Having Just Watched The Film 'Dont Look...
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Best Before Dates-Holy Communion wafer
158 Answers
Are there best before dates on Holy Communion wafer packets? Catholics believe in transubstantiation i.e that really IS the flesh and blood of Christ (not just a representation of it). So is it 2000 year old Jesus's flesh they are eating, or current Jesus's flesh? Is it Jesus's flesh when it's being made in the factory? Or when the priest blesses it? How does the priest know he is really doing that properly? Can paedophile priest's have the power to change the wafers into real flesh (if so, how come? as they're sinners, not real priests) So the people who've been taking communion from sinners, haven't really recieved Communion afterall. Can you get drunk on a bottle of Communion wine, if so, how? As it's really blood isn't it?
I expect 95% of Catholics don't even know they're supposed to believe it ACTUALLY IS the body and blood of Christ.
I expect 95% of Catholics don't even know they're supposed to believe it ACTUALLY IS the body and blood of Christ.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Marijn. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi jomifl. You really didn't know words had more than one meaning in different circumstances ? Words have always changed their meanings over time ... try looking up nibble in your dictionary - it won't mention that it also means half a byte (4 bits) because that meaning didn't exist when your dictionary was written. Of cousre my 1976 dictionary and the 2002 one we have also don't mention that meaning, the first because it was a bit too soon to include it, the second because it's a technical term not often used.
To understand the doctrine you have to understand the terms as they were used at the time the doctrine came into effect and understand the context in which they were being used. Where transubstantiation is concerned, the meanings of substance and accident are those of Aristotle - the doctrine comes out of a mode of thought which has it's basis in the logic and philosophy of Aristotle. That is hardly "reverting to aristotlean meanings when losing an argument".
You may not agree with what the Catholic church says, but you also can't claim that the church has manipulated the language as you understand it when the original doctrine was stated long before modern English existed, was stated in Latin, and is the result of a logic and set of terms and definitions you don't want to accept. Well, you can claim it, but ... ummm ... no I won't go there.
To understand the doctrine you have to understand the terms as they were used at the time the doctrine came into effect and understand the context in which they were being used. Where transubstantiation is concerned, the meanings of substance and accident are those of Aristotle - the doctrine comes out of a mode of thought which has it's basis in the logic and philosophy of Aristotle. That is hardly "reverting to aristotlean meanings when losing an argument".
You may not agree with what the Catholic church says, but you also can't claim that the church has manipulated the language as you understand it when the original doctrine was stated long before modern English existed, was stated in Latin, and is the result of a logic and set of terms and definitions you don't want to accept. Well, you can claim it, but ... ummm ... no I won't go there.
Hi Waldo. Certainly the way the Catholic church dealt with priests who abused children is completely unsupportable and to be roundly condemmned. However I'm not sure what Fry was building up to at towards the end of that clip ... teacings on contraception in relation to the spread of AIDS perhaps ?
So guesing that the end of that clip was related to contraception, let's get that one out of the way.
If a Catholic is following the teachings of the church, they won't indulge in sex before marriage, and once married won't be having sex outside the marriage.
So you have three possible situations ... the two people are HIV-, one is HIV- and one is HIV+, both are HIV+. If they follow the teachings of their faith, where both are HIV-, there can't be any spread of AIDS. Where one is HIV- and one is HIV+ there is a spread - to one person (I'll deal with children in a moment). Where both are HIV+, no further spread is possible (OK, children next !).
The chances of children becoming infected through the mother are about 1 in 4, and about 1 in 50 if appropriate treatment is given during pregnancy, labour and to the child after birth. And yes I know that for most people in, say, Africa, the cost of treatment is far more than the majority can afford, so that leaves the 1 in 4 figure.
Now, according to a Wikipedia article, the estimate in 2002 was that around 42% of people in Africa were Christians. Not all of those are going to be Catholics though, and the Catholic church's teachings only apply to Catholics. So I'll pick a number ... say 25% of the population of Africa are Catholic. IF they folow the church's teachings are you really going to try and tell me that those teachings are responsible for the spread of Aids in Africa ?
Of course if the Catholics don't follow the church's teachings on restricting sex to marriage, then there is nothing to stop them using contraception if they want to ... they
So guesing that the end of that clip was related to contraception, let's get that one out of the way.
If a Catholic is following the teachings of the church, they won't indulge in sex before marriage, and once married won't be having sex outside the marriage.
So you have three possible situations ... the two people are HIV-, one is HIV- and one is HIV+, both are HIV+. If they follow the teachings of their faith, where both are HIV-, there can't be any spread of AIDS. Where one is HIV- and one is HIV+ there is a spread - to one person (I'll deal with children in a moment). Where both are HIV+, no further spread is possible (OK, children next !).
The chances of children becoming infected through the mother are about 1 in 4, and about 1 in 50 if appropriate treatment is given during pregnancy, labour and to the child after birth. And yes I know that for most people in, say, Africa, the cost of treatment is far more than the majority can afford, so that leaves the 1 in 4 figure.
Now, according to a Wikipedia article, the estimate in 2002 was that around 42% of people in Africa were Christians. Not all of those are going to be Catholics though, and the Catholic church's teachings only apply to Catholics. So I'll pick a number ... say 25% of the population of Africa are Catholic. IF they folow the church's teachings are you really going to try and tell me that those teachings are responsible for the spread of Aids in Africa ?
Of course if the Catholics don't follow the church's teachings on restricting sex to marriage, then there is nothing to stop them using contraception if they want to ... they
oops .. that last one got cut off ... so I'll finish it here
Of course if the Catholics don't follow the church's teachings on restricting sex to marriage, then there is nothing to stop them using contraception if they want to ... they have already ignored one teaching, so ignoring another one shouldn't be a problem and can therefore use contraception if they want to.
Oh dear .. I used the words want to .. silly me.
IF a Catholic is indulging in sex outside of marriage and does not WANT to use contraception, they will use the church's teachings as an excuse not to do something they don't want to do in the first place. I think that's called self justification. Still, I'm sure someone will blame the church's teachings for that too.
And if the church did say contraceptioin was allowable ? Anyone who didn't WANT to use it would just find another excuse not to, AIDS would continue to spread, but at least it would be one less thing for people to attack the church for.
Of course if the Catholics don't follow the church's teachings on restricting sex to marriage, then there is nothing to stop them using contraception if they want to ... they have already ignored one teaching, so ignoring another one shouldn't be a problem and can therefore use contraception if they want to.
Oh dear .. I used the words want to .. silly me.
IF a Catholic is indulging in sex outside of marriage and does not WANT to use contraception, they will use the church's teachings as an excuse not to do something they don't want to do in the first place. I think that's called self justification. Still, I'm sure someone will blame the church's teachings for that too.
And if the church did say contraceptioin was allowable ? Anyone who didn't WANT to use it would just find another excuse not to, AIDS would continue to spread, but at least it would be one less thing for people to attack the church for.
You should view the second part of Fry's speech - it should be linked directly from the first.
Fry's comments do death with the issues of condoms, but are not limited to that one issue.
However, since that is what you've commented on, let's just torpedo your notion that the Catholic Church's stance on condoms only affects Catholics. The stance of the Catholic Church (and other Chrisitian organisations - they are not uniquely responsible) contributes to stances such as that of the US which made it conditional that aid did not advocate the use of condoms; thus condoms are not included in aid packages. Aid packages to affected areas are not distributed on the basis of church membership, so they directly impact on people other than Catholics. Add to that the disinformation that can be directly attributed to Catholic Church (and yes, other, equally ignorant groups too) that condoms acually increase the spread of AIDS. This is nothing less than an utter falsehood, yet it is a belief that has prumulgated far beyond the adherants of that faith.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../panorama/3180236.stm
http://www.timesonlin...th/article5923927.ece
It is either naive astonishingly disingenous of you to pretend that this stance only impacts Catholics but let's be honest, even if it did, it would be no less cataclysmically stupid.
Fry's comments do death with the issues of condoms, but are not limited to that one issue.
However, since that is what you've commented on, let's just torpedo your notion that the Catholic Church's stance on condoms only affects Catholics. The stance of the Catholic Church (and other Chrisitian organisations - they are not uniquely responsible) contributes to stances such as that of the US which made it conditional that aid did not advocate the use of condoms; thus condoms are not included in aid packages. Aid packages to affected areas are not distributed on the basis of church membership, so they directly impact on people other than Catholics. Add to that the disinformation that can be directly attributed to Catholic Church (and yes, other, equally ignorant groups too) that condoms acually increase the spread of AIDS. This is nothing less than an utter falsehood, yet it is a belief that has prumulgated far beyond the adherants of that faith.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../panorama/3180236.stm
http://www.timesonlin...th/article5923927.ece
It is either naive astonishingly disingenous of you to pretend that this stance only impacts Catholics but let's be honest, even if it did, it would be no less cataclysmically stupid.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.