|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Blasphemous desecration
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I think it's that attitude many of us are taking issue with.
Would that so many of you were as clear on this point as Sienna, then.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Revelle
Ship's Bassist for Hire
# 8554
|
Posted
As with the original thread, I am not personally that offended with this person selling a wafer on Ebay. Then again, I am not a Catholic, and at my church we have grape juice and bits of unleavened bread for communion. No big special mass or w/e.
On the side object of 103's dealing with that woman, if thats his job, he needs to do it. However, he could have done it much much better, and if I had been the lady, I sure as hell wouldnt even consider coming back/may even reject becoming a Catholic.
--------------------
"We need our Bible Belt to hold up our Truth Trousers." -Grits
Posts: 350 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Let me get this out of the way first. Offering a consecrated host for sale on eBay as a part of a collection of what could be described as "mementos" of Pope John Paul II is offensive and a scandal to the Eucharist, grossly disrespectful and (a lesser point), no matter what you think of belief in the Real Presence, a slap in the face to what the late Pope himself believed.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
A question: Do Catholics ever intincture the host? And if they do, how do the LEMs know if someone is not hanging on to the host for that purpose? Presumably the lady in question bypassed the chalice with the host in hand- of did she sip from the chalice still clutching the host? In either case I can understand a new LEM reacting in a slightly panicky way.
I'm afraid they do intinct, although it is not proper practice.They tend to dip on the spot though, not take the Host away. Not all parishes offer Communion under both kinds though.
We did have an incident in our parish, where a lady asked a Eucharistic minister for two consecrated hosts - one "for now" and one to take home to a friend. The Eucharistic minister gave her one host and said kindly and quietly that she couldn't give her two. She also alerted our parish priest and our MC, who had a quiet talk with the lady immediately after Mass. Turned out the friend was ill and it was an opportunity to visit, bringing Communion to the Sick. However, our parish priest also noted, when we discussed the incident at our next pastoral council meeting, that he had come across instances where people had taken consecrated hosts home "for later" for private veneration and later consumption. He didn't permit it because those people were missing out on one of the vital aspect of the Eucharist - namely coming together as the people of Christ to celebrate the Eucharist, including Holy Communion, as a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. In a real sense they had missed the point of Holy Communion.
It is a very tricky situation to place any Eucharistic minister in and I can certainly understand and sympathise. It's also a pastoral opportunity.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
However, our parish priest also noted, when we discussed the incident at our next pastoral council meeting, that he had come across instances where people had taken consecrated hosts home "for later" for private veneration and later consumption.
I have a question---no doubt quite a stupid one. If RCs and Orthodox believe the consecrated bread to be the Body and Blood of our Lord, why not speak of it, unapologetically, as something to be "worshipped" rather than "venerated"? Please forgive my ignorance.
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Prophetess:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
However, our parish priest also noted, when we discussed the incident at our next pastoral council meeting, that he had come across instances where people had taken consecrated hosts home "for later" for private veneration and later consumption.
I have a question---no doubt quite a stupid one. If RCs and Orthodox believe the consecrated bread to be the Body and Blood of our Lord, why not speak of it, unapologetically, as something to be "worshipped" rather than "venerated"? Please forgive my ignorance.
You make an interesting and subtle point.
My parish priest was, by his exact choice of the word "veneration" rather than "worship" by those who take the consecrated host home, also making a point about the nature of the Eucharist within the Mass. The official position on the nature of the Eucharist is summarised in the Catechism of the Catholic Church thus quote:
1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
- thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.
and see for the longer explanation in the Catechism. Taking the host home for private veneration is still an act of respect and love for the Real Presence, but it misses out on the element of sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Passion, that element of "making present" Christ's sacrifice. It also misses out on the act of worship and thanksgiving offered by the whole Church in the Mass. It's like only getting part of the picture.
I can't speak for the Orthodox take on this, so I'll leave one of them to comment.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
It's also a pastoral opportunity.
Indeed it is, Duo Seraphim, and I must thank you for that eloquent and informative post you just made regarding "incidents". Anna was asking about the nuance between "venerating" the sacred elements and "Worship".
The easiest way to understand it, in my humble opinion, is that Christ is the one we worship. We venerate (treat with respect, devotion and extreme care) the sacred elements because they convey Christ to us when we receive Holy Communion. I don't know if that's the proper way to put this in "Orthodox" terms, but from time to time, I've noticed a similar deep devotion in both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and we both seem to be doing the same thing. In the Roman Catholic service of "Benediction", the congregation bows low before the host raised above them in the Monstrance. The Orthodox, at the Presanctified Liturgy, bows low before the veiled chalice that contains the Body and Blood of Christ, the elements having been previously consecrated. We have a thrillingly beautiful hymn by Pope St. Gregory the Great that goes,
"Now the Powers of Heaven with us do minister invisibly: for Lo! the King of Glory entereth now. Behold, the Mystical Sacrifice, all accomplished, is ushered in.
"Let us with faith and love draw near, that we may become partakers of life everlasting: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia."
If we compare that to the Latin Tantum Ergo Sacramentum and O salutaris Hostia I think we'll find that we are singing from very similar hymnsheets!
Leetle M.
[ 13. April 2005, 04:25: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Indeed.
Many thanks to luvanddaisies for a very considered post.
I've noticed a few references on the thread from which I (perhaps wrongly) have inferref that posters think that 103 is RC. He and his church are Anglican.
I'd throw us into the camp that Leetle Masha has posted about as well. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Captain Caveman
Shipmate
# 3980
|
Posted
Another gem from Mousethief: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
Originally posted by rosamundi: quote:
It is not permitted for a non-Catholic to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, unless under certain very specific conditions.
I'm not having a go at any of the people here, who after all don't make the rules, but personally I find this offensive.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
There's a whole thread down in Dead Horses where you can flog this to your heart's content, sweetie.
You spoke earlier of showing respect for other people's beliefs. Where's yours for mine?
Back-to-Front: quote:
You find it offensive not to be permitted to pretend to be in communion with a church that you aren't in communion with?
I'd like to be surprised but as this fits the level of logic that you have displayed elsewhere on this thread, I find it rather difficult.
rosamundi: quote:
There is at least one, if not several, threads in Dead Horses on this topic. However, I will say this - the Eucharist is a sign of unity. As we are not united, it is not appropriate for us to share a sign of unity.
As must by now be apparent, my beliefs about this are very different from yours. I'd be happy to discuss it if you want to pm me, but I imagine my views will have been adequately represented by someone on the Dead Horses thread(s).
Originally posted by Callan: quote:
As I'm sure you know the MBS is treated with a great deal of respect in Catholic churches as it is, as far as we are concerned, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. That makes it an object of veneration.
...Why do protestants have such a difficulty with this?
See now, I've been a Protestant Christian all my life and I really had no idea that this was such a big deal for Catholics (and others). I guess I've learnt something from this thread.
josephine:
Thankyou for your comments. See my above reply to Callan. Again, I apologise for making comments you found so offensive.
[ 13. April 2005, 08:05: Message edited by: Captain Caveman ]
--------------------
"Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt and make it clean" - U2
Posts: 519 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Linguo
Ship's grammar robot
# 7220
|
Posted
Captain Caveman, I don't know what species of Protestant you are, but it's deeply unlikely that your church is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Thinking it should be or pretending it is will not alter this fact, and pointing it out hardly seems to me to qualify as real offence. I do, however, find it extremely annoying that those higher up the candle seem unable to give Protestant beliefs regarding Communion the same respect as they demand we give theirs. (Cf. Cosmo's unfortunate comment about 'soggy lumps of Mother's Pride'.)
For the record, I think that selling consecrated hosts on eBay is reprehensible. I also think 103's actions are reprehensible, especially, to my mind, in an Anglican church, since (please correct me if I'm wrong) there is even less likely to be and uniformity between practices there and in the unfortunate visitor's own church.
Posts: 997 | From: around and about the place | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
In re the 'soggy pieces of Mother's Pride' comment. This was referring to the practice of those who wish to desecrate Hosts of sticking to Hosts consecrated in Catholic churches which believe in the Real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. The memorialist nature of more protestant celebrations of the Holy Communion doesn't seem to lend itself to desecration. This is not to say that these churches do not find Holy Communion important (although some regard it as an irritation and an irrelevance), more that the species they use for its administration are not thought to have any intrinsic otherness. Thus Satanists, desecrators and the like do not find them attractive for their purposes.
Cosmo
[ 13. April 2005, 09:39: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
You.Just.Don't.Get.It.
Well neither do you lame brain. 103 posted here which means anyone can comment on if he thought we shouldn't comment he wouldn't have posted it. If that is a bit complicated for you take a pill and lie in a darkened room and maybe comprehension will seep through.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
To paraphrase Proverbs 15:17,
quote:
Better a soggy Mother's Pride where love is, than a consecrated host and hatred therewith
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Captain Caveman
Shipmate
# 3980
|
Posted
What does 'not being in communion mean'? Does it just mean that we're not going to share communion with each other? I neither know nor care about such things. Other people do and that's fine.
At the risk of going over dead ground, since I've had comments on this issue given directly to me I will state my position.
As far as I am concerned all who are in Christ are one. This is a deeply cherished belief of mine and goes right to the heart of what it means for me to be a Christian. Sharing communion is an expression of that oneness, which Christ provided by, in his flesh, breaking down the barriers that separate us. I am offended that other Christians would refuse to share communion with me due to some humanly derived concern about 'not being in communion', which means nothing to me and seems to go against the very heart of the Gospel.
Other people view it differently, just as I don't see a bit of wafer as becoming anything special because it has played a part in a particular religious ritual. We'll just have to learn to live with each other, I guess.
--------------------
"Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt and make it clean" - U2
Posts: 519 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
There's a bit in Screwtape (I think) which ponders the outworking of Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians about doing things for the sake of the conscience of others - Lewis conjures up this image of Evangelicals genuflecting (which is, after all, scriptural, every knee shall bow and so forth), Anglo-Catholics not being prissy (obviously this was a working of fiction ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) , etc. Seems to me that applies here.
Even if you don't believe that there is a localised presence of Jesus in the elements (or even if you do, that such presence is specific to the taking and consuming of the elements in the context of the worshipping community gathered for that purpose) - which I don't - and even if the case for Black Masses and "This could happen!!!!" is over-stated in some bizarre Daily Mailian religious hysteria, surely a little bit of thought would suggest that, symbols being as powerful as they are, there are times when for often inarticulable or sub-conscious reasons the use of a symbol or thing does cause real, actual harm to others?
For example, placing a strip of bacon on the grave of a Muslim doesn't cause physical harm - the person is dead, there's six feet of earth and a wood and cloth between the bacon and the body, and all that physically happens is that a bit of bacon residue would adhere to the grave top. But the symbolic, cultural and personal resonances are massive - the action itself implies contempt and hatred. This isn't rocket science.
It strikes me that a person has no reason to take the host away from the place of worship (be that in a church or any other place) - the command is to "take, eat/drink", not "take and do something weird with it". (Of course, the idea that you can do something weird with it is a corollary of the belief that the host or wine in and of themselves have a physical effect on a person, in the same way that there's a story of a woman who ate an icon (or at least, licked its paint) because there was a strong belief at that time that the physical icon itself was a transmittor of grace). Taking it home and fiddling with it, in whatever context, is by definition missing the point (St Paul's "failing to discern the Body", i.e. the rest of the Church), so I don't see a problem with objecting to and, where necessary, preventing the misuse of the elements (I'd hold the same attitude to breadcubes and shot glasses laid out in a Presbyterian Church).
This isn't difficult, surely?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Captain Caveman,
Clearly you don't realize just how dead this dead horse is. I will be interested to see if the "Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship" thread stays in Dead Horses after the reorganization, but certainly that thread says pretty much everything that can be said on the issue.
I have to say that I find it amazing that a Protestant could be so isolated from Catholic beliefs that he wouldn't realize that selling the Eucharist on Ebay would be offensive. But if you say that this is the case, I suppose I'll have to believe you.
With regard to Henry's story, I will admit that I too have "hissed" at someone to eat the host. In this case it was a predolescent boy in the pew in front of him who had brought it back and was snickering over it with his buddies. I said, "that's the body of Jesus, not a toy. Eat it." Of course, I was saying this in my somewhat unintelligible Flemish, so I'm sure I came across as a complete nut job, and I can pray that my action had the positive effect of showing him that some things are not to be taken lightly. But it was not a calculated response; it was visceral.
FCB
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I dont think anyone cant see that the RCs find it offensive. I understand that they do. However we dont stop people doing everything that others find offensive do we?
People swear online, theres porn online, you can buy bacon online... Really just because the RC church find it offensive doesnt mean that everyone should bow down to that.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Many thanks to luvanddaisies for a very considered post.
I've noticed a few references on the thread from which I (perhaps wrongly) have inferref that posters think that 103 is RC. He and his church are Anglican.
huh?
ok, I had assumed heand his church were RC.
are you sure?
anyway - it maybe might be a suggestion that the church's view of what Communion is might be explained before the actual sacrament - as someone just dropping into their local anglican church might have no idea of that congregation's perception of transubstantiation, and might, like I would be, be used to a totally different approach in anglican services.
quote:
The memorialist nature of more protestant celebrations of the Holy Communion doesn't seem to lend itself to desecration. This is not to say that these churches do not find Holy Communion important (although some regard it as an irritation and an irrelevance), more
surely no church regards Communion as an irritation or as an irrelevance - no matter how unorthodox their enactment of the sacrament is. I, personally, have received Communion where the bread element is a bread roll, garlic foccacia, fruit and nut loaf... but each time this has been done with reverence, solemnity, and celebration of the Church's communion with Christ, and with each other.
Lower churches place little emphasisi on the physical articles used in worship, but, please, don't trivialise the emphaisis we place on the spritual elements or the solemnity of the sacrament itself.
quote:
...103's pride in his actions, and lack of concern for the effect his actions had on the lady.
I'm not criticizing 103 for requiring the lady to consume or return the host, and I understand his nervousness. What I am criticizing is the manner in which he did so (It would have killed him to say "please"?).
What I'm having a larger problem with is that he has expressed absolutely no regret for any hurt his actions (justifiable or not) might have caused this lady, and doesn't seem to give a rip whether she comes back to church or not. - his only regret is that the woman didn't seem to know how to behave up to his standards - sort of an "I'm sorry you're being stupid" regret. Nor does he appear to think there's a need to contemplate a better way to handle such situations in the future.
And I think it's that attitude many of us are taking issue with.
I think I'd agree with that, really. Maybe a more gentle approach, or even, given the stress of the moment that 103 felt, that he could maybe have made a point of making a beeline for the lady at the end of the service and explaining her strange experience to her - showing his human face to her!
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Alchemist
Shipmate
# 2178
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Really just because the RC church find it offensive doesnt mean that everyone should bow down to that.
But it's theft, isn't it? It's different from online porn in that the ebay seller was doing something offensive with something that s/he had no right to take.
I imagine that I'd do something similar to 103 in the circumstances - I'd try to be as polite as I could, but in the heat of the moment I probably wouldn't do very well. However, I'd try to find the woman after the service and explain why I said what I said, and apologise for saying it rudely. I'd put preventing desecration before being polite, but I'd do my best to do both.
Posts: 197 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Alchemist:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Really just because the RC church find it offensive doesnt mean that everyone should bow down to that.
But it's theft, isn't it? It's different from online porn in that the ebay seller was doing something offensive with something that s/he had no right to take.
What was actually stolen? Surley the wafer was given to this person?
Neil
Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
a) As a non-Roman Catholic, he was given it under false pretences - i.e., he was pretending to be a Roman Catholic.
b) The consecrated elements are NOT to be removed from the church, save for the purpose of Sick Communions, and then only by authorised persons.
He stole the sacramental presence of God.
Thurible
[ 13. April 2005, 11:15: Message edited by: Thurible ]
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Alchemist
Shipmate
# 2178
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
What was actually stolen? Surley the wafer was given to this person?
I have no idea whether the Vatican would have a case in a court of law, but the host was not given to the person unconditionally, it was given to them on the condition that they eat it there and then. If you give someone something on a particular condition (e.g. an advance on the understanding that the complete a particular piece of work) and they don't fulfil that condition (e.g. they don't do the work) then keeping the thing they've been given is theft, I would think.
Besides, the only reason it was given to him was because they thought he was a Roman Catholic. If he knew that non-RCs shouldn't recieve then he was committing fraud by going up to the altar rail.
[Edited to correct typos]
[ 13. April 2005, 11:20: Message edited by: The Alchemist ]
Posts: 197 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Alchemist:
But it's theft, isn't it? It's different from online porn in that the ebay seller was doing something offensive with something that s/he had no right to take.
Yes, definately. Regardless what perspective one has on the Real Presence, and thus the desecration issue, it is an outrageous violation of the church's hospitality. I'd be livid if I found out a guest at my home had nicked the forks to flog later, and I certainly don't think God is present in those! The sacramental nature of the stolen object makes the violation a thousand times worse than that.
quote:
I imagine that I'd do something similar to 103 in the circumstances - I'd try to be as polite as I could, but in the heat of the moment I probably wouldn't do very well. However, I'd try to find the woman after the service and explain why I said what I said, and apologise for saying it rudely. I'd put preventing desecration before being polite, but I'd do my best to do both.
There is, I think, a very clear difference between this and 103's position. Had he said that, in the heat of the moment, he acted more abruptly than - with hindsight - he would have wished, I would have far less problem with how he responded. Had he recognised that he might have caused hurt, and regretted that, I would be far less bothered.
Instead, it appears, he doesn't give a damn that - by his own admission - he probably scared someone away from the church. That, I think, is what really gets my back up.
Actually, what bothers me more than anything is the implicit assumption about her behaviour. I would assume that a visitor, wandering back to her pew with the host, is unfamiliar with the local customs and needs a quiet word. Others, it appears, would first assume that she is likely to be nicking the host to participate in bizarre erotic rites, and thus must be grabbed and stopped. I find leaping to that conclusion to be bizarre.
Maybe I'm sheltered. Maybe - as I said at the beginning - I'm lower down the candle than I thought. Either way, I hope that this woman was not as hurt and embarrassed as I - had 103 grabbed and hissed at me - would have been.
Peronel.
[ 13. April 2005, 11:18: Message edited by: Peronel ]
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279
|
Posted
Dear All,
My complaint to ebay received a bland corporate standard response along the lines of: they will investigate my complaint, but they won't tell me what they're going to do the seller (if anything).
Not good enough for me, I will try another way of communicating my disgust. It's not easy to complain to ebay - lots of 'helpful' re-directions to FAQs rather than an email form. But I'll keep trying.
Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Alchemist
Shipmate
# 2178
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Instead, it appears, he doesn't give a damn that - by his own admission - he probably scared someone away from the church. That, I think, is what really gets my back up.
*nods* And if we believe that members of the church are the body of Christ too, driving her away could perhaps also be considered a kind of desecration.
Posts: 197 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Caveman says:
At the risk of going over dead ground, since I've had comments on this issue given directly to me I will state my position.
No you will not. Neither will FCB, or any others.
Caveman, earlier in the thread, several people pointed out that open/closed table communion was a dead horse, and that you could discuss it down there. You declined - which is fine. But that does not give you a free pass to keep discussing it up here.
Tangent regarding whether it's right to restrict who can take communion is now finished.
Sarkycow, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Captain Caveman
Shipmate
# 3980
|
Posted
Sarkycow: My apologies. May I ask why the hosts said nothing to those who expressed their own views on this matter, even while stating that it was a Dead Horse? The fact is that at least three people over a period of several hours stated a position different to mine before I stated mine.
From FCB:
quote:
Clearly you don't realize just how dead this dead horse is. I will be interested to see if the "Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship" thread stays in Dead Horses after the reorganization, but certainly that thread says pretty much everything that can be said on the issue.
I've changed my response to this in light of Sarkycow's post, but let me say that you're not a host and your post added nothing, so why butt in?
quote:
I have to say that I find it amazing that a Protestant could be so isolated from Catholic beliefs that he wouldn't realize that selling the Eucharist on Ebay would be offensive. But if you say that this is the case, I suppose I'll have to believe you.
I have to say that I find it amazing that a Catholic would be so absorbed with their own little Catholic world that would expect non-Catholics as a matter of course to understand their ways. But if you say that this is the case, I suppose I'll have to believe you.
Obviously I realised that Catholics wouldn't be particularly happy about this incident, but what I didn't realise was how deeply the 'consecrated host' was held to be sacred. I have no problem with poking a bit of fun at someone's personal preferences, especially not in Hell. Hence my original, pretty mild, remarks. I have no desire to ridicule someone's deeply held, sacred beliefs, even in Hell. Hence my repeated apologies when I realised I had misread the situation.
--------------------
"Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt and make it clean" - U2
Posts: 519 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
Sarkycow: My apologies. May I ask why the hosts said nothing to those who expressed their own views on this matter, even while stating that it was a Dead Horse? The fact is that at least three people over a period of several hours stated a position different to mine before I stated mine.
Either because other people said "It's a DH" and so stopped discussing it, whilst you said "My position has probably been said down there, so I won't go to DH and discuss it. But here's what I think."
Or because neither of the hellhosts were around in the time span when people said their opinions on the DH.
Or because I am randomly cruel and vindictive, and my lotto machine picked your name out for the 'Shipmate I shall pick on today'.
You decide.
Sarkycow, hellhost
PS And the reason other people 'butted in' and said it was a DH? To try and stop the thread being derailed into a pointless discussion regarding open/closed table communion. You're all grown-ups - you don't have to wait for a host to say "Stop discussing that here" before you stop. You can remind one another.
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
I have to say that I find it amazing that a Catholic would be so absorbed with their own little Catholic world that would expect non-Catholics as a matter of course to understand their ways.
My point was to acknowledge your apology. But since you apparently want to continue being a jerk: the "little Catholic world" includes over a billion people, so, yes, your ignorance is amazing.
FCB
[ 13. April 2005, 12:18: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
You're all grown-ups
Are you sure you meant that?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
(I ask this out of ignorance, rather than an intent to stir)
I seem to remember from past threads that the host is only 'valid' for a couple of weeks. Which is why the tabernacle is routinely emptied and new hosts consecrated. (I guess the ickyness of stale wafers is another factor).
If this is the case, is what is being sold here actually the sacrament? Or is it, as it were, past its sell by date? DOesn't lessen the horridness of taking it under false pretenses, but might lessen the outrage at what is happening to it now.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
You're all grown-ups
Are you sure you meant that?
If you are not grown-up enough to cope without a host holding your hand, then you really shouldn't be posting here.
If you need a host to hold your hand, then PM RooK - he loves to help others ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Captain Caveman
Shipmate
# 3980
|
Posted
Sarkycow: Thanks for the reply. I don't like any of your options, so I choose number 4: My genius is misunderstood and not properly appreciated.
FCB: Not for the first time on this thread, I apologise. I took your post to be expressing dismay at my unjustifiable and barely credible ignorance. It seems that's not the spirit in which it was intended, but maybe you can see why I took it that way.
--------------------
"Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt and make it clean" - U2
Posts: 519 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Peronel,
As far as I understand it, once the Blessed Sacrament, always the Blessed Sacrament. The reason that It should be change regularly (weekly at least) is, I imagine, simply because consuming a stale Host is not likely to be terribly edifying, nor will it prevent crumbs. (Or do they go soggy? - either way.)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
FCB: Not for the first time on this thread, I apologise. I took your post to be expressing dismay at my unjustifiable and barely credible ignorance. It seems that's not the spirit in which it was intended, but maybe you can see why I took it that way.
Fair enough.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
To Captain Caveman:
Truly I was too harsh, and I apologize.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
If he's Anglican, then why the need for the fuss? If I'm correct (and I speak as a member of the ECUSA, which is part of the Anglican comunion) we don't even believe in transubstantiation. It is more than symbolic, but less than transubstantiation. In short, it is not for us to know how Christ is present in the host.
But still more than anything, I am upset with 103s attitude. What will happen the next time? He'll start vaulting the rail, chasing them down the aisle and rugby tackling them?
Someone so rude and immature should NOT be entrusted with the host.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Those of you getting your knickers in a legal knot over the "theft" of a wafer would do well to remember that "grabbing" someone could probably be considered assault.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Under English law it would count as common assault whilst taking something that had just been given to you is not normally theft.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Billfrid:
Dear All,
My complaint to ebay received a bland corporate standard response along the lines of: they will investigate my complaint, but they won't tell me what they're going to do the seller (if anything).
Not good enough for me, I will try another way of communicating my disgust. It's not easy to complain to ebay - lots of 'helpful' re-directions to FAQs rather than an email form. But I'll keep trying.
Just out of curiousity, has anybody been able to glean any information about the buyer? (It's listed on the auction page, but when I clicked on it, eBay wanted me to go through the whole registration process, which I couldn't be bothered with at the time.)
You'll have to count me in with those who agree that 103 acted appropriately, although from his description of the incident, it sounds like he could have gone about it with a bit more tact and pastoral sensitivity. All things with decency and in good order, you know.
And just because he's an Anglican (as am I) and that we don't typically believe in transubstantiation per se, doesn't mean that we take the Real Presence any less seriously than the Roman Catholics. A host is a host, and should be treated with the utmost respect, and if that means potentially ruffling somebody's feather's, than so be it.
Luckily I've never found myself in 103's position yet, and it's difficult to say how I'd react under the circumstances. But then, I've usually ended up with chalice duty, so it's a bit harder for somebody to make off with a handful of wine.
[ 13. April 2005, 16:23: Message edited by: Living in Gin ]
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Peronel,
As far as I understand it, once the Blessed Sacrament, always the Blessed Sacrament. The reason that It should be change regularly (weekly at least) is, I imagine, simply because consuming a stale Host is not likely to be terribly edifying, nor will it prevent crumbs. (Or do they go soggy? - either way.)
Thurible
Thank you.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
My oh my. What happens when one is indisposed.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
If you really want an insult then you should see what Black Magicians do with the Hosts that they desecrate.
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Scroll down to the description of a Black Mass! THIS IS WHAT COULD HAPPEN! I don't want that happening to the Body of Christ at my church or any other church!
Any real Christian would agree! No matter what the feelings of the person involved might be.
Tough shit buddy!
While I love me a good episode of Charmed as much as the next gal (as rare as they are, even when they bring back the hotness that is Cole they still fuck it up), all this talk and hysteria about black magic indicates that each of you is crazier than the proverbial shithouse rat.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
All we are saying is that Catholic beliefs about their most important religious ceremony should be respected by non-Catholics.
Really? It's a fucking stupid belief. Why should I respect it?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
My oh my. What happens when one is indisposed.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
If you really want an insult then you should see what Black Magicians do with the Hosts that they desecrate.
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Scroll down to the description of a Black Mass! THIS IS WHAT COULD HAPPEN! I don't want that happening to the Body of Christ at my church or any other church!
Any real Christian would agree! No matter what the feelings of the person involved might be.
Tough shit buddy!
While I love me a good episode of Charmed as much as the next gal (as rare as they are, even when they bring back the hotness that is Cole they still fuck it up), all this talk and hysteria about black magic indicates that each of you is crazier than the proverbial shithouse rat.
Oh joy. Here comes the march of the invincibly ignorant.
Do you have any experience in dealing with Satanism or Religious Desecrationalists? Any expereince with dealing with the aftermath of a Satanic attack upon your church and its contents. No? I thought not. Well restrain your questing fingers and don't rant off about things you obviously know nothing about.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
All we are saying is that Catholic beliefs about their most important religious ceremony should be respected by non-Catholics.
Originally posted by Erin: quote:
Really? It's a fucking stupid belief. Why should I respect it?
Nice to know that you regard the Church throughout the world from its earliest times to now and those who follow its teaching and belief as 'fucking stupid'. Why not go round to your local RC Bishop or just the RC parish priest, knock on his door and tell him that he and his beliefs are 'fucking stupid'. No? Why not?
It's lucky you have the internet to use isn't it? Otherwise you might have to engage with real people rather than cyberspace weirdos like us.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Captain Caveman
Shipmate
# 3980
|
Posted
Mousethief: let's kiss and make up.
--------------------
"Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt and make it clean" - U2
Posts: 519 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Is this another one of your "just trust me I know what I'm talking about" bullshit responses, Cosmo? And by "Satanic attacks", do you mean attacks by people who call themselves Satanists, or attacks by people using the power of Satan? If it's the first, yes, I do, they're just as insane as you are, you raving lunatic. If you mean the latter, then no, I haven't, cause there is no such thing.
And yes, I think the belief in the "Real Presence" such that you and 103 feel justified in being rude during a church service is fucking stupid. Why don't I go to an RC bishop and tell him so? Cause I can't be arsed, in much the same way that you won't wander on down to the local Methodist Church and repeat your bullshit line about soggy lumps of Mother's Pride.
So shut the fuck up, you flaming hypocrite.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
What I found most interesting in all this is how two websites posted in this thread about "black magic" were used to prove how bad this could all be. Then, on the SOF, that final bastion of reasonable Christian arguement, people made no real comment about this stuff. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
First we get 103's one which came from a Christain website and seems more along the lines of the "we will scare you into heaven" approach. It's not all that much worth commenting about because its veracity is doubtful.
Then we get Back to Front's bit of European teenager schlock, complete with a actually funny looking Linux penguin turned devil and a VERY long description in great graphic detail of something that really sounds made to make somebody feel all so special and different by making fun of authority figures and sounding like they would do something naughty. IMHO, the difference between that site and a conservative kid thumbing there nose at their liberal parent is nothing.
It's the equivalent of a smoke out back, of a drink stolen from the liquor cabinet. It's rebellion and, kinda boring actually.
To the kids and youths who post this sort of stuff, I say:
"Yeah...yeah...yeah...you are going to worship Satan...yeah...yeah...yeah. Now, are you going to put the trash out tonight or not? Cause, as much as you might think this all shocks me, it doesn't. Are you hurting yourself? Maybe. You are probably dealing with forces you do not understand, but think you can handle it. Been there done that young man. When you are done playing, let me know cause as a parent, I'm used to scraping bums that have shat.
"It's why you are doing this that I know, and you won't admit, so although you might somewhere think you are going to gain all this power through your rituals, I know a more powerful force in this world, and I don't think your ideas there, inspired by too many Gothic novels, by Crowley who was a bit of a nutbar anyways, and by so much of the modern world, I don't think those rituals can really do anything to harm that which has been around a lot longer and has this thing to guide it. As for shocking me, oh pleeeease. That is so retro."
You know, I'm used to the fundies taking this stuff seriously. Weird to see it coming from the RC crowd.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
DAMN...the gator beat me while I was editing the final copy.
COSMO....my BS indicator is going strong here.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Yeah, but you were nicer about it. I mean, really. I about snorted Mountain Dew through my nose when I saw 103's hysteria-filled post about the dangers of the Black Mass.
And even though I don't think that a communion wafer should be shoved up one's twat, it has less to do with my determination to defend a piece of bread from all insult and more to do with the fact of you really shouldn't put food up there.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
huh?
ok, I had assumed he and his church were RC.
are you sure?
Last time I checked, S. Mary's was Anglican.
quote:
anyway - it maybe might be a suggestion that the church's view of what Communion is might be explained before the actual sacrament - as someone just dropping into their local anglican church might have no idea of that congregation's perception of transubstantiation, and might, like I would be, be used to a totally different approach in anglican services.
As I shall go on to explain below, whether or not the members of this church believe in Transubstantiation is not entirely relevant. In any case, there are features of 103's church that would be a giveaway of the church's tradition. The fact that the service is referred to as the Mass is perhaps the most obvious one, but the ceremony, candles, images of the Saints, incense, and importations from the Roman Missal, would all be very strong indications to anybody vaguely familiar with church, that this church is in the Catholic tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
If he's Anglican, then why the need for the fuss? If I'm correct (and I speak as a member of the ECUSA, which is part of the Anglican comunion) we don't even believe in transubstantiation. It is more than symbolic, but less than transubstantiation. In short, it is not for us to know how Christ is present in the host.
That may be your belief, but it's hardly an accurate summary of Anglican belief, which covers a whole spectrum, probably even including those who are where Captain Caveman is at, all the way to where 103 and I are as Anglicans, and yes with most shades in between, which is seemingly where you are.
As it happens, the Church of England teaches the Real Presence. Our liturgies are riddled with references to this and this is stated explicitly in The Eucharist: Sacrament of Unity, which is the statement by the House of Bishops of our General Synod. Doctrines like Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation are simply different attempts to explain what happens to bring about this Real Presence, but are, in fact, just variations on a theme, if you will. The Church of England teaches this Real Presence but sees any further explanation of what happens to bring this Real Presence about as unnecessary.
For me, and for many Anglicans, transubstantiation and consubstantiation are neither here nor there. They are just different explanations of the same mystery - the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
I don't see how the absence of definition of what happens to bring about the Real Presence is cause for any less reverence (or 'fuss', as you put it), than in churches where there is a definition (whether it be transubstantiation, consubstantiation or something else).
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
To back up the assault point, if a teacher were to grab a pupil - even if they were the same size - that teacher would be suspended pending investigation, which would likely involve police investigation. I know this because my partner was on the receiving end of a malicious allegation that he acted similarly to 103. Fortunately that allegation was retracted but, at one point, he was facing the end of his career.
If I were to grab a patient and "hiss" at them, I could expect a formal complaint. That complaint could go to a disciplinary commitee on a charge of professional misconduct, or it could go to the police. It's likely that I would be fired.
Yet 103 was commended.
Funny that. I'm seeing a bunch of people here argue that their beliefs should be sacroscanct, even though, frankly, outside the Christian ghetto they're far from mainstream. Yet you guys aren't prepared to respect the societal - and legal - belief that people shouldn't be grabbed.
[sarcasm]
After all, it's a dangerous world out there. Hoards of people just waiting to steal our Lord and fornicate with him. Must scare anyone suspect out of the Church to keep him safe.
[/sarcasm]
Personally, I'm glad that safe, and nice, and protected were lower on Christ's list of priorities than they are for some of those here.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And yes, I think the belief in the "Real Presence" such that you and 103 feel justified in being rude during a church service is fucking stupid.
Yes, it really is a terrible thing to be rude.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
