This thread has turned into the lamest of all the Diogenes bashings I’ve read over the months. “Dio said that something was only called something and I’ve found that it’s sometimes called something else. Dio was wrong, neener, neener, neener.” I guess there’s no chance this thread will get back on topic.
What do you think a cracker is?
Communion bread is matzo. Matzo is a cracker.
Dial it way back.
You are out of line with the insults.
[ /Moderating ]
Those were exact, direct quotes.
I DON’T know what you mean, actually. No one is claiming that the communion is invalidated, that’s not at all what this is about. The point is that desecrating the Eucharist is desecrating the Real Presence, the Body of Christ. If you seriously think any Catholic in the world would make the argument that it was invalidating everyone’s communion, then you don’t know the first thing about Catholicism.
OK, well that’s all your opinion and you’re welcome to it, but it’s also a completely different issue from what I’ve been discussing.
Whatever, it doesn’t matter. x-ray vision said that the Wikipedia page didn’t say that the cracker could be referred to as “eucharist,” and that’s because they called it “leavened or unleavened bread” instead of a “cracker.” If you’re going to use the wrong terminology, then you shouldn’t be surprised when you don’t see it on the Wikipedia page.
If it makes them happy, I’ll concede that I was mistaken that a single wafer is never referred to by the word “eucharist.” I don’t know how that actually has any bearing on the real topic of discussion, though. My intent was only to make a semantic correction about somebody “taking a eucharist.” That side argument about nomenclature does not have any actual bearing on anything, though. I wasn’t saying, one wafer is not “a eucharist” THEREFORE, anything. The spiritual status of the wafer makes no difference to me since I think it’s all imaginary anyway.
I expect the believers are happy; now they get to argue over word definitions instead of trying to justify religious thuggery and the sanctity of magic food products.
No one need humor anyone’s beliefs, if by that you mean someone can go about their normal business unconcerned if that activity offends someone. If someone believes that walking down the street on a sunny day is an offense to their god, that’s too bad. I’m still going to walk down the street.
This is another thing entirely. It’s a person deliberately going out of his way to intrude upon a ceremony that others hold sacred, so that he could knowingly subject the Eucharist to an act that those people would find a great offense. And he did so understanding fully that the host is offered under certain conditions, ones that he went out of his way to ignore. So he is an asshole and a provocateur, and arguably he is at odds with the legal notion of conditional gifts. There is simply no reasonable argument to be made that this nitwit simultaneously could believe (1) that Catholics consider the host sacred (clearly he did, since that’s the sentiment he intended to exploit), and (2) that these same Catholics would have willingly given him a consecrated host had they know what he intended to do with it.
Rail against the intrusion of religious beliefs into society–fine. That’s not what this was. This was someone fucking around with people who weren’t bothering him at all. A complete asshole.
The bolded part was a point I was planning to make before this got sidetracked. Of COURSE he knew exactly what he was doing, I don’t care if he never saw a missalette in his life. If he didn’t know, he wouldn’t have done what he did in the first place. I agree, complete asshole.
Actually, while I would prefer to avoid this thread, entirely, your observation is not correct.
The communion wafer is clearly based on some Christian traditions regarding the association of the unleavened bread of Passover and the Last Supper, however communion wafers are not prepared or baked in exactly the same way that matzah is produced and there is a difference between the two. Matzah is very definitely “cracker like” in its thickness and brittle consistency. The wafers are generally thinner and are not nearly as brittle. I am not offended that the communion wafer is called a cracker, (sticks and stones and yanking chains for the fun of it and all that), but I have never encountered a communion wafer that would match my definition of a cracker.
This:
represents exact quotes? From what post.
To me that’s exactly what it’s about.
You are free to believe that, but nobody else has to humor it.
I DON’T think they would say that which is exactly why I said “I don’t think the entire eucharist would be considered to be desecrated.” I’m not sure we’re really hearing each other here. My entire point was that it didn’t interefer with, or “desecrate” anyone else’s sacrament.
I think we’re talking past each other because you appear to be inferring things from my posts that I wasn’t trying to imply. If no one communion is compromised, ivalidated or “desecrated”, and no attempt is made to disrupt a mass or harrass anybody, then I don’t see an injury. Sure, they think that somebody who takes a wafer home is desecrating the body of Christ, but so what? I say that desecration is occurring only in their own imaginations and it would be ridiculus to call it a “hate crime.” I reject the contention that it harms anybody at all.
I guess I was confused because no one said that it did.
Well, certainly it’s not going to kill anyone. But I think it’s fairly depraved to treat a culture’s sacred objects with disrespect. This is the kind of thing that leads to the destruction of cultures, which is one of the great evils humans perpetuate on one another.
They are both baked flour and water. The ony difference is that matzo crackers are pricked to make them more cripsy. It’s true that communion wafers are usually not overly crispy (though they are supposed to at least be brittle enough to break). People can decide for themselves whether this is a meaningful difference, but supposedly, Passover Mazo is exactly what Jesus used at the last supper.
I was responding to him insulting me by specifically calling me a hypocrite.
When a Catholic goes to communion the priest says’s “the Body of Christ”, then the person recieving it says, “amen”,meaning, “I agree”. I have heard this in many RC churches over the years when people go to recieve communion. That is why only Catholics who have made first communion should go, and are taught how to recieve it!
To a RC the bread becomes the Eucharist when consecrated and “IS” the body of Christ, so one would not say 'A" body of Christ, they believe it is no longer bread but truly the Body of Jesus, so one wouldn’t say “a” Body of Jesus. Because neither you or I believe it is,we should not worry about what a believer thinks, just respect their right to believe!
It could be just like a parent has a drawing of something the child has drawn,it may tell us something and it looks different to us,why insult the child. Or why insult someone’s beliefs, as long as they don’t harm us?
I can back you up on this as well, I once worked for a Catholic priest and he said,“If I get any calls, when i am gone, tell them I will be back as soon as I can after I bring the Eucharist to an ill parishioner”.
That’s been the sum total of the evidence offered by everyone in this ridiculous thread. Even Bricker’s legal expertise was “here’s a legal concept, therefore it applies to this situation.” Even better have been “A Facebook page fails to say…” and “There’s some guy on the web with a blog whose opinion supports my position!”
No, Bricker offered a specific legal concept, and the cites to explain it, and an explanation for how it could arguably apply. That doesn’t make it authoritative and conclusive, but it is certainly more substantial than an endless repetition of, “Uh uh. I’m right.”
And frankly, it’s ridiculous on its face to argue that that nitwit didn’t know full well that he was taking something on false pretenses, an offering that would never have been made if he had made known he did not accept the conditions associated with the offering. Bricker’s argument seems completely consistent with the situation. But if it seems less than convincing to you, the preferred method of responding in this particular forum is to show why his logic is flawed, especially since he offered the particulars that would enable someone to make a focused response. “Nope, I’m right” doesn’t cut it.
I’m aware of the words. I was asking for a cite that thy indicate that the recipient undertstands he is necessarily expected to consume it on the spot, or that he knows he is agreeing not to carry it back to his seat before he eats it.