Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Forgotten & Forgiven Mortal Sins | Main | Ziusudra. . . . Big Deal. »

September 15, 2006

Comments

Ed Peters

Great. THAT makes sense, and seems defensible. (I luv having smart friends. Saves me all sorts of thinking and looking stuff up.) Thx!

Brian John Schuettler

Your illustrations, Jimmy, were extremely helpful to understanding the context of your other comments. Terrific.
It seems that your mind and the mind of Aquinas think alike...not bad company!

Jason

Jimmy, would you say this same concept would apply to adding additional water to holy water bottles?

- this is in regard to a tradition i'd heard of where folks would just add tap water to their holy water bottles and continue blessing themselves with it, claiming the new water was made holy by the old water.

Puzzled

At what molar concentration would the Holy Spirit withdraw the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity from the molecules that -had- been changed?

Francis DS

I notice that the document does not mention what to do with the consecrated wine (ie 'blood').

- Does the priest serve it to the people?
- Does he pour wine on it as well to 'undo' the consecration?

Does "the liquid of this kind" refer to the a)the fly + the wine used to wash the fly, or b) the fly, the wine, and the blood. I think it's a) because there's no mention of a second consecration.

JamesD

I have a question about consecration of wine not in the chalice.

At my church and at few others I have been to I have noticed that the wine distributed to the people is never in the chalice. There is either several cups of wine or a larger pitcher on the alter.
The priest consumes all of the holy blood from the chalice. But the pitcher or cups are not touched untill after the consecration.
I looked in the GIRM paragraphs 139-146 and could find no mention of wine in anything other than the chalice for consecration.
Does the wine (and I assume some water) that is on the alter but not in the chalice become consecrated?

whimsy

I think the recent posts regarding legal minutia (dogs and wine) ought to come with a serious discussion of how this all fits in with Romans, chapter 7.

The Navarre Bible commentary on Romans 7 explains that the paradox of the Law (Paul is speaking OT Law, but I think it could apply to Canon Law, as well) is that, the Law is Holy, but does not equip a person to conquer sin.

The good news is that the Law can show us the gravity of our sins, and thus motivate us to seek the grace of God.

--

I found this explanation very helpful in understanding the relationship between Law and Spirit.

Mike

JamesD - you are correct. I believe that the GIRM regulates that wine in addition to that in the chalice may also be placed on the altar for consecration. Just as the priest does not elevate every host. For the consecration to be valid, the keys are (1) the words, (2) the intention, and (3) the physical presence of the bread and wine.

Obviously, Jimmy could go into more detail.

Puzzled - I had the same thoughts. I always thought that the consecration worked on a molecular level, and that dissolution would merely disperse the consecrated matter. However, one logical explanation that an "unconsecration" of some kind CAN theoretically take place is that after receiving communion, our digestive systems do something similar.

But I'm no expert and everything above is based upon my own personal speculation.

Martin

The Real Presence departs when the accidents are gone. Thus digested bread is no longer the Real PResence.

One of the accidents of the Blood of Christ is Quantity. This quantity is divisable until a reasonable person can no longer perceive it as wine and additive until a resonable person can no longer recognise it as "this unit" of wine. Thus Jimmy's example of a Chalice of Precious Blood being mixed in a vat of wine.

As for the molar concentration of when this happens please consult the defination of "reasonable person" and use the Popes recent speech on how reason is not just numbers but also spiritual as a guide. I would reasonably suppose that the Holy Spirit might guide one on roughly where this point is.

Please also bear in mind we are talking about exceptional circumstances, not the day to day.

Madera

Would that be an ordinary reasonable person, such that a wine connoisseur would not be considered a reasonable person?

Fr Martin Fox

Let me point out that a priest should never do what was described! (Add wine to the Precious Blood) That is, unless he's purifying the chalice; in the old days, a priest added wine to the near-empty chalice, before adding water; but it isn't the way it's done anymore.

Martin

"Would that be an ordinary reasonable person, such that a wine connoisseur would not be considered a reasonable person?"

Anyone who swirls, gargles then spits wine back in a cup is abnormal and unreasoning. ;)

JJR2

This is certainly revealing---what is its actual Scriptural basis? One begins to suspect that you all sit around making stuff up.
None of this seems to be described in Jesus’ presentation of the first Communion (Luke 22:18-20). His intent is clearly to present the ceremony of the Passover in its completed form under the New Covenant, with Himself as the Lamb of the Sacrifice(Hebrews 9:24-28), whose Blood turns aside the punishment for our sins. He said “Do this in Remembrance of me”.
Nor did the Ceremony itself confer the Holy Spirit, which the Apostles only received after His return to Heaven (Acts 2:1-4). The ceremony isn’t a magical incantation, it is our expression of remembrance of God’s Greatest Gift, our final Exodus from slavery to sin and death---as the Passover commemorated Israel’s Exodus from slavery in Egypt.
Nowhere in the descriptions of the Holy Spirit and His Purpose by Jesus (John 14:26) or Paul (1 Corinthians 12:7-11), for examples, is there any apparent reference to this “dilution” issue. Are we to believe that the Presence of the infinitely powerful, Living God, Who struck down the Israelites who rebelled, Who drove out nations before them, Who empowers us as the children of God, the “deposit guaranteeing our inheritance” (Ephesians 1:14) until ultimate Redemption, is somehow affected by solvents?!
If you had to present your discussion to the King Himself in person, wouldn’t you at least find it sort of embarassing?

Mary

He said “Do this in Remembrance of me”.

What He actually says is "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

His real body, which He had told his followers they had to eat. It was the only time that anyone left Him because of His teaching, but when they left Him, He did not explain that it was not a literal saying.

Francis DS

"until ultimate Redemption, is somehow affected by solvents?!"

The discussion is about the 'laws of nature' of the spiritual world. It is in the same spirit as asking questions like: are translations of Scripture also inspired? Is it alright to dump old copies of the bible into a trashcan? Does the holiness of a translator affect the inspiration of the resulting translation? Is it alright to buy/sell (and profit from) the word of God?

These are questions that seem trivial, until you find yourself in the specific situation -- in which case you either invent YOUR OWN answer, or look for the Church's intruction on the matter.

Jesus sighs and says, "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"

Francis DS

Discussion and judgment go hand in hand.

After the sigh, Jesus went on to say, "As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way." Whether that requires discussion or not is up to you.

Francis DS

I don't get the relevance of the quote. You need to discuss it, or not. You judge for yourself.

Maureen

Re: "Are we to believe that the Presence of the infinitely powerful, Living God... is somehow affected by solvents?!"

Welcome to the scandal of the Incarnation. The infinitely powerful Living God became man, and puked and needed a diaper and skinned his knee and lived among us. And then he started telling his disciples what was going to happen next.

And Peter took him aside and said, "Never say these things! They won't happen to you!" And Jesus said, "Get behind me, Satan!"

Just so, when Jesus, true God and true man, comes to us in Holy Communion, He allows Himself to be affected by natural processes, like eating. Or solvents.

Scandalous, I know. But given that He created me, saved me and is making me live forever, I should hope I'd be willing to allow God to do things His way and not mine.

Maureen

Er, forgot the rest of Jesus' quote. His rebuke to Peter was that he was thinking like a human, not like God.

God made solvents, so He thinks they're pretty cool. :)

Matt McDonald

Christ created the sacrament, He left the Church with the power and authority, guided by the Holy Spirt to practice it and to regulate it, lest it's efficacy be lost. That's entirely reasonable, without the Church's authority to regulate, we would have to figure out for ourselves (seems like a dim prospect) which "gospels" are true and which are gnostic forgeries...

JJR2

Let me rephrase the question, then. Where, among the legitimate written testimonies of the witnesses to what Jesus said and did---John, Mark, Matthew, and others---and their close associates, such as Luke, do you find any justification for what you are doing here?
Need an older Bible? http://www.greekbible.com/ (I recommend their "Athena" font)
Need more documentation of the legitimacy of the witnesses? Try the textual apparatus in the print version of the GNT, such as the ABS 4th ed. Aland, et al., ISBN 3438051109, to see the exhaustive requirements still placed on the original manuscripts in determining their authority. We’re not making this up.
As to the other points here, how far does a Church need to deviate from the Guidance of the Word and the Spirit before it becomes just another tedious human ceremonial exercise? What else is idolatry but limiting God by our mortal imagination (Exodus 20:3-5)?---and you’re talking about how to keep Him conveniently undiluted in your dinnerware! Which side of the line Jesus drew in Matthew 7:21-23 are you standing on?

Tim J.

Jesus understands that some people find this a hard teaching. But He didn't change the teaching.

All he said was, "Will you leave, too?".

"This IS my body... This IS my blood..."

J.R. Stoodley

What else is idolatry but limiting God by our mortal imagination (Exodus 20:3-5)?---and you’re talking about how to keep Him conveniently undiluted in your dinnerware!

Here you see a subtle attack on the Incarnation. It is not JJR2's intention, but the attack is real.

The ceremony isn’t a magical incantation

Indeed it is not, but then no one is claiming it is. The ceremony is the simple actions dirrected to us by God through which we may be certain that God will work. It is not magic, but the infinite power of God and our cooperation with it through following His directives, allowing Him to work in this sublime and extremely personal way. I wish you could see the distinction. To use an imperfect analogy to call sacraments magic is like when non-Christians say the Incarnation makes God finite, or that God should beget makes Him sexual, or that the Trinity is three gods.

Are we to believe that the Presence of the infinitely powerful, Living God, Who struck down the Israelites who rebelled, Who drove out nations before them, Who empowers us as the children of God, the “deposit guaranteeing our inheritance” (Ephesians 1:14) until ultimate Redemption, is somehow affected by solvents?!

No, JJR, we are to believe that Jesus Christ through His infinite generosity offers us to himself under the appearance of bread and wine. By His own will He is present as long as the accidents of bread or wine remain. "Solvants" do not affect him (at least now that he is glorified in heaven), but affect the accidents. I can understand if you do not accept this part Divine Revelation, since it is indeed a hard saying for the undiscerning, but you reveal your ignorance about what Catholics believe by your comments.

Brother Cadfael

JJR2,

Which side of the line Jesus drew in Matthew 7:21-23 are you standing on?

I am standing on the Rock on which Jesus built His Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, and which the gates of hell will not prevail against. I am securely within the sheepfold which He set His apostles to watch over and guard, and I receive the Sacraments which Jesus so graciously provided to us. I am a sinner constantly in need of God's mercy and forgiveness, who takes very seriously Jesus' gift to the Apostles of the power to bind and loose. But you probably get the picture.

How's your footing?

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31