On July 11 2008 04:28 Ryot wrote: Personally I think the Church is taking this too seriously. Now I know these crackers have symbolic importance, but then I wonder, why eat them? If it's the body of Christ, does that not represent cannibalism? And symbolism aside, it is after all, just a cracker.
I'm curious to hear your opinions on the matter.
For Catholics, there is neither any symbolism or physical change involved.
What do you mean? Could you elaborate on your thinking please?
I can't really. My understanding of transubstantiation is not very good. You had best ask a Catholic who knows his or her faith.
Ok well in short, Catholics believe there is a physical change involved. The bread and wine is changed to the body/blood of Christ.
My understanding is that while the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ respectively, they become more than that; they become the totality of Christ. And given that the Church has never, as far as I know, claimed that an empirically observable change occurs, "physical" is not a word that I would use.
Not necessarily true. This whole idea came about when the Romans not knowing anything about Christians used to think that they, referring to this ritual, meant that they were cannibals and that late night mass was actually a cover for having orgies. Since then, some people have taken that Roman idea serious and said that the transformation of the bread and wine is true. This is called the belief of Transubstantiation where the substance literately changes.
If by "some Catholics" you mean Pope John Paul II who oversaw the writing of The Catechism of the Catholic Church which is pretty much the reference used for figuring out exactly what Catholics believe in, then yeah I would agree.
Still though maybe I am making a mistake with the phrase "physical change" which brings me back to my question. What is the difference between "physical change" and "change of substance"?
@MindCrime: OK so "physical change" would mean that like you can actually see it changing. Noticing it with just your eyes? T.T sorry.
On July 11 2008 05:12 Funchucks wrote: The Catholics don't believe it is a physical change, they believe it is a substantial change, a change of substance, of the true nature of the thing. They don't believe that Jesus is physically present, but that he is still present in a real way.
If you try to wrap your mind around that based on a scientific view of the world, it won't make any sense to you. There is a whole philosophical structure of reality you have to accept before their explanation makes sense.
I'm not understanding something then. What's the difference between a physical change and a change of substance?
It's like I said: it is a change in the true nature of the thing.
Let's say you find a bullet. Later you discover it was the last bullet fired in WW II. You can't tell that by physically examining it. There is nothing in its physical form that makes it a historical artifact. Another identical lump of lead might not even be a bullet, it might be a damaged fishing weight. Despite being physically identical in every way, one is a bullet, and one is not. One is a historical artifact, and the other is not.
A thing has "substance" - it's true nature - and it has "accidents" - physical qualities which do not determine its true nature.
If you can understand why one painting is the real original, and another is only a perfect counterfeit, then you can understand the concept behind the claim that one wafer is the body of Christ, and another is only a cracker.
Thanks explaining it like that was awesome. I do admit for being a native speaker my English is horrible. I get caught up on phrases/words that many other people would roll right over understanding perfectly.
These uses of "substance" and "accident" are philsophical jargon. They mean different things than the words are ordinarily used for, so it's not really a matter of understanding English. I had to look things up to understand it, myself.
Yes, many religious practices are silly. We get it. Haha!
Now we just need an Indiana Jones scene where our hero is chased out of a gothic cathedral by angry spear-wielding parishoners, clutching his sacred wafer and dodging darts shot out of gargoyles.
That definitely would've been better than the Crystal Skulls.
On July 11 2008 05:56 Funchucks wrote: These uses of "substance" and "accident" are philsophical jargon. They mean different things than the words are ordinarily used for, so it's not really a matter of understanding English. I had to look things up to understand it, myself.
Well I mean also in general I have a pretty small vocabulary, at least compared to other people. I often feel limited with words and I am fairly certain this is another one of those cases.
If there was no purge, this could have turned into a pun thread . Personally, I don't understand why he took it in the first place. "To show his friend" yeah right. His friend doesn't get one himself?
Also, if he put it in his mouth, it would get soggy, and then he was going to take it out of his mouth to show his friend? Nasty.
Anyways, I think what the kid did was dumb and he shouldn't have done it, but the analogy of the wafer to "if they kidnapped somebody" is kind of false. http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm " Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property. " They are both said to be kidnapped objects of importance, however, one is a living object and has emotional attachment to many others, while the other is an inanimate object that is to be consumed but is of symbolic importance to a religious affiliation. The living object can experience trauma as a result of the kidnapping, whereas the inanimate object cannot.
I wonder, if he went to church and ate it, if it would resolve everything?
Everyone has their own beliefs and idiosyncrasies. I don't antagonize the people who read Harry Potty, I just ignore anything they say and assume they're stupid. It's the same thing with religion. Cook is a gigantic duechebag and if he was anything more than an incompetent lout with a very bleak future he would write a sincere apology and give back the cracker.
As for those crazy Catholics being childish. Tell me what your reaction would be if someone stole the body of fucking God from you? I'd kill the guy. I submit that these people aren't Catholics, but Jews pretending to be Catholics to give them a bad name. Fucking Jews.
On July 11 2008 05:59 ydg wrote: Also, if he put it in his mouth, it would get soggy, and then he was going to take it out of his mouth to show his friend? Nasty.
"I'm gonna make it so dry for the body of Jesus! It's gonna be like a mouthful of sand!"
On July 11 2008 06:09 pirate cod wrote: I submit that these people aren't Catholics, but Jews pretending to be Catholics to give them a bad name. Fucking Jews.
lol, queue public outrage for criticizing a religion other than Catholicism. And please, it's a host.
No, no you're not. This will turn into a religion bashing thread asap. This is of course an absurd story that happened in a backwater Florida town. We can laugh but really this is going nowhere. I love how you alluded to the age old claim that Catholics are canibals and whether or not the cracker has symbolic importance
No, no you're not. This will turn into a religion bashing thread asap. This is of course an absurd story that happened in a backwater Florida town. We can laugh but really this is going nowhere. I love how you alluded to the age old claim that Catholics are canibals and whether or not the cracker has symbolic importance
sigh
Or he is and your just bitchy.
Obviously they are taking it too seriously but religious suicide bombers do exist in this world so does it really surprise you? I don't know why they care so much about an individual "host" but really you can only get them from a church, they are kept in a golden tabernacle, each and everyone of them is blessed by a person of God. In religion is this the biggest deal you can get.
Why is it a big deal to burn a flag, but not a tablecloth? It's just fabric right? Or is it what that fabric represents. Anyone care to enlighten me? INCCCC?
*you're
No, I am not "bitchy." Nothing in my post was bitchy and you asserting as much is rather annoying. It'd be like me generalizing your post as "flamingly homoerotic" when it probably wasn't... just an annoying accusation.
Comparing this news report you probably didn't read to suicide bombers is laughable. I won't really go any further with that. Not all religious threads need to be equated to the very most extreme example of religious "importance" (zealots that kill people). And you are making an epic point at the conclusion honestly.. I think the idea of symbolism deserves much discussion. Really I do. I think we should discuss such deep topics like why does a four leaf clover hold so much respect in Ireland? Or why is it we take our hats off during the national anthem.. wow.. the possibilities.
Zealots alway kill my marines. I hate zealots!
And yes bring up suicide bomber here is pretty uncool. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, I'd say suicide bombers are pretty rare in religious circles.
Maybe I'm not understanding something here, but it seems clear to me.
Metaphor. Now go back and read the passage. Suddenly it doesn't need to be the intestines of jesus to work! Good job contextual reading.
If by "some Catholics" you mean Pope John Paul II who oversaw the writing of The Catechism of the Catholic Church which is pretty much the reference used for figuring out exactly what Catholics believe in, then yeah I would agree.
I can't talk for the late Pope, but I know for certain that the head of the jesuit order (ie. The black pope) did not hold the view that it became a literal part of the body of christ.
Additionally; its not a cracker. Its called the host. If you went and started stealing menorahs from synagogues during passover, then saying "WHAT ITS ONLY A CANDLE STICK" you'd probably get a similar outrage, and people who knew nothing about judaism would probably go "rofl they're so angry over candles, dum morans".
The host is not supposed to be given out to anyone until they've taken their confirmation, and its not a light deal. If you're a kid who goes to church, baptized and everything, yet haven't been confirmed because you aren't old enough to consent, you don't get it. You can go and recieve a blessing during communion if you aren't supposed to take a host, normally by crossing your hands over your chest. Either way, walking into a church, taking a blessed host, then leaving was CLEARLY designed to be incindiary. You can buy unblessed hosts from many sources, and you can likely just ask the priest to give you one if you wanted to show your friends.
If the kid really wanted to show his friend the bread/host, he could have just asked the priest out of mass for a piece of it. This isn't disrespectful in any way because at that point, it's just bread. It isn't until the bread undergoes transubstantiation during mass that it become the body of Christ. Then it's disrespectful to take it and leave.
I don't know how old the kid was so I don't know if it was willful neglect or innocent misunderstanding.
If the kid really wanted to show his friend the bread/host, he could have just asked the priest out of mass for a piece of it. This isn't disrespectful in any way because at that point, it's just bread. It isn't until the bread undergoes transubstantiation during mass that it become the body of Christ. Then it's disrespectful to take it and leave.
This pretty much sums it all up.
It was wrong of the kid to do, and disrespectful to the church. After Transubstantiation, the host doesn't physically take on the properties of human flesh, but it does spiritually become the body of Christ.
For those of you who have not attended Catholic mass, it must be really difficult to understand the situation. The priest overreacted, whatever. Priests are humans too and are just as fallible as you or me.
The host is not supposed to be given out to anyone until they've taken their confirmation, and its not a light deal. If you're a kid who goes to church, baptized and everything, yet haven't been confirmed because you aren't old enough to consent, you don't get it. You can go and recieve a blessing during communion if you aren't supposed to take a host, normally by crossing your hands over your chest. Either way, walking into a church, taking a blessed host, then leaving was CLEARLY designed to be incindiary. You can buy unblessed hosts from many sources, and you can likely just ask the priest to give you one if you wanted to show your friends.
I hate to nitpick but you actually don't need to be confirmed to receive the host. The first communion ceremony is different from confirmation and happens earlier than confirmation.
Though maybe that's just Roman Catholicism, heh. Apparently it's different in eastern catholic churches, and differs from country to country so nevermind. =)
EPT
.
