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.
A

Ana_v

Guest
There is a person on Facebook, with a public profile, who is a former Catholic and who devotes much of what he posts on his wall, to questioning/criticizing the Church and its doctrines. Recently, he posted the following, in the context of urging his Catholic friends to explain to him why consecrated bread and wine has the capacity to produce effects in the human body identical to those effects caused by unconsecrated bread and wine. He used two examples: drunkeness and reaction to gluten. Below I will quote the first example, but not for the purpose of gathering answers to his question, but rather as a reference point for a different question (the answer to his question, as we know, is that the accidents of bread and wine do not change upon consecration; the Eucharist retains the chemical properties of bread and wine).

My question is: In the scenario below, what would have been the morally proper solution for the priest (so as to avoid becoming drunk)?

*Note: the ellipses (…) are all original to the post. From what I could tell by skimming his wall, he writes like that all the time.
I have a family friend who is a priest…if there is any wine (Blood of Christ) left over after the Mass, it CANNOT be thrown out, it is ‘sacred’ and supposed to be His Blood…so the priest MUST drink every last drop…got that? well, one Sunday morning when I was still a Catholic, very few attended…there was quite a bit of wine left over…the priest, a friend, had to drink it all…and shortly after that, he became drunk…VERY drunk…tipsy, slurring, etc…now, if the wine is no longer wine at all, but the Blood of Christ, HOW could it cause a man to become drunk? it can’t, but it did…I would really love to hear an explanation for this one…
Click to expand...
 
Ana_v said:
There is a person on Facebook, with a public profile, who is a former Catholic and who devotes much of what he posts on his wall, to questioning/criticizing the Church and its doctrines. Recently, he posted the following, in the context of urging his Catholic friends to explain to him why consecrated bread and wine has the capacity to produce effects in the human body identical to those effects caused by unconsecrated bread and wine. He used two examples: drunkeness and reaction to gluten. Below I will quote the first example, but not for the purpose of gathering answers to his question, but rather as a reference point for a different question (the answer to his question, as we know, is that the accidents of bread and wine do not change upon consecration; the Eucharist retains the chemical properties of bread and wine).

My question is: In the scenario below, what would have been the morally proper solution for the priest (so as to avoid becoming drunk)?

*Note: the ellipses (…) are all original to the post. From what I could tell by skimming his wall, he writes like that all the time.
Click to expand...
First, I do not believe that there was that much left over to get as drunk as this person is saying.

If the priest is unable to consume either species that is left over after Mass he can request that a lay person or persons assist in consuming it.
 
Ana_v said:
There is a person on Facebook, with a public profile, who is a former Catholic and who devotes much of what he posts on his wall, to questioning/criticizing the Church and its doctrines. Recently, he posted the following, in the context of urging his Catholic friends to explain to him why consecrated bread and wine has the capacity to produce effects in the human body identical to those effects caused by unconsecrated bread and wine. He used two examples: drunkeness and reaction to gluten. Below I will quote the first example, but not for the purpose of gathering answers to his question, but rather as a reference point for a different question (the answer to his question, as we know, is that the accidents of bread and wine do not change upon consecration; the Eucharist retains the chemical properties of bread and wine).

My question is: In the scenario below, what would have been the morally proper solution for the priest (so as to avoid becoming drunk)?

*Note: the ellipses (…) are all original to the post. From what I could tell by skimming his wall, he writes like that all the time.
Click to expand...
First of all I would ask him to prove what he said was true and that he wasn’t making up stories just to give Catholics a black eye. Not a new story. Also, point out that it is unlikely the Priest would consecrate too much. Thirdly, the priest could ask any present who had recieved communion if they would step up and help him consume the species in the chalice. If no one voluntered he could reserve the wine in the tabernacle just like the host. No problem unless the priest was having some kind of mental problem. The whole scenario is a non starter.

👍
 
(I’m just going to use the word wine for brevity for my answer, but I do mean the Precious Blood with the accidents of wine)
My first question would be, why would the priest consecrate so much wine? He could obviously see how many people are there and adjust amounts accordingly - or the sacristan could also not bring much wine out (if applicable). Easily preventable.
Second question, why would the Priest be drunk off less than a full glass of wine? We’re not talking a 16 year old having his first drink here. The man has had wine every week for an extended period of time - not exactly a teetotaler. Unless he’s on serious pain meds, but then again, the Priest would know this and again as in my first point, not consecrate so much wine, or have someone else fill in for him.
Lastly, as others have pointed out, the wine could be consumed by laity or reserved with the host in the Tabernacle.
So basically, sounds like a legend to me (made to sound personal to sound more convincing). And what was the point of emphasizing the Priest was a “friend of the family?” Is that perhaps code for “I can’t be biased and making this up because he was a friend”
 
The priest might have been drinking prior to the Mass.

The priest could have been diabetic.

The priest could have been on other medications.

The priest could have simply been tired.

These are just possibilities. As already has been pointed out, the person could have been mistaken, or stretching the truth.
 
I frequently receive communion under both species. At my large home parish, there are two “stations” where one may receive the Most Precious Blood. I don’t think I’ve ever seen more than a couple of ounces in the chalice.

So if you assume that only a couple of people received (unlikely at a Mass where there are several hundred people in attendance,) I think the most a priest would have to consume, even if nobody received, would be six to eight ounces, hardly enough to make an average man tipsy, let alone intoxicated, unless he has a health problem or is on medication that could interact with the alcohol. If the priest goofed a little in overestimating how much wine to consecrate, the deacon could always help him consume the left over Most Precious Blood.

This sounds like a fish tale to me.
 
Of course enough wine will get drunk …why is this surprising?
 
Ana_v said:
Recently, he posted the following, in the context of urging his Catholic friends to explain to him why consecrated bread and wine has the capacity to produce effects in the human body identical to those effects caused by unconsecrated bread and wine.
Click to expand...
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?
My question is: In the scenario below, what would have been the morally proper solution for the priest (so as to avoid becoming drunk)?
Click to expand...
Why is this a question of morality? Unless it hampered his ability to minister later that day – and unless he didn’t have a chance to rest afterward – then why would anyone consider it immoral to consume the Precious Blood that remained following reception of Communion?
 
Think about it. How much time passes between consuming the Precious Blood and ending Mass?

In the OF, it couldn’t be more than 5 - 10 minutes, if that. Think about it.

When you have a drink, how long does it take to effect you? I know one full glass of wine takes more than 10 minutes, closer to 30, for me.

He is lying. Sorry.
 
Ctomlin said:
We had former Priest that was alcoholic, so he was talking extra from the bottle before and after Mass.
Click to expand...
I said one possibility was the priest was drinking before Mass.

There are also medical conditions that mimic ‘drunken behavior.’

Now, on average, you’re not going to see enough left over from a Mass to cause a person to be drunk in the amount of time left after that part of the Mass.
 
october_baby said:
What is it about catholism that make ex-catholics so crazy? :confused:
Click to expand...
Don’t know but it frequently happens. It may be a defence mechanism, a psychological need to justify ones actions. It also works the other way, converts to Catholicism ofter make the best Catholicism. 👍
 
To answer the OP’s question…

The priest could consecrate a gallone of wine and it would cease to be wine. It would become the substance of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity.

It would however, still retain the accidents (pronounced a-seed-ents) of wine. It would have the external appearance of wine, smell like wine, taste like wine and have an effect on the human body like wine. Drinking a gallon of it would likely make one drunk.

To the point everyone else is making, I rarely drink, and if then, very little. I had to consume almost a full chalice of Precious Blood once and it did make me tipsy, but that doesn’t mean that it is not Christ’s Precious Blood. It is the entire substance of Christ’s body, blood, sould and divinity, but since it retains he accidents of wine, it still has the ability to cause us to taste wine, smell wine, and get tipsy.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
To the point everyone else is making,** I rarely drink**, and if then, very little. I had to consume almost a full chalice of Precious Blood once and it did make me tipsy, but that doesn’t mean that it is not Christ’s Precious Blood. It is the entire substance of Christ’s body, blood, sould and divinity, but since it retains he accidents of wine, it still has the ability to cause us to taste wine, smell wine, and get tipsy.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top