If you want your 15 minutes of fame by any means, it's not a bright idea to publicly throw out such statements in a society of 300 million where 30,000 other kooks also want their 15 minutes of fame by any means.
Posted on 07/15/2008 4:47:28 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the latest developments to surface regarding the pledge made by Paul Z. Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota, to desecrate the Eucharist:
“Myers was quoted yesterday saying, ‘I have to do something. I’m not going to just let this disappear.’ [Last Friday it was reported that he had acquired a Host.] He continued, ‘Something will be done. It won’t be gross. It won’t be totally tasteless, but yeah, I’ll do something that shows this cracker has no power.’
“The biology professor made it clear that he would never disrespect Islam the way he does Catholicism. When asked about those who abuse the Koran, for example, he said such an act was analogous to desecrating a graveyard. ‘That’s completely different,’ he said. ‘I don’t favor [that idea].’ But when it comes to the Body of Christ, he opines, ‘The cracker is completely different.’
“This isn’t the first time Myers has shown deference to Islam. For instance, two years ago he was critical of the Danish cartoons that simply depicted an image of Muhammad. ‘They [the cartoons] lack artistic or social or even comedic merit, and are presented as an insult to inflame a poor minority.’ So now the Planet-of-the-Apes biologist has divined himself an expert on the artistic value of cartoons. So thoughtful of him. He even went so far as to say that Muslims ‘have cause to be furious.’ (His italic.) Worthy of burning down churches, pledging to behead Christians and shooting a nun in the back, Professor Myers?
“We hope Myers does the right thing and just moves on without further disgracing himself and his university. The letter I received from University of Minnesota President Robert H. Bruininks makes it clear that school officials want nothing to do with his hate-filled remarks. It would also be nice if Myers’ fans would cease and desist with their hate-filled screeds.”
Catholic ping!
Ping!
What a sad man.
We had someone break into my Lutheran parish back home a few years ago. They stole the altar candles, tried to get the presence candle, and attempted to break into the pastors office (where the communion hosts and wine are stored). The local sheriff’s office suspected cult activity. Now the church is watched over by local farmers and one rather odd three legged German Sheppard (he ignores everyone during the day, but is grouchy at night).
The “host” becomes the Body of Christ when the priest says the words, “This is My Body” during the Mass. The wine becomes the Blood of Christ when the priest says the words “This is My Blood.” Until that point, it is simply bread (of a sort) and wine.
Therefore, if somebody took unconsecrated hosts and wine from a Catholic Church, it would simply be theft, not blasphemy or desecration of sacred things. We don’t want to be wasteful or anything, but until the consecration, it’s just ordinary stuff.
Your question is perfectly reasonable and not in the least offensive.
During the Eucharistic Prayer, during Mass, the bread and wine are consecrated, and by the power of the Holy Spirit through the action of the priest, the bread and wine cease to exist and become the Body and Blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine.
As long as the elements of the Eucharist remain recognizable in their appearances, the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ remain.
Hope that helps.
sitetest
Yes.
I just do not understand why this “person” is going on and on about it.
Mr. Myers is asking people to bring him consecrated hosts from Mass: the Body of Christ. It’s interesting that he seems to believe there’s a difference from unconsecrated hosts (which anyone can order off the Internet). However, he has know way of knowing by sight whether they’re consecrated or not. They’re just little circles made from wheat and water, not even what I’d call a cracker. I make crackers from nutritious ingredients, with some substance so that they’ll hold cheese or taboulet.
This reminds me of the time Jesus met the possessed man, and the demon said, “I know who you are - the Holy One of God!”
No one who truly believes in the Lord’s presence in the Eucharist would cooperate with someone like this. Even a person whose church believes only in a symbolic presence of Christ would never offer their materials to a scoffer, if the person really was a Christian.
He’s looking for people who don’t believe to infiltrate and take away the consecrated bread.
Again we see leftists hating Christianity and Judaism, but loving the jihadis.
If you want your 15 minutes of fame by any means, it's not a bright idea to publicly throw out such statements in a society of 300 million where 30,000 other kooks also want their 15 minutes of fame by any means.
Typical coward, guess he lacks the courage to enter the Church and face the priest himself. What a small man.
I am not Catholic but I still find this disturbing. Why slag someone's faith? Freedom to believe is one of our most fundamental standards. I am afraid this is one, of a few, freedoms that many wish to recall. The founders were brilliant when they recognized The freedoms as divine. It removes the intervention from men who wish to "improve" things for the sake of the collective.
I certainly don’t take offense at the question. Yes, the bread only becomes the body of Christ during the consecration of the mass. There is a point during the liturgy wherein the priest holds up the Eucharist, and a bell is rung to signal the transsubstantiation. (Contrary to canon law, many parishes omit the bell for insubstantial reasons, but the bell only signals the transubstantiation; it is not a necessary part of it.) (Just as “transformation” refers to a change of the form, “transubstantiation” refers to a change of the substance.)
Within the tabernacle, there are often hosts which have already been transubstantiated. These may be stored for “Eucharistic services.” These services are prayer services with many aspects of a mass, but because they are conducted in the absence of a priest, there can be no transubstantiation; therefore, hosts which are already transubstantiated are used. Such hosts may also be used to be brought to those who are sick and could not attend mass, or for Eucharistic adoration, when they are exposed, but placed under vigilant watch.
>> “I’ll do something that shows this cracker has no power.” <<
Wasn’t that Obama’s campaign slogan during the Pennsylvania primaries?
The Bible says that God is present whenever two or more are gathered in His name. So God is already present at the Mass simply because the faithful have gathered together to honor Him with worship.
God cannot be "ordered" to transubstantiate the host and wine. No priest has that capacity. So, at most, the host and wine are transformed because God agrees to do so. The words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" cannot be more than a respectful, reverent invitation from the priest on behalf of the faithful for God to perform the tranformative act. The fact that the host and the wine are transformed is an entirely free and unconstrained act on the part of God for His own purposes. The fact that they are always transformed is a sign of God's lovingkindness to the community of believers.
God knows the intentions of each person's heart. It seems reasonable that, if a person receives a consecrated host with dishonest intent, God would know this instantly and cause the holy substance of the host to depart from it. To me, arguing that the holy substance of the host is somehow locked into it is the same as arguing that the priest does have the power to summon God to transform it and cause it to remain transformed until released through completion of the sacremental act.
That, of course, is impossible. God is no more "required" to keep the host in its holy state than He was "required" to transform it to begin with.
If this is the case, the moment that the student, or the professor, or anyone else helping them receives the consecrated host, God sees these impure intentions of their hearts and, to prevent its defilement, instantaneously transubstantiates the consecrated host back into an ordinary wafer. Therefore, the consecrated host can only be sacremental for those who receive and consume it in the same respectful and reverential spirit that invited (not caused) its transformation to begin with.
The atheist professor, the obnoxious student, the aiders and abetters of this controversy, no matter how cleaver, will never really possess a consecrated host because their own hearts reveal their deceit and cause its transformation back into ordinary stuff, as you put it.
During Mass, during the Eucharistic prayer, as the celebrant repeats the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
I believe the professor made clear he was trying to obtain a transubstantiated host. Wafers: not so tought to get.
Hate.
If the candles on the altar are lit, there is consecrated host in the tabernacle, and if I remember my rules correctly, that is the only time one needs to genuflect.
But he could easily get his hands on a consecrated host by having in impostor go up for the sacrament and just keep the host.
They love Arabs because so many of them are/were at least nominal socialists. Nassar of Egypt, the Ba-ath parties of Iraq and Syria, the Palestinians...
“The “host” becomes the Body of Christ when the priest says the words, “This is My Body” during the Mass. The wine becomes the Blood of Christ when the priest says the words “This is My Blood.” Until that point, it is simply bread (of a sort) and wine.”
You sure about that, TC? You might want to check that. :)
What's so different? The Koran is just paper.
I GOT NOTHING FOR MY WISDOM TEETH!! NOTHING!! NOTHING FOR MY PAIN AND SUFFERING!!
And if I ever see her, I'll shoot her outta the sky!
I’m tempted to buy a wafer, toss it in my cat’s litter box for a day or two, then bring it to him. See what happens.
Shouldn’t Christ be bigger than a cracker? Why not just pray for the guy and get over it?
Aren’t you the same as the muzzie who gets upset over a cartoon?
It seems to me God should be able to take care of Himself
Because he knows no Catholic will hunt him down and separate his body from his head?
Not suprising because this professor knows Christians will not get violent when things dear to them are attacked. They instead pray for the repentence of the offending person.
If Myers follows through with his threat to accomplish this hate crime, I myself will collect the evidence, put in an envelope, and send it to the FBI to open up an investigation on possible violations under 18 U.S. Code Part I Chapter 13 ss 247, Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs.
This is no idle warning. I will follow through. Myers better lawyer up.
- Read also Has Professor Myers engaged in a hate crime? and Minnesota College Professor Incites to Anti-Catholic Hatred and Profanation of the Eucharist here in Vivificat!
However, if the line of reasoning I propose is correct, God is always there guarding the consecrated host against any desecration. He alone knows its true state and is quite capable of guarding it against a person or persons of impure intent. Even if its human guardians are slow or inattentive, God is quite capable of seeing into each person's thoughts and hearts directly. He, in an instant, can cause the consecrated host to revert back to its ordinary state to safeguard its sanctity.
This does not excuse laxity in properly safeguarding the physical being of the consecrated host. But it does provide some assurance that it can never be spiritually desecrated. However, its mistreatment is still a serious matter. The body of a deceased person is the physical home where a soul once resided. Respect for the imperishable soul that once animated the body also requires reverential treatment of its physical remains. How much more the now vacated host that was once the Body and Blood of Christ?
BTW, in my previous post, I was using the words transform and transubstantiate pretty loosely. I was, in all cases, referring to transubstantiation and the act of transubstantiation.
If you were to spend some time reading the actual words of worship in the Latin rite, you'd see that the service is littered with prayers ASKING God to, well, do whatever it is that he does in the Eucharistic celebration. It's not a matter of priestly mojo, but rather a matter of what we take to be a promise.
God knows the intentions of each person's heart. It seems reasonable that, if a person receives a consecrated host with dishonest intent, God would know this instantly and cause the holy substance of the host to depart from it.
A problem with this line of thought is that it makes the sacramental presence of God dependent on the inner state of the recipient. The motives of most of us are mixed and impure, part good, part not so good. If we were to adopt the notion of the presence or efficacy of the sacrament being effective or "there" dependent on the state of the believer, we run the risk of a works-based sacramental theology and of the development of a kind of internal sacramental casuistry.
There are similar problems with Catholic sacramental theology in that we say that to receive the sacrament if one is in a state of mortal sin is itself a sin, and in certain cases a mortal sin. But I think our glib account of that is that Jesus is savior AND judge, and if we will not receive Him as savior we will, willy-nilly, receive Him as judge. (As I said, it's glib.)
So the "locked in" argument is separated from the "priestly power" stand by our theology, and, as I Say, we think God's sacramental presence is an act of grace. A REAL act, existing by itself. God's presence is always grace, but for whatever reason, not all experience grace, ah, gracefully.
IN any event, The young man in Florida and this twit of a professor are playing with fire. We can hope that it is a healing fire. But there's no doubt in my mind that it's fire.
"Muslims represent a poor and oppressed underclass, and those cartoons represent a ruling establishment intentionally taunting them and basically flipping them off. They have cause to be furious!"
The question you asked is completely inoffensive.
CDS ( == "Christ Derangement Syndrome")
Cheers!
Not entirely correct. Candles on the altar which Mass is celebrated upon are only lit during Mass. If the sanctuary candle(s)(most parishes have two), which are normally located one on each side of the tabernacle and look like large votive candles in red hued glass holders, are lit, then the Blessed Sacrament is present in the tabernacle which should be locked outside of Mass. Some parishes use a lamp instead of candles IAW the GIRM. If the candles are not lit then one of two things is likely:
1) The Blessed Sacrament has been removed from the tabernacle
2) The sacristan is asleep at the wheel
316. In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honor the presence of Christ.130
130. Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 940; Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, On the worship of the Eucharist, 25 May 1967, no. 57: AAS 59 (1967), p. 569; The Roman Ritual, Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass, editio typica, 1973, no. 11.
314. In accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.125
The one tabernacle should be immovable, be made of solid and inviolable material that is not transparent, and be locked in such a way that the danger of profanation is prevented to the greatest extent possible.126 Moreover, it is appropriate that, before it is put into liturgical use, it be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual.127
315. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.128
Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,
a. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303);
b. Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful's private adoration and prayer129 and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.
A piece of unleavened bread until it is consecrated.
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
Now, God absolutely can take care of Himself - however, has it ever occurred to you that our response to this man might be the Spirit using us to defend Him?
Whether we are the same as Muslims getting upset over a cartoon - I have yet to see any Catholics call for this man's death. I have no problems with Muslims arguing vocally against the depictions of Mohammad - it is against their religion. When they cross into the realm of "off with his head," I have a slight issue.
Reading the mind of another poster is a form of "making it personal."
This case is fascinating for a number of reasons.
First, he comes right out and says what most of us suspect about these sort of people: He hates Christianity and seeks to defile it openly, while simultaneously he slavishly genuflects to Islam. Most on the Left aren't nearly as honest about this blatant contradiction, so in this narrow sense he's almost refreshing. With him there's no mealy-mouthing, no equivocation: He wears his double standard with pride.
The second thing that comes to mind is: How does he justify the contradiction? How can he be, on one hand, a fearless opponent of the archaic superstition known as Christianity, while at the same time treating the religious traditions of Islam with reverence? It makes no logical sense.
Unless...you are a disciple of the idea of deconstruction. For deconstructionists, the fact that "Muslims represent a poor and oppressed underclass" trumps everything, even logic and reason. If you pointed out that in the Muslim world, Christians are a far poorer and far more oppressed underclass, this person wouldn't admit it. Deconstruction means that you can hold completely contradictory beliefs and get away with it.
Thanks for your kind reply. I don't think we have any disagreement on this point.
Of course, there is a great deal of ceremonial preparation that proceeds the actual consecration of the host; the purification of the altar, the purification of the celebrants, prayers for their spiritual acceptability in performing the Mass, etc. I had focused on the words of the Mass I cited only because they immediately precede the transubstantive (?) event and are said to have some causal effect related to it.
However, we both agree that the priest's recitation of the those words has no power ("mojo") to compel God to transubstantiate the host and the wine at that precise moment. God has been present in His House at least since the congregation of the faithful assembled for worship and could, at any time of His own choosing, transubstantiate the host. Being without limit, God can also just as readily transubtaintiate it back into "ordinary stuff." The point I was making was that whether or not the host and the wine are actually the Body and Blood of Christ is entirely in God's hands at all times.
A problem with this line of thought is that it makes the sacramental presence of God dependent on the inner state of the recipient. The motives of most of us are mixed and impure, part good, part not so good. If we were to adopt the notion of the presence or efficacy of the sacrament being effective or "there" dependent on the state of the believer, we run the risk of a works-based sacramental theology and of the development of a kind of internal sacramental casuistry.
I think you may misconstrue my meaning in the words "dishonest intent." I stipulate your remarks about the fallen nature of Man and his or her conflicted emotional state and intentions. However, the Church does lay down certain minimal requirements that must be met before a person can receive Holy Communion. Spiritual perfection is not one of them.
I was solely focused on the act of obtaining a consecrated host specifically for the purpose of desecrating it. And also on the possibility of God defending its sanctity in the absence of an effective human defense against these persons.
If it is the case, as implied by your comments, that receiving the sacrament in a state of mortal sin (which, I presume, an atheist intent on desecrating it would be in), then the situation for them is actually worse. Since the host remains consecrated, they are guilty of defiling the Body and Blood of Christ and Jesus will preside then, not as SAVIOR, but as JUDGE.
Yes, you are right. They are playing with the most terrible kind of fire.
My wife and Children are Catholics. I don't hate anyone. I hate things like sloppy thinking and pseudoscience. Hypocrites like you I do not hate, I just marvel at the hypocrisy. I understand faith and respect people who admit to it. What I find horrifying is that some people try to justify faith by resorting to pseudoscience, and in the process, do damage to real science. Faith is irrational by definition; why try to rationalize it? Besides, the "Christians" on FR can be some of the most verbally abusive and vindictive.
That is exactly how Muslims feel. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written:
"It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good".
People are trying to get Myers fired. What would Jesus do?
This is what I was responding to. Is it personal?
Yes, see post 43.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.