Posted on 07/08/2008 7:02:41 AM PDT by NYer
Orange County, FL -- One week after a University of Central Florida student snatched something sacred from church, armed UCF police officers stood guard during Sunday Mass to protect what Catholics call "The Body of Christ."
Minutes before the Mass began, Student Senator Webster Cook returned the Holy Eucharist he was holding hostage in a Ziploc bag ever since smuggling the blessed wafer of bread out of the Catholic Mass service Sunday June 29.
Carol Brinati with the Diocese of Orlando said the Catholic community was "concerned about the possible desecration of the Eucharist," and pleaded for its safe return.
Cook, who was raised Catholic, said he decided to bring the Eucharist home after a church leader tried to physically pry it from his hand. Cook broke Church rules by failing to consume it immediately during communion and then removing it from his mouth once seated.
Cook said he just wanted to show the Eucharist to a friend he brought with questions about Catholicism before consuming it. But outraged Catholics across the globe didn’t believe him and suspected he intended all along to steal the Eucharist and bloggers sent out e-mail messages damning him to Hell.
"I am returning the Eucharist to you in response to the e-mails I have received from Catholics in the UCF community," Cook wrote in a letter to the church. "I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation."
Cook said some threatened to break into his dorm room to rescue the Eucharist. Brinati said the Diocese of Orlando didn't condone those threats, but was happy Cook had a change of heart and returned it.
"We've been praying about that," she said.
It's still not clear if the controversy is over. There is no word yet if either the Catholic students or Cook will drop their separate complaints filed against each other with UCF's student court. The violations each side accused the other of could result in suspension or expulsion. Cook still disagrees with the more than $40,000 in student funds distributed annually to support Catholic and other religious groups on campus, but seemed conciliatory in his letter.
"I want to thank the individuals who explained the emotional and spiritual pain my possession of the Eucharist caused them to experience," he wrote. "They have demonstrated that the use [of] reason is more effective than the use of force."
Cook said he still hopes to meet with the local Bishop to discuss prohibiting the use of force to recover the Eucharist. He also wants an apology.
I thought this was from The Onion as I was reading it. Sounds pretty silly. Thank God for the Reformation.
Sorry. no citation needed by me. It is your outrageous claim that needs citation that the rcc is that established by the HS.
Sun sets every night. Rises again the next day.
The examples you give of “desecration” don’t work. Here’s why. The satanic symbols can be painted over. There is no “sanctuary” since the meeting building is no “temple.” Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. An individual can desecrate his own body, but I don’t take “offense” at that since he is answerable to God, not me.
Why do you need Him in flesh and blood?
* (the earlier ones) were taught personally by the Apostles or were taught by those who were taught personally by the Apostles.
* Were appointed bishops and priests in the understanding that the Catholics and Orthodox have them both before and after Christianity was legal
* Discussed and compiled the Canon of Scripture.
* Were persecuted and/or martyred for believing what Catholics and Orthodox do to this day.
Ahh....perseverance of the saints!
You’re not proving your case here GCC. John 6 really deals less with ‘understanding’ and more with ‘accepting’. To Peter’s credit, the the HS hadn’t yet done His work at Pentecost....yet Peter accepted Chrsit’s statement through the preserving power of the Lord.
rcc did not compile the books that were later canonized by it. Those books were widely used in whole by Christendom before canonization. the cult rcc just made it official AND to boot....included as scripture’ in the OT....books that the Jews NEVER considered scripture.
Took Martin Luther to fix that usurpation.
But had Christ explained what it meant, there really would not have been anything of significance to accept. What was it about this statement that was so problematic, much more than the comparisons to the vine, the door, the good shepherd, the gate, the path and the like that it required St. Peter and the other Apostles to accept it contrary to both reason and the Jewish Scripture?
I’ll take the points. Just so you understand about publicly mocking Catholics.
I see we haven't met, have we?
“Irving’s Law” is a fraud designed to stifle critique of anti-Catholic hate.
So you're saying I should have awarded the points to griffin instead?
Actually, it did. Although there was some debate that lasted even until the Council of Trent, by and large it was agreed by the time of the Council of Carthage, which was held by Christians who held the orthodox faith of the universal (catholic) Church. That universal Church is the precursor of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
AND to boot....included as scripture’ in the OT....books that the Jews NEVER considered scripture.
Those OT books were in the Septuagint, which was the set of Scriptures in common usage during Christ's lifetime. It was not until after the destruction of the Temple that those books rejected by Luther were rejected by the Jews (Jamnia c.90AD). And if you care to be consistent, the Jews rejected all of the Christian Gospels and Epistles at the same council.
I don't need Post-Pentecost Jews to choose my canon for me. I'll pass.
The commandment to turn another cheek applies when someone is attacking you. When someone is attacking Christ, His Saints, or His Church, we are to strike back because we love God and one another. Including the attacker, whose soul is perishing.
AMEN!
Not remotely true, not all “christian” churches believe in transubstantiation. In fact many don’t.. Presbyterian and other “reformed” churches flatly and openly not only deny transubstantiation but consider it rediculous, and believe that communion is nothing more than a commemorence of Christs death.
Of course though they don’t believe in it, they do require someone who has been ordained, and not a pastor in training to do the blessing over the bread and wine.. which to me makes no sense. If its nothing more than a rememberance, what does it matter the rank within the church of the person who performs the blessing?
I’ve had the “privilege” of watching the left over “blessed” bread being tossed back and forth by children trying to catch it in their mouths across a large room after service in a presbyterian service in a game.
Don’t kid yourself for one minute that ALL churches that claim to be Christian remotely believe in transubstantiation or an equivlant.
The Reformed tradition is less than 500 years old, and so per rogator's post at 20, would not be expected to believe in transubstantiation.
my bad, missed the limiting factor of being 1500 years old.
Sounds like a good time for me to get out of here. Have a good day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.