Priest's drunkeness resulting from too much Precious Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ana_v
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maryjk said:
But this is a priest. Someone that would consume Precious Blood EVERY DAY. Conceivably several times a day, on a Sunday. This isn’t someone that rarely drinks.
Click to expand...
Sips of wine, even multiple times a day does not equal drinking wine.

I attend daily Mass. So I get a sip of wine every day. But I do not drink alcohol on a regular basis. So one glass of wine, one mixed drink, or one beer makes me feel “buzzed”. Not drunk but I feel the affect.
 
maryjk said:
But this is a priest. Someone that would consume Precious Blood EVERY DAY. Conceivably several times a day, on a Sunday. This isn’t someone that rarely drinks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve gotten used to it more now that my parish has gone back to both species.

My point was not to discuss the liklihood that this particular priest, or any other priest, actually got drunk on any particular occasion. Quite frankly, I find it tangential to the issue of whether anyone can feel the effects of alcohol when consuming the Precious Blood. Calling the guy on facebook a liar doesn’t address the question at hand and only confirms every suspicion the facebook guy and those who read his posts have, that Catholics believe in impossible fairy tales and are ignorant of cold, hard, scientific realities; that we are all just fools.

The point is that the facebook guy is ignorant of the Eucharist, particularly the ideas of “Substantial presence” and the fact that the accidents remain. Drinking sufficient quantities of Precious Blood will cause drunkeness because all external appearances, attributes and effects of wine remain. That’s my point.

Arguing about how much priests drink only confirms everthing they incorrectly believe.

-Tim-
 
Friar_David_O.Carm said:
Sips of wine, even multiple times a day does not equal drinking wine.

I attend daily Mass. So I get a sip of wine every day. But I do not drink alcohol on a regular basis. So one glass of wine, one mixed drink, or one beer makes me feel “buzzed”. Not drunk but I feel the affect.
Click to expand...
Of course you feel it.

But as you said, not drunk.

And not until that alcohol enters your blood stream.

My point is, the guy referenced in the OP is not telling the truth.
 
Friar_David_O.Carm said:
Sips of wine, even multiple times a day does not equal drinking wine.

I attend daily Mass. So I get a sip of wine every day. But I do not drink alcohol on a regular basis. So one glass of wine, one mixed drink, or one beer makes me feel “buzzed”. Not drunk but I feel the affect.
Click to expand...
I had to finish an amost full chalice once. Gulp, gulp, gulp… Whew! :hypno:

Talk about putting new wine into an old wineskin. 😃

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Arguing about how much priests drink only confirms everthing they incorrectly believe.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
I guess I have been confronted by too many anti-Catholic people. Most of them really don’t care about Catholic teaching. They only want to get a couple of thumbs up from their anti-Catholic friends.

My go to comment for most of that type of thing, when they claim we believe something we don’t, is “Prove it.”
 
maryjk said:
I guess I have been confronted by too many anti-Catholic people. Most of them really don’t care about Catholic teaching. They only want to get a couple of thumbs up from their anti-Catholic friends.

My go to comment for most of that type of thing, when they claim we believe something we don’t, is “Prove it.”
Click to expand...
I go to Mary.

They generally shut up and pay attention as soon as I mention Mary because they expect me to say something completely rediculous. I’ve learned a few very quick responses to show how Mary is the mother of all who “Believe in Jesus Christ and obey God’s commandments” (Revelation 12:17) or, if I have slightly more time, show how Mary is a Queen.

I seek the higher ground rather than tossing the ball into their court and asking them to hit it back to me. My goal is to show one beautiful Catholic teaching, something which they never heard but which is very beautiful, and leave it there. I want them to say, “Gee, I never thought of that” or “You know, that’s actually pretty cool”, as a way to show that we are not complete fools and that there is beauty in our faith.

That’s the seed. Water it with prayer. You may find that they come back to you to ask questions about what Catholics really believe. That’s when real evangelization can start. It’s a process, not an event, and God is in control of the process. It works on his time, not ours.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
.

It would however, still retain the accidents (pronounced a-seed-ents) of wine.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Is that right, Timothy? I’ve only ever heard it pronounced AX see dents, as in unforeseen happening, and always wondered why that word was used.

How interesting.
 
As has already been mentioned the veracity of this fellow’s anecdote about the drunken priest is highly doubtful. But at the heart of the matter is a misunderstanding of Transubstantiation. When a priest confects the Most Holy Eucharist Our Lord is not physically present. The physical properties of bread and wine remain. It smells like wine, it tastes like wine and it will effect the body like wine. But it is substantially not wine. The substance of the wine has been annihilated and the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is then present. The misunderstanding is due to the fellow’s modern understanding of what substance is.
 
This happened to me once. As a transitional deacon, I was assisting at a large Mass in the Cathedral where I was attending seminary. The sacristans made a mistake and set out too many chalices. We did not realize this until after the consecration. So, myself and one other deacon had to consume a good eight ounces of Precious Blood very very quickly. I’m not a heavy drinker by any stretch of the imagination, and I was most certainly feeling the effects of this. I waited a little while to drive home after that.

But, the point that has been made, about the accidents remaining even after the substance has changed, is correct. You could almost say that the sacrament would lose some of its sign value were the accident of alcohol not to remain. Think of the Anima Christi prayer. There is a beautiful line in that prayer, “Blood of Christ, inebriate me.”
 
TimothyH said:
the accidents (pronounced a-seed-ents) of wine.
Click to expand...
Tim,

Interesting claim. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone assert that, when saying the English word ‘accident’, one should use Latin pronunciation… :hmmm:
 
It sounds like the priest was likely having a stroke; if it happens again, I would find a parishioner who is also a medical professional and have him/her check on the priest.
 
jkarp said:
It sounds like the priest was likely having a stroke; if it happens again, I would find a parishioner who is also a medical professional and have him/her check on the priest.
Click to expand...
Is it a sin to laugh at this?

-Tim-
 
Very unlikely that this happened the way your friend said it did. Sounds like a VERY tall tale to me! Even when we didn’t have many people show up for Mass (example: one winter the weather was really bad and a lot of the elderly weren’t able to go because of ice) there was still practically nothing left over. My guess is that the priest realizes how much will be needed so that there isn’t a lot left over (if any) and certainly not enough for him to stand up there and knock down enough wine to get himself “very drunk” in front of the congregation. I’m afraid I’d have to call your friend out on that one. Sounds like he’s just trying to give that Catholic priest a bad rap.
 
Gorgias said:
I’m assuming that ya’ll informed him that the accidents remain, so that the accidents of wine (color, taste, fragrance, alcoholic content) are still there?
Click to expand...
I did not, but perhaps others did.

He is not someone that is on my friends list. In the interest of full discloure: he was at one point, about two years ago back after we crossed paths on the comment thread of a Calvinist. He sent a friend request, I accepted. At the time I hadn’t come back to the Church yet so even though back then too he made posts critical of Catholicism, I didn’t really take issue with them. I eventually removed him from friends list without prior notice not for anything personal, it was just that there was nothing binding us and he was not someone whose posts I had any particular interest in keeping up with.

The reason I looked at his Facebook recently, is because one of my Catholics friends posted a status that consists of a screen shot of one of his posts and I had no idea that my friend even knew about this person. That’s what prompted by curiosity to re-visit his Facebook wall, and see what he was up to.

I thought about responding, but we’re talking about a thread flooded with comments by people of the “RCC is false religion” mentality and also, when I comment on a thread of a public profile, the thread appears on the newsfeed of other friends (or so, this seems to be the case given that I have had public threads show up on my news feeds that friends commented on). The last thing I wanted was his post showing up on the newsfeeds of non-Catholic friends who have minimal to no understanding of Catholic teaching, potentially scandalizing them. I always try to be prudent on what things I comment on or hit the “like” button for, on Facebook, and for what purpose.

Is it against CAF rules or etiquette to state the name of this person, so that you can, if you’d like, read some of his posts? As I mentioned, he has an open profile, with almost 5,000 people on his friends list (my guess is it’s just personal connection building, I I’m not aware of him being an apologist or holding public occupation that would attract that number of people).
 
Clergymen, whether they are Catholic priests or clergy of different denominations, rabbis, etc, can and do develop alcoholism at a rate slightly higher than that of the general population but well in line with other professionals who are involved in professions with a high amount of contact with the public. I think, but don’t quote me on this because I have no intention of looking it up, the rate is about 12 percent for human service professionals as opposed to 10 percent of the general population. So what? All that proves is that despite Holy Orders, priests are human beings, subject to the same ills as the rest of us, and possibly slightly more at risk because of the high demands of their vocation.

The good thing is this: Unlike some professions where an alcoholic professional is tolerated long past the time that is healthy for him or his work, the Church, as well as many religious orders of priests, does have many resources to get alcoholic priests into treatment programs, and does so with considerable regularity. And when a priest goes through treatment, it is acceptable for him to consecrate a chalice of something called “mustum” for his own consumption at Mass (wine is what starts out in the chalice that is consecrated for the consumption of the congregation.) From what I understand, it’s basically very slightly fermented grape juice (I’m not a vintner.) The alcohol content is negligible, less than 1 percent. For what it’s worth, the orange juice in your refrigerator, if it’s been there for a day or two, probably has about 0.5 percent alcohol content. So he’d basically have a few options here without endangering his own sobriety: Low-ball estimate the amount of wine to consecrate (I’ve been at Masses where they’ve run out,) have a deacon or EMHC consume the leftovers, or simply offer communion under the species of bread. The priest is the only one who has to receive under both species. Everyone else is optional.

Actually, I’d have a different take on the ex-Catholic Facebook poster whose remark sparked this thread: It’s my suspicion that Facebook makes otherwise pretty balanced people a little unhinged!😛
 
TimothyH said:
Is it a sin to laugh at this?

-Tim-
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why it would be funny. It’s far more likely that an aging priest had a stroke than got schlitzed on a half glass of wine. Stroke symptoms are commonly confused with drunkenness:
  • Trouble with walking. You may stumble or experience sudden dizziness, loss of balance or loss of coordination.
  • Trouble with speaking and understanding. You may experience confusion. You may slur your words or have difficulty understanding speech.
  • Paralysis or numbness of the face, arm or leg. You may develop sudden numbness, weakness or paralysis in your face, arm or leg, especially on one side of your body. Try to raise both your arms over your head at the same time. If one arm begins to fall, you may be having a stroke. Similarly, one side of your mouth may droop when you try to smile.
  • Trouble with seeing in one or both eyes. You may suddenly have blurred or blackened vision in one or both eyes, or you may see double.
  • Headache. A sudden, severe headache, which may be accompanied by vomiting, dizziness or altered consciousness, may indicate you’re having a stroke.
Click to expand...
mayoclinic.com/health/stroke/DS00150/DSECTION=symptoms
Click to expand...
 
Gorgias said:
Tim,

Interesting claim. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone assert that, when saying the English word ‘accident’, one should use Latin pronunciation… :hmmm:
Click to expand...
I have heard that pronunciation before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top