No your wife is not obligated to drink the consecrated wine, which Catholics refer to as the blood of Christ.
It was not my intention to insult anyone’s beliefs. I was under the impression that it was ok to call it wine and that it didn’t become the actual body and blood until consumed. If I am wrong, please correct me.
It is acceptable to call it bread and wine even after it has been consecrated.
I suppose it is all in how you read it - if you are looking for offense you will find it, because I certainly did not intend any. My apologies if you misunderstood.
Yes - that is very right. And just as we would all jump to catch Christ if He were falling from a ledge, we jump to catch Him if he falls from the priest’s hands.
I think there are two different issues here.
Hi, SJ…please correct me, but in another post, I think you stated you have attended a Mass before.
Actually the original post was labeled “do you have to drink the wine” and then he went back and edited it. And I did not jump on his back about it. Only one response corrected him in a manner you could call “jumping” and lizanne apologized for that. Please read posts carefully before lumping people together saying “everyone”.
I THOUGHT the title said wine!!! Thank you for pointing out that it had changed, I knew I saw that and it is WHY I even bothered to open the thread. Glad to know I’m not loosing it!!
Too right, but it is acceptable for people to fast from whatever they feel called to fast from for whatever period they feel called to that fast. For example many give up chocolate for lent. That is not inherently an indictment against chocolate. I gave up coffee and dessert for a year when I was petitioning God for something important.
Among many meanline Protestants the entire idea of God giving his Son to be murdered as a way to redeem us seems to echo paganism, also. Evangelical Protestants emphasize that point, as do Catholics, but 'liberal' Protestants often feel queezie about it. God ordained that humankind murders his only begotten Son in order to save humankind? Wasn't there a better way? A less violent way? If any father would give up his son to be murdered today, we would accuse him of child abuse or worse.
Then, from another standpoint, while the murder of Jesus was a heinous crime, true, in three days he would rise and eternally reign as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, sitting 'on the right hand of God the Father Almighty' - whatever that means. It seems to reflect the notion that God is up in the sky somewhere, sitting on a throne.
Should we leave such images alone? Or, do they need to be revisited and possibly revised? Just asking. I know, for me, of a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage, I'm troubled by much of this sort of doctrine. It sounds so primitive in today's world. I'm much more touched by the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the closing verses of Matthew 25 and other teachings and experiences of Christ found in the Gospels.I didn’t say there was. I suggested they examine the root of the issue-- which may be an erroneous belief about alcohol. I then stated that if she STILL feels called to refrain from all alcohol, then to let the priest know so he could make accomodations at FHC, which tyipcally includes receiving both species.
Well, as you know, within human flesh IS blood. That would be the extent of my scientific explanation…
) inspired to the best of my understanding.
