Atheist professor desecrates stolen Host (now know it came from London Oratory & kept with condom)

Catholic Herald ^ | August 1, 2008 | Anna Arco

[NYer]

Priests at the London Oratory have called for prayers of reparation after a consecrated Host was allegedly stolen during High Mass and desecrated by an atheist professor in America.

Several priests have celebrated Masses of reparation this week responding to a video posted on the internet of a young man taking the Host and later placing it next to a condom, claiming he was holding it "hostage" inside the prophylactic until the Pope changed his policy on contraception in light of Africa's Aids epidemic.

An evening of reparation with Mass and Adoration with prayers, litanies and silent meditation is planned for next Wednesday. Oratorians have also called on the faithful to make personal acts of reparation this week and next "for all the outrages against the Blessed Sacrament around the world".

"Close observation of the film and of the facts seems to suggest that this is not an elaborate hoax, but depicts something that really occurred," said the e-mail asking people to make acts of reparation. It also asked people to pray for "the conversion of the culprits, that they will answer God's call to repentance and open their hearts to receive His forgiveness".

The incident took place during the Oratory's High Mass on July 13 and was posted on the internet soon after. It said: "The Catholic Church forfeits all rights to respect for its ludicrous beliefs, including 'transubstantiation', while its anti-condom campaign in Africa results in tens of thousands of deaths."

It further said: "Just because you believe that the cracker has some special significance doesn't mean that I have to respect that ridiculous belief. I think the moral cost of disrespecting a cracker is a lot less than the moral cost of disrespecting human life; a concept that should be more important to you people."

A follow-up link to the video claimed that the young man had sent the host to Paul Myers, an atheist professor at the University of Minnesota who is thought to have further desecrated the Host by piercing it with a rusty nail and throwing it in the bin. In a post on his blog, dated July 24, Prof Myers wrote: "I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus's tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffee grounds and a banana peel. My apologies to those who hoped for more, but the worst I can do is show my unconcerned contempt."

Prof Myers caused controversy earlier in July when he called a "Eucharist challenge" in which he incited people to steal consecrated Hosts from Catholic churches and send them to him so that he can desecrate them.

He wrote: "Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them - my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure - but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the Pope in the ---s, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart."

His words followed a theft of a Host in Florida earlier this year which had American Catholics up in arms.

As a result of July's alleged theft and desecration of the Eucharist, priests at the London Oratory are urging worshipers to be vigilant at Mass and to receive Communion on the tongue. Communion plates have started being used at certain Masses again.

[tiki]

Who knows, this act of extreme hatred and immaturity may actually save him from that consequence, God can bring good from bad and Jesus can save him.

[svcw]

Mrs. Don you are absolutely correct.

[tiki]

I have to add though that God has His work cut out for Him.

[woollyone]

“You assume way too much in your belief...”

You say that He meant that the bread “is” His body.
My question to you...WAS it His body?
Obvious answer to any thinking person is...no...it was bread!

He took the BREAD and giving thanks He broke it...the bread...not his body.

So if it was His body, why does Scripture, not state that He took His body and after giving thanks broke it, sayign this is my body.

Be careful how you selectively parse.

His body was the hand that held the bread...not the actual bread.

You obiously don’t know my belief at all and your attempted ancient language lesson is unnecessary. But, FWIW what is the Aramaic for “is”? And what is the Aramaic for “signifies”, “represents”, “stands for”?

I’ll bet you’ll take at least one hour of googling to try to explain the verb tense of the original Arimaic, becaus eyou do not know the language and are merely parroting what you’ve been told.

You typed...”Further, as God, He certainly knew on that night of Holy Thursday, when the Eucharist was instituted, that His Church would have an uninterrupted, literal viewpoint on the matter, and that it would be 1500 years”

Unmitigated assumption on your graniose part sir..dontcha think!?! Can you support with scripture how you know what God was thinking in the context of your huge unsubstantiates straw man comment? No. because th scripture does nto support your assumptions.

..obviously discussing the matter with you will be fruitless and neither of us will budge.

best wishes

[magisterium]

Because self-mayhem is a sin, for starters, and He certainly doesn't want us emluating that! More importantly, He wants us tio come to Him by faith, right? Well, then...it takes faith to believe that what appears to be bread and wine is actually His Body and Blood.

No Catholic claims that transubstantiation is readily discernable for what it is to the mere casual gaze. It takes faith. Yet that faith is not groundless, if one believes His words in Scripture, and understands what the Church itself saw in these words from the very beginning. Again, as I stated earlier, no Christian body denied any of this until 1500 years after Christ ordered that that "ceremony" involving bread and wine be done repeatedly after His ascension.

If He were God, and wanted it to be otherwise, he certainly knew what was to happen regarding His future Church's "misconstrual" of His intent, and could have forstalled it by using clearer language at both the institution of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday and the Bread of Life speech in John 6. Yet, He did not do anything like that. Why? Well, perhaps because, in spite of "appearances," the bread and wine you see actually are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after all!

It takes a special arrogance for some Christians to remake the Eucharist into something totally different from what had been done for 1500 years without protest, and then claim that they have the scoop on Christ's original intent! Especially if one supposes that, as God, He knew the future and could see what would happen to His intentions concerning the Eucharist. If what happened was not His intention, He could have ensured that things happened differently. He did not. Because what the Church did - from the beginning - was and is what He intended! Think it through.

[magisterium]

Well, I do not claim to speak Aramaic, but I did attend the Maronite Rite more than a few times. I know several priests from their rite reasonably well, enough to talk to about this and other subjects. They use Aramaic in their liturgy, and repeat verbatim the words of Christ at the consecration. “Den hu guffi” is “This is my Body” in their liturgy. I do not know how to say “represents,” “signifies” etc. in Aramaic. But The Maronite priests I know, who are conversant or better with Aramaic, all assure me that those words exist in the language. Perhaps NYer, who attends the Maronite liturgy all the time, can help us our here. In any case, you lay yourself wide open. The Aramaic says what it says, and it is only a matter of time before you stumble on the literal translation of the words. I encourage you to do so. And try, yourself, to find words meaning “signify,” “represent,” etc. I am already comfortable that, based on sources familiar with the language with whom I have spoken, Jesus had those options linguistically, and “is” in Aramaic has the same connotation as in English. In either language, it derives from “to be.” That speaks to essences. Essences are not figurative.

And there is always the fact that no one thought differently than what the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe on the subject to fall back on! 1500 years is a long time for everyone to get it "wrong" before someone finally "corrected" the universally held "mistake." Jesus would never have instituted the Eucharist at all if, from the get-go, it would be as grossly misinterpreted as you imagine. God is not the Author of confusion. Men are. Inventing novel interpretations of things heretofore "always and everywhere done" in obedience to God's instigation is a hallmark of man's propensity for confusion.

[Diamond]

Look at it this way: Jesus had options in Aramaic when, in instituting the Eucharist, He said: "This is,/i> My Body" and "This is my blood." If he meant this to be figurative, He could have readily indicated such by avoiding the word "is." "Signifies," "represents," "stands for" and others all have Aramaic equivalents. Yet He chose not to use any of them.

I don't get the force of that argument. Except for those few instances where the N.T. writers record an Aramaic expression of Jesus, and then translate it into Greek, (the aforementioned occasion not being one of those few instances) how do you have the slightest idea whether or what Jesus said in Aramaic? Even in the few instances where an Aramaic expression is used and then translated into Greek, the N.T. writers never specifically reveal what language Jesus was using. Why not?

Maybe they expected their readers to know what language was being spoken, whether Aramaic or Greek. Or maybe Jesus spoke in Greek and they were recording their message in the same language in which Jesus spoke. But if they were recording their story in Greek, knowing that Jesus spoke most of his message in Aramaic, then why did they not regard it as essential to let the reader to know what Jesus' original language was, and what his original words were? If it was not essential to them, why does your argument, at least on this point, hinge on it?

Cordially,

[A.A. Cunningham]

Had you been present, you no doubt would have been one of those who walked away in John 6.

[woollyone]

“Well, I do not claim to speak Aramaic, but I did attend the Maronite Rite more than a few times...”

And I stayed a Holiday Inn Express a few times.
So what?

So you admit that you do not know the original Aramaic, or Koine Greek to be able to claim expertise on the importance of the language used. In any language, such things as usage, tense, and possession are paramount.

Thank you for being candid in admitting your inability claim the things you claimed.

Have a nice day.

[magisterium]

As I invited you to do, look into it yourself, then. I am confident regarding what you'll find. How many speakers of Aramaic do you know?

[Thorin]

Aramaic is hardly central to the argument, since Greek also has words that could have been used to indicate Jesus’ words at the Last Supper were merely symbolic.

[magisterium]

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek. This, according to many linguists, is borne out in the many Aramaicisms in the Koine structure of Matthew's Gospel. The Greek translation would be presumed to keep the Aramaic flavor of the original. Therefore, the “estin” in Matthew 26:26 preserves the Aramaic original as well. Certainly, both Greek and Aramaic had words for “represents” and its synonyms. Since Matthew's Gospel uses “is” by way of translation, and the other Gospel accounts of the Last Supper use “is” as well, it should be up to those who determine that it's all figurative to prove their case. “Is,” in any language, derives from “being.” Except in colloquialisms or deliberate hyperbole, it seldom can be shown to deviate from this. Clearly, it would seem unlikely that Jesus, as God, omniscient, would perceive the future confusion inherent in His use of unnecessary hyperbole, and then proceed to use unintended literalness or hyperbole anyway. One can draw certain conclusions from that. God's providence for the Church He established to “teach all nations” should be presumed. In faith, of course! ;-)

[nina0113]

The biggest obstacle is pride. Once you for the habit of receiving on the tongue, you will experience a more profound union with our Lord. Ask Him to strengthen your humility.

I've always received on the tongue, but it was out of fear of my own klutziness, rather than humility. I once almost took out a whole ciborium, tripping when curtseying down to receive from a miniature EEM (there oughta be a rule: you must be this tall to distribute the Eucharist). That was years ago & it still gives me chills. Once a priest dropped the Host he was giving me (not used to people receiving on the tongue, I guess) and it caught in the bobbles of my sweater. I picked it up & consumed it. I guess technically I wasn't supposed to do that, but better that than to have him handling my bust to retrieve it, or to let it fall all the way to the floor.

[the invisib1e hand]

Is there such a thing as a holy @ss-kicking?

[RobbyS]

The true atheism is a kind of indifference, or apathy. The haters are like children who throw tantrums. We Christians who act as if God didn't exist are going in the same direction less dramatically.

[RobbyS]

The true atheism is a kind of indifference, or apathy. The haters are like children who throw tantrums. We Christians who act as if God didn't exist are going in the same direction less dramatically.

[flaglady47]

Well, this is one way of getting rid of the policy of communion in the hand. Won’t be surprised if the Catholic Church goes back to the original only in the mouth practice very soon. About one or two more stolen and desecrated wafers should do it. So, something good will come out of something bad.

[IbJensen]

It appears that bishoprics, at least in America, are rather like loosely supervised franchises!

The Roman Catholic Church isn't 'catholic' today. When traveling to the various states and in foreign countries it is impossible to understand what exactly is going on.

Back in the pre-Vatican II days one always knew what was happening.

[Diamond]

Aramaic is hardly central to the argument...

Exactly. That's why I don't get the force of an argument from Aramaic.

...since Greek also has words that could have been used to indicate Jesus’ words at the Last Supper were merely symbolic.

No one says that Jesus' words were "merely symbolic." It was not Jesus' words that were the symbols. Aside from that, everyone concedes that "is", is the substantive verb used. No one disputes it. If you want to adhere to the strict meaning of the words in this particular instance, (I would expect the same consistency elsewhere) so as to exclude by some grammatical rule a metonymical understanding of the expression, then I can't think of anything more alien from the strict meaing of the term is, than using it for being converted into something else, which, as far as I can tell is unknown to Greek or Aramaic, not to mention any other language.

As to the symbols themselves, of bread and wine, I agree with Augustine, et al, that the expression that Jesus used here, which is uniformly used in Scripture when the sacred mysteries are spoken of, is metonymical; iow, the name of the visible sign is given to the thing signified. Augustine says,

"“Had not the sacraments a certain resemblance to the things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. And from this resemblance, they generally have the names of the things themselves. This, as the sacrament of the body of Christ, is, after a certain manner, the body of Christ, and the sacrament of Christ is the blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith is faith” (August. Ep. 23, ad Bonifac.)

"The Lord hesitated not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign" (Cont. Adimant. Manich. cap. 12).

"Wonderful was the patience of Christ in admitting Judas to the feast, in which he committed and delivered to the disciples the symbol of his body and blood” (August. in. Ps. 3).
[emphasis mine}

Cordially,

[Thorin]

St. Augustine believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist: http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=122