"Desecration" of the Eucharist

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Not at all. The gift can be legally restricted because of actions taken by the recipient himself in soliciting the gift, or by terms made clear by the donor’s statements and actions. In other words, if I hand you $1000 and say, “This is for you to buy a car,” you cannot use it to buy a motorcycle, even if you say nothing at all as you accept the money.

There are no terms “made clear” by the priest during a Catholic mass.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

You mean your vast legal knowledge is somehow deficient in this area?

Sure. Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 29 (especially comments f through h).

See. You know you’re full of it on this one.

[TravisFromOR]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There are no terms “made clear” by the priest during a Catholic mass.

You’re forgetting about the Missal, where it is clear that non-Catholics are not invited to participate in Communion.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Sure. You can Google “restricted gifts,” to get more detail, but the general concept is a basic property of the law relating to gifts.

That’s a fair question, and the answer will involve some speculation. It’s the usual practice at Catholic Mass to make available missals which show readings for each day, as well as provide the general order of Mass so that participants may follow along. These missals contain guidance, typcially at the front, for how non-Christians, Christians other than Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholics should handle the issue of Communion. So my short answer is: the miossal, and the overarching practicew of the Church, gave Cook notice that the gift of the bread was restricted in purpose.

He wasn’t in a church, and you know this is a stretch. Cite that he was given a missile? Cite that it spelled out conditions for receiving communion. Cite that he read it or was give any idea that he should read it?

You don’t have an agreement here. No contract, no terms or conditions. Nothing.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There are no terms “made clear” by the priest during a Catholic mass.

Yes, that’s probably true. So what? There are other ways the information could have been conveyed to him.

And let’s say it wasn’t. So what, again? It means he didn’t know the gift was conditional… but that doesn’t stop the gift from being conditional.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Fair enough. From my googling, it would appear that in order to receive communion, one is supposed to have satisfied a number of conditions which to me make fairly clear that he should have known what he was supposed to do and not do. In fact, you are supposed to be a believer in transsubstantiation or you’re not supposed to receive the host at all. I find it kind of hard to believe that everyone participating in the activity is a firm believer, but then again, reading up on it makes clear how crazy the whole thing is anyway.

Catholics know this stuff, but a non-catholic doesn’t necessarily know any of it. Nobody actually says any of that stuff during the mass.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

He wasn’t in a church, and you know this is a stretch. Cite that he was given a missile? Cite that it spelled out conditions for receiving communion. Cite that he read it or was give any idea that he should read it?

You don’t have an agreement here. No contract, no terms or conditions. Nothing.

I just explained to you that you don’t need a contract or an agreement for a gift to be conditional. On what basis do you reject that?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

See. You know you’re full of it on this one.

What? How does my providing you with the very cite you asked for indicate that I know I’m full of it?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@x-ray_vision

In some states, engagement rings are considered conditional gifts and there doesn’t have to be a contract or agreement stating the conditionality of the ring. I’m sure part of the reason in these states is “everyone knows engagement ring are conditional.” I wouldn’t be so sure everyone knows a wafer (or whatever one wants to call it) has the condition that it must be eaten on the spot or you no longer own the wafer. Of course if such a condition did exist, I doubt it would be recognized by all courts, much like conditional engagement rings.

An engagement ring carries an engagement with it, which is an implied agreement that doesn’t exist for communion. The person giving the bread isn’t saying “will you eat this bread?” They’re just giving it.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Catholics know this stuff, but a non-catholic doesn’t necessarily know any of it. Nobody actually says any of that stuff during the mass.

So what? How does that stop the gift from being conditional?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

An engagement ring carries an engagement with it, which is an implied agreement that doesn’t exist for communion. The person giving the bread isn’t saying “will you eat this bread?” They’re just giving it.

Actually, no. They say, “The Body of Christ.” The person receiving it says, “Amen,” to indicate their agreement with that proposition. The person distributing communiion does not hand it out absent that exchange.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

The only point I’m trying to correct here, though, is the sense that the communicant owned the bread, free and clear, to do with as he pleased the moment it was handed to him.

You have not corrected that. You have not demonstarted that any binding conditions exist. You cannot claim terms exist when the recipient has not been made aware of, or agreed to any terms.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Actually, no. They say, “The Body of Christ.” The person receiving it says, “Amen,” to indicate their agreement with that proposition. The person distributing communiion does not hand it out absent that exchange.

I know what they say. This does not amount to a question or a condition.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Perhaps.

But the missal’s instructions are usually very clear – not on this specific point, but on the general point that unless you are a Roman Catholic, you may not even take communion.

You haven’t demonstrated that Cook was given a missal, that the missal contained any such conditions, that a missal would consitute any kind of legally binding agreement or that Cook would have known he should read it.

I’ve been to a great number of Catholic masses. I still go with my wife and kids occasionally. I don’t recall ever having been handed such instructions. It’s possible that they are sitting on a table at the door or something, but if they are, I’ve never notice or taken one.

And this kid wasn’t even in a church, but a student union.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Actually, no. They say, “The Body of Christ.” The person receiving it says, “Amen,” to indicate their agreement with that proposition. The person distributing communiion does not hand it out absent that exchange.

Interesting. I had no idea that “amen” meant any such thing. I thought it was the relatively rote signal that some religious exchange was concluded. Sort of like an ecclesiastical 10-4.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

He wasn’t in a church, and you know this is a stretch. Cite that he was given a missile? Cite that it spelled out conditions for receiving communion. Cite that he read it or was give any idea that he should read it?

You don’t have an agreement here. No contract, no terms or conditions. Nothing.

One admission from my end, after some reading (which perhaps I should have done first). The Mass was held in a room of the UCF Student Union, which makes it much less likely that missals were present.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Interesting. I had no idea that “amen” meant any such thing. I thought it was the relatively rote signal that some religious exchange was concluded.

“Amen: used to express solemn ratification (as of an expression of faith) or hearty approval (as of an assertion).”

From here.

[Cumberdale]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You haven’t demonstrated that Cook was given a missal, that the missal contained any such conditions, that a missal would consitute any kind of legally binding agreement or that Cook would have known he should read it.

I’ve been to a great number of Catholic masses. I still go with my wife and kids occasionally. I don’t recall ever having been handed such instructions. It’s possible that they are sitting on a table at the door or something, but if they are, I’ve never notice or taken one.

And this kid wasn’t even in a church, but a student union.

I grew up Catholic and wasn’t aware of all the rules regarding communion. I only knew that non Catholics couldn’t take it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@TravisFromOR

You’re forgetting about the Missal, where it is clear that non-Catholics are not invited to participate in Communion.

What missal? Prove there was a missal? Prove it had such instructions. Why is it that I’ve never been given one of those things in all the times I’ve attended catholic masses? I have seen programs, but I have never seen anything with these allegedly explicit instructions. If they exist, I know for a fact they aren’t ubiquitous, so why are we leaping to accept Bricker’s purely hypothetical missal as some sort of proven fact?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You haven’t demonstrated that Cook was given a missal, that the missal contained any such conditions, that a missal would consitute any kind of legally binding agreement or that Cook would have known he should read it.

I’ve been to a great number of Catholic masses. I still go with my wife and kids occasionally. I don’t recall ever having been handed such instructions. It’s possible that they are sitting on a table at the door or something, but if they are, I’ve never notice or taken one.

And this kid wasn’t even in a church, but a student union.

Agreed.

Except for your continued fixation on a legally binding agreement. You seem to believe that a conditional gift can’t exist unless the giver and the recipient both explicitly agree that the gift is given and received with conditions.

That’s not true.