'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats

WFTV ^ | July 7, 2008

[Lilllabettt]

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.”

Faith and worship are deeply personal things.If a person belongs to a particular congregation and any of those examples happen, that person would most likely feel personally brutalized. Things can be painted over and sterilized, but the place where he or she experienced fellowship and the presence of God would likely remain violated in their mind.

Deliberate acts like this constitute real violence. This man took advantage of the community's good will to further his political agenda.

Because of his childish desire to make a scene and get attention, the community has lost its ability to worship with peace of mind. They feel the need to have armed gaurds posted so that their beliefs are respected in their own house

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.

You ought to take offense at any sin, first of all because it offends God, but also because it effects you. As far as Christians constitute the Body of Christ, one member's sins effects all the other members.

[Dan Middleton]

"The priesthood of Melchisidech has surpassed it, according to the Letter to the Hebrews."

Yes, a priesthood composed of all believers. Praise God!

[Dan Middleton]

"'Irving’s Law' is a fraud designed to stifle critique of anti-Catholic hate."

I'd say it's yet another example of Roman Catholics trying to make everybody else play by their rules. ;-)

Anyway...dodge criticism by invoking a made-up "law"...dodge criticism by automatically labeling it "hate" or "bigotry"...same difference, I'd say.

[Dan Middleton]

IN ANY CASE...

Set aside the issue of whether the bread really becomes the body of Christ for the moment. If one believes that God does, at some point, cause the wafer to take on the character of Christ’s real body...

...then He can certainly cause it to resume the character of ordinary bread if He desires as well.

All this outrage gives the punk in the story exactly what he wanted. The Roman Catholic Church should laugh at his ridiculous stunt.

[griffin]

“Actually, it did.”

[BUZZZ!]False answer!

Pre or post Pentecost....the apocryphal books were never part of the Hebrew scripture.

We're not talking about non-Messianic, Jewish opinion on NT. That is obvious. We're talking about catholic modification of the OT in spite of it being a Jewish compilation.

Funny how the catholics can criticize Luther for modifying the their canon, but feel fine about modifying the Jewish OT. Pretty hypocritical.

[visualops]

I don’t have time to read the whole thread, but I have emailed Fox to let them know how terribly wrong their article is about Catholic doctrine. Has any body else let them know the Eucharist isn’t a “religious icon” or “symbolic” of Christ, etc etc.

[Lilllabettt]

The Jewish canon wasn't finalized until a couple centuries AD.

It was only after the Lord's resurrection and the growth of the Christians that Jewish leadership decided to cut certain parts and pour cement over things.

The Protestant OT is Sanhedrin approved.

Yikes.

[DPMD]

Not interested.

[DPMD]

Excellent.

[GCC Catholic]

[BUZZZ!]False answer!

Because you say so?

the apocryphal books were never part of the Hebrew scripture.

Yes, they were, up until Jamnia. They were part of the Septuagint. It was not until Jamnia that the Jews had a "canon" to speak of. Until then, they used the books that were in the Septuagint, including those erroneously called 'apocryphal.'

We're not talking about non-Messianic, Jewish opinion on NT. That is obvious.

It is inconsistent to use the opinions of the Jews to judge the OT without using it to judge the NT. After the beginning of the Christian era, I don't much care about non-Messianic, Jewish opinion on the OT either.

We're talking about catholic modification of the OT in spite of it being a Jewish compilation.

No, we're not. See above.

[NYer]

However, as I said, I am not a Catholic, and to me, it is just a piece of bread that, when used in what we Baptists call 'the Lord's Supper', and others call the "Eucharist', symbolizes the body of Christ. So perhaps I see it differently from you.

Would you be so kind as to show me where in Scripture this is written. Thank you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Gold star for a reasonable, well-thought-out statement, culminating in:

"Decent human beings somehow find a way to respect other people's beliefs without endorsing their religion."

It's something I notice and appreciate.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Decent human beings somehow find a way to respect other people's beliefs without endorsing their religion"
"---Nonsense. When something is false, someone needs to point it out."

Ho, buddy! We do that day and night on the Tireless Freekin Squeekin Freepin Religion Forum. Nothing wrong with pointing out error.

The real savoir faire comes into play when you can do so without taking somebody else's sacred object under false pretenses (pretending to be a believer and a communicant), causing anguish and disgust amongst those with whom you are supposedly trying to communicate.

The student in question acted like a jerk, and ought to be overwhelmingly grateful if he gets off without criminal charges.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Why depict him at all?"

Point of information: do you believe the pictorial depiction of Jesus Christ is improper? Or pointless? Or possibly offensive? Please correct me if I am reading too much into this.

[Guyin4Os]

God gives all humans the free will to obey His rules or disobey them as they see fit. Disobeying them, however, is not without consequences.

Ok, but how is pocketing a wafer "disobeying God?" Its like when Jesus chided the Pharisees for tithing on dill, mint and cumin, but ignoring the weightier ordinances. The RCC gets in a tizzy about a college kid putting a wafer in a ziploc bag; but there are other much more important issues to address.. like how the church will pay the billions in settlements to catholic kids that have been molested by priests.

[Guyin4Os]

To give an extreme example what if someone was to leave a pile of steaming dog poop on your communion table or on the pulpit? Too bad you don’t have any sense of the sacred. I think Luther and Calvin would be shocked.

I would clean it up, bleach the table, and go ahead and serve the Lord's supper. I wouldn't consider it to be "desecrated." It is a thing.

[Guyin4Os]

Look, you clearly don't like the Roman Catholic Church. Fine. This thread is about the actions of a student at UCF who, not unlike like you, seems to dislike the Roman Catholic Church.

There are things about the RCC that I like and things about it that I dislike. But I do not view it as some infallible institution like some in here do. Such a view is untenable.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"This guy was given a piece of bread by catholics. They relinquished control of it"

That's not quite true. He obtained the host on the basis of falsehood, inasmich as he pretended to be a believer and a communicant, for the priest or EM wouldn't have given him the host otherwise.

An analogy might be a funeral of a soldier in which the mourners are given some token (a small American flag, a photograph of the soldier, or a flower) at the gravesite by the soldier's family. If a pretended mourner came and were given these objects, and then proceeded to burn them, smear with filth, or otherwise dishonor them--- saying that he was given the tokens, and the soldier's family had thereby relinquished control--- he should not expect to be held harmless.

[Guyin4Os]

Oh genius we worship the Triune God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To say otherwise is a lie. But I forget that is what many of you do best. Spread lies and infamy about Catholics. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh great, personal attacks... way to go.

[Guyin4Os]

AnAmericanMother,

I have a different understanding of the Lord's Supper than what the RCC teaches. He was leading his disciples in the passover supper. He was not saying that the bread was literally HIM. He was saying that the passover supper they had been eating for 1500 or so years was about HIM. It was a difficult statement to accept because he was exploding their limited understanding.