When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass, the change is permanent. It remains so long as the appearances of bread and wine do.
This has implications for how we treat the consecrated elements after Mass is over. Hosts that remain are stored in a Tabernacle, but what about the Precious Blood?
It cannot normally be reserved (the only exception being when it will be taken to the sick, and then special precautions have to be taken to keep it from spilling).
If there is a quantity of the Precious Blood left and it cannot be reserved, what are you supposed to do?
Pouring the Precious Blood into a Sacrarium?
Some have suggested pouring it out–not out on the ground or down an ordinary drain but down a special kind of sink known as a sacrarium.
Sacraria are typically found in the sacristy of a church, and they differ from an ordinary sink in a crucial respect: Instead of draining into the local sewer system, they drain down into the earth.
Sacraria are used for a variety of purposes, including these:
- To dispose of ashes from objects that have been blessed and then destroyed by fire
- To dispose of the water that has been used to wash the altar linens
- To dispose of water that has been used to dissolve small particles of the host
- To dispose of water that has been used to clean up places where the Precious Blood has spilled
Except for the first example, which deals with the ashes of former blessed objects, the other examples cited deal with water that is known to have or may have come into contact with the consecrated elements (since small particles of the host might be on the altar linens).
Given that, can you use the sacrarium to dispose of the Precious Blood itself? After all, it’s not like you’re pouring it into the sewer. You would be pouring it into something specially intended to deal with the remains of sacred things, right? So can you do this?
No. You can’t.
Throwing Away the Consecrated Species
It’s one thing to pour water into the sacrarium, even if that water has been used to dissolve the consecrated species. In that case, the appearances of bread and wine no longer remain, and so the Real Presence does not remain, either. It is another thing entirely to use it to throw away the consecrated species themselves.
According to the Code of Canon Law,
Canon 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or who takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if a cleric, he can be punished with another penalty including dismissal from the clerical state.
This offense is one of those graviora delicta (graver offenses) that is reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as noted in the instruction Redemptoinis Sacramentum, which provides:
[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:
a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;
Pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium counts as throwing away the consecrated species, and so it cannot be done.
It Is Explicitly Forbidden
Recently I was questioned on this point by a member of the Secret Information Club, who had gotten the communique I send to members on the worst liturgical abuses (the graviora delicta). Citing the section where I said one can’t pour the Precious Blood into a sacrarium, the member wrote:
I believe you may have an error regarding the pouring of the Precious Blood. It’s forbidden to pour it down the sewer system, not the other way around.
I understand that people have been given incorrect information on this in some parishes, and there is a difference between a sacrarium and a sink that drains into the sewer system, but the point remains. In fact, pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium is explicitly forbidden in Remptionis Sacramentum, which provides:
[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.
To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species.
Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for example casting the sacred species into the sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down.
The good news, for anyone who has done this innocently not knowing that they shouldn’t, is that the excommunication does not apply to them (CIC 1323, no. 2).
But the rule remains: No pouring the Precious Blood down a sacrarium.
What You Are Supposed to Do
The actual answer is that any remaining amount of the Precious Blood should be consumed. Section 107 of Redemptionis Sacramentum continues:
Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.
Want to Learn More?
This is precisely the kind of thing I cover in my Secret Information Club mailings. If you’re not already a member, you can learn more at www.SecretInfoClub.com or sign up using this form:
Be sure to email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any trouble.
Hey, Jimmy, our Catechists are asleep. How come our beloved friend was not aware how the Holy Blood of Christ is reverently handled? I learned how to devotedly and prayerfully honour the Body and Blood of Christ when I was FOUR years old – and that was in 1942!!!!!!!.
When I first went to work at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa in January 1995 to avert a looming a crisis at the Registrar’s Office and they need my urgent help, I used to attend the Holy Mass with the Resident Priest Lecturers and Students, before rushing to the Office to clear the mess which had been left behind by the disgruntled ex-Registrar and his two Secretaries. Since the Holy Communion was with Both Species, the Celebrant used to invite me to drink the remaining Blood of Christ after Holy Communion!!!! It was an honour they had decided to accord me for saving the University from a catastrophic situation.
@Mary Moll My parish was practicing pouring the blood of Christ down the Sacrarium for about 8 years. I started objecting and using church documents to prove the point. I was eliminated from being an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion in response. At least I tried. Redemptionis Sacramentum is a wonderful document. Keep pusing for authentic liturgy and practice! AMDG.
@rskempf God, Almighty, why would they do that. That is Sacrilegious. Where did your Parish Priest get his Sacerdotal Formation???? I am shocked. The practice I have grown up with, and you notice I am now just two months shy of 74 years, is that the Celebrant drinks the remaining Blood of Christ before he purifies the Chalice. He can also offer it to a Concelebrant, the Altar Boy or – as in my case – a Faithful. You did very good to complain and be sure Jesus will reward you for according Him the Divine Reverence He deserves, always and everywhere.
Why do we continue to mock God so casually? It is really depressing for me reading the casual and irreverent way we are commenting about the Real Presence – Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on us and on the whole World.
Mr. Akin, I learned about the Sacrarium back in the 80’s from my architectural boss when I was a draftsman working in an Architectural firm. And he was a devout Baptist. Never the less, we were designing a Catholic church and in the design meetings with the engineers that design the plumbing etcetera, he was informed about the Sacrarium and I had never heard of that before that moment. An interesting article you write, I wonder too why this type of very practical and useful info seems to remain hidden. Thanks.
Luis
Jimmy,
In the case of the Precious Blood that has been absorbed into alter linens what is one to do?
“…whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister…” Who qualifies as another minister other than another priest, or a deacon? An EMHC? An altar server? A communicant? Can the priest simply give the Precious Blood to someone and say, “The Blood of Christ, please finish this off”?
I seem to recall having heard of sume UNUSUAL situation (the details escape me) in which it was not possible to consume the entirety of the Sacred Blood. I think it had been accidentally contaminated in some way. If memory serves, the recommended action in this case was to dilute the Sacred Blood with water until it no longer had the accidents of “wine”, after which it could be poured down the sacrarium. Is that correct?
Another reason why non-clerics (except installed acolytes) should not be in possession of the Sacred vessels which have not yet been properly purified. We are dealing with God here, not wine (or bread). My question is why did the priest or deacon not properly purify the vessel before someone else took possession of them? Sounds like sloppy liturgy to me. Those who have been given the privilege of serving as a minister of any kind at the altar need to read, study and frequently re-read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in order to assure proper respect for their sacred duties.
Ok, I understand the gravity of the situation. And that consumption is the ordinary means to handle the excess.
What about the case where the Precious Blood has been contaminated by a communicant vomiting into the cup just as he receives?
I have heard, and I’m asking if you know this is so, that you could dilute the Precious Blood into a large quantity of water (don’t know the ratio or if some other liquid would suffice) and then pour it down the sacrarium. This is essentially what happens when one washes the chalice. No matter how carefully it is wiped with the purificator, there might be a few minute droplets of Precious Blood in the wash water.
If it’s true that “When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass, the change is permanent.” then why the caution? Can’t God take care of his own “Body and Blood”? If He really needs such complicated interventions, then …?
@noprem Read again what you have written, and see how similar it is to what was said long ago: “Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
… and he did not come down. Which raises its own set of questions:
— Note that even his enemies called him “the Son of God”. Does that explain why I asked if ‘GOD can’t take care …’? This is a Trinitarian site, isn’t it?
— Was it important for him to stay where he was on That Day 2000 years ago?
—- If so, then that incident doesn’t relate to my question or the OP.
—- If so, then could the mocking of his enemies have been simply a fulfillment of Ps 22:7, Ps 109:25, or even Isa 53:3?
— If Godship is important here, does Rev 3:12 have any relevance?
BTW, I don’t deny the ability of Jesus to get down if that had been his desire: “Do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels [to rescue me]?”
@noprem It’s not for God’s sake, but for ours. It does us harm to treat God with a casual attitude.
It’s a little like animal abuse. Animals don’t have the moral importance of humans, but it does our humanity harm to abuse them, because we are “wired” to be sympathetic to them. That’s why they call it the “HUMANe society.”
Yes, I understand your response, which is proper for a believer.
But I’ve noticed that once one gets away from the simplicity of the Bible records (cf. Rev 3:12- Jesus HAS a God) then complexities are needed to cover the complexities. For example, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has (last time I looked) two related articles: “Trinity” and “Trinity in the Bible”. The first runs several pages while the second was about a third of a page. IOW not much to talk about without the Magisterium present.
Another: Transubstantiation (the subtext in the OP) is a particularly RCC doctrine which has required layer upon layer of side issues to be resolved, as here. Paul, a religious lawyer who understood blood sacrifice from at least two different backgrounds, says explicitly, “[Jesus] NEED NOT DAILY (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did ONCE, in offering himself.” Hebrews 7, Douay, emphasis added. Newer Bibles have “… once for all time” or “once for all people”. In either case a daily blood sacrifice- of bulls, goats, or Gods- was what once-Pharisee and now-Christian Paul was reasoning against.
@noprem Rev. 3:12 does not have any relevance to the Godhead of Jesus. I take it that you are not a Trinitarian, much less a Catholic.
The Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. Sacrementally (which is not the same thing as “let’s pretend”), it is in fact the same event. Jeers and insults directed at the Eucharist are in fact directed at Jesus on the Cross; they are not analagous to the jeers of the croud 2000 years ago, they are the same thing. All of the abuses and insults that will ever be offered to the Eucharist, along with all of our sins of every sort whatsoever, contributed to the suffering of Jesus on the Cross.
Robyn Broyles is right, though. You or I can spit in the face of the King. We have both often done this before, and will very likely do it again. The King is very patient with us, but He is not pleased. It would be best for us to stop spitting and make things right with the King before the time comes for Him to judge us.
@noprem The real world is more complex than cartoons. Seriously, study some physics. If we were making things up, we would never have particle-wave duality, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or the problem of the observer collapsing the wave function; we can USE what we know to make useful predictions, but no one has a really satisfying COMPREHENSION of it; yet all of it is beneath us in order of being, because it is merely material, whereas we have both a material and a spiritual component. If we cannot understand the material world because it is too hard, what makes you think that understanding God, Who is infinitely above us, should be easy? In fact, it is impossible. We can know God, and we can make certain true statements about God, but we can never fully understand or express God’s true nature.
If you don’t like my expamples from physics and would prefer to hear the same ideas from the Bible, go read the book of Job.
“the Godhead of Jesus” is a non-biblical phrase arising out of the many attempts to “explain” or “teach” the Trinity. My point to Ms Broyles about complexities.
Rev 3:12, Douay, “He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God: and he shall go out no more. And I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my new name.”
Four times Jesus- the “God” of Trinitarians- refers to One whom he calls “my God”. You don’t find that relevant? And if Jesus has a new name, what is it? Shouldn’t Christians be using it?
“The Mass is the unbloody re-presentation” you say. Is this the same Mass the OP refers to? (“When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass”)
Mr. Akins whole point, it seems to me, is that the blood- what I would call “wine”- must be handled specially. If it isn’t Jesus’ blood, why bother?
Can you please copy/paste one of my “jeers and insults”, for the record?
I don’t recall spitting in the face of anyone. My study of the Bible- the Word of God- tells me that the King has a Father who detests false worship of Him.
And I don’t at all understand your “cartoon” post, below.
@noprem You may or may not have heard of the hypostatic union. This is the fact that Jesus is both true man and true God. This is, again, something about which we can make certain true statements, but we can never fully understand — but again, this is no surprise, since we also cannot understand how it is we have two hemispheres of a brain, each of which is capable, under the right circumstances, of acting almost like a full brain (based on people who have had almost a whole hemisphere removed in childhood), yet we have only one consciousness, not two.
As a human, it is correct for Jesus to refer to “my God”. As the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, he at the same time *is* God. He sometimes speaks from one perspective, sometimes from the other.
Revelation was written by John, who also wrote the gospel that begins with, “In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.” In John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” at which point “The Jews then took up stones to stone him,” because they understood what that claim meant. In John 14:9, Jesus said, “Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also.” In John 20:28, He accepts what Philip says: “My Lord and my God!” Those are enough examples for now.
All this has been known for nearly 2000 years. Fitting these various passages together into a coherent picture of Jesus was THE big issue 1700 years ago, so if you think you’re bringing up passages with which we are not familiar, or shocking us with new insights, I’m afraid it’s a bit late for that. If you want to understand the Catholic Faith, there are those who can explain it much better than I can, but it will require making time for real study.
As for the jeers and insults, as I said before, you come *close* in your original comment to making the same kind of taunt that was made at the Crucifixion. *How* close I’m not sure, and anyway it is not for me to decide. But if you do not think you have ever spit in the face of the King, let me recommend the practice known as an examination of conscience. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” — 1 John 1:8 All sin is spitting in the face of Jesus.
Yes, the Sacrifice of the Mass is the same Sacrifice as was made on Calvary. It is not repeated, but there is a unity between them. That it is indeed a sacrifice can be shown, among other ways, by the language used. See http://www.catholic-church.org/dg/Mass/mass.htm for the translation that was used until about a year ago; the newer translation tends if anything to make the aspect of sacrifice more clear. It is said to be “unbloody” because, although the Sacred Blood is made present, neither the Body nor the Blood are visible to us; they are hidden under the appearances of bread and wine.
Poor Memory writes, “You may or may not have heard of the hypostatic union. This is the fact that Jesus is both true man and true God.”
All of that “fact” is Catholic traditional teaching, not Biblical. Not even ‘Catholic Biblical’, as I’ve shown in my Douay quotes. Rev 3:12 is my ‘deal-killer’ scripture when talking with Trinitarians, for these reasons:
— The speaker is ‘the glorified Jesus’, a concept you and I and the fundamentalists all believe in. IOW he will never have any higher status than he has now, yet he says (4X) that someone else is higher; is “my God”. EITHER there are at least two Gods to be worshipped, OR the Other is “the only true God”, whom Jesus also addresses at John 17:3, also in all Bibles.
— The speaker is Jesus, the Son of God, not “God the Son” or “true man and true God”. The first phrase is Scriptural in all Bibles, the others are in NO Bible.
— Rev 3:12 and John 17:3 read the same in all Bibles, so sectarianism is not an issue.
Your other “proof texts” are from a list of about two dozen I know of that purport to teach some part or another of the Trinity. None hold up to serious scrutiny. But you aren’t willing to accept the plain statements of our Lord about his God, so it’s a waste of time reasoning with you on anything else in your RCC Bible. You should therefore continue to spend your time determining ‘how many acolytes can dance on the rim of a sacrarium’. God’s work is something else entirely.
@noprem Well, at least we get to see that you’re not interested in a serious discussion, but are just a troll coming to a Catholic website to bash the Church with what you THINK are clever and original zingers. If you ever get serious and want to understand the contents and grounds of Catholic belief, you should contact Jimmy Akin directly. He’ll be able to help you better than I could. I don’t have the patience for that kind of work.
noprem, since your are not a Catholic, what are you doing on a Catholic Website abusing and ridiculing our Faith and denying what we believe in the Trinitarian God?. The Holy Bible was complied, under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church. The Apostles did not teach Christ’s Salvation Message using the Bible. Our Catholic Church rests on THREE PILLARS…The Scripture, the Tradition and the Magisterium. Since you do not understand our Faith, I would have expected you to be humble enough to hear from us what we believe and why we believe what we believe. The Sola Scripture Doctrine is a non-issue to us because the Entire Deposit of Christ’s Teaching subsists in His Church which He founded on Peter the Rock and His Successors. Jesus DID NOT START 500 different Churches which cannot even agree on what to believe. He founded only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under Peter the Rock where He is the Invisible Head and the Holy Spirit guides Her as She in protects, preserves and proclaims the authentic Salvation Mystery which Jesus won for us by the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection. Peter, the Rock and his Successors hold the Divine Power to “feed Christ’s Sheep and Lambs”. Peter has the Keys to Heaven and Jesus promised Him the Church He was to build upon him, would remain until the End of Time and the Powers of Hell – whether from within or without SHALL NEVER PREVAIL UPON IT.
Your woefully sad misunderstanding about the Nature of One God in Three Divine Persons – Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is disheartening.
So, I beg you, noprem, be kind enough to us. We do not come to your Websites to attack your beliefs in your over 500 Protestant Churches. All we ask is a recirprocal respect from you. Do not try to tear down and ridicule our Catholic Faith because we do not do that to your hundreds of Protestant Churches.
When you ridicule Jesus Christ in the Real Presence, you are spitting in the Face of God Himself by your irreverently dismissing Christ’s Divinity and Equal Unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit – One God in Three Divine Persons.
M Moll writes
“abusing and ridiculing our Faith” Strong words; can you copy/paste examples for me, please?
“denying what we believe in the Trinitarian God” No such thing. I quote from Jesus’ statements in a CATHOLIC BIBLE at e.g. John 17:3 and Rev 3:12 which contradict what I KNOW to be the RCC belief that Jesus is Almighty God. Your argument is with scripture, which brings us to …
“Church rests on THREE PILLARS…The Scripture, the Tradition and the Magisterium” We’ve seen that the refutation of a key part of the Trinity is in [your] scripture. Which leads me to this page
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
on newadvent, which is my main research site for RCC studies. This page is not what I believe, but it IS what I know you are supposed to believe. The third paragraph is apposite to this discussion, but please note that I am not a sola scriptura person nor a “Protestant”. Like the Israelites of old and the Ethiopian eunuch of our Lord’s time, I worship the God of Abraham and look to imperfect men to help me understand his “deep things”. (Neh 8:7,8; Acts 8:31; 1 Cor 2:10) At the same time, like the eunuch and the Berean Jews, I compare what I learn with the scriptures; if there’s a difference then I stay with scripture. (Acts 17:1-4)
An example from the page cited above: “In the first sense it is an old tradition that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December …” Scripture proves- from four different points of view- that Jesus was not born on 25 December or anywhere near it. This is now accepted by most scholars. Yet look how this unscriptural and often ungodly celebration- based on pagan practices, the same scholars say- has taken over Western society. Myself, once I learned the scriptural truth I stopped doing religious and most other holidays. (John 17:17) (I was never a Catholic, but I once married one, having agreed to study her religion first. I did so, so I am not ignorant of your doctrines and dogmas.)
“Your woefully sad misunderstanding about the Nature of One God in Three Divine Persons – Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is disheartening. So, I beg you, noprem, be kind enough to us” Why disheartening? There are billions of non-Catholics who don’t believe as you do. That’s the purpose of evangelization, isn’t it? That’s what “Blessed” John Paul II wanted, isn’t it? And you can expect a full measure of “unkindness” as you go evangelizing, as our Lord and your God prophesied: “Jesus answering said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who has left house or brethren or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time: houses and brethren and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting.” (Mr 10:30; cf. Mt 5:11; John 16:22; Acts 14:22)
And, if you re-read my posts with an open mind, you’ll see that my “unkindness” has consisted of quoting the Douay Bible in response to what your “tradition and magisterium” have taught you. Have you noticed the many contradictions therein? Perhaps not; not many believed to Jesus or Paul when they preached. “Where are the other nine?” said Jesus on one such occasion. A comment Paul made is at Acts 28:25 ff.
“you are spitting in the Face of God Himself … One God in Three Divine Persons.” Here’s a question anyone might ask you, then: How many faces am I supposed to have spit in? One? Three? How many? The statement was yours; outside of Trinitarian dogma it would be considered a nonsensical one. BTW, did you know you Catholics have an edge over Protestant Trinitarians? IF Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, THEN it’s correct to say (as you do) that Mary is the Mother of God. Most “Protestants” don’t believe that, yet they’re wrong IF the Trinity is right.
Finally, ‘what [am I] doing on a Catholic Website’? you ask. The site in question says this at the beginning of the OP: “by Jimmy Akin on July 10, 2012 [linked] in +Religion, Canon Law, Liturgy, Sacraments.” The blog is open for discussion, and my response to any of it will come from the Bible, as you’ve seen.
@noprem This is my humble AND FINAL response to you:
Act of Faith
“O my God, I firmly believe that you are One God in Three Divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that Your Divine Son became Man and died for our sins and that He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe these, and ALL THE TRUTHS WHICH THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES because You have revealed them, You Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, Amen.
There is one solution to avoid this situation: cease giving Communion under both Species. The Body. Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is already found in the Sacred Host. Why then the need for the Chalice?
I always cringed and with trepidation each time I go to a Novus Ordo Mass and see the EMHC take the Chalices to the back room of the Sacristy — and then what happens there? The Precious Blood should be consumed and not disposed of as Mr. Akin says. And this is to be done at the altar, not in the back room.
In the Philippines where I am right now, there are no Communions under both kinds (except of course at the priest’s Communion.
Hey Jimmy,What is to be done if the precious body or blood has been contaminated somehow, e.g. at a nursing home a patient attempts to recieve and has the host in their mouth but then is unable to swallow? I suppose a consecrated host can be dissolved, but is there a similar procedure for the precious blood?
No prem wrote: >>If it’s true that “When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass, the change is permanent.” then why the caution? Can’t God take care of his own “Body and Blood”? If He really needs such complicated interventions, then …?<< Can’t “God take care of His own Body and Blood’?” Yes, but the answer is “No.” He has given Himself to His people as food and drink unto everlasting Life, and why “No”? Because it is all about reverence and belief, or desecration and profanation, and moreover, condemnation for not discerning (1 Cor. 11), a judgment one does to one’s self. God is profaned and desecrated every single moment by all the evil in the world, and does He do anything about it? Like you say, God can take care of Himself, but He doesn’t because then He would not be a Merciful and Just God, and He leaves to us to do with our own free will. If we are to follow Him, then we do as He has commanded (Matthew 28:20). It’s His way or the highway (Matthew 7:13). Thus what has been the issue of this discussion is all about the desecration of the Precious Blood and what we who believe need to do to avoid the it. I thank Mr. Akin for bringing up this very important Catholic teaching which millions of Catholics, including prelates, clergy and religious instructors are ignorant of or just plain don’t care. How much more will Jesus take offense of this kind?
Vincentius, it’s a very common occurrence for Catholics to cry “desecration” when someone quotes a scripture that contradicts catechism teaching. The response is to quote the catechism, which may be admirable in the Church but is certainly not evangelization. My answers come from the Bible; I’m capable of finding my own “Catholic answers” here http://www.pcpbooks.net/docs/baltimore_catechism.pdf or other places.
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I compared the Bible with the teachings of various church organizations long ago, and found all the latter to be wanting.
I agree wholeheartedly with one of your statements: “If we are to follow Him, then we do as He has commanded (Matthew 28:20).”But there is a statement of his that should be of interest to any who claim to follow him:” Not every one that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in your name, and cast out devils in your name, and done many miracles in your name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.”
These people, in “that day” do much prophesying and miracle working IN HIS NAME, yet he calls them “workers of iniquity”. Why is this, and what did they fail to do? And what great sin did the people of Noah’s day commit that led to their deaths? (It’s a fair question because Jesus likened Noah’s day to the last days.)
@nopremsaid: “Vincentius, it’s a very common occurrence for Catholics to cry “desecration” when someone quotes a scripture that contradicts catechism teaching.” WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION WHICH YOU FAIL TO MENTION.
I QUOTE THE BIBLE, NOT CATECHISM. IF YOU ARE A SOLA BIBLIA BELIEVER, THEN YOU SHOULD KNOW 1 COR 11:24, ESP. VERSE [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (MEANING ETERNAL DEATH IN HELL).
TELL ME NOPREM, WOULD YOU TAKE A CHANCE AT PAUL’S WARNING AND DARE GO TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND RECEIVE THE SACRED HOST, WHICH YOU DENY TO BE THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND RISK BEING JUDGED AND CONDEMNED? BET YOU WOULDN’T.
DID YOU EVER REALIZED WHERE THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE YOU NOW HOLD AS YOUR FAITH WAS ORIGINALLY CODIFIED — WHEN AND BY WHOM? DID YOU KNOW THAT THE TEACHING CHURCH WAS IN EXISTENCE BEFORE ANY WRITTEN WORD OF THE BIBLE WAS COMPILED INTO ONE BOOK?
BUT LET ME TELL SOMETHING YOU DON’T KNOW: THAT THE BIBLE ITSELF AS CONTAINED IN THAT BOOK YOU HOLD IN YOUR HAND IS NOT **COMPLETE**? THERE ARE MANY THINGS LACKING.
JOHN 16:12-13 “I have **much more** to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” SO THERE WAS MUCH MORE (DOCTRINES) TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.
JOHN 21[25] ” But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” WHERE ARE THESE THINGS NOIT FOUND IN THE BIBLE? IN SACRED TRADITION AND IN THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. NO OTHER CHURCH CAN MAKE THIS CLAIM.
SO I BEG YOUR PARDON, THERE IS MUCH MISSING IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT ABOUT SALVATION THAN WHAT YOU THINK YOU ALREADY KNOW ABOUT EVERYTHING. YOU ARE MISSING A LOT, MY FRIEND. i SUGGEST YOU READ JOHN CHAPTER 6 REGARDING THE EUCHARIST, AND FROM THERE ON THINGS WOULD BECOME CLEARER.
SORRY i HAD TO WRITE IN CAPS BECAUSE THE SENTENCES RUN THROUGH AND GET MIXED UP.
“WOULD YOU … DARE GO TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND RECEIVE THE SACRED HOST” Of course I would not go: What fellowship has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial? Or what part have I with the unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols or transubstantiation? (Cf. 2 Cor 6)
When a Catholic tells me ‘my church wrote the Bible’ or some such, I wonder why that same Catholic doesn’t accept his own Bible. Viz the comments on the plain language of Rev 3:12 here. Jehovah- not a Catholic- dictated the Bible by inspiration of Holy Spirit to some 40 men. Some of them also interpreted parts of it. I rely on them, and not one was ever called “Doctor of the Church”.
“JOHN 21[25]” … and since the ‘other things’ weren’t written, apostate men have made up stories, claiming that they were from God. But I was forewarned about this, and avoid such ones. (” I know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And OF YOUR OWN SELVES shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” and “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”)
John 6 reads the same in my Bible as in yours: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world … He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life”, and so on. Since Jesus’ followers did NOT ‘eat his flesh nor drink his blood’ at the Last Supper [he was there in front of them, remember], and since Paul [referring to his physical death] said Jesus offered himself ‘once for all’ [some 2000 years ago], then he is not “present” at any recreation of the Last Supper. Therefore Jesus must have meant ‘this MEANS my body … blood’. Any religion that claims otherwise is, no doubt, adhering to its own doctrines but is getting far away from God’s word, the Holy Bible. We here have all seen you adhering to doctrine and me adhering to God’s word.
@noprem When some serious discussion is exchanged, the discussion should not divert to ipse dixits (“my say so”) which your arguments are full of. This no longer can proceed with an honest repartee. And aside from the ipse dixits, resorting to philological stunts of unusual phrases and syntactic rigmarole and egregious comments about references to Scripture that are close to blasphemous, are not ways to ffer replies, but the only way to defend one’s own belief by resorting to logical fallacies. Good night, sir.
“references to Scripture that are close to blasphemous”
Which? My references, or the Scriptures? No quotes or cites, so we readers are unable to tell.
“close to blasphemous”
Therefore, you agree they’re not blasphemous. Thanks for clearing that up.
To emphasize my main point, and the one that directly addresses Mr Akin’s OP: The key RCC doctrine here is that Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and so on are “present” at the Mass within the bread and wine. Yet, at the very first occasion, some 2000 years ago, that was not nor could it have been the case, BECAUSE Jesus was there in front of them. Jesus here; bread there; wine over there.
@noprem This is amusing. You are likened to a pigeon which excretes on a chessboard and chirps victoriously(read up about the Dunning-Kruger effect). Trolling in a Catholic website doesn’t waver their faith nor does it help in building up your seemingly insignificant self esteem. Do spend your time with the Lord in prayer and learn to be more Christ-like. Since God’s Grace is so all-encompassing, you might still be saved with all that detestably foul attitude of yours. However, do keep in mind that you are squandering the God’s Love for you. May the Peace of Christ be with you since I have no peace of any kind to offer to a self-righteous person as yourself.
“a pigeon which excretes on a chessboard and chirps victoriously … with all that detestably foul attitude of yours.”
Dunning-Kruger: Not in Bible; Doctors of the Church?
Well, I’ve been called worse. By those to whom I quoted their own Bible, as here. Similar to Vicentius, who said, ”
“references to Scripture that are close to blasphemous”
To which I replied, “Which? My references, or the Scriptures? No quotes or cites, so we readers are unable to tell.” Your turn.
I like your username; unintentional humor? Php 3:6; Rom 10:2.
Several of you are acting as if there is NO controversy about the transfiguration OUTSIDE the church; in fact, it’s a major difference between Catholics and Protestants. WITHIN the Church there is great ignorance of this complex doctrine among those catechized ones who don’t frequent blogs- the great unwashed, perhaps? (The Jews called theirs amharets or ‘people of the earth’. Originally a literal reading; by Jesus’ time the meaning was, clearly, “dirt”.) Those are the ones I talk to, at their own doors, on their own time. They very much appreciate a loving, one-part God, with a personal name even atheist scholars agree on, who explains himself via a widely-available book. And the benefit to following THAT God, instead of the three-headed one (per many RCC-artist renditions) who burns folks in Hellfire and isolates himself behind his Son and his “mother”, is that they get to live forever in a paradise on Earth- something they’ve desired all their lives.
Folks, keep your CCC to yourselves; I’m capable of reading it on my own and have done so. If you want to teach me or “convert” me, use your own Bibles: Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem, Confraternity RSV, St Joseph’s … It’s what I do when talking to you- and to lurkers.