# "Desecration" of the Eucharist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144 "2011-03-18T13:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/721 "2011-03-26T21:43:25Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s really, really not. Not in the least. Yes, I get that it’s not a big deal to you. However, you missed my point. My point was that Diogenes was attempting to make the argument that it’s not even a serious offense according to Catholic doctrine, and he was very wrong about that. And, you know, addressing your point, which is that it’s not a big deal in a global sense, I have to disagree with that. I think it’s a hideously offensive thing to desecrate any culture’s sacred objects, and whether or not that object holds any meaning for me, personally, is completely irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/722 "2011-03-26T22:48:26Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > It’s really not a trivial point, because the reason you argued it in the first place is to try to dismiss the whole incident as not being worth getting upset about, when in fact it’s quite, quite serious. No, the reason I mentioned it was just as a semantic correction of Ibn who said the kid “ate a eucharist.” I was not trying to argue that it had not been consecrated. It was just a semantic nitpick. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/723 "2011-03-26T22:51:10Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Yes, I get that it’s not a big deal to you. However, you missed my point. My point was that Diogenes was attempting to make the argument that it’s not even a serious offense according to Catholic doctrine, and he was very wrong about that. Just to be clear, I did not try to argue this at all. I did not say and did not believe that the host in was question was not consecrated. I was purely nitpicking a word choice. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/724 "2011-03-26T23:25:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Just to be clear, I did not try to argue this at all. I did not say and did not believe that the host in was question was not consecrated. I was purely nitpicking a word choice. I know you weren’t arguing that the host wasn’t consecrated, you were arguing that you couldn’t desecrate “the eucharist” by taking one of the hosts and doing something to it, because it’s “just a fucking cracker” and didn’t equate to “the entire eucharist.” You were trying to downplay the seriousness (according to Catholic doctrine) of what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/725 "2011-03-26T23:28:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, the reason I mentioned it was just as a semantic correction of Ibn who said the kid “ate a eucharist.” I was not trying to argue that it had not been consecrated. It was just a semantic nitpick. That is complete bullshit. Here’s what you said. > [@](#): > > The primary meaning of “eucharist” is to the ceremony, not to the fucking cracker. Sorry dude, you’re wrong and everyone knows it. On this thread you began by insisting that Serbs were Catholics and that they called themselves Catholics, claimed Catholics had only faced discrimination from other Christians and then made yourself look even more foolish by insisting that “eucharist” refers to “the ceremony not the fucking cracker.” You have a tendency to deny ever making mistakes even when caught in one. I remember you first attacked me for merely mentioning that Al Jazeera had a policy of never referring to Palestinian suicide bombers as “suicide bombers” but instead labeled them “martyrs”. You blustered that this was false. When I provided you with quotes from two Arab professors who were fans of Al Jazeera you then made yourself look not only stupid but bigoted by declaring the men to be “Islamophobic douchbags” and insisted they were wrong despite the fact that you can’t speak Arabic and never watched Al Jazeera during the Intifada. In short, people won’t take you seriously if you never admit to making a mistake. That said, people will still find you extremely amusing. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/726 "2011-03-26T23:33:25Z")
Just to refresh your memory, first you said: > [@](#): > > The eucharist is the ceremony, not the wafer. Nobody “destroyed a eucharist.” Then you said: > [@](#): > > The primary meaning of “eucharist” is to the ceremony, not to the fucking cracker. Then you said: > [@](#): > > Incidentally, even when the word “eucharist” is used to refer to the host, it is used to refer to the wafers and wine as a collective whole. Individual wafers are not “eucharists.” Then you said: > [@](#): > > I didn’t make a mistake. I corrected one. Individual wafers are not individual “eucharists.” A few more back and forths went on, then you said: > [@](#): > > This is a separate discussion from my entirely semantic nitpick about the specific word “eucharist” being applicable to a single wafer. I’m not saying they aren’t all consecrated. I’m saying they aren’t all individual “eucharists,” just like every french fry on on combo meal isn’t an individual combo meal. I do not believe the entire eucharist is considered to have been desecrated if a single wafer gets taken home without being eaten. Not only is every single quote here an incorrect statement, they clearly show that the entire point of your argument was that the host, although consecrated, isn’t of significance in and of itself (wrong, BTW), and that nothing is being desecrated by destroying one (also wrong). ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/727 "2011-03-27T01:08:04Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > That is complete bullshit. > > Here’s what you said. > > > [@](#): > > > > The primary meaning of “eucharist” is to the ceremony, not to the fucking cracker. > > Sorry dude, you’re wrong and everyone knows it. What he said looks right to me. > **[Eucharist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist)** > > The Eucharist (/ˈjuːkərɪst/ YOO-kər-ist; from Koine Greek: εὐχαριστία, romanized: eucharistía, lit. 'thanksgiving'), also called Holy Communion, the Blessed Sacrament or the Lord's Supper, is a Christian rite, considered a sacrament in most churches and an ordinance in others. Christians believe that the rite was instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, the night before his crucifixion, giving his disciples bread and wine. Passages in the New Testament state that he commanded them to "do ... > **[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Eucharist](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm)** > > The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/728 "2011-03-27T01:13:14Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > What he said looks right to me. > > [Eucharist - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist) > > [CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Eucharist](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm) Quoted directly from your first link: > [@](#): > > The phrase “the Eucharist” may refer not only to the rite but also to the consecrated bread (leavened or unleavened) and wine or, unfermented grape juice (in some Protestant denominations) or water (in Mormonism), used in the rite,[3] and, in this sense, communicants may speak of “receiving the Eucharist”, as well as “celebrating the Eucharist”. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/729 "2011-03-27T01:16:45Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > What he said looks right to me. > > [Eucharist - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist) > > [CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Eucharist](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm) Read the third paragraph in the wikipedia article. It contradicts\*\* Dio\*\*'s claim that the term “Eucharist” never refers to the bread. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/730 "2011-03-27T01:21:38Z")
see below ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/731 "2011-03-27T01:22:47Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Quoted directly from your first link: > > > [@](#): > > > > The phrase “the Eucharist” may refer not only to the rite but also to the consecrated bread (leavened or unleavened) and wine or, unfermented grape juice (in some Protestant denominations) or water (in Mormonism), used in the rite,[3] and, in this sense, communicants may speak of “receiving the Eucharist”, as well as “celebrating the Eucharist”. 1. He said “primary”, and according to the way the two articles start off, that seems correct. 2. What you quoted does not say eucharist is a cracker. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/732 "2011-03-27T01:26:48Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > 1. He said “primary”, and according to the way the two articles start off, that seems correct. He said the host is never referred to as the Eucharist, and that the word ONLY refers to the ceremony. This is incorrect. > [@](#): > > 1. What you quoted does not say eucharist is a cracker. Right, because it’s not a cracker at all, it’s unleavened bread. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/733 "2011-03-27T01:28:40Z")
> [@TravisFromOR](#): > > Read the third paragraph in the wikipedia article. It contradicts\*\* Dio\*\*'s claim that the term “Eucharist” never refers to the bread. 1. He said the _primary_ meaning is the ceremony and not the cracker in **Sarahfeena** ’s quote. 2. The third paragraph doesn’t contradict what **Dio** said. It says (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > The phrase “the Eucharist” may refer not only to the rite but also to the consecrated bread (leavened or unleavened) **and** wine or, unfermented grape juice (in some Protestant denominations) or water (in Mormonism), used in the rite,[3] and, in this sense, communicants may speak of “receiving the Eucharist”, as well as “celebrating the Eucharist”. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/734 "2011-03-27T01:40:38Z")
No, he was fundamentally wrong about how the host is perceived. Even if it wasn’t true that the host is often referred to as “The Eucharist,” he was 100% incorrect to say that desecrating the host isn’t the same thing as desecrating “The Eucharist.” That is actually the definition of Eucharistic desecration, which is a mortal sin for a Catholic to commit. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/735 "2011-03-27T01:43:48Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, he was fundamentally wrong about how the host is perceived. Why are you starting that sentence off with “no”, as if I was wrong about something? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/736 "2011-03-27T01:47:36Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Why are you starting that sentence off with “no”, as if I was wrong about something? Because you were wrong. Dio claimed that the wafer couldn’t be referred to as a Eucharist. He was wrong. Someone pointed out that they had a relative who was a Catholic priest who refers to it as such. Once again, Dio has decided to willfully deny reality because it doesn’t suit his political beliefs. He actually reminds me of Muslims I’ve met who insist that Arabs had nothing to do with 9/11. It doesn’t make him stupid or evil just as Muslims who deny 9/11 aren’t, but it makes debating him a bit ridiculous. For his sake, I hope he’s never ridiculed people who insist that Muslims have nothing to do with 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/737 "2011-03-27T01:48:42Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Why are you starting that sentence off with “no”, as if I was wrong about something? Because you were wrong that Diogenes was correct. He said many things that were incorrect, focusing on his statement about the “primary” definition is a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/738 "2011-03-27T01:55:01Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > 1. He said the _primary_ meaning is the ceremony and not the cracker in **Sarahfeena** ’s quote. Actually, he said > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The eucharist is the ceremony, not the wafer. Nobody “destroyed a eucharist.” Note the lack of the word “primary”. If you go to the actual post in question, **Dio** even highlighted the word “ceremony”. He was wrong, and you are as well. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/739 "2011-03-27T02:06:33Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Because you were wrong. > > Dio claimed that the wafer couldn’t be referred to as a Eucharist. He was wrong. > > Someone pointed out that they had a relative who was a Catholic priest who refers to it as such. Where was I wrong? Nothing I wrote was regarding **Dio** claiming that something “couldn’t” be called something (and I don’t even recall him saying that in this thread). If you’re going to say I was wrong about something, show me where. It’s also a little ridiculous to pull “someone here knows someone who said…” > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Because you were wrong that Diogenes was correct. You haven’t demonstrated that I was wrong. > [@](#): > > He said many things that were incorrect, focusing on his statement about the “primary” definition is a strawman. No, that’s not a straw man. You don’t know what straw man means, do you? > [@TravisFromOR](#): > > Actually, he said > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Actually, he said > > The eucharist is the ceremony, not the wafer. Nobody “destroyed a eucharist.” > > Note the lack of the word “primary”. If you go to the actual post in question, **Dio** even highlighted the word “ceremony”. He was wrong, and you are as well. 1. I was referring to what **Ibn Warraq** wrote in post #175. He quoted **Dio** saying: > [@](#): > > The primary meaning of “eucharist” is to the ceremony, not to the fucking cracker. and then **Ibn** said: > [@](#): > > Sorry dude, you’re wrong and everyone knows it. According to what I’m finding online including the two links I posted, he wasn’t wrong. 1. **Dio** has gone on to say that it’s not the cracker alone, and that’s also correct according to what I’ve found. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/740 "2011-03-27T02:17:19Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Where was I wrong? Nothing I wrote was regarding **Dio** claiming that something “couldn’t” be called something (and I don’t even recall him saying that in this thread). If you’re going to say I was wrong about something, show me where. > > It’s also a little ridiculous to pull “someone here knows someone who said…” > You haven’t demonstrated that I was wrong. > > No, that’s not a straw man. You don’t know what straw man means, do you? Yes, I do. A strawman is when you misrepresent someone else’s argument in order to rebut it. In this case, you misrepresenting Diogenes’ argument in order to defend it. So…perhaps it’s not the appropriate term in this case, but whatever. You’re still misrepresenting his argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=38)