Is this valid?(emergency situations and the Eucharist)

[TomH1]

I made no such claim or inference.

You did. You said ‘not “fermented”, but “would ferment”.’ That would indicated that the liquid consumed at the Eucharist contained no fermented grape juice but grape juice that would ferment. That means it may not have fermented by the time it is consumed. Therefore, it would not be valid matter for the Eucharist.

Of course, what churches, etc. purchase for use are bottles of wine which do contain fermented grape juice, i.e. alcohol. That being the case, I do not understand why you made the claim that it must be something that would ferment rather than has fermented.

 

[dochawk]

You did. You said ‘not “fermented”, but “would ferment”.’

Those were the terns a Jesuit priest told me directly. And, frankly, the statement of a random jesuit in a personal conversation carries far more weight than a random guy on the internet (you).

That means it may not have fermented by the time it is consume

No, it doesn’t, which is my point. It is statistically certain that there is alcohol from fermentation in just pressed grapes. Whether or not you have the instruments to measure the amount is another question.

If there is oxygen available, yeast will prefer the aerobic process, but this will not be 100%. This is the reason for splashing must or wort into the fermenter.

Of course, what churches, etc. purchase for use are bottles of wine which do contain fermented grape juice, i.e. alcohol.

“non-alcoholic” on a labemphasized textel tends to mean less than something like .5%, not that it isn’t present. In beer or commercial non-alcoholic wine, that is because the amount that can economically be removed has been.

That being the case, I do not understand why you made the claim that it must be something that would ferment rather than has fermented.

Again, not any assertion, but a Jesuit’s, and I’ll take such statements from any Jesuit (or any other priest) I’ve personally met over any non-clergy here, barring some kind of authentication.

That said, I repeat, there is no such thing as juice of crushed grapes that hasn’t fermented to some degree,

 

[TomH1]

Your argument is all over the place and I cannot see how this can sensibly proceed if you are unwilling to observe the rules of logic. You made a claim. You are beholden to support it and refuse so to do.

To follow your line of argument I do not have to accept that you, another random guy on the Internet, had this conversation with a Jesuit priest. I cannot know that is true. Even if it is fact that it was a priest who also belonged to an order of clerks regular does not mean he was right. What priests say is not infallible.

Even as a graduate in biology with a masters in biochemistry I am not certain without going to check whether there may be a little alcohol present. Unless you can back up what you claim no one is bound to accept it. Those are the rules of logic. Simply saying I do not have to back-up anything tends to lead to suspicion the claim may not be valid.

But, if you do not want to do it that way I am out of this discussion. It leads nowhere useful.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, not any assertion, but a Jesuit’s, and I’ll take such statements from any Jesuit (or any other priest) I’ve personally met over any non-clergy here, barring some kind of authentication.

Ad hominem much?

I mean, it’s not the argument, it’s the one who presents it?

The question comes down to “what distinguishes mustum from grape juice without alcohol?” @Tis_Bearself interprets the documents she cited as “fresh[ly squeezed]”, but the documents seem to be playing “fresh” against “preserved”, so I’m not certain that this interpretation holds up.

She also cited the USCCB and suggests that “less than 1%” could mean “a trace of fermentation”. I would think that one or two molecules of alcohol – which is kinda what you’re suggesting by your assertion of “statistical certainty of immediate fermentation”, right? – isn’t what the Church anticipates, do you?

And, when the documents talk about “suspending fermentation” such that the resulting alcohol content is “typically less than 1%”, we’re still talking about a measurable change in SG, wouldn’t you think? That wouldn’t take place immediately.

 

[runningdude]

I’ve heard somewhere that in emergency situations, freshly pressed grape juice is valid matter for the Precious Blood. Is it true? I’m asking this because I came across a Catholic with celiac disease and a severe intolerance to alcohol online.

There are no “:minimum requirements” for alcohol content in the wine, only a requirement that natural ingredients be used. Grape juice, when pressed, will either naturally turn to wine or spoil. Pasteurized juice, however, would be invalid because it cooked to kill the yeast, and would no longer naturally ferment.

Thus grape juice in its natural state is a valid matter for the Eucharist; the requirement that it be freshly pressed is a practical matter to avoid spoilage.

 

[tafan2]

When I was in college, we had a priest (really great priest) at our university parish. He was a recovering alcoholic. He had a special, very low alcohol content wine, that was in one chalice on the altar separate from the wine that would be distributed (it wasn’t that often in those days, but it was at times) to the laity. He drank out of that one. I didn’t know about it until I was serving mass one Sunday and he after communion he brought me a chalice with the wine left over to drink, I had already received so was a little confused when he presented it to me and said “Blood of Christ”, so I, being an idiot at the time, said amen and took a sip. To which he said, “drink it all”. After mass he explained to me the situation.

 

[dochawk]

I mean, it’s not the argument, it’s the one who presents it?

On a theological question, it is not “ad hominem” to accept a priest’s position over, as I stated, any unknown layman.

This has turned into a sophomoric internet version of angels on the head of a pin; I’ll simply mute and leave.

 

[Gorgias]

On a theological question, it is not “ad hominem” to accept a priest’s position over, as I stated, any unknown layman.

“You’re not a priest, so I’m not listening to your assertion” is the very essence of “ad hominem”. Let me rephrase, in case that helps you see the fallacy: “your argument is wrong because you’re you.” See it now?

This has turned into a sophomoric internet version of angels on the head of a pin

Welcome to the world of internet fora. (This dynamic surprises you?)