Church consecration mechanism

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Suppose we have an atom of consecrated uranium-235. After a nuclear chain reaction, it divides, turning into two atoms - krypton and barium.

Can these atoms be considered sanctified? The protons are basically the same.

Or will the loss of free neutrons nullify the sacrament?

Hmm … but curiously, during the rite of consecration, the whole object is consecrated, the sprinkled part, or some radius from the place of the ceremony?

For example, our patriarch last year consecrated the Jordan River (after the baptism of Jesus in it for the patriarch, it did not seem holy enough). So, did he consecrate it in its entirety, that part of the shore where it stood, or a certain volume of water flowing near him at that moment?

It seems to be all. If all, then what prevented him from consecrating the entire Earth (yes, at the same time, the entire universe), saving all the other clergy and himself personally from the subsequent routine work of consecrating everything around in small pieces?

I’m not pumping it up, just natural curiosity.

I've been thinking about it too.

But, for example, at Epiphany the water is consecrated every year. And this means that holiness is somehow lost from her. On the other hand, if that Epiphany water is poured into a closed bottle, the sanctity will remain for at least a year, until the next Epiphany.

Here I have two assumptions:

1. Water in reservoirs loses its sanctity because all sorts of atheists bathe in it in summer.

2. Water loses its holiness, passing through the cycle, that is, having evaporated, it ascends into the heights of the heights and holiness (which, as you know, is lighter than water) returns to where it came from, that is, to heaven, and water with rain falls already in the form distillate, no holiness.

Is it possible to bring holiness to anything? Or are there things that cannot be sanctified? Are there materials shielding from induced holiness (eg Buddhists).

I would also like to point out that sanctification is more of a psychological procedure than a physical one. For example, if a person is sprinkled with holy water, then he will be sanctified, but clothes will not. At the same time, if the priest deliberately sanctifies the clothing, then it is likely to be consecrated. Those. it all depends on the motives of the priest.

Those. only that which the priest sanctified will be sanctified. Therefore, after its decay, uranium will cease to be consecrated, because the priest consecrated uranium, not barium and krypton.

At the same time, if the priest purposefully consecrates the neutrons and protons inside the uranium, then after the disintegration of the atom they will retain their sanctification.

Tell me: if an ice-hole is consecrated (in fact, a discontinuity in the thickness of the ice), then why do they plunge into the water? Can you sanctify the visible boundaries of something in the same way and just go through it? (say a hoop?)

Or do you mean the boundaries of the discontinuity, plus the surface of the water enclosed in them?

And where is the border between the consecrated and unconsecrated body of water? Let's say I drill the ice 15 meters from the hole - will there be consecrated water?

I'm not being foolish, I'm really interested. I also asked a question in a parallel topic, but they did not give an answer.

Suppose a priest blesses the proton launch vehicle. That, in turn, 15 seconds after the start explodes, the flash from the explosion is seen by, say, a thousand people. Then they all find themselves communing with holiness (see the postulate about the transition of a holy mass into holy energy).

But if among this thousand there are people of DIFFERENT confessions, then it turns out that they will be sanctified by the holy light against their will? In this case, will not the feelings of believers be hurt in the sense that they are consecrated without their knowledge, not according to their faith?

Perhaps it is necessary to develop a certain conceptual mechanism, so that later, gradually move on to the formation of the Theory of Holiness. Now, obviously, this whole kitchen revolves on the many years of empirical experience of generations of sanctifiers, and, accordingly, suffers from a lack of a systematic approach.

It is clear that a carefully developed theory in a purely practical sense will allow solving such urgent problems as:

- precise definition of boundaries and level of holiness

- precise definition of the boundaries and level of filth

- calculation of the required level of holiness, depending on the physical characteristics of the consecrated object

- development of methods of desecration

- development of methods for prolonging holiness

and much more, which is so lacking at the moment.

I read it … Well, you wrote the garbage here.

When consecrated, the priest does not generate "holiness". Holiness, it is God's Grace, allocated by God to the earth in a limited amount. And the priest just redistributes it. "Pulling" from previously consecrated objects and concentrating on what is being sanctified now.

There are objects that poorly hold grace and it is easy to pull it out of them (open reservoirs, gases, etc.). That is why the baptismal water is consecrated anew every year.

But the corpses of the saints or their clothing items - on the contrary. Grace is very strong, without losing its level over the centuries. It is possible to "draw" grace out of them only by a special ritual of desecration.

So, let's collect all the facts we know about the mechanism of holy interaction:

1) it is short-lived - for the transmission of holiness, close contact with the source is needed (ablution, touch);

2) it is unstable, while the decay period depends on the type of aggregate state of the substance - it can persist for centuries for solids, at least a year for a liquid, there is no data for a gaseous state, it can exist in the form of plasma (holy fire) for at least several days;

3) it must be quantized, otherwise the world ocean could be consecrated with a bottle of holy water;

4) it can be compensated (defiled) by a source opposite in sign.

What conclusions and assumptions can we draw about the nature of such power from these facts?

I still have questions:

A priest who sanctifies water - a source of divine grace or a guide?

Is the supply of grace at the source finite or is it replenishing?

Are conductive properties dependent on sinlessness / age / health / spiritual dignity?

Can an individual outside of religion accumulate or conduct grace and transmit it to objects and substances, if he is more sinless than certified clergymen?

Well, to the heap: does Breguet increase potential grace or does it contain its excess in order to avoid involuntary leakage?

If you go back to the roots of "ritual purity", then it turns out that initially it was a banal way to make people wash.

The Book of Deuteronomy (the 2nd oldest book of the Torah) describes the exact rituals that every man and every woman must observe. For everyone - washing hands before and after eating (otherwise the food is ritually unclean and the blessing of the bread does not work). For men - immersion in the holy spring once a week, for women - once a week, plus a special ritual after menstruation. If he was in the house where someone died - unclean. If he was in the field with cattle, he was unclean. Etc.

Moreover, holy water is only running water, in a stream, river or, in the worst case, in an aqueduct. Stagnant water in a pond or pool is not sacred.

In the case of infectious diseases, there are quarantine rules, and even a recipe for making holy (bactericidal) soap in the field.

Just go explain to a shepherd in 2000 BC what is Koch's bacillus or tuberculous bacillus. So they wrote "without ablution - unclean, unholy, get out of the village until you are cleansed."

Unfortunately, only holy water (with Koch sticks) remained from the well-thought-out epidemiological policy of the ancient Jews.

Video on the topic: