Skip to comments.Holy water barred from Vatican flights
Posted on 08/29/2007 8:04:23 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
ROME, Aug 29, 2007 (AFP) - Pilgrims on the Vatican's fledgling airline were stunned to discover that holy water from Lourdes, in southwest France, cannot be taken on board for security reasons, media reports said Wednesday.
French security officers seized the liquid -- reputed to have miracle-giving qualities -- under a Europe-wide anti-terrorism rule that forbids more than 100 millilitres (3.5 British ounces) in each passenger's carry-on baggage.
One pilgrim was so distraught that he drank the holy water on the spot, rather than surrender it to the authorities, Italy's Il Corriere della Sera newspaper reported.
Holy water from Lourdes has a price. One French website, lourdes-water.com, offers a one-litre (35 British ounce) plastic bottle for 100 euros (135 dollars).
Lourdes, a major European centre for Christian pilgrimage, is the first destination for the new air service created under a five-year deal between Mistral Air and the Vatican's pilgrimage bureau.
Service is to be expanded in 2008 to other places sacred to Roman Catholics, including Fatima in Portugal, Santiago di Compostella in Spain and the Sanctuary of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico.
Sheeesh....and from a church.
I trust someone someplace knows this is dishonest. (And I'm sure someone will ask me why. :>)
Definitely a thread that deserves highjacking.
How do you get holy water?
Boil the hell out of it!
That's just silly. First of all, my Googling of the website "lourdes-water.com" came up with no such web address. Second, Lourdes water is available for a donation of any size (translation: a dollar or two for a three-ounce bottle, less if you don't have even that) here in the US, and *no one* would charge $135 for one liter! Any reputable distributor would charge for packaging and shipping costs only, and that would be far, far less than is noted here in the article. This is either a typical MSM botch-job, or Expatica must have aspirations a la "The Onion."
That’s dissappointing. However, so long as they don’t invite the vampires to enter, it shouldn’t be a problem.
I’m sure that they will soon start offering 15ml sizes that can clear airport security.
Sloppy reporting - the site is lourdes-water.org, not .com. They do sell Lourdes water for 100 Euros a liter, though. - http://www.lourdes-water.org/buy/lourdes-water-p-36.html
This doesn’t appear to be a website connected with the actual Catholic Church. It appears to have a link to a schismatic site that claims that all the popes from Blessed John XXIII on were/are heretics.
Even so, no reputable distributor would charge such a price, and the authorities at Lourdes who grant concessions to distributors would never allow such exorbitant rates. Given that lourdes-water.org also links to products from Medjugorje, a highly dubious “apparition site,” one wonders how well affiliated they are with the Church to get a distributorship in the first place. I also notice that they let Aquafina describe how their water is purified! I think they let slip something here about the nature of their water in the fine print...
No knowledgable Catholic would deny that there are hucksters and charlatans out there preying on the gullible. But we are certainly not alone within the Christian camp in that sort of victimization. I’ll leave it to you to figure out the various frauds underway within the various denominations.
I don’t think that the article made the claim that is was an RCC site. Just that one site sells it for that amount. How sad that the woman actually drank it, thinking it would do anything more than any other water of the same purity. Sad.
I didn’t get the impression that she expected the water to do anything. She was just drinking it to keep it from being profaned in the airport trash. After all, unlike the water hawked on the lourdes-water.org site mentioned in the article, this water was *known* by the passenger to be the genuine article, since she procured it on site in Lourdes.
There is no implication from the context that she expected a cure or anything from the water. Indeed, she may have been bringing it home for someone other than herself.
But I would disagree with you about WHY she was bringing the water back. It is obvious there is a reason for purchasing/obtaining "holy" water from one place in regards to other places. Your impression or not does not change the fact that she brought the water back for a special reason. Why that water as compared to any other "holy water"? She expected the water to do something, to be something different than other water. Your argument just does not make sense.
It's .org, not .com
And you are correct. It isn't $135, it's $134.16 for a jug, $20 for the 3 oz airplane size.
You know, these folks could give the televangelists a run for their money in ripping off the gullible.
The 3 ounce bottles are available for *only* $20.12
Here’s a link.
Through ignorance non-Catholics make their disagreements moot. If it is their intention to convert Catholics they should at least know what Catholics believe before they disparage the faith of others who truly know their own faith. Why would any Catholic consider their words against their church when they make their ignorance obvious.
Actually, I am not trying to convert anyone. That is the role of the Holy Spirit. But, I do know more than you think but I will ask the obvious question - WHAT do YOU believe about "holy water"? In YOUR words.
How do you define blessed on a biblical basis? (Sorry, I forgot to ask this in my other reply.)
Given that the water of Lourdes is a material sign direct from the hand of God (as we Catholics see it, anyway), the woman *should* have shown the respect she had for it. I know you don't look at the provenience of Lourdes water with the same eyes we do, but the sentiment is not too hard to understand. The zeal with which you might guard a picture of *your* mother from being thrown out in the airport trash might be a bit different from how I might go about it, and vice versa. But I can certainly see how you might think it important. You might try to view this situation, if it's even real (and the story is just muddled enough to wonder), from our POV, even if you don't actually agree with it.
*scratching my head in confusion*
Ok, if that is what you say, then why did you say that I was wrong in post 11 when I said the same thing. Strange logic you have.
btw - if the law was that they had to throw away a picture of my mother (living) or my long deceased beloved father, then I would have no problem resting in the sovereignty of God knowing that He alone is my peace and joy, and not a picture or a relic of someone or an inert bottle of something or other. For in Him we live and have our being. In Christ alone.
There is no strange logic at all. I highlighted the word God in my post to differentiate between the supposed agents of any miracle. Your italicization of my quote obliterates the italics I myself used for the word "God." I ascribe any miracle coming from the use of the water to God, while you ascribe any claim of a miracle to the water itself. We Catholics do not make the mistake of supposing that the water would be anything more than an instrument in conveying God's miraculous favor, just as the mud that Jesus used to give sight to the blind was just His instrument in that circumstance.
I believe that it is water that was blessed by a priest (I’m sure you know how we think of priests) asking that those who use it be blessed. Sacramenatals, and we have a lot of them, remind us of the Sacraments and our relationship with Holy Trinity. When I make the Sign of the Cross, I am blessing myself, I am making God’s Grace present to myself and I am worshipping Him by using the gifts that He gave us.
I personally use Holy Water to bless our fields and our house. I am imploring God’s help through the use of a physical reminder and presence of God’s Grace.
Expecting to be healed of something by using Holy Water isn’t acceptable to me but God choosing the Holy Water to heal is a glorious occurence. God works throughout creation and uses who and what He will to further His Kingdom, if it is God’s Will it will be done with or without the use of sacramentals.
IOW, sacramentals remind us of God’s Grace and make His Grace present to us in a real way.
The sacraments, OTOH, are true encounters with Jesus, they also impart Grace but in the most intimate encounters with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Can we swing incense instead? :-)
Oh, for Pete's sake! It was only an analogy. Don't be so overwrought. All I was saying was that the woman wanted to keep the water from being profaned, so she drank it. Forget the airport part, then. You would protect a picture of your mother or father from being profaned by someone who sought to destroy it or spit on it or some such, far beyond any effort another person would have undertaken to secure the same picture of *your* parent. The whole point was to get you to try to view things from another person's POV, even if you don't have the same emotional attachment. That's ALL there was to it. Trumpeting your unstinting loyalty to Christ alone (while commendable!) was not particularly a relevant reaction. Read the point to the analogy, don't simply compel it to formulate the punchline to your Statement of Faith. We all presume you are a sincere Christian.
If you knew as much about Catholicism as you seem to proclaim why would you need to ask that question?
I would add that the use of Holy Water proclaims our helplessness and reliance on God. In effect we are saying that we are powerless without the help of God.
Hmm. Do you speak for all RC's? You must not for this woman, for her actions do not say that. Neither do multitudes of others. I don't expect you to understand that though.
If it isn’t the water that is doing the healing or whatever, if it is JUST an instrument, then why care what happens to it? If God is big enough to use whatever He pleases, in the way He pleases, then how can a silly act of man of putting something in one container vs another container inhibit God or cause Him distress? Is not God bigger than a vial of water or a “trash” container? What if it were a bible? Would the woman have eaten the bible? Saudi Arabia does not allow bibles to come into their country - would you eat yours then?
Probably not ... that implies fire. And smoke. Also verboten in today's brave new world of air travel.
I had thought that charter aircraft operated under rules more akin to general aviation than commercial aviation. This is apparently not so.
I am not overwrought. I understand what you were saying. I understand what she did. Her faith was misplaced. We are all supposed to exalt His name in all we do, aren’t we?
Does that mean that you don't know what the biblical use of the word bless is? I was asking you.
Our Lord made good use of His creations in healing. Look at the mud and spittle He used to heal the blindman who was told to wash in the pool of Siloam.
Look to Baptism in the waters of the Jordan.
Baptism is a great healing of our souls.
” Your impression or not does not change the fact that she brought the water back for a special reason. Why that water as compared to any other “holy water”?
Ever hear of a souvenir? A memento? My sister has a rosary blessed by Pope John Paul. Does it mean that the rosary will “do something”, or “be something” different than a rosary I have with the great Benedictine blessing and exorcism by a very holy priest?
No. But I was very happy to be able to pray with her rosary.
Your post goes a long way to show one of the points I am trying to make - but I am sure you did not intend for it to. Oh well...
You’ll have to explain it to me for I am quite stupid sometimes.
So you think you can impute your reasoning to her action? Do you read the hearts and minds of everyone or just this woman?
Oh, I said the “magic word:” Rosary.
You don’t understand Sacramentals and it is no use trying to tell me that I don’t follow Jesus because of our beliefs in the blesings of a priest on a creature created by Our Lord in imitation of what He did.
Remember these words?
“- St. Matthew 26:26-32:
26- While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27- Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28- for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
29- I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”
30- Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
31- Then Jesus said to them, “This night all of you will have your faith in me shaken, for it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed’;
32- but after I have been raised up, I shall go before you to Galilee.”
He Blessed the Bread.
Blessing things is pretty biblical.
You have said that you know about Catholicism and so I can only assume that you are attempting to play games with my beliefs because you don't accept them and I refuse to play that game anymore.
If you truly would like to be Catechized, I'll go the whole nine yards with you but if you are attempting to influence my thinking or disparage my faith then I won't go there anymore. Matthew 7:6
Yes, I know the biblical use of the word bless, I also know the Catholic beliefs, if you really know them and don’t accept them, fine.
LOL... back at ya!
I think we all know the type. They think they have knowledge and intelligence that we lack or we would believe the way they believe. They never consider that they could be wrong. They think that we are ignorant about Protestants and their myriad beliefs and that we have considered them and found them partial and not whole.
I think we all know the type. They think they have knowledge and intelligence that we lack or we would believe the way they believe. They never consider that they could be wrong. They think that we are ignorant about Protestants and their myriad beliefs and NOT that we have considered them and found them partial and not whole.
Here’s another creature of our Lord’s:
“Chrism is used in the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, in the consecration of churches, chalices, patens, altars, and altar-stones, and in the solemn blessing of bells and baptismal water. The head of the newly-baptized is anointed with chrism, the forehead of the person confirmed, the head and hands of a bishop at his consecration, and the hands of a priest at his ordination. So are the walls of churches, which are solemnly consecrated, anointed with the same holy oil, and the parts of the sacred vessels used in the Mass which come in contact with the Sacred Species, as the paten and chalice. If it be asked why chrism has been thus introduced into the functions of the church liturgy, a reason is found in its special fitness for this purpose by reason of its symbolical significance. For olive-oil, being of its own nature rich, diffusive, and abiding, is fitted to represent the copious outpouring of sacramental grace, while balsam, which gives forth most agreeable and fragrant odours, typifies the innate sweetness of Christian virtue. Oil also gives strength and suppleness to the limbs, while balsam preserves from corruption. Thus anointing with chrism aptly signifies that fulness of grace and spiritual strength by which we are enabled to resist the contagion of sin and prduce the sweet flowers of virtue. “For we are the good odour of Christ unto God” (II Cor., ii, 15).”
CHRISM: A combination of oil and sweet balsam or perfume that is mixed and consecrated by the bishop and used to anoint newly baptized people and newly ordained priests and bishops.Chrism is also used in the consecration of churches and altars.
The use of oils to anoint has a great place in the Scriptures:
“The gospels contain three other stories in which a woman anoints Jesus with perfume. Both Matthew and Mark begin their account of Jesus passion by recounting the story of a nameless woman who anoints Jesus head with a very costly perfume (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9). John also begins his passion account with a similar storyonly in Johns version, the woman is Mary, Marthas sister. For John, the anointing takes place in Martha and Marys home, and Mary anoints Jesus feet, not his head (John 12:1-8). Luke tells us that the host is a Pharisee named Simon, while Mark and Matthew call him Simon the leper.”
Jesus is anointed at His burial.
There so many references to God’s creatures in the Bible and their use in blessing that ignore seems to be a bit willful. IMVHO.
Amen to that! LOL!
I find it odd that you are not willing to explain what you mean by bless. I find it odd that you yourself say that the biblical defintion and the RCC definition are different. I truly wanted to know what you mean by bless. You are the one that used the word. But it would seem that either you do not know, or you don’t think they are the same or whatever. Your evasions speak volumes.
I am not trying to play games. I am quite serious. I also know that there is nothing that I could say or do to change your thinking. In the end, it is the Lord Jesus Christ whom we are to exalt, and I am trying to do that here, yet you want to cast me out, essentially calling me a dog or a swine. Oh well. I have been called worse. It is also always very eye opening when people resort to name calling (with or without scripture). That says a lot to me about you.
In the end, water can’t make you happy, just as water can’t be made happy. It is not necessarily wrong to understand that the Lord God can and does use whatever He wishes to bring someone to a greater knowledge of Himself - which is the only true joy there is. But it is wrong to worship the created thing that He does use. The woman showed an unholy reverence to that vial of water. It did not exalt the name of Christ. It was wrong.
If your feather are ruffled because of that and you want to call me names, then that is sure sign that sin is having its way with you in one way or another. I will let you find the scriptural passages (and there are several) that teach us that truth. When that happens, we need to be on our knees asking Him to show us the evil way in us. And, if we are not being double-minded (James 1), He will do just that. For He is faithful and He will complete the work that He began in those who are known by His name.
A little boy who was extremely ill went to Lourdes. As he was being Blessed, he was heard to say this out loud.
"Lord if you do not make me better, I am going to tell your Mother."
BTW, the boy did recover.
“...yet you want to cast me out, essentially calling me a dog or a swine. Oh well. I have been called worse. It is also always very eye opening when people resort to name calling (with or without scripture). That says a lot to me about you.”
No one said that nor would anyone ever say that.
It doesn’t help your argument.
FYI - here is an intersting word study. Just in the New Testamen, here are the uses of the word bless, blessed, blessing. The study should reveal to us some interesting things.
Luke 6:28; Acts 3:26; Rom. 12:14; 1Co. 4:12; 10:16; 14:16; Heb. 6:14; Jam. 3:9; 1Pe. 3:9;Mat. 5:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; 11:6; 13:16; 14:19; 16:17; 21:9; 23:39; 24:46; 25:34; 26:26; Mark 6:41; 8:7; 10:16; 11:9, 10; 14:22, 61; Luke 1:42, 45, 48, 68; 2:28, 34; 6:20, 21, 22; 7:23; 9:16; 10:23; 11:27, 28; 12:37, 38, 43; 13:35; 14:14, 15; 19:38; 23:29; 24:30, 50, 51; John 12:13; 13:17; 20:29; Acts 3:25; 20:35; Rom. 1:25; 4:7, 8; 9:5; 2Co. 1:3; 11:31; Gal. 3:8, 9; Eph. 1:3; 1Ti. 1:11; 6:15; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 7:1, 6, 7; 11:21; Jam. 1:12, 25; 1Pe. 1:3; 3:14; 4:14; Rev. 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14;Luke 1:64; 24:53; Rom. 4:6, 9; 15:29; 1Co. 10:16; 2Co. 1:11; 9:8; Gal. 3:14; Eph. 1:3; Heb. 6:7; 12:17; Jam. 3:10; 1Pe. 3:9; Rev. 5:12, 13; 7:12;
“”But it is wrong to worship the created thing that He does use. The woman showed an unholy reverence to that vial of water. It did not exalt the name of Christ. It was wrong.”
You used two words, Worship and Reverence to define your argument.
They are not the same thing. We worship God alone. Only God in the Trinity.
We reverence (respect) the flag, our mother, and apple pie. The woman was showing respect for a sacramental that you don’t believe is blessed by a priest who is blessed and consecrated from an unbroken line from the Lord, Jesus blessing and consecrating Apostles, namely Peter, to our time.
It is an unbroken line of the Lord’s blessing.
Your interpretations of your belief are predicated on your own particular prejudice.
I don’t share your interpretations. Yours, according to my own belief are wrong.
Have a nice day.
Well, did you read the scripture in tiki's post #38? It seems pretty obvious that he/she was calling me. I don't think the lady in the airport was the object. LOL
Don't get me wrong. I really don't care what tiki said or says about me. But please don't say they didn't say it when they did. Unless they would like to explain why they used that verse when I was questioning why the water is "holy" and how it got that way, especially that particular vial and they were not able or were not willing to give a simple definition of the word bless. A word they used to explain why it was "holy". Seems pretty straightforward to me. It didn't help their argument either. :)