Thread: Hell: Blasphemous desecration Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000477

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
See this

If it's been deleted, here's the description:

"Fist of all, I AM NOT CATHOLIC AND DO NOT BELIEVE I'M GOING TO HELL FOR SELLING THIS COLLECTIBLE. So, if you're going to send me a message saying that I am don't waist your time because it'll just be deleted w/o being read. It's a momento from that great afternoon with Pope John Paul II. Yes, this is the actual Eucharist I saved during the mass that I participated in on October 18th, 1998. I ate one wafer then I went back and got another one to save and he gave me another one, but I did get a very dirty look! I was studying in Florence that semester and a bunch of us went down to Rome that week to partake. I'm not Catholic, but I found it all very interesting. Along with the Eucharist, I have the program from that day and a litte bulletin. It's all in Italian. I also have 4 stamps from the Vatican that year and a bottle opener that I bought when I was in Rome way back in 1992. From what I understand, if you're holding something in your hand during a certain moment when Pope John Paul II spoke during his mass, whetever it becomes blessed. I was holding this bottle opener during mass with him in 1992. It has his picture on one side and a picture of the Trevi Fountain on the other. Everything from 1998 (Eucharist, bulletin, program, and stamps, have been encased in plastic in my stratch book since then and have not had much light and no air. All in awesome condition and I believe extrememly rare for obvious reasons. I've included a pic of 2 pics I took that day in 1998 when I was there. The front of St. Peter's was already being cleaned up for the big 2000 festivities and my other pic would have been great instead for my friend's hand in the way! I would like to sell them as a package but would consider seperate offers. These truly are great pieces of history!" [their typos not mine!]

It's been sold for $2,000. Hopefully, it's been bought by someone who has some respect for the Blessed Sacrament and will consume It, rather than someone who wants It a) as a "great piece of history" or, worse, b) a Black Magician.

Thurible

[ 29. April 2005, 21:58: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
That's bit shocking...actually it's totally repulsive.
Idea! Set up an ebay account - it's quite easy, if your contact email address is from a free server like hotmail (account can be set up in minutes) you have to supply a credit card number. However - there's nothing to stop you from registering on ebay as, say, angelgabriel, with a hotmail address of anything you like. Then put in your actual credit card name and number. They can't take the money from you at the end of the auction as they only can use this information to verify your identity.

You can then bid on the item and drive the price up to ridiculous levels - then don't pay!
All they can do is give you negative feedback and a 'warning' from ebay to not be naughty again.
The seller can delete bids, but if they creep up bit by bit he/she may not realize what's happening.


Or, you can go through the complaints procedure to ebay - they are very strict about what items can be sold and I'm sure would pull this one off if enough transsubstantiationists (?) complained.
I'm going to complain now...
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
What a horrid thing. Talk about complete and utter disregard for somebody else's religion. Words fail.
 
Posted by Linguo (# 7220) on :
 
I'm going to complain to eBay, and I'm not even a transubstatiationalist...
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
Sold for $2000 dollars!
I have complained to ebay...let's see what happens.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Billfrid:

Or, you can go through the complaints procedure to ebay - they are very strict about what items can be sold and I'm sure would pull this one off if enough transsubstantiationists (?) complained.
I'm going to complain now...

People have been flogging relics on ebay for years, so I doubt they'll care about this.

I agree it's horrid, but I'm sure it's not the first time something like this has happened. In fact, a RC friend told me that, in her childhood, her elderly relatives used to keep scrapbooks from Masses celebrating important family occassions. So, on assumes, they could flick back and say, "That's the host from our eldest's wedding".

I did wonder, when seeing everyone receive on the tongue at the Pope's funeral, if that was intended to stop those hosts from appearing on ebay.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
I don't understand what the problem is.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
I don't understand what the problem is.

You're joking, right?
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
quote:
You're joking, right?
No.

Someone has something that someone else is prepared to pay $2000 dollars for and sells it to them. What's the big deal? It's not something I'd be prepared to pay that much for but if someone else wants to then that's their choice.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Even if you don't believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at the consecration, Catholics do. I would have thought that it was a matter of elementary politeness, therefore, not to nick hosts and flog them on e-bay.

Like not getting your hip flask out in a Mosque or wearing your shoes in a Buddhist Temple or wandering around a synagogue without your head covered. It is a matter of respecting other people's beliefs. Why is that too hard for you Cavey? Or does the Icon of true twenty-first century religion, the almighty $, blind you to the possibility that other people's faiths are worth respecting.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
So much for "communion in the hand...."

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I think it's a hoax. As far as I know you have to take it in front of the priest and they watch you to make sure you do. In any case it's supposed to dissolve quickly on your tongue so if you did put it in your mouth it's generally a soggy mess within a couple of seconds. I wonder if he's got hold of an unconsecrated wafer or just "made" one to cash in?

Why would anyone be holding a bottle opener during a Mass anyway? Of all the things you might clutch how likely is that?
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Like you, Ariel, I hope at least the offer for sale on EBay is not a serious one. However, theft of consecrated hosts and subsequent use of them for blasphemous purposes has happened. Especially in large crowds, I am not sure the priests had time and a good enough field of vision to watch each communicant as carefully as they are asked to. I saw, in the large outdoor requiem, a priest handing a host to someone over the heads of two or three other people who had received already but who could not move back to let the people behind them come forward.

But let's hope it didn't and doesn't happen!

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
It's been sold for $2,000. Hopefully, it's been bought by someone who has some respect for the Blessed Sacrament and will consume It, rather than someone who wants It a) as a "great piece of history" or, worse, b) a Black Magician.

So, assuming it were bought by a "Black Magician", are you saying God couldn't turn the host back into just a wafer?

Sieg
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
This is no longer the case, but for a long time communion in the hand was not allowed in St. Peter's (long after it was allowed elsewhere) precisely to prevent this sort of thing.

FCB
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Anyone can buy unconsecrated wafers. I can get them in a shop round the corner.

Unless the purchaser has some sort of True Substance Detector to tell the difference between the most holy body of the Lord and a piece of stale biscuit, how are they ever going to know?
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
how are they ever going to know
, Ken asks.

They're not, Ken, but the question is, what will other people presume ?

I once worked as an upstairs maid in a rectory where there were about 6 clergy. For some reason I still cannot fathom, one particular one left unconsecrated hosts lying out loose on a desk, and although every day I picked them up reverently and put them into a tin box, the next morning the desk was littered with more of them again. Did the clergyman count out how many he needed for sick calls that day and leave the rest scattered on the desk? Were they "consecrated on the way" to the sick person's room in the hospital? I still don't know. To tell you the truth, I don't want to know.

That was in the days of the liturgical game-playing of the late l960s, where some theologians were speculating on the very clever liturgical "hat-trick" whereby they were wanting the liturgy modified to say, "This is, and is not, the Body of Christ...."

In that same rectory, another clergyman used a fat volume of Teilhard de Chardin to prop up a window whose sash-rope was broken. Rain or shine, Teilhard provided fresh air to that room.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Even if you don't believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at the consecration, Catholics do. I would have thought that it was a matter of elementary politeness, therefore, not to nick hosts and flog them on e-bay.

Like not getting your hip flask out in a Mosque or wearing your shoes in a Buddhist Temple or wandering around a synagogue without your head covered. It is a matter of respecting other people's beliefs. Why is that too hard for you Cavey? Or does the Icon of true twenty-first century religion, the almighty $, blind you to the possibility that other people's faiths are worth respecting.

I think there's a difference between going into a place of worship and behaving in a way that is offensive to the faith of the place you're in, and selling something that some people consider sacred. I can see why people would get upset about the guy deliberately getting an extra wafer with the intention one day of flogging it. Personally I wouldn't rate it too high on the scale of bad-things-that-happen, though.

What people seem to be objecting to is not that, however, but the fact that the guy has sold it on ebay. If you want to say that no-one should put anything potentially religiously offensive on the internet then you'd better get a lot stricter about what you allow to be posted on the Ship.

I presume the person who bought it was a devout Catholic (either that or a crazy person). I guess they didn't find it to be 'blasphemous desecration'.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
I presume the person who bought it was a devout Catholic (either that or a crazy person).

Or a black magician who intended to desecrate it.
 
Posted by Pânts (# 4487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
As far as I know you have to take it in front of the priest and they watch you to make sure you do.

Not neccesarily. I have been known on occasion not to eat the wafer immediately, but take it back to my seat with me.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
I think there's a difference between going into a place of worship and behaving in a way that is offensive to the faith of the place you're in, and selling something that some people consider sacred. I can see why people would get upset about the guy deliberately getting an extra wafer with the intention one day of flogging it. Personally I wouldn't rate it too high on the scale of bad-things-that-happen, though.

If this person is truly selling a consecrated Host, he is selling the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

That comes pretty high up the scale of bad-things-that-happen, if you ask me.

By going to a Catholic Mass, as a non-Catholic, and taking a consecrated host and not consuming it, he has committed sacrilege. Selling it on Ebay merely adds to the blasphemy.

Deborah
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pânts:
Not neccesarily. I have been known on occasion not to eat the wafer immediately, but take it back to my seat with me.

The one occasion when my mind was elsewhere and I'd started back to my seat, I got called back before I'd gone one pace, asked if I was really a Catholic, and told to take it there and then in front of the priest.

I was so embarrassed by this that I never went up for Communion again in that church.

[ 12. April 2005, 20:12: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
If this person is truly selling a consecrated Host, he is selling the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

That apparently is what you believe. The seller could be an atheist who believes (s)he's selling a stale cracker. It seems like (s)he committed a form of fraud, yes, in order to obtain the cracker, but not an enforceable form of fraud really.

Yes, (s)he is a disrespectful asshole to do this. But (s)he's a clever one.
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
I'm not Catholic, and have never been to a Catholic church, but in several non-Catholic churches I've been to, we've been told to take the wafer and the wine back to our seats and pray silently until all had theirs, and then consume them as a congregation.

This has its benefits.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:

quote:
I think there's a difference between going into a place of worship and behaving in a way that is offensive to the faith of the place you're in, and selling something that some people consider sacred. I can see why people would get upset about the guy deliberately getting an extra wafer with the intention one day of flogging it. Personally I wouldn't rate it too high on the scale of bad-things-that-happen, though.
Taking a consecrated host away from a Catholic Mass is inseperable from going into a place of worship and behaving in a way that is offensive to the faith of the place you're in. Trust me. It's up there with buggering the Pope.

It's not 'an extra wafer' it is, as far as Catholic Christians are concerned 'the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ'. Which is why we consider it wrong to behave disrespectfully towards it/ Him. As I assume that you wouldn't wear shoes in a Buddhist temple/ not wear headgear in a Synagogue/ break out the hipflask in a Mosque why are the beliefs of Catholic Christians fair game? Even if you believe it only represents our Lord, is it not worthy of some respect.

Oh, but then of course there is hard cash involved. That makes all the difference.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
That apparently is what you believe. The seller could be an atheist who believes (s)he's selling a stale cracker. It seems like (s)he committed a form of fraud, yes, in order to obtain the cracker, but not an enforceable form of fraud really.

Yes, (s)he is a disrespectful asshole to do this. But (s)he's a clever one.

MadGeo,there is no "apparently" about what I believe. It doesn't matter what the seller believes - they went to a Catholic Mass and took a consecrated host. Therefore, they took the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. That's a bit more than "being a disrespectful asshole," they are risking their immortal soul.

Deborah

[ 12. April 2005, 20:29: Message edited by: rosamundi ]
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Or a black magician who intended to desecrate it.
What does this mean?

Anyone who's a serious black magician has to be a bit crazy. Anyone who genuinely believes in God and that a bit of wafer is sacred and they can pay $2000 dollars for it and somehow do something nasty with it is even crazier.

Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
If this person is truly selling a consecrated Host, he is selling the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

That comes pretty high up the scale of bad-things-that-happen, if you ask me.

What sort of Jesus do you believe in who would make his soul and divinity so readily accessible to misuse by nasty unbelievers? Even when he came in the flesh and was crucified, I don't think his soul and divinity were ever seriously at risk. I think he's capable of looking after himself.
quote:

By going to a Catholic Mass, as a non-Catholic, and taking a consecrated host and not consuming it, he has committed sacrilege. Selling it on Ebay merely adds to the blasphemy.

What about the first one he took and ate? Was that sacriligeous, him not even being a Christian, let alone Catholic? What if I had some, being a Christian but not Catholic, would that be sacriligeous? I'd be pretty offended if it was.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Anybody who's higher up the candle than Captain Caveman is a little bit crazy.

Just a little self-enamoured there, Cavey? Kiss your own arms a lot, do you?

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
Firstly, I still don't know what you mean by desecrating a communion wafer, or 'the host', or the body and blood of our Lord, or whatever you prefer to call it.

Secondly, I don't know which candle you think I'm on that a black magician would be further up it than I am.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
Firstly, I still don't know what you mean by desecrating a communion wafer, or 'the host', or the body and blood of our Lord, or whatever you prefer to call it.

And yet you feel qualified to make pronouncements about it. What does this tell you?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
What sort of Jesus do you believe in who would make his soul and divinity so readily accessible to misuse by nasty unbelievers?

Maybe the kind of Jesus who, as you say:

quote:
came in the flesh and was crucified
quote:

I don't think his soul and divinity were ever seriously at risk.

No one is claiming that stealing a bit of consecrated bread risks the divinity of Jesus. It doesn't undo the work of atonement and rewind redemption.

I doubt if anyone is claiming that it in any physical way hurts the Lord, or not in any way that any other sin could be said to hurt the Lord. (well, looking at the Blessed Sacrament Webcam we have to have our doubts about that)

But that doesn't mean it isn't a different kind of sin from stealing another piece of bread.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Hate to tell you this, MT, but I am really trying hard to get the whole "black magician" thing too. That just makes this whole thing seem more and more like superstition rather than Christianity.

Sieg
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Well, I'm not sure I believe in black magic, but that doesn't mean that I appreciate the idea of someone who gets his jollies from blasphemy and desecration mucking around with our Lord's body and blood.

Even if it doesn't do anyone else any harm, I'm not sure his immortal soul is going to benefit from the activity.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Siegfried, perhaps the "black magician" may seem a bit remote, but trust me, there are other people who do terrible things to consecrated hosts. Some people, quite a few years ago now, thank God, took consecrated hosts from St. Patrick's cathedral and did something unspeakable to them. I wouldn't know how to find you a link now to the story, but it did happen and did not help the cause of those who committed that act "as a protest" (or so they claimed).
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Hate to tell you this, MT, but I am really trying hard to get the whole "black magician" thing too. That just makes this whole thing seem more and more like superstition rather than Christianity.

Well, I'd say black magic is more like superstition than Christianity. But if you can't be arsed to do some googling and find out what some people would like to do with consecrated hosts, don't expect me to do it for you. That you have a hard time getting it speaks only about you, not about the existence of such people.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
The First time I ever was a Eucharistic minister a lady walked past me with the host still in her hand, I quickly grabbed her shoulder and told her that she had to eat it immediatly. She looked at me as if I was crazy and I said to her "EAT IT NOW!!!" and she quickly ate it!
She probably will never come to my church again because of that but to Catholics it is INCREDIBLY important that somebody doesn't desecrate that Body of Christ. It is something so serious we just can't risk it!

This guy who is selling the Body of Christ on Ebay is evil evil evil!

-103
 
Posted by Ronist (# 5343) on :
 
You can buy the body, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ for $2000? That is such a good price.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Did they bleed or cry out like they used to do in the 12th century, that's what I want to know.
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
Mousethief, you're being deliberately obtuse.

My original post on this thread was
quote:
I don't understand what the problem is.
It appears that 'what the problem is' has something to do with Catholic theology which I just don't get.

Just to clarify, by
quote:
Anyone who genuinely believes in God and that a bit of wafer is sacred and they can pay $2000 dollars for it and somehow do something nasty with it is even crazier.
I didn't mean that someone who believes that the 'consecrated host' is sacred and is concerned about people disrespecting it is crazy. Rather that anyone who believed in God yet thought they could make a significant stand against him with some religious artifact, and indeed would want to pay lots of money to do it, would be crazy.

Since this is Hell I have been less circumspect in my posts than I would have been in Purgatory. It appears I have underestimated the depth of feeling and belief about this. I apologise if I have offended anyone's sincerely held beliefs about something of great importance to them.

Callan, I'm really not hung up about money. I couldn't care less if he gave the thing away or divided it up among the poor of his community or paid someone to take it.

By the way, let's take the most likely case that the person who bought this is a devout Catholic, not some black wizard. Do they not properly understand Catholic theology? Is their mortal soul in danger?
 
Posted by Calindreams (# 9147) on :
 
Maybe his soul is not in immortal danger. Some people believe it is. Apparently he doesn't. We may be personally outraged by what he is doing. But I can't believe that we ought to expect or demand the respect of our Christian beliefs from other people. We have to lead by example. Not by banning the sale of this item. Of course we have rights to our won religion and that the law should safeguard us from people who incite hated against us or discriminate us for what we believe. But these rights are not in the same category as other basic human rights.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
Mousethief, you're being deliberately obtuse.

I've been accused of worse.

The short answer is, yes, people really do feel deeply on this topic. I do, and I'm not even a Roman Catholic. But I know enough about Roman Catholic beliefs, and have enough friends who are RCC, to know that this is a horrible thing and deeply, deeply offensive to Roman Catholic sensibilities.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Calindreams:
Maybe his soul is not in immortal danger. Some people believe it is. Apparently he doesn't. We may be personally outraged by what he is doing. But I can't believe that we ought to expect or demand the respect of our Christian beliefs from other people. We have to lead by example. Not by banning the sale of this item. Of course we have rights to our won religion and that the law should safeguard us from people who incite hated against us or discriminate us for what we believe. But these rights are not in the same category as other basic human rights.

Well said.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The First time I ever was a Eucharistic minister a lady walked past me with the host still in her hand, I quickly grabbed her shoulder and told her that she had to eat it immediatly. She looked at me as if I was crazy and I said to her "EAT IT NOW!!!" and she quickly ate it!
She probably will never come to my church again because of that but to Catholics it is INCREDIBLY important that somebody doesn't desecrate that Body of Christ. It is something so serious we just can't risk it!

I guess I must be lower down the candle than I thought. I would rather risk someone nicking the host - yes, and even flogging it on ebay - than risk someone being hurt, upset and embarrassed to the extent they wouldn't return to that church. Bluntly, if it comes to a choice between desecrating Christ in the host, and someone being grabbed and yelled at by a minister of the church during a service, I choose the former. God can take care of himself; people are more vulnerable.

Peronel
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
It's entirely possible it was purchased by a devout Catholic, not for superstitious reasons or because of bad theology, but to ensure that it would be treated reverently and properly from here on out - rather than being treated like a collectible, or worse.

ETA: Peronel, very well said.

[ 12. April 2005, 21:15: Message edited by: Sienna ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The First time I ever was a Eucharistic minister a lady walked past me with the host still in her hand, I quickly grabbed her shoulder and told her that she had to eat it immediatly. She looked at me as if I was crazy and I said to her "EAT IT NOW!!!" and she quickly ate it!
She probably will never come to my church again because of that but to Catholics it is INCREDIBLY important that somebody doesn't desecrate that Body of Christ. It is something so serious we just can't risk it!

I guess I must be lower down the candle than I thought. I would rather risk someone nicking the host - yes, and even flogging it on ebay - than risk someone being hurt, upset and embarrassed to the extent they wouldn't return to that church. Bluntly, if it comes to a choice between desecrating Christ in the host, and someone being grabbed and yelled at by a minister of the church during a service, I choose the former. God can take care of himself; people are more vulnerable.

Peronel

You would choose a person over Our Lord??? [Disappointed]

-103
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
You would choose a person over Our Lord??? [Disappointed]

-103

Why not? After all, he did.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Frankly, if someone did that to any communion wafer from any denomination, I'd be pissed off.

That they're doing it to a church that believes in transubstantiation just makes me think they are sick. Desperately sick and in need of help.
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
Originally posted by Sienna:
quote:
It's entirely possible it was purchased by a devout Catholic, not for superstitious reasons or because of bad theology, but to ensure that it would be treated reverently and properly from here on out - rather than being treated like a collectible, or worse.

Man, you guys must really care about this stuff if you'd be prepared to pay $2000 for it.

Originally posted by Ronist:
quote:
You can buy the body, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ for $2000? That is such a good price.
I hear they give it out for free. Better make sure you're not at 103's church though, if you want to keep it as a souvenir.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
Man, you guys must really care about this stuff if you'd be prepared to pay $2000 for it.

Well, of course we care deeply about "this stuff," at the moment of consecration, the Host becomes our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Kind of important, really, and not to be sold on Ebay.

Deborah
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Hey Caveman, there's this thing called "respect" -- you may have heard of it. Aretha Franklin sang a song about it once. You might try it. Many people find it really helps them get along with other humans. Just a thought.
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
rosamundi, fair enough, I still don't get it though, but then I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Protestant.

By the way, would I be committing sacrilege if I, as a non-Catholic Christian, took Mass at a Catholic church?
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The First time I ever was a Eucharistic minister a lady walked past me with the host still in her hand, I quickly grabbed her shoulder and told her that she had to eat it immediatly. She looked at me as if I was crazy and I said to her "EAT IT NOW!!!" and she quickly ate it!
She probably will never come to my church again because of that but to Catholics it is INCREDIBLY important that somebody doesn't desecrate that Body of Christ. It is something so serious we just can't risk it!

I guess I must be lower down the candle than I thought. I would rather risk someone nicking the host - yes, and even flogging it on ebay - than risk someone being hurt, upset and embarrassed to the extent they wouldn't return to that church. Bluntly, if it comes to a choice between desecrating Christ in the host, and someone being grabbed and yelled at by a minister of the church during a service, I choose the former. God can take care of himself; people are more vulnerable.

Peronel

You would choose a person over Our Lord??? [Disappointed]

-103

He did.
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
103, Jesus can take care of himself, and is more than capable of defending Himself against desecration, intentional or accidental. The reason for respect of the Precious Body is for our benefit, not His. So the sanctimonious drama about "choosing a person over Our Lord" is more than a little bit over the top.

Was it necessary to grab her and yell, publicly embarrassing her? Tell me, as a Eucharistic Minister, do you not see that you have some duty to those receiving the Eucharist, namely, treating them with respect? You said yourself she probably won't come back to your church. I wonder whether that's the result Christ would have wished for.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
By the way, would I be committing sacrilege if I, as a non-Catholic Christian, took Mass at a Catholic church?

It is not permitted for a non-Catholic to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, unless under certain very specific conditions. I am not sure whether it would be officially termed sacrilege or not.

Deborah

[ 12. April 2005, 21:29: Message edited by: rosamundi ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Presumably it wouldn't be Blasphemous Sacrilege, though?

[ 12. April 2005, 21:31: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Presumably it wouldn't be Blasphemous Sacrilege, though?

Dunno, actually.

Deborah
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
103, Jesus can take care of himself, and is more than capable of defending Himself against desecration, intentional or accidental. The reason for respect of the Precious Body is for our benefit, not His. So the sanctimonious drama about "choosing a person over Our Lord" is more than a little bit over the top.

Was it necessary to grab her and yell, publicly embarrassing her? Tell me, as a Eucharistic Minister, do you not see that you have some duty to those receiving the Eucharist, namely, treating them with respect? You said yourself she probably won't come back to your church. I wonder whether that's the result Christ would have wished for.

I didn't yell - I hissed. It was necessary because she was walking quite quickly and I panicked on my first time as Eucharistic Minister. I told my parish priest and he said that he saw and it was exactly what I should've done. I had remembered what he told me to do from the Eucharistic Minister Instruction Lessons! If you don't like it you can take it up with my parish priest. He said that he didn't want anybody taking the host away with them and it was OUR DUTY as Eucharistic Ministers to make sure that it doesn't happen and to watch them consume it!

It did exactly that - Please can I have some backup from some Catholic Minded people here? I did right and I know it!

-103
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
Mousethief
quote:
Hey Caveman, there's this thing called "respect"
I assume you're implying that my previous post was disrespectful. Let's look at it.
quote:
Man, you guys must really care about this stuff if you'd be prepared to pay $2000 for it.
An expression of surprise and interest at someone else's strength of belief. Hardly disrespectful; complimentary, maybe.
quote:
I hear they give it out for free.
Well, it's true.

Yes, it was intended to be humourous, maybe with a faintly irreverent tinge. Personally I'm perfectly happy to be irreverent about things which are sacred to me because I don't see that my irreverence diminishes their sacredness. This is especially true when talking about my convictions to people who don't share them. If other people here can't handle it then they should stay out of Hell.
quote:
Better make sure you're not at 103's church though, if you want to keep it as a souvenir.
Personally I find it disrespectful, not to say offensive, that 103 would act in the way he described in the name of Christ. I'm sure he's big enough to take a bit of mild humour at his expense for it. Let him say what he likes about me.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
I'm fed up with this 'well, Jesus can take care of Himself and so that means anybody who wants to come in and trample over the sacred beliefs of the Church and take away the Body of Christ and even munch away at Him in their stall should just be allowed to do it, right, and nobody should be allowed to be even a little bit mad at them for pissing all over their Faith' argument. In the mass Our Lord continues to give Himself up for us. So no, he can't take care of Himself. He's too busy taking care of us. And yes, we worship Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. It's not just a bit of bread we think a nice man has said a few words of blessing over. It is Our Lord and Our God - Corpus Christi. And that means we don't want nasty minded little people pretending it means and is worth nothing but then flogging it for $2000.

It may come as a shock to some here but not everybody can do exactly what they want. I wouldn't go into the women's section in an Orthodox Synagogue. I wouldn't go into a mosque and pull out a ham sandwich whilst praying. And if anybody else did I would expect the Imam or the Rabbi or whoever to shout at them until they stopped. Churches have rules just like everywhere else and those rules are there to be kept and if you don't like it then tough.

If Pants or Peronel or Sienna or anybody came to the Cosmodrome and tried to take away the Host with them (as has happened) then they would be stopped and I don't care if they never came again. The offence that that person gives to the Catholic Faith is greater than me telling them to stick by the rules.

If you really want an insult then you should see what Black Magicians do with the Hosts that they desecrate. Nobody bothers to do that with the soggy piece of Mother's Pride given out down the local Methodist Chapel.

Cosmo

[ 12. April 2005, 21:44: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Hate to tell you this, MT, but I am really trying hard to get the whole "black magician" thing too. That just makes this whole thing seem more and more like superstition rather than Christianity.

Well, I'd say black magic is more like superstition than Christianity. But if you can't be arsed to do some googling and find out what some people would like to do with consecrated hosts, don't expect me to do it for you. That you have a hard time getting it speaks only about you, not about the existence of such people.
I'm not saying that such people don't exist. But why should we give a damn what they think they're doing? Why does it matter who bought it? The fact that both you and Thurible brought it up, as well as a lot of the other charged rhetoric leads me to wonder if a bit of bread is being treated as an object of worship, which is a more serious problem, IMO, than some git selling it on EBay.

Sieg
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
103, Jesus can take care of himself, and is more than capable of defending Himself against desecration, intentional or accidental. The reason for respect of the Precious Body is for our benefit, not His. So the sanctimonious drama about "choosing a person over Our Lord" is more than a little bit over the top.

Was it necessary to grab her and yell, publicly embarrassing her? Tell me, as a Eucharistic Minister, do you not see that you have some duty to those receiving the Eucharist, namely, treating them with respect? You said yourself she probably won't come back to your church. I wonder whether that's the result Christ would have wished for.

I didn't yell - I hissed. It was necessary because she was walking quite quickly and I panicked on my first time as Eucharistic Minister. I told my parish priest and he said that he saw and it was exactly what I should've done. I had remembered what he told me to do from the Eucharistic Minister Instruction Lessons! If you don't like it you can take it up with my parish priest. He said that he didn't want anybody taking the host away with them and it was OUR DUTY as Eucharistic Ministers to make sure that it doesn't happen and to watch them consume it!

It did exactly that - Please can I have some backup from some Catholic Minded people here? I did right and I know it!

Yes, you did, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

Saving the person't feeling's indeed! Pah!

The distribution of Communion is not the time for instruction about how to receive communion and so it would have been nonsensical for you to be expected to stop there and explain why it was not acceptable for her to be doing what she was doing.

You had no way of telling what the person's intentions were in walking off with the Host. By stopping her, rather than allowing her to continue, you may have prevented her from scandalising the other faithful present, but more importantly from commiting a grave sin. Is this to be preferred over sparing her feelings?

Of course it is!
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
Personally I'm perfectly happy to be irreverent about things which are sacred to me because I don't see that my irreverence diminishes their sacredness.

You can be irreverent all you want with things YOU think are sacred. When you start pissing on things you DO NOT think are sacred, but other people do, you are being disrespectful.

I hope that's clear enough even for a fuckwit like yourself to understand.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
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.
Why?

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.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]

There's a whole thread down in Dead Horses where you can flog this to your heart's content, sweetie.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
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.
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.

Deborah
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Look here!

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!

-103
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
The fact that both you and Thurible brought it up, as well as a lot of the other charged rhetoric leads me to wonder if a bit of bread is being treated as an object of worship, which is a more serious problem, IMO, than some git selling it on EBay.

If it were just a "bit of bread" then it wouldn't matter in the least. But according to the Catholic Church's teachings, it's not just a "bit of bread" -- so applying any categories to it that you might apply to a "bit of bread" is irrelevant and not a little stupid.
 
Posted by Enthia (# 9316) on :
 
103, you obviously didn’t want that person to take the wafer away.

As I’m not a catholic, I wondered what’s the worst that could have happened to it?
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
I'm fed up with this 'well, Jesus can take care of Himself and so that means anybody who wants to come in and trample over the sacred beliefs of the Church and take away the Body of Christ and even munch away at Him in their stall should just be allowed to do it, right, and nobody should be allowed to be even a little bit mad at them for pissing all over their Faith' argument. In the mass Our Lord continues to give Himself up for us. so no, he can't take care of Himself. He's too busy taking care of us.


I certainly have not said this. On the contrary, I said right up at the top of the previous page that what he was doing was horrid. He has offended on at least three levels: by trampling on something sacred; by abusing the hospitality of the church he visited; and by knowingly - as the opening disclaimer of his ebay post admits - acting in a way which he knows will cause offence.

There is no justification for stealing the host. There is no justification for the deceit involved by taking one with false intentions. There is no justification in trying to profit from that.

Yet none of that is as bad as grabbing and hissing at a member of the body of Christ during the service. A quiet word at the church door, maybe. But what 103 did was an abuse of his position of authority as Eucharistic minister as well as an abject failure to model the love of Christ.

Had it happened to me, not only would I not have returned to that church, it probably would have taken many months before I plucked up the courage to go to church again.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Enthia (# 9316) on :
 
I agree,
"hissing" at someone was inaproprate
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Look here!

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!

-103

So, I'm not a real Christian, nor are the others who don't agree with you on this? Of all the stupid, closeminded and just plain insulting things you've said on these boards, this one is the capper.

Sieg
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
It did exactly that - Please can I have some backup from some Catholic Minded people here? I did right and I know it!

-103

It could have perhaps been handled a little more gently, 103 - I know it's nerve-wracking being a Eucharistic Minister, but part of your role is indeed to see that the Host is consumed with reverence at the altar.

Deborah
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
So, Peronel and Ethnia, you two are more equipped to tell 103 how to be a eucharistic minister than the priest to whom he reports? Based on what, exactly? I think your heads are just a little bit too big for your shoulders.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enthia:
103, you obviously didn’t want that person to take the wafer away.

As I’m not a catholic, I wondered what’s the worst that could have happened to it?

To quote from the site that 103 linked to:


quote:
This is the ultimate rite for a real Satanist to obtain magic powers: A blasphemous Mass, where the altar is a nude woman, and the vagina is the tabernacle. If possible, a real Host stolen from a Catholic Church is placed in the vagina in the midst of reciting distorted psalms with hot music and all kind of obscenities, coursing Jesus and honoring Satan. The fake priest ends up having real sex, with the Host still in the vagina.

... If a baby can be slaughtered during the ritual, they will drink his blood and eat his flesh, to mimic the most the Eucharist...

. .. Ideally, a Black Mass is to be celebrated by a "real heretic Priest", that, even in sin, can celebrate Mass effectively.

- The prayers end with the strongest expression of Satanism: "Shemhaforash", the word pronounced by God when he created the World, and, while spitting on a cross or stepping on it, they all cry out "Hail, Satan".

. .. And, of course, it may end up with a sexual orgy with all kind of abominations and abuses, under the influence of drugs.

Abhorrent. Repulsive. Reprehensible.

Of course, it's far more likely that she would have taken it back to her pew and eaten it there. Or eaten it en route. Or was holding on to it to intinct. Or whilst she prayed.

I suspect that this sort of rite doesn't happen that often, especially if it includes the slaughter of babies. After all, spare babies are difficult to find, and killing them tends to have consequences.

Churches acting in such a way as to stop people from returning is, this thread would suggest, worryingly common.

Peronel.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:

Yet none of that is as bad as grabbing and hissing at a member of the body of Christ during the service. A quiet word at the church door, maybe. But what 103 did was an abuse of his position of authority as Eucharistic minister as well as an abject failure to model the love of Christ.

No - It wasn't abuse. I had to stop her in order to watch her consume the Body of Christ. Failure to do so would be abusing Christ's Church and just "overlooking" would basically mean I would be commiting a Mortal sin which would be just as bad as what she could go and commit!
I'm not going to take any risks, whilst I'm at my church, she will eat the Body of Christ standing at the step in front of a Eucharistic Minister.
I cannot take the risk that should could pop it in her handbag and take it to a Black Magic Magician who will put it in her private parts

quote:
Of course, it's far more likely that she would have taken it back to her pew and eaten it there. Or eaten it en route. Or was holding on to it to intinct. Or whilst she prayed.
But she could put it in her handbag to take home!

-103

[ 12. April 2005, 22:00: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
 
Posted by Enthia (# 9316) on :
 
Mousethief don't get personal, remember the 10 commandments.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
If Pants or Peronel or Sienna or anybody came to the Cosmodrome and tried to take away the Host with them (as has happened) then they would be stopped and I don't care if they never came again. The offence that that person gives to the Catholic Faith is greater than me telling them to stick by the rules.

Well, that's a wonderful advertisement on behalf of the Catholic Faith, which I thought claimed to be concerned with the ultimate spiritual well-being of all of humanity. Perhaps I have misunderstood my catechesis.

quote:
If you really want an insult then you should see what Black Magicians do with the Hosts that they desecrate. Nobody bothers to do that with the soggy piece of Mother's Pride given out down the local Methodist Chapel.

Cosmo

Oh, how nice of you to describe the Communion of your fellow Christians as a "soggy piece of Mother's Pride". I'm sure this is in no way on the same level as insulting Jews by failing to cover your head in a synagogue or eating ham in a mosque. Oh no.

[ 12. April 2005, 22:00: Message edited by: jlg ]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Siegfried said:
So, I'm not a real Christian, nor are the others who don't agree with you on this? Of all the stupid, closeminded and just plain insulting things you've said on these boards, this one is the capper.

So you'd be happy with someone doing that with the Body of Our Lord? Even if you believe that the elements at the Eucharist are only symbolically the Body of Our Lord, would you be happy with someone doing that with symbols? I know I wouldn't, and though I probably wouldn't have expressed it quite like 103 did, I do find it hard to see how one can claim to be a follower of Christ and be happy with such an act.

btw, Cosmo, I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to the Body of Our Lord as a soggy piece of Mother's Pride. Ta.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
There is no justification for stealing the host. There is no justification for the deceit involved by taking one with false intentions. There is no justification in trying to profit from that.

Yet none of that is as bad as grabbing and hissing at a member of the body of Christ during the service. A quiet word at the church door, maybe. But what 103 did was an abuse of his position of authority as Eucharistic minister as well as an abject failure to model the love of Christ.

Had it happened to me, not only would I not have returned to that church, it probably would have taken many months before I plucked up the courage to go to church again.

Peronel.

I'm sorry but that's just not true. 103 (I can't believe I'm saying this) was quite right to do what he did just as I have done on several occasions. How do I know that you, Peronel, whom I have never seen before in my Church, is simply going to take Our Lord away and eat Him in the comfort of your own pew? How do I know that you are not going to take Him away and pee on Him when you get home? How do I know you are not going to throw Him into a rubbish bin and laugh at Hinm and the Church? How do I know you are not going to take Him away for use in a so-called Black Mass or Satanic Revel?

I don't. And so that means I call to you, there and then, and tell you either to eat the Host there and then or give it back.

The love of Christ does not mean allowing somebody to piss all over God.

Cosmo
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enthia:
Mousethief don't get personal, remember the 10 commandments.

This is Hell. Personal attacks are allowed here and only here.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
A quiet word at the church door, maybe. But what 103 did was an abuse of his position of authority as Eucharistic minister...

No, what 103 did was a total fulfilment of one of the more difficult aspects of his role as Eucharistic minister, and he is to be commended for it. This sort of confrontation is not the sort of thing that comes naturally in our society, but where the Sacred is involved, it is often necesary.

quote:
as well as an abject failure to model the love of Christ.
Is this the same Christ who cast the moneychangers out of the temple for desecrating what he held to be sacred? I don't see any hint of a 'quiet word at the door' in the Gospel account. How is it exactly that Henry has failed in following the example set by Our Lord?

So he was supposed to wait until the end of the Mass, when the Host could have been already in the sealed bag and stuck God only knows where?

We allow all people through our church doors, whether or not we know them, and even knowledge of a person is no gurantee that we know the person's actions and intentions, as we all know from our human relationships. I'm sure none of us has gone without our trust being betrayed at least once.

103 was right.

[ 12. April 2005, 22:03: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:
The fact that both you and Thurible brought it up, as well as a lot of the other charged rhetoric leads me to wonder if a bit of bread is being treated as an object of worship, which is a more serious problem, IMO, than some git selling it on EBay.
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.

I don't see what the issue is here. No-one is saying that everyone else should sign up to Catholic views of the Real Presence. All we are saying is that Catholic beliefs about their most important religious ceremony should be respected by non-Catholics.

Why do protestants have such a difficulty with this? If the religious ceremonies of any other religious group were desecrated for profit, I imagine the response would be outrage. I remember when the Taliban blew up those statues of the Buddha. Presumably those who think that Catholic Christians are being oversensitive and that this is much worse than consecrated hosts being flogged on e-bay had no problem with the Taliban doing an impromptu demolition job?
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Siegfried said:
So, I'm not a real Christian, nor are the others who don't agree with you on this? Of all the stupid, closeminded and just plain insulting things you've said on these boards, this one is the capper.

So you'd be happy with someone doing that with the Body of Our Lord? Even if you believe that the elements at the Eucharist are only symbolically the Body of Our Lord, would you be happy with someone doing that with symbols? I know I wouldn't, and though I probably wouldn't have expressed it quite like 103 did, I do find it hard to see how one can claim to be a follower of Christ and be happy with such an act.
Excuse me? Where did I say I was happy about someone swiping a wafer and selling it? I'm just amazed and apalled the comments by some posters (103 among them) who seem to me to be straying into idolatry. And don't even get me started on the sort of gullible people who run around believing Satanists are routinely killing babies and drinking their blood.

Sieg
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
But she could put it in her handbag to take home!

-103

Yes, she could have. And she could have then taken it home, and stuck in in her fanny, and drunk the blood of a dead baby in some bizarre mockery of the Mass.

Anything is possible. But some things are pretty unlikely.

What is likely is - as you said - she won't come back to your church.

I think that's a pity. Do you?
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
If Pants or Peronel or Sienna or anybody came to the Cosmodrome and tried to take away the Host with them (as has happened) then they would be stopped and I don't care if they never came again. The offence that that person gives to the Catholic Faith is greater than me telling them to stick by the rules.

Well, that's a wonderful advertisement on behalf of the Catholic Faith, which I thought claimed to be concerned with the ultimate spiritual well-being of all of humanity. Perhaps I have misunderstood my catechesis.
The Catholic Faith is concerned with the spiritual wellbeing of all humanity. That is why we don't let Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament be pissed all over, abused and desecrated just for the sake of not offending a nice little person. The Gospel is, by its very nature, offensive and sometimes it means saying 'No'.

Cosmo
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Look here!

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!

-103

So, I'm not a real Christian, nor are the others who don't agree with you on this? Of all the stupid, closeminded and just plain insulting things you've said on these boards, this one is the capper.

Sieg

You think it's fine to take the Body of Christ and put in a vagina?!?!??
How can any Christian think that?!?!?!??!?!

And before you say "I just think it's a wafer" I'm not talking about a Wafer, I'm talking about the Body of Christ. JESUS! No Christian would want Jesus to be abused like that!

-103
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I think that's a pity. Do you?

and sticking the Body of Christ in her fanny isn't?
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Callan--
See my reply above.

Sieg
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
So, how Peronel and I are advocating sticking Hosts in various orifices? Has reading comprehension completely gone out the window?

Sieg
 
Posted by Enthia (# 9316) on :
 
Just because personal attacks are allowed, doesn’t mean you have to reduce yourself to that level.

I’m an atheist and im against selling religious artifices on eBay. People should have a little respect, there isn’t enough respect nowadays.
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
Mousethief:
quote:
You can be irreverent all you want with things YOU think are sacred. When you start pissing on things you DO NOT think are sacred, but other people do, you are being disrespectful.

I hope that's clear enough even for a fuckwit like yourself to understand.

Unlike you it is not my intention to be deliberately offensive.

If through lack of understanding or consideration I have posted something on this thread which has caused anyone offence to deeply held beliefs then I apologise for it.

Back-to-Front, you seem to have difficulty with the idea that an intelligent person might disagree with you.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
And don't even get me started on the sort of gullible people who run around believing Satanists are routinely killing babies and drinking their blood.

Sieg

Satanists do not routinely go about killing babies and drinking their blood (although the killing of babies and adults does sometimes happen and is the culmination of a Satanic Rite). However, the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament (and all that pertains to it - the altar, tabernacle, ciboria etc) does happen often and on a routine basis.

Cosmo
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
Back-to-Front, you seem to have difficulty with the idea that an intelligent person might disagree with you.

He's not the only one. [Disappointed]

Sieg
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
So, how Peronel and I are advocating sticking Hosts in various orifices? Has reading comprehension completely gone out the window?

Sieg

Sticking Hosts in various orifices is one of the better-known abuses of the Host. 103 prevented the possibility of abuse by his actions, which are the standard way of dealing with this type of incident. Insofar as you are objecting to his prevention of this abuse, then yes, you are passivley advocating abuse of the Host, of which sticking it into a bodily orifice was a possibility.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I think that's a pity. Do you?

and sticking the Body of Christ in her fanny isn't?
If you look further up, you'll see I describe it as "Abhorrent. Repulsive. Reprehensible." It is also incredibly unlikely.

Yeah, 103 might just be Super-minister-man, who has saved our Lord from a fate worse than death.

More likely, though, is that he's upset someone who committed the unforgivable sin of being unfamiliar with the ways of his church. What a hero.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enthia:
Just because personal attacks are allowed, doesn’t mean you have to reduce yourself to that level.

I’m an atheist and im against selling religious artifices on eBay. People should have a little respect, there isn’t enough respect nowadays.

Like respect for a person doing their job in a church they way they were told to do it, and commended by their priest afterwards for doing it? That kind of respect? Why don't you have that kind of respect?
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enthia:
Just because personal attacks are allowed, doesn’t mean you have to reduce yourself to that level.

I’m an atheist and im against selling religious artifices on eBay. People should have a little respect, there isn’t enough respect nowadays.

Enthia sweetie - you're terribly new around here to be telling us how to do things!

People are utterly lovely to each other on all the other boards here - you might feel more comfortable starting wtih one of them.

K.
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
103, all caps and multiple exclamation points generally means "yelling." "Grabbing" her by the shoulder doesn't mean "a polite tap." Note I didn't say you should let her do whatever she wanted or leave with the Eucharist. What I said was she should be treated respectfully, which, from your retelling of the incident, I don't think you did.

quote:
If Pants or Peronel or Sienna or anybody came to the Cosmodrome and tried to take away the Host with them (as has happened) then they would be stopped and I don't care if they never came again. The offence that that person gives to the Catholic Faith is greater than me telling them to stick by the rules.

I wouldn't dream of it trying to take the Host away from the Cosmodrome (or anywhere else), nor do I think it's just fine to treat the Eucharist in any way I please. But I'm fairly sure, from reading your posts, that when you stopped the errant communicant, you would at least initially try to do so in a dignified, unobtrusive manner, not yelling, hissing or grabbing at them unless it was a last resort.

How does pointing out that we revere the sacrament for OUR benefit, to show our love and respect for the person of God (on the theory that we need God, not vice-versa), equate with saying "it's okay to do whatever we want with the Eucharist?" It doesn't make the need for reverence any less. Sorry if I'm being too purgatorial, but I don't get the connection.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I think that's a pity. Do you?

and sticking the Body of Christ in her fanny isn't?
If you look further up, you'll see I describe it as "Abhorrent. Repulsive. Reprehensible." It is also incredibly unlikely.
No it is not.

Cosmo
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
More likely, though, is that he's upset someone who committed the unforgivable sin of being unfamiliar with the ways of his church. What a hero.

Even more likely, you are abrogating the authority of his priest, who commended his actions, and acting like you consider yourself the priest's superior. What a hero.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Well said, Sienna.

Cosmo, unless you can produce any figures (and I admit that I can't, either) I guess we're going to have to just agree to disagree on the incidence of blood-drinking host-desecrating black masses.

Peronel
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
103, all caps and multiple exclamation points generally means "yelling." "Grabbing" her by the shoulder doesn't mean "a polite tap." Note I didn't say you should let her do whatever she wanted or leave with the Eucharist. What I said was she should be treated respectfully, which, from your retelling of the incident, I don't think you did.

OK, let me rephrase "Grabbing" with "Firmly Gripped"
In my experience tapping doesn't often get people's attention when you're vertically challenged. I had a chalice in my other hand so I had to be very careful that I didn't spill that (I think that would mean that the carpet would have to be burnt)

As B2F and Cosmo both said I did the right thing!

-103
 
Posted by Enthia (# 9316) on :
 
Mousethief, I know 103 and I realise that his heart was in the right place but i was just saying that he could have handled it a bit better.

I have a lot of respect for his faith, I can only imagine what it’s like having such a strong faith in a very secular college.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
How does that answer my point. Your observation was that Catholics were bad for regarding 'a bit of bread' as 'an object of worship'. My point was that what you believe to be a 'bit of bread' was, for some of us, the MBS of our Lord's body and blood.

I don't, myself, believe that it is wrong to eat pork, drink alcohol, export statues of the Buddha from Thailand or wear shoes in a place of worship. Yet I would abstain from all these things in order to respect someone else's religion.

Whether or not 103 is the most sensitive Eucharistic minister in the world (no comment), or whether SRA happens (it doesn't) or whether hosts get desecrated (like, hello, what are we discussing) is a tangent from this central point that our protestant brethren seem unwilling to grapple with.

I have been known to stick up for protestants, on occasions, on these boards. What a bloody fool I was.

[Callan I have no idea what you were hoping to quote above. Please clarify. Also, I'm going to kick your ass if you ever mess up quotes in Hell again.]

[ 13. April 2005, 00:32: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Well said, Sienna.

Cosmo, unless you can produce any figures (and I admit that I can't, either) I guess we're going to have to just agree to disagree on the incidence of blood-drinking host-desecrating black masses.

Peronel

As I said, the number of full Satanic Revels is small. However, the number of routine desecrations is large. You will forgive if I don't go into the details but, in my line of work, one has personal experience of this.

Cosmo

[ 12. April 2005, 22:23: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
How does that answer my point. Your observation was that Catholics were bad for regarding 'a bit of bread' as 'an object of worship'. My point was that what you believe to be a 'bit of bread' was, for some of us, the MBS of our Lord's body and blood.

Sorry--it was the first part of my post I meant. I am not defending the person who took the host with the intent of selling it. It is not something I would do, any more than I would attempt to communicate at an RC church, knowing that I don't view it as they do, and knowing that under their doctrines I am not allowed to communicate. However--it happened. He took it. What would people have happen to him, or his auctioning it?
The other part of my comment there (and in other posts on the thread) is in reaction to statements by others here that I am having a hard time seeing as not crossing into mistaking the object for the actuality. Maybe that's why I'm not understanding it, and probably would be better for a Purgatory thread about where that line lies, and why.

Sieg
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
More likely, though, is that he's upset someone who committed the unforgivable sin of being unfamiliar with the ways of his church. What a hero.

Even more likely, you are abrogating the authority of his priest, who commended his actions, and acting like you consider yourself the priest's superior. What a hero.
What is rather more likely is that the incident as his priest saw it is rather different from how 103 initially described it.


ETA: Cosmo, as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
After all, grabbing and YELLING!!! have already been downgraded to firmly gripped and hissed.

It may be that 103 handled this far more sensitively than his initial post would suggest. In that case, his priest may be right to commend him. But, after all, all we have to go on is his own description, in which he said he treated someone in such a manner that she would be unlikely to return.

103, you still haven't said if you think that last is regrettable.

[ 12. April 2005, 22:30: Message edited by: Peronel ]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
That's what happens when you edit in haste. *sigh* The "ETA" should be at the end.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:


103, you still haven't said if you think that last is regrettable.

It's regrettable that the lady thought that she could take the host and it had to come to that.
But I do not regret grabbing her and telling her to eat it!

-103
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Peronel: Given the fact that his priest was actually there in the room with him, and presumably not terribly far from him, when it happened, I'd say your thinking you can judge it better than the priest from a few words in a post on a discussion site is pretty ... what's a good word for it? dumb-as-dirt? outrageously presumptuous? absurd? ridiculous? Anyway it doesn't make you look very good, especially as you keep clinging to this inane presupposition that you are better placed to judge 103 than his own priest.

{ETA who it was to)

[ 12. April 2005, 22:33: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I dunno 103 despite your justifications I think I might well have told you where to stick it. But then I think I'm not a real Christian.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I'm a Roman Catholic Eucharistic Minister. I assist in providing the Body and Blood of Christ to those who attend mass.

What offended me was the method described in 103's post:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
...I quickly grabbed her shoulder and told her that she had to eat it immediatly. She looked at me as if I was crazy and I said to her "EAT IT NOW!!!" and she quickly ate it!....

If I gave someone the Host and they put in their pocket rather than their mouth, I would intervene. If they just wandered off with it, I would keep an eye on him/her and take some sort of action (most likely delegating an off-duty EM -- there's usually one or two in the front pews) to investigate, thus allowing me to continue offering the Body.

Your use of ALL CAPS, 103, indicates that you actually shouted at her. While I understand that the nerves associated with being a first-time server can lead to bad decisions, I am mostly bothered by the fact that you feel no remorse, in fact you feel downright self-righteous about having publically embarrassed this woman to the point where you don't expect her to ever return to your church.

quote:
She probably will never come to my church again because of that but to Catholics it is INCREDIBLY important that somebody doesn't desecrate that Body of Christ. It is something so serious we just can't risk it!
Well, this Catholic, a struggling, sinful, heretical, trusting in God and not pretending to fully understand Him, has thrown her faith and soul into the Roman Catholic Church, because She (the Church) has been calling me for far longer than either you or Cosmo has been alive. And if salvation and grace are only actually given to those who intellectually agree with every word, paragraph, heading, and footnote of the Cathecism, then I suspect Hell is going to be very crowded indeed, and I apologize for polluting your (a-hem, cough) "Cathlolic" Church. Which one was that, by the way?
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
and all because the lady loves...
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Given the fact that his priest was actually there in the room with him, and presumably not terribly far from him, when it happened, I'd say your thinking you can judge it better than the priest from a few words in a post on a discussion site is pretty ... what's a good word for it? dumb-as-dirt? outrageously presumptuous? absurd? ridiculous? Anyway it doesn't make you look very good, especially as you keep clinging to this inane presupposition that you are better placed to judge 103 than his own priest.

Saint Matthew 7:1

-103
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
103 - Has no one ever told you that girls don't like sanctimonious little shits?
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Given the fact that his priest was actually there in the room with him, and presumably not terribly far from him, when it happened, I'd say your thinking you can judge it better than the priest from a few words in a post on a discussion site is pretty ... what's a good word for it? dumb-as-dirt? outrageously presumptuous? absurd? ridiculous? Anyway it doesn't make you look very good, especially as you keep clinging to this inane presupposition that you are better placed to judge 103 than his own priest.

Saint Matthew 7:1
Ouch.

I have never heard a use of that that hasn't backfired. Sorry, 103. [Frown]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Given the fact that his priest was actually there in the room with him, and presumably not terribly far from him, when it happened, I'd say your thinking you can judge it better than the priest from a few words in a post on a discussion site is pretty ... what's a good word for it? dumb-as-dirt? outrageously presumptuous? absurd? ridiculous? Anyway it doesn't make you look very good, especially as you keep clinging to this inane presupposition that you are better placed to judge 103 than his own priest.

Actually, I was saying the opposite. I guess my cocked up edit didn't help my comprehensibility.

To repeat, 103 gave an initially very dramatic description of what happened. That description has since become less dramatic - that is a good thing. It is entirely possible that the incident was very different from how the initial post portrayed it. If that is so, his priest may well have been right - I don't know, I wasn't there.

I can only judge on what he said. And what he initially said was he "grabbed"; he used capitals which suggested he YELLED; and that he doesn't think the person on the receiving end is likely to return.

If that is the case then it strikes me as being far from commendable. I guess you disagree.

Peronel.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
103 - Has no one ever told you that girls don't like sanctimonious little shits?

I'll use that as my signature!

-103
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'm saying it's his priest's problem, not yours or mine, Peronel.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
, I quickly grabbed her shoulder and told her that she had to eat it immediatly. She looked at me as if I was crazy and I said to her "EAT IT NOW!!!" and she quickly ate it!


I can so see Jesus doing the same as you 103. Can I suggest you don't parade your follies across the net.
 
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 
quote:
Callan:
Why do protestants have such a difficulty with this? If the religious ceremonies of any other religious group were desecrated for profit, I imagine the response would be outrage.

Nice to see Luther being vindicated [Biased]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'm saying it's his priest's problem, not yours or mine, Peronel.

Peachy. Then he shouldn't have raised it on a discussion board.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Quite true as far as the bottom line, Mousethief, but he posted it and this is Hell.
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
I don't see the problem either, it is neither sick, nor funny - just enterprising.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyone can buy unconsecrated wafers. I can get them in a shop round the corner.

I ate half a box of the buggers once, horrible dry things. yuck.

Neil
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Quite true as far as the bottom line, Mousethief, but he posted it and this is Hell.

Also true. Peronel is allowed to make an ass of herself over this all she wants. And what do you know! She has!
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyone can buy unconsecrated wafers. I can get them in a shop round the corner.

I ate half a box of the buggers once, horrible dry things. yuck.
Couldn't find the parish custard creams?
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Quite true as far as the bottom line, Mousethief, but he posted it and this is Hell.

Also true. Peronel is allowed to make an ass of herself over this all she wants. And what do you know! She has!
And you're quite at liberty to demonstrate that you're quite happy to hurt people to protect God.

Which is ironic, really.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
And you're quite at liberty to demonstrate that you're quite happy to hurt people to protect God.

WTF are you talking about?
 
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 
quote:
Peronel, responding to the faithful: And you're quite at liberty to demonstrate that you're quite happy to hurt people to protect God.
It's part of their sacramental theology, Peronel, known as the Real Absence.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
quote:
Peronel, responding to the faithful: And you're quite at liberty to demonstrate that you're quite happy to hurt people to protect God.
It's part of their sacramental theology, Peronel, known as the Real Absence.
Well done!

I'll bet you've been thinking of that throughout the thread, just waiting for the opportune moment.

Awwww. It's sort of sweet, I suppose.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
And you're quite at liberty to demonstrate that you're quite happy to hurt people to protect God.

WTF are you talking about?
In arguing that 103 was correct to grab and hiss at someone, embarrassing them to the extent that he thinks they are unlikely to return, in order to prevent the possible theft of the host, that is, in effect what you are saying. That the risk to the host outweighs the probable distress.

My position is that - reprehensible though this ebayer's actions are - it would be better to take the risk of that being repeated than to treat someone in a way that is likely to stop them from returning to church. You, I take it, disagree.

With that, as it's past midnight here, I'm going to sleep. This thread will have to do without me til the morning.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I was arguing that it's his priest's job to tell him how to act as an EM, not yours. I suppose it's your right to twist that around however you like, and of course you have. Hope it makes you feel better, I guess.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Caveman:
If through lack of understanding or consideration I have posted something on this thread which has caused anyone offence to deeply held beliefs then I apologise for it.

Thank you, Captain Caveman.

I'm not RC, but if I'd seen the auction on eBay, I'd have hit the buy-it-now button, whatever the price, and taken the host to the local RC church. Even if there's a half a chance that it's a real consecrated host, and not a hoax, I'd feel duty-bound do to that.

I think what you, and some others, don't understand is that, for those of us who believe in the Real Presence, that host is not just a piece of bread. It is in truth the Body of Jesus, whom we love beyond life itself.

There was a story in the newspapers out here not too long ago, about a couple of boys who killed a stray dog by tieing it up and shooting arrows at it, then pulling the arrows out, and shooting it some more, until it was dead. The abuse of that dog provoked outrage, as it rightfully should.

And there was the story about the crematorium down in Georgia, I think, where the owners hadn't actually bothered cremating any bodies for several years. The ashes they returned to families were just cement. And the bodies were buried or dumped in a nearby field, or maybe in a pond on the grounds. Again, people were outraged over the abuse of the bodies of people who were dear to them.

And if a child's body is abused, or the body of a hospital patient who is in a comatose state, you know how repellant and disgusted people are.

All those feelings have parallels to our feelings when we hear of someone desecrating a consecrated host. It may just be a piece of bread to someone, but to us it is the Body of our Lord and Savior, it is something dear and precious, because He is dear and precious. To see it mistreated genuinely hurts.

It's clear that it doesn't bother you. And maybe it's hard to understand how we feel about it. But our feelings about it, as you can see from this thread, are very strong. I appreciate your apology.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
Picture of blood stained hallway, followed by black mass ritual/stuff

A warning that this may not be for the faint of heart. Some will find it repulsive, some, hilarious and others indifferent.

[Link is visually disturbing - bloodstains and all that. Might not be work safe.]

[ 13. April 2005, 11:06: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Ronist (# 5343) on :
 
quote:
Any real Christian would agree! No matter what the feelings of the person involved might be.
Tough shit buddy!

-103

God save me from all real Christians and Eucharistic Ministers.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:


103, you still haven't said if you think that last is regrettable.

It's regrettable that the lady thought that she could take the host and it had to come to that.
But I do not regret grabbing her and telling her to eat it!

-103

And I notice we're back to the description of "grabbing."

I have to say, if any punk ass kid like 103 ever did this to me while at the altar, a) I'd let him have a good verbal toungelashing right then and there, b) I'd be in to see his priest ASAP to try to get him out of his job as Eucharistic minister, and c) I'd pray he never tried to take up pastoral counselling. I mean, good heavens.

Next he'll be shoving little old ladies on the sidewalks for buying biscuits, in fear they'll be using them in Satanic ritual. Because you know that stealing wafers from Catholic mass is high on the list of priorities for Satanists. There's loads of references to this. Not.

She's not coming back to his church, and I daresay others aren't either. I, for one, am not going to turn up. How horrid! What an awful way to treat anyone in God's house!
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I have to say, if any punk ass kid like 103 ever did this to me while at the altar, a) I'd let him have a good verbal toungelashing right then and there, b) I'd be in to see his priest ASAP to try to get him out of his job as Eucharistic minister, and c) I'd pray he never tried to take up pastoral counselling. I mean, good heavens.

From what I've known of you in your posts here and elsewhere, you have the good sense not to be making off with a Host at the Mass, so I don't see how this situation would arise.

Bear in mind that 103 was put on the spot, in a situation that Eucharistic ministers are told about in training, but that isn't really expected to actually happen the first time round. Any embarrassment that she suffered was brought on herself, whether deliberately, or through being in another world (as I was on Sunday). If she was daydreaming, nobody is condemning her to eternal damnation, but the responsibility to ensure that she wasn't daydreaming was her own and nobody else's. 103 wasn't to know what her intentions were and was justified in his actions, punk ass kid or not.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Indeed, 103 was not to know what her intentions were.

Thus his inappropriate behaviour is made even more unjustifiable. Were she a known satanist, or had made some sort of declaration that she was taking it away for nefarious purpose, then he would have reacted possibly in a justifiable manner. As it was he was:
rude
loud
irreverantial
physically grabbing an older woman (by his own description)
hissing at her and commanding her to do things.

He escalated it out of all proportion. He didn't even start with a tap, or a polite if quiet reminder that she's supposed to eat it there. No, no, just grabbing and spinning her round and hissing at her.

Good lord, if he catches someone chewing the host, I dread to think what he's going to do then. Broken jaws could result!

And even worse, the priest condones it!
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Hey GAG, since you are the perfect judge of all things that any human does, I have some other things you can advise me about ... let me get my list, okay? Meet you back here in an hour.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
So, MT, how do you think the little turbo eclisiastical minister should have responded? I'm hardly alone on thinking the kid shouldn't have grabbed, shoulding have ordered, etc.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You.Just.Don't.Get.It.

It's.Not.My.Call.and.It's.Not.Yours.

I don't know how to make this any plainer. Hello? Anybody home?
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Indeed, 103 was not to know what her intentions were.

Thus his inappropriate behaviour is made even more unjustifiable. Were she a known satanist, or had made some sort of declaration that she was taking it away for nefarious purpose, then he would have reacted possibly in a justifiable manner.

No. This is wrong.

It isn't the default action for someone to walk off with the Host. It is the default action to consume it and then leave. I can think of no reason why anybody would need to walk off with the Host except for some unseemly purpose. In all Anglican churches I have been two on this and the other side of the Atlantic, it has been the practice that, if there are people in the pews who are unable to approach the altar, the Sacrament is taken to them by the priest and/or ministers.

Therefore it is the woman's action of walking off with the Host that aroused suspicion.

As for her not having openly declared her intention to run off with the Host for some satanic ritual being seen as some reason not to have been suspicious, that is nonsense. Nobody with that intention would make it known in such a fashion.

Therefore, if avoiding a/ desecration of the Body of Christ, b/ scandal to the congregation and c/ possible sinful behaviour on the part of the woman, meant being:

quote:
rude
loud
irreverantial
physically grabbing an older woman (by his own description)
hissing at her and commanding her to do things.

then it was perfectly justified.

I'm all for courtesy, respect and politeness, but there are more important things. The three points I mentioned above are among them.

What was he supposed to do? Say "Excuse me, please don't steal the Body of Christ. It isn't nice."?

It reminds me of an episode of Paddington Bear, when the bathtub was overflowing and Paddington was drowing and so made a plea for help, but did it quietly so as not to disturb anybody.

[ 13. April 2005, 00:12: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
For 'two' in my previous post, please read 'to'. It's a quarter past one and my alarm goes off at a half past five, so I'm off to bed.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
He could have started with "Excuse me." Most people would. But no, he's got to go grabbing people and hissing at them. Even he admits she's not coming back. And he seems pretty proud of the fact she's not coming back, either. If the priest saw it, why didn't HE do something about it. Or why didn't 103 start off with something a little less intrusive or just get the priest's attention?

I'm hoping (but not much, given the priest's endorsement) that eucharistic training didn't include grabbing people and hissing at them. But apparently you think (and 103 thinks) this is ok. So maybe it IS part of the training down there in Bath.

Shudder.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
You.Just.Don't.Get.It.

It's.Not.My.Call.and.It's.Not.Yours.

I don't know how to make this any plainer. Hello? Anybody home?

Then why are you bothering to post here if you don't think it is your call either?

He's a rude little boy, and until he learns some basic manners, he shouldnt' be involved with such spiritual practices as administering the eucharist.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
[attempt at summing up current arguement] I've got a bit kerfuffled by this thread's to-ings & fro-ings - can I attempt to clarify things for thick people like me?

1) eBay seller diversifiedsolutions offered for sale on auction / buy it now a set of memorabilia from a visit he and some friends made to the Vatican

2) part of the lot, along with said memorabilia, was a wafer from Communion - served by the late Pope.

___________________________________________
*****pause for reflection*****
I come from about as low down the candle as they come (i.e. my church background is not high, loosely anglican, definately not RC in any way), but I do know that the RC church (and the OC?) hold it to be the case that during Communion the bread / wafer and the wine ACTUALLY BECOME the ACTUAL BODY and ACTUAL BLOOD of Jesus Christ, by a miracle.
In my own church, this isn't seen as the case - we see Communion's "body & blood" as being symbols of Jesus's body and blood - not the actual articles. In fact, we're low church enough not to finish up the remaining elements after the sacrament is over. Being a large church, COmmunion is served in people's seats, and is chopped up ordinary white bread.
This is, obviously, different to those in the RC (& OC?) church.

_________________________________________

3) if a member of the RC / OC church truly believe that the bread and wine are ACTUALLY PHYSICAL bits of Jesus Himself - they are going to be angry, no, incensed, furious beyond your average daily furiousness to see the bread/wafer (or wine, I guess) turning up, on sale, for profit. It is repulsive to them... like if your granny's body had been exhumed and then bits of it were offered for sale as a novelty that people could do what they liked with - rather repulsive, doncha think?

4) 103, trying to maintain the sanctity and sheer weight of importance that the RC church places on the holiness of Communion apprehended a member of the congregation - probably frightening the living daylights out of her - and told her to eat her Communion wafer immediately.

Perhaps he could have phrased it better, perhaps the church should have included an explanation of the weight and import of taking Communion in the RC church before the serving, so that those not accustomed to the service and the moves in it could know what was expected of them. He acted in all good faith whatever - and he did it for the Lord, from his own faith in Him, believing that what he was doing was God's work. Some of us may not see it like that, but hey... a selection of edited highlights from Romans 14 puts it better than I can;

quote:
4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
quote:
7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.’ ”[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

quote:
righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

quote:
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
(apologies for verse numbers - used Bible Gateway - NIV, UK version 'coz it's on my toolbar & handy!)

so... acting in love for brother & sister Christians, those of us who do not perceive transubsantiation in the elements of Communion have no right to stomp over those who do (and, I guess, vice-versa).

5) People all have a right to be treated with respect - whoever they are.
quote:
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

(from Genesis 1, NIV,UK)
respect extends to not desecrating what others believe to be holy - like not driving a herd of pigs through a Mosque, not running through a Synagogue shouting the Name of the Lord at the top of your voice, then blowing out the perpetually lit light, not tearing up your church's pew-Bibles and using the pages to stock up the privvy instead of buying Andrex for a couple of weeks, not setting fire to flapping buddhist prayer-flags, not creeping up behind a sikh and shaving their hair off, and not drawing moustaches over the idols in Hindu temples.
In the same way, the RC church's faithful members shouldn't have to see what is, in their strongly, sincerely, and firmly held opinion, Jesus Christ - their Lord & God being sold on eBay.
Even someone as dim as me can see how upset & angry people are about this from the posts on this thread.
Those of us from different areas in the Church shouldn't be merrily pouring salt & vinegar in the wounds, IMHO.

have I got the general gist of what's going on so far?
(of course, in the time it's taken me to write this, the thread's been closed because everyone's started talking about fluffy bunnykins and sweet little spring lambs... maybe)

[Edited your rambling bullshit. Use Preview post in future.]

[ 13. April 2005, 11:35: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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.

A comment on the Black Mass cult: I consider it a pretty poor, derivative cult to depend so slavishly on another religion (Catholism) without an original thought in its little pea-brain. Sounds like religion with the emotional age of a nastily neurotic fourteen year old. It's truly disgusting, but expressing a lot of outrage just feeds into the adolescent glee of its idiot adherents.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal] sorry - my code is utterly reprehensible in the previous [Hot and Hormonal] , and my computer's in a strop so I missed the edit window.

could some lovely person maybe close my italics tag for me after the sentence;
quote:
chopped up ordinary white bread.
This is, obviously, different to those in the RC (& OC?) church.

?
[Hot and Hormonal]
and if you're feeling extra nice, could you maybe turn my "bugghists" into the "buddhists" they were intended to be? [Hot and Hormonal]

sorry.
[Hot and Hormonal]

[ 13. April 2005, 00:33: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
While the level of dramatic intensity of the incident has varied throughout 103's retelling of the incident (sometimes "yelled" sometimes "hissed", then "grabbed" to "firmly gripped" and then back to "grabbed" again), what hasn't varied is 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 (I'm a Eucharistic Minister myself, and I've also had to ask people to please consume or return the host). 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. He's turned down invitations to express regret for any hurt caused the lady throughout the thread - 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.

All in all, he seems pretty pleased with himself about it - enough so that he posted it on a public discussion board. And I think it's that attitude many of us are taking issue with.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Revelle (# 8554) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Prophetess (# 1439) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
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] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
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 ]
 
Posted by Linguo (# 7220) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 
To paraphrase Proverbs 15:17,
quote:
Better a soggy Mother's Pride where love is, than a consecrated host and hatred therewith

 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
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] ) , 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?
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by The Alchemist (# 2178) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by The Alchemist (# 2178) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Alchemist (# 2178) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
You're all grown-ups

Are you sure you meant that?
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
(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.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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]

Sarkycow
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
To Captain Caveman:

Truly I was too harsh, and I apologize.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Under English law it would count as common assault whilst taking something that had just been given to you is not normally theft.
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
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. [Smile]

[ 13. April 2005, 16:23: Message edited by: Living in Gin ]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on :
 
Mousethief: let's kiss and make up.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
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!]


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.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
DAMN...the gator beat me while I was editing the final copy.

COSMO....my BS indicator is going strong here.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
COSMO....my BS indicator is going strong here.

That's up to you of course. Any experience? No? OK then, but nothing I say will make you think any differently so we'll leave it at that. I know the dangers and I've seen the aftermath. You haven't (I presume). However, your total ignorance of the subject still entitles you to call me a liar. You would be wrong but you can still call me that if you really want to.

In re the 'soggy pieces of Mother's Pride' then yes, I would be quite happy to say to the Methodist Ministeress that the species she uses for Holy Communion is soggy Mother's Pride, the reason being is that it is. Not too much hypocrisy there I think. But would I say that her belief concerning the Holy Communion is fucking stupid? Probably not. I leave that for others to do anonymously from the bravery of their office cube.

Cosmo


Cosmo
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
The problem is you're asking us to accept what are some pretty wild claims on trust. It's an internet version of, "Trust me I'm a..." What are you again? Your profile claims you as Archbishop. I have no idea if that's true because, frankly, I don't know you from Adam.

So you're expecting me to believe that the theft of consecrated hosts for use in bizarre sexual rituals is widespread simply because some guy on the internet told me so. That's farcical. It has nothing to do with calling you a liar: it is simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Searching the BBC news webpage for "satanism" turns up twelve results. Some of those are reports of churches being vandalised by self-proclaimed satanists. Most of those are graffiti, although there are cases of arson. Reprehensible, undoubtedly, but entirely unrelated to the theft of hosts.

Were that happening on the scale you claim, I would expect lots of reports describing it. Nubile young women arrested with a host in one hand and a tube of KY in the other, that sort of thing. The tabloids would lap it up. Yet I'm finding nothing.

Now maybe you do have some special expertise you're not letting on. Given you haven't told us about it, I wouldn't know. Maybe young women all over rural England really are shoving hosts up their fannies and drinking the blood of babies.

But on the evidence presented so far, I'm not buying it.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
I leave that for others to do anonymously from the bravery of their office cube.

And I bet you typed this in all sincerity. Tell me again which one of us is hiding behind a pseudonym on these boards?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Peronal, you said it so much better then I. [Overused]

Cosmo, your posts sound like Mulder on the X-Files. I've seen more of this sort of stuff then many evangelical Christians but also enough to know to not take what was posted seriously.

I believe in the Devil and Satan and in evil working in this world.

This isn't it.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
In re the 'soggy pieces of Mother's Pride' then yes, I would be quite happy to say to the Methodist Ministeress that the species she uses for Holy Communion is soggy Mother's Pride, the reason being is that it is.

Cosmo

The Methodist Church doesn't have 'Ministeresses'. And I've never received a piece of soggy bread in any Methodist church I've worshipped at. 'sfunny, isn't it, how the people who imperiously demand absolute respect from other Christians who don't share their belief system discourteously (and predictably [Snore] ) refuse to be respectful of the belief systems of those fellow Christians.

I take it the Anglican/Methodist covenant gets short shrift in Fr. Cosmo's neck of the woods.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Well, it's hard to pay attention to the Methodists when you're sucking Rome's dick. Priorities.
 
Posted by ReginaShoe (# 4076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
The memorialist nature of more protestant celebrations of the Holy Communion doesn't seem to lend itself to desecration. ... 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

Ah, and here was me thinking that Satanists just hadn't had their Reformation yet. (What form would that take, I wonder? "No, I don't want to worship THAT Antichrist, I want to worship the one from the 'Left Behind' novels! And I'm standing up for my right to desecrate those stupid little mini-saltines and plastic cups that I always got at First Assembly of God in Pleasantville!")

Indeed, I do think the actions of the eBay seller were thoroughly reprehensible and disrespectful. But leave it to me to find something amusing to ponder out of it all...
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Peronal, you said it so much better then I. [Overused]

Cosmo, your posts sound like Mulder on the X-Files. I've seen more of this sort of stuff then many evangelical Christians but also enough to know to not take what was posted seriously.

I believe in the Devil and Satan and in evil working in this world.

This isn't it.

Mulder made more sense and was less arrogant than Cosmo.
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
103, Jesus can take care of himself, and is more than capable of defending Himself against desecration, intentional or accidental. The reason for respect of the Precious Body is for our benefit, not His. So the sanctimonious drama about "choosing a person over Our Lord" is more than a little bit over the top.

Was it necessary to grab her and yell, publicly embarrassing her? Tell me, as a Eucharistic Minister, do you not see that you have some duty to those receiving the Eucharist, namely, treating them with respect? You said yourself she probably won't come back to your church. I wonder whether that's the result Christ would have wished for.

I didn't yell - I hissed. It was necessary because she was walking quite quickly and I panicked on my first time as Eucharistic Minister. I told my parish priest and he said that he saw and it was exactly what I should've done. I had remembered what he told me to do from the Eucharistic Minister Instruction Lessons! If you don't like it you can take it up with my parish priest. He said that he didn't want anybody taking the host away with them and it was OUR DUTY as Eucharistic Ministers to make sure that it doesn't happen and to watch them consume it!

It did exactly that - Please can I have some backup from some Catholic Minded people here? I did right and I know it!

-103


 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
[QB] It did exactly that - Please can I have some backup from some Catholic Minded people here? I did right and I know it!

-103

Sorry, sonny, but no. You were right to inform her that she should consume the host - she probably had no idea what to do with it - but the manner in which you did so was inexcusable.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
The problem is you're asking us to accept what are some pretty wild claims on trust. It's an internet version of, "Trust me I'm a..." What are you again? Your profile claims you as Archbishop. I have no idea if that's true because, frankly, I don't know you from Adam.

So you're expecting me to believe that the theft of consecrated hosts for use in bizarre sexual rituals is widespread simply because some guy on the internet told me so. That's farcical. It has nothing to do with calling you a liar: it is simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Searching the BBC news webpage for "satanism" turns up twelve results. Some of those are reports of churches being vandalised by self-proclaimed satanists. Most of those are graffiti, although there are cases of arson. Reprehensible, undoubtedly, but entirely unrelated to the theft of hosts.

Were that happening on the scale you claim, I would expect lots of reports describing it. Nubile young women arrested with a host in one hand and a tube of KY in the other, that sort of thing. The tabloids would lap it up. Yet I'm finding nothing.

Now maybe you do have some special expertise you're not letting on. Given you haven't told us about it, I wouldn't know. Maybe young women all over rural England really are shoving hosts up their fannies and drinking the blood of babies.

But on the evidence presented so far, I'm not buying it.

Peronel.

At no point have I said that the theft of Hosts for Satanic Revels is widespread or that it is happenning on a large scale. I merely said that it happens and that Satanists, (real ones rather than silly spotty teenagers pretending to be nasty) when they do try to get hold of a consecrated host for their fun and games, will always try to obtain one consecrated at a Catholic (be it Anglo, Roman or Orthodox) Mass. You can make of that what you will. I don't expect you to have a conversion, merely admit the possibility that what I say might actually have some validity.

Yes, I do have some expertise in these matters and no I'm not going to give details of it here. As I said to Og, nothing I can say would convince you or anybody else anyway. You either recognise that this sort of thing happens or you dismiss it.

Cosmo

[ 13. April 2005, 21:18: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
At no point have I said that the theft of Hosts for Satanic Revels is widespread or that it is happenning on a large scale.


Um, actually, yes you have. More than once, too.

Back on page three is this:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
As I said, the number of full Satanic Revels is small. However, the number of routine desecrations is large.


And on page 2:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:

Satanists do not routinely go about killing babies and drinking their blood (although the killing of babies and adults does sometimes happen and is the culmination of a Satanic Rite). However, the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament (and all that pertains to it - the altar, tabernacle, ciboria etc) does happen often and on a routine basis.

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
If you look further up, you'll see I describe it as "Abhorrent. Repulsive. Reprehensible." It is also incredibly unlikely.

No it is not.

Cosmo

You've said desecration of the host within the context of satanism happens "often", "on a routine basis", that the number of incidents is "large". Given that desecration cannot happen without theft of the host then you have indeed argued that "the theft of Hosts for Satanic Revels is widespread or that it is happenning on a large scale".

If you didn't mean that, then I suggest you're more careful in what you post. Especially when you're relying on your nebulous and unstated authority to give your claims credence.

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
As I said to Og, nothing I can say would convince you or anybody else anyway. You either recognise that this sort of thing happens or you dismiss it.

Well, that depends. On one level you're right. Just saying over and over "This happens. I know it happens. I'm not going to tell you how I know it happens." is not going to convince me. If I knew and respected you in real life I'd be happier to take it on trust, I don't. And I'm generally suspicious about unsubstantiated stuff on the internet. I don't think that's unreasonable.

If those claims were substantiated of course I'd take them more seriously. So far, however, it's been all hot air. Which is a lousy foundation to use to justify grabbing someone and hissing at them, or acting in such a way as to make it unlikely they return to your church.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
There are only two reasons why, in my experience, people walk off with hosts in their pocket:

1. They don't know what it's for. They went up to the communion rail because that's what everyone else was doing, and someone put a round papery thing in their hand. For fear of embarrassment they pop it in their pocket.

2. They take it to crumble up and sprinkle on their allotment to help their lettuce and carrots grow.

Sorry Cosmo and young Henry, but they don't take them to shove up their fannies.
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
...but they don't take them to shove up their fannies.

You just shattered a thousand of my more pornographic dreams.

Neil
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
But you may have helped my flower pots no end.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
i remember at some point on these boards, someone who is a priest, anglican, i think, but i don't remember who, reported that after he had been newly apointed to a church, he went to visit a sweet little old lady of the parish and was shocked to discover that she had a whole souvinier album of hosts that she'd collected at various services that she considered important in some way... she cheerfully explained, if i remember correctly, that she got them by putting the host on her tongue when given it, but not swallowing, and carefully removing it at the first opertunity.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:

* 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."

* because neither of the hellhosts were around in the time span when people said their opinions on the DH.

* 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.

you want to post a poll on that? [Snigger]


quote:
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.)
curiosity demands me to ask...
what happens to the remaining wafers when they are relieved by a new set?
do they still get eaten, even if stale?

quote:

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.)

Member Profile: oz_loves_montana_coffee

Feedback Score: 93
Positive Feedback: 100%
Members who left a positive: 93
Members who left a negative: 0
All positive feedback received: 100

eBay Member User ID History
the User IDs that this member has used on eBay.

User ID Effective Date End Date
oz_loves_montana_coffee Dec-19-03 Present
oz-loves-coffee Apr-26-00 Dec-19-03
*******@webtv.net Apr-02-99 Apr-26-00

eBay hides parts of User IDs with "*" to protect member privacy.

no indications of what previous transactions have been over. All feedback (as buyer or as seller) fairly standard general stuff.

Items for Sale by oz_loves_montana_coffee
Includes Buy It Now items, current auctions, and auctions which ended in the last 30 days.

Item Start End Price Title High Bidder / Status
This seller is not currently offering any items for sale.
(*) indicates that auction has ended


quote:
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.
...assuming someone was "churched" in the first place. Many, many people aren't at all familiar with anything to do with church. Some people think that all of them are exactly the same.


quote:
[R.C. church as]...the Church throughout the world from its earliest times to now
I think that might be something of a matter of opinion.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
I don't think I over reacted or was rude!
I asked her to consume the host immediatly and she looked at me as if I was crazy so I told her to "Eat it now"

I know that it isn't likely that the host would be stuffed up a women's fanny but I didn't know that the women in question wouldn't do that, she possibly could. I don't want to take that risk with the Body of Christ! In fact even if I wasn't a EM and I saw her holding it I would've reacted in the same way! I wouldn't just let it pass me by, I would expect everyone else in my church to do the same!

And Thirdly, It might upset her initially but prehaps it might make her think! When I was younger I used to go to a local RC Parish Church when I couldn't attend my own, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to recieve communion, I spoke to the parish priest and there was a misunderstanding in his understanding of my normal parish church, He thought I was talking about an RC church and said it was fine to recieve communion. When we were having a conversation after the mass I told him some more stuff about my church and he said "Your church sounds very proper which church is it again?" and I told him and he then relized that I was an Anglican and he shouted at me and told me not to come back until I had become a Roman Catholic through an RCIA Course at my own local parish and not his! This upset me a lot and I went through an anti-Roman phase for a couple of weeks but now I have come to the decision that I will leave the Anglican Church when I come to the crossroad in my life where I'll have to leave my own parish community and I will join an RCIA course and I will become a Roman Catholic! I have already been told by another Local Roman Catholic priest that he will very happily accept me into an RCIA Course when I'm ready "No rush though" at his church! I will take him up on it! But I never would've thought about joining the RCC if that angry priest hadn't shouted at me. It upset me BUT it made me think very deeply about what I believe!

As the saying goes "You've gotta be cruel to by kind"
I helped this Lady and I am glad that I did.

-103
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
How did you help this lady? You yourself said she would probably never come back to the church, so that hardly squares with your newest contention that now you only treated her this way to help her deepen her faith.
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
They must breed them like that in Somerset.

I always knew they were odd down there!

K.
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think I over reacted or was rude!

[snip snip]

As the saying goes "You've gotta be cruel to by kind"
I helped this Lady and I am glad that I did.

Christ.... With an attitude like that, even those of us who are trying to defend your actions are having a difficult time to find a reason not to flame your sanctimonious ass. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
[QB] It did exactly that - Please can I have some backup from some Catholic Minded people here? I did right and I know it!

-103

Sorry, sonny, but no. You were right to inform her that she should consume the host - she probably had no idea what to do with it - but the manner in which you did so was inexcusable.
As it has been reported (and the story might change again) I must agree with Fr. Fiddleback here.

I find the auction to be quite ... crass and think that it should have been pulled by EBay. And I'm not even of the "Real Presence" camp (a very friendly and sympathetic next-door neighbor, but not there). I think the possibility of someone using it for a Black Mass rather slim (it would be much easier to waltz into your RC local and obtain one for free) and certain poster's emphasis on the possibility way out of proportion to its actual chances of happening (etc.), but the auctioneer should get the Ghoul of the Day award.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
P.S. 103, You should end a few more sentances with exclamation points just to let everybody know that you're being very sincere.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
So far as I can tell from what he's posted, 103 was right to request the woman to consume the host, if there was no custom of intinction at his parish, or if she was leaving his station to return to her seat, there being no chalice on offer. She might have genuinelly needed some direction with what to do at that point, particularly if a) she wasn't used to communion, or b) her own church had a completely different system of distribution.

I've occasionally given (quiet and I hope helpful) instruction to communicants who seem surprized by, or unsure of what to do with what they're given to eat or drink.

However, he wouldn't have been right in treating the woman - by the sound of it, sadly, - like some kind of reprobate in need of public rebuke, or bad person caught in the act of doing something bad. Frankly, Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery more gently than 103 dealt with, presumably, a fellow sister in Christ caught on the hop during Holy Communion. Certainly, Jesus told her to correct her behaviour - but only when they were able to have a private conversation, and he knew she wouldn't be humiliated or threatened.

It's understandable not to want to risk what we reverence, as in the Body of Christ. But occasionally we do more damage when we give the impression that it is Christ's own decision that he isn't risked. Through the people's prayer during Eucharist, Christ invited that woman to his supper. It may be that 103 avoided some travesty of desecration by what he did. But if not, more than likely he sent someone away from the Lord's table at least unpeaceful and uncomfortable, if not actually rebuked and feeling foolish. Cruel, but not kind.
 
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 
The seller is in Sloan, Indiana. The last feedback comment was from an irate Italian buyer of a DVD set who posted, "You will go to hell! DVD not original, you said me bad words". But other feedback, from sellers and buyers, is positive.
Joined eBay Apr 99, as did the buyer, whose profile only discloses "US'. No feedback for the item yet, from seller or buyer. The buyer's most recent listed purchase is a subscription to a large print edition of a religious magazine, but there are numerous other recent magazine subscription purchases. Hasn't sold anything since August last year.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
Henry, others are extending a pastoral opportunity towards you - stop digging.

I've been thinking about how I would react to this if I weren't a Catholic or even a Christian. It is crass. Offering a consecrated host for sale is yet another tacky expression of celebrity culture, where dubious "souvenirs" such as a bottle of pills once prescribed to Elvis Presley are sold, where no symbol is truly meaningful because it's just another item with a price tag.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
I can't believe that I read this entire thread. What I think is chiefly amusing is that the e-bay seller went back for a second helping of Jesus.

Too bad 103rd wasn't there to tell him one was enough.

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Sorry Cosmo and young Henry, but they don't take them to shove up their fannies.

What I want to know is, if a Satanist puts the Body of Our Lord into her delicate place, does He burn her satanist flesh, as the moving pictures show us when the Body of Our Lord is applied to the flesh of Vampires?
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
If nothing else, I'd imagine there'd at least be a burning sensation. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Glenn (# 6517) on :
 
[Killing me] I haven't laughed so hard for a long time. It's about those black magicians. I'm trying to picture the show they might put on.

What's the problem with black magicians? Who cares if they're black? They should be given the same opportunities as the other magicians.

Well, I think it's hysterical. Sorry if I make your eyes roll. [Yipee]

[Edited to add that yes, it is in extremely poor taste to sell that stuff on ebay]

[ 14. April 2005, 02:49: Message edited by: Glenn ]
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
The real question, though, is: What sort of tat and vestments do they have? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
The real question, though, is: What sort of tat and vestments do they have? Inquiring minds want to know.

Oooh, Oooh, I know: a Cassock-Nigra? It'd be just like a Cassock-Alb only black, of course.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
What I want to know is, if a Satanist puts the Body of Our Lord into her delicate place, does He burn her satanist flesh, as the moving pictures show us when the Body of Our Lord is applied to the flesh of Vampires?

I think it's probably more likely to be along the lines of yeast infection as Divine Retribution.

But, hey, anything can happen.

Charlotte
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think I over reacted or was rude!

I think you over-reacted, and were rude. But in your defense, you are very young, and you were placed in an awkward position, having been told your responsibility, but not having been shown the best way to fulfill it. So you fulfilled your responsibility as the best you could, under the circumstances, and that's all we can ask of anyone. All things considered, I'd say you did well.

Except ... except ... I would hope that you would examine your actions and say, if this were to happen again, is there anything I could do differently, to fulfill my responsibility without causing offense? If there is no way to fulfill your responsibility without offending, of course you must offend. But if you can do what you must, without giving offense, that would be better.

It's possible, but unlikely, that the woman wanted to do something unseemly with the host -- paste it in a photo album, or feed it to the squirrels. It's also possible that she didn't know what she was supposed to do with the host. Or that she knew exactly what she was supposed to do, but was lost in thought. Perhaps her only child had just died, and she was going through the motions of worship, without really paying attention to what she was doing.

If that were the case (and I think it's no more unlikely to have been that than for her to have been a Satanist, and possibly less), then I'm sure she'd have been grateful if you had gently called her mind back to the liturgy, and to the Eucharist, and reminded her of where she was and of what she was doing. If she were there in great grief, she may not have responded to your first words because it takes time for sounds to penetrate grief. So you may, indeed, have been doing her a kindness to get her attention and bring her back to the present.

But, 103, you need to be gentle with other souls. If her heart were broken, your treating it roughly may have pushed her away from the only hope of healing and salvation that she had.

Of course, it's possible that she was taking the host away for frivolous reasons, and then perhaps your yelling at her and grabbing her was just what she needed to make her understand how serious the Eucharist is.

But unless you have been granted the gift of reading the hearts and minds of other people, I wouldn't presume so. I would err on the side of charity, and tread gently. You don't want to be found to have placed a millstone about her neck.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
What I want to know is, if a Satanist puts the Body of Our Lord into her delicate place, does He burn her satanist flesh, as the moving pictures show us when the Body of Our Lord is applied to the flesh of Vampires?

Great - The Sacrament of Spanish Fly.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
What I want to know is, if a Satanist puts the Body of Our Lord into her delicate place, does He burn her satanist flesh, as the moving pictures show us when the Body of Our Lord is applied to the flesh of Vampires?

I think it's probably more likely to be along the lines of yeast infection as Divine Retribution.

But, hey, anything can happen.

Charlotte

How can it give you a yeast infection if it's unleavened bread?
[Razz]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
If 103 has decided to make the leap to the RCC because a priest yelled at him and humiliated him, I guess he considered yelling at that lady an act of evangelism.

The insult comic Don Rickles would have made a great advocate for Catholism if yelling and ridicule are the approach of choice among priests and LEMs.
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
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.)

Member Profile: oz_loves_montana_coffee

Feedback Score: 93
Positive Feedback: 100%
Members who left a positive: 93
Members who left a negative: 0
All positive feedback received: 100

eBay Member User ID History
the User IDs that this member has used on eBay.

User ID Effective Date End Date
oz_loves_montana_coffee Dec-19-03 Present
oz-loves-coffee Apr-26-00 Dec-19-03
*******@webtv.net Apr-02-99 Apr-26-00

eBay hides parts of User IDs with "*" to protect member privacy.[/qb]

Is there a way to contact "oz_loves_montana_coffee" to find out exactly what they plan on doing with their newfound purchase?

[UBB stuff]

[ 14. April 2005, 05:18: Message edited by: Living in Gin ]
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If 103 has decided to make the leap to the RCC because a priest yelled at him and humiliated him, I guess he considered yelling at that lady an act of evangelism.

The insult comic Don Rickles would have made a great advocate for Catholism if yelling and ridicule are the approach of choice among priests and LEMs.

Funny... Most of us leave denominations whose clergy and members make us feel like shit. If I were interested in that treatment from a church, I'd still be a Calvinist. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ronist (# 5343) on :
 
I spent way to much time in a pentecostal church. I met more religious fanatics than you can shake a stick at.

Cosmo and 103 would fit in perfectly. The fact that they are Catholic fanatics and not Pentecostal fanatics is an accident of circumstance. The common earmarks are that they are sure they are right and are rude and abusive to anyone who disagrees. It's a matter of putting there beliefs no matter how quaint ahead of people.

People are strange. Some more than others. I have no time for religious fantics whether they are high on the candle, low on the candle or sitting on the candle.
 
Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on :
 
Wow, no doubt about it, the thread's a keeper. Goes so many directions, though, it's hard to know where to butt in.

About the crime of the seller on ebay: somebody suggested theft. With a sale price of $2000, it would be a felony. But from the tenor of the conversation, it sounds more like the charge should be kidnapping. Of course, it would have to be proven that the abductee was taken against His will. And selling the victim of kidnapping, that's a felony of another sort.

About the fact that the bidding did not shoot immediately into ebay-record territory: Josephine said that if only she'd known, she'd have sealed the deal immediately (was there a "buy it now" option?), but one would think that Opus Dei or Mel Gibson or somebody would've bid billions, to ransom the host. (A paradox, to ransom the one who is ransom for many ... )

And about the way you've all shot through five or six pages of Hellish rant in what's gotta be world-record time, and some of us just.don't.get.what's.the.big.deal. and others just.can't.chill.out : I remember from many, many years ago, someone (the Smothers Brothers?) received criticism for finding humor in so many things the society held sacred (flag, government, religion). Their reply: "That which you cannot laugh at, that is your god."

That's it, isn't it?

Wm Duncan

[ 14. April 2005, 06:06: Message edited by: Wm Duncan ]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
I've been imagining the scene at Henry's church. The priest is administering the host; Henry is one of two people with chalices. Mrs. Robinson comes up to receive. Father gives her the host, which she receives in her hand. He passes along to the next person. Henry appears with the wine, and sees that Mrs. Robinson hasn't consumed the Body, isn't about to intinct or ask him to intinct, and is, in fact, turning away with the host in her hand. 'Eat it!' he says. She does not appear to notice.
With the chalice in one hand, he reaches out with the other for her shoulder and hisses, louder, 'EAT IT NOW!' Mrs. Robinson starts slightly, consumes the host and returns to her pew.
From her point of view: That odd-looking teenager in the oatmeal-coloured kaftan had been acting strangely throughout the service. Was he on something? Minor neurological handicap, maybe? One of those geeks her kid used to refer to? She'd been worried about him (especially when he was swinging that incense-burner), and had rather hoped he wouldn't come near her. The business with the communion was the confirmation of all her impressions. Of course she'd meant to put the host in her mouth. How could she have been so stupid? And to think that she'd only moved away to avoid the not-unlikely prospect of Sonny Boy slopping wine down her dress and wanting to ritually dispose of it. Ah well. It will all come out in the MW Report.
 
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ah well. It will all come out in the MW Report.

[Snigger] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Speaking respectfully from the sidelines, as an interested observer who is not RC:

--I think what the seller did was wrong. I personally think it's on the level of anyone who obtains sacred materials of another faith and misuses, sells, or displays them.

--It seems to me that if someone is going to do something nefarious with a stolen host and Jesus is present in the host, the host will either help the person towards God--or hurt them. Why not trust God to deal with whatever bits of Godself are taken out the door, and create a more welcoming environment where people aren't watched like a hawk?
[Confused]

--103, it seems to me it might have been better to tug at her sleeve and say "Psssst...they want you to eat it right here".

--I'm disturbed by comments I've seen that indicate that the eucharist elements are more important than people. If Jesus does inhabit the elements, surely this is the same Jesus that loves everyone? And taught that the sabbath was made for people, and not the other way around?

--Josephine [Overused]
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine to young Henry:
[QB]I think you over-reacted, and were rude. But in your defense, you are very young, and you were placed in an awkward position, having been told your responsibility, but not having been shown the best way to fulfill it.

This did occur to me, as well. In how many other English dioceses are minors licensed to administer Holy Communion? Or is this an archdiocese-to-be of Ebbsfleet thing?
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Josephine, well said.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine to young Henry:
[QB]I think you over-reacted, and were rude. But in your defense, you are very young, and you were placed in an awkward position, having been told your responsibility, but not having been shown the best way to fulfill it.

This did occur to me, as well. In how many other English dioceses are minors licensed to administer Holy Communion? Or is this an archdiocese-to-be of Ebbsfleet thing?
I was licensed in the Diocese of Coventry when I was 17 - I think. It might have been 18, but I think it was 17.

Thurible
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
We have a twelve year old LEM at our church. Soft-spoken, intelligent, respectful, second only to our priest in knowing altar etiquette. An all-around delightful girl! [Angel]

And I expect she'd respectfully whisper instructions to a communicant who went off track.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
I've been trying to work out the legal ramifications.

Theft, in England at least, is the "dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive".

This raises several issues, mainly the fact that, subject to disciplinary issues, a Church will normally voluntarily give the wafer to a person presenting themselves. I suppose one could argue that to appropriate it for any purpose other than consumption there and then is "dishonest".

But at the other end of the definition, there is the question of "intention to permanently deprive". This is problematic, because the giver of the wafer does actually intend to be permanently deprived of it - he (or she, these days) does not actually expect the wafer to be given back. Can you dishonestly intend to deprive someone of something they intended to give away anyway?

More importantly, there is the fundamental question of ownership. Whilst it is arguable that unconsecrated elements do belong, in law, to the body corporate that bought them (e.g. the PCC, the Incumbent, the Diocese, circuit, church council or whoever else in law acts in this capacity), could (would?) a person whi believed in the real, localised presence of Jesus Christ in the Host to assert any sort of legal right over the physical manifestation thereof. Can a creature own the Creator?
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think I over reacted or was rude!
I asked her to consume the host immediatly and she looked at me as if I was crazy so I told her to "Eat it now"


I have been to at least one church Independent Methodist (?) where it was normal to come to the front receive the bread intinct it and consume it in your seats quietly and reverently so the likely explanation is the person came from that tradition. 103 is from the brain dead, with no respect to anyone, irreverent, High Church tradition.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Surely, though, dyfig, it was a fraudulent reception (given that the eBay seller was not a Roman Catholic, knew he wasn't allowed to receive, and yet took It anyway)?

Thurible
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
How can it give you a yeast infection if it's unleavened bread?
[Razz]

Seen from the other way 'round, if one had a yeast infection already, it wouldn't be unleavened for long.... [Projectile]

[ETA: this would have to start a new page....]

[ 14. April 2005, 10:17: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
It's a shame that it had to be about something as abhorrent to get a thread of mine to five pages!

Thurible
 
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
I think 103 acted tactlessly, Anglicans should be more seemly [Smile] I do find it odd, though, that everyone seems to pity this poor little old lady who they seem to think wandered in off the street to find she knew not what happening, but my the words sounded nice and made her feel all warm and fuzzy. Then everyone walked up to the front where they were given a little round thingy. She went along with the crowd and when she didn't know what to do with the round thingy and went to put it in her purse as a memento, she was accosted by some horrid young creature who made her feel all icky.

Come on! I have attended other churches, indeed the worship services of other religions. I have tried to find out what would be happening and the meaning behind it before I went. If I didn't, I didn't have the temerity to take part in rituals I didn't understand. That's just disrespectful. Unless of course she DID understand and was just being gauche. I think she has some responsibility for the situation, not that 103 handled it all that well, but, as has been said, he's young and needs to learn tact. I should think that people wandering into an Anglican church in England, not understanding a thing about what was going on, and presuming to take part anyway is at least as rare an occurrance as Satanists stealing the Host for nefarious purposes. The young (which she was not) unchurched might not understand much about Christianity, but surely to God other people's religious beliefs deserve respect.

As to objects being more important than people, well, the "object" in question is the Body of Christ. If you don't think It is, fine. I do, and I would be deeply offended if you treated It as another piece of flatbread. And, yes, I do think It is more important than the feelings of someone who couldn't be arsed to show a bit of respect for someone else's religious traditions. Looked at another way, why are the feelings of someone who doesn't have enough respect for people's religious beliefs to try to understand what she is doing before she takes part in their rituals more important than the people whose beliefs she shows such disrespect for?
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
How can it give you a yeast infection if it's unleavened bread?

That's probably why the discerning chavvie who wants to play black magic with his mates in his dad's garage makes sure he gets the goods from a nice Anglo Catholic church (as the Rev'd Dr Cosmo assures us he would) and not a Methodist one.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
I can imagine that a wafer is easier to insert than white sliced, too. The latter is too floppy - you'd need to toast it first. And imagine the crumbs!

Peronel.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
It's a clear case of obtaining goods by deception. Deception is that he was going to take it there.

Cosmo, put up or shut up.

I know a number of Satanists. Most of them are Satanists because they want to lash back at intolerance or hurt inflicted by the Church or because they are melodramatic adolescents (of all ages) trying to rebel against everything. They wouldn't be organised enough to get a Host or run a real Black Mass and would probably find the entire process extremely distateful.

Also, where are the headlines? I can hardly see the tabloids (or even the broadsheets) passing up "Infant Murdered in Satanic Ritual" and it's a gory enough story that the press would be investigating for weeks.

Besides, God's big. He can take care of himself. And if people really are committing human sacrifice, I think we (and God) have bigger things to worry about than what people are doing with communion wafers.

103, Here abideth faith, hope and charity. These three, and the greatest of these is charity.

To speak with obvious pride of driving someone away from the Church over what was probably a minor breach of ettiquette is utterly abhorrent. It is that, rather than the direct actions that are getting you castigated. (Had you said something like "I regret that she may never come back, and wish I had handled it better, but to Catholics it is INCREDIBLY important ...", there wouldn't have been this outcry).

By your actions, you think you have hurt the Church and possibly put a lady's soul into peril. And you are proud of it.

[ 14. April 2005, 10:39: Message edited by: Justinian ]
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
An RCC disciplinary matter is not necessarily a criminal act, is it? And obtaining goods by deception presumes that there are "goods" to be obtained - if that's Jesus and not bread, that's not goods.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think we (and God) have bigger things to worry about than what people are doing with communion wafers.


For goodness' sake, the whole point of this thread is that It is a lot more than a simple communion wafer. It has been consecrated so is the Sacramental Localised Presence of God!

Thurible
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Might be common assault, although you'd actually have to prove that the bread was no longer bread and was a human being, and if you go down that line, you end up with multiple charges of s.20 serious wounding, wot with all those people biting him.

Tricky.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Oh, btw, reverting to B-t-F's statement that the CofE "teaches" Real Presence. It's true that para 22(?) of the Sacrament of Unity report asserts this - the problem is, it doesn't back this up with any reference as to where this teaching is found other than in this particular paragraph. I'm not aware of any official pronouncement upon, and I would be surprised if anyone other than saddoes like myself who read bishops' reports even know that this has been said. It would have bene helpful if the bishops had supported the assertion with reference to other pronouncements, because as it stands it's just a bald statement.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
Come on! I have attended other churches, indeed the worship services of other religions. I have tried to find out what would be happening and the meaning behind it before I went. If I didn't, I didn't have the temerity to take part in rituals I didn't understand.

That's you. Highly educated, highly intellectual and, I suppose, always right. Many do not understand things they do (I don't entirely understand this computer I'm using - but I still use it) and many are not driven to undersand. Blessed is he who has not seen and yet believes.

quote:
That's just disrespectful.
There are those who consider being slightly disruptive to be disrespectful - and therefore would take part in rituals.

quote:
Unless of course she DID understand and was just being gauche. I think she has some responsibility for the situation,
Who on earth said she didn't?

quote:
As to objects being more important than people, well, the "object" in question is the Body of Christ. If you don't think It is, fine.
Does that make it more important than lives and souls?

quote:
I do, and I would be deeply offended if you treated It as another piece of flatbread.
Please show me one comment in this thread that suggested that it was to be treated as just a piece of flatbread. Either that, or stop making strawman arguments.

quote:
And, yes, I do think It is more important than the feelings
If just feelings were an issue you would have a point. 103 specifically stated that she might never come back to the church. We're into the territory of souls rather than simple feelings here.

quote:
Looked at another way, why are the feelings of someone who doesn't have enough respect for people's religious beliefs to try to understand what she is doing before she takes part in their rituals more important than the people whose beliefs she shows such disrespect for?
Who on earth said they were? You've got a third strawman here.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
An RCC disciplinary matter is not necessarily a criminal act, is it? And obtaining goods by deception presumes that there are "goods" to be obtained - if that's Jesus and not bread, that's not goods.

Obtaining goods by deception to the value he e-bayed it for. Simple. (The deception was that he was going to take communion rather than sell the thing).

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think we (and God) have bigger things to worry about than what people are doing with communion wafers.

For goodness' sake, the whole point of this thread is that It is a lot more than a simple communion wafer. It has been consecrated so is the Sacramental Localised Presence of God!
And it is still a consecrated communion wafer, whatever its essence has been turned into. (Don't make me break out the chemistry set).

Are humans powerful enough to directly hurt God? If not, then human sacrifice is a far bigger evil than whatever is done to the Host - which was the point of my statement - and why in that paragraph I referred specifically to communion wafers.

For that matter, where is the presence of God needed more than in the middle of Satanic rituals? The incarnation was not for the saved, but for the sinners.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
A thought -

If God is truly in all places, then wasn't He there before any host insertion [Razz] ?
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
That's just disrespectful. Unless of course she DID understand and was just being gauche.

How do you know that she didn't come from a church tradition where it is normal to consume in your seat?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Presumably this woman wasn't the first person in the queue, so, presumably, would have seen that everyone else consumed at the Altar rail/station?

Thurible
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
I do find it odd, though, that everyone seems to pity this poor little old lady who they seem to think wandered in off the street to find she knew not what happening, but my the words sounded nice and made her feel all warm and fuzzy. Then everyone walked up to the front where they were given a little round thingy.

Believe me, this happens often enough especially in this area where Christianity isn't even the nominal default religion of the majority of the population. Many of those who just wander in are more likely to be nominal Sikhs. (One of my regular altar servers is, strictly speaking, a Sikh, but that's another matter). People want to do what everyone else is doing, to fit in and not be rude, so they come up to the altar rail. The trouble is that what is placed in their hand does not immediately look like food - well perhaps it may resemble a miniature chapati - but looks like a round ticket. Folks look at it, look around to see what everyone else is doing, and if they still haven't got the idea, will be inclined to put it in their pocket, or even kindly leave it in their pew at the end, or hand it back with their hymn book.

One of my most faithful parishioners every Sunday morning breaks the host in half, consuming one half and putting the other in her handbag. I assume that she takes it home for her husband, but I have never liked to ask. Mind you, she does have an excessively floribund balcony on her eleventh floor flat.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
One of my most faithful parishioners every Sunday morning breaks the host in half, consuming one half and putting the other in her handbag. I assume that she takes it home for her husband, but I have never liked to ask. Mind you, she does have an excessively floribund balcony on her eleventh floor flat.

Given the content of this thread, perhaps you should check that she's not the High Priestess of a Satanic cult taking it home for a ceremony with her husband, who is in fact Beelzebub?

Or perhaps you are Beelzebub, Fr Fiddleback (and doesn't Fiddleback sound like the name of one of the devils in The Screwtape Letters?) [Devil]

More likely that your parishioner doesn't properly understand your understanding of the Real Presence - rather like 103's unfortunate lady...
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Fiddleback,

Why do you allow her to do so?

Could asking her why she does it not provide an pastoral opportunity to minister to her husband?

Thurible
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Presumably this woman wasn't the first person in the queue, so, presumably, would have seen that everyone else consumed at the Altar rail/station?

Have you ever gone to another church and did what you normally did ie cross your self when no one else does or knelt when everyone else sat. What is wrong with people going to another church and following their own tradition?
 
Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :
 
For myself I can't help wondering about a most important matter, that of tatology
I take it that Black Masses are celebrated - if that's the right word [Eek!] - with black vestments, black altar frontals and black candles.But how many candles,2 or 6 ? Is the use modelled upon that of Rome or Sarum. Are the dreaded fiddlebacks used or do we favour something,um, well,you know, a little Gothic
And westward or eastward facing? None of this namby pamby use of nave altars in the Satanic Rite surely? Oh and what language is used? Old High Church Neolithic perhaps?
I think we should be told!! [Two face] [Two face] [Roll Eyes]

[ 14. April 2005, 13:38: Message edited by: The Royal Spaniel ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
When it comes to taking Communion at another church, I've always followed their tradition - I've even received sitting (though I felt very bad about it!).

Thurible
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think we (and God) have bigger things to worry about than what people are doing with communion wafers.


For goodness' sake, the whole point of this thread is that It is a lot more than a simple communion wafer. It has been consecrated so is the Sacramental Localised Presence of God!

Well, no, that might have been your intention, but this is hell, where the globalised presence of God meanders a bit.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Might be common assault, although you'd actually have to prove that the bread was no longer bread and was a human being, and if you go down that line, you end up with multiple charges of s.20 serious wounding, wot with all those people biting him.

Most men would regard being inserted in such a place as a less unpleasant experience than being eaten.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
A few points…


Firstly, according to today’s Daily Mail (so it must be true) the wafer was bought by a Catholic to avoid it falling into the wrong hands (but how do they know?).

Secondly, the question of whether theft or assault occurred surely depends to some extent on the state of the person taking the host. Although he (I’m assuming “he”) might not be a Catholic now he might have been when he took the host, and if not a Catholic then he might still have been a Christian. Which would make him part of the body of Christ. Although this doesn’t prevent him from being guilty of theft of a wafer, it would be harder to prove that he had stolen part of himself. Trying to work out whether part of a person can steal a different part of the same person would probably require the wisdom of Solomon vs Solomon (that’s a legal joke, allegedly).

Thirdly, God is omnipotent and could, therefore, stop any misuse of the host. Is failing to do so an indication of acquiescence to the act a case of volenti non fit injuria? If so, would this make a difference to the possible charges? I think that under English law (which would clearly not apply, but is the only area I can speak of) having a volunteer doesn’t mean that assault cannot take place. I seem to recall a case from some years back involving a group of men, some sandpaper and an unusual form of mutual activity where it was held that a person can be assaulted even if they agree to the act. Would this precedent apply?

Finally (almost), as Christians form the body of Christ, is it not the case that the body of Christ quite frequently gets put into all sorts of orifices? And than many of the people posting on this thread will have put bits of the body of Christ that they are into various locations - some of which I do not care to contemplate?

The moral of the story would seem to be that the world would be a much better place if we all went does the Methodists’ for a nice bit of Mother’s Pride – that way there would be a lot fewer black masses.
 
Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :
 
Aren't you supposed to let it melt in your mouth,like butter or maltesers, you know instead of all that biting ?
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Fiddleback,

Why do you allow her to do so?

Because I have done so for five years and see no reason not to.

quote:
Could asking her why she does it not provide an pastoral opportunity to minister to her husband?

He comes to mass on weekdays. I think he doesn't come on Sunday because there is something he listens to on the wireless.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Good to know that you could give a flying fuck about treating the Blessed Sacrament with decorum.

Thurible
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
But don't we have to respect others' beliefs, Thurible? I mean, if Fiddleback doesn't consecrate the hosts with the intention of it being a little piece of Jesus in the flesh, you need to respect that belief. Otherwise, all your squawking in the OP is flat-out, bold-faced hypocrisy.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
I think 103 acted tactlessly, Anglicans should be more seemly [Smile] I do find it odd, though, that everyone seems to pity this poor little old lady who they seem to think wandered in off the street to find she knew not what happening, but my the words sounded nice and made her feel all warm and fuzzy. Then everyone walked up to the front where they were given a little round thingy. She went along with the crowd and when she didn't know what to do with the round thingy and went to put it in her purse as a memento, she was accosted by some horrid young creature who made her feel all icky.

I missed the bit about the woman trying to put the host in her purse. Could you point me to where that is please?

I don't think anyone, including 103, has made the experience sound as simple and Disney-esque as that. In fact, the problem probably arose because the situation was many-layered, and the people involved were complex human beings.

JFTR, sometimes there's nothing wrong with being made to feel welcome and comfortable during worship. Just as there's nothing necessarily bad about being challenged from time to time.

quote:
Come on! I have attended other churches, indeed the worship services of other religions. I have tried to find out what would be happening and the meaning behind it before I went. If I didn't, I didn't have the temerity to take part in rituals I didn't understand. That's just disrespectful. Unless of course she DID understand and was just being gauche.
So the choices are that anyone who acts as she did is either gauche or disrespectful? I still think the situation is complex enough to generate a few other possibilities, as have already been covered on the thread. You also say that you wouldn't have the temerity to take part in rituals you don't understand. Well, I don't understand the mysteries of the Eucharist - and I wouldn't be inclined to believe anyone if they told me they did. I suggest that what you mean is 'if people aren't familiar with the way we do things, they should leave well alone', which is a different debate altogether.

I think in doing your church research, too, you are definitely an exception, and not the rule. At least in the Anglican church, at any rate.

quote:
I think she has some responsibility for the situation, not that 103 handled it all that well, but, as has been said, he's young and needs to learn tact. I should think that people wandering into an Anglican church in England, not understanding a thing about what was going on, and presuming to take part anyway is at least as rare an occurrance as Satanists stealing the Host for nefarious purposes. The young (which she was not) unchurched might not understand much about Christianity, but surely to God other people's religious beliefs deserve respect.
People go into Anglican churches 'not understanding a thing about what's going on but presuming to take part anyway' all the time. Yes, admittedly mostly in baptisms, weddings, funerals, high days and holy days. But even in our little rural outpost we get a steady stream of visitors who drop in, often on spec, quite a few of whom are totally unfamiliar with either church or our way of doing church.

You seem to be saying that unfamiliarity is somehow equal to disrespect, that people 'dare' to join in with Christian worship, despite not having first served whatever apprenticeship it is you imagine they need to complete. There are plenty of churches that do indeed operate in this way. For me one of the attractions of most Anglican worship is that it generally doesn't operate like this.

quote:
It is more important than the feelings of someone who couldn't be arsed to show a bit of respect for someone else's religious traditions.


Once again, please direct me to where 103 said this was the woman's known attitude. If this is indeed the case I'll happily agree with this point.

quote:
QLooked at another way, why are the feelings of someone who doesn't have enough respect for people's religious beliefs to try to understand what she is doing before she takes part in their rituals more important than the people whose beliefs she shows such disrespect for?
Shareman, you don't know what her attitude was. You don't know if she was being disrespectful, so you can't state categorically she was. Her crime was not eating the host immediately at reception (or wouldn't have done apparently); she didn't moon the altar, or blow raspberry tarts during the sermon.

You know, if ever an attitude such as yours became widespread I'd be astonished if anyone, ever, at anytime, including the faithful, dared to go anywhere near a church.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But don't we have to respect others' beliefs, Thurible? I mean, if Fiddleback doesn't consecrate the hosts with the intention of it being a little piece of Jesus in the flesh, you need to respect that belief. Otherwise, all your squawking in the OP is flat-out, bold-faced hypocrisy.

My understanding of Fr. Fiddleback's sacramentology is such that he does believe he is so consecrating, so fuck right off, Erin, there's a dear.

Thurible
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Good to know that you could give a flying fuck about treating the Blessed Sacrament with decorum.

Heavens no. I've been known to allow lady priestesses to officiate at Benediction.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
As opposed to male priestesses? I thought you weren't FinF! [Biased]

Thurible
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
JFTR, sometimes there's nothing wrong with being made to feel welcome and comfortable during worship. Just as there's nothing necessarily bad about being challenged from time to time.

That's just crazy talk. If you start making everyone feel welcome, you'll end up all sorts of undesirables in your church. If you let them challenge you, there's a risk of losing control of what people think. Next thing you know, there'll be women wanting to be priests.

Better to nip it in the bud.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
As opposed to male priestesses?

They're my favourite kind! Their frocks are always so much more lacy and ooh la la! than anything I wear [Big Grin] !
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
JFTR, sometimes there's nothing wrong with being made to feel welcome and comfortable during worship. Just as there's nothing necessarily bad about being challenged from time to time.

That's just crazy talk. If you start making everyone feel welcome, you'll end up all sorts of undesirables in your church. If you let them challenge you, there's a risk of losing control of what people think. Next thing you know, there'll be women wanting to be priests.

Better to nip it in the bud.

You're so right. What was I thinking [Disappointed] ?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Honest to God what is with all this “making people feel welcome” bollocks. They are there to offer up a sacrifice of Praise and Worship not have a nice little chat or have a warm wet moment. Get a grip you whiney fuckers.

P
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But don't we have to respect others' beliefs, Thurible? I mean, if Fiddleback doesn't consecrate the hosts with the intention of it being a little piece of Jesus in the flesh, you need to respect that belief. Otherwise, all your squawking in the OP is flat-out, bold-faced hypocrisy.

My understanding of Fr. Fiddleback's sacramentology is such that he does believe he is so consecrating, so fuck right off, Erin, there's a dear.

Thurible

Well CLEARLY his sacramentology is at odds with yours -- at the very least, he doesn't have a stroke when someone walks away from the altar without having proved they've swallowed -- so you need to shut the fuck up and start respecting other peoples' beliefs.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
See, Anselmina? Pyx_e gets it.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Honest to God what is with all this "making people feel welcome" bollocks. They are there to offer up a sacrifice of Praise and Worship not have a nice little chat or have a warm wet moment. Get a grip you whiney fuckers.

P

Damn straight! We don't want people thinking that they're acceptable in God's house! What is the matter with you heathens?

Although I don't quite get how "Praise and Worship" should be "a sacrifice". Do you slaughter hymnals on the altar?
 
Posted by Joykins (# 5820) on :
 
I'm getting the impression from this conversation that "fanny" means something entirely different in the UK than the US. [Biased]


quote:
Originally posted by ReginaShoe:
"No, I don't want to worship THAT Antichrist, I want to worship the one from the 'Left Behind' novels! And I'm standing up for my right to desecrate those stupid little mini-saltines and plastic cups that I always got at First Assembly of God in Pleasantville!")

This is making me think of menstrual cups for some reason. I need to go wash my mind now.

Joy
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Y'know. Normally the ship doesnt put me off any particular denomination (well sometimes maybe the orthodox with The Orthodox Plot, but I think I might just be comfortable with that now.... and it seems to confirm my fear of conservative evos.)

Anyway - this has well and truly put me off the RC/ High Anglicanism well more than I ever have been in the past.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I know - me too. It's disgusting how we all respect that which we believe to be Our Lord, isn't it! [Roll Eyes]

Thurible
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Honest to God what is with all this "making people feel welcome" bollocks. They are there to offer up a sacrifice of Praise and Worship not have a nice little chat or have a warm wet moment. Get a grip you whiney fuckers.

P

Damn straight! We don't want people thinking that they're acceptable in God's house! What is the matter with you heathens?

Although I don't quite get how "Praise and Worship" should be "a sacrifice". Do you slaughter hymnals on the altar?

And, if so, can I nominate "Mission Praise" and anything containing "Shine Jesus Shine"?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
See, Anselmina? Pyx_e gets it.

There is an orifice joke in this somewhere, but I'm sure people would get really offended.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I completely agree, Emma. I grew up going to RC schools, being indoctrinated by nuns who thought Vatican II was a dangerous heresy and who instilled a mortal fear of God and the fires of hell into every child that passed through the doors. So I routinely think I hear a call from Holy Mother Church to come home. Then God ever so thoughtfully provides a thread like this, with the raving loons out in full force, and I scamper back to the extreme protestant end of the ECUSA as fast as I can.

[ 14. April 2005, 14:57: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
... Although I don't quite get how "Praise and Worship" should be "a sacrifice". Do you slaughter hymnals on the altar?

A nice Powerpoint presentation would do the trick.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I know - me too. It's disgusting how we all respect that which we believe to be Our Lord, isn't it! [Roll Eyes]

Thurible

Respect is not the same thing as decorum. I suggest you contemplate the difference between the two.

Is your God too weak for a paritioner to carry a part of him off to give to another communicant paritioner? For that matter, is your God too weak to take on Satan himself? If not, why are you so worried about protecting God? Respect for an entity in my book involves allowing them to act where thy best can and not wrapping them in cotton wool.
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
My understanding of Fr. Fiddleback's sacramentology is such that he does believe he is so consecrating, so fuck right off, Erin, there's a dear.

Actually, sonny, I am an out-and-out mindless Anglo-Papalist transubstantiationist. That means my 'sacramentology' is not what yours would appear to be.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
Do you slaughter hymnals on the altar?
Erin, shush! Don't put ideas into their heads!

After all, didn't Baldwin the Fat try that in the Fourth Crusade? And didn't the Pope have to apologise for the mess all that caused?

Masher
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Are humans powerful enough to directly hurt God?

Actually, I believe they once killed Him. He didn't stay dead, though, so perhaps that supports your point.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
you need to shut the fuck up and start respecting other peoples' beliefs.

Yeah, try to be more like Erin in that regard, wouldja?
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
I might suggest, as a "Class Song" for everyone brave or foolish enough to post on this topic, the following: The Parish of Dunkeld
 
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
quote:

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I missed the bit about the woman trying to put the host in her purse. Could you point me to where that is please?

Hyperbole, dear, born out of frustration that no-one seemed to have thought that she was anything other than a poor lost soul. Or a nasty Satanist.


quote:
In fact, the problem probably arose because the situation was many-layered, and the people involved were complex human beings.

JFTR, sometimes there's nothing wrong with being made to feel welcome and comfortable during worship. Just as there's nothing necessarily bad about being challenged from time to time.

Agree on all points.


quote:

So the choices are that anyone who acts as she did is either gauche or disrespectful?

No, there are others, all far better considered on this thread than these two. I didn't feel the need to rehash the arguments of the preceding 6 pages.


quote:

I suggest that what you mean is 'if people aren't familiar with the way we do things, they should leave well alone', which is a different debate altogether.

Well, no, not leave well alone. Regardless of the theology of the sacrament, the Eucharist is at base a meal. It is beastly to be rude (a la 103)to the other guests at a dinner to which one has been invited. It is also not particularly polite not to pay attention to the ettiquette and table manners expected of the other dinner guests and to act accordingly, no matter how welcome the Host has made you feel. If another guest reaches in front of you at dinner and drags his sleeve in your soup, you have a right to correct him, I think, but in such a way as not to embarrass him, the host, or yourself. Of course that's not what 103 did in this instance, my issue is not with what he did, but how he did it.


quote:

People go into Anglican churches 'not understanding a thing about what's going on but presuming to take part anyway' all the time. Yes, admittedly mostly in baptisms, weddings, funerals, high days and holy days. But even in our little rural outpost we get a steady stream of visitors who drop in, often on spec, quite a few of whom are totally unfamiliar with either church or our way of doing church.

And I suspect they have some sense that while all are guests at the meal, the locals have been there more than once and are familiar with the local etiquette. I would imagine most of them behave with the decorum they see around them. Or do all the people who visit your church do what they like? If so, how do you handle the disruptions?


quote:

You seem to be saying that unfamiliarity is somehow equal to disrespect, that people 'dare' to join in with Christian worship, despite not having first served whatever apprenticeship it is you imagine they need to complete. There are plenty of churches that do indeed operate in this way. For me one of the attractions of most Anglican worship is that it generally doesn't operate like this.

No, unfamiliarity isn't the same thing as disrespect. I would suggest though, that when you go to a church with which you are unfamiliar, then perhaps it behooves you to at least try to notice what others are doing, how they behave, what level of reverence they have, and try to act accordingly. If you were to wander into a mosque in the middle of Friday prayers and strayed into the area meant for the other gender, how would you feel if some young intense thing hissed at you to go to the other area? For my part, I'd probably think s/he had been a bit rude, but I had been ruder to think I could just walk in without paying attention.

As to apprenticeship, the Church used to require a long period of apprenticeship, about 40 days in Spring, I believe, before one could even find out what the "mysteries" were, much less receive them, so I suggest that expecting people to learn a little bit before they take part is not such a bizarre concept.

I don't think people should have to do a course before they darken a church door. I think that any baptised Christian, even if their baptism at 1 month old was the last time they had been in church should be welcomed at the altar. I just reacted strongly to the idea that seemed to be suggesting that someone entering a place of worship has no responsibility for their behaviour.

I find your use of the word 'dare' interesting. I wouldn't for a minute suggest that people shouldn't 'dare' to do what I thought was unseemly or disruptive as if going against me was some eggregious sin. I do think quite strongly about 'daring' to come into the presence of God, however. I think that's what I was reacting against, actually, what I saw as the idea that Holy things are somehow less important than how someone feels, that we somehow don't have a right to insist that God be shown a bit of respect, and that if we do, we are somehow bad people for alienating someone. Better to disrespect God than alienate someone. [Roll Eyes] Now I know God can look after Himself, but I still think we have a right to expect visitors to show some respect. Maybe this lady was confused and uncomfortable and did what she thought best at the time. I think 103 was harsh, but are you suggesting no-one had a right or a responsibility to explain to her in some fashion that what she did wasn't appropriate?

quote:
quote:



It is more important than the feelings of someone who couldn't be arsed to show a bit of respect for someone else's religious traditions.

Once again, please direct me to where 103 said this was the woman's known attitude. If this is indeed the case I'll happily agree with this point.
Of course he didn't, but then again he gave no indication that she appeared to be the poor ickle lost soul so many seem to have taken her for either.


quote:
quote:



QLooked at another way, why are the feelings of someone who doesn't have enough respect for people's religious beliefs to try to understand what she is doing before she takes part in their rituals more important than the people whose beliefs she shows such disrespect for?

Shareman, you don't know what her attitude was. You don't know if she was being disrespectful, so you can't state categorically she was.
Due respect, neither do you. I am merely suggesting that she has some responsibility to at least observe the behaviour of those around her before taking part in a ritual she doesn't understand, and to take her cue from their behaviour. If you go to a church that is not part of your tradition, what do you do? I'd venture to bet that you show some sensitivity to the fact that you are on unfamiliar ground and act accordingly so as not to upset those for whom this is familiar. Why then should she not have been expected to behave the same way. I repeat, it could have been handled in a manner that would not have embarrassed her or made her feel unwelcome, but I still think that she has some responsibility to behave in a way that shows respect for the religious beliefs of those around her.


quote:

You know, if ever an attitude such as yours became widespread I'd be astonished if anyone, ever, at anytime, including the faithful, dared to go anywhere near a church.

Oh, please, that's a tad extreme. All I am suggesting is that there are a couple of other possible explanations for this lady's behaviour than 1) she is a poor lost seeker who meekly attempted to feast at the Banquet of the Lord and was cruelly rebuffed or 2) she was a Satanist attempting to turn the Host into a sex toy. One of these is that she went to a church where she didn't understand the tradition and attempted to take part. She made an error of practice and was dealt with harshly. One reason for this might be that she didn't care enough about the religious sensibilities of those around her to try to find out what she was doing before she did it. No-one seemed to have considered this. That and the remarks of some who seem to feel that respect for the Sacrament as expressed in some churches is a bit silly and can't be expected to take precedence over how people actually feel drove me to be a bit flowery in my expression. Ooooops!

I think:
1) 103 was harsh in how he dealt with this situation, but he's an intense yoof who, I hope, will mellow with age
2) this lady could be expected to bear some responsibility for her actions, but it could have been explained to her in a far better manner.
3) not every stranger who darkens a church door is some poor lost waif who needs mollycoddling. We have a responsibility to be hospitable and welcoming to the visitor, but we also have a right to expect them to behave with reverence towards the things we count holy, and the responsibility to correct them, gently, when they appear not to. If we are wrong in our judgement of their lack of reverence, then hopefully our way of approaching the issue will be so tactful as not to require our apology. Not what 103 did, but his heart was in the right place.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
you need to shut the fuck up and start respecting other peoples' beliefs.

Yeah, try to be more like Erin in that regard, wouldja?
Bite me, asshole. I already said that I don't think people should have to respect beliefs that they don't sign up to. But if I were the one who was harping on and on about how awful it was that my beliefs were disrespected I certainly would be practicing what I preached.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Not wishing to engage in any 103-baiting, but humiliating some poor woman like that at God's Board! It's not on.

Okay, maybe she was a Satanist. Maybe. Did she look like one? If she was one of those ferocious little old ladies that Anglo-Papalist outfits seem to attract I'd posit it would be fair to assume otherwise.

And whatever happened to "if you do this to the least..." or the idea of Holy Mother Church as the Body of Christ? To avert the risk of ill-treating the Body of Christ, you, erm, ill-treated one of Its components. Okay, not in the genitally-inserted, baby-killing way, if we believe all of that screed.

At the very least, it would have been couteous to have approached her afterwards, apologised for being brusque and explained local custom to her.

Yes, Satanists do acquire Consecrated Hosts for use - in some places it is quite a problem. But the slight risk is not so great as to excuse certain rudeness.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Emma has blurted out:

quote:
Normally the ship doesnt put me off any particular denomination (well sometimes maybe the orthodox with The Orthodox Plot, but I think I might just be comfortable with that now
Pssst.... Mousethief, Josephine, Fr. Gregory....

I suggest, however, Emma, that you see how you feel after reading some of our other posts (see Thurible's new thread on Orthodox Hymnody), re-think that, and let the Plotters know if you still feel the same in the morning.

Leetle M.
"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Emma has blurted out:

quote:
Normally the ship doesnt put me off any particular denomination (well sometimes maybe the orthodox with The Orthodox Plot, but I think I might just be comfortable with that now
Pssst.... Mousethief, Josephine, Fr. Gregory....

I suggest, however, Emma, that you see how you feel after reading some of our other posts (see Thurible's new thread on Orthodox Hymnody), re-think that, and let the Plotters know if you still feel the same in the morning.

Leetle M.
"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

Leetle...you are so nice. Are you Dolphy's sock puppet?


It's not all about you guys, ya know. Can we not have a bit of sniping, even in a thread about old biddies taking home Jesus to spread on their flower garden, without a bit of the "Shine Orthodox Shine" stuff?
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Og accuses,
quote:
Are you Dolphy's sock puppet
I was just going to ask you, Og, if you were Erin's sockpuppet.

Snipe on, O Christian soldier,
From back behind your screen.
Stick to your guns and splatter
Our guts across the scene.
For all day long you scatter
The army of the Lord:
And hack, and chop and batter
The Truth of God's own Word.

by Leetle M., dated this afternoon, 14 April '05
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Royal Spaniel:
Aren't you supposed to let it melt in your mouth,like butter or maltesers, you know instead of all that biting ?

Yes. You're also supposed to fast before you take it. Or so I was brought up to believe.

I don't suppose anybody bothers these days, I've seen people walk away from the altar chewing vigorously like it's a toffee, and they probably had the Full English Breakfast just before they went.

[ 14. April 2005, 17:48: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Yes, Satanists do acquire Consecrated Hosts for use - in some places it is quite a problem. But the slight risk is not so great as to excuse certain rudeness.

Oh for feck's sake. Don't ruin an otherwise sensible post. Satanists, such as there are, are schoolkids having a laugh. Most wouldn't know what a consecrated host is anyway.

On the same subject, one gets the impression that few posters here have had much involvement with a typical Church of England or RC compehensive. When I was involved as a priest with a church comprehensive, at which there were two compulsory 'whole school' Eucharists a term, we always had to go around all the seats collecting the unconsumed hosts (usually about a dozen or so) that had been left inside hymn books or in flower arrangements (not sure how efficacious they are with cut flowers). Undoubtedly some left the building in pupils' pockets or bodily orifices, but there was not much we could do about it except leave God to sort it out. An RC friend reported much the same thing happening in the RC comp. in his parish.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
they probably had the Full English Breakfast just before they went.
And they parked their wad of chewing gum on the underside of the pew.
[edited to attribute quote to Ariel]

Getting grumpy now,

Leetle M.

[ 14. April 2005, 18:03: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
One of my most faithful parishioners every Sunday morning breaks the host in half, consuming one half and putting the other in her handbag.

The Fiddlebackerie is clearly just a Jesus Take Away.

Just think, if Fiddleback were ever martyred this lady could sell all these half-hosts on ebay and make a fortune.

Back to the Original Post. Do you suppose the purchaser of the papal host ate it when it arrived? Did he genuflect as the postman came up the walk?

Does Ritual Notes have a section for dealing with a Host in the post?
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
quote:
Aren't you supposed to let it melt in your mouth,like butter or maltesers, you know instead of all that biting ?
What do God and M&Ms have in common?

They melt in your mouth, not in your hand!

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Yes, Satanists do acquire Consecrated Hosts for use - in some places it is quite a problem. But the slight risk is not so great as to excuse certain rudeness.

Oh for feck's sake. Don't ruin an otherwise sensible post. Satanists, such as there are, are schoolkids having a laugh. Most wouldn't know what a consecrated host is anyway.

On the same subject, one gets the impression that few posters here have had much involvement with a typical Church of England or RC compehensive. When I was involved as a priest with a church comprehensive, at which there were two compulsory 'whole school' Eucharists a term, we always had to go around all the seats collecting the unconsumed hosts (usually about a dozen or so) that had been left inside hymn books or in flower arrangements (not sure how efficacious they are with cut flowers). Undoubtedly some left the building in pupils' pockets or bodily orifices, but there was not much we could do about it except leave God to sort it out. An RC friend reported much the same thing happening in the RC comp. in his parish.

Obviously the schools in question were not teaching the kids on the importance of the Eucharist and therefore a 'whole school' Mass was not appropriate. Morning Worship is quite sufficient in a school envioroment with Mass as a separate service later for those who wish to recieve the sacrament or those who would wish to recieve a blessing.

-103
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I said to her "EAT IT NOW!!!" and she quickly ate it!

quote:
I didn't yell - I hissed.
If nothing else comes of this, at least 103's ability to grab people and hiss "Eat it now" will come in handy when he begins hanging out in less-than-reputable cinemas [Big Grin]

Which may come sooner than we all suspected given later revelations in this thread [Biased]

Sarkycow
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
((aside to Orthodox Plot peeps... I wasnt talking about *this* thread, if you read my post I was talking about the effect of the ship in general [Big Grin] ))
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
From 103:

quote:
Obviously the schools in question were not teaching the kids on the importance of the Eucharist and therefore a 'whole school' Mass was not appropriate. Morning Worship is quite sufficient in a school envioroment with Mass as a separate service later for those who wish to recieve the sacrament or those who would wish to recieve a blessing.

So, just to recap, 103, in addition to being

1. Super Eucharistic Minister, valiantly defending the Body of Christ from Satanists and the vaguely confused; and

2. Mind-reading spiritual director, who knew that yelling at someone would bring her closer to God;

is also an

3. Expert on religious education who knows far more than priests about what should be done, and precisely what liturgies a school full of children are or are not qualified to attend.

Just want to make sure I'm keeping up.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
Orthodox Plot peeps... I wasnt talking about *this* thread
Fair enough, Emma! I just couldn't bear to pass up the opportunity--your posts are so good and they further the discussion extremely well. [Smile]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Can we not have a bit of sniping, even in a thread about old biddies taking home Jesus to spread on their flower garden, without a bit of the "Shine Orthodox Shine" stuff?

The Orthodox require regular shining and polishing? How very high maintenance! [Smile]
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Orthodox require regular shining and polishing? How very high maintenance! [Smile]

It's all the tat -- the fans, and the censers, and the candlestands, and all the altarware, and everything else that needs all the shining.

In fact, we're having a work party at Church this Saturday to shine everything up for Pascha. Feel free to join us, if you like!
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
3. Expert on religious education who knows far more than priests about what should be done, and precisely what liturgies a school full of children are or are not qualified to attend.

Just want to make sure I'm keeping up.

Well I have spent most of my life in a school envioroment! I think I am qualified to say!
And what the fuck is this about cinemas?

-103

[GET IT RIGHT!!! GET IT RIGHT, NOW!!!!]

[ 14. April 2005, 21:19: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
103, it's the fact that you've spent all your life in the school environment which makes you qualified to say about, oh, fuck all. It's life experience that gives folk added value. That'll happen when you grow up a wee bit.
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
quote:
103, it's the fact that you've spent all your life in the school environment which makes you qualified to say about, oh, fuck all. It's life experience that gives folk added value. That'll happen when you grow up a wee bit.

Oh really? I'm a bit older than 103, I'm 24, almost 25. I have spent virtually all my life in a school environment also, and intend to spend more of it when I get enough money saved up to go to law school. I am also of the opinion that it would be nice to one day get my masters and doctoral degrees in political science. In other words, I intend to spend a great deal more of my life in a school environment.

If spending most of your life in a school environment entitles you to say, "oh, fuck all," then I guess all those teachers and professors are entitled to say, "oh, fuck all." I guess the doctors and dentists who make sure you are healthy are entitled to say, "oh, fuck all."

If on the other hand, you meant to say that the fact that he is young entitles him to say, "oh, fuck all," then you have more of a point there. Nevertheless, some young people are incredibly intelligent and well-read, and many have tons of "life experiences" far beyond their years. Meanwhile, lots of older people are damn stupid, couldn't be arsed to read a book if their life depended on it, and haven't any "life experience" to speak of either.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Lessee.

103 is Anglican.
I'm Anglican comunion. (ECUSA).

103 thinks he gets to be right since he's spent "most of his life in a school environment."
If that's the criterion, you ignorant moron, first off you need better GCSEs. Otherwise, everyone else outranks you. Then, you need to take into account all those here and abroad who have spent far more years of their lives in school environments. Unlike you, I've graduated high school, and then spent 10 years in higher education. Now *that's* spending your life in a school environment. And since I'm now applying to teach, I guess I'm gonna stay there. So I win! And that's just me. There's plenty of people on here with loads more education than me, and more imporatntly almost every one on here has both more education and life experience than you. You're not just rude any more, you're ignorant and stupid as well.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
3. Expert on religious education who knows far more than priests about what should be done, and precisely what liturgies a school full of children are or are not qualified to attend.

Just want to make sure I'm keeping up.

Well I have spent most of my life in a school envioroment! I think I am qualified to say!
And what the fuck is this about cinemas?

-103

[GET IT RIGHT!!! GET IT RIGHT, NOW!!!!]

103, first off, get your code right.
Secondly, attending services that other people decided for you which to attend doesn't qualify you to make that decision for other people. And judging by the lack of maturity you repeatedly show on these boards, the time you should get to decide such things is a long way off.
Thirdly, if you don't know about the cinemas, that's further proof you know fuck all about the real world and what happens there.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
I have happily left this debate, but just to clarify something in the last post, 103 has graduated high school.

As you were. [Smile]

[ETA - cross-posted with Go Anne Go. My reference to the 'last post' refers to the post before the 'last post' - (sigh))

[ 14. April 2005, 21:46: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
Just because he is young and does not have as much formal education as someone else doesn't mean he isn't entitled to have an idea or opinion every once in a while.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I have happily left this debate, but just to clarify something in the last post, 103 has graduated high school.

As you were. [Smile]

[ETA - cross-posted with Go Anne Go. My reference to the 'last post' refers to the post before the 'last post' - (sigh))

BTF - Don't be confused by the fact he goes to "college." That's a sixth form college, which is part of what we in the USA would call High School. It is not post-high school education.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn:
Just because he is young and does not have as much formal education as someone else doesn't mean he isn't entitled to have an idea or opinion every once in a while.

True.

But just because he's entitled to have one doesn't make him right. Particularly when it involves driving people from church, grabbing them and hissing at them.
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
I thought the comments about his education were directed at post #313, which was talking about something else entierly.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
BTF - Don't be confused by the fact he goes to "college." That's a sixth form college, which is part of what we in the USA would call High School. It is not post-high school education.

Thanks Go Anne Go.

I am aware that college and sixth form are the same thing. I understand that on your side of the pond, college is also used to mean university, which is something I have learnt through the Ship, but I had thought that you used college to refer to university as well as sixth form rather than instead of. It seems I was wrong.

Here in the UK where 103 and I are, college or sixth form is post-high school education. Therefore, he has graduated high school.

[ 14. April 2005, 21:53: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Just as a final point of information, I would like to suggest that anyone interested in the appointment and function of Eucharistic Ministers in the Roman Catholic Church read the decree of Pope John Paul II entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum. see here
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I'm in the UK and I regard sixth form as school. I would regard a child to still be at school up and until they're A-Levels or Highers were completed.

103 is still very much a schoolboy.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
shareman wrote:

quote:
One of these is that she went to a church where she didn't understand the tradition and attempted to take part. She made an error of practice and was dealt with harshly. One reason for this might be that she didn't care enough about the religious sensibilities of those around her to try to find out what she was doing before she did it. No-one seemed to have considered this. That and the remarks of some who seem to feel that respect for the Sacrament as expressed in some churches is a bit silly and can't be expected to take precedence over how people actually feel drove me to be a bit flowery in my expression. Ooooops!
For goodness sake! When I visit other Christian churches outside my particular tradition, I usually go with a toddler. Much of my time during the service is spent keeping an eye on said toddler. I usually do this when my husband is duty deacon at our church and the alternative is not going to church at all.

The presence of the toddler means I don't always have the opportunity to examine the ways things are done as carefully as I would like - and then copy them. So sometimes I get things wrong. That doesn't make me disrepectful or uncaring - just limited by circumstances.

In addition, people don't always point things out that a new visitor with a small child might find helpful - like if there is play area in a seperate room or where the creche is. [Big Grin] Particuarly if we've gone to a church where the tradition is that the children stay in for most or all of the service.

I have now been enlightened and realise that I have been doing things wrong. As I cannot guarantee to behave properly in a different church to my own I shouldn't go at all. Well, gosh ... As for the toddler [Eek!] Thanks for making us feel welcome and all. [Roll Eyes] [Disappointed] And people wonder why the church is in decline [brick wall]

Tubbs

[ 14. April 2005, 21:59: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
BTF - Don't be confused by the fact he goes to "college." That's a sixth form college, which is part of what we in the USA would call High School. It is not post-high school education.

Thanks Go Anne Go.

I am aware that college and sixth form are the same thing. I understand that on your side of the pond, college is also used to mean university, which is something I have learnt through the Ship, but I had thought that you used college to refer to university as well as sixth form rather than instead of. It seems I was wrong.

Here in the UK where 103 and I are, college or sixth form is post-high school education. Therefore, he has graduated high school.

In the USA, once you graduate high school, you go to college, which is where you get your undergraduate degree. If you attend a university, that is a place which also awards post-graduate degrees. We do not have sixth forms. By US standards, 103 has not graduated high school.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

Here in the UK where 103 and I are, college or sixth form is post-high school education. Therefore, he has graduated high school.

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. The sixth form is part of High School. Its an optional part, sure. But its still definately school rather than higher education.

The fact that in some areas sixth forms are consolidated into sixth form colleges is irrelevant.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.

No, those are something quite different. Been a little sheltered?

quote:
The sixth form is part of High School. Its an optional part, sure. But its still definately school rather than higher education.
Who said it was part of higher education? It's further education - neither high school nor higher education.

quote:
The fact that in some areas sixth forms are consolidated into sixth form colleges is irrelevant.
The fact that some high schools have sixth forms attached is irrelevant.

[ 14. April 2005, 22:11: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Shareman, hell is certainly the place to be hyperbolic! There's the teeniest, inciest, winciest possibility I've indluged in it myself from time to time! Just a 'tad' as you noticed [Biased] !

'Dare' was inspired (unconsciously, I think) from your phrase 'to have the temerity to'. And you're quite right it can be daring to come into God's presence. I think 'temerity' with its overtones that she had done something rash and foolish in coming to church was what made me baulk a little. Or the idea that she was being deliberately reckless in coming to the service, just seemed a bit strange.

It seemed to say that unless people had done their homework on us, they shouldn't risk coming to church! 'Temerity' in terms of church going, in my mind, fits in more with people who get drunk and stagger in at the back of church of an evening and start singing 'The Sash' or 'Nellie Dean'. In which case, I'm quite prepared to allow the churchwardens full reign with their wands of office!

I'm more inclined to view someone's unorthodox behaviour, in a peer-group situation where comforming is the norm, as either lack of knowledge of how to behave in that place, confusion or some other non-sinister reason; than to assume they are being disrespectful or malicious. You seemed to assume, very strongly, that she couldn't possibly just have been an ordinary person who got something wrong.

And I would include in 'ordinary' someone who may well have been inattentive and neglectful. At least I hope it's 'ordinary' to be sometimes inattentive and neglectful, even at the most crucial moments when we should be at our 'holiest'. God help me, and all of us, if there's no margin for ordinary human error.

And the fact that she had got it wrong seemed to you to be either her deliberate fault, or the result of some desperately bad attitude. Of course, she is responsible for her behaviour. I don't see that anywhere it's been suggested she isn't. I think you may be reading some posts hyperbolically as well as writing them!

The process of catechumenizing you mention is still done, I believe in some Churches/denominations. But so long as Anglican services are open to anyone who does wander in off the street, inevitably some people will get it wrong. If, sincerely, we'd rather not have to deal with that, then it might be better for our peace of mind to find a place where such incidents are less likely to occur.

I don't always like the irregularities that face us from time to time during worship, but it goes with the territory. And funnily enough often provides suprizingly useful opportunities for interesting conversation afterwards with the person in question.

As for disruption. I said in an earlier post that where people have been unsure about what to do with the bread and wine, they've quietly been guided. No disruption at all. The people who visit and 'do what they like', in my church, tend to be under five and under the jurisdiction of their parents! If I ever did perceive a disrespectful attitude to the reception of the host (which has happened on one occasion), I would be just as polite and quiet as with the others, but more serious.

I agree with what you say about people behaving with decorum and so on. Of course life would be easier if everyone did the same thing, acted intelligently, and never stepped out of line. But I don't think - from what we've been told - that she behaved in a disrespectful, rude or indecorous way. She may well have been feeling all those things, who knows. But her behaviour as recorded indicates she merely goofed, or at worst was not being the sharpest tool in the box.
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
i think 6th form college depends on the area personally. In hampshire all the schools stop at 16, and the 6th form colleges and fe colleges really are very very different atmosphere - far more like uni.

anyway - thats not to say I think 103 is at all right in his behaviour....
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Please can I have some backup from some Catholic Minded people here? I did right and I know it!

-103

I don’t think I qualify as Catholic-minded, but I’ll try.

103 was acting as a Eucharistic minister for the first time. It is clearly a responsibility which he takes very seriously. Part of that responsibility (in his church, according to the priest in charge) is to ensure that the consecrated bread is properly consumed. As this is the first time he’s done the job, I’m sure he is thinking more about remembering the proper words to say, and hoping he won’t spill the consecrated wine to have a script prepared for ‘what to say if someone walks off with the host’. I doubt he had given it any advance thought at all.

I think he did very well to say anything at all, rather than stand there dumbfounded. Given his belief about the eucharist, and the proper respect to be shown, he had to say something, and what he said was not excessive as an instantaneous reaction (though doubtless it could have been more tactful if he had time to reflect).


It might be said of his approach that:

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
It's a fucking stupid belief.

But one shared by much of the Christian world, and (more importantly) the particular church service in which 103 was participating. If the belief is ‘fucking stupid’, you can criticise the whole Catholic and Catholic-minded church for turning up to Mass at all, but not for acting appropriately once they are there.

I don’t happen to think that consecrated bread is to be treated with exactly the same respect as we might treat Jesus visibly incarnate as man. 103 apparently does. While he holds that view, it must surely, on any possible alternative view, be better for him to follow his conscience and show God proper reverence than deny the Creator what 103 thinks is His due.

My only misgiving about 103’s conduct was expressed by:

quote:
Originally posted by The Alchemist:
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 agree. By that time he’d had time to reflect and consider the possible injury to her feelings – even if he still thought that injury was necessary earlier, that’s no reason not to repair the damage afterwards. I would understand, though, if he was worrying about whether he’d been right, and just didn’t think to do this.


I fail to see what difference 103's age or schooling makes to anyone who isn't a patronising wanker too lazy to consider an issue on its merits.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
This thread is getting stupid now from "eeeuuuughhh - Blasphemous Desecration on Ebay" to "Is 103 an absolute bastard and will he go to hell when he dies?" to "Let's call 103 a schoolboy and debate whether he is in high school or not"
Just fuck off the lot of you, you are really annoying me you stupid little moaning fucks. I think I was right and none of you have the right to tell me that I wasn't. You weren't there, you aren't me!
Go back to your little churches where you are allowed to take your communion home as a sovienier or to feed to your flowers and shut up now.
This thread has gone onto a meg@ tangent which is just stupid now.

-103
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

I fail to see what difference 103's age or schooling makes to anyone who isn't a patronising wanker too lazy to consider an issue on its merits.

I'd agree with this. But the first person to use 103's schooling to justify his opinions was 103 himself. Once he'd added to the thread, it's not unreasonable that people can comment.

Emma, you may well be right. Where I am 6th form education is part and parcel of the high schools. They wear the same uniform, the works. But we have middle schools, so high school doesn't start til later. If the sixth form years were lost as well, then kids would be out of highschool in an eyeblink. But I'm willing to buy that it varies county by county.

Blimey, how this thread has tangented!

Peronel.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
I suppose that really, what has bothered me almost more than ANYTHING ELSE about 103s conduct is this key bit:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Please can I have some backup from some Catholic Minded people here? I did right and I know it!

-103

First off, if he's so sure he's right, why does he need backup?

Secondly, in the face of getting very very little backup, and getting a lot of condemnation, his response was to:
1) change his story from the graphic to the less graphic and then back again.
and
2) ask for more backup.

It is the arrogance of the initial act, the arrogance in refusing to accept that most people think that while his defense of his faith may be noble, his actions were rude and immature, the arrogance of "I did right and I know it!" (twice), the desperate begging for backup (which to me shows that he knows he was over the line, whatever he's begging for) and so on which just says he's lacking in many redeeming qualities, maturity quite possibly being the least of them!
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
This thread is getting stupid now from "eeeuuuughhh - Blasphemous Desecration on Ebay" to "Is 103 an absolute bastard and will he go to hell when he dies?" to "Let's call 103 a schoolboy and debate whether he is in high school or not"
Just fuck off the lot of you, you are really annoying me you stupid little moaning fucks. I think I was right and none of you have the right to tell me that I wasn't. You weren't there, you aren't me!
Go back to your little churches where you are allowed to take your communion home as a sovienier or to feed to your flowers and shut up now.
This thread has gone onto a meg@ tangent which is just stupid now.

Awwwwww bless [Killing me]
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
This thread is getting stupid now from "eeeuuuughhh - Blasphemous Desecration on Ebay" to "Is 103 an absolute bastard and will he go to hell when he dies?" to "Let's call 103 a schoolboy and debate whether he is in high school or not"
Just fuck off the lot of you, you are really annoying me you stupid little moaning fucks. I think I was right and none of you have the right to tell me that I wasn't. You weren't there, you aren't me!
Go back to your little churches where you are allowed to take your communion home as a sovienier or to feed to your flowers and shut up now.
This thread has gone onto a meg@ tangent which is just stupid now.

-103

And in a delightful cross post, we now have "I was right and I know it!" number three by 103.

Since I know which church he goes to, I'm a-getting sorely tempted to go down and walk off with a comunion wafer. Just to see what he does this time. Let the little weasel try to bring ME down in a rugby tackle, because I sure wouldn't be listening to his hiss or that grabbing on the shoulder.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Hmmmmmmm, in trying to find a website for 103s church (which I'm not going to name here as that seems too much), I found an MW report on it from here on SOF! It contained this interesting bit:
quote:
It was lovely to see children serving, and I apologise wholeheartedly for my remarks if the servers have special needs, but if not, they do need to be drilled. The smaller acolyte spent the duration of his Gospel duty sliding down the end of the pew until he reached a sitting posture. He then took one leg off the ground, and rocked backwards and forwards and grinned at all and sundry. The other acolyte acquitted himself well enough during the Gospel, but once the altar party had moved to the east end, could be seen hanging almost upside down from the altar rail and pulling on the decorative metalwork. The boat girl flounced and posed. Children much younger than these can be seen serving unobtrusively, with with great gravitas and polish all over the land.
Starts to tell you something about the training (or lack thereof????) 103 received, or even the care with with children are chosen for their lack of training down at this church.

But wait, it gets better....(and even more amusing under the circumstances)...
quote:
The distribution of communion was anarchical. There was a standing-only distribution point under the pulpit, and a kneeling one at the altar rail. There was an unseemly and thoroughly aggressive stampede as people left their pews and careered forwards, swapping from north to south and vice versa depending upon their preferred mode of reception. One feared for small children and fragile geriatrics.
Throw in a little grabbing and hissing, and indeed I do fear for them!

It all starts to come into focus now. Run for your lives! It's the Eucharist!

[ 14. April 2005, 22:56: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Just as a final point of information, I would like to suggest that anyone interested in the appointment and function of Eucharistic Ministers in the Roman Catholic Church read the decree of Pope John Paul II entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum. see here

That would be relevant if 103 was an EM at an RC church. He isn't. It's an Anglican church. Although, from my understanding from various past discussions in MW/Eccles, it is far from representative of even most AC churches.

Sieg
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Things have changed a lot since then. (It's now even more hectic now actually :S) but that's not the point!

-103
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Things have changed a lot since then. (It's now even more hectic now actually :S) but that's not the point!

-103

What is the point, then?

Sieg
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Oh! Go away!

[Paranoid]

-103
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Things have changed a lot since then. (It's now even more hectic now actually :S) but that's not the point!

If it's even more hectic, are you surprised that a visitor didn't know where the hell to go? And that - just maybe - she needed guidance rather than grabbing?

Or are you still convinced that scaring her off was the right thing because, rather than just being confused by your "hectic" and unusual Anglican church, she just might have been planning on using Our Lord as a pessary?

Peronel.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Siegfried correctly says
quote:
That would be relevant if 103 was an EM at an RC church. He isn't. It's an Anglican church.
True, Siegfried. I posted that for our Roman Catholic participants to read. Sorry that it was not relevant to the thread.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Siegfried correctly says
quote:
That would be relevant if 103 was an EM at an RC church. He isn't. It's an Anglican church.
True, Siegfried. I posted that for our Roman Catholic participants to read. Sorry that it was not relevant to the thread.

Leetle M.

No worries. There just has been confusion earlier on the thread as to whether 103 was Anglican or RC.

Sieg
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Things have changed a lot since then. (It's now even more hectic now actually :S) but that's not the point!

If it's even more hectic, are you surprised that a visitor didn't know where the hell to go? And that - just maybe - she needed guidance rather than grabbing?

Or are you still convinced that scaring her off was the right thing because, rather than just being confused by your "hectic" and unusual Anglican church, she just might have been planning on using Our Lord as a pessary?

Peronel.

Erm no. She had just recieved the Blood of Christ from me when I noticed that she was clutching onto the host. She moved very quickly away from me after recieving and she needed to stopped.
What did she expect to do? It's quite a simple process!

-103
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
As amusing as it would be to speculate on whether 103rd will go to hell when he dies (which, it seems to me, is rather consequent on the degree of the Romish errors he accepts in due course), I want to return to blaspheming and desecration.

(OK, I really want to talk about vaginas and Satanism, but that discussion didn't seem to have legs).

So, back to Original Post.

Lots of people sell relics on e-bay. Is that blasphemous?

If the person with the Pope's wafer had given it away, would that have been blasphemous?

Would it be less of a desceration if the previous owner of the Pope's wafer took it home and kept it wrapped in linen and kept a light burning before it?
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
(OK, I really want to talk about vaginas and Satanism, but that discussion didn't seem to have legs).

Vaginas generally don't. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
What did she expect to do? It's quite a simple process!

She may have been trying to be sure she got out of everyone else's way, and made it to a safe place, where she wouldn't be clobbered by an errant acolyte or someone cutting across to get to their preferred chalice, so that she could stand and quietly and reverently consume the host.

Which should be simple, I'll grant. But given the description from the MW report, it may not have seemed so at all to her!
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
As amusing as it would be to speculate on whether 103rd will go to hell when he dies (which, it seems to me, is rather consequent on the degree of the Romish errors he accepts in due course), I want to return to blaspheming and desecration.

(OK, I really want to talk about vaginas and Satanism, but that discussion didn't seem to have legs).

So would I [Big Grin]
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

So, back to Original Post.

Lots of people sell relics on e-bay. Is that blasphemous?

Well - It's not very dignified but I wouldn't go as far to say that it is blasphemous. Relics have always been traditionally traded amoung churches. In medieval times there was a HUGE trade for relics if I remember correctly!
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

If the person with the Pope's wafer had given it away, would that have been blasphemous?

He had no right to have it outside of church so of course it would!
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

Would it be less of a desceration if the previous owner of the Pope's wafer took it home and kept it wrapped in linen and kept a light burning before it?

Again - he had no right to have it outside of church!


-103
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Oh! Go away!

[Paranoid]

-103

So things have gotten worse by your own admission, and when confronted with this, your highly immature reaction is "Oh! Go away!"

[Killing me] [Killing me] I can't stand it. The horror! The horror! I'm nearly wetting myself picturing it! The chaos! The lack of training! The massive immaturity! The possible special needs of the children they pick for serving at the altar! Run for your lives! Women and children and frail first! [Killing me] [Killing me]

What did she expect to do? The phrase "try to make it out alive" comes to mind. No doubt when you grabbed her and hissed at her it meant her worst fears were coming true!
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three): <snip>
You weren't there, you aren't me!
<snip>

I think that's called solepsism [Disappointed]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three): <snip>
You weren't there, you aren't me!
<snip>

I think that's called solepsism [Disappointed]
WTF?!?!? Oh you can go away too!

-103
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
I'm pondering the possibility of sending MW hit squads to 103's church on daring, undercover, sacrament raids. Prizes for the most daring heist or the most improbable hiding place. That sort of thing.

Then we could all meet up afterwards for tea and currant buns, and tell stories of being hissed at.

I should know better than to post after midnight. Surrealness happens.

Peronel.

[ 14. April 2005, 23:30: Message edited by: Peronel ]
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
You know, 103, similar to the way repeating "I was right and I know it" isn't working for you, this "Oh go away" repitition isn't exactly making you look any better either.

Of course, neither is the fact that the MW wasn't entirely complimentary about either the children or the eucharist in your church, and your admission that it is worse now.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I'm pondering the possibility of sending MW hit squads to 103's church on daring, undercover, sacrament raids. Prizes for the most daring heist or the most improbable hiding place. That sort of thing.

Then we could all meet up afterwards for tea and currant buns, and tell stories of being hissed at.

I should know better than to post after midnight. Surrealness happens.

Peronel.

Somehow I don't think Ship of Fools would apprechiate that sort of Criminal Activity being discussed on it's website.

-103
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
Oooooh Peronel, can I come? I can think of some good hiding places. And I can certainly create a diversion.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I'm pondering the possibility of sending MW hit squads to 103's church on daring, undercover, sacrament raids. Prizes for the most daring heist or the most improbable hiding place. That sort of thing.

Then we could all meet up afterwards for tea and currant buns, and tell stories of being hissed at.

I should know better than to post after midnight. Surrealness happens.

Peronel.

Somehow I don't think Ship of Fools would apprechiate that sort of Criminal Activity being discussed on it's website.

-103

Speaking as both a UK and US qualified lawyer, I say
WHAT criminal activity??????????
Hate to break it to you but while not consuming the host right then and there may be against your personal canon law, once they hand it over, its a gift and they can't take it back.

Your battery in grabbing the woman, now....that's criminal activity.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
You know, 103, similar to the way repeating "I was right and I know it" isn't working for you, this "Oh go away" repitition isn't exactly making you look any better either.

Of course, neither is the fact that the MW wasn't entirely complimentary about either the children or the eucharist in your church, and your admission that it is worse now.

What can I say? I'm honest about what's going on at my church, and it's half past midnight and I'm posting on the Ship in order to put off finishing this horrible leaflet I have to do for R.S. about Abortion and the pros and the cons. (Don't get me started about Abortion, I get very depressed when I think about it)

-103
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Somehow I don't think Ship of Fools would apprechiate that sort of Criminal Activity being discussed on it's website.

-103

Come on now. I know currant buns aren't to everyone's taste, but criminal?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I'm pondering the possibility of sending MW hit squads to 103's church on daring, undercover, sacrament raids. Prizes for the most daring heist or the most improbable hiding place. That sort of thing.

Then we could all meet up afterwards for tea and currant buns, and tell stories of being hissed at.

I should know better than to post after midnight. Surrealness happens.

Peronel.

Somehow I don't think Ship of Fools would apprechiate that sort of Criminal Activity being discussed on it's website.

-103

Speaking as both a UK and US qualified lawyer, I say
WHAT criminal activity??????????
Hate to break it to you but while not consuming the host right then and there may be against your personal canon law, once they hand it over, its a gift and they can't take it back.

Your battery in grabbing the woman, now....that's criminal activity.

A "Sacrament Raid suggests" a robbery of some sort where you would go into the church when nobody is looking and try to steal the sacrament out of the tabernacle.

-103
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Let's see, you obviously haven't read my recent contribution in Purg on the Jihad thread. Don't get me started on holier than thou virgin males raving on about how abortion makes them depressed.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I'm pondering the possibility of sending MW hit squads to 103's church on daring, undercover, sacrament raids. Prizes for the most daring heist or the most improbable hiding place. That sort of thing.

Then we could all meet up afterwards for tea and currant buns, and tell stories of being hissed at.

I should know better than to post after midnight. Surrealness happens.

Peronel.

Somehow I don't think Ship of Fools would apprechiate that sort of Criminal Activity being discussed on it's website.

-103

Speaking as both a UK and US qualified lawyer, I say
WHAT criminal activity??????????
Hate to break it to you but while not consuming the host right then and there may be against your personal canon law, once they hand it over, its a gift and they can't take it back.

Your battery in grabbing the woman, now....that's criminal activity.

A "Sacrament Raid suggests" a robbery of some sort where you would go into the church when nobody is looking and try to steal the sacrament out of the tabernacle.

-103

Not in the context of this thread it doesn't.
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
According to the article here, it's a serious crime, strictly forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church, to sell a first-class relic (the article identifies the particular canon, etc). This article is especially addressing internet sales.

If I remember my "weird medieval factoids" correctly, King Charles of France had a dinner party in the late 14th century where he handed out the ribs of his sainted ancestor Louis as gifts to his honored guests.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Somehow I don't think Ship of Fools would apprechiate that sort of Criminal Activity being discussed on it's website.

-103

Come on now. I know currant buns aren't to everyone's taste, but criminal?
I do so love a good current bun, me.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
According to the article here, it's a serious crime, strictly forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church, to sell a first-class relic (the article identifies the particular canon, etc). This article is especially addressing internet sales.

I believe the ebay sales typically emphasise that they're selling the reliquary and that the relic is just a gift, presumably for just that reason. Have to say that that doesn't make it any the less distasteful in my book.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
According to the article here, it's a serious crime, strictly forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church, to sell a first-class relic (the article identifies the particular canon, etc). This article is especially addressing internet sales.

If I remember my "weird medieval factoids" correctly, King Charles of France had a dinner party in the late 14th century where he handed out the ribs of his sainted ancestor Louis as gifts to his honored guests.

Ah, but that's canon law, not English law.
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Well, yes, which was why I added the phrase "by the Roman Catholic Church," and made the reference to the canon....but I suppose the more, er, young and intense among us could become confused and start making citizen's arrests and wrestling people to the ground or something, so probably a wise clarification.

[ 14. April 2005, 23:56: Message edited by: Sienna ]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
If I remember my "weird medieval factoids" correctly, King Charles of France had a dinner party in the late 14th century where he handed out the ribs of his sainted ancestor Louis as gifts to his honored guests.

I wonder if the sauce was spicy, sweet, or both?
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
I'm just warped enough to try to imagine the thank-you note composed within the prescribed amount of time after the party.

"Gracious Sovereign, thank you SO very much for the lovely rib. It's certainly a unique gift that added much to the flavor of our evening. I'm sure the Duke and I will enjoy it for many, many years."
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
A "Sacrament Raid suggests" a robbery of some sort where you would go into the church when nobody is looking and try to steal the sacrament out of the tabernacle.

-103

Nahhh. I was imagining something much more along the lines of an ecclesiastical version of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Or perhaps Zorro.

You know the sort of thing. The church is full ... the thurifer swings wildly ... the faithful queue up for their shot of Jesus, and return. In one pew, somewhere towards the back on the Gospel side, a worshipper - all unsuspected - smiles slightly to herself. The only signs of her passing is the strange sign cut into the chasuble and a trace of her perfume, mixing incongrously with the incense.

Hmmm. I really need to go to sleep.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Don't forget the card in the collection plate! It is key to a MW visit!
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I'm just warped enough to try to imagine the thank-you note composed within the prescribed amount of time after the party.

"Gracious Sovereign, thank you SO very much for the lovely rib. It's certainly a unique gift that added much to the flavor of our evening. I'm sure the Duke and I will enjoy it for many, many years."

I guess everyone has one or two mind-bogglingly ugly vases given to them by assorted elderly maiden aunts. Ettiquete forbids throwing them away. Instead, they must be carefully stored, then brought out and put on proud display whenever the giver visits.

This would be worse.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Manda (# 6028) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Then we could all meet up afterwards for tea and currant buns, and tell stories of being hissed at.

Raisin cakes!!!
It definitely is Satanism then [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
I am of the opinion that the moment the eucharist touches the lips of an unbeliever it becomes plain ole bread and wine. Isn't faith in communion the foundation of the act? Since when did symbols take on a life of their own and glow in the dark?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Manda:
Raisin cakes!!!
It definitely is Satanism then [Paranoid]

I thought raisin cakes were for Goddess worship? I'm so confused.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I am of the opinion that the moment the eucharist touches the lips of an unbeliever it becomes plain ole bread and wine. Isn't faith in communion the foundation of the act? Since when did symbols take on a life of their own and glow in the dark?

St. Paul seemed to think that they could be downright harmful if not deadly to people who didn't have the right sort of faith. But I suppose we are more sophisticated nowadays than that simple first-century nonsense.
 
Posted by Manda (# 6028) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Manda:
Raisin cakes!!!
It definitely is Satanism then [Paranoid]

I thought raisin cakes were for Goddess worship? I'm so confused.
Ah, probably (I wouldn't really know), but the black mass 103 linked to seemed to overlap in some of the symbolism with the Goddess worship, oh, no, I've been reading too much Da Vinci code again [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 
This has been fun, and I grab most opportunities to rib the ritualists, and I don't know if one is supposed to say nice things about people in Hell, but I'm becoming quite fond of Schoolboy 103. His actions sprang from [dreadful pun alert] zeal for the Lord of Hosts. He's fought his corner with tenacity if not discretion. He's even stuck to the OP more religiously than most of us subsequent posters. On many occasions, in church and outside, I've been at least as embarrassed by over-enthusiastic young proselytisers from my own end of the anglican spectrum.
So God bless you One-O-Three, in whichever corner and chrism in Christ's church the Spirit leads you [Votive]
FD
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
According to the article here, it's a serious crime, strictly forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church, to sell a first-class relic (the article identifies the particular canon, etc). This article is especially addressing internet sales.

If I remember my "weird medieval factoids" correctly, King Charles of France had a dinner party in the late 14th century where he handed out the ribs of his sainted ancestor Louis as gifts to his honored guests.

Holy party favors! What a brilliant idea! Such a more personal touch than handing out the banquet flower arrangements. [Two face]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
And so 103 discovers the single most effective way to get picked on - by being a whiney loser. I bet the little spud still has painful flashbacks to tauntings he suffered at the hands of cruel 5th-graders... last year.

Here's a general question:
So, since you've got the body of christ in your mouth, is the correct wine a Chianti? And where do the fava beans come into it?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Manda:
Raisin cakes!!!
It definitely is Satanism then [Paranoid]

I thought raisin cakes were for Goddess worship? I'm so confused.
The Isrealites turned away from God and ate the sacred raisin cakes.

I know this text, but darned if I can remember where its from.
 
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I'm pondering the possibility of sending MW hit squads to 103's church on daring, undercover, sacrament raids. Prizes for the most daring heist or the most improbable hiding place. That sort of thing.

Then we could all meet up afterwards for tea and currant buns, and tell stories of being hissed at.

I should know better than to post after midnight. Surrealness happens.

Peronel.

Somehow I don't think Ship of Fools would apprechiate that sort of Criminal Activity being discussed on it's website.

-103

Speaking as both a UK and US qualified lawyer, I say
WHAT criminal activity??????????
Hate to break it to you but while not consuming the host right then and there may be against your personal canon law, once they hand it over, its a gift and they can't take it back.

Your battery in grabbing the woman, now....that's criminal activity.

Maybe someone could be sued for nicking the host, because it could be construed as a violation of the implied EULA? [Razz]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, since you've got the body of christ in your mouth, is the correct wine a Chianti?

Try to pay attention, heathen scum. This is so obvious I'm embarassed on your behalf that I even have to say this. The correct wine to go with the Body of Christ is the Blood of Christ.

quote:
And where do the fava beans come into it?
They don't.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
St. Paul seemed to think that they could be downright harmful if not deadly to people who didn't have the right sort of faith. But I suppose we are more sophisticated nowadays than that simple first-century nonsense.

Sounds like Voodoo to me; but of course I'm fairly unsophisticated.

Still I think our Lord Darth Vader's comments apply here:
quote:
"Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you to conjure up
the stolen data tapes..."


 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Still I think our Lord Darth Vader's comments apply here:
quote:
"Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you to conjure up
the stolen data tapes..."


Actually those words were spoken not BY Darth Vader, but TO Darth Vader, by a man who was immediately thereupon strangled by Darth Vader from across the room, using the ancient religion in question. This hardly seems to support your case. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
As amusing as it would be to speculate on whether 103rd will go to hell when he dies (which, it seems to me, is rather consequent on the degree of the Romish errors he accepts in due course), I want to return to blaspheming and desecration.

(OK, I really want to talk about vaginas and Satanism, but that discussion didn't seem to have legs).

So, back to Original Post.

Lots of people sell relics on e-bay. Is that blasphemous?

If the person with the Pope's wafer had given it away, would that have been blasphemous?

Would it be less of a desceration if the previous owner of the Pope's wafer took it home and kept it wrapped in linen and kept a light burning before it?

As I said before - taking the Pope-consecrated wafer home, lighting candles etc. etc is veneration but it is missing out on the point of the Mass and of Holy Communion big time. The same point applies to giving it away. Then there's the question of simony and selling the sacraments by selling a consecrated host. IIRC simony caused all sorts of problems for the Catholic Church, starting with that Luther chap and going on from there... it's a sensitive subject, you know. [Biased]

As for whether selling relics on eBay is blasphemous - see my earlier point about crass celebrity souvenir hunting, even for those who don't accept that selling a consecrated host is at least disrespectful to Catholic belief.

I liked your other point too:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's TrickBack to the Original Post. Do you suppose the purchaser of the papal host ate it when it arrived? Did he genuflect as the postman came up the walk?

Does Ritual Notes have a section for dealing with a Host in the post?

I think I may have been the only person to have taken any notice of it. [Killing me] Can we talk among ourselves?

I can't imagine why the Vatican has never commented on this vital question. They must be slacking.

Unless the recipient of the Blessed Post had a sacrarium in their garden, then naturally the consecrated host would have to be reverently consumed on the spot. (Or even if they did have one, come to think of it.) The accidents of the Precious Body might be rather stale though.

Genuflection to the postman would be optional but a tad extreme. I can't imagine any moral blame would attach if it were not done. Can't expect the faithful to have X-ray vision after all.

Of course there are many posters much more expert than me, with all sorts of violently held opinions about eucharistic practice and belief. Most of them seem to have posted on this thread. [Killing me]

103: Henry, you should have taken my advice to stop digging.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Actually those words were spoken not BY Darth Vader, but TO Darth Vader, by a man who was immediately thereupon strangled by Darth Vader from across the room, using the ancient religion in question. This hardly seems to support your case.
You're right. Guess Voodoo works.

Where do I sign up?

[ 15. April 2005, 02:47: Message edited by: Gort ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Well, this is probably the Lutheran in me, but I tend to agree that the reciever's faith is an essential element in the consecration of the host. I tend to disagree with he idea that any whackjob with esoteric ideas about gross things to do with the host can have any power to do anything except make himself look like an idiot. I think that St. Paul's references to people coming to the Table unprepared were in the context of" Look, here is how you set out the board, here are the rules for basic behaviour, after that if anyone wants to fuck around it's their funeral." I think his statements were intended to take the heat off the clergy as far as having to "nanny" people. That is my wacky, unsophisticated take on things.Takes all kinds to make christendom, I guess.

And I also come to the Board with a decision to believe in the Real Presence. And I found RooK's fava bean comment kinda funny, despite that. I also think he should change his title from HellHost to "Heathen Scum."
 
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
St. Paul seemed to think that they could be downright harmful if not deadly to people who didn't have the right sort of faith. But I suppose we are more sophisticated nowadays than that simple first-century nonsense.

No, I think Jesus can take care of Himself and I'm quite sure whoever partakes of Him in the wrong spirit will likely get quite a surprise of some sort or other. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
See, I don't think so. I think if you partake in the wrong spirit, you just muddle along with faint feeling you've missed something, even if just being a part of the whole business. I think if you muck around with the Elements in a more creative/ "blasphemous" way, you are pretty much your own Karma by virtue of being a childish idiot with a lack of meaningful ways to express your own angst/ whatever at religion.
I really do not believe (anymore) that God wastes any time on these people, even to curse them.

[ 15. April 2005, 03:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think if you muck around with the Elements in a more creative/ "blasphemous" way, you are pretty much your own Karma by virtue of being a childish idiot with a lack of meaningful ways to express your own angst/ whatever at religion.

Plus, you'll have crumbs in your cooch.
 
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Then there's the question of simony and selling the sacraments by selling a consecrated host. IIRC simony caused all sorts of problems for the Catholic Church, starting with that Luther chap and going on from there... it's a sensitive subject, you know. [Biased]

Thanks Duo for mentioning Luther and simony, you have given me a brilliant idea - selling indulgences on eBay. No need to actually transport anything physical to the purchaser, they just send you the money and you guarantee them fewer years of torment in the life to come. I guess you could make things interesting by asking them to confess to particular sins which you would then absolve for a price.

[ 15. April 2005, 06:49: Message edited by: Zwingli ]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Do I want to know what a "cooch" is?

P
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
"Gracious Sovereign, thank you SO very much for the lovely rib. It's certainly a unique gift that added much to the flavor of our evening. I'm sure the Duke and I will enjoy it for many, many years."

Possible next lines:

"You'll be happy to know we're using it to wedge the shutters shut, so we don't freeze in the winter."

"Our hunting dog has buried it in a safe place, known only to him."

"My cousin is making it into bone buttons for the children's sweaters."


(And yes, it's past midnight here, and I'm up too late!)

[Two face]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
Sorry, Zwingli - like all really good commercial ideas, you have to be first to the market.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Do I want to know what a "cooch" is?

It's what I lie on while watching TV. I hate it when there are crackers or crumbs.
 
Posted by Linguo (# 7220) on :
 
If this thread has taught me one thing, it's to be acutely grateful that I belong to a denomination where communion is never going to be administered either by face-pulling schoolchildren or pompous sixth-formers with a phenomenally excessive idea of their own importance. Go us. And if I'd been the lady in 103's unsavoury story, I would have been complaining vocally to the officiating priest after the service.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Wouldn't I love to hear what Henry's priest has to say about the dog's breakfast of a liturgy offered at his church (at least as represented on these boards)! If the good Father is the instigator of this chaos I somehow doubt that he would be on the same wavelength as anyone bringing a complaint.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
That would be Father *************. Father? Are you there, Father? Do you read me? What the fuck is going on at your place? 'Empowering the young people'? The hell you are. Pull yourself together, my good man, and stop spouting cant. Servers are supposed to be inconspicuous.

[removed identity of 103's priest]

[ 15. April 2005, 11:32: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
103 wrote:
Just fuck off the lot of you, you are really annoying me you stupid little moaning fucks. I think I was right and none of you have the right to tell me that I wasn't. You weren't there, you aren't me!

I don't think anyone is saying that you didn't do the best you could given your obvious inexperience and under dificult circumstances. It is not that we are taking issue with- it is the pride with which you speak of driving away people from the Church.

If you think that driving someone away from the Church is anything other than a deeply regrettable event, I suggest you have a lot of soul-searching to do.

quote:
Oh! Go away!

[Paranoid]

-103

Grow up you irritating little squit. If you really don't want to read this thread then don't. If you don't want to be targetted in Hell, either don't post or think before posting.

quote:
WTF?!?!? Oh you can go away too!

-103

Advice to man at bottom of hole: Stop Digging!
 
Posted by The Alchemist (# 2178) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I am of the opinion that the moment the eucharist touches the lips of an unbeliever it becomes plain ole bread and wine.

Ah but does it make any difference *which* set of lip it touches?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Do I want to know what a "cooch" is?

It's what I lie on while watching TV.
It's Geordie for "couch". You really should get oot an aboot in the country a bit more, Pyx_e.
 
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
No, y'all, a cooch is a twat. I don't think Gort has a twat tho he could pass for the Hoochie Coochie Man.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Picks up toasting fork

Mentioning names of non-shipmates (e.g. someone's priest), or pointing out which church someone goes to is very off-limits, Amos.

Likewise, when planning raids on other peoples' churches, subtitles indicating its jokey status should probably be added, for the hard of humour.

Sarkycow, hellhost
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Just fuck off the lot of you, you are really annoying me you stupid little moaning fucks. I think I was right and none of you have the right to tell me that I wasn't. You weren't there, you aren't me!
-103

No. It's not much fun being publicly upbraided for one's behaviour, is it?
 
Posted by Light (# 4693) on :
 
Especially when one was expecting to be praised for it.

I've read all nine (9) pages of this thread. It was kind of entertaining. [Paranoid]

Oh well, at least I learned some new words which I sadly won't be able to use in conversation... And I noticed that Sarkycow is extremely close to 8000 posts!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Picks up toasting fork

Mentioning names of non-shipmates (e.g. someone's priest), or pointing out which church someone goes to is very off-limits, Amos.

Likewise, when planning raids on other peoples' churches, subtitles indicating its jokey status should probably be added, for the hard of humour.

Sarkycow, hellhost

FWIW, I'd like to add something.

Flaming is something we have all seen online, even on this "Christian" Website.

Threatening a RL raid on someone's church is another matter. I wouldn't advise it. -103 lives in a rugby heartland amd I am sure he knows people who know people, if you get my drift.

In other words, don't go from on-line chat and banter into real life except, as with BDSM, fully consensually.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:


Threatening a RL raid on someone's church is another matter. I wouldn't advise it. -103 lives in a rugby heartland amd I am sure he knows people who know people, if you get my drift.


RL raid??? Um, didn't the Zorro references hint that I might not be entirely serious?

Peronel.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:


Threatening a RL raid on someone's church is another matter. I wouldn't advise it. -103 lives in a rugby heartland amd I am sure he knows people who know people, if you get my drift.


RL raid??? Um, didn't the Zorro references hint that I might not be entirely serious?

Peronel.

Ok, you know it's a joke and it looks like one to me but does it look like a joke to -103?

So long as -103 is under no misapprehensions that would be OK, but from his posts I suspect he ain't comfortable at all.

A lot of people are making play of -103 being nowt but a kid then they give him a good shoeing. On-line child abuse, no?

[edited: re our knowing it's a joke]

[ 15. April 2005, 12:34: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
I'm sorry that I came across as rude, whiny and immature in this discussion, and I apologise for my part in raising the heat here.

I don't feel that the discussion of the ebay badness will be helped by any further discussion of my actions, and to that end I am now withdrawing from the thread.

Enjoy the discussion guys.
Goodbye

-103
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Picks up toasting fork

Mentioning names of non-shipmates (e.g. someone's priest), or pointing out which church someone goes to is very off-limits, Amos.

Likewise, when planning raids on other peoples' churches, subtitles indicating its jokey status should probably be added, for the hard of humour.

Sarkycow, hellhost

I apologize: of course it is off-limits. (If only 103 hadn't told us so often on the former MW Board which church he goes to: it seemed almost like part of the Ship's folklore--but that's no excuse, and I should have known better. Again, I apologize. I fucked up.)
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
I shall use my 8000th post to say (as a shipmate):

Two sincere and open apologies in a row? Life is special [Biased]

And that puts both matters out of play now, since Amos has stopped naming-and-shaming, and 103 has withdrawn as gracefully and maturely as possible.

So, did we ever find out what a cooch is? And what does happen if you munch on Jesus whilst having the wrong attitude or beliefs?

Sarkycow, shipmate
 
Posted by Linguo (# 7220) on :
 
I received in an Anglo-Catholic church once. My head didn't explode, but I did get a cold later that week...
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:


So, did we ever find out what a cooch is?


I thought it was a type of shell. Or is that a conch? Either way, it's a bad place to put Jesus.

(103 - handsomely said. Happy to consider the subject of your church and that incident dropped)
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So, did we ever find out what a cooch is?

My understanding is:

Cooch (US) = fanny (UK)

Gort seems to interpret it as = fanny (US) = bum (UK) but my mileage varies.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It doesn't look like the American meaning has crossed the pond, from the nickname of this fearsome bit of kit. OK for the office, so long as you don't have a dress/beauty code.

Glad to see peace has returned [Overused]
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
Here in the good ol' American South, "fanny" refers to your derriere, backside, butt, gluteus maximus, or whatever term you prefer for that part of you that covers the seat of a chair.

"Fanny" as a term for female genitalia is a new one on me. I learn a lot here. [Yipee]
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
The late Zsa Zsa Gabor once caused much unintended mirth on a British chat show by referring several times to her 'enormous fanny'.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
The late Zsa Zsa Gabor once caused much unintended mirth on a British chat show by referring several times to her 'enormous fanny'.

I imagine she would have!

(The US use is quite innocuous and is definitely chat-show legal.)

Charlotte
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Isn't 'Cooch' what the Scottish people call the usually non-playing member of their football (soccer) teams? The person who develops team strategies and runs work-out and practice sessions?
 
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
No, fanny in the UK means cooch or twat (or vagina for those that still don't get it) in the US. Twat in the UK means twit tho, so it gets complicated.

I was recently subdeacon at high mass and noticed as I received the chalice that a small section of the priest's host had stuck to the base of the chalice. I was tempted to run after the deacon and demand that it be consumed immediately but decided against it in the interest of decorum. I am enough of a spike to wonder what happened to it and did actually go back after Mass and make sure it wasn't lying on the floor somewhere, but then I realized that "it's all good" and Jesus would surely find Himself at home wherever He wound up. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Linguo (# 7220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
The late Zsa Zsa Gabor once caused much unintended mirth on a British chat show by referring several times to her 'enormous fanny'.

I imagine she would have!

(The US use is quite innocuous and is definitely chat-show legal.)

Charlotte

I find it one of those cross-pond variations which, even though I know about it in theory, always brings me up short. Like Lynette on Desperate Housewives yelling to her three boys "Get your fannies in here!" It just sounds utterly wrong. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
Another legendary televisual moment was when Ur-TV chef Fanny Craddock concluded her program in customary manner by wheeling on her brow-beaten husband Johnny to give his final verdict. "Mmmm", exorted Johnny,"I hope all your apple turnovers turn out like fannies". I think he had been waiting for years for that opprtunity. The show was axed soon after that.

[ 15. April 2005, 15:57: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So, did we ever find out what a cooch is?

My understanding is:

Cooch (US) = fanny (UK)

Gort seems to interpret it as = fanny (US) = bum (UK) but my mileage varies.

Charlotte

What a bunch of bastards you are, I believed you when you told me you sat on the cooch. I was just about to ask Kelly if she had a 2 man or a 3 man cooch.

P

[ 15. April 2005, 16:11: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Another legendary televisual moment was when Ur-TV chef Fanny Craddock concluded her program in customary manner by wheeling on her brow-beaten husband Johnny to give his final verdict. "Mmmm", exorted Johnny,"I hope all your apple turnovers turn out like fannies". I think he had been waiting for years for that opprtunity. The show was axed soon after that.

Apple turnovers? I thought it was referring to fishcakes.
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
Sorry, you're right. Fishcakes. Johnny was very wicked. I believe he got three of his fingers broken after the show.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I am of the opinion that the moment the eucharist touches the lips of an unbeliever it becomes plain ole bread and wine.

Actually I was under the impression that if the Sacred Species touched the lips of an unbeliever they turned into bloody flesh.

No?

This whole thread was almost worth it for "crumbs in your cooch", but definitely worth it for Zsa Zsa's enormous fanny.

(Teaching John Cleland's Fanny Hill isn't half so much fun when your undergraduates don't get the joke in the title).
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
This thread is getting stupid now from "eeeuuuughhh - Blasphemous Desecration on Ebay" to "Is 103 an absolute bastard and will he go to hell when he dies?" to "Let's call 103 a schoolboy and debate whether he is in high school or not"

This thread has gone onto a meg@ tangent which is just stupid now.


We have to ask ourselves which idiot started this tangent.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
"Fanny" as a term for female genitalia is a new one on me. I learn a lot here. [Yipee]

Why do you think Brits always laugh when, instead of referring to bumbags, Americans talk about putting things in their "fanny-packs"? [Killing me]

A friend of mine was visiting her sister in New York, and, at the airport, asked for directions to the toilet. The man she asked looked at her as thought she'd just farted, and said "you mean the bathroom?" She replied "No, I mean the toilet - I don't want a bath", then he laughed and said she was cute and that he had a great main to slap her on her fanny. She was mortified until she told her sister later on what had happened, and had explained to her that he meant her bum.

[ 15. April 2005, 17:29: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
...then he laughed and said she was cute and that he had a great main to slap her on her fanny.

"a great mind", even.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
I'm sorry for a third post, but this has just dawned on me. Do you mean that there may have been people who have been reading all of this thread, who have seen the references to people nicking hosts and inserting them into their fannies as meaning that they were shoving them up their arses? [Killing me]
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
well i do know that fanny in the uk means twat, but even so reading about sticking things up it lead to some... unusual mental images.

this is a great thread all around. may i suggest it be imortalized in limbo eventually?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Back to Front: certainly! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
A friend of mine was visiting her sister in New York, and, at the airport, asked for directions to the toilet. The man she asked looked at her as thought she'd just farted, and said "you mean the bathroom?" She replied "No, I mean the toilet - I don't want a bath", then he laughed and said she was cute and that he had a great main to slap her on her fanny. She was mortified until she told her sister later on what had happened, and had explained to her that he meant her bum.

She should have asked him if he could spare a fag. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I'm sorry for a third post, but this has just dawned on me. Do you mean that there may have been people who have been reading all of this thread, who have seen the references to people nicking hosts and inserting them into their fannies as meaning that they were shoving them up their arses? [Killing me]

I figured it was for those Black Magicians how preferred to enter from the rear. *shrug*

Sieg
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I'm sorry for a third post, but this has just dawned on me. Do you mean that there may have been people who have been reading all of this thread, who have seen the references to people nicking hosts and inserting them into their fannies as meaning that they were shoving them up their arses? [Killing me]

That, or exerting a certain degree of muscle control holding it between their nether cheeks!

Charlotte
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
So that's how th nuns who make them get them so flat!

Mother Superior: and knead and clench and knead and clench and knead...
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So, did we ever find out what a cooch is?

My understanding is:

Cooch (US) = fanny (UK)

Gort seems to interpret it as = fanny (US) = bum (UK) but my mileage varies.


What a bunch of bastards you are, I believed you when you told me you sat on the cooch. I was just about to ask Kelly if she had a 2 man or a 3 man cooch.
*A-hem*

*coff*

Charlotte
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
nuff said.

Just how precise are you with that thing, and could you have saved me shaving down there earlier on?
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I'm sorry for a third post, but this has just dawned on me. Do you mean that there may have been people who have been reading all of this thread, who have seen the references to people nicking hosts and inserting them into their fannies as meaning that they were shoving them up their arses? [Killing me]

And who better than someone with a screen name of Back-to-Front to point this out?!!
[Snigger]

[ 15. April 2005, 20:24: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
Quite.

I use the same name on (cough) another website, not just for the Raggy Doll allusion. [Biased]
 
Posted by ReginaShoe (# 4076) on :
 
Of course, this whole discussion has made me wonder when we're going to start seeing wafer-detectors on the exits of churches. Or wafer-sniffing dogs. Can't be too careful these days, after all...
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So, did we ever find out what a cooch is?

My understanding is:

Cooch (US) = fanny (UK)

Gort seems to interpret it as = fanny (US) = bum (UK) but my mileage varies.


What a bunch of bastards you are, I believed you when you told me you sat on the cooch. I was just about to ask Kelly if she had a 2 man or a 3 man cooch.
*A-hem*

*coff*

Charlotte

Ah! An evening to remember!

B2F, she seemed pretty assured in handling the axe. However, as to shaving... [Eek!]
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Then there's the question of simony and selling the sacraments by selling a consecrated host. IIRC simony caused all sorts of problems for the Catholic Church, starting with that Luther chap and going on from there... it's a sensitive subject, you know. [Biased]

Thanks Duo for mentioning Luther and simony, you have given me a brilliant idea - selling indulgences on eBay. No need to actually transport anything physical to the purchaser, they just send you the money and you guarantee them fewer years of torment in the life to come. I guess you could make things interesting by asking them to confess to particular sins which you would then absolve for a price.
Here's one for starters. I went to ebay and searched "indulgence." Lots of different products come up.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
B2F, she seemed pretty assured in handling the axe. However, as to shaving... [Eek!]

Wel I used to use Immac, but I now refuse to on principle since they changed the name.

"Immac" had become a verb. One could Immac. "I immaced this morning".

WTF is Veet? Bah!

Also, it's easier to make little shapes with shaving. [Smile]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Sorry, you're right. Fishcakes. Johnny was very wicked. I believe he got three of his fingers broken after the show.

I think there may have been some Chinese Whispers about that one. The version I was told was that Johnny said "I hope your fishcakes taste like fannies" which he may not have said, but is still by far the funniest account.
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
]I think there may have been some Chinese Whispers about that one. The version I was told was that Johnny said "I hope your fishcakes taste like fannies" which he may not have said, but is still by far the funniest account.

Indeed. The version that still makes me snigger was Johnny saying "And may all your tarts come up like Fanny's".

It's all starting to sound a bit apocryphal - which is a shame!

K.
 
Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :
 
I always used to order ice-cream in a restaurant rather than the tart because I was always terrified I'd ask 'Who is the tart of the day' instead of 'What is the tart of the day'. If you see what I mean
Didn't Fanny give Johnny a trifle in the face on one of those programmes
And could you imagine her as a dinner-lady? [Two face] [Two face] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
<shocked>

Never looked on here before.

Come back TDA, all is forgiven... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
ye gods - how did we get from hissing @ host-floggers to furry fannies (occasionally, incidentally, the phrase "map of Tasmania" has a double entendre in Oz [Hot and Hormonal] )? At any rate I second the proposal to immortalize this thread in limbo.

And I second too peronel's post:
quote:
(103 - handsomely said. Happy to consider the subject of your church and that incident dropped)

There's been a bit of blithering about 103's maturity blah blah blah but - while I disagree with many if not all of his views, I reckon he did real good to withstand the roasting that was delivered him. Is a [Overused] likely to melt in hell?

Come to think about it: does "flogging" have the nuances in the Rest of the World that it has in Oz? And it has bugga-all to do with a cat o' nine tails. Or a one sided football score. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 15. April 2005, 23:28: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
So that's how th nuns who make them get them so flat!

Mother Superior: and knead and clench and knead and clench and knead...

"Kegel Your Way to a Profitable Convent Business"

Charlotte
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
(To the pix of Kelly with an Axe)
nuff said.

Quite right.

quote:
Just how precise are you with that thing, and could you have saved me shaving down there earlier on?
I don't recommend it for detail work, to put it mildly.

Charlotte, it took me forever to clean up the driveway afterwards!
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
[Help]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(watches thread in silent awe.)
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Charlotte, it took me forever to clean up the driveway afterwards!

Which is why Kelly is not invited to our NEXT bris.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Charlotte, it took me forever to clean up the driveway afterwards!

Which is why Kelly is not invited to our NEXT bris.
[Projectile]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
For the last time, folks, the axe is rhetorical.

And even that is pretty much a laugh.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
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.

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.

On so many levels: Grow up.

It was 103's first time being a Eucharistic Minister. Quite frankly, I am happy someone his age is serving in this ministry, or any other ministry for that matter.

You are worried about the person he stopped. That is a legit concern. It is also a legit concern to be worried about discouraging people 103's age from participating in the church's ministry.

I am not perfect. 103 is not perfect. You are not perfect. So, why don't we all say the General Confession like Charles and Camilla and try to encourage one another.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
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.

Every communion I've been to in the United Methodist Church, with one exception, was a joint service with an Episcopal Church. To avoid using the jiggers and "offending" us, they distributed communion by intinction. Soggy white bread wasn't supposed to offend Episcopalians?

The exception, for lack of a better term, was a Methodist Wedding Mass. (I was the organist. I saw it with my own eyes.) They didn't use the jiggers that day either, although using the jigggers was typical practice at that congregation. Instead they intincted wafers. At least it wasn't soggy white bread.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
...I am not perfect. 103 is not perfect. You are not perfect. So, why don't we all say the General Confession like Charles and Camilla and try to encourage one another.

I thought that is the encouragement 103 was giving...EAT IT, NOW!! I don't see a problem.

As for crumb-littered cooches, fannies and other nefarious cross-pond references...I say the same advice applies.

[grammar]

[ 16. April 2005, 02:46: Message edited by: Gort ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
103, a very well-done apology! [Smile]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Just a little link for y'all

Cough


-103
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
A wonderful piece.

But, Father Bernie? [Frown]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
At least it isn't Father Reece the Stikka Vikka! [Razz]

-103
 
Posted by Gambit (# 766) on :
 
Catholic, Anglican, Anglo-Catholic?

Ho-hum, let's all go home.

PS.

Come to the Dove in Hammersmith tonight. See this thread for details.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
catholic (with a little C to avoid confusion with Roman Catholics)

-103
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

I am not perfect. 103 is not perfect. You are not perfect. So, why don't we all say the General Confession like Charles and Camilla and try to encourage one another.

You really haven't got the hang of Hell; encouragement belongs in All Saints. 103 foolishly put something on a discussion board and then got annoyed when it was discussed.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Yesterday:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't feel that the discussion of the ebay badness will be helped by any further discussion of my actions, and to that end I am now withdrawing from the thread.

Today:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Just a little link for y'all

Cough


-103

To withdraw from a thread and then, less than 24 hours later, to return to it shows a certain lack of suaveness.

Mind, its the sort of consistency you'd expect from someone who, as Nightlamp eloquently put it:

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
put something on a discussion board and then got annoyed when it was discussed.

[Disappointed]

Peronel.

[ 16. April 2005, 09:15: Message edited by: Peronel ]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Peronel, it has been established that Henry is a geeky gawky teenaged boy with minimal social skills.* So what do you expect? Anyway this is what he always does. It's like Son of Fregory.

*naturally since we are all personae of the boards, he may IRL be Professor Lisa Jardine, or someone like that.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Amos: [Killing me]
 
Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
...I am not perfect. 103 is not perfect. You are not perfect. So, why don't we all say the General Confession like Charles and Camilla and try to encourage one another.

I thought that is the encouragement 103 was giving...EAT IT, NOW!! I don't see a problem.


I think it was the accompanying assault that was the problem.

And the likelihood that someone was driven away from church because of it. We can debate about the Real Presence all we like, but I'm sure almost all of us would agree that Christians are the Body of Christ, and driving someone away from that body is a very serious business.

I'm sure that Satan would be happier about someone quitting going to church than he would be about some idiots doing unspeakable things with a consecrated host (if such things actually happen).

Splitting the Church beats blasphemy any day.

Well done, 103.

Fuckwit.

[added bold and italic text to make it even more overblown]

[ 16. April 2005, 09:44: Message edited by: Lurker McLurker™ ]
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
At this point I'm going to join the other chorus. I don't think we should all be leaping and clobbering younger members like Henry 103 and Thurible. We were all teenagers once, and we were all arseholes who thought the grownups were stupid. Point out their mistakes, but cut them a bit of slack. They represent an age group that is barely represented in the church these days, so should receive a little bit more encouragement than they seem to get here.

Am I being sanctimonious?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
...I am not perfect. 103 is not perfect. You are not perfect. So, why don't we all say the General Confession like Charles and Camilla and try to encourage one another.

I thought that is the encouragement 103 was giving...EAT IT, NOW!! I don't see a problem.


I think it was the accompanying assault that was the problem.

And the likelihood that someone was driven away from church because of it. We can debate about the Real Presence all we like, but I'm sure almost all of us would agree that Christians are the Body of Christ, and driving someone away from that body is a very serious business.

I'm sure that Satan would be happier about someone quitting going to church than he would be about some idiots doing unspeakable things with a consecrated host (if such things actually happen).

Splitting the Church beats blasphemy any day.

Well done, 103.

Fuckwit.

[added bold and italic text to make it even more overblown]

Just out of interest can I ask what you would suggest I do next time?

Keep in mind that the rules are that I should not let anything like that go unnoticed and that it is my responsibility to make sure that each communicant has consumed the host before they leave the sanctuary!

-103
 
Posted by Gambit (# 766) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Am I being sanctimonious?

Yes.

(Oh, c'mon, it is Hell [Devil] )
 
Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Just out of interest can I ask what you would suggest I do next time?

Keep in mind that the rules are that I should not let anything like that go unnoticed and that it is my responsibility to make sure that each communicant has consumed the host before they leave the sanctuary!

Personally, I would let it go, as what people do with the elements is between them and God. Notice that when St Paul talks about people taking communion in an unworthy manner he is talking about their own consciences. I would let it go, and speak to her afterwards if I got a chance. I can't see any other constructive, loving, practical thing to do. But that is obviously not something you are prepared to do.

At the end of the day, I believe people are more important than rituals. If you don't then our atttiudes towards worship are so diffrent as to make any dialogue between us a waste of time.

Assaulting people in church, risking driving them from the church, working on the assumption that this person is going to desecrate the wafer rather than eat it in her seat, all of those things I regard as unconsciable. I can't see myself having enough in common with someone who doesn't to make any rational discussion on the issue possible.

There are other people who believe in the Real Presnce who wouldn't have done what you did, so its not a matter of disagreeing on that issue. You consider grabbing someone you are serving to be okay. This is one of these things that you either get or you don't and nothing I say will make a difference.
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
At this point I'm going to join the other chorus. I don't think we should all be leaping and clobbering younger members like Henry 103 and Thurible. We were all teenagers once, and we were all arseholes who thought the grownups were stupid. Point out their mistakes, but cut them a bit of slack. They represent an age group that is barely represented in the church these days, so should receive a little bit more encouragement than they seem to get here.

Am I being sanctimonious?

No you're not, and good for you for saying it. While I disagree with 103's original action, I think his behavior in this thread has shown infinitely more maturity than I would have been capable of at his age, or for many years afterwards. Way to go, 103.
 
Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
While I disagree with 103's original action, I think his behavior in this thread has shown infinitely more maturity than I would have been capable of at his age, or for many years afterwards. Way to go, 103.

Have you been reading this thread with your eyes closed?
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
While I disagree with 103's original action, I think his behavior in this thread has shown infinitely more maturity than I would have been capable of at his age, or for many years afterwards. Way to go, 103.

Have you been reading this thread with your eyes closed?
No, I've been reading it with my blinders off. Try removing yours, it'll do wonders for the view.

Do you remember anything about being 17? I'm not sure how long it's been in your case, but a loooong time in mine, but I can still remember that admitting you're wrong, in any form, was much harder then than it is now, and it's not that easy now.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
At this point I'm going to join the other chorus. I don't think we should all be leaping and clobbering younger members like Henry 103 and Thurible. We were all teenagers once, and we were all arseholes who thought the grownups were stupid. Point out their mistakes, but cut them a bit of slack. They represent an age group that is barely represented in the church these days, so should receive a little bit more encouragement than they seem to get here.

Am I being sanctimonious?

Oh, please. Fiddleback, sweetcakes, this is the only place in the world™ where I am not obliged to be extra, extra nice about every little thing any child does in church on the grounds that to do otherwise would be 'disempowering'. Face it. There are some kids out there who badly need disempowering.
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
The point is that young Henry HAS APOLOGISED - not particularly graciously, perhaps - but he has apologised. Do we need to keep shitting on him?

His intention was not wrong, but his manner was, and was derived from the usual teenage belief, with which I know that you are very familiar, that all adults are stupid.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
From Trudy Trudy:

quote:
Do you remember anything about being 17?
<croons>

When I was seventeen
It was a very good year
We had an altar so high
It near' touched the sky
And an altar-rail where
We knelt on our knees
An Exsultet with bees
And no extr'ordinary ministries.... *

When I was seventeen
We all received on the tongue
It took very long
And the clergy could bend
We thought those days would not end.

But now I'm so old and wise
I think it's something I dreamed
Things were not as they seemed
Things changed in a day
We all went away....


[Tear] [Votive]


*Chant this line since the meter is outa whack
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Am I being sanctimonious?

Only in a good way.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Oh, hell. The edit time elapsed before I could edit "old and wise" to read "old and grey"; it would have helped the rhyme.

Rats.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Am I being sanctimonious?

Only when you are awake.

P
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
...I am not perfect. 103 is not perfect. You are not perfect. So, why don't we all say the General Confession like Charles and Camilla and try to encourage one another.

I thought that is the encouragement 103 was giving...EAT IT, NOW!! I don't see a problem.


I think it was the accompanying assault that was the problem.

And the likelihood that someone was driven away from church because of it. We can debate about the Real Presence all we like, but I'm sure almost all of us would agree that Christians are the Body of Christ, and driving someone away from that body is a very serious business.

I'm sure that Satan would be happier about someone quitting going to church than he would be about some idiots doing unspeakable things with a consecrated host (if such things actually happen).

Splitting the Church beats blasphemy any day.

Well done, 103.

Fuckwit.

[added bold and italic text to make it even more overblown]

Just out of interest can I ask what you would suggest I do next time?

Keep in mind that the rules are that I should not let anything like that go unnoticed and that it is my responsibility to make sure that each communicant has consumed the host before they leave the sanctuary!

-103

Explain to the person quietly and respectfully the correct practice for taking communion in your church. And them make sure they consume the bread in front of you.

Assume that they've made an honest mistake rather than that they have evil intentions.

Treat them in the way you would hope to be treated yourself if you were visiting elsewhere and were unsure of the right thing to do.

Tubbs

PS Fiddleback [Overused] It's also worth bearing in mind that many adults believe the same about teenagers [Big Grin]

[ 16. April 2005, 13:53: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
... working on the assumption that this person is going to desecrate the wafer rather than eat it in her seat ...

Perhaps some people think it's holey communion? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
I suppose a "How do you eat yours?" thread is in order.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
No you're not, and good for you for saying it. While I disagree with 103's original action, I think his behavior in this thread has shown infinitely more maturity than I would have been capable of at his age, or for many years afterwards. Way to go, 103.

I didn't realise it was possible for people to be as immature as 103 at his age. You must have been a real pain.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
No you're not, and good for you for saying it. While I disagree with 103's original action, I think his behavior in this thread has shown infinitely more maturity than I would have been capable of at his age, or for many years afterwards. Way to go, 103.

I didn't realise it was possible for people to be as immature as 103 at his age. You must have been a real pain.
Nightlamp,

I have no idea of your age but I was at least 30 before I had the slightest idea that I was an arsehole at that age. Only since my own children became teenagers and I have seen them make better choices than I did have I realised just how much of one I was.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I didn't realise it was possible for people to be as immature as 103 at his age. You must have been a real pain.

Which makes me think you still haven't woken up to how much of an arsehole you are -- you must still be a real pain.
 
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
The point is that young Henry HAS APOLOGISED - not particularly graciously, perhaps - but he has apologised. Do we need to keep shitting on him?

His intention was not wrong, but his manner was, and was derived from the usual teenage belief, with which I know that you are very familiar, that all adults are stupid.

Well, except that all he apologized for was being a little shit in this discussion. He still asserts his utter correctness in assaulting and humiliating another person at the altar.

103, you ask what you should have done: it's simple, really. Take her aside and explain that the custom of the church is to consume the host at the altar. If she still didn't behave, then get back to your job and mention it to the priest during the bits when you guys are cleaning up the altar before the end of the service. I am probably the rudest and don't-give-a-shit-about-other-peoplest person on the Ship and even I can figure that one out.

Of course, this all stems from my unwavering belief that no one should ever be turned or driven away from the altar for any reason whatsoever. Baptised or not, in good standing or not, whatever rules and restrictions a particular parish or congregation has make no difference.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
The point is that young Henry HAS APOLOGISED - not particularly graciously, perhaps - but he has apologised. Do we need to keep shitting on him?

The shitting had pretty near stopped following the apology. The conversation had moved on. I grant that it had mostly moved down hill, but it was no longer focused on 103.

That is, until 103 returned to the fray.

In one sense I agree with you: once 103 had apologised and withdrawn, it would have been churlish to keep dumping on him.

But it seems unreasonable, if he wishes to keep posting on this thread - in hell, after all - to expect that people won't leap on him if they feel it appropriate.

He can't have it both ways.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:
Do we need to keep shitting on him?
"There's always more where that came from...."
---François Rabelais, paraphrased.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
I am not perfect. 103 is not perfect. You are not perfect. So, why don't we all say the General Confession like Charles and Camilla and try to encourage one another.

This is Hell, not All Saints.

Sheesh!

Anyway, people pretty much had laid off young 103 post his apology. Now that he has re-entered the fray, all bets are off, at least for those of us who aren't way more interested in some of the wacky tangents.

(Speaking of apologies, I probably owe Kel one for setting up more aggravation for her. Sorry babe.)

Charlotte
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:
Do we need to keep shitting on him?
"There's always more where that came from...."
---François Rabelais, paraphrased.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Charlotte
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
you must still be a real pain.

Fortunately I am aware of this and you have made my day knowing I have annoyed you.

[ 16. April 2005, 19:19: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
The point is that young Henry HAS APOLOGISED - not particularly graciously, perhaps - but he has apologised. Do we need to keep shitting on him?

His intention was not wrong, but his manner was, and was derived from the usual teenage belief, with which I know that you are very familiar, that all adults are stupid.

Well, except that all he apologized for was being a little shit in this discussion. He still asserts his utter correctness in assaulting and humiliating another person at the altar.

103, you ask what you should have done: it's simple, really. Take her aside and explain that the custom of the church is to consume the host at the altar. If she still didn't behave, then get back to your job and mention it to the priest during the bits when you guys are cleaning up the altar before the end of the service. I am probably the rudest and don't-give-a-shit-about-other-peoplest person on the Ship and even I can figure that one out.

Of course, this all stems from my unwavering belief that no one should ever be turned or driven away from the altar for any reason whatsoever. Baptised or not, in good standing or not, whatever rules and restrictions a particular parish or congregation has make no difference.

As I said, I wasn't prepared, it was my first time and I had to tell her to eat the host. I had no script, I just was following the rules in the way I thought was best. I do not feel that I did the wrong thing at all but if I was to repeat the event again I probably would approch the situation in a different angle, although I still would stop her and I still would tell her that she would have to eat the host in front of me. Rules are rules and they are not to be broken.
The thing is, That lady still could be driven off even if she was asked in the nicest possible way to consume the host in front of the Eucharistic Minister!

And you can't just not mention it to the priest until the clearing up bits at the end because that's too late. The rules are that the host has to be consumed in front of the eucharistic minister. IRC it's even in the old Prayer Book (Can a BCP User check that for me)
I probably would never be able to be a EM again if I had let her get away with it knowingly.
I'm wondering actually if she had said "No I won't eat it" if I would actually go as far to ask her to give it back to me... I dunno I probably would get my PP to sort it then and there, on the other hand... I dunno!
Whatever would happen I wouldn't let her take it away unconsumed, I respect the Eucharist way too much to allow that.

As for the turning people away from the altar I think that is more of an ideal. It's never going to happen and I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of Open Communion. But that's because I'm an absolute bastard who believes in crazy beliefs and is extremely sexist when it comes to the ordination who is not of the same sex as me!
But there you go, we have established all of that in this thread, I don't want to go into any of THAT again!
OK, that's pretty much all of my backround to how to everything and I'm going to print out the servers rota for tommorow.
Happy Saturday!
-103
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
you must still be a real pain.

Fortunately I am aware of this and you have made my day knowing I have annoyed you.
Here's a tip - dont take on Mousethief. What has happened to 103 will be mild in comparison.
[Mad] [Biased]
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I'm wondering actually if she had said "No I won't eat it" if I would actually go as far to ask her to give it back to me... I dunno I probably would get my PP to sort it then and there, on the other hand... I dunno!
Whatever would happen I wouldn't let her take it away unconsumed, I respect the Eucharist way too much to allow that.-103

I hope you love Jesus enough to beat the crap out of the ignorant old bitch, if you had to, in order to keep her from leaving with him. If we had more of that sort of dedication in the church today, there'd be a lot less fucking around and breaking of rules.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here's a tip - dont take on Mousethief. What has happened to 103 will be mild in comparison.

[Killing me] Don't be fooled. He's a just big ole teddybear.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here's a tip - dont take on Mousethief. What has happened to 103 will be mild in comparison.
[Mad] [Biased]

Let me see if I can guess!

If Nightlamp "takes on Mousethief", you'll stick your nose so far up MT's ass that he'll jump and bump into NL. NL, being knocked off balance, will fall down and get a boo-boo.

Am I close?
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Rules are rules and they are not to be broken.

You have driven me to prooftexting and I hate you for it.

quote:
In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. Then he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Rules are rules and they are not to be broken.

Dude, you even suck at being a teenager. On the upside, you'd have been popular in Germany in 1940.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here's a tip - dont take on Mousethief. What has happened to 103 will be mild in comparison.

You're giving "tips" to one of the Hellhosts, in Hell? Wind your brain, the clockwork seems to have run down.

[Gah. Crosspost. Or, as I secretly suspect, the scaly bitch used her evil powers to insert her comment before mine.]

[ 16. April 2005, 20:37: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I hope you love Jesus enough to beat the crap out of the ignorant old bitch, if you had to, in order to keep her from leaving with him. If we had more of that sort of dedication in the church today, there'd be a lot less fucking around and breaking of rules.

I can see it now: A row of glowering 6'4" enforcers at the alter, dark hooded robes with arms crossed over hidden tasers; beady threatening eyes staring from beneath sullen brows searching the faces of the approaching laity.

Which one of the heathen will break and run?
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The rules are that the host has to be consumed in front of the eucharistic minister. IRC it's even in the old Prayer Book (Can a BCP User check that for me)

The old Prayer Book - that would be 1549 would it? Not an expert, but I can't think of anything in the Communion Service that requires the host to be consumed in front of the Priest (Eucharistic Ministers not getting a mention in those days).

Likewise in the new Prayer Book - 1662 - nothing that says the bread must be immediately consumed in front of the Priest, although I imagine this was assumed.

Perhaps you're thinking of Article XXVIII of the Articles of Religion

quote:
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped.
So what do you do if a priest tries to reserve a host?

[ 16. April 2005, 20:50: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Didn't one of the prayerbooks state that any left-overs (we're talking real bread, not wafers) could be taken home by the verger for his tea?

I don't have the reference to hand, but I'm sure I've read it somewhere.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Gort: Klaatu, verada, nicto... but you are right on the historical money with your suggestion of

quote:
A row of glowering 6'4" enforcers
because in the earlier centuries, that's exactly what they had in the Great Church in Constantinople: 72 Enormous Deacons who specialized in crowd control--needed due to the presence of very many, rather aromatic, barbarian "tourists". Much incense was necessary throughout the first part of the liturgy, but most citizens of Constantinople were very fastidious and took a bath every day.

Once the liturgy had reached the point where the "secrets of the Church" such as the Creed were sung, a rubric in the liturgy books had the deacon announce in a loud voice, right before the Creed: "Depart, all ye catechumens! All ye catechumens, depart! Let not any catechumens remain!" If the unenlightened did not go at that point, they were ejected. I kid you not.

Nowadays, we don't do that any more. But if you're MW'ing and tired of standing, and standing, and standing, that's a good time to leave.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Didn't one of the prayerbooks state that any left-overs (we're talking real bread, not wafers) could be taken home by the verger for his tea?

Only the unconsecrated stuff.

BCP1662 says that any of the consecrated stuff left over has to be consumed after the blessing.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Yes, it's in the 1552 Prayerbook

quote:
And to take away the supersticion, whiche any person hothe, or myghte have in the bread and wyne, it shall suffyse that the bread bee such, as is usuall to bee eaten at the Table wyth other meates, but the best and purest wheate bread, that conveniently maye be gotten. And yf any of the bread or wine remayne, the Curate shal have it to hys owne use.
(scroll down to near the bottom of the page)

Peronel
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
Good point, Peronel. I hadn't checked that one.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Agree with you on instructions in the 1662. I guess attitudes changed between the two!
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Is there anything in Common Worship which requires witnessed consumption? I tend not to furtle around the rubrics very often!
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Is there anything in Common Worship which requires witnessed consumption? I tend not to furtle around the rubrics very often!

I don't believe so, but then CW has very little in the way of rubric generally. It does say that bread and wine not required for communion should be consumed at the end of the distribution or the end of the service. Keeping some does not seem to be an option.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
<snip> We were all teenagers once <snip>

Bullshit. Was not Was not not eva.
[Mad] I deny it. And besides your honour I was drunk at the time.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Is there anything in Common Worship which requires witnessed consumption? I tend not to furtle around the rubrics very often!

Yeah but since when has any FiF church ever used CW for anything except the odd Wedding? [Razz]

-103

P.S. I'm not a teenager. I'm just me, I don't fit into any single catagory and I don't like labels.

[ 16. April 2005, 21:41: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Rules are rules and they are not to be broken.

You have driven me to prooftexting and I hate you for it.

quote:
In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. Then he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Ah but I think you'll find that Jesus said that. He might have changed his mind now that he's trapped inside bits of bread that wicked women try to take out of church in their handbags. He needs the protection of zealous 16 and three quarter year olds, I can tell you.

[ 16. April 2005, 21:59: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Rules are rules and they are not to be broken.

You have driven me to prooftexting and I hate you for it.

quote:
In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. Then he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Ah but I think you'll find that Jesus said that. He might have changed his mind now that he's trapped inside bits of bread that wicked women try to take out of church in their handbags. He needs the protection of zealous 16 and three quarter year olds, I can tell you.
I'm 17 actually thank you very much! It state in my Profile (I think!!!!) that I was born on the 17th of the 12th in the year of Our Lord 19 hundred and 87!

-103
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Shit, I've been sober longer than than you have been alive, it's all your fault anyway.

P
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
btw Pyx_e - I'm making a video for your election campaign

-103
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
And of course the best you can hope for is a 15 certificate.

P
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Shit, I've been sober longer than than you have been alive, it's all your fault anyway.

Hell, yeah. I've forgotten more than he'll ever learn. [Devil]
 
Posted by ReginaShoe (# 4076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I can see it now: A row of glowering 6'4" enforcers at the alter, dark hooded robes with arms crossed over hidden tasers; beady threatening eyes staring from beneath sullen brows searching the faces of the approaching laity.

I'm telling you, it's big beeping wafer detector portals that you pass through on the way back to your pew -- an idea whose time has come! (or maybe just the little wands that you pass up and down people as they leave, for smaller altar areas...)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
See, but in my church anybody who carried styrofoam around for any reason would be embarrased on a regular basis.
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Shit, I've been sober longer than than you have been alive, it's all your fault anyway.

Hell, I've got underwear older than young Henry.
But I won't blame him for that!
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Shit, I've been sober longer than than you have been alive, it's all your fault anyway.

Hell, I've got underwear older than young Henry.
But I won't blame him for that!

Ah but even I have underwear which is older than I am! [Razz]

-103
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I didn't realise it was possible for people to be as immature as 103 at his age. You must have been a real pain.

Nightlamp, you have no idea. Thank God for all concerned that the Ship wasn't sailing back in the day (nor, indeed, was the Internet as we know it invented, so I was forced to confine my know-it-all holier-than-thou goody-two-shoesness to people I actually met in real life).

Leetle Masha...good lyrics! [Overused]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
you must still be a real pain.

Fortunately I am aware of this and you have made my day knowing I have annoyed you.
I'll try to let you down easy, then. You haven't annoyed me in the least. I was merely calculating, based on your immaturity, what your pain-in-the-ass quotient must be. This is merely potential annoyingness; your actual annoyingness may vary.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I hope you will recover okay. I'll pray for your healing. I know how delicate you are.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
Leetle Masha
thanks you kindly, Trudy Trudy.

Haunted by the spirit of Frank Sinatra....

Leetle M.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Shit, I've been sober longer than than you have been alive, it's all your fault anyway.

Hell, I've got underwear older than young Henry.
But I won't blame him for that!

Ah but even I have underwear which is older than I am! [Razz]

-103

Now THAT definitely falls into the category of "Too Much Information".

John
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Not for me, I wanna know how the heck he managed that. [Confused]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Not for me, I wanna know how the heck he managed that. [Confused]

There's a lot that gets handed down in that family.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Honest to God what is with all this “making people feel welcome” bollocks. They are there to offer up a sacrifice of Praise and Worship not have a nice little chat or have a warm wet moment. Get a grip you whiney fuckers.

P

I don't always agree with you, but: [Overused]

Maybe it is time again to send the unwashed out at the Peace? Then, anyone coming to the rail for communion should know better.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I am of the opinion that the moment the eucharist touches the lips of an unbeliever it becomes plain ole bread and wine. Isn't faith in communion the foundation of the act? Since when did symbols take on a life of their own and glow in the dark?

Get thee behind me, Philipp Melancthon. Go read what your leader, Martin Luther, had to say about consecrated Bread and Wine.

Receptionism, bah humbug!
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Actually those words were spoken not BY Darth Vader, but TO Darth Vader, by a man who was immediately thereupon strangled by Darth Vader from across the room, using the ancient religion in question. This hardly seems to support your case.
You're right. Guess Voodoo works.

Where do I sign up?

See you in church on Sunday.

I'll get out the Pink Poodle™ for you to pet. I know where the rector keeps it.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Mousethief thanks for replying it confirms that I am still annoying you.
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
I have to say I laughed and thought of this thread when I read the following paragraph in a novel the other day. It's set in a Catholic boys' orphanage in 1960...I think 103 would've felt right at home there.

quote:
If the host misses the paten and falls to the floor, it's a really big deal. During altar boy classes you're told that you are saving God from dropping into hell. "You all know what a circus safety net is, boys. The paten is God's safety net," Brother McMurtry lectures every new altar boy. When Ryan coughed up the host, Monsignor Flynn stoped the Mass. All the brothers raced to the spot where the host had dropped. Brother McMurtry bolted to the sacristy and brought back oils and holy water and starched altar clothes to clean and cover the consecrated spot. Chairs and altar kneelers were gathered and arranged into a circle of protection around the holy area for two days. It was a really big to-do. They did everything but call in McNamara's Construction to jack up the building.
(from The Long Run by Leo Furey, Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2004).
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Reports reaching Novus Ordo Watch that eBay alleged "Host from John Paul II" was sold to Knight of Columbus and turned over to Diocese
Just found this on a website that was also following the story! w00t!

-103
 
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
That's a wonderful ending to this story, 103. See, Jesus knew how to find Himself a good home. Ebay works in mysterious ways.

103, there was an MC at St. Mary the Virgin NYC who had to run down the aisle after someone on a regular basis. He was actually a very sweet and gentle man but God help you if you tried to run away with a Host uneaten. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I am of the opinion that the moment the eucharist touches the lips of an unbeliever it becomes plain ole bread and wine. Isn't faith in communion the foundation of the act? Since when did symbols take on a life of their own and glow in the dark?

Get thee behind me, Philipp Melancthon. Go read what your leader, Martin Luther, had to say about consecrated Bread and Wine.

Receptionism, bah humbug!

Step forward, ye defenders of the faith! From a declaration of liturgy from the Lutheran Synod:
quote:
... Just as we do not know the precise moment the Sacrament becomes present, neither can we "fix a moment" when the Body and Blood are no longer present.
It seems Melancthon worked to bring about a consensus among the churches and his last wish was that they be reunited in Christ. From Bede's link:
quote:
... A result of this Adiaphora controversy, in which Melancthon declared Catholic practices adiaphorous (indifferent things, neither good nor bad), hence permissible provided that the proper doctrine were maintained and its import made clear to the people. Matthias Flacius Illyricus and other zealots objected that these practices had heretofore been the centres of impiety and superstition, and Melancthon was attacked and reviled by Flacius, Amsdorf, and the other "Gnesiolutherans", as a renegade and a heretic. [my bold]
quote:
... As years went by he even abandoned Luther's doctrine as to the Last Supper, and looked on Christ's spiritual communication of Himself to the faithful and their internal union with Him as the essential feature of the Sacrament... [my bold]
Seems like a reasonable man to me.
 
Posted by madferret (# 3353) on :
 
It's been a quiet weekend so I thought I would catch up with the Ship.

A couple of things came to mind after reading this thread from the beginning

- A strong desire in church this morning to clutch the communion wafer in both hands and run off screaming "It's mine". (I didn't)

- A thought that the ebay sale must have had added value from the host being blessed in the Vatican by the Pope.

But if it is accepted by the RC faithful that all communion involves the real body of Christ, then it shouldn't matter where the wafer came from or who blessed it. Should it? Or is it somehow more holy to receive the sacrament in that way?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
It doesn't matter who was the celebrant at the mass. (Well, he has to be episcopally ordained and authorized to celebrate the mass)
But you're correct!

-103
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by madferret:
But if it is accepted by the RC faithful that all communion involves the real body of Christ, then it shouldn't matter where the wafer came from or who blessed it. Should it? Or is it somehow more holy to receive the sacrament in that way?

It is theoretically all the same, but getting Communion from the Pope in St Peter's has somewhat more cachet than getting it from Fr Insignificant in the wilds of Essex. Had the man on eBay sold it as a Communion wafer from Fr Insignificant's Mass in Essex, I doubt if it would have attracted as much attention as it did or that anyone would have paid $2000 dollars for it.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by madferret:
But if it is accepted by the RC faithful that all communion involves the real body of Christ, then it shouldn't matter where the wafer came from or who blessed it. Should it? Or is it somehow more holy to receive the sacrament in that way?

It is theoretically all the same, but getting Communion from the Pope in St Peter's has somewhat more cachet than getting it from Fr Insignificant in the wilds of Essex. Had the man on eBay sold it as a Communion wafer from Fr Insignificant's Mass in Essex, I doubt if it would have attracted as much attention as it did or that anyone would have paid $2000 dollars for it.
I dunno; the Knights of Columbus are a devoted bunch of people, if they had to pay $2000 then they probably would.

-103

[ 17. April 2005, 17:29: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I dunno; the Knights of Columbus are a devoted bunch of people, if they had to pay $2000 then they probably would.


I can see a lot of money being made by people.
Roll up, roll up, buy your host here, Host blessed by obscure priest going for $5, blessed by bishop going for $100. Each piece of bread a genuine part of Christ's body.
People could go down the shops buy some unconsecrated hosts and then pretend that they were consecrated and no one would be able to tell the difference.
Surely there is a episode of 'Only Fools and Horses' here?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
People could go down the shops buy some unconsecrated hosts and then pretend that they were consecrated and no one would be able to tell the difference.

We don't know that he didn't do that anyway. Maybe he was just floating the first one on eBay to see what kind of interest he could get. He knew perfectly well someone would buy it and now the asking price has been established I wouldn't be at all surprised if more started to surface. Not necessarily from him but with all the publicity, copy-cats might think about cashing in.

Someone was selling a relic on eBay a couple of years ago - a bone of a saint or something? - which also provoked a strong reaction but I don't think there was anything anyone could do to legally stop it.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

Someone was selling a relic on eBay a couple of years ago - a bone of a saint or something? - which also provoked a strong reaction but I don't think there was anything anyone could do to legally stop it.

Ebay routinely has several pages of relics for sale. *sigh*

I feel ambivalent about the news of the purchaser of this. On the one hand, I'd rather Jesus went to a good home than ended up being used for black magic. On the other, I do worry that this'll now be seen as a way to make money. And that really isn't good. A bit like puppies, really - all the welfare groups advise not buying them from puppy farms because, even if you're helping that puppy, you're funding the industry.

I dunno. I really hope that doesn't happen.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Out of interest does anyone know what the Knights of Columbus plan to do with it? I'm assuming it will be treated as a sort of relic.

I just hope they don't end up with a whole gallery of them.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I can see it now: A row of glowering 6'4" enforcers at the alter, dark hooded robes with arms crossed over hidden tasers; beady threatening eyes staring from beneath sullen brows searching the faces of the approaching laity.

I sense a new career coming on for me......... I'm 6'4" and I do the glowering well. Of course, since I'm female, Henry's too sexist to consider me ordainable.

Thank heavens the rest of the Anglican comunion doesn't agree with him. On to enforcement!

[Shall I enforce correct code with my pointy fork?]

[ 18. April 2005, 08:24: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Out of interest does anyone know what the Knights of Columbus plan to do with it? I'm assuming it will be treated as a sort of relic.

Unlikely - it will probably be consumed.

Deborah
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Out of interest does anyone know what the Knights of Columbus plan to do with it? I'm assuming it will be treated as a sort of relic.

Unlikely - it will probably be consumed.

Deborah

Or more likely, buried.

[ 17. April 2005, 19:00: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Out of interest does anyone know what the Knights of Columbus plan to do with it? I'm assuming it will be treated as a sort of relic.

Unlikely - it will probably be consumed.
If the description is true it dates back to 1998, so it's 8 years old.
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
...hence the burial rather than consumption.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Out of interest does anyone know what the Knights of Columbus plan to do with it? I'm assuming it will be treated as a sort of relic.

Unlikely - it will probably be consumed.
If the description is true it dates back to 1998, so it's 8 years old.
Eurgh. Buried, then, as Back to Front suggests.

Deborah
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
Just out of curiosity, how many people here really believe that the item offered for sale was actually what it claimed to be? I never believed it for a second and my default position is to assume that most people are at least as skeptical as I am about unverifiable claims made by people selling things on eBay. What conceivable reason would anyone have to believe this actually was a Pope-blessed Host?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I can see it now: A row of glowering 6'4" enforcers at the alter, dark hooded robes with arms crossed over hidden tasers; beady threatening eyes staring from beneath sullen brows searching the faces of the approaching laity.

I sense a new career coming on for me......... I'm 6'4" and I do the glowering well. Of course, since I'm female, Henry's too sexist to consider me ordainable.

Thank heavens the rest of the Anglican comunion doesn't agree with him. On to enforcement!

Actually there is a very large and vibrant number of people in the Anglican Communion called Forward in Faith that agree with me, oh and the Anglican Church in Africa!!!
Anyway this ain't the time nor the place!

-103

[Oh look - another member of Fuckwits R Us copying incorrect code.]

[ 18. April 2005, 08:25: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
And thankfully the ECUSA is larger than FIF. Whew.

And dearie, not everyone in the Anglican Church in Africa agrees with you. Just the way not every Roman Catholic agrees with the non-ordination of women. And of course, given the recent Ship discussion of whether or not FIF even exists any more, I'd hardly call them large, or even influential. (Given the inevitability of women bishops, influence = zip.)

To discuss your inherent sexism? YEah, this is entirely the time and the place. I'm really starting to think that if a man had done what this woman had done, you wouldn't have raised a hand to him. Mostly because you're a teeny little wimp who's easily scared off and wouldn't pick on someone so big.
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Actually there is a very large and vibrant number of people in the Anglican Communion called Forward in Faith that agree with me, oh and the Anglican Church in Africa!!!

There was also once a "very large and vibrant number of people" who thought the earth was flat and that the sun orbited around it. They even burned people at the stake for daring to dispute their "facts."

Numbers don't make ignorance--or sexism--any more palatable. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by madferret (# 3353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
But you're correct!

quote:
Actually there is a very large and vibrant number of people in the Anglican Communion called Forward in Faith that agree with me

And there was I feeling all reassured until that last post... {shudder}
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
You have to hand it to 103 - he keeps coming out of the corner for more punishment. [brick wall] [brick wall] I wonder how he would have got on with the late lamented Ms Dworkin?
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You have to hand it to 103 - he keeps coming out of the corner for more punishment. [brick wall] [brick wall] I wonder how he would have got on with the late lamented Ms Dworkin?

Wasn't that program called "MTV Death Match"?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Listen - Going back to the bit about me going on at that women, I'd just like to clarify for anybody who has been confused that I didn't intend for her to be turned away from the church in case anybody actually thought that I would be nasty enough to do that, I was just expressing on how embaressed she looked, I wasn't saying "I hope I've turned her off my church for good heh heh heh aren't I smug?"

You'll be relieved to know though that she was at church today and she recieved communion from me with a big smile on her face. So I haven't turned her away!

Sorry if you were misled.

-103
 
Posted by elsi (# 2098) on :
 
Well that's Mother Catherine for you...very forgiving [Biased]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
]Actually there is a very large and vibrant number of people in the Anglican Communion called Forward in Faith that agree with me, oh and the Anglican Church in Africa!!!

I never realised that FiF agreed with the Anglican churchs of Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. So FiF are really now going forward and accepting women priests as opposed to going backwards in bigotry.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
]Actually there is a very large and vibrant number of people in the Anglican Communion called Forward in Faith that agree with me, oh and the Anglican Church in Africa!!!

I never realised that FiF agreed with the Anglican churchs of Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. So FiF are really now going forward and accepting women priests as opposed to going backwards in bigotry.
Didn't know that about Kenya, SA and Uganda. Learn something new everyday!
I don't agree with the comment about Backwards in Bigotry. Let's go over to dead horses and discuss it there!

-103
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
You'll be relieved to know though that she was at church today and she recieved communion from me with a big smile on her face. -103

Translation:

"...and she received communion from me with a frozen grimace of fear on her face."
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Oh come on Gort, you're projecting.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Yeah, you're right. It's called method acting.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):

I don't agree with the comment about Backwards in Bigotry. Let's go over to dead horses and discuss it there!

No, lets be rude a supporter of backwards in bigotry here.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
I just want to stop in on this topic and affirm everyone in their brokenness....

Leetle M.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
... As years went by he even abandoned Luther's doctrine as to the Last Supper, and looked on Christ's spiritual communication of Himself to the faithful and their internal union with Him as the essential feature of the Sacrament... [my bold]
Seems like a reasonable man to me.
...and wrong.

Since when is faith reasonable. It is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for.

quote:
For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be misused. For the Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief.

—"Of the Sacrament of the Altar", The Large Catechism, Martin Luther


 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
How comforting it must be to rest secure in our convictions.

As for me, faith will remain a force independent of dogmatic religous definition. It will always be an integral part of the continous process of becoming.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
As for me, faith will remain a force independent of dogmatic religous definition. It will always be an integral part of the continous process of becoming.

Can you say that in pre-modernism? I don't speak pomo.

[ 18. April 2005, 03:00: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
It means, "I don't know where I'm going, but I'm glad I'm on the way." [Snigger]
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Isn't that out of Paint Your Wagon?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Can you say that in pre-modernism? I don't speak pomo.

You really should educate yourself, Mousethief. Ignorance isn't always bliss. You can start here.

quote:
This 'visionary mode' is similar to allegorical exegesis which presupposes that the letter
of the text because of its allusiveness points to another level of reality whereby other dimensions
of meaning may be opened up. Understanding, therefore, demands a perception which pierces
beyond the letter. This is the moment of apocalypse when the veil is removed and repentance and epistemological renewal coincide. For the ancient readers of Ezekiel the prophet's visionary
report offered a gateway for visionary perception. For Paul the words of Scripture offered a
gateway to Christ, a possible, though, not necessary, means of discerning the divine mystery,
which was, in the last resort, 'apart from the Law'.


 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
You really should educate yourself, Mousethief. Ignorance isn't always bliss.

Precisely why I refuse to learn to speak pomo.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
You'll be relieved to know though that she was at church today and she recieved communion from me with a big smile on her face. -103

Demonstrates resilience. You too, 103.

I'd like to know: was it a fake smile or a real smile?
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
As for me, faith will remain a force independent of dogmatic religous definition. It will always be an integral part of the continous process of becoming.

Previously posted by Gort

Seems like a reasonable man to me.

How do you have "reason" without "definitions"? Or, do you admit only the definitions you like?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
That's dogmatic religous definitions, Bede. I have no problem with definition so long as it isn't cloaked in ancient symbols that are swallowed by rote. This is what I understand by the warning not to worship graven images. It's the process behind the allegory and myth that is valuable to me.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ah, this is clearly one of those "irregular" verbs:

I have a vibrant faith.
You have a faith cloaked in ancient symbols and choked by rote.
They are idolators.

[ 18. April 2005, 04:24: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
Aren't you making an assumption or three here?

quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
That's dogmatic religous definitions, Bede. I have no problem with definition so long as it isn't cloaked in ancient symbols that are swallowed by rote. This is what I understand by the warning not to worship graven images. It's the process behind the allegory and myth that is valuable to me. (emphasis added)

Particularly the swallowed the rote part.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
The greater part of the disagreements I see on these boards are confusion over differing interpretations of symbols and definitions that represent basic natural processes. Call them devine, mystical, christian, new-age, "PoMo", "PreMo", Zen, Hindu, what-have-you...

They are all human attempts to decribe processes that have a common root in the creative principle. We can't grasp or exchange ideas without using symbols to represent The Real Thing™. My problem arises when the symbols, dogma and ritual that are representative of the Devine become more important than what they stand for.

Are you assuming that I implied you swallow ancient symbols by rote, Bede?
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by young Henry:
]Actually there is a very large and vibrant number of people in the Anglican Communion called Forward in Faith that agree with me,

I've never seen any of them vibrating - though some of them are a bit doddery.
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by young Henry:
]Actually there is a very large and vibrant number of people in the Anglican Communion called Forward in Faith that agree with me,

I've never seen any of them vibrating - though some of them are a bit doddery.
Quite so. If they were to vibrate, the ancient bones would crumble and they'd be reduced to a heap of jelly. Has "Vibrant in Certainty" been registered by any particular group? FiF could certainly copyright it as a name for a subsidiary Youth Wing. "Adamant in Acknowledgement"? "Bloody-Minded in Belief"?
I wish I were vibrant, instead of just un-old.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
Has "Vibrant in Certainty" been registered by any particular group?

Sounds like Kilroy-Silk to me. "Veritas: Vibrant in Certainty."

He may not be young, but he's certainly vibrant!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It's good to hear that the lady accosted by you, 103, came back to church - I hope, though, that you soon have an opportunity to talk quietly with her and explain why you did what you did.

I know this is Hell, but I'm going to light a candle for (a) the wretched bozo who sold Our Lord on eBay, that s/he may see the error of her/his ways:

[Votive]

and (b) for 103, that he may continue to serve God faithfully as a Eucharistic Minister and that he may learn from his recent experience:

[Votive]

For what it's worth, I think he was right in principle - if (God forbid) it happens again, at least he'll have been advised how to handle the situation a little better......

Ian J.
 
Posted by Linguo (# 7220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by madferret:
But if it is accepted by the RC faithful that all communion involves the real body of Christ, then it shouldn't matter where the wafer came from or who blessed it. Should it? Or is it somehow more holy to receive the sacrament in that way?

It is theoretically all the same, but getting Communion from the Pope in St Peter's has somewhat more cachet than getting it from Fr Insignificant in the wilds of Essex. Had the man on eBay sold it as a Communion wafer from Fr Insignificant's Mass in Essex, I doubt if it would have attracted as much attention as it did or that anyone would have paid $2000 dollars for it.
I dunno; the Knights of Columbus are a devoted bunch of people, if they had to pay $2000 then they probably would.

-103

<David_Attenborough> And here...we have a very, very rare beast indeed... a post from 103 with no exclamation marks...</David_Attenborough>
 
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
I'd like to
a) Affirm Leetle Masha in her ministry to the Broken on here [Cool]
b) Say how GLAD I am that I have now seen the word under discussion a few posts up was POMO not PORNO (damn these varifocals!)
c) Point out that 103 actually seems to be being LURED out of his corner by a strapping 6'4" woman just so she and her mates can duff him up.
d) Point out too that if they'd had E-bay in mediaeval times there'd have been relics on there every day. This is nothing new to society, it's just an unusual example of people being extraordinarily open about it. I bet it's genuine, but so what? Even if it isn't, it's got people worried. At least they person doesn't claim to have robbed a grave to get it. [Disappointed]

[ 18. April 2005, 09:46: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I pity the bozo who bought a bit of bread for $2000.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Thank you, Vikki, for affirming me in my ministry to the broken, of whom I am chief, as St. John Chrysostom so accurately said.

My brokenness was brought home to me quite clearly when I saw that
quote:
the word under discussion a few posts up was POMO not PORNO (damn these varifocals!)
because, even though the eye doctor told me last week that I have 20-20 vision, thanks be to God, I haven't yet managed to wean myself away from my dear old drugstore reading glasses. I was rejoicing that Mousethief didn't speak porno for fully half an hour before I took a much closer look at the word...is it a word?

Leetle M.

[Edited to remove stray comma]

[ 18. April 2005, 11:28: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I pity the bozo who bought a bit of bread for $2000.

Your compassion is overwhelming. No doubt you also pity those idiot Jews who are missing out on the joys of bacon and those Buddhist monks who waste their lives meditating.

FCB
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
]Actually there is a very large and vibrant number of people in the Anglican Communion called Forward in Faith that agree with me, oh and the Anglican Church in Africa!!!

I never realised that FiF agreed with the Anglican churchs of Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. So FiF are really now going forward and accepting women priests as opposed to going backwards in bigotry.
Didn't know that about Kenya, SA and Uganda. Learn something new everyday!
-103

Hint: lurk a bit more....post a bit less.

It'll help you learn and not prove my sig.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The greater part of the disagreements I see on these boards are confusion over differing interpretations of symbols and definitions that represent basic natural processes. Call them devine, mystical, christian, new-age, "PoMo", "PreMo", Zen, Hindu, what-have-you...

They are all human attempts to decribe processes that have a common root in the creative principle. We can't grasp or exchange ideas without using symbols to represent The Real Thing™. My problem arises when the symbols, dogma and ritual that are representative of the Devine become more important than what they stand for.

Are you assuming that I implied you swallow ancient symbols by rote, Bede?

You appear to be taking the position of the iconoclasts, my dear Gort. You wouldn't be doing that, would you?

Actually, not counting for the minor sidetrips into subjects like FiF (Friends in Frocks, to be polite) or soggy white bread, this whole thread seems to be a rediscussion of iconoclast debates. Just because human nature cries out for outward and visible signs to help our inward and spiritual beings doesn't mean it is just bread, does it?
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
i do so love this thread. long may it wind!

just to intrude though, as i understand it, e-bay forbids the sale of human parts, so relics that were bones or anything like that would not be allowed. (which is not to say things don't get posted, but they pull them when someone points it out to the managment.)
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Well, as for me and my household, we wouldn't consider our Gort an "iconoclast" because strictly speaking, to be an iconoclast you have to smash an actual icon, declaring the veneration of icons to be idolatry while you do your smashing.

All I've ever seen Gort do is make the earth stand still. I don't think that quite qualifies, since he desists on command and goes back into his flying saucer.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Well, as for me and my household, we wouldn't consider our Gort an "iconoclast" because strictly speaking, to be an iconoclast you have to smash an actual icon, declaring the veneration of icons to be idolatry while you do your smashing.

All I've ever seen Gort do is make the earth stand still. I don't think that quite qualifies, since he desists on command and goes back into his flying saucer.

Leetle M.

Gort is appearing to be the worst type of iconoclast. He can't even be arsed to smash one, instead promoting feeling good with PoMo fuzzy speak, which means whatever you want it to mean.

Even bad publicity from someone that is active in smashing the icons is better than being ignored by those promoting fuzzy language.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
Even bad publicity from someone that is active in smashing the icons is better than being ignored by those promoting fuzzy language.
Oh, The Bede's American Successor, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. If it were my icon being smashed, I'd much rather listen to a little talk that sounded like drivel to me than see a very beloved saint's face ripped from behind its silver reza.

Besides, is it really PoMo drivel he's peddling, or is he simply going back to his "method acting"?

Leetle M.
To each his (or her) own
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, I guess it had to happen......

Another wafer 'blessed' by His Holiness John Paul II is on offer on eBay, this time from a seller in the UK (one 'fozziechinook' from Southampton, Hants.).

It is item #6171703649 - the opening bid is £100, but the 'Buy It Now' price is £5000, no less. The seller says that it belonged to his grandmother, a devout RC, and was received by her at a Papal Mass at the Vatican in 1996. He also states that he requires evidence from the buyer that the latter will not use it for any ulterior purpose.

I have added it to my own eBay watch list (for observation purposes only, you understand!).

Comments.........?

Ian J.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
quote:
Even bad publicity from someone that is active in smashing the icons is better than being ignored by those promoting fuzzy language.
Oh, The Bede's American Successor, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. If it were my icon being smashed, I'd much rather listen to a little talk that sounded like drivel to me than see a very beloved saint's face ripped from behind its silver reza.

Besides, is it really PoMo drivel he's peddling, or is he simply going back to his "method acting"?

Leetle M.
To each his (or her) own

Remember "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" to understand what I mean.

You know where a true iconoclast is coming from, and where he is going. And, ultimately, as much as all right-thinking Christians deplore the destroying the icon, we know that we worship just God alone. We venerate icons. We honor the eucharist. So, who has the iconoclast hurt but himself or herself?

Meanwhile, the PoMo iconoclast destroys the souls of others with their Fuzzy Logic. For example, Spong conflates resurrection with resuscitation is his writing. How many people has he helped load onto those turbocharged baskets on the multi-lane Highway to Hell in denying the human need for outward and visible signs?

Give me a real iconoclast any day over some PoMo iconoclast.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, I guess it had to happen......

Another wafer 'blessed' by His Holiness John Paul II is on offer on eBay, this time from a seller in the UK (one 'fozziechinook' from Southampton, Hants.).

It is item #6171703649 - the opening bid is £100, but the 'Buy It Now' price is £5000, no less. The seller says that it belonged to his grandmother, a devout RC, and was received by her at a Papal Mass at the Vatican in 1996. He also states that he requires evidence from the buyer that the latter will not use it for any ulterior purpose.

I have added it to my own eBay watch list (for observation purposes only, you understand!).

Comments.........?

Ian J.

Oh great (sarcastic), I've emailed him with the hope that he will reconsider this and take it to his nearest Roman Catholic Diocese to be dealt with. If he is so concerned about it going to the wrong person then he would do this, hopefully he will *bites lip very very hard*

-103
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It is item #6171703649 - the opening bid is £100, but the 'Buy It Now' price is £5000, no less. The seller says that it belonged to his grandmother, a devout RC, and was received by her at a Papal Mass at the Vatican in 1996.

Oh yes? Only owned once before, by an old lady who regularly went to church? Heard that one before. Nice try, doesn't hold water. What would his grandmother think of him selling it?

If he's really worried about it going to a good home, he could always give it to the priests at his grandmother's favourite church.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well done, 103.......but I'm afraid he's probably more likely to leave It on eBay in the hope that someone will part with five thousand sovs for It......

I did check eBay's Listing Policy, but it wasn't terribly helpful and I couldn't really see whether this was likely to be a prohibited item or not. Given the earlier sale of another wafer, I doubt it.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just to add to the above.....

I've also emailed the seller, and asked him to provide proof that what he is offering is indeed a consecrated wafer. Fair enough, I think - if he wants proof of bona-fides from the buyer, the buyer needs the same from him. I await his reply with interest.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It is item #6171703649 - the opening bid is £100, but the 'Buy It Now' price is £5000, no less. The seller says that it belonged to his grandmother, a devout RC, and was received by her at a Papal Mass at the Vatican in 1996.

Oh yes? Only owned once before, by an old lady who regularly went to church? Heard that one before. Nice try, doesn't hold water. What would his grandmother think of him selling it?

If he's really worried about it going to a good home, he could always give it to the priests at his grandmother's favourite church.

Wait a sec. That means that the priests at his grandmother's favourite church will know that she was the kind of old lady who smuggled out the Precious Body of Our Lord in her handbag. And, if you believe the Blessed Sigmund Freud, a handbag is very rarely just a handbag.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just to add to the above.....

I've also emailed the seller, and asked him to provide proof that what he is offering is indeed a consecrated wafer. Fair enough, I think - if he wants proof of bona-fides from the buyer, the buyer needs the same from him. I await his reply with interest.

Ian J.

Probably that piece of soggy mother's pride! [Two face] [Snigger]

-103
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Good idea, 103 - keep us posted if you receive a reply.

I was afraid the successful sale of one would spawn a bunch of imitators, and it apparently has. Jackals.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Wait a sec. That means that the priests at his grandmother's favourite church will know that she was the kind of old lady who smuggled out the Precious Body of Our Lord in her handbag. And, if you believe the Blessed Sigmund Freud, a handbag is very rarely just a handbag.
Good thinking, Amos. Someone check the seller's list of previously sold items and see if his grandmother's on it (or her handbag). If so, we can track her down and blackmail her.

Incidentally I happen to have in my possession a feather from the wing of the Angel Gabriel, and a fragment of the halo of St Uncumber, left to me by an old lady that I once helped to cross a busy road. What more fitting tribute to her memory than to offer them to my shipmates. I am sure if you all pooled your money, you could come up with the £2m that I am looking for.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Can we do a deal off eBay, please, Ariel?

Fozziechinook only has 26 transactions to his credit on eBay, mostly purchases as far as I can tell. The most recent one was a 'horror story' sort of novel....

I'll let you know if he replies (and so, I expect, will 103 - I'm with you on this one, mate).

Ian J.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Wait a sec. That means that the priests at his grandmother's favourite church will know that she was the kind of old lady who smuggled out the Precious Body of Our Lord in her handbag. And, if you believe the Blessed Sigmund Freud, a handbag is very rarely just a handbag.
Good thinking, Amos. Someone check the seller's list of previously sold items and see if his grandmother's on it (or her handbag). If so, we can track her down and blackmail her.

Incidentally I happen to have in my possession a feather from the wing of the Angel Gabriel, and a fragment of the halo of St Uncumber, left to me by an old lady that I once helped to cross a busy road. What more fitting tribute to her memory than to offer them to my shipmates. I am sure if you all pooled your money, you could come up with the £2m that I am looking for.

The more desirable and verifiable relic of St Uncumber would be a hair from her beard. If what you have is one of those (a hair of St. Uncumber's, I mean, not a beard of your own) please PM me, and we'll talk.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
If you toasted a host does Jesus become brown bread?
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
What I want to know is theologically does anything happen to you for selling relics? I do realize that such things often occured in the old RCC before a little housekeeping (and a dude called Martin Luther) but has there been some sort of Papal pronoucement over the ages?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If you toasted a host does Jesus become brown bread?

O Hell Host:

Why would toasting you or Sarkcow or RooK turn Jesus brown? It might turn you brown, or black, or leave you with grill marks along one side, of course. But...

John
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

Why would toasting you or Sarkcow or RooK turn Jesus brown?

John

We are all of one Body?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The wafer has received a bid, from a new buyer (registered on eBay today and resident in the USA) who rejoices in the user ID of 'aprilthesevtiethinthethirdageofmankind' (I kid you not! - and I have copied the exact spelling).

Go on, 103 - I dare you to email him/her/them and ask what they intend to do with It if they win It.......!

Ian J.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The wafer has received a bid, from a new buyer (registered on eBay today and resident in the USA) who rejoices in the user ID of 'aprilthesevtiethinthethirdageofmankind' (I kid you not! - and I have copied the exact spelling).

Go on, 103 - I dare you to email him/her/them and ask what they intend to do with It if they win It.......!

Ian J.

I did the same with the winner of the other auction and recieved no reply!

-103
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
This is getting silly - another new buyer from the USA ('123tralfaz200000005') has placed a bid and pushed the price up to £5,101..........

I smell a rat..........

Ian J.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The wafer has received a bid, from a new buyer (registered on eBay today and resident in the USA) who rejoices in the user ID of 'aprilthesevtiethinthethirdageofmankind' (I kid you not! - and I have copied the exact spelling).

Go on, 103 - I dare you to email him/her/them and ask what they intend to do with It if they win It.......!

Ian J.

Hmmm - I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do either. It's gonna cost the knights of St Columbus a bomb to get that back!

-103
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I've just noticed that The Wafer belonged to the seller's late mother (so no proof of provenance there). I mentioned above that it was his grandmother's, so I'm not sure if I made a mistake or whether he has since altered the description....

Ian J.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
IRC it's even in the old Prayer Book (Can a BCP User check that for me)

BCP User to the rescure.

The rubrics for Holy Communion are silent on the matter of consuming the host in front of the minister, but they do helpfully direct:

quote:
after that to the people also in order, into their hands, all meekly kneeling.
which reminds us that if the people are meekly kneeling, it would presumably be somewhat more difficult for them to wander off with Jesus.

I was once directed by a minister not to consume the Body of Our Lord. I was in a Methodist church where the local custom was to receive by intinction. I do not intinct, so when the (not soggy) Mother's Pride was handed to me, I made ready to eat it. The Minister, noticing my intention, quietly discouraged me and waved me over to the ceramic communion cup for the dipping.

I suppose had he not stopped me, I would have had to content myself with communing in one kind only.
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
There's not just bits of God on sale at ebay. Your vote is worth up to 6 quid.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I suppose had he not stopped me, I would have had to content myself with communing in one kind only.

I regularly recieve in one kind only. Sometimes it's the best way if you have a cold, I too don't dip.. but only because last time I tried I dropped the host [Help]

-103

[Lonely loser. Has even Preview Post mocked you scornfully and left you alone?]

[ 18. April 2005, 22:20: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Yeah - stupid UBB Code. I missed the 2minutes! [Help]

-103
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The wafer has received a bid, from a new buyer (registered on eBay today and resident in the USA) who rejoices in the user ID of 'aprilthesevtiethinthethirdageofmankind' (I kid you not! - and I have copied the exact spelling). <snip>

haeriie fairies - could I have a phonetic break down of that one? [Ultra confused]

Perhaps s/he has a secret intention to come out here to remote OZ and drive to one of the even more remote locations and deliver communion by extension?
 
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
What I want to know is theologically does anything happen to you for selling relics?

I'd like to sell a sacred relic, but I have to get it roadworthy first.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Reverting to the auction of The Wafer, there is a suggestion that those bidding are, in fact, Shipmates......presumably acting as a sort of eBay equivalent of sock-puppets. Perhaps the idea is to bump the price up to such a ridiculous level that eBay managers catch on and withdraw the item.

The first bid was actually for more than the £5000 'Buy It Now' price, so therefore was probably not from a 'genuine' buyer.

If all this causes the seller trouble and strife, serve him jolly well right!

Ian J.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The wafer has received a bid, from a new buyer (registered on eBay today and resident in the USA) who rejoices in the user ID of 'aprilthesevtiethinthethirdageofmankind' (I kid you not! - and I have copied the exact spelling). <snip>

haeriie fairies - could I have a phonetic break down of that one? [Ultra confused]
At a guess: 'april the sevtieth in the third age of mankind'

I have no idea what it means, mind.

And as for selling relics - it's grounds for excommunication. You can make a small charge for the reliquary or shipping & handling, but selling the relic itself is forbidden.

Deborah
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
- might there be the possibility that the [possibly] coming flood of alleged JPII related wafers on eBay might just be rather akin to the Berlin Wall fragment souvenirs that apparently could build said wall 3 times over if they were all put together?

I'm especially unconvinced by the "one careful lady owner" nature of the current seller.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed yes, luvanddaisies - hence my email to the latest seller asking him for proof of consecration!

No reply yet, of course (and none expected), but if, as I said above, he just gets hassle over the wafer (and no cash), it may well put other entrepreneurs (aka con-men) off.

As far as excommunication is concerned, this can surely only apply if the person concerned is RC in the first place (and if they've lapsed, it presumably wouldn't bother them anyway - until they are lying on their deathbed, perhaps).

Ian J.
 
Posted by Exiled Youth (# 8744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed yes, luvanddaisies - hence my email to the latest seller asking him for proof of consecration! [snippity-snip]

What proof would you accept then?

And no, of course they won't get any money, enough real presence believers use ebay (I would think) to know that some ridiculous bidding and non-payment from a sock puppet will put an end to most of this type of thing.

But I really am interested in what kind of proof you're looking for...
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
Give me a real iconoclast any day over some PoMo iconoclast.
Sure, The Bede's American Successor, but the difference is, I don't think all of the iconoclasts, as you style them, mean deliberate harm. You're right about Spong, but I haven't seen anybody that bad off on the Ship so far.

Give the Robot a break, for now, anyway.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Exiled Youth, I really have no idea what I would be looking for in the way of proof - if, indeed, any such thing (in this context) exists!

I merely wished to point out to the seller that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - i.e., if he wants proof of the buyer's bona fides, then it is only fair for him to confirm in some way (and that's his problem) that he is offering the genuine article. Of course, he can't do so, and the whole business is thereby rendered suspect - but, as you say, there are enough people on eBay to sink it quite easily.

Ian J.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Give the Robot a break, for now, anyway.

Dorothy, do you know where the Robot's oil can is?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
An odd twist - the first wafer mentioned on this thread (which sold for $2000) appears to be for sale again, this time by someone in Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK! The 'Buy It Now' price is £1.99........

For reference, the item is #6172114575.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I've just noticed that The Wafer belonged to the seller's late mother (so no proof of provenance there). I mentioned above that it was his grandmother's, so I'm not sure if I made a mistake or whether he has since altered the description....

You mean she left Jesus to him in her will? I've heard of some odd legacies, but really...

The application for probate must have been interesting, especially the executor's affidavit of assets of the estate:

"... One musical jug with figure of Harry Lauder in Highland dress, plays "I Love A Lassie"

One host, the Precious Body of Our Lord (consecrated 1996 by His Holiness Pope John Paul II)

Wedgewood dinner service for twelve with serving plates and gravy boat..."
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
An odd twist - the first wafer mentioned on this thread (which sold for $2000) appears to be for sale again, this time by someone in Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK! The 'Buy It Now' price is £1.99........

For reference, the item is #6172114575.

Ian J.

The item includes various links along the lines of "How I made 50,000 pounds in a week". They look distinctly dodgy and one of them seems to involve a spam scheme.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort: [in response to Bede's command that Philipp Melancthon "get thee behind me"...implying that I am a "receptionist"]
quote:
... As years went by he even abandoned Luther's doctrine as to the Last Supper, and looked on Christ's spiritual communication of Himself to the faithful and their internal union with Him as the essential feature of the Sacrament... [my italics]
Seems like a reasonable man to me.
...and wrong.

Since when is faith reasonable. It is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for.

I respond with:
quote:
As for me, faith will remain a force independent of dogmatic religous definition.
Bede responds:
quote:
How do you have "reason" without "definitions"? Or, do you admit only the definitions you like?
I respond with:
quote:
That's dogmatic religous definitions, Bede. I have no problem with definition so long as it isn't cloaked in ancient symbols that are swallowed by rote.
Bede responds:
quote:
Aren't you making an assumption or three here? Particularly the swallowed the rote part.

I respond [among other things]:
quote:
Are you assuming that I implied you swallow ancient symbols by rote, Bede?
It's late, I go to bed and return the next day to find Mr. Bede has ignored my clarifications and questions and has decided to label me as the following:
So, Bede's American Successor: In an unhellish sense of Christian brotherhood, I ask you, exactly which of my statements in the last two pages conflict with your tradition as an Anglican and a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
err...make that "your tradition as an Episcopalian".

[ 19. April 2005, 02:44: Message edited by: Gort ]
 
Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
{shakes head}

If we admit that this is a validly consecrated Host, then the range of possibilities for it is somewhat narrow.

(1) One can eat it, and thereby participate in the Communion of Saints of the Universal Church (if one is baptized and confirmed therein; if not, all bets are off);

(2) one can "use" it in a "Black Mass" to order up all sorts of unspeakable abominations, laboring under the mistaken belief that the Spirit of God would be so fucking stupid that He would allow all sorts of mischief to happen if people were able to "discern" the Body of Christ in the host but not to honor it--an impossibility;

(3) one could keep it as a souvenir of a rite in which they did not participate. At some point in the future, they might spray it in plastic and put it in a frame or monstrance--not for the purpose of veneration, but for "admiration."

It won't work. Things on this earth take on supernatural agency because we allow them to and agree to the grace. Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus beause we say "Amen." The transubstantiion of the elements is not because of magic, it is because of our assent.

Like most evil, bad things can't happen unless we say "yes" to them.

So it's silly to get all worked up about this. In the presence of a Host consecrated by John Paul II, I would make a genuflection. But I would do the same at any host consecrated by any priest. The mojo doesn't get greater the more important you are.

We are given the grace to be in the presence of God. We will always be confronted by the dominical words: "This is my body, broken for you."

The evil of this world cannot desecrate this Host. In the face of the Sacrifice that redeemed us, it stands, like any other Host, as a testament to the redemption of Jesus Christ. People who encounter it can either say "amen" or not. The God who redeemed the world will not be bolluxed by a souvenir-seller on E-bay.
 
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Amazing! Get a look at this - there's now a wafer for sale on ebay that HASN'T been blessed by any Pope or, it seems, even any episcopally ordained person!

[Eek!]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
The evil of this world cannot desecrate this Host. In the face of the Sacrifice that redeemed us, it stands, like any other Host, as a testament to the redemption of Jesus Christ. People who encounter it can either say "amen" or not. The God who redeemed the world will not be bolluxed by a souvenir-seller on E-bay.

True - but here's a mystery. The original item was apparently purchased and reverently disposed of. Yet here is the self-same article still being offered for sale. It suggests fraud.

I agree that the Eucharist itself cannot be desecrated by definition, for it would make God subject to the evil of his created world - but what it represents can be cheapened, made into just another souvenir - made crass, as I said before. I think the correct word is "scandal" rather than desecration. Consumer fraud adds a further tawdry air to the affair.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Tomb:
[...] Things on this earth take on supernatural agency because we allow them to and agree to the grace. Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus beause we say "Amen." The transubstantiation of the elements is not because of magic, it is because of our assent...

Finally, a voice of reason.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Wow, tomb, what a post. [Overused]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
This is a great, great thread. Its mojo has brought out Tomb.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
So, Bede's American Successor: In an unhellish sense of Christian brotherhood, I ask you, exactly which of my statements in the last two pages conflict with your tradition as an Anglican and a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ?

One, I was pushing a bit for the fun of it.

Still, Receptionism is problematic. I am not worried about what happens to the crumbs we can't find when cleaning up. What he gets himself into, He can get himself out of.

For that matter, I know my God is bigger than what any someone could do with a consecrated host during a Black Mass. I would be more worried about God's feelings about those that say they believe, but do not perceive.

When all is said and done, my Lord has promised to be present in the Sacrament—whether or not I or any one else believes.

You also seem to automatically reject dogma. While we are encouraged to work out our own salvation—for it is the Lord working in us—that does not mean we are free to go our own ways. The Bonds of Affection extend to our forebearers in the faith, too.

Still, remember that I was pushing a bit to stimulate something. Ultimately, it is Jesus who saves us, not our acceptance of anything.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I agree that the Eucharist itself cannot be desecrated by definition, for it would make God subject to the evil of his created world

The BCP (presumably in use at 103's church, though not JPII's) holds that:

quote:
Article XXIX: Of the Wicked which do not eat the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ...

"in no wise" is both comprehensive and emphatic - Satanists who seek either to use or to desecrate the Sacrament do not receive Jesus in any way whatsoever. They do not take him into their hearts, nor their souls, nor their mouths, nor their fannies.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
quote:
Give me a real iconoclast any day over some PoMo iconoclast.
Sure, The Bede's American Successor, but the difference is, I don't think all of the iconoclasts, as you style them, mean deliberate harm. You're right about Spong, but I haven't seen anybody that bad off on the Ship so far.


Amen, sister!

Although I think this is a first in just how Spong is being used as a weapon here ...

quote:
Give the Robot a break, for now, anyway.
Indeed. I think Bede's PoMo Detection Meter has gone a bit haywire.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
do you know where the Robot's oil can is?
I think he found it himself, The Bede's American Successor, right where he left it on the Yellow Brick Road.

He seems to be running much smoother now.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Tomb:
[...] Things on this earth take on supernatural agency because we allow them to and agree to the grace. Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus beause we say "Amen." The transubstantiation of the elements is not because of magic, it is because of our assent...

Finally, a voice of reason.
...that is problematic.

The validity of a sacrament is not dependent on what humans say. The validity of a sacrament is dependent on what God says.

Aslan is not a tame lion, subject to human will or assent.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Article XXIX: Of the Wicked which do not eat the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ...

"in no wise" is both comprehensive and emphatic - Satanists who seek either to use or to desecrate the Sacrament do not receive Jesus in any way whatsoever. They do not take him into their hearts, nor their souls, nor their mouths, nor their fannies.
Another good reason why the ECUSA has never adopted them.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

I am not perfect. 103 is not perfect. You are not perfect. So, why don't we all say the General Confession like Charles and Camilla and try to encourage one another.

You really haven't got the hang of Hell; encouragement belongs in All Saints. 103 foolishly put something on a discussion board and then got annoyed when it was discussed.
I am intentionally going back a few pages to respond to this now.

Looking at some recent responses to my posts, it seems as if people don't recognize hellishness unless you use one of George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words."
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Although I think this is a first in just how Spong is being used as a weapon here ...

It is called "synthesis" and "evaluation" on Bloom's Taxonomy. You might try learning enough about a subject to try it sometime.

quote:
Indeed. I think Bede's PoMo Detection Meter has gone a bit haywire.
I think some people need to learn to recognize other forms of hellishness. Gort's Groupies must think he can't find his own oil can these days.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I agree that the Eucharist itself cannot be desecrated by definition, for it would make God subject to the evil of his created world

The BCP (presumably in use at 103's church, though not JPII's)


Nope, There are about 3 copies somewhere but most people adopt the BCP=BOE approach to it!

Also an update to the ebay host - the current bid price is:
£10,000,000.00
Wow! All the bids have been made by first time bidders with really randon names except one who tried to bid £100,000 and he/she has 38 sucessful bids but was outbid by another first time bidder.

How long will it be before Novus Ordo Watch takes notice?

-103

[ 19. April 2005, 16:05: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just to update 103's post, the wafer which reached £10 million and the one I mentioned yesterday with a 'Buy It Now' price of £1.99 have been withdrawn by eBay and the transactions cancelled.

Common sense, at least, has prevailed.

Deo gratias!

Ian J.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Does this mean I'm not getting my ten million quid? But I just baked the little wafers!
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just to update 103's post, the wafer which reached £10 million and the one I mentioned yesterday with a 'Buy It Now' price of £1.99 have been withdrawn by eBay and the transactions cancelled.

Common sense, at least, has prevailed.

Deo gratias!

Ian J.

Fear not: It's the Pope JPII-shaped chicken breast!
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
[...] I think some people need to learn to recognize other forms of hellishness. Gort's Groupies must think he can't find his own oil can these days.

Jealousy rears its ugly green head. [Snigger]

Come ladies...let's find another table. It's getting stuffy over here.
 
Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 
A great fourteen pages, but life moves forward.

I happen to possess a wafer consecrated by HH Pope John Paul III when he was still Cardinal Ratface. It was smuggled out of the Lateran [see how Traditional I can be... Whahahahaha!] by my Great Grandmother who, having ducked to escape the all-embracing clutch and hiss of -100 (-103's Great Grandfather), delivered body blows to the 6' 4" [shorter than I! Ha!] Guardians of the Sanctuary and threw herself through a stained glass window of St Margaret of Antioch [or some other minor canonisation] before escaping to full communion with the CofE and all stations west.

If the shipmates who consider themselves more catholic* than I do not forward to me

£1 000 000 000 000

(that's billion for our colonial brethren who have never managed the counting thing)

then I will personally arrange for Lucifer [i.e. the "Rev'd" Tony Bliar] to be loosed from his chains. MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Corpus cani
c/o The Mothers' Union, Trumpton, Trumptonshire, UK

[*should read catholic / orthodox / methodist / anybody else that has money... oh, sorry - of course methodists don't have money any more. Reckitts was such a bummer...]

[Correct my own name... bugger... who the f**k is Corpus Cain? Tony Bliar is, however, not an error!]

[ 19. April 2005, 23:17: Message edited by: Corpus cani ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
A great fourteen pages, but life moves forward.

I happen to possess a wafer consecrated by HH Pope John Paul III when he was still Cardinal Ratface. It was smuggled out of the Lateran [see how Traditional I can be... Whahahahaha!] by my Great Grandmother who, having ducked to escape the all-embracing clutch and hiss of -100 (-103's Great Grandfather), delivered body blows to the 6' 4" [shorter than I! Ha!] Guardians of the Sanctuary and threw herself through a stained glass window of St Margaret of Antioch [or some other minor canonisation] before escaping to full communion with the CofE and all stations west.

If the shipmates who consider themselves more catholic* than I do not forward to me

£1 000 000 000 000

(that's billion for our colonial brethren who have never managed the counting thing)

then I will personally arrange for Lucifer [i.e. the "Rev'd" Tony Bliar] to be loosed from his chains. MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Corpus cani
c/o The Mothers' Union, Trumpton, Trumptonshire, UK

[*should read catholic / orthodox / methodist / anybody else that has money... oh, sorry - of course methodists don't have money any more. Reckitts was such a bummer...]

[Correct my own name... bugger... who the f**k is Corpus Cain? Tony Bliar is, however, not an error!]

<Slight Tangent>
It's not "-103" btw everybody, I just sign myself with a - before my name because that's what I have always done! It's just "103"
</Slight TAngent>

Although now that Ratzinger is Pope, will he condemn numbers and will it have to become CIII?

-103
 
Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 
Oh well PARDON ME sonny. Your name is "103" it's not "-103" but you just sign yourself with a "-". Forgive me for not reading your mind and knowing what 'twas you meant. Maybe you could learn from the lesson I teach my twelve year olds.... WRITE WHAT YOU MEAN.

OK, I might put it more kindly to them but, actually, I don't, so why should you get away with it?

Has it crossed your mind that some of us on this site have better things to do with our time than wonder whether teenage old-lady-beaters choose to spell their name with or without a "-"? Some of us are concered with serious matters, like people stealing our Lord from his (sorry, His) little cage above the altar. Some of we 6'4" Anglo-Catholics are engaged in protecting the MBS here.

If you wanna be wunna us, learnda speak propa.

An make sure people stop dissin' dis good Pope.

Cc

Ps [Resume English (i.e. normal) accent] What does "dissin' " mean???]
Confused Nearly Middle Aged But Sadly "Out Of It" Person...

[ 20. April 2005, 00:23: Message edited by: Corpus cani ]
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
"Dissin'" is a shortened form of "disrespecting", which is not a word.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
"Dissin'" is a shortened form of "disrespecting", which is not a word.

What qualities of words does it lack?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Tomb, I so wish I had a pastor like you at some point in my young Christian development.

(Gort-- weirdly enough, you can always count on tomb to be the voice or reason around here.)
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
<snip>
I agree that the Eucharist itself cannot be desecrated by definition, for it would make God subject to the evil of his created world - but what it represents can be cheapened, made into just another souvenir - made crass, as I said before. I think the correct word is "scandal" rather than desecration. Consumer fraud adds a further tawdry air to the affair.

Which is what we do whenever we commercialize the sacred - be it with turnstyles and tacky plastic Jesuses in our cathedrals, Holman Hunt pictures in a 10 cent frame (not that they deserve more than a ten cent frame) sacred toenails of St Swithin, whoopee Spirit who flops you over in a rar-rah riot of quasi sexual frenzy and then flogs you a Tim LaHaye book to save your soul ...

God knows we walk all over the sacred in our hobnail boots, crunching loudly to drown out the still small voice or the sounds of silence ...

In other words all our traditions have serious fuckedness inbred and only when we dig around to find our own integrity of faith as small individuals and communities will we escape the noise of desecration
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Hey 103, I have a question for you. It relates to this post in Purg, but I figured your answer might be Hellish.

My question is this: Do you already consider the sacrament at your church to be invalid, or are you going to wait until you jump ship to adopt that opinion?

[fixed the link]

[ 20. April 2005, 12:51: Message edited by: Scot ]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
"Dissin'" is a shortened form of "disrespecting", which is not a word.

Actually, "dis" is in some dictionaries, particularly The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Yes, The Bede's American Successor, "dis" is a dialect word in some dictionaries. If you wish to use it, I don't mind.

I just have an aversion to the practice of making verbs out of nouns, but that's another thread.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Yes, The Bede's American Successor, "dis" is a dialect word in some dictionaries. If you wish to use it, I don't mind.

I just have an aversion to the practice of making verbs out of nouns, but that's another thread.

Leetle M.

Actually, dis is a verb, according to the dictionary.

By the way, do you salt your vegetables, or do you apply salt to them?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Do you defibrillate your heart? or apply a defribrillator?
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
If you can respect somebody, I don't see why you can't disrespect them. I confess when first I heard "disrespected" used as a verb, I was a little surprised.

If something is used by a significant number of people(whatever that is) to convey a uniform and accepted meaning, it is foolish to say it isn't a word. New words are added to dictionaries every day, because the language is in constant flux and growth. A truism I learned in school: a true lexicographer is a historian, not a lawgiver. If you find the word clumsy, ugly, or imbued with unacceptable connotations, then don't use it.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Excuse me while I defibrillate my brain....

Sorry!

Leetle M.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Hey 103, I have a question for you. It relates to this post in Purg, but I figured your answer might be Hellish.

My question is this: Do you already consider the sacrament at your church to be invalid, or are you going to wait until you jump ship to adopt that opinion?

Firstly - get the link right! http://http:// indeed!

Secondly - Why do you think I'm jumping ship? I don't think that MY church has an invalid sacrament, but I think that churches with Women Priests, Common Worship Order 2 Mass, BCP Mass and churches that do not see the Sacrament as important enough to reserve inportant enough as a "Complete Sacrament"
I would never say that any sacrament is invalid sacrament, but I think there is such thing as a damaged sacrament. I feel that a lot of communions around the Anglican Communion are damaged, because some ministers DO NOT believe in Real Presence, Transubstatiation or what not, they believe it is just bread and wine. So how can I expect to believe that their communion is the same as the mass that I go to?
I refuse to accept that Women can possibly be ordained as priests so their mass is definatly not the same as the mass that I go to!

If I didn't have a problem with the Anglican Communion I wouldn't feel the need to leave, I'd be perfectly happy in my little AC Center which pretends it has nothing to do with the rest of the Church and does it's own little thing. But there is a problem and I feel that I should get out.

-103
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think that MY church has an invalid sacrament, but I think that churches with Women Priests, Common Worship Order 2 Mass, BCP Mass and churches that do not see the Sacrament as important enough to reserve inportant enough as a "Complete Sacrament"

[Killing me] So that would rule out pretty much every Anglican church but your own?

So why not go play altar-dementor for the Catholics, then?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Secondly - Why do you think I'm jumping ship? I don't think that MY church has an invalid sacrament, but I think that churches with Women Priests, Common Worship Order 2 Mass, BCP Mass and churches that do not see the Sacrament as important enough to reserve inportant enough as a "Complete Sacrament"
I would never say that any sacrament is invalid sacrament, but I think there is such thing as a damaged sacrament.
-103

Well, 103. Oh pardon, despite what you've written that's not your name, apparently. Many apologies. (Anything else you write we're supposed to not take seriously? Just so we can get it right, you understand.)

I'd be glad to hear some clarification from some of our Catholic shipmates who can confirm, or not, that Anglican orders are not valid, from the perspective of the RCC. If Anglican orders are not valid, does it or does it not follow that Anglican sacraments are not valid? Or is there indeed, as 103 seems to imagine (perhaps rightly) a dispensation that allows for the Anglican holy communion he is part of at his own church to be considered 'valid' in a Catholic sense?

Or is he just wanting his wafer and eating it?
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):

Secondly - Why do you think I'm jumping ship? I don't think that MY church has an invalid sacrament,

Well once you jump ship that will be what you sign up to since that is RC's official position. Your priest at the moment will be longer a priest in your eyes. Your new opinion would be that any bread blessed by an Anglican Priest is just a bit of bread.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
[idle wondering] how long is hell's longest ever thread ?[/idle wondering]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):

I would never say that any sacrament is invalid sacrament, but I think there is such thing as a damaged sacrament.

Would damaged sacraments be sold at a discount on eBay?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I feel that a lot of communions around the Anglican Communion are damaged, because some ministers DO NOT believe in Real Presence, Transubstatiation or what not, they believe it is just bread and wine.

So it's down to the personal beliefs of the individual minister? I doubt whether your future RCC instructors will agree. I wonder how you will feel in a year's time, when you realize that the cracker you attacked some woman over wasn't Jesus after all.
 
Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
[idle wondering] how long is hell's longest ever thread ?[/idle wondering]

The longest Hell thread in Limbo is 16 pages (calling Erin to Hell).
 
Posted by Son of a Preacher Man (# 5460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'd be glad to hear some clarification from some of our Catholic shipmates who can confirm, or not, that Anglican orders are not valid, from the perspective of the RCC. If Anglican orders are not valid, does it or does it not follow that Anglican sacraments are not valid?

Or is he just wanting his wafer and eating it?

No matter what the answer to the first question is, the answer to the second is a definite Yes.

[ 20. April 2005, 13:22: Message edited by: Son of a Preacher Man ]
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I feel that a lot of communions around the Anglican Communion are damaged, because some ministers DO NOT believe in Real Presence, Transubstatiation or what not, they believe it is just bread and wine.

So it's down to the personal beliefs of the individual minister? I doubt whether your future RCC instructors will agree.
Even this "improperly catechized convert" (waves hi at Jennifer) knows that the Thirty-Nine Articles certainly don't. I'm sure there is some more modern expression of it in the C of E.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
If I didn't have a problem with the Anglican Communion I wouldn't feel the need to leave, I'd be perfectly happy in my little AC Center which pretends it has nothing to do with the rest of the Church and does it's own little thing. But there is a problem and I feel that I should get out.

-103

Then put your money where your hypocritical mouth is and fucking GO ALREADY. Jesus, the day you ever decide to walk all your fucking talk will be cause for celebration for Anglicans worldwide. Just get the fuck out already, you whining little shitstain. GO.

All you other Roman wannabes can get the fuck out, too.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):

I would never say that any sacrament is invalid sacrament, but I think there is such thing as a damaged sacrament.

Would damaged sacraments be sold at a discount on eBay?
Do they have scratch-and-dent sales for sacraments? Factory irregulars?
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think that MY church has an invalid sacrament, but I think that churches with Women Priests, Common Worship Order 2 Mass, BCP Mass and churches that do not see the Sacrament as important enough to reserve inportant enough as a "Complete Sacrament"

So masses offered using the BCP or CW - both approved liturgies - are "damaged" but those using whatever freaky unapproved liturgy your church prefers are not. Hmmmm.

So in your opinion the Mass is some sort of magic ceremony that gets spoilt if a Priest uses the wrong words? How weak is your God, that he is scared off by the BCP!


quote:
my little AC Center which pretends it has nothing to do with the rest of the Church and does it's own little thing.


This, of course, is the heart of it. If -103's church were to cross the Tiber, it wouldn't be able to ignore the rest of the church and do its own little thing. Far from it. It'd have to respect the teachings of its heirarchy - even if it didn't agree with them, and use the approved liturgy - whether it liked it or not.

So -103's church, in trying to ape the Romans is, ironically, expressing a freedom the Romans would never allow. It's being remarkably Anglican, in fact.

I can just about believe that -103 is too young and stupid to appreciate that. (What am I saying? -103 is patently young, and is undoubtedly stupid!) But his priest, one assumes, isn't seventeen. So his priest, undoubtedly, is trying to have his wafer and eat it, even if -103 himself is oblivious.

Peronel.

[ 20. April 2005, 15:19: Message edited by: Peronel ]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Tomb:
[...] Things on this earth take on supernatural agency because we allow them to and agree to the grace. Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus beause we say "Amen." The transubstantiation of the elements is not because of magic, it is because of our assent...

Finally, a voice of reason.
TRANSLATION: Finally, someone who agrees with ME!
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
If I didn't have a problem with the Anglican Communion I wouldn't feel the need to leave, I'd be perfectly happy in my little AC Center which pretends it has nothing to do with the rest of the Church and does it's own little thing. But there is a problem and I feel that I should get out.

-103

Then put your money where your hypocritical mouth is and fucking GO ALREADY. Jesus, the day you ever decide to walk all your fucking talk will be cause for celebration for Anglicans worldwide. Just get the fuck out already, you whining little shitstain. GO.

All you other Roman wannabes can get the fuck out, too.

I would if I could, but things are more complicated then that! At current I have no choice but to stick around at my church and I'll make the most of it, Until Benedict XVI, I would've hoped that the new pope would allow full communion between anglicans and RCs but that will not happen.
I'll get the fuck out when I can and then you can celebrate. Although, Us ACs could say the same about the evangelicals, why don't they get out of the CofE and join the baptists or the methodists?

-103
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
BTW - I have no problem with CW Order One because it doesn't follow the BCP 1662 order of Holy Communion.

-103
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Although, Us ACs could say the same about the evangelicals, why don't they get out of the CofE and join the baptists or the methodists?

-103

... thus leaving the CofE to the MotR, prayer-book sorts who actually founded the sodding thing. That might actually be quite sensible. Although infinitely less fun, of course.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I would if I could, but things are more complicated then that! At current I have no choice but to stick around at my church

Bullshit. Unless your parents are forcibly dragging you into the church every week and sitting behind you on the altar with a gun pointed at your head, you damn well DO have a choice to go away. You may not be able to receive -- instead, you'll just have to sit in the pew and have it driven home just how catholic you are not, and how you are not even remotely part of Holy Mother Church, you're the ecclesial equivalent of a free church congregationalist to them, regardless of your protestations to the contrary -- but you fucking well can start going to your local RC parish. So you're a goddamned liar on top of it.

quote:
I'll get the fuck out when I can and then you can celebrate. Although, Us ACs could say the same about the evangelicals, why don't they get out of the CofE and join the baptists or the methodists?
If I were routinely subjected to the evangelicals sucking Baptist dick the way you flounce around here sucking Roman dick I'd say the same things about them. At least they're not taking every chance available (and many that are not) to tell the Anglican Communion how much they suck and how they can't wait to get out of it, like you do, except you WILL NOT LEAVE. I am sick to death of hearing it. So either suck it up and live with where you are, which means that you shut the fuck up about how goddamned wonderful Rome is, or be a man, grow a set, and get the fuck out.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:

The transubstantiion of the elements is not because of magic, it is because of our assent.

And there I was thinking it ws because of the grace of God.

quote:

Like most evil, bad things can't happen unless we say "yes" to them.

Uh... I'm sure that's not what you really meant to say. Though if you meant that "like some other sorts of evil, this bad thing can't happen unless..." it would make sense.

quote:

The evil of this world cannot desecrate this Host. In the face of the Sacrifice that redeemed us, it stands, like any other Host, as a testament to the redemption of Jesus Christ. People who encounter it can either say "amen" or not. The God who redeemed the world will not be bolluxed by a souvenir-seller on E-bay.

That's certainly true though.

Almighty and eternal God is not damaged by what created beings do or say.
 
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :
 
Seventeen whole years old..... I'd say 'Bless his wee holy socks' but he's really annoying me too much.

103, I hope I'm there the day you realise you don't have all the answers. <sarcasm>I won't be trembling with schadenfreude at all</sarcasm>
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Although, Us ACs could say the same about the evangelicals, why don't they get out of the CofE and join the baptists or the methodists?

Well we do, sometimes. And then we go to CofE churches again sometimes. Because we don't tend to think of ourselves as members of a denomination so much as members of a church - the actual local church. And if we move to a new town & find that the church that's most appropriate for us is a different denomination than the one we just left, its not such a big deal.

If I went and lived in my Aunt's flat in East Kilbride I might well go to the local Kirk with her. In fact I think that's where I'd start. Or to Alan's URC (don't worry Alan & Flausa - I'm not intending to move!). And if I did I wouldn't think of myself as leaving the Anglican communion so much as just going to a different church. Or I might go to the nearest church, which is in fact Episcopalian. But if I did that it wouldn't be because it is in the Anglican Communion so much as because it is nearby and a decent sort of place.

The local church is the primary instantiation on earth in these times of the universal Church which is the Body of Christ. Not a bureacracy of bishops or moderators or committees of elders or whatever.

It must be hard to have all these existential doubts about validity and apostolicity... no wonder you end up tempted to use the Vatican as a sort of eccesiastical Verisign.

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
thus leaving the CofE to the MotR, prayer-book sorts who actually founded the sodding thing.

But there's only three & a half of them left in England. And two of them are Methodists on alternate Sundays.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Ahh bugger it - you wanted an answer on what I believed and I gave it to you! You don't like it? Tough.

If I say that it's complicated that's because it is.
It's not debatable and I will do what I like when it comes to converting etc.

I'm glad that you would like to see me out because I'm glad that I'll be able to leave the confusion and the uncertainty of the CofE that I experience behind and I'll be able to live my life in a denomination that I think is strong and united in beliefs.

No more to debate that's the end!

-103

BTW - At least I'll still be a Christian and I still believe in Christainity unlike the majority of people in my school and previous schools and I think in the country.
I'll never become an athiest or would you all want me to do that?

[ 20. April 2005, 16:41: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):


No more to debate that's the end!

You said that a few pages back. Do you mean it this time?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):


No more to debate that's the end!

You said that a few pages back. Do you mean it this time?
I didn't start this debate - I was answering a question and you got an answer. There is no debate.

-103
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I didn't ask a question; I simply said it was time for you to shit or get off the goddamned pot. I also said that you're a coward, a liar and a hypocrite, but I did forget to say that you are a misogynistic pig, too.

I had held out some hope that even if you're a snot-nosed brat, you at least had the courage of your convictions. You don't even have that, so now you're just an annoying school boy who likes to pretend he's a grown-up but in reality is just a child.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I had held out some hope that even if you're a snot-nosed brat, you at least had the courage of your convictions. You don't even have that, so now you're just an annoying school boy who likes to pretend he's a grown-up but in reality is just a child.

And the content of your recent posts (I particularly liked 'shitstain' - although 103 would, I think, be more familiar with the English 'skidmark') obviously demonstrates your great age, wisdom and sagacity.

I bet you've still got those old school textbooks of yours where you drew a big cock onto Henry VIII during history or wrote 'Darwin sucks dick' in your biology book.

One day, I'll write posts as grown-up as yours. I can only dream.

Cosmo

[ 20. April 2005, 17:01: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I didn't ask a question; I simply said it was time for you to shit or get off the goddamned pot. I also said that you're a coward, a liar and a hypocrite, but I did forget to say that you are a misogynistic pig, too.

I had held out some hope that even if you're a snot-nosed brat, you at least had the courage of your convictions. You don't even have that, so now you're just an annoying school boy who likes to pretend he's a grown-up but in reality is just a child.

That really is quite a pathetic personal attack. Next time do try to insult me.

-103
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Hmmm.....why is it people who defend others from the gator always agree with the person being defended?
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
That really is quite a pathetic personal attack. Next time do try to insult me.

-103

Last time you lasted almost a day before returning to the thread you'd left. This time, barely half an hour.
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
That really is quite a pathetic personal attack. Next time do try to insult me.

-103

Last time you lasted almost a day before returning to the thread you'd left. This time, barely half an hour.
[Disappointed]

I never said I would leave the thread, I just said that my beliefs were not debatable.

-103
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Surely the 'Gator needs no defence nor wants it, but I find her sig very poignant:

quote:
To live forever and to rule all. That is winning.
I think that's everyone's goal, but maybe not everyone has the same vision of that goal. The 'Gator has a very attention-getting way of seeking that goal and inducing others to think in ways that may not have occurred to them.

Keep at it, Gator. I think it may be working. Though perhaps not in the way you are hoping for.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):

Secondly - Why do you think I'm jumping ship? I don't think that MY church has an invalid sacrament,

Well once you jump ship that will be what you sign up to since that is RC's official position. Your priest at the moment will be longer a priest in your eyes. Your new opinion would be that any bread blessed by an Anglican Priest is just a bit of bread.
I can't say what 103 will believe, but why should he agree with that? He is perfectly capable of forming a sensible and consistent view of holy orders and the eucharist which differs from the official doctrine (insofar as there is one) of the Anglican church and would be as capable as any other Catholic is of independent thought after becoming RC.

And WTF shouldn't he? He's a Christian, and naturally wants to belong to the Church he judges to be closest to Christ's ordinance. He doesn't have to agree with everything said by the Catholics to think that they are closer to the truth than anyone else.

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:

Bullshit. Unless your parents are forcibly dragging you into the church every week and sitting behind you on the altar with a gun pointed at your head, you damn well DO have a choice to go away. You may not be able to receive -- instead, you'll just have to sit in the pew and have it driven home just how catholic you are not, and how you are not even remotely part of Holy Mother Church, you're the ecclesial equivalent of a free church congregationalist to them, regardless of your protestations to the contrary -- but you fucking well can start going to your local RC parish.

Or possibly he is taking seriously the commandment to 'Honour thy father and thy mother' and doing his best to reconcile that with his best judgement on which part of the Church God is calling him to?

It is a scandal that because of our divisions any Christian has to make that choice, but that is hardly 103's fault. The problem of what Christians ought to do about this sort of conflict that is inevitable in a divided Church has beaten better minds than mine, but I'm willing to bet that this sort of scorn and abuse is not the answer.

quote:
So you're a goddamned liar on top of it.

103 is transparently sincere. Wrong, maybe, but if you are in a position to say that his opinions are not honestly held, I can suggest all sorts of ways in which you could put your undoubted gift of telepathy to better use.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hmmm.....why is it people who defend others from the gator always agree with the person being defended?

I don't.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
No, he's a liar, because unless he's being held at gunpoint, he really does have options. He said he does not.
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I never said I would leave the thread, I just said that my beliefs were not debatable.

-103

Then, bluntly, you shouldn't be posting them on a discussion board. You should get a blog.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
No, he's a liar, because unless he's being held at gunpoint, he really does have options. He said he does not.

You know, I have as little sympathy for 103 as anyone else here, but the idea that only being held at gunpoint eliminates people's options is ridiculous.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
Someone held at gunpoint does have options. They can always choose to get shot. Of course, that option is so clearly bad, you can say they have 'no choice'.

But, if you allow that 'no choice' can mean no sensible or realistic choice without it being a lie, then 103 isn't lying if he thinks changing denomination now is simply not on.

If you insist that 'no choice' must mean absolutely no choice at all, then he's lying, but then, so are you, so am I, and so is everyone else who uses language with less than surgical precision.

[ 20. April 2005, 17:55: Message edited by: Eliab ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
No, he's a liar, because unless he's being held at gunpoint, he really does have options. He said he does not.

Have you met my mom before? No! So you cannot possibly say!
Erin, It's not debateable and I'm not going to have a long drawn out arguement with silly over emotional people on this board about it.
If you wanna talk about it and tell me how evil/stupid/childish/great/wonderful/strong minded I am (please delete as approprate) you can add me to your MSN Messenger.
Otherwise - I have answered the question so be satisfied.

-103
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I didn't ask you a question, you worthless shithead, so I don't care if you're done here or not.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
No, he's a liar, because unless he's being held at gunpoint, he really does have options. He said he does not.

You know, I have as little sympathy for 103 as anyone else here, but the idea that only being held at gunpoint eliminates people's options is ridiculous.
What else prevents him from either attending an RC parish or, at the very least, not attending the CoE one? What could possibly remove both of those options?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
As he's a minor, all sorts of things. I know I could not have decided on my own what church I would attend when I was a minor--my parents made that decision, and it was not negotiable.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I disagree. Seventeen is definitely old enough to go where you wish on Sunday morning.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I thought so too, but my parents didn't, and they owned the house, fed me, paid the bills, etc., so it didn't matter what I thought.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
still, though theres nothing stopping him from going to another church for services not on sunday morning. don't most roman catholic churches have multiple services during the week?
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
What would they have done if you'd refused? Physically carried you to the church? We are, after all, talking about your eternal soul. It seems to me that it would be worth whatever inconvenience (restriction, etc.) they could have imposed.

[ 20. April 2005, 18:09: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Pânts (# 4487) on :
 
Parents can be very powerful people.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
No, we're not talking about my eternal soul, since I didn't really grasp the concept of the soul at the time and I don't believe in it at all now. My choice at 17 would have been not to attend church at all. You have no idea how strictly I was raised if you think fighting my parents about going to church would have been worth any inconvenience or restriction. I lived with a fair number of inconveniences and restrictions even when I wasn't fighting with them or in trouble--no TV they didn't approve of (Saturday Night Live, for instance), no R-rated movies at all, no party after the prom (though my friend's parents were going to be present) ... and that's when I wasn't in trouble.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pânts:
Parents can be very powerful people.

Indeed they can. Especially parents like mine.

-103
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
See, I don't get that at all. My parents figured out somewhere along the time I was 13 that if they wanted me to do something I really, really didn't want to do, they would be physically forcing me to do that. For instance, if they wanted me to wash the dishes, they'd have to physically force me to stand at the sink and take my hands and move them in the washing motion. Not that I ever was so obstinate about the dishes, but it's a good example. If they grounded me, they grounded me and life went on. Once we established that ground rule, everything was OK.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
You really can't make pronouncements about what other people are and are not free to do, Erin. Families are not all the same. There was no "we" establishing ground rules in my family.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pânts:
Parents can be very powerful people.

My kid and us, the parental units, disagree on this one. We both feel particularly helpless as the storm of puberty slowly creeps into our lives and are all hoping somebody among the three of us will be powerful.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
We're going to have to disagree on this, then, because short of a parent physically forcing a child to do something (that is, grabbing them and making the motions for them), 103 DOES have other options. He's chosen not to exercise them.
 
Posted by Pânts (# 4487) on :
 
Unfortunately as Ruth said, no two families are the same. Maybe I should have put can be in italics.

But as Erin says, there must be other options.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
103 DOES have other options. He's chosen not to exercise them.

Yes, he does. Just like the person with a gun to their head DOES have the option to accept death rather than do what the holder of the gun says.

Let's not assume anything about family politics in the 103 household. Maybe the choice really is between the Anglican Church or a life on the streets...
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think that MY church has an invalid sacrament, but I think that churches with Women Priests, Common Worship Order 2 Mass, BCP Mass and churches that do not see the Sacrament as important enough to reserve inportant enough as a "Complete Sacrament"
I would never say that any sacrament is invalid sacrament, but I think there is such thing as a damaged sacrament.

I can't tell if this means that the BCP "Mass" is invalid or damaged.

In either case call the Pope! Here are a bunch of Roman Catholics with Damaged or Invalid sacraments: Anglican Use Romans.

And there are lots of them. I wonder if they, or their bishops, or the Pope knows that their sacraments are damaged?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
So is 103 really saying that he is being forced to go to a church he doesn't want to be at, by his mother [Frown] ?

Real sympathies to those whose parents forced the issue. For my generation, generally, even in 'religious' Northern Ireland, and since then the 'norm' has been that parents usually stop pressurising their kids to attend round about 12 or so. It usually coincides with confirmation. The general absence of 13 plus teens in churches testifies to that. But I do know some older teens who are told to attend church, and give in rather than have a row about it.

Sincere sympathy, really, for a young man of seventeen (old enough to have sex, earn a wage, get married, leave home, get a licence, smoke) who is being forced to go somewhere he doesn't want to go to every Sunday morning by his mum. Seriously one shouldn't underestimate the power of some parents to exert themselves over their virtually grown-up children.

What I don't understand though is that I did get the impression 103 rather liked the church he went to [Confused] . Which makes me wonder why he's complaining about having no choice about going there [Confused] ? So is it about his mother forcing him to go, and not his own free choice? Does he want to be there or doesn't he?
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'd be glad to hear some clarification from some of our Catholic shipmates who can confirm, or not, that Anglican orders are not valid, from the perspective of the RCC.

I believe the phrase is "wholly null and utterly void." Therefore, since you need to be a validly-consecrated priest in order to conduct the Sacraments, the sacraments are likewise void etc. However (and there's always a however), I don't think the encyclical that declared Anglican orders to be void etc is an infallible teaching of the Magisterium, so there's nothing stopping Benedict XVI turning round and saying "ooops, our bad."

But fret not, dear -103, since the Holy Spirit even works in amongst the Anglicans, you might still be saved after all. (Hooray). The Church makes no pronouncements as to the salvific status of anyone, apart from Saints who have proved themselves to be enjoying the Beatific Vision by performing miracles. Isn't that nice?

[Warning, the above post may contain traces of sarcasm. I've just had my prospective MP phone me up and beg me to vote for her].

Deborah
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think that MY church has an invalid sacrament, but I think that churches with Women Priests, Common Worship Order 2 Mass, BCP Mass and churches that do not see the Sacrament as important enough to reserve inportant enough as a "Complete Sacrament"
I would never say that any sacrament is invalid sacrament, but I think there is such thing as a damaged sacrament.

I can't tell if this means that the BCP "Mass" is invalid or damaged.

In either case call the Pope! Here are a bunch of Roman Catholics with Damaged or Invalid sacraments: Anglican Use Romans.

And there are lots of them. I wonder if they, or their bishops, or the Pope knows that their sacraments are damaged?

I don't know a thing about the newer versions of BCP - I'm talking about BCP 1662 which is something that Anglican Rite Romans DO NOT use.
And the Anglican Rite is not word for word BCP, it is basically Roman Rite which has the same feeling as the newer versions of BCP.

-103
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's not assume anything about family politics in the 103 household. Maybe the choice really is between the Anglican Church or a life on the streets...

Then 103 has way more problems than the vagina behind the altar down the road.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't know a thing about the newer versions of BCP - I'm talking about BCP 1662 which is something that Anglican Rite Romans DO NOT use.
And the Anglican Rite is not word for word BCP, it is basically Roman Rite which has the same feeling as the newer versions of BCP.

-103

Ahh. So which part of the BCP 1662 is it that you find so objectionable (but not, apparently, all the other versions of the BCP).
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So is 103 really saying that he is being forced to go to a church he doesn't want to be at, by his mother [Frown] ?

Real sympathies to those whose parents forced the issue. For my generation, generally, even in 'religious' Northern Ireland, and since then the 'norm' has been that parents usually stop pressurising their kids to attend round about 12 or so. It usually coincides with confirmation. The general absence of 13 plus teens in churches testifies to that. But I do know some older teens who are told to attend church, and give in rather than have a row about it.

Sincere sympathy, really, for a young man of seventeen (old enough to have sex, earn a wage, get married, leave home, get a licence, smoke) who is being forced to go somewhere he doesn't want to go to every Sunday morning by his mum. Seriously one shouldn't underestimate the power of some parents to exert themselves over their virtually grown-up children.

What I don't understand though is that I did get the impression 103 rather liked the church he went to [Confused] . Which makes me wonder why he's complaining about having no choice about going there [Confused] ? So is it about his mother forcing him to go, and not his own free choice? Does he want to be there or doesn't he?

The dynamic is fascinating. -103 is forced to go to church by his mother. Once there, he's the life and soul of the party: altar-boy, thurifer, gaffer, grip, Mr. Maracas in the Praise Band, Father's right-hand man on the Walsingham Pilgrimage. And then up comes a lady to receive communion....'EAT IT! EAT IT NOW' says Henry, all his frustrations bubbling over in a great geyser of filial misery.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't know a thing about the newer versions of BCP - I'm talking about BCP 1662 which is something that Anglican Rite Romans DO NOT use.
And the Anglican Rite is not word for word BCP, it is basically Roman Rite which has the same feeling as the newer versions of BCP.

-103

Ahh. So which part of the BCP 1662 is it that you find so objectionable (but not, apparently, all the other versions of the BCP).
The 39 articles of religion really make my shudder.
The lack of papish stuff (elevations, latin etc.)

Those things are just off the top of my head, when I find my Book of Common Prayer I'll tell you some more stuff.

-103
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
...The 39 articles of religion really make my shudder.
...

-103

Haven't we done this 39 articles game before? Maybe it's a Dead Horse candidate.
 
Posted by Son of a Preacher Man (# 5460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Do they have scratch-and-dent sales for sacraments? Factory irregulars?

Who wants an irregular Jesus?

On second thought, don't answer that....

[ 20. April 2005, 20:11: Message edited by: Son of a Preacher Man ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
...The 39 articles of religion really make my shudder.
...

-103

Haven't we done this 39 articles game before? Maybe it's a Dead Horse candidate.
We have but HT has forgotten.
BCP=BOE

-103
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
BOE?
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The lack of papish stuff (elevations, latin etc.)

That's either Papist or Popish, -103. It's so important to get one's derogatory terms correct.

And I'm afraid if you go looking for Latin in among the Catholics, you're going to be sadly disappointed these days.

Deborah
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The dynamic is fascinating. -103 is forced to go to church by his mother. Once there, he's the life and soul of the party: altar-boy, thurifer, gaffer, grip, Mr. Maracas in the Praise Band, Father's right-hand man on the Walsingham Pilgrimage. And then up comes a lady to receive communion....'EAT IT! EAT IT NOW' says Henry, all his frustrations bubbling over in a great geyser of filial misery.

Aha! Maybe it was his mother?

(ETA: St Uncumber's beard is off, but I can do you St Peter's doorkey, complete with heavenly rust. Genuine medieval relic, made by skilled craftsmen in Hong Kong. Just let me know.)

[ 20. April 2005, 20:20: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
103 DOES have other options. He's chosen not to exercise them.

Yes, he does. Just like the person with a gun to their head DOES have the option to accept death rather than do what the holder of the gun says.
Pretty much what I was thinking in the middle of my lunch hour, which is when you posted this, Marvin. I'm not sure I want to make a habit of having the same thought simultaneously with you. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
We're going to have to disagree on this, then, because short of a parent physically forcing a child to do something (that is, grabbing them and making the motions for them), 103 DOES have other options. He's chosen not to exercise them.

It honestly never occurred to me to push my parents this far when I was a teenager. But by all means, let's agree to disagree so we can all get back to telling 103 what an idiot he is.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
What I don't understand though is that I did get the impression 103 rather liked the church he went to [Confused] . Which makes me wonder why he's complaining about having no choice about going there [Confused] ? So is it about his mother forcing him to go, and not his own free choice? Does he want to be there or doesn't he?

Perhaps when 103 grows up he will be less [Confused] and more consistent in his theology. Or maybe he'll focus all that energy on women he'd like to shag instead of tat.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
BOE?

Book of Evil, I believe. Our Henry does not like it.

Deborah
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
And I'm afraid if you go looking for Latin in among the Catholics, you're going to be sadly disappointed these days.

It's easier to find than it was. And I think we will see more of it in the days to come. The Pope is said to consider it A Good Thing.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
103 DOES have other options. He's chosen not to exercise them.

Yes, he does. Just like the person with a gun to their head DOES have the option to accept death rather than do what the holder of the gun says.
Pretty much what I was thinking in the middle of my lunch hour, which is when you posted this, Marvin. I'm not sure I want to make a habit of having the same thought simultaneously with you. [Big Grin]
Come to the Dark Side, Ruth - there's always room for one more [Biased]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Don't get me wrong - I love the church that I go to very very much, but I feel very very uncomfortable with the fact that it's in the CofE, And I have spoken to my parents about the RC Church and according to them it's out of the question at present.

-103
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:


Like most evil, bad things can't happen unless we say "yes" to them.

I can just see the "Screwtape Letters" sequel now

"the man from the wannabe RC church - he say 'no'!"

"the woman with the wafer craving - she say 'yes'!"

( reference for anyone across the pond who didn't ever see the UK advert being alluded to!)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

as to these statements, all from 103;
(listed haphazardly, in no order except that in which I found them in this thread when I went back to copy & paste them in!)

quote:
...First time I ever was a Eucharistic minister...
quote:
...come to my church again because of that but to Catholics it is INCREDIBLY important...
quote:
...I'm glad that you would like to see me out because I'm glad that I'll be able to leave the confusion and the uncertainty of the CofE that I experience behind and I'll be able to live my life in a denomination that I think is strong and united in beliefs...
quote:
...and I panicked on my first time as Eucharistic Minister. I told my parish priest and he said that he saw and it was exactly what I should've done. I had remembered what he told me to do...
possibly I'm just a bit odd, but does anyone else percieve any trace of inconsistency [maybe even hypocrisy? [Ultra confused] ] in the above.

In my interpretation;

am I the only one confused by this set of apparent contradictions? [Paranoid] [Help]
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
You're not the only one seeing contradictions.

I confess I can sympathise somewhat with 103. Challenging one's parents can be horribly difficult - particularly if you still live under their roof - and I know that I never managed it successfully.

On the other hand, I can't help but wonder. Christ in the sacrament is, it seems, sufficiently important that 103 is willing to challenge someone at the altar, but it isn't sufficiently important that he's willing to stand up to his parents. That bugs me somehow.

Peronel.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Well, as Ariel suggested, maybe the lady was his mother. Then 103 only hopes that she won't be coming back to church.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Sorry but unless any of you are my younger brother or I have a secret older brother or sister, none of you can possibly know what my family situation is concerning the entire RC-AC thing, with the exception of a few who have met me in real life who have had the entire story explained to them.

-103
 
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
(humming)

quote:

DEACON: This lady's his what?
103: This lady's my mother!
Priest: This lady's his what?
Acolytes: He says she's his mother!

(with apologies to W. S. Gilbert)
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Well, as Ariel suggested, maybe the lady was his mother.

It was the "EAT IT NOW!!" bit that made me suddenly wonder whether this was a phrase he was used to hearing at home. And he just sort of came out with it as a reflex action.
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
While I have found much of what 103 has said in this thread a little difficult to swallow (if you'll pardon the pun) I do have great sympathy with him on the whole church attendance/parental control thing. Even my mother was not permitted to go to a different church from my father as he thought that, as he was the vicar, this would send the wrong message to the congregation.

On occasions I would hide in order to avoid church attendance, and my father would find me, and forcibly put me in the car. Had I not attended church I would have been required to miss meals, not be allowed to go out etc, and given my father's violent tendencies, in probability suffered physical bruising in order that my father get his way. In our household, you either obeyed my Dad or else. While I am not for one minute suggesting that 103 has to put up with this sort of abusive environment, he may well have incredibly strict parents who have ways of enforcing their will. Frankly, if it was a choice between starving, living on the streets, or being hit versus doing what my Dad required then I opted to obey him. If 103 has similar choices (albeit on a different scale and with less criminal overtones), then, I figure we should give him a bit of breathing space on that score until he is living independently of his parents.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
....I'm glad that I'll be able to leave the confusion and the uncertainty of the CofE that I experience behind and I'll be able to live my life in a denomination that I think is strong and united in beliefs.

(Emphasis added)

Prepare yourself for some disappointment, lad. The RCC has the likes of me and my godmother in it.

Though if you're looking for a lot of mindless adoration of various apparitions of the BVM (including little old ladies spouting pious nonsense), you'll surely be able to find your niche.


quote:
BTW - At least I'll still be a Christian and I still believe in Christainity unlike the majority of people in my school and previous schools and I think in the country.
I'll never become an athiest or would you all want me to do that?

Sorry to break it to you, but not being a Christian (or even a Christain -- nice typo!) is hardly the end of the world.

And yeah, I think it might do you good to become an atheist. Such overheated zeal at your young age needs to be tempered with a good dose of serious doubt.

[ETA: I do love that typo! I'm gonna go around singing "The Stain of Christ! He is the Stain of Christ!" for the rest of the evening. [Devil] ]

[ 20. April 2005, 21:52: Message edited by: jlg ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kentishmaid:
While I have found much of what 103 has said in this thread a little difficult to swallow (if you'll pardon the pun) I do have great sympathy with him on the whole church attendance/parental control thing. Even my mother was not permitted to go to a different church from my father as he thought that, as he was the vicar, this would send the wrong message to the congregation.

On occasions I would hide in order to avoid church attendance, and my father would find me, and forcibly put me in the car. Had I not attended church I would have been required to miss meals, not be allowed to go out etc, and given my father's violent tendencies, in probability suffered physical bruising in order that my father get his way. In our household, you either obeyed my Dad or else. While I am not for one minute suggesting that 103 has to put up with this sort of abusive environment, he may well have incredibly strict parents who have ways of enforcing their will. Frankly, if it was a choice between starving, living on the streets, or being hit versus doing what my Dad required then I opted to obey him. If 103 has similar choices (albeit on a different scale and with less criminal overtones), then, I figure we should give him a bit of breathing space on that score until he is living independently of his parents.

OMG - My parents would never hit me, prehaps I gave out the wrong message here! They aren't at all like that and I don't think they would chuck me out on the streets.
But life would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable when it comes to religion (which is a huge part of our family, we go to mass all together as a family, we recite the rosary together and we pray together)
If I was part of a different denomination it would probably cause a split among us, there would be a "You're a different type of Christian to us" attitude, I would be joining the "Novus Ordo Warehouse religion, the religion that only uses churches to distribute mass to the people, the religion that stole the latin from the people and the religion that caused so much upset to my mother's family"

God knows how we got involved in at my current church as it's very different to the AC Church that celebrated mass in Latin that first got my family into the AC Tradition.

Just to clarify, my Parents would never hit me and it is not a Anglicanism or Streets decision.

It's a decision that I have to make whilst thinking about the feelings of other people in the family. The last thing I want to do is cause a lot of hurt and pain in my family, after all I have to live with them!

-103
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Pope Benedict wants all Christians to be united, why not stay where you are and work for that, 103?

Christina
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Because we won't be fully united, Will we?

-103
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
BTW - I have no problem with CW Order One because it doesn't follow the BCP 1662 order of Holy Communion.

Ah, but two of the Eucharist prayers in order one contain the same theology.
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
103 I'm sorry if that came across as implying any such thing - I had thought I'd made that clear. Apparently not. My apologies. I was merely trying to point out that parents can often be less of a negotiable obstacle with respect to these decisions (if you'll pardon the dehumanising turn of phrase) than some may think.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Because we won't be fully united, Will we?

Well, not with an attitude like that we won't...
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Because we won't be fully united, Will we?

Well, not with an attitude like that we won't...
He believes that the Anglican Church is not a real church. I don't think we ever will be able to be in full communion with Rome, so we won't be fully united will we? Think about it...

-103
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):

But life would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable when it comes to religion (which is a huge part of our family, we go to mass all together as a family, we recite the rosary together and we pray together)

<snip>

It's a decision that I have to make whilst thinking about the feelings of other people in the family. The last thing I want to do is cause a lot of hurt and pain in my family, after all I have to live with them!

-103

- all of which is admirable, and does show that you're not as immature as some of your less considered posts here may have led some to believe - but why though do you accept appointment to a role of leadership &/or ministry within the church if it is not a church you would otherwise choose to attend?
that is what puzzles me & is where I percieve the biggest contradiction - especially as your beliefs & opinions are so fervently held and expressed.
 
Posted by Exiled Youth (# 8744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Think about it...

and

quote:
we go to mass all together as a family, we recite the rosary together and we pray together
No, YOU think about it...these are distinctly Catholic characteristics. So, you're Catholic in terms of your beliefs, right? Reciting the rosary and everything, transubstantiation, etc. And you want to actually be a Catholic soon. But you don't have a problem being an EM in a non-church, with utterly null and void sacraments, which are administered by a non-priest?

[Confused]

Well, I hope your parents realise how stupid that makes them look. I had running battles with my parents about church. Dad actually busted down a locked door once (I was about 10). But could they have made me serve communion if I didn't want to? Course they couldn't.

Sort it out -- you're in, or you're out. Stop lying to people by pretending you still believe you're serving a valid sacrament. If you're going to dodge that by saying "I'm not a Catholic yet", then that's a nice dodge. But you know full well that you will soon affirm that you believe that the sacrament you so diligently protected all those years from those satan-worshippers was in fact just soggy mother's pride.

ETA: cross posted there...and I think the post in question is a little more precise than mine...

[ 20. April 2005, 22:41: Message edited by: Exiled Youth ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
He believes that the Anglican Church is not a real church. I don't think we ever will be able to be in full communion with Rome, so we won't be fully united will we? Think about it...

I think the cause of full communion is best helped more by us staying where we are and working for change from there (be we RCC, Anglican or whatever). Not by effectively saying the only way to all agree is for us all to convert to one particular denomination...

[ 20. April 2005, 22:46: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
103, if the Pope wants Christians to be united, then he wants us to be united. Think about it. Now he is Pope, he will be seeking for unity with Anglicans, if he means what he says. Your Anglo-Catholicism is nearest to RCism, right? So, can't ACs work within the Anglican community for full unity? If it doesn't work out, maybe then would be a better time to consider, and you'll be older and able to change over without problems with your parents, as you won't be living with them then.

The grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence. This Pope seems to want to remove the fence somehow.

Christina
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):

But life would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable when it comes to religion (which is a huge part of our family, we go to mass all together as a family, we recite the rosary together and we pray together)

<snip>

It's a decision that I have to make whilst thinking about the feelings of other people in the family. The last thing I want to do is cause a lot of hurt and pain in my family, after all I have to live with them!

-103

- all of which is admirable, and does show that you're not as immature as some of your less considered posts here may have led some to believe - but why though do you accept appointment to a role of leadership &/or ministry within the church if it is not a church you would otherwise choose to attend?
that is what puzzles me & is where I percieve the biggest contradiction - especially as your beliefs & opinions are so fervently held and expressed.

Right, I can hardly see the screen at the mement because I'm very tired so I am only typing this answer by looking at the keybnoard so please excuse any typos, this will be my last post tonight.

I accepted the position of Eucharistic Minister because I fully accept that my church is a true catholic church, but I have always expressed my desire to join the RCC in the near future to my parish priest. He understands my situation but still approached me to be an extraordinary minister of the eucharist. I accepted this because at the time I was in the hope that I could push some traditional catholic belief into my parish church as well as continuing my youth work within the parish. I am planning on continuing my youth work up until the point when I leave the parish and I am licensed until next easter when I can either renew my vows or stop being a Eucharistic Minister. Father hasn't seen this as a problem that will stop me from being able be a Eucharistic Minister, I believe that my church celebrates the real mass on a Sunday and it's a perfectly valid sacrament. I'm not sure though about some other Anglican Churches (to which I wouldn't be allowed to be a Eucharistic Minister in anyway because I'm a member of Forward in Faith and most Anglican Churches in this area have Women priests) and that is what I am very uncomfortable with. I know there are other people who feel the same way as me (although they don't want to cross the Tiber, which to me is just common sense!)
I was waiting to see if we would get a pope who would bring about full communion between us and the Roman Catholic Church but instead we got Ratzinger, I am pretty sure that full communion between Rome and the Anglican Communion will not happen under Ratzinger so I will join Rome in the near future rather than sticking around.

Anyway - I wouldn't be kicking myself if we joined in full communion with Rome and I had converted to Rome, I would've been able to test the waters and speak from one side to the other during the full communioning!

-103
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
Anyway, back to the OP...

Have any of Benedict XVI's hosts appeared on eBay yet?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Urm, this is now getting stupid.


-103
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
Getting stupid? When was this not stupid??
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
I guess the green mould represents the olive branch? [Biased]
 
Posted by Calindreams (# 9147) on :
 
And that's why no concerned Catholic should have bought the wafer from Ebay. Now there's a new group of people to exploit. If another wafer appears on Ebay then someone else is going to buy it. How do we know that there isn't a pile of them waiting to be sold? If the item really did offend you then the last thing you should do is buy it.
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
If you're gullible enough to believe the seller's unverifiable story about the history of any item on eBay, you deserve to be parted from your money. And, oh, did I mention I've got a dress with the semen of two former US presidents on it, for sale?
 
Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :
 
What, Bill and Hilary?
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
Nope...Roosevelt (Teddy) and JFK.

It's a family heirloom.
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
Teddy's population paste got all over the place. Hardly a collector's item. Now if you you've got some of Franklin D's joy gloy on a garment, you're going to get some good bids.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
...And, oh, did I mention I've got a dress with the semen of two former US presidents on it, for sale?

I'm interested, but you have to supply a full exposé detailing just how said dress became soiled. Signed black and white glossies (by the presidents) should be sufficient for varification. Not that I don't trust you or anything.

[ 21. April 2005, 00:12: Message edited by: Gort ]
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Teddy's population paste got all over the place. Hardly a collector's item. Now if you you've got some of Franklin D's joy gloy on a garment, you're going to get some good bids.

Oh, you want me to sell Grandma's souvenirs as well as Mum's and Great-Grandma's? Sorry, that's a separate item. I'll be listing her Presidential crotchless panties next week.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The 39 articles of religion really make my shudder.
The lack of papish stuff (elevations, latin etc.)
-103

Have you ever seen a Book of Common Prayer or been to a BCP Mass?

The Articles of Religion are not a part of the Holy Communion service.

And there is no rubric preventing Father from holding Jesus as high in the air as he wants to.

And you can perfectly well have Latin communion motets to your heart's content.

Now, knock off the Book of Evil nonsense or I shall be forced to remind you that the Church of Rome is the Scarlet Whore.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
....I'm glad that I'll be able to leave the confusion and the uncertainty of the CofE that I experience behind and I'll be able to live my life in a denomination that I think is strong and united in beliefs.

(Emphasis added)

Prepare yourself for some disappointment, lad. The RCC has the likes of me and my godmother in it.

Though if you're looking for a lot of mindless adoration of various apparitions of the BVM (including little old ladies spouting pious nonsense), you'll surely be able to find your niche.

Ah, 103, hear wisdom! As an atheist and an outsider to Catholicism, I was pretty confused to have a sort of conversion experience physically sitting all by myself in a Catholic church. (I had wandered inside to get out of the heat and it seemed nice and quiet.) I stumbled into RCIA in a similar fashion, having sat in a nice quiet place and in the end managing to attend Mass. I held on to the idea of unity of belief within the Catholic Church for a while longer.

Then I was courted by all the various groups that made up the parish I had joined -
You get the picture. They all wanted me to be their sort of Catholic. We all sign up to belief in God, to the teachings of the Bible and to the teaching of the Catholic Church. How we express that faith and comply with that teaching is as variable within the Catholic Church as it is for any other human activity.

I muddled through this highly diverse crew. In the end the ones that made most sense to me were those of quiet faith and prayerfulness who really loved God and loved their fellow humans too. Since then, I've tried to stick with them. They can be found in all sorts of unlikely places.

[typo]

[ 21. April 2005, 02:14: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Urm, this is now getting stupid.

Oracular toast? Proven by picking the winner of the last Presidential election? Essence of Pope?

Must be worth less now that we know who the next Pope is.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
In the end the ones that made most sense to me were those of quiet faith and prayerfulness who really loved God and loved their fellow humans too.

Is this what we're supposed to be doing? Are you sure? Cuz I thought it was all about figuring out whose rules to follow and then following them as precisely as possible. And excoriating everyone following different rules, hell-bound cretins that they are.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
In the end the ones that made most sense to me were those of quiet faith and prayerfulness who really loved God and loved their fellow humans too.

Is this what we're supposed to be doing? Are you sure? Cuz I thought it was all about figuring out whose rules to follow and then following them as precisely as possible. And excoriating everyone following different rules, hell-bound cretins that they are.
[Eek!] Surely not. Oh wait a moment- you mean the other mob over there... [Snigger]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Exactly. Them. It's appalling. I don't know how they hold their heads up.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Son of a Preacher Man:
Who wants an irregular Jesus?

Ah, but did Jesus get constipation? This could be a whole new Purg thread, along with all those others we have enjoyed such as "Did Jesus's penis curve to the left?" or "Was Jesus ever accidentally discovered with his pants down by Mary Magdalene?" or "Was Jesus a really ace carpenter, or just a mediocre one?" and other such nonsense threads.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
103 - if your attraction to the Catholic Church is largely because of the colour, mystery, tradition, Latin and all the rest of it, I can relate to that. But as has also been said, the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

I regularly attended Latin Masses as a child, although English language ones were an alternative, but that is the tradition I was used to. I later dropped out of Catholicism for various reasons and didn't come back for many years. What I found came as a culture shock. I found a cut-down English language version of services which seemed to me lacking in beauty and mystery, sometimes to the point that it even felt dumbed down. It was at the time all there was and it was that or nothing. I found it quite unsatisfactory. It seemed to me that the flavour of the Catholicism I had known had changed and had more in common with the Protestant church than it had with what I'd been used to. I recognized some of the hymns from the Anglican hymnbook I'd had at school. There were women serving Communion. The altar wine was offered to the congregation. Yes, I'd been away a long time but these were developments I didn't recognize, expect or understand - or much care for. What next, I wondered? How far was all this going to go?

I ended up at an old-fashioned sort of place where the priest was a member of the Latin Mass Society and held regular Latin services. This was more the sort of thing that I wanted (each to their own, OK?). The Sunday morning Mass is hugely popular and often standing room only, with a real range of all ages.

Latin services, however, are not generally on offer. Most places don't do them. What you are likely to get is a half hour English language service on weekdays and an extended version with Victorian hymns on Sundays. Benediction and Vespers are not standard features of every church either. You will be extremely lucky to find anywhere that offers them regularly.

As for the unity of beliefs - there are central core beliefs, however there is enormous diversity within the Catholic Church. If there's one thing I've found, it's that everyone I speak to seems to have a different take on it. People who follow the party line in every single respect are actually fairly rare. This is as true of the older generation who might be expected to be more traditional as it is of the younger ones.

You will find some kind of a place in the church if you decide to join, but I strongly advise you to talk to a range of Catholics before you do, including young people of your own age, and get a balanced view of what it is really like. You may find that you are better off where you are.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
No, Latin and colour is something I actually wouldn't mind getting away from. My local RC Parish has no music, the priest only wears a cassock-alb and a stole for mass.

I don't prefer that church over my own at all, I wish they had colour and a big band and I wish the priest would wear a chasuble BUT I feel a lot more comfortable with the fact that it's in the RC Communion and it's not pretending to be something that it's not.

And I know that the 39 articles aren't in the HC service, but they're in the same book which is implying that if you celebrate that service you agree to those rules.

-103
 
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
a genuine recusant ( very old Shire family that had provided one of the 40 Martyrs. Shades of Brideshead Revisited with that one

You have hobbits in the Roman Catholic Church? [Eek!]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
a genuine recusant ( very old Shire family that had provided one of the 40 Martyrs. Shades of Brideshead Revisited with that one

You have hobbits in the Roman Catholic Church? [Eek!]
That would be York...<pats Cusanus kindly on head> nope, that would be right. They went by the name of Baggins.
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
See, that's not fair. I now have a vision of the Pope as Gandalf, which is probably highly irreverent......
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
If I was part of a different denomination it would probably cause a split among us, there would be a "You're a different type of Christian to us" attitude, I would be joining the "Novus Ordo Warehouse religion, the religion that only uses churches to distribute mass to the people, the religion that stole the latin from the people and the religion that caused so much upset to my mother's family"

So what part of this changes in a year's time?
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
I can just see a bunch of cardinals carrying bags with SWAG on them, snaffling latin texts from people in the dead of night [Roll Eyes] [Snigger]
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Although I think this is a first in just how Spong is being used as a weapon here ...

It is called "synthesis" and "evaluation" on Bloom's Taxonomy. You might try learning enough about a subject to try it sometime.

quote:
Indeed. I think Bede's PoMo Detection Meter has gone a bit haywire.
I think some people need to learn to recognize other forms of hellishness. Gort's Groupies must think he can't find his own oil can these days.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Trippy smoke machine you have there, d00d. Impressive volume. Does it do liturgical colors or just plain black and white projection, argumentum ad homineum, proof by vigorous re-assertion, you know, the standard stuff?

And as a Keeper of the Tat, I want to know if it is swingable, decorative, and has a smoke only mode. That way it could double as a thurible.

Kiss kiss!

Charlotte
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
[...] I think some people need to learn to recognize other forms of hellishness. Gort's Groupies must think he can't find his own oil can these days.

Jealousy rears its ugly green head. [Snigger]
Nah, I think that someone else had "The Wizard of Oz" on the brain and elected to do some Margaret Hamilton went to kollidge polysyllabic (etc.) scenery chewing. Don't know nothin' about no postmodernism stuff here in Berserkley, nosirree.

But if I am not Groupie Number One, I could be talked into a pay-per-view CAT FIGHT. All for the Organ Fund, of course.

Charlotte (and my little cat too)
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
And I know that the 39 articles aren't in the HC service, but they're in the same book which is implying that if you celebrate that service you agree to those rules.

-103

I obviously missed the part of the Holy Communion service in which the priest read out the Articles of Religion and I said "Amen".
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by kentishmaid:

quote:
See, that's not fair. I now have a vision of the Pope as Gandalf, which is probably highly irreverent......
Is Ecumenical Patriarch who is Gandalf! Was it beards on Benedict XVI or anyone else in the recent Conclave? Was Gandalf Latin Schismatic? No! Is outrage!
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
103 points out,

quote:
I know that the 39 articles aren't in the HC service, but they're in the same book which is implying that if you celebrate that service you agree to those rules.
They're in the same book! Brilliant! Now, when I visit an Anglican church, I'll have something to occupy my mind during the sermon....

(I'll get me Menaion....)

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
103 points out,

quote:
I know that the 39 articles aren't in the HC service, but they're in the same book which is implying that if you celebrate that service you agree to those rules.
They're in the same book! Brilliant! Now, when I visit an Anglican church, I'll have something to occupy my mind during the sermon....

(I'll get me Menaion....)

Leetle M.

I wouldn't raise my hopes too high, if I were you!
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I never said I would leave the thread, I just said that my beliefs were not debatable.

-103

Despite a couple of subsequent pages to the contrary.

From what I can tell, your beliefs are Marxist. Groucho Marx - "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member."
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I never said I would leave the thread, I just said that my beliefs were not debatable.

-103

Despite a couple of subsequent pages to the contrary.

From what I can tell, your beliefs are Marxist. Groucho Marx - "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member."

My beliefs are not Marxist.
I don't agree with Marxism at all.

And Erin, look at my date of Birth and then work out what will be different in a year's time.

-103
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
103, i think you are missing two points that people are trying to make to you.

firstly, although _you_ may believe that your communion is valid on the basis of not being done by a woman priest, the roman catholic church does not, because your church, no matter how flawlessly woman free, remains not roman catholic. so if you are planning on joining the roman catholic church because you agree with its teachings, either you will have to come to accept that the mass you enjoy so much now is, in fact, nothing at all, or else you will not be in agreement with the full doctrine of your new church.

and the other thing is, even though you will be 18 in a year, how will that lessen the family upset if you leave your church and become roman catholic? will people no longer be upset because as an adult you can do as you please?

oh and three, the marxist thing was a joke. groucho marx, not karl. joke, funny, ha ha... got it?

[ 21. April 2005, 16:23: Message edited by: nicolemrw ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
[qb]I'm not sure though about some other Anglican Churches (to which I wouldn't be allowed to be a Eucharistic Minister in anyway because I'm a member of Forward in Faith and most Anglican Churches in this area have Women priests

I assure you that we don't bar members of Forward in Faith from ministering in our churches. Whatever gave you the idea that we did?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
103, i think you are missing two points that people are trying to make to you.

firstly, although _you_ may believe that your communion is valid on the basis of not being done by a woman priest, the roman catholic church does not, because your church, no matter how flawlessly woman free, remains not roman catholic. so if you are planning on joining the roman catholic church because you agree with its teachings, either you will have to come to accept that the mass you enjoy so much now is, in fact, nothing at all, or else you will not be in agreement with the full doctrine of your new church.

and the other thing is, even though you will be 18 in a year, how will that lessen the family upset if you leave your church and become roman catholic? will people no longer be upset because as an adult you can do as you please?

oh and three, the marxist thing was a joke. groucho marx, not karl. joke, funny, ha ha... got it?

Mom has always said "When you're 18 you can do as you please"
It also will be at a time when another women in our family will have calmed down over something that I can't really post on the internet. It just is something that has put her totally against RCs.

-103
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
ok, that addresses one point i made...

theres two more...
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
I think his point was that being a member of Forward in Faith means he can't minister in a church with female priests, not that those churches wouldn't let him.

[cross-posted: responding to ken)

[ 21. April 2005, 16:30: Message edited by: quantpole ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
In caswe it hasn't been pointed out already somewhere in these million pages, according to Canon Law,

quote:
Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I think his point was that being a member of Forward in Faith means he can't minister in a church with female priests, not that those churches wouldn't let him.

No, that he won't, not can't.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I think his point was that being a member of Forward in Faith means he can't minister in a church with female priests, not that those churches wouldn't let him.

[cross-posted: responding to ken)

Exactly - I'm also should refrain from making a parish which isn't on "The safe list" my usual parish and I also should avoid recieving communion in a church which has a Women Minister on the clergy list.
It's actually quite difficult in this area to find a church that meets that criteria, which is one of the reasons that the RCC appeals so much, I could just go to mass at any church in any place without a problem, instead if I want to go to weekday mass I have to travel to my own parish church or if I'm not in the area I have to check the FiF Safe List if there aren't any parishes then I have to go to each church and check the clergy list, then find out if they actually DO weekday masses OR I can go to a RC Parish and just recieve a blessing (and recieve a spiritual communion)

-103
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I think his point was that being a member of Forward in Faith means he can't minister in a church with female priests, not that those churches wouldn't let him.

No, that he won't, not can't.
You're right...thought I'd have learned given the last 3 pages.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
[qb]I'm not sure though about some other Anglican Churches (to which I wouldn't be allowed to be a Eucharistic Minister in anyway because I'm a member of Forward in Faith and most Anglican Churches in this area have Women priests

I assure you that we don't bar members of Forward in Faith from ministering in our churches. Whatever gave you the idea that we did?
What if they're women members? Oh wait, they bar themselves.....
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Mom has always said "When you're 18 you can do as you please"
It also will be at a time when another women in our family will have calmed down over something that I can't really post on the internet. It just is something that has put her totally against RCs.

-103

I assure you 103, that while when you're 18 your mother may permit you to do as you please, it doens't mean you still won't hear the end of it from her. If you're this close and it is a no go, trust me in a years' time, you'll still be getting the riot act even if you're "allowed" to convert.

Ah, the FiF safe list. Keeping people religious by telling them all the churches they can't go to, even to receive "spiritual" comunion. I don't get it, if your mother wouldn't be good enough to give you comunion or bless you, why does she get any way in which church you're a member of?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I think his point was that being a member of Forward in Faith means he can't minister in a church with female priests, not that those churches wouldn't let him.

Exactly - I'm also should refrain from making a parish which isn't on "The safe list" my usual parish and I also should avoid recieving communion in a church which has a Women Minister on the clergy list.

You said "wouldn't be allowed". As if someone else would stop you.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
still waiting for a comment on my other two points, 103. (well, one at leas, you can forget about the marx joke if you want)
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
Let's give the boy a break shall we? This is all getting rather personal (yes, I know this is Hell but even so) particularly as 103 is under 18. There isn't an age limit on this Board but even so.

He's a boy and he's struggling with all sorts of things of things. Can't we just leave his personal life and his parental relationships out of this?

Cosmo
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
No.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
It's actually quite difficult in this area to find a church that meets that criteria, which is one of the reasons that the RCC appeals so much, I could just go to mass at any church in any place without a problem, instead if I want to go to weekday mass I have to travel to my own parish church or if I'm not in the area I have to check the FiF Safe List

No no no. Being discontented with your own church and not wanting women priests and not liking this that and the other in the C of E are not (in my view, anyway) good reasons for wanting to pack in your membership and join the Catholics. Reading your posts to this thread so far, it sounds as if the only reasons you want to defect to Rome are negative reasons and that if any other denomination offered the female-free clergy option you'd consider them as well, equally if Rome suddenly started appointing women you'd be out of it like a shot.

If you still feel the same way in a year or so you are going to have to convince a priest that your reasons for joining are sound, so better start practising now.

I don't know, the more I read the more inclined I am to agree with your parents.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
It's actually quite difficult in this area to find a church that meets that criteria, which is one of the reasons that the RCC appeals so much, I could just go to mass at any church in any place without a problem, instead if I want to go to weekday mass I have to travel to my own parish church or if I'm not in the area I have to check the FiF Safe List

No no no. Being discontented with your own church and not wanting women priests and not liking this that and the other in the C of E are not (in my view, anyway) good reasons for wanting to pack in your membership and join the Catholics. Reading your posts to this thread so far, it sounds as if the only reasons you want to defect to Rome are negative reasons and that if any other denomination offered the female-free clergy option you'd consider them as well, equally if Rome suddenly started appointing women you'd be out of it like a shot.

If you still feel the same way in a year or so you are going to have to convince a priest that your reasons for joining are sound, so better start practising now.

I don't know, the more I read the more inclined I am to agree with your parents.

Actually - I might be in favour of women priests if the Pope said it was ok but he hasn't so that's it!
Oh, and I have been in dialogue with a catholic priest since July 2004 and he and I both had very similar views on a lot of things as he went through exactly the same phase (he's a convert from Anglicanism) and he said he would be extremely happy to accept me into an RCIA course when I come to that point.

-103

-103

[ 21. April 2005, 17:34: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
... I have to check the FiF Safe List...

Oh! My! God! FiF really are the "Girls Have Cooties Club". [Killing me]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Actually - I might be in favour of women priests if the Pope said it was ok but he hasn't so that's it!

Now wait a minute. You object to women priests in the C of E on what grounds? Scriptural?

Yet if the Pope decided it was all right you'd chuck away your interpretation of Scripture and the passionate anti-female-clergy stance you've embraced for some months now and suddenly start liking the idea?
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
psssst.... 103, about those other points i made???????
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Now wait a minute. You object to women priests in the C of E on what grounds? Scriptural?

Yet if the Pope decided it was all right you'd chuck away your interpretation of Scripture and the passionate anti-female-clergy stance you've embraced for some months now and suddenly start liking the idea, and telling your FiF friends that they'd got it all wrong over the past years?

No - it's only partly scriptual and I think a lot of FiF people would be in agreement with me (my parish priest for one actually)
The ordination of Women broke a lot of relations between us and Rome and if anybody should have the decision on the ordination of women then it should be the Pope. Every single pope has refused the ordination of women, most possibly because it would break the unbroken chain of apostolic sucessions.
Also because every Pope has taken the view that "If Jesus would've wanted women priests then he would've had female deciples"
Only groups like "REFORM" think that women priests are a bad idea and have a entirely scriptual reason and I'm not at all like REFORM on that belief, it's all for other reasons.
I think this is a dead horses topic though so prehaps you might want to talk about FiF stuff and reasons in Priestly Genitalia.

-103
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
103 points out,

quote:
I know that the 39 articles aren't in the HC service, but they're in the same book which is implying that if you celebrate that service you agree to those rules.
They're in the same book! Brilliant! Now, when I visit an Anglican church, I'll have something to occupy my mind during the sermon....

(I'll get me Menaion....)

Leetle M.

Does anyone else read the introduction to prayer books / hymn books / pew Bibles during boring sermons? (The Bible is safest - you can pretend you are cheking a reference.)
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
103, this is getting a bit rude don't you think? i'm begining to think you don't have any way to respond to what i said.

if thats the case, maybe you should think a little bit harder about what your planning on doing.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
No, I don't want to talk about FiF stuff in Dead Horses, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, because it looks as if you're saying a variety of things, some of which appear to contradict each other.

Meanwhile, you might like to give some thought to answering Nicole, I think she'd appreciate a response.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Does anyone else read the introduction to prayer books / hymn books / pew Bibles during boring sermons? (The Bible is safest - you can pretend you are cheking a reference.)

Oh, absolutely. We had an absolutely dire interim priest a few years back--35-minute sermons that said nothing, except for the few times when they said something really, really wrong. I got very well acquainted with the historical documents printed in the back of the American BCP.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
thank you ariel.

in case you've lost track, 103, the relevant part was this:

quote:
firstly, although _you_ may believe that your communion is valid on the basis of not being done by a woman priest, the roman catholic church does not, because your church, no matter how flawlessly woman free, remains not roman catholic. so if you are planning on joining the roman catholic church because you agree with its teachings, either you will have to come to accept that the mass you enjoy so much now is, in fact, nothing at all, or else you will not be in agreement with the full doctrine of your new church.


 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
103, i think you are missing two points that people are trying to make to you.

firstly, although _you_ may believe that your communion is valid on the basis of not being done by a woman priest, the roman catholic church does not, because your church, no matter how flawlessly woman free, remains not roman catholic. so if you are planning on joining the roman catholic church because you agree with its teachings, either you will have to come to accept that the mass you enjoy so much now is, in fact, nothing at all, or else you will not be in agreement with the full doctrine of your new church.

and the other thing is, even though you will be 18 in a year, how will that lessen the family upset if you leave your church and become roman catholic? will people no longer be upset because as an adult you can do as you please?

oh and three, the marxist thing was a joke. groucho marx, not karl. joke, funny, ha ha... got it?

It won't lessen it, but it'll hopefully be easier to take.
And as for the mass at my old church not being valid in my new church, well I'll be sharing a common view with all the RCs who come to my church to hear the choir, the genuflect and they recieve communion. Shows enough respect I think.

-103
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
they may genuflect, they may be polite, 103, but the fact is, if they are in agreement with the doctrine of their church, they do not believe they have recived anything other than a wafer and wine. is that what you believe you are serving them?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Does anyone else read the introduction to prayer books / hymn books / pew Bibles during boring sermons? (The Bible is safest - you can pretend you are cheking a reference.)

You see, if you were a good old-fashioned Catholic, you could have a really interesting pre-1960s missal with lots of fascinating snippets about (as it might be) the origins of the liturgy, anecdotes about saints, and a diagram of a priest.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
they may genuflect, they may be polite, 103, but the fact is, if they are in agreement with the doctrine of their church, they do not believe they have recived anything other than a wafer and wine. is that what you believe you are serving them?

No of course not, but when I've asked the RC Priest who I'm in dialogue with if he thought that the masses he celebrated in the Anglican Church were just Bread and Wine, he responded with "No, I believe that I was celebrating a true mass, just as much as I do now"

-103
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Does anyone else read the introduction to prayer books / hymn books / pew Bibles during boring sermons? (The Bible is safest - you can pretend you are cheking a reference.)

You see, if you were a good old-fashioned Catholic, you could have a really interesting pre-1960s missal with lots of fascinating snippets about (as it might be) the origins of the liturgy, anecdotes about saints, and a diagram of a priest.
A diagram of a priest? Were there lift-up tabs?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
No, all the different bits were clearly labelled.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
or else you will not be in agreement with the full doctrine of your new church.

And so what? Why does anyone need to be in agreement with the full doctrine of their church?

God supplied (most of) us with brains - we are expected to think for ourselves. Sometimes we get things wrong, sometimes we disagree, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, it is the only way we make any progress. As I've said before, I think it is fundamentally wrong that because the church is divided we have to make a decision to be in communion with part of it (and thus out of communion with other parts) on the basis of our erring judgement on divisive issues. But that is the situation that we are stuck with and the best any of us can do is to judge, by the light we've been given, which part of the Church will bring us closest to Christ.

At the moment, 103 judges that to be a sub-set of the Anglican church, because he is not willing to disobey his parent's wish that he not convert until he is 18. Which is a damned good reason.

But he expects that after that condition ceases to apply, the Roman Catholic Church is where he will be called. I don't know why, and, as I am not a Catholic, I'm fairly sure it won't be something I consider a strong enough reason to convert, but that's not the point. The point is, it is the best judgement he is able to make for his own relationship with God. By judging the Roman Catholic Church to be the best part of a fractured Christianity he does not thereby (necessarily) accept all of its teachings. He may come to do so eventually, or he may not, and that's up to him.

The rest of you mockers - is any part of your hostility due to a dim awareness that someone who is obviously younger, less mature, and less articulate than you is actually dealing with a very difficult situation with more honesty, simple-heartedness, commitment and courage than you would show - even if you think he's getting some of it wrong? Aren't you a little bit ashamed? Because you should be.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Now wait a minute. You object to women priests in the C of E on what grounds? Scriptural?

Yet if the Pope decided it was all right you'd chuck away your interpretation of Scripture and the passionate anti-female-clergy stance you've embraced for some months now and suddenly start liking the idea, and telling your FiF friends that they'd got it all wrong over the past years?

No - it's only partly scriptual and I think a lot of FiF people would be in agreement with me (my parish priest for one actually)
The ordination of Women broke a lot of relations between us and Rome and if anybody should have the decision on the ordination of women then it should be the Pope. Every single pope has refused the ordination of women, most possibly because it would break the unbroken chain of apostolic sucessions.
Also because every Pope has taken the view that "If Jesus would've wanted women priests then he would've had female deciples"
Only groups like "REFORM" think that women priests are a bad idea and have a entirely scriptual reason and I'm not at all like REFORM on that belief, it's all for other reasons.
I think this is a dead horses topic though so prehaps you might want to talk about FiF stuff and reasons in Priestly Genitalia.

-103

You know, 103, a big reason why I tend to not take you very seriously is that so many of your arguments aren't spiritual, aren't theological, aren't even personal, they're instead...
"..and I know a bunch of people who would agree with me." Sometimes those people are FIF, sometimes they're the vicar in your church, sometinmes I strongly suspect they're a make believe group of people that you hope agree with you to give your soul a little solace (you wouldn't be the first in this regard, and will hardly be the last). Even your posts in this thread were very much "come on people, back me up!" to solicit public approval before getting to "I'm right, I know it and I know a lot of people agree with me."

People may, in fact, agree with you. The agreement, however, doesn't necessarily make you or them right, or everyone else wrong. What it does is make you look like you're not actually thinking things through, but rather grasping onto something, not really understanding it, and thinking it ok so long as someone agrees with you. Even now, you're asserting that if the Pope said it was ok, you'd think women priests were ok. Pick a side. Either you agree with the concept of women priests in theory or you don't. Understanding WHY the Pope has yet to allow women to be ordained is to be commended, but it doesn't say thing one about whether or not you think it is theologically/morally correct, just that you're fickle and not thinking for yourself, in which case it is very hard to take you seriously.
 
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I don't get it, if your mother wouldn't be good enough to give you comunion or bless you, why does she get any way in which church you're a member of?

<tangent in support of 103>
Well, it's not about "good enough" unless you think that my inability to bear a child is not because I'm a man, but because I'm somehow not "good enough". And I support women priests, but if you're going to counter argue, then argue against what the other side is actually saying. They might be a bunch of neanderthals, but their arguments still need to be countered.
<end of tangent>
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I don't get it, if your mother wouldn't be good enough to give you comunion or bless you, why does she get any way in which church you're a member of?

<tangent in support of 103>
Well, it's not about "good enough" unless you think that my inability to bear a child is not because I'm a man, but because I'm somehow not "good enough". And I support women priests, but if you're going to counter argue, then argue against what the other side is actually saying. They might be a bunch of neanderthals, but their arguments still need to be countered.
<end of tangent>

I'm not quite seeing your point. The reason that women aren't ordained in the RCC is not becuase spiritually they're different, etc, but solely based on their gender. Not being able to bear children doesn't make you a man, you could be an infertile woman. That's biology. Biologically, women can give the eucharist, so long as they are able to use their arms, toes, nose, whatever it takes. The sole restriction is that they're women. Not that they can't physically do it, or that spiritually they are less then men, but that they just are women. But men can administer the eucharist. Were a woman to make all the same vows, etc as a man she'd still be prohibited. What other way is there to interpret it than "women aren't good enough?"
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think you are missing the point Go Anne Go. ACs believe that the Anglican church, whilst being out of communion with Rome maintains Catholic order and is, therefore, in some sense Catholic. So to an extent, we look towards the practice of Rome and Orthodoxy as a kind of benchmark of our own practices. Now, ACs notoriously found the issue of the ordination of women difficult because it was a clear breach with the historic practice of the Catholic and Orthodox churches and that of the undivided church. In a sense, it reduced the ability of the C of E to call itself Catholic. Now clearly, if the Catholic Church had taken this step at the same time then a great deal of AC opposition to the move (not all of it) would have evaporated. By saying that if the Pope had agreed to OoW, one would also agree to it is just a short hand for a fairly common and reasonably defensible position.

I'm not inclined agree with it myself - it has never been made clear to me why the Pope gets a veto about women but not about the validity of Anglican orders - but I don't think that it's vacuous.

I think you are inclined to approach catholic views - which place a high importance on Tradition and in being in step with the wider Church and on those who have gone before - from a protestant perspective which views every opinion as something to be individually thought through from scratch. There are advantages and disadvantages to both perspectives but it seems rather pointless to blame a catholic for not approaching a subject from a protestant approach.

Cross post - I was responding to the earlier post of GAG when she accused 103 of not thinking for himself.

[ 21. April 2005, 18:58: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
*Finishes chewing a piece of celery and gulps*
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Tradition can well be part of it. Not a part that's going to hold up for me personally, but I can well see that it could for some.

But if you're readily willing to throw out that tradition on the basis of what the Pope says, or on the basis of what anyone else says, then you're neither upholding tradition nor thinking for yourself. And indeed, you can even think for yourself, disagree with it, but still follow tradition. If you're going to agree or disagree with something, you ought to have better reasons for it than "lots of people agree with me." The RCC has better reasons for its actions (whether I agree with them or not) than "lots of people agree with us."

It is hard to think of a circumstance where "well, lots of people back me up" is a well thought through rationale for anything. It is a good practical exercise at determining consensus (ie, electing officials), but after that, it gets useless.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't prefer that church over my own at all, I wish they had colour and a big band and I wish the priest would wear a chasuble BUT I feel a lot more comfortable with the fact that it's in the RC Communion and it's not pretending to be something that it's not.

Forgive someone who is living on the Left Bank of the Great Pond, but "pretending to be something that it's not"? Is there something here that I am losing in translation?

When visiting Vancouver, BC, on a Sunday, I frequently (but not exclusively) attend services at St. James. (The chanting of the Passion Gospel was absolutely stunning this year.) While the service at 11:00 does come from the Canadian ASB, it would best be described as "Anglican Missal." These folks don't miss a beat—or a place to use incense. It is always High Mass, complete with deacon, servers, tower bell giving sac rings, etc. Even so, St. Jame's is not pretending to be anything but more Anglo-Catholic-than-thou. They are not pretending to be Roman anything. The service is pretty much strictly Canadian ASB (with every option imaginable under the sun taken).

(I don't know if I would like this every Sunday, but it is always wonderful when I visit.)

Are you saying your home parish is using Roman liturgy when you use the word "pretend"?

If so, you have every reason to complain. And to be confused. And to have a few things to try to work out.

Lex orandi. Lex credendi.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
No of course not, but when I've asked the RC Priest who I'm in dialogue with if he thought that the masses he celebrated in the Anglican Church were just Bread and Wine, he responded with "No, I believe that I was celebrating a true mass, just as much as I do now"


aw come on, 103, you know better than that. that may be what he wants to believe, but it ain't official church doctrine.

so what it comes down to is you want to leave the anglican church because you feel that communion served by a woman is invalid, to join a church that says all your communions to date have been invalid anyway, weather or not a woman had anything to do with them.

the irony staggers the imagination.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Right, my bible has just fallen open onto a quote that I think is relevant to this thread.
1 Peter 2:11-12

-103
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
[qb]I'm not sure though about some other Anglican Churches (to which I wouldn't be allowed to be a Eucharistic Minister in anyway because I'm a member of Forward in Faith and most Anglican Churches in this area have Women priests

I assure you that we don't bar members of Forward in Faith from ministering in our churches. Whatever gave you the idea that we did?
'twasn't me that said that - just for the record.
y'might want to wade backward through the thread to find out who quoth the quote in question.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
What have any of the last ten pages on this thread got to do with the OP?

Cosmo
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
cosmo, nothing at all, really. its called thread-drift. fun, isn't it?

103, uh?

quote:
11Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
i have a rather unplesent thought about what you could be meaning by this, i hope i'm wrong, prehaps you could elucidate?
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
I dunno what I mean - I just threw something at the shelf above my desk and my bible fell onto my keyboard and that caught my eye.

It just looked relevant. Unfortunatly it looks like my translation is a bit nicer - my translation says
quote:
I urge you, my dear friends, as strangers and nomads to keep yourselves free from the disordered natural inclinations that attack the soul. Always behave honourably amoung gintiles so that they can see for themselves what moral lives you lead, and when they day of reckoning comes, give thanks to God for the things which now make them denounce you as criminals
NOW - you could say that my incident with the lady could be wrong according to this passage and that I should've behaved honourably, but also this could all be used against you as none of you have shown me how nice you all can be, you've all attacked me like wolves on this thread.

-103

Just to say that the extract from the Bible is from the New Jerusalem Bible ©1985 Darton, Longmand & Todd Ltd and Doubleday & Company Inc.
(It's not a widely available Bible online and all the quotes I have found on the internet from this bible have always had this copyright notice at the bottom so I think it's probably alright to display stuff from it if you have the copyright.)

[ 21. April 2005, 20:23: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Right, my bible has just fallen open onto a quote that I think is relevant to this thread.
1 Peter 2:11-12

-103

You have been marked forever as a member of one, holy Anglican church. Not only do you have a Bible, apparently you use it.

All my good fundy friends tell me that nothing in the Roman church is based upon the Bible.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
103, you do realize that what thats about is behaving well in front of the non-believers so that they'll be impressed by how well behaved christians are?
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
long missed the edit window, but just thought i should add, i assume then that your purpose wasn't to insinuate that given group or another aren't real christians? because that was my first thought and i'm glad to hear otherwise.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Right, my bible has just fallen open onto a quote that I think is relevant to this thread.
1 Peter 2:11-12

-103

You have been marked forever as a member of one, holy Anglican church. Not only do you have a Bible, apparently you use it.

All my good fundy friends tell me that nothing in the Roman church is based upon the Bible.

Uh? My Local RC Church has Bible Study on Thursday Evenings!
I think your fundy friends have been told lies! (Exodus 20:16)

-103
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
ALL attacked you like wolves? Did you even read, for example, Josephine's eloquent and well-considered post? I'm hard-pressed to see the attack in that, or in several other posts that basically suggested you might like to do things differently next time.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
OK - most

-103
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
NOW - you could say that my incident with the lady could be wrong according to this passage and that I should've behaved honourably, but also this could all be used against you as none of you have shown me how nice you all can be, you've all attacked me like wolves on this thread.

Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Right, my bible has just fallen open onto a quote that I think is relevant to this thread.
1 Peter 2:11-12

-103

You have been marked forever as a member of one, holy Anglican church. Not only do you have a Bible, apparently you use it.

All my good fundy friends tell me that nothing in the Roman church is based upon the Bible.

Uh? My Local RC Church has Bible Study on Thursday Evenings!
I think your fundy friends have been told lies! (Exodus 20:16)

-103

My dear, dear 103. Is it a required of the members of Forward in Frocks to have the funny bone surgically removed? You would probably have a nicer time of it all if you would learn how to laugh.

Hint: Be wary whenever someone uses the term "all," so something similar, unless the person is saying something like "all sunrises occur in the East." In many cases statements like the one I made are either hyperbole or wrong.
 
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I don't get it, if your mother wouldn't be good enough to give you comunion or bless you, why does she get any way in which church you're a member of?

<tangent in support of 103>
Well, it's not about "good enough" unless you think that my inability to bear a child is not because I'm a man, but because I'm somehow not "good enough". And I support women priests, but if you're going to counter argue, then argue against what the other side is actually saying. They might be a bunch of neanderthals, but their arguments still need to be countered.
<end of tangent>

I'm not quite seeing your point. The reason that women aren't ordained in the RCC is not becuase spiritually they're different, etc, but solely based on their gender. Not being able to bear children doesn't make you a man, you could be an infertile woman. That's biology. Biologically, women can give the eucharist, so long as they are able to use their arms, toes, nose, whatever it takes. The sole restriction is that they're women. Not that they can't physically do it, or that spiritually they are less then men, but that they just are women. But men can administer the eucharist. Were a woman to make all the same vows, etc as a man she'd still be prohibited. What other way is there to interpret it than "women aren't good enough?"
My point was that their argument, which BTW I do not subscribe to, is that a priest is something that only a man can be in the way that a mother is something that only a woman can be. I might want with all my heart to bear a child, I might feel that I have the right to bear a child, I might even claim to be oppressed because I can't bear a child. I still can't bear a child, though because I am a man, and men can't bear children. It has nothing to do with being good enough for the job. As to what it is that makes priesthood male, it has to do, I think, with the fact that the priesthood has till now, been entirely male with some arguable exceptions like St. Brigid, that the priest is the image of Christ in the Eucharist and must therefore be the same gender, and other things probably better covered in Dead Horses. I think it's a load of hogwash, but it still has nothing to do with being good enough. You can't ignore the theological arguments and get all insulted over an argument that isn't even being made, though you might suspect it underlies the theological arguments.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):

Only groups like "REFORM" think that women priests are a bad idea and have a entirely scriptual reason and I'm not at all like REFORM

-103

quote:

Actually - I might be in favour of women priests if the Pope said it was ok but he hasn't so that's it!

-103

ok. let me check this point - you take the POPE to be more of an authority than the BIBLE?
he's just a man, a bloke, a person, a human, a guy. Even if he's in an authority position over the RC church, he's not Jesus, is he?
[Roll Eyes] [Disappointed]

you seem to worry a lot more about where the wider church tradition you're in stands in relation to God rather than where you stand, and more about what you think about traditions and ecclesiastical functions than about what the church tradition you're in thinks about them.
to me, that seems topsy-turvy; surely the service's object is more important than the service's choreography? [Confused]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!

[Killing me]
cute.
old, yet still amusing, especially in text form! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:

quote:
ok. let me check this point - you take the POPE to be more of an authority than the BIBLE?
he's just a man, a bloke, a person, a human, a guy. Even if he's in an authority position over the RC church, he's not Jesus, is he?

Where does the BIBLE say that women should be ordained priests.

Foolish child.

Or should that be: FOOLISH CHILD.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Even if he's in an authority position over the RC church, he's not Jesus, is he?

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and, as such, wields rather more say over the Church than one in 'an authority position'.

Cosmo
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
....And as for the mass at my old church not being valid in my new church, well I'll be sharing a common view with all the RCs who come to my church to hear the choir, the genuflect and they recieve communion. Shows enough respect I think.

-103

Actually, if those RCs are genuflecting to your church's reserved sacrament and receiving communion, they aren't properly following the teachings of the RCC.

And since one of your reasons for wanting to swim the Tiber is to part of a church where everyone acknowledges and faithfully follows a single set of rules, as evidenced by this earlier quote,

quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
....I'm glad that I'll be able to leave the confusion and the uncertainty of the CofE that I experience behind and I'll be able to live my life in a denomination that I think is strong and united in beliefs.

then you need to find more reliable RC mentors, someone like Trisagion. Your RC priest friend, among many other influences, seems to be teaching you a rather dodgy cathecism.

It is one thing the be following the path of an active heretic within a faith tradition (it definitely forces a pretty much continual examination of conscience), and there are also grounds for discussion, dissent, and different practices. But none of these are an excuse for misrepresenting the official beliefs and teachings of the RC Church when it has taken such pains to clarify the teachings in excruciating detail.

Which leads to the question - do you have a copy of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, 103? If not, you need to get one, and you need to look things up in it. If you think the 39 Articles are beyond the pale and unacceptable, I want to hear what you make of the RCC Cathecism in all its lengthy and detailed glory.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
....And as for the mass at my old church not being valid in my new church, well I'll be sharing a common view with all the RCs who come to my church to hear the choir, the genuflect and they recieve communion. Shows enough respect I think.

-103

Actually, if those RCs are genuflecting to your church's reserved sacrament and receiving communion, they aren't properly following the teachings of the RCC.

And since one of your reasons for wanting to swim the Tiber is to part of a church where everyone acknowledges and faithfully follows a single set of rules, as evidenced by this earlier quote,

quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
....I'm glad that I'll be able to leave the confusion and the uncertainty of the CofE that I experience behind and I'll be able to live my life in a denomination that I think is strong and united in beliefs.

then you need to find more reliable RC mentors, someone like Trisagion. Your RC priest friend, among many other influences, seems to be teaching you a rather dodgy cathecism.

It is one thing the be following the path of an active heretic within a faith tradition (it definitely forces a pretty much continual examination of conscience), and there are also grounds for discussion, dissent, and different practices. But none of these are an excuse for misrepresenting the official beliefs and teachings of the RC Church when it has taken such pains to clarify the teachings in excruciating detail.

Which leads to the question - do you have a copy of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, 103? If not, you need to get one, and you need to look things up in it. If you think the 39 Articles are beyond the pale and unacceptable, I want to hear what you make of the RCC Cathecism in all its lengthy and detailed glory.

I was given a Roman Catholic Cathecism at my First Communion by my PP.

-103
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Where does the BIBLE say that women should be ordained priests.

Foolish child.

Or should that be: FOOLISH CHILD.

where did I comment on whether women should be ordained or not?
(I am, in fact, militantly undecided on this subject [Biased] )

I simply said that it is rather weird of 103 to say he believes they shouldn't be because the pope says so but not because of any scriptural reason.
_______________________________________________________________


quote:
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and, as such, wields rather more say over the Church than one in 'an authority position'.
apart from the fact that Christ is quite capable of being his own vicar, the pope could have as much authority as is possible to imbue him with, but still not exceed or even equal that of Christ. Therefore it still seems pretty odd to put the pope's opinion above Scripture's teaching.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I was given a Roman Catholic Cathecism at my First Communion by my PP.

-103

Step one has been accomplished.

Now, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.

If you have any questions, I have a friend from high school with a PhD from Fordham in New York that teaches at a Roman college somewhere in the US. I could pass your questions on to him.

(Oh, and when his students told him that there was a new pope, and—when pressed further for indentification—was told it was some guy from Germany, his immediate response in front of God and everyone [quoting exactly from his e-mail] was "SHIT!" I hear he wasn't alone.)
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I was given a Roman Catholic Cathecism at my First Communion by my PP.

-103

Step one has been accomplished.

Now, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.

If you have any questions, I have a friend from high school with a PhD from Fordham in New York that teaches at a Roman college somewhere in the US. I could pass your questions on to him.

(Oh, and when his students told him that there was a new pope, and—when pressed further for indentification—was told it was some guy from Germany, his immediate response in front of God and everyone [quoting exactly from his e-mail] was "SHIT!" I hear he wasn't alone.)

That was my reaction too!
It was funny that I said in the car on the way home about 5 minutes before the white smoke appeared "As long as it isn't Ratzinger I'll be happy"

-103
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I simply said that it is rather weird of 103 to say he believes they shouldn't be because the pope says so but not because of any scriptural reason.

Do you really have so little understanding of the reason Roman Catholics tend to regard the Pope as an authority here?

Hint: It's Biblical. You just might not agree with the interpretation.

quote:
apart from the fact that Christ is quite capable of being his own vicar,
Actually that appears to be totally untrue, because it's nonsense. A vicar is one who stands in the place of someone, or represents them while they're away, and standing in place of yourself is meaningless.

quote:
the pope could have as much authority as is possible to imbue him with, but still not exceed or even equal that of Christ.
Quite so but irrelevant.

quote:
Therefore it still seems pretty odd to put the pope's opinion above Scripture's teaching.
Where does it prohibit women priests in Scripture again?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Where does it prohibit women priests in Scripture again?

I believe there's something in one of the letters about not letting women speak in church...
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Where does it prohibit women priests in Scripture again?

I believe there's something in one of the letters about not letting women speak in church...
Like Lydia, the seller of purple and leader of the first European church?

(The smell of deceased equine is starting to make itself known to my nose.)
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:

(L&D)I simply said that it is rather weird of 103 to say he believes they shouldn't be because the pope says so but not because of any scriptural reason.

(GF) Do you really have so little understanding of the reason Roman Catholics tend to regard the Pope as an authority here?

Hint: It's Biblical. You just might not agree with the interpretation.

never seen any reference in the Bible to the institution of popes myself, although I know some people do.
If you'd care to point me to it and explain how it is interpreted as instituting the papal office I'd be interested to try to understand it.


quote:

(L&D)apart from the fact that Christ is quite capable of being his own vicar,

(GF) Actually that appears to be totally untrue, because it's nonsense. A vicar is one who stands in the place of someone, or represents them while they're away, and standing in place of yourself is meaningless.

and Christ needs a representative because?
hint: it's biblical
quote:

Acts 1
4 On one occasion, while he [Jesus] was eating with them, he gave them this command: Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptised with water, but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit. 6 So when they met together, they asked him, Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel? 7 He said to them: It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. 9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
<snip>
Acts 2
1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

or, more succinctly
quote:

surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
(Matt 28:20b)

quote:

(L&D) the pope could have as much authority as is possible to imbue him with, but still not exceed or even equal that of Christ.

(GF) Quite so but irrelevant.

not in this case, as I was questioning how 103 could hold Scripture as being a lower authority than the pope. If Christ is in authority over the pope, surely Scripture must be so too.

quote:

(L&D) Therefore it still seems pretty odd to put the pope's opinion above Scripture's teaching.

(GF) Where does it prohibit women priests in Scripture again?

dunno - as I said in my previous post, I am militantly undecided on that issue.
Some of the pauline teachings in epistles have been interpreted in that way, but I'm not 100% certain that that is the way in which Paul intended that passage to be read. Therefore I'm undecided.

The question of female ordinands, priests, vicars, servers, deacons, elders, PCC-members, curates, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, whatevers was not what I was addressing - I was questioning how 103 could hold Scripture as being a lower authority than the pope.
If "because the pope says so" is a better reason for holding a belief than "because the Bible says so" then that strikes me as downright weird.

[ 21. April 2005, 23:33: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I was given a Roman Catholic Cathecism at my First Communion by my PP.

-103

And you have read and agree with all 2865 articles therein?
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Where does it prohibit women priests in Scripture again?

I believe there's something in one of the letters about not letting women speak in church...
Like Lydia, the seller of purple and leader of the first European church?
or Deborah the Judge if you want an OT example.

Maybe to be on the safe side we shouldn't let anyone speak in church at all - we could either sit in silence - possibly using sign language, semaphore or smoke-signals instrad of actual speech or sing at each other in quasi-recitative style

[Two face]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I'd like to ask, quite plaintively, that if anyone has any affection for me whatsoever, they'll immediately trot out a couple dead horses - so that I can close this leviathan of pettiness.
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Ive always thought you rather cute myself.

Hmmmm - argument about homosexuality anyone?
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
I think reminding everyone of the inerrancy of the scriptures would be much more apropos to the closing of this thread, Emma. And hands off RooK -- I saw him first.

(BTW, it never says that Lydia was the "leader" of the first European church.)
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
hmmm .. still think that points towards women in leadership myself....

surely *noone* believes in literal innerancy these days [Biased]

ohhh better idea - what about a pond war?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Let's discuss the role of homosexuals in the church...blasphemous desecration? or what?
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
OK, but only if I can badmouth Democrats and praise Tories.

(That should do it.)
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
If that doesn't work, I wanna talk about those crappy choruses. I mean really.
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
Awww... Gort loves RooK, too.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
[HELLHOST]

All right, you rabble! Take your dead horse discussions you know where. Since this thread has been defiled, it shall now be closed.

[/HELLHOST]

(Wipes brow)
Thanks, guys. Your assistance will not be forgotten.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
(grumble grumble)

After consulting with those peers that are more objective than I am (meaning all of them), the consensus is that this popular thread should remain available for general participation.

So, by all means, continue to do that voodoo that you so well.

-RooK
Hellhost
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
yay!
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Ive always thought you rather cute myself.

Hmmmm - argument about homosexuality anyone?

OK. I think RooK is cute, too. And, his accent is very exciting.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
(BTW, it never says that Lydia was the "leader" of the first European church.)

Paul just treated her as such.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Personally I think the argument that women could be priests is quite weak since we don't see women taking that role but in the NT. I think the argument that they should be Bishops or Deacons is quite strong since a number of women seem to be taking those roles.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Exactly - I'm also should refrain from making a parish which isn't on "The safe list" my usual parish and I also should avoid recieving communion in a church which has a Women Minister on the clergy list.

I have a "safe list", too. Bet it doesn't look like any 103's.

If I understand this correctly, right-thinking F-i-Fers won't take Holy Communion, celebrated by a man in a parish that also has a lady priest serving in it? That's the second most stupid thing I've read on this thread (the first most stupid thing was how the Articles of Religion taint the Office of Holy Communion in the Prayer Book).

But this is so far off topic, I will pursue it on the priestly genitalia thread.

The third stupidest thing I've read is that if the Bishop of Rome said ordaining ladies to the priesthood were OK, all would be forgiven.

That's such a big one, I started my very own Purgatory thread to consider it.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
which reminds me of a point that i was going to make before the thread was temporarily closed...

which is that 103 seems to feel that the major theological difference between the roman catholic church and the anglican is the question of woman's ordination. it seems as though he can stand any difference of theology except that one thing. yet thats a comparatively recent issue, heavens knows. and there have been profound differences between the two since the beginning, and they aren't going to go away if the issue of women's ordination ever ceases to be an issue.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I'd like to ask why, if the Queen is the head of the church in the UK, nobody in the course of this surreal, meandering 17-page thread has yet objected to her on the grounds of her being a woman.
 
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If I understand this correctly, right-thinking F-i-Fers won't take Holy Communion, celebrated by a man in a parish that also has a lady priest serving in it?

Of course, HT. Any altar that has had a woman celebrate at it is contaminated beyond repair, surely you knew that. Although they might fetch a dollar or two on e-bay, no right-thinking FIFer would ever go near one. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
103's reaction to the OP indicates a trend of not being able to discern reality from isolated media reported instances. But, then, given the Satanic stuff thrown out here as proof that Jesus was in trouble due to a bit of ebay merchandising, I don't think he's alone.

[ 22. April 2005, 17:47: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The BAS:
Paul just treated her as such.

How do you read that from scripture? She was a worshipper of God, who responded to Paul's message and invited them to stay in her home, and she possibly served as the host home for the Christians there. You'd have to read an awful lot more into it to assume she had any teaching authority or otherwise.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'd like to ask why, if the Queen is the head of the church in the UK, nobody in the course of this surreal, meandering 17-page thread has yet objected to her on the grounds of her being a woman.

1) Because she isn't the head of the Church of England, she is its governor.

2) The English Church has been governed by lay people since the Refornmation - and was at least in part before the Reformation. Lay people choose the bishops. Lay people (mostly) present candidates for benefices. Lay people, as churchwardens, are the ongoing trustees of the property of a parish.

3) And the Queen, as a good Presbyterian, knows her place [Smile]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
I'd like to ask why, if the Queen is the head of the church in the UK, nobody in the course of this surreal, meandering 17-page thread has yet objected to her on the grounds of her being a woman.
Because if Anglo-Catholics started objecting to old Queens the Catholic Movement of England would collapse.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
I'd like to ask why, if the Queen is the head of the church in the UK, nobody in the course of this surreal, meandering 17-page thread has yet objected to her on the grounds of her being a woman.
Because if Anglo-Catholics started objecting to old Queens the Catholic Movement of England would collapse.
Don't get me started about the Monarchy, I think they are sucking the money out of the good working british person. Why should they be treated any differently to any of us? It's not fair!
I personally would like to see them chucked off their throne, kicked out of their homes, their money taken from them and fairly distributed amoung the people and told to get jobs like the rest of us!

-103

(I would love to see this thread closed again!)

[ 22. April 2005, 19:28: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
Then we could buy a shrubbery.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Treason!!

To the Tower with you, 103!!

Ian J.
 
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Back to the OP - I emailed eBay about changing their policy concerning the Blessed Sacrament this is what I recieved back:

quote:
Hello,

Thank you for writing in to Safe Harbor with your concerns, I will be
happy to assist you.

We understand that you are upset at having seen certain Catholic items
or items related to the Pope on eBay, including item #6169851381.
Because eBay’s community is a diverse, international group of more than
135 million users with varied backgrounds and beliefs, there are times
when some items listed on eBay by sellers might be offensive to at least
some of our users somewhere in the world. At times, members may see
listings that they may consider morally wrong or objectionable. However,
even though these listings may be offensive to some, please remember
that most of the time the law does not prohibit the items.

Due to the fact that eBay’s focus is to have a free and diverse
community, we are reluctant to interfere with listings that are not
illegal. Regarding offensive items, there are many items that are
considered sacred to many people of various religions, and we sometimes
hear complaints about these items. Examples would be Catholic relics of
saints, Mormon (LDS) garments, certain Buddhist tablets, etc. However,
eBay has made the decision not to prohibit any item only on the basis of
the item being endowed with sacred properties by certain religious
groups. In general, eBay will remove items for a violation of our
Offensive Materials policy only in extreme examples in which the listing
explicitly promotes hatred, violence, or racial intolerance. However, we
do not remove religious items that are otherwise legal for sale and do
not violate any other eBay listing policy.

Please keep in mind that many of us at eBay may also share your distaste
with an item, and may not support the sale. In fact, eBay has many
Catholic employees. However, we do our best to understand and tolerate
the many viewpoints held by our worldwide community. The Eucharist is
not illegal to sell, and is generally allowed on eBay as long as the
seller does not otherwise include hateful text or images in the listing.
Although we realize that you may not agree with this decision on eBay’s
part, we hope that you can respect the diverse and open nature of eBay’s
marketplace.

We do appreciate you writing in to express your concerns.

Regards,

Birke T.
eBay Community Watch

I suggest that more people email eBay they will HAVE to change their policy because of popular demand.

-103

[Removed e-mail links.]

[ 23. April 2005, 00:44: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
"Please keep in mind that many of us at eBay may also share your distaste with an item, and may not support the sale. In fact, eBay has many Catholic employees."

This sounded very personal, at least to my reading. I think this person agrees with your position and is expressing that as much as possible within job constraints.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I don't see why they should change their policy about selling a piece of bread.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
1) Allow me to tell you that the Hosts don't like it when you tell people to e-mail companies, other people, etc en masse. I speak from experience. Learn from my experience.

2) Simply put, eBay will change their policy if it stops them making money. All you've put is that you don't like them selling such things, even though such things are not illegal. The news reports have shown that people can and will spend all kinds of stupid money on this sort of stuff - the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, the Pope on a chicken breast, and the like. With each new bout of publicity, eBay traffic goes up, and people start poking around. The name is known, people keep going, they make more sales, their membership increases. Publicity on this is only going to make them more money. Don't like it? Don't buy it. But if you want to keep eBay from selling it? Either e-mail the seller (who either a) didn't realize, or b) more likely couldnt' give a rats behind. Or else just ignore it into existence. But a bunch of e-mails from people trying to forbid other people making money ain't gonna fly down at eBay.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Hmmmm, 103 wants the royals chucked into the street because he doesn't want them treated any different to the "rest of us." Who, I guess by that implication are being chucked into the street on a regular basis?????? And aren't allowed to inherit from our parents?

And yet, at the same time, wants eBay to change its policy because a small group doesn't want something sold, despite it being perfectly legal to do so. So 103 wants to stop one of the "rest of us" from selling something because he doesnt' like it.


I smell inconsistency here.

*shakes head. So young. So well meaning. So completely unable to think for himself. So dumb.*
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
"Please keep in mind that many of us at eBay may also share your distaste with an item, and may not support the sale. In fact, eBay has many Catholic employees."

This sounded very personal, at least to my reading. I think this person agrees with your position and is expressing that as much as possible within job constraints.

Nope, I think it is a well constructed marketing response. eBay has 8,100 employees. Some of those are bound to be from almost any religion you can imagine. Swap "Catholic" for "Mormon" for "Muslim" and you can make this letter respond to anyone who complains about religious artifacts being sold on eBay.

Well written, but hardly personal. Firm in their refusal to take it off the site, and yet trying not to piss off a prospective customer.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
(I would love to see this thread closed again!)

You are always free to stop reading it, which has the effect of closing the thread as far as you are concerned. Works for me when I don't like a thread.

On the other hand, if you continue to read it and feel compelled to respond to what you consider mistaken (or worse) beliefs and practices and points of view, then that's your personal problem, so deal with it.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
I'd like to ask why, if the Queen is the head of the church in the UK, nobody in the course of this surreal, meandering 17-page thread has yet objected to her on the grounds of her being a woman.
Because if Anglo-Catholics started objecting to old Queens the Catholic Movement of England would collapse.
Don't get me started about the Monarchy, I think they are sucking the money out of the good working british person. Why should they be treated any differently to any of us? It's not fair!
I personally would like to see them chucked off their throne, kicked out of their homes, their money taken from them and fairly distributed amoung the people and told to get jobs like the rest of us!

-103

Bad move Henry -- I think you just lost your only supporter. Cosmo is a monarchist.

John
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
I should support 103 out of solidarity ... so stop kicking him, already!
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
(I would love to see this thread closed again!)

You are always free to stop reading it, which has the effect of closing the thread as far as you are concerned. Works for me when I don't like a thread.

On the other hand, if you continue to read it and feel compelled to respond to what you consider mistaken (or worse) beliefs and practices and points of view, then that's your personal problem, so deal with it.

He did stop reading it. For about 20 seconds after he posted a apology and announced that he was withdrawing from discussion.

Then the Ship's stormtroopers hunted him down, put a gun to his head, and demanded that he post again.

[Roll Eyes]

Alternatively, he apologised and pretended to leave the thread, thinking that would stop people whaling on him for being a fuckwit. In his fuckwittery, he then returned, thinking he'd get a free pass out of the shitstorm he had raised. Sadly, the denizens are brighter than he is, and weren't fooled.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Personally I think the argument that women could be priests is quite weak since we don't see women taking that role but in the NT. I think the argument that they should be Bishops or Deacons is quite strong since a number of women seem to be taking those roles.

Er...do we see *anyone* taking the role of priest in the NT? Other than Jesus?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Perhaps we could change the name of this "surreal, meandering 17-page thread" to "The thread where 103 (that's One Oh Three, suckers) opines on every subject known to humankind and we all take aim with our size 15 Boots." Kinda cathartic, really.

Strangely, as a mild monarchist, he's managed to irritate me once again: I happen to think royal families, not just the Brits, have a difficult job to do, do it with the human balance of good bag and ugly, and in times of crisis - economic, military, whatever - are worth their weight in gold for their ability to lift a culture's collective and individual spirits - but even by Hell's labrynthine standards that's probably tangential.

I also happen to think that ebay's response to 103 (that's One Oh Three, suckers) was moderate and restrained. Espouse good free market and egalitarian doctrines of freedom, Mr. One Oh,

quote:
I think they are sucking the money out of the good working british person. Why should they be treated any differently to any of us? It's not fair!

then you have to wear the vicissitudes of market forces - ebay's choice to make what to some is a piece of bread (viz Nightlamp) and to others is a sign of sacred faith is a simply free market decision.

The occasional theocratic dictator has had different approaches: don't like the Monarch? Chop off her head and destroy all the monasteries in Britain. Dear Saint Oliver shared your values, 103 (that's One Oh Three, suckers). Don't like irreligious western iconaclasm and capitalism run wild? Then overthrow the government and install blessed Ayatollah Khomeni as illustrious leader.

Now if you happen in a moment of insight to install His Zappaness as world theocratic dicator and guardian of all truth, let me tell you who I will lead like a lamb to slaughter: It will be people who pontificate about the sole and exclusive truth (no tautology there) of their solepsistic religious world view, then in a moment of humanity graciously apologize and withdraw from an argument/debate, only to return with bells and smells and supercillious self-righteousness in sevenfold renewal to bleat on and on and on about all things incompatible with their world view.

Fortunately I wouldn't really lead them to a literal slaughter, because I'm going to be a benevolent theocratic dictator. [Two face] I'd just excercise free market choice and lead them to a gaol under, say, militant theocratic (Muslim or US military) management for a little bit of soul search time.

And - oh damn. As anyone who knows me IRL could attest, I'm terribly forgetful. Now where did I put the key? [Snigger]

Buddy - please don't apologize and then go on peddling the nappywearing bullshit you were peddling pre-apology. [Mad]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Er...do we see *anyone* taking the role of priest in the NT?

No, sacrificing animals and all that seems to have been Right Out. Which is just as well since the Romans had it in for that Temple.

Presbyterpriests aren't all that bad though, when you get used to them.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I wonder what 103 would make of the ancient tradition of taking the blessed bread home to consume midweek as part of peoples personal devotions.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Don't know Nightlamp, but are you trying to summon up the Catholic heavy artillery with this?
quote:
I don't see why they should change their policy about selling a piece of bread.
I didn't think the thread needed much in the way of support meself.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Don't get me started about the Monarchy

Sorry, can't let that go unanswered:

quote:
I think they are sucking the money out of the good working british person.
The good working british person is a royalist. And he has been "sithen the sege and the assaut was sessed at Troye" and Brutus founded the country.

quote:
Why should they be treated any differently to any of us?
Because kingship is instituted of God and delights the hearts of free men. Because it is right that there should be someone to receive, as well as to give, oaths of national loyalty. Because this is as fair and blessed a land as any on God's good earth, and deserves to be ruled by a King or Queen.

quote:
It's not fair!
"Not fair"? The cry of the churlish throughout the ages. You can do better.

quote:
I personally would like to see them chucked off their throne, kicked out of their homes,
Go on then. You know where Her Majesty lives, I take it?

quote:
their money taken from them and fairly distributed amoung the people
Didn't you say a while ago that you weren't a marxist?

I've got news for you, apparently you are.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't actually in favour of robbery by violence, and that your moral resentment of our gracious Sovereign has temporarily blinded you to the fact that this is what you are actually advocating.

quote:
and told to get jobs like the rest of us!
It's a cheap shot, I know, but DO you have a job? (And I don't mean a paper round).

Most countries find it useful to have a head of state - and that is, actually, a full time job, surprising as that may be to you. Now - quick multiple choice question - who do you want as our head of state:

a) The impeccably honest Mr Tony Blair;
b) The humble and honourable Mr Michael Howard;
c) Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

because, those are your choices. And it is, I respectfully submit, the very least taxing of all blindingly obvious, no-brainer, piss simple questions that you will be asked this year.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
good working british person

just the one? well, that's not so bad, is it? [Two face]


(I do like this thread, athough I have no real idea why I do so!)
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
On reflection this:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's a cheap shot, I know, but DO you have a job? (And I don't mean a paper round).

was more than a cheap shot, and was playing the man, not the ball. 103 has every right to his views whatever his employment record, and I regret and apologise for any personal disparagement.

My disparagement of 103's views on this particular issue stands, but is not meant as an attack on his views on this thread generally.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I suggest that more people email eBay they will HAVE to change their policy because of popular demand.

As noted by the junior host badge wearing banshee above, you'll not be doing such suggesting on these boards. Do not use this forum as a means to recruit others for any purpose, unless you have specific authorization from the Ship's Administration.

-RooK
Hellhost
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[...] Because kingship is instituted of God and delights the hearts of free men...

Sorry, Redcoat. This sad testimony was corrected at Yorktown in 1781.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Gort, that post belongs under "The World Turned Upside Down"! (Title of march played by fifes and drums of the American forces at Burgoyne's surrender, if I am not mistaken).

But we must not rub it in.... Some of my best ancestors were Redcoats and if it hadn't been for them, I wouldn't be here, and my mother wouldn't have wept for days when she was denied membership in the "Daughters of the American Revolution". At the time, the musical South Pacific, which had a song called "There is nothing like a dame", was popular, so when people tried to console my mother by telling her to join the "Colonial Dames" instead, my mother sobbed, "I'm a lady! I am not a "dame"!

See what suffering war can bring on the innocent....

[edited to change a typo that made "Revolution" read "Resolution"--see what suffering debating can bring on the innocent....]

[ 23. April 2005, 01:32: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
I thought World Turned Upside Down was a Billy Bragg song about the Diggers Rebellion?

Surely that doesn't belong here with lyrics like "the clergy dazzle us with heaven or they damn us into hell, we will not worship the god they serve, a god of greed who feeds the rich while poor men starve".

After all, I thought this was a Christian website!
 
Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
On reflection this: >snip< was more than a cheap shot, and was playing the man, not the ball. 103 has every right to his views whatever his employment record.

Eliab is possibly missing the point - as a schoolboy, 103 (no hyphen) doesn't have an employment record and, ergo, it's somewhat presumptuous of him to be telling other people to get a job.

In the same way it sticks in the craw to hear the monarch decried as a fiscal parasite by somebody whose contribution to the economy is all in the red column - free education, free health care, free dental care, free eye tests, free prescriptions, Child Benefit, no VAT on clothes. He even qualifies for cheap bus fares! [Mad]

You soon get used to 103 (no hyphen) - he comes online, trots out some shit theory, he gets severely scorched by the rest of the board until somebody says "Take it easy, he's only young." He stamps his foot and says "'S not fair" and slams the door never to return...until...

And besides, this is Hell. Personal disparagement of the brain dead is compulsory here.
[Big Grin]
Corpus
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
103, when you have become a Real Live Roman Catholic next year, will you only object to the sale of Real Live Roman Catholic Holy Knicknacks, or will you also object to the sale of Anglican Pseudo-Holy Knicknacks? But of course you've already answered - your current church is the real deal, despite what your future church might teach.

So tell me, in your bizzaro-world, is special protection given only to knicknacks from Churches That 103 Attends, or should eBay refuse to list anything that anyone thinks is extra-super special?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Presbyterpriests aren't all that bad though, when you get used to them.

Ooooo. Are they house-broken? Do they take up much space? And do they eat carrots?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Sorry, Redcoat. This sad testimony was corrected at Yorktown in 1781.

Rebel Gort,

Yorktown was (much as it pains my English soul to write it) a French victory. Most of the soldiers were French, French artillerists and engineers did most of the siege work, and de Grasse’s blockade of Chesapeake bay closed off British hopes of escape or rescue. Look at the casualty figures in your link – 76 Yankees killed or wounded as against 186 Frogs. France was, at the time, a more absolute monarchy than Britain.

Cornwallis, not Burgoyne, commanded at Yorktown, and it was his second in command, O’Hara, who delivered the surrender (to the French General Rochambeau – though he diplomatically refused to accept it, indicating Washington as the beseigers’ commander).
 
Posted by Pânts (# 4487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Back to the OP - I emailed eBay about changing their policy concerning the Blessed Sacrament this is what I recieved back:
...

I think that's rather a good letter / response actually.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes it is, but the fact remains that eBay did withdraw at least two of the wafers on offer. I suspect that they did this in order to avoid the hassle which might have occurred when the seller whose item had reached £10 million (or was it $10 million?) tried to get his money from the winning bidder!

In other words, it's all down to filthy lucre - but that's the way the world works, 103.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I suggest that more people email eBay they will HAVE to change their policy because of popular demand.

Don't you just love the phrase "popular demand"? I know I do. It sounds so energetic or something. And so right. Of course it also makes me think of torch-carrying peasants marching on the castle. Or possibly a Betty Hutton musical being held over for a second week at the Bijou. But not a lot of outraged church-going types picketing e-Bay. (How would you picket e-Bay, come to think of it?)

In any case, on a personal level Henry has done me a great favor on this thread. When I was his age I kept a journal. The rumor that it was a pink vinyl Barbie diary is false. It was actually a very serious series of spiral notebooks in which I recorded all my teenaged angst. In my late twenties, when I erroneously thought I was grown up, I destroyed them out of fear that someone might see how foolish I was at that age. Now, looking back, I wish I still had them so I could get in touch with that in some ways long lost person.

In lieu of that, however, Henry has come along and provided a perfectly satisfactory substitute. You go, boy. I suggest you print this out and put it in that drawer where you keep all your special things. I promise you you'll be absolutely mortified when you read it in later years. At least I hope so. One would hate to think of a seventeen-year-old trapped in a forty-year-old body, although it does happen, as Go Anne Go has proved on this thread.

Which brings me to another point. I can't recall so long a thread where so many people have emerged with so little credit. Because really, if I didn't already know the approximate ages of some of the posters, I wouldn't be able guess who was supposed to be grown up and, uh, mature and who was still wet behind the ears.

It also makes one realize how it's not that big a step to killing in the name of Jesus, or Allah, or the Pope or Ian Paisley. Particularly when you get the peasants together and hand out torches. But it certainly has been an entertaining if not edifying spectacle.

Yes indeedy it has.

(Has anybody else noticed that 103's literary style somewhat resembles that of Queen Victoria's private letters? Particularly where she talks about Gladstone. Or is it just me?)
 
Posted by dorcas (# 4775) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Has anybody else noticed that 103's literary style somewhat resembles that of Queen Victoria's private letters? Particularly where she talks about Gladstone. Or is it just me?)

Was it QV who complained that Mr Gladstone talked to her as if she were a public meeting?
In which case, would that make 103 a Gladstone clone? Or a QV clone? Not sure which is worse... [Frown]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Don't know Nightlamp, but are you trying to summon up the Catholic heavy artillery with this?
quote:
I don't see why they should change their policy about selling a piece of bread.
I didn't think the thread needed much in the way of support meself.
Well I have been trying to think of a way of channelling Wood.
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Has anybody else noticed that 103's literary style somewhat resembles that of Queen Victoria's private letters? Particularly where she talks about Gladstone. Or is it just me?)

Don't give him the compliment! I'm sure he is of the opinion that Her Late Majesty (who, as we knows, waits like Arthur to redeem her people in their hour of need) was but a portly kraut tick sucking on the blood of her people, and that he would much rather be compared to someone of real intellect and social worth like, say, himself.

However, if he takes a glance at the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, he will see that we are exhorted to treat those given authority with "respect... gratitude and good-will.". Ah, the young of to-day.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
quote:
Surely that doesn't belong here
says Anne, with her quote of lyrics, and of course you're right, Anne. But the lyrics are quite attention-getting; I must Google them all out so I can read them.

Eliab, you are quite right about Cornwallis. I'm glad to hear the French helped us so much there. It's always good to hear something good about France. Thanks!

Leetle M.
Never any good at history

[ 23. April 2005, 14:26: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Well I have been trying to think of a way of channelling Wood.
Think about Britney Spears.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Has anybody else noticed that 103's literary style somewhat resembles that of Queen Victoria's private letters?

No.

quote:
Particularly where she talks about Gladstone. Or is it just me?)
It's just you.
 
Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
I know this a tangent, but if the British government stopped giving the Royals any of the money raised by taxation and instead used it to fund welfare prgrammes, for example, it wouldn't be robbery. It might be a shit idea as far as various people are concerned, but not robbery.

I also completely fail to see why the Monarchy is a symbol of freedom. *Shrugs*.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
I know this a tangent, but if the British government stopped giving the Royals any of the money raised by taxation and instead used it to fund welfare prgrammes, for example, it wouldn't be robbery. It might be a shit idea as far as various people are concerned, but not robbery.


WEll if the nation did tear up the deal it made with the QUeen on her accession and stopped paying, presumably she would resume actual ownership of all the assets she turned over to the nation in return.

Last time I checked, the nation has won on that deal for several generations.

Which would mean LESS money for social programs and so on.

Unless you are actually saying you like the idea of unilaterally breaking a legal deal and want to deprive her of both her assets and the the income paid by the nation in return for using them.

JOhn
 
Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
I know this a tangent, but if the British government stopped giving the Royals any of the money raised by taxation and instead used it to fund welfare prgrammes, for example, it wouldn't be robbery. It might be a shit idea as far as various people are concerned, but not robbery.


WEll if the nation did tear up the deal it made with the QUeen on her accession and stopped paying, presumably she would resume actual ownership of all the assets she turned over to the nation in return.

Last time I checked, the nation has won on that deal for several generations.

Which would mean LESS money for social programs and so on.

Unless you are actually saying you like the idea of unilaterally breaking a legal deal and want to deprive her of both her assets and the the income paid by the nation in return for using them.

JOhn

OK, I'll come clean and admit that I hadn't thought of that. I stand corrected on that issue.

Tbh, I don't really mind whether we have a monarchy or not. I neither like nor dislike (more than I dislike any other form of unearned privellege) the ideas and practice of the monarchy.

I kind of think, though, that the actual human beings who form the current monarchy may benifit from an abolishion of that instituition. Despite their millions, they don't seem very happy and I can't say I would want the national press prying into every aspect of my life, esp not after the death of a loved one
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Presbyterpriests aren't all that bad though, when you get used to them.

like traffic noise?

anyway, back to the dim & distant OP...
was this claim by the seller:
quote:
From what I understand, if you're holding something in your hand during a certain moment when Pope John Paul II spoke during his mass, whetever it becomes blessed.
anything to do with planet earth - or has his buyer been 'done' [Paranoid]

also, does his claim here;
quote:
I ate one wafer then I went back and got another one to save and he gave me another one, but I did get a very dirty look!
suggest that the servers at that particular mass
quote:
this is the actual Eucharist I saved during the mass that I participated in on October 18th, 1998
take less of a strict approach to the consumption & distribution of Communion than others on this thread (notably 103 [Biased] ) and does that make them (esp 103 [Smile] ) more authentic in their enactment / outworking of their transubstantiationary belief than the servers back in October '98? ad the
quote:
I did get a very dirty look!
would suggest that (if the seller is genuine) that the servers might have been aware of his having come back for second helpings.


103, even if I disagree utterly with most of what you say, I have to be impressed with your sincerity & single-minded unwaveringness of belief. It really does suggest that what you do, you "do it to the Lord", even if your zealous approach does sometimes use an armoured tank to crush a grape! [Biased] As you become as ancient and wrinkly as some of the posters here, you've got plenty time to mellow in that regard though! [Razz]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Rebel Gort,

Yorktown was (much as it pains my English soul to write it) a French victory...

[flagrant tangent continued]

I suppose the 30,000 Germans George III hired for his dirty work had no bearing on the outcome of the war. We still threw off the yoke of oppression and dictatorship. [nevermind that we've hired another George to replace yours]

--- Patriot Gort

BTW: Welcome back Sine. What's your take on stolen eucharist...Plan 9 from Hell? or acceptable commercialism?
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
what I know about Yorktown
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dorcas:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Has anybody else noticed that 103's literary style somewhat resembles that of Queen Victoria's private letters? Particularly where she talks about Gladstone. Or is it just me?)

Was it QV who complained that Mr Gladstone talked to her as if she were a public meeting?
In which case, would that make 103 a Gladstone clone? Or a QV clone? Not sure which is worse... [Frown]

At least, in this case, it is safe to say:

We are amused.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Has anybody else noticed that 103's literary style somewhat resembles that of Queen Victoria's private letters?

No.

quote:
Beloved child, I cannot say what my feelings of horror and indignation are, or how frightfully iniquitous I think this declaration of war! My heart boils and bleeds at the thought of what misery and suffering will be caused by this act of mad folly! And just when all that we and Leopold B. were asked to obtain to settle the question had been obtained!
Possibly it was the extensive use of exclamation marks I had in mind.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Sine Nomine said:
quote:
Don't you just love the phrase "popular demand"? I know I do. It sounds so energetic or something. And so right. Of course it also makes me think of torch-carrying peasants marching on the castle. Or possibly a Betty Hutton musical being held over for a second week at the Bijou. But not a lot of outraged church-going types picketing e-Bay. (How would you picket e-Bay, come to think of it?)

Makes me think of a bustling day at an IKEA twice yearly sale. "We demand a break on Billy wall units! Yes, we do!"

By the way, a surprisingly long, involved post from the master of brevity. Glad to see you back, Sine. [Smile]
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
was this claim by the seller:
quote:
From what I understand, if you're holding something in your hand during a certain moment when Pope John Paul II spoke during his mass, whetever it becomes blessed.
anything to do with planet earth - or has his buyer been 'done' [Paranoid]
"Talking through his hat" is a polite way of describing it. That bottle-opener is no more blessed than the four in my kitchen drawer.

Certainly the Eucharistic Ministers should not have permitted him to take a second Host, but I imagine that it's a bit difficult to keep track of everyone at a Papal Mass.

Deborah
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
This thread is like Peter Sellers in "The Seven faces of Dr. No."
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
"Talking through his hat" is a polite way of describing it. That bottle-opener is no more blessed than the four in my kitchen drawer.

Certainly the Eucharistic Ministers should not have permitted him to take a second Host, but I imagine that it's a bit difficult to keep track of everyone at a Papal Mass.

any suggestions where the seller got his idea from? could he as a non-RC possibly have misunderstood something - or is he just a liar/muppet?

wonder if the 'dirty look' was his conscience playing tricks

quote:
This thread is like Peter Sellers in "The Seven faces of Dr. No."
pourquoi?
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
Oh, Brother Gort,

One of the many tangents in this thread involved dogma. Did you listen to the sermon from Grace Cathedral-San Francisco for Good Shepherd Sunday (17 April 2005).

Just wondering.

PS. 103, don't listen to it. You won't like it.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
[flagrant tangent continued]

Quite right. This thread is in serious danger of reverting to the OP.

quote:
I suppose the 30,000 Germans George III hired for his dirty work had no bearing on the outcome of the war.
Certainly they did. For a start, the sleepy krauts provided General Washington with a victory at Trenton in the winter of 1776 (at the very lowest point of the patriots' cause).

quote:
We still threw off the yoke of oppression and dictatorship.
Hmmm. Which is why, I suppose, almost all of the black slaves, and a goodly part of the American Indians, who took part in the war picked the British side. Good old oppressors that they were.


The revolutionary war generally, and Yorktown in particular, can't be analysed as republicanism versus monarchy. The feeling against Britain was not based on the fact that George III was a king, or even a particularly bad king (revolutionary rhetoric notwithstanding), but that he and his government were increasing seen as a distant, meddling, and foreign government. Of course freedom-loving people will resent a foreign king, just as surely as they will love and serve their natural monarch.

The form of government to replace the king was not settled until the end of the war (that Washington did not do what some expected he would, and take the powers, if not the title, of a monarch, was no small part of his deserved reputation as a great statesman).

quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
I also completely fail to see why the Monarchy is a symbol of freedom.

I wouldn't say it is necessarily, though it certainly is in the UK (it does symbolise freedom that, for example, the courts of justice are constituted in the name of the Queen, and that the armed forces owe allegiance to her, not to the ruling party of government). That monarchy is congenial to the free (and is detested by the servile) I assert is true without requiring further explanation. The best example is that of Jesus Christ, who promised his disciples freedom, and also promised to establish a kingdom. Does any Christian feel that his freedom is the less because his Saviour is King of Creation? No. Nor is my freedom the less because Elizabeth is Queen of England.

quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
It's always good to hear something good about France. Thanks!

Ye gods! [brick wall]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
Hey, folks. Gordon Cheng wants his own 19 page thread.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
History 101. The Boston Tea Party was a riot against taxes being cut (IIRC from 15p in the pound to 5p). The tax cut from the old rates to the new would have put all the smugglers out of business- so they destroyed the tea of the (legitimate) competition to preserve their own market.

History 102. The American Revolution was a civil war in the truest sense of the word- splitting families straight down the middle.

History 201. All the leading American revolutionaries both owed large sums to the British and considered themselves to be British. Also, the cry of "Taxation without representation is tyrany" wasn't a call to eliminate the (negligible) taxes on Americans.

History 301. Historically, a strong king has meant weak lords. Due to his insulation from most of a country, with rare exceptions, Kings tend not to be too oppressive - while the indignities local Barons have been able to inflict (starting with ruinous and arbitrary taxes (and enclosure), moving through Droit de Signeur/Prima Nocte and onwards to outright enslavement and/or pimping of his people). Most of the above simply aren't worth it for a King - in particular, he has a limited amount of stamina- whereas 25 Barons have about 25 times the stamina and can be in 25 times as many places at once. Also, due to much more restricted ability to process information, most of the above are somewhat more impractical for a national level ruler. And a King is sigificantly less likely to declare war than a strong Lord is to try to move in on his neighbour.

(On a tangent, the above is a good summary of much of why I think libertarianism is stupid - for king, read government and for baron/lord read corporation).
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Eliab, all in fun, I assure you. [Smile]

Leetle M.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Oh, Brother Gort,

One of the many tangents in this thread involved dogma. Did you listen to the sermon from Grace Cathedral-San Francisco for Good Shepherd Sunday (17 April 2005).

Not until I followed your link. Such a great sermon! Very thought provoking and certainly revealed a new aspect of "dogma" for me. I'm often guilty of ignoring the fundamental role of love in Christianity during my diatribes. Alan Jones is a great speaker. Thanks for the reference!
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on