rights" is just dopey."

No, it is perfectly sensible. One can ask the question "are God's actions moral?", or "is he violating human rights by his actions?".

Of course, I realise that Christians will take a might-makes-right attitude and say that whatever God wants is good. But that leads to the attitude of Joshua and the 9/11 bombers, that it is perfectly OK to kill people if you think your god wants you to.

Some of us have a much better and deeper understanding of morality based on the capacity to feel, to enjoy and to suffer.

[Tony Francis]

Alan, yes I honestly do believe the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I can't explain what happens, but when it does, it is wonderful. And as I have written before, Mass is like going to a party given by the best friend you will ever have.

[Jeremiah]

The war between science and religion is funny to me. I am a christian. They make fun of us for being so stupid and blindly believing in something that can not be seen nor proven. Yet they do the same thing. I am a college student and I love to study science. I especially like chemistry. In chemistry you learn that nothing is created nor destroyed. Through chemical processes compounds and elements are changed into other compounds and elements. Nothing is created or destroyed in the process, just changed. This is an easily proven fact. But where did all the elements come from in the first place? To my knowledge (and I am no expert) science says that at some point all the matter that makes up the universe was compacted together in a single mass and by chance a reaction or explosion took place sending all this matter swirling through space eventually forming the universe and everything in it. They can't explain where this mass came from though or how it was created in the first place. They believe it was mere chance and apparently just appeared. In fact modern science is founded on chance. Here lies the differnce in science and religion. Religion says everything happens for a reason and science says everything happens by chance. So why am I considered so ignorant for believing that a higher being created everything. I guess we will all find out who is right in the end. If it turns out that I am wrong and there is no God, I will never even know. But if it turns out that they are wrong, then I guess they'll have all eternity to think about it.

[jim]

"To talk about "God and rights" is just dopey."

I've held my views for 30 years. I'm glad Hitchens agrees, and has popularised them further. I'd say that the Judaeo-Christian concept of and teachings about God have often been childish and dopey, and certainly are throughout the OT, particularly when referring to morality or rights.

[jim]

The patriarchal, paternalistic views of the old testament are entrenched within the out-dated concept of a man's seed carrying the sole power to transmit progeny, and therefore the line of descendants and inheritance. The line was considered eternal provided the father had a son. The male was the pro-creator, or the one who engenders. The mother's womb was the site of implantation, and provided nurture. Women were thus either barren or fertile, acting as fertile soil for man's seed, with a secondary receptive role.
It is a pity that God failed to point out the fallacies in this thinking to one of his prophets, given that he spoke to so many so often! This totally false view of procreation and biological inheritance was a major negative influence upon Judaic thought for millennia. Because it became entrenched for so long and had such vast consequences, it still influences Judaeo-Christian-Islamic thought today. The ongoing male dominance of religious institutions, and entrenched misogynistic rules, stem from this.
The virgin conception idea doubtless followed from this wrong thinking, and the NT authors would be surprised to have to now consider whether Mary supplied any DNA to JC or not.
The OT authors would be surprised and outraged to learn that women supply "half the seed". In fact in any tree of lineage it is the female line that supplies more than 50% of the genes, given that only female genes are guaranteed to be handed down, due to illicit liaisons or male sterility. Any infertile descendant of Abraham who "had children" obviously brought up someone else's genetic stock. As DNA testing now often shows, many males bring up someone else's children, and all lineages are likely broken at some point.

[Coel]

Jeremiah writes: "They make fun of us for being so stupid and blindly believing in something that can not be seen nor proven. Yet they do the same thing."

No, scientists do not do that. Where they have no evidence they say "we don't know".

You are right that science currently provides no explanation for where the Big Bang comes from. But then we aren't claiming that science is complete. The answer to "why was there a Big Bang?" is "We don't know".

That is the real difference between science and religion: scientists are aware of what we know and what we don't know. And, where we have no evidence, we don't resort to the empty faith claims that the religious do.

[Tomm]

Most amusing. As someone, an individual who resembles closely the myriad of other indiviuals present on this globe, and to whom the 'feeling' of being able to believe in a holy presence has ocasionally come up, I'd like to chime in. Catholic, Buddhist or Mother Gaiaist, the difference is mostly related to our upbringing, belief is an acquired knowledge, and perhaps only tempered by our rationalism.
It seems to me that the person who mentioned a sort of inability to perceive logic is closest to the mark here. I'd be tempted to turn the answer around and say that an ability to believe might be a sort of mental capacity to experience an emotion called 'belief' in a manner that has interior resonance. Kind of like musical pitch awareness or colour perception. Can you explain to a colour blind person just what green or purple really is? If he can't see it he can't feel it. Notwithstanding the logical explanation of frequency charts etc, it remains an idea to him.
Thus religious belief remains an 'idea' illogical and unproveable to so many. Ask youself whether this is 'good' or 'bad'! The variety of beliefs , even their history, create cacaphony and war, and the relative linearity of logic and science tend to allow people to agree. I, personally, think this is 'better'! Still, it must be nice to have a good deep belief in something, it seems to be a sort of armour against much that is unfortunate, even against relentless logic.
Nuff said, sharpen yer pencils boys n girls and get yer textual bullets warmed up!

[Michael Gembol]

Let's not rush to criticize this practice...the next time we wish to burn someone at the stake, or exterminate an ethnic group, or conduct unspeakable atrocities, or impede scientific progress, or bolster the confidence of a lad about to be sent into battle,... why, these beliefs could be useful to us.

[Michael Gembol]

When I posted, I was challenged to enter a code to prevent submissions by mindless robots. There's a logic problem there, but I can't quite put my finger on it...Ah, yes, then how can the religious express their views?

[Carl Waring]

"Catholic, Buddhist or Mother Gaiaist, the difference is mostly related to our upbringing, belief is an acquired knowledge, and perhaps only tempered by our rationalism."

Hallelujah!

[bill]

On the plus side for Christianity, although it has been very male dominated, at least many protestant churches are changing, and striving for sexual equality. At least no-one in these religions believes in punishing rape victims with whipping or death, unlike some Islamic societies, which have a very, very long way to go in enfranchising women and recognising them as true equals in society, religious practice, and law.

[The Very Reverend Harry Figgis O.B.E.]

On Monday a devout, born again, Christian, friend of mine gave me a long loathsome ecumanical explanation about sin and alcohol. On Thursday night she got hammered at another friends "hot-tub" party. On Saturday I asked her if Jesus spoke to her every day, when she said he did I quipped "He must have had one hell of a hangover Friday morning". Strangely... she no longer speaks to me. She claims I am ungodly and an unbeliever. I put it down to the drink.

Amen

[Richard Roe]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#IV

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

Make of that what you will. I make it a category mistake due to the Council's reliance on Aristotelian science. That is hardly possible today.

Despite several posters' claims that the Orthodox hold the doctrine of transubstantiation, they don't. They do believe in a real presence, however.

[bill kempton]

I dont like to use the word wine its gods eucharist. Its wine stop hideing behind age old myths. OH I forgot for christ sake

[Tom Woods]

I key word often missed is FAITH. It is a prescious gift from the Almighty, which some have accepted and others have rejected (for their own reasons). That's why there are "churches" on every street corner, each professing such a variety of theologies and "truths" that the Divine must really be confused Himself.

[Papabile]

Tantum ergo Sacramentum
Veneremur cernui:
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui:
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.

ALSO

Multi ergo audientes ex discipulis ejus, dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire? (John 6:61)

ALSO

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea3.asp

[John]

Nothing I say will change anyone's mind, but perhaps the Holy Spirit will.

Here are a few answers to some of the questions that have been asked here.

1) Jesus is/is not truely present in the Eucharist (body and blood present in the consecrated bread and wine): John 6:51 - "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 - The Jews quareled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" 53 - Jesus said to them, " Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you. 54 - Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 - For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 - Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 - Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me."

The verses following the above revelation tell us that many could not accept eating Jesus's flesh and drinking His blood and they abandoned him.

Look at how many times Jesus says to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He was pretty clear about his commandment. There is no symbolism here. He repeats Himself over and over to get His point across.

If he were speaking symbolically, it seems that Jesus would have said, "Wait - What I'm saying is symbolic. I don't mean that you really have to eat my flesh and drink my blood." Instead, he repeated the command over and over, and said, "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

Also, at the last supper, Jesus said that the bread and wine were His body and blood and instructed the apostles to share in eating His body and blood in His memory: Luke 22:19 - Then he took the bread, said a blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." 20 - and likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

Every bit of the Catholic Mass comes straight out of scripture. We do as Jesus commanded, even if we don't understand how the bread and wine are changed, or why the Euchrist retains the outward appearance of bread and wine. What faith to believe in something that we can't fathom, just because God commanded it. We don't fully understand the Trinity either, but we and most all Christians believe in the Trinity.

2) Regarding the issue of "necromancy" and the accusation that Catholics "communicate with and raise the dead". No. Jesus raised Himself, and when He did, He was (and is) ALIVE. So Catholics do not raise the dead nor do we communicate with the dead. Jesus is alive, and He is within us, especially when we obey Him by consuming His Holy Body and Precious Blood as he commanded.

[Mr Wisty]

Surely it has to be accepted that most religious writings are in metaphor and the problems, big problems arise when the words are taken literally.

[Chris]

The transubstantiation debate will run longer than "Salad Days" or "Chicago" ! Hardly any of the Catholic priests with whom I come into contact in my daily work will admit, under pressure, of it being any more than an allegorical tool of the faith. Viewed another way, however, consensus produces its own reality, founded on this faith. The mental construct that enables the concept of transubstantiation is every bit as *real* as the mental constructs that enable chemical analysis, Pythagoras' theorem, or the very idea of a God. It was Heraclitus who first stated that, "... the majority of the World is invisible ..."

[buckheaddad]

If a group of people can gain enough believers in their point of view, it's automatically assumed that there is validity to THEIR POINT OF VIEW.

Every civilization we know of has developed a "raison d'etre". Every cililization up until today has fallen, as have their beliefs. . . along with (and mostly because of) the ultimate prostitution
of their "religious beliefs".

Of course the religionist don't want you to believe in the possibility of "extra-earthly life".
This would threaten their very lucrative hold, inculcated in very little children and pounded into us continually. NOT SO??????? Well then, why not release such items as ALL the Dead Sea Scrolls and let each man make his own interpretation? Why do I need some other human being to decide and dictate HIS EMOTIONAL FANTASY?

If "religion" makes you feel better, go get it. . . . BUT PLEASE DON'T INCLUDE ME in your lack of intellectual curiosity, ability, and stability.

[Jim]

wine = wine
blood = blood
bread = bread
body = body
Not difficult unless you want to live your Christian life depending
on tradition and history rather than the Bible.

[Mr. Justice]

Thomas Hobbes: ". . . fear of things invisible is the natural seed of that which every one in himself calleth religion . . . . " (Leviathan, Part I, Ch. 11). I am a former Catholic; I never ran into the phenomenon referenced in the article in my own parish, except by rumour. But one priest was seriously addicted to food, and his sermons were so long, they had an unintended theological bonus: After listening to him, I felt I had a pretty good grip on the concept of "eternity". One joke that summarizes how we felt back then: "How many Protestants does it take to screw in a light bulb ? None; Protestants live in eternal darkness."

[GW]

The priest gives the alter boy some wine...we know what happens then.

[Mr Lachie Todd]

As a young boy I just used to love reading the News of the S****s every Sunday when invariably there was yet another bizarre, comical, strange or weird church scandal involving Church of England Vicars molesting choirboys, being 'intimate' with married parishioners, running away with female (and male) parishioners, embezzling church funds, falling over drunk at matins, being found drunk in newly dug graves, or drunk vicars falling off church roofs! These reports must have been true if they were published in the highly regarded News of the S****S!
At that time I could not believe there were any vicars left in the Anglican Church!
Could it simply be the case that ALL religions are full of the same
bizarre, comical, strange and weird
clerics?

[TKL]

Oh please...get REAL folks!!!
People are dying by the thousands around the world from disease, starvation and war!

How can any thinking person get so HUNG UP on some really meaningless and sophmoric idea (such as "transubstantiation"?)
Oh please, if God really exists, and I hope he or she (or IT) does, that supreme being MUST be beating his or her (or ITS) head into the wall right at this very minute!!!
Get real!!!!

[Marcella]

Mary, I am sorry that you are unable to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church. Thank you for having the humility not to do so.
The reason Protestants and Catholics may not receive in each others churches goes back, I think, to the Reformation. We believe differently. The Protestant churches do not believe in "the real presence" of Our Lord in the Eucharist, and so we cannot have intercommunion.
Catholics may not automatically receive Holy Communion either. They should be in a state of grace "for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29)
God bless
Marcella

[Adrian Masters]

Wine is wine, alcohol is alcohol, and drunk is drunk...

Transition of blood into wine, and flesh into bread..... all is believe, and none has ever given proof of it.

[Alain]

Faith is not stupidity as some of you are saying. Is it possible that 92% of the earth population is delusional? Seek what the great scientists of this century said before they died.

[JPeterman]

Can't resist taking pot shots at the superior Irish race across the sea huh? Don't you people have some Al Qaeda to report on?

[padraeg]

such obsession over substance of blood and wine... What about the integration of BOTH in Jesus, Man & God..?
NOw, that is a real riddle ;)

[Aaron]

All arguments aside, no one will convince anyone of anything. Let all men be honest to themselves and to God. There is only one truth, whether it is transubstantiation, consubstantiation, mere symbolism, or a different religion all together may be hard to determine, but one thing is for sure, they can not all be right. Jesus said, "If you seek the truth you will find it." May no one rest easy in there beliefs so much that they stop looking for the truth.

As a side, the Catholic Church pays the highest honor to women then any other religion, it honors Mary as the Mother of God (not symbolically but actually), the Queen of Heaven and as co-redeemer of mankind.

[solomon decides]

there is no good reason for these priests to drive while over the blood alcohol limit. it the outlying churches really want the priests to come to them, they can provide sober drivers for the occasion.

[Augustus]

I need help in any actual information that is traceable in the Bible,NEW Testament only.I belive at this point it is just a way for the Church to control, as the Friday fish,The silly praying to the Hand Maiden Mary, silly Saints made up,Confessions to a Priest or possible phedophile.A cheap trick to fool the non readers of the Bible.

[Stephen]

Might this help?

Many people see the sheer ridiculousness of Fawlty Towers and Monty Python. Some don't.

Many people see the sheer ridiculousness of Trans-substantiation, Trinitarianism, celibates in gowns telling married people how to conduct themselves in the bedroom, and Paul's views on the nature of women. Some don't.

Most folks are capable of laughing at absurdity. Some prefer to practise it.

Thus endeth the lesson.

[Nort Carey]

If the Roman Catholic Church would get back to the Bible and abandon its self-created theology, it could well become a Christ-centered organization that would make it Christian instead of a cult.

[Wisewebwoman]

Jaybuzz, it's an awesome task running down through these posts.
Does anybody ever stop and ask, why are religions (all) so bloody complicated and time/money/energy consuming? Like if there is a heaven, why these farcical rituals and large bell-clanging structures with men in dresses and rampant breeding encouraged to further pollute a tiny over-extended planet to the point of extinction ignoring any logical signposts along the way?
Like, why not sidestep all this temporal stuff and jump right up there (or stay there depending on your belief system)? It sounds like the syphilitic spewing of a lunatic when you step back and take a good long look at it all.
Just asking.

[bob]

The jamaican rastafarians belive the Rizla is the flesh and the ganja the blood. ask them when they feel the
transubstantiation, i bet they can tell you exactly .

[Xeno77777]

The Wine represent's Jesus' Holy Spirit, and the Blood, Jesus' Holy Teachings, or Doctrine. These are what the Wine and the Blood are supposed to turn into, Symbollicaly and Allegoricaly, transubstantiation is a Neo-Platonist Heresy. The Neo-Platonist Heresy, Syncratizes the Philosophies of Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim Beliefs, with the religion of Caannanite Baal. Abraham, Moses, the Prophets, Hook Nosed Aristotle, the Rabbi's and Rabbi Jusus fought tooth and nail against Canananite Baal. For the Promise of Salvation, read Deuteronomy 6: 4-5.

[Bob]

Maybe you all should take a look at the many miracles of the Eucharist where the Host turns into Real human heart tissue and the "wine" turns into real blood. These things have been tested by 20th and 21st Century medical teams and cannot be explained. They have been witnessed by many and even video recorded. Whatever you believe, that is your prerogative. One should always keep an open mind however, for what we can taste and see is not always what they really are.

[Robt K]

Jesus was a Jew. Jews do not drink blood. At Passover Jews did, and still do, drink wine and eat unleavened bread (matzah) to remember the physical salvation of coming out of Egypt.Believers in Jesus Christ ( Yeshua Hamashiach in Hebrew) drink wine and eat unleavened bread to remember the spiritual salvation achieved by His death. Transubstantiation is a pagan gentile belief akin to magic. Stripped of its pagan accretions, Christianity is Jewish.

[Bill Dunn]

The entire article is offensive as are many of the comments. As one poster noted, the article is anti-Catholic and anti-Irish.

I find it funny that various groups and people who proclaim a program of tolerance and acceptance, find in reality, that they are incapable of practicing those very virtues. On one hand you cry out that society must accept certain behaviors and beliefs... you say that certain institutions historically squash thought and create oppression, but then on the other hand you practice the very attitudes you claim to reject. You say "accept me" and then reject religious belief and practice you do not agree with. Not very "accepting." If your value system is truly based in love and understanding then you seek to exemplify those virtues. Instead the opposite occurs.

The core ideal of Jesus' ministry was love. This is a message that 2000 years later people still struggle with and find difficult to adopt. It does not invalidate the message because humanity is messy, broken, flawed and every evolving.

[Charles]

"This is my body"

"This is my blood"

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.""

Hmmm...seems like Jesus already addressed this one...

[A. Theist]

If Catholics really have been consuming the body and blood of Christ over the last 2000 years, it sure puts the miracle of the loaves and the fishes in the shade.

Seriously though, I'd be very interested in knowing why transubstantiation is so important to Catholics. The Protestant belief that the Eucharist is representative of the body of Christ seems much more pragmatic to me.

[SHEILA]

Marthe Robin in France was cited by Schumacher in "Guide for the Perplexed". Here is a quote from website about her: "From 1928 to her death in 1981 she took no food other than weekly Holy Communion. When I first heard about this it sounded to me like a pious fairy tale, but now that I´ve talked to a lot of people who knew Marthe Robin personally, I realize that God can achieve a great deal more in a human being than we who are of little faith are prepared to believe possible. The total “abstinence” of Marthe is one of the ways in which Jesus showed his love to her.
In September 1930 Jesus appeared to Marthe and asked her, “Do you wish to become as I am?” She replied , “Yes” and soon afterwards she received the wounds of Jesus in her hands, feet and side.
She also received the crown of thorns. From that time on, week by week Marthe began suffering fully into the Passion of Jesus. Her suffering with Jesus was so intense that tears of blood flowed from her eyes and the marks of invisible thorns appeard across her head.
Every Friday she entered so fully into the death of Jesus that only on Saturday did she come to herself again; and until Sunday and Monday she remained in a state of total exhaustion. As the years passed her suffering grew deeper. In the beginning she suffered with Jesus, but little by little she became the suffering Jesus."
Jean Guitton was a well-known French philosopher and visited her several times. You can check it out on Google. So there is something very "real" here - a presence?

[Rev Frank Gusset]

Nothing has any meaning other than the meaning we give it.

And it doesn't mean anything that it doesn't mean anything.

Whilst I thank those who have offered meanings, refuted meanings or riddiculed either; would it mean anything if we could all agree?

And could we even agree what our agreement meant?

Whilst it is always nice to find like-minded people, even agreement can lead to disagreement. But that doesn't mean anything either.

This debate is between those who will believe it when they see it, and those who will see it when they believe it. Empiricists vs metaphysicists with comedians thrown in for good measure.

Unfortunately, any adherance to religeous dogma reduces inquiry and inquiry is at the root of all discovery. Thus those who accept and repeat the explanations of dogma are ensuring they will never discover. They are trapped in a world of imposed beliefs. Refusing to be swayed by arguments and defending such religeous beliefs is, perhaps, a part of piety. Faith, on the other hand, is knowing something with every fibre of your being. Invariably, it can be expressed simply without resorting to polysylablic intellectualisation.

Consider the life of Buddha; his experiences led him to discover simple ideas that still resonate today but very few choose, like him, to follow their own path and discover their own beliefs. Even fewer have the time or inclination to do so.

The result is that mankind is fed the mixture of dogma and truths that make up the main religions they are born into. The purpose of many of these beliefs is questionable and harbours back to times when less was known and fewer were educated. Nowadays many can see "fish on Friday" for what it really was.

Considering how long it took the Catholic Church to drop that little piece of dogma, those that doubt transubstantiation may have a long wait to be vindicated.

In the meantime, how much easier it is to forget that nothing means anything and argue from the comfort of a padded chair.

As if it mattered! (And guess what, it only matters if you decide it matters.) After all, repent and ye shall be saved. Or, as I saw on a board outside a church in the US, sin now, pay later (settle your account on Sunday).

[Prometevsberg]

quotes:Posted by: Xeno77777 | 26 Nov 2007 02:52:01

Maybe you all should take a look at the many miracles of the Eucharist where the Host turns into Real human heart tissue and the "wine" turns into real blood. These things have been tested by 20th and 21st Century medical teams and cannot be explained. They have been witnessed by many and even video recorded. Whatever you believe, that is your prerogative. One should always keep an open mind however, for what we can taste and see is not always what they really are.
qute end.
missing the any references, but does this mean we have the DNA of Jesus? Does this mean that he could be cloned from one of these miraculous transubstanisations? BTW, does the host turning turning into heart issue mean that you are not eating all parts of the body, only his heart? Does this mean that a pious catholic is missing out on the Jesus etrecotes, cutlets and sweetebreads, as well as His prarie oysters?

[Hypocritical]

transubstantiation ... GM belief or just a part of another Frankenfaith

[MARY]

Marcella, thank you for replying. Actually, Protestants do allow Catholics to take Communion at a Protestant church. It is asked only that you profess to be a Christian and that you abstain if you're not in a state of grace (i.e. reconciled to God). Your answer did shed a little light on the issue though. Thank you.

[frank]

Sheila, what a load of tripe.......

[mark]

The pious religious comments here are an offense against common sense, science, day to day evidence of the world around us, and logic.
If blasphemy is considered by those authors a crime, it isn't any worse than their crimes against science and logic which I find totally offensive (though I recognise their total right to express their madness!).

[alan]

Sheila - your comment has saddened me. Why, why, why do you believe these weird things that people tell you?
-- Try testing them next time. Ask them to live on "no food other than weekly Holy Communion" for a couple of years.
-- And only believe that anyone sheds tears of blood or gets wounds on feet and hands when you see it personally.
-- But - I know - you WANT to believe this rubbish. And that's exactly what these people are speculating on when they tell you these fairy tales.
-- Sorry (for you) Sheila, but I honestly think you've got religious mania, and nothing I can say can bring you back to your senses again.
-- Or are you just kidding? I hope so.

[ben]

Anyone who believes that Marthe Robin only ate the odd wafer for so many years is gullible in the extreme!! As if!!! Typical unproven crap.

[Dominic Stockford]

So, Jesus demands that all his followers need to have an understanding of 'substance and accidence', and of philosophy at a highly obscure level in order to understand the notion of transubstantiation? without this knowledge and understanding whatver happens is meaningless - so, according to RC's, He clearly mkaes this demand. Very sad for those who don't have the intellectual ability to understand Christ's message then.

More obviously, the passage in John 6 has nothing at all to do with the Last Supper, either geographically or temporally - it is twisted, as so much of scripture is by the RC's, to make it say what they want it to say. Why? because if transubstantiation is true, and only if it is true, then 'priests' are required and their power is required and they are necessary, and their temporal worldly position is guaranteed.

The simple answer to all this would be to look at the Letter to the Hebrews, where we read the following: "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
He entered ONCE FOR ALL into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." Hebrews 9:11-12

Once for all, unrepeatable, completed, finished. What did he say on the cross? "It is complete" - His work had been acheived and there is no more that can be done, and never has been anything that we can do to acheive salvation - Christ alone acheives it all. As for the bizarre idea that man can command God to become present in bread and wine...

[Dominic Stockford]

An earlier poster said that: ""Jesus said, "If you seek the truth you will find it.""

He didn't - please don't invent quotes for Him.

[Carmel]

The Pagan God Osiris/Dionysis also changed water into wine at weddings.

[peter]

Re posting by "Rev" Frank Gusset

The Friday Fish thing was NEVER a "dogma" of the Roman Catholic Church. Itwas a traditional penance notion that developed during the later Crusades and was assiduously promoted
by the fishmonger and fishing sectors.
In this it is comparable to the Anglican decree in the 16th century that a not wearing a woollen cap on Sundays (to boost the then ailing wool sector) was both a sin and a crime. Shakespeare's father was fined 6 pence (on appeal reduced to 3 pence)for transgressing ...

[jm]

May unbelievers hearts be opened to the waiting Lord.

Christ said to doubting Thomas.....in John 20: 24-31,
"Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed".

[matt dykstra]

I don't think everyone here knows this, but Science (Evolutionism) is a religion, not a disinterested area of learning concerned only with the truth. I would be willing to bet that the next ten posts will ridicule this idea. However, no one can argue that Evolution has more scientific evidence than does young-earth Creationism, specifically Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
The above link is from Dr. Brown's website; scroll down the page and you will see 20 questions he asks of believers in Evolution. I challenge any Evolutionist to answer any one of his 20 questions in a manner concordant with the Scientific Method.

[Seamus Breathnach]

There is no doubt about it: divine blood is much more alcoholic than wine ordinairre. Long before the Christians , the Etruscans fancied the divinity of Bull's blood; they also go high on it.

In nineteenth century Ireland much 'poiteen' was drunk before and after mass, but not as a leg up to divinity , but rather to keep out the cold and fend off hunger. And if you ever had a country whose best shot at an 'economic policy' never got better than the expectation of feeding five thousand people on two loaves, five fish, and plenty of prayer, you , too, would find some solace in alcohol, divine or otherwise. In any event, if alcohol is a prohibitive against priests travelling under the influence, isn't that of itself a divine preventative to the inordinate incidence of fatal accidents?

By the way, the people who drink most Church wine aren't the priests. They are too busy counting their money. The really swillers are the senior mass-servers, the sacristan, and the younger mass-servers who want to try it out. Of course, they don't drink the blessed wine: only the plonk!

Seamus Breathnach

www.irish-criminology.com

[frank]

No doubt there will be a lot of holy and unholy hangovers later this month as we celebrate the pagan rituals of Saturnalia, borrowed by the Church and dressed up with a Christmas theme tacked on.
An amazing number of pagan dates, myths and rites have been used and misused to embellish the bible story and subsequent festival!
No point letting the difference between facts and myths get in the way of a ripping yarn and festive season!

[Coel]

Matt writes: "The above link is from Dr. Brown's website; scroll down the page and you will see 20 questions he asks of believers in Evolution. I challenge any Evolutionist to answer any one of his 20 questions in a manner concordant with the Scientific Method."

OK, I'll pick one: "Do you realize how complex living things are? How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?"

My answers are "yes" and "Through a process of Darwinian evolution as described in all the textbooks".

How about another: "Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information." Answer: duplication of gene sequences (which happens often) followed by mutation of those sequences. The result then contains more information.

[Carl Waring]

"I don't think everyone here knows this, but Science (Evolutionism) is a religion, not a disinterested area of learning concerned only with the truth."

Not *another* one, where do these people come from??

"However, no one can argue that Evolution has more scientific evidence than does young-earth Creationism, specifically Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory."

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html

Face it, it's nonsense. Even creationists think so: "Brown is considered by many to be a lone gun, outside the mainstream of young earth creation science." (http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/other/center_scientific_creationism.htm)

[John Green]

Here is the truth about Eucharist wine (I know because I furtively sipped some years ago). It hovers somewhere between vinegar and cheap German plonk.

I can’t image that Christ would welcome any of this flowing through His arteries, but it is certainly capable of giving any Holy Joe a hangover.

[MEG]

Jesus said: Take and it this. This is my body for it it true food and true drink. Then many of His disciples left Him. Peter and the others stayed and today we celebrate this very same mass. Why can one believe that God can create a Universe and can send manna to His hungry people in the barren dessert yet He cannot send Himself to His hungry people in the dessert of life in order to strengthen them. Why can He not become one with His Bride? In order that man should consummate his wedding night with his bride in order to know her. Christ too must come into His Bride in order to know Her. This teaching in order to be believed must come from God. One does not do so by one's self. But all one must do to have belief in this is to ask God Himself to show you. To have an open heart.

Okay, I'm getting a little off on a tangent here in relation to Irish drinking laws' effect on priests, but here is my response.
First, I don't understand how genetic mutations create new information. The vast majority of the time, they destroy information. I see what you're saying, in that in a duplication malfunction, you end up with a normal strand of DNA and a mutated one- which means you have the old info plus the new mutant info-but the mutated one usually contains less of the useful information. Sickle-cell anemia is an example of this; a body function impaired by a mutation. However, let us assume the (extremely rare) case of a beneficial mutation. In this case, the resulting organism has different DNA, but not more genes. No information is gained. A further assumption: what if so-called "junk DNA" were mutated in such a way that it coded for a new protein (extremely unlikely) and the protein was very useful to the organism (again even more unlikely)? In this case, you still have no newly created information. The same amount of information was just changed. No net increase of information occurs, because you lose the "junk" information when you gain the mutant information.

No one can give even a single example of macroevolution. Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History admits this, and he's an evolutionist who would know. As for the "process of evolution described in all the textbooks," did you know that many of those textbooks contain pictures of human feti, most of whose major organs were surgically removed in order to demonstrate "phases of evolution?" Neither do the textbooks anywhere state this when they claim the feti are remarkably similar to other developing creatures at this stage. In other words, the texts skew the truth, if not outright lie. Here is a quick link to what I'm referring to: http://users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/gillslits.html

I looked at the links given (except the third one; that link is broken). Here are my responses (after the quotes):
"A layer of cave water 2 km thick all around the earth would contain 1 x 10^24 cubic centimeters of water. At 191ºC, the high temperature water would contain 1.7 x 10^26 calories. (1 calorie per degree rise (166 degree rise)). The minute the pressure is released the water will turn to steam and you will cook the earth. Dividing the calories by the surface area of the earth shows that:

heat /cm^2 = 1.7 x 10^26 Calories/5 x 10^14 square cms = 3.3 x 10^7 Cal/cm^2

I don't think Noah could survive this. This is a poor mechanism for a flood."
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html
I have to admit that 4th order differential equations are a bit beyond my understanding, but there are several clear mistakes here. First off, the writer's above-quoted calculation is off by 4 orders of magnitude; check it on your calculator. Second, the writer forgot that the atmosphere is three-dimensional, having a thickness of about 328000 feet according to Wikipedia, or 30.48 x 3.28E5 = 9997440 cm thick. Third, his figure for the surface area of the earth is also off by 4 orders of magnitude; here is the surface area of the earth in square kilometers, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica online: 509,600,000 square kilometers. This is 5.096E18 cm^2. So the thermal energy of the escaping steam which the writer gave, 1.7E26 calories, is distributed in the atmosphere like so: 1.7E26 calories/ (9997440 cm x 5.096E18 cm^2) = approximately 3.3 calories per cubic centimeter, and I haven't even factored in the residual thermal energy of the rest of the atmosphere, which would cool it down even more. As is, 3.3 calories per cubic centimeter is an easily tolerable rise in temperature.

" 1. The rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or before Adam's time for that matter.

2. Even two miles deep, the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.

3. The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html
1. Actually, the writer of the first refutation knew this was possible, albeit without mountains or hills, as he stated. The equations are pretty crazy, but it does work.
2. I already dealt with this above; the earth does not heat by much at all (3.3 calories/cm^3) when you use proper math and valid data.
3. Look at the mid-oceanic ridge, which Dr. Brown specifically names as the fissure referred to in his theory. According to Wikipedia, the mid-oceanic ridge is composed of basalt and gabbro. Wikipedia's article on gabbro states that it is chemically equivalent to basalt. Chunks of basalt deposited on land or sea would be covered by soil raised by the ensuing flood. I have to admit, this isn't as good an answer as actual evidence of the basalt deposits described, but it is a plausible answer.

I don't have a vested interest in believing either argument- I'm only interested in the truth. So, can anyone give me even a single evidence of macroevolution? Or an answer to any one of Dr. Brown's questions for evolutionists?
CONCLUSION
If not, I will re-assert what I see to be the truth (and if any one has evidence to the contrary, I sincerely would like to see it): Evolutionists religiously believe in something which cannot be seen- not even one solitary example exists. Catholics believe in transubstantiation, which does have eviden