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.
"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107
“you are committing idolatry,
Well that college student ran off with your “miracle” then. :)
When something is false, someone needs to point it out.
because we don’t worship things. We worship God and His Son. “
I rest my case.
"For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:26-29
Read it again.
"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Timothy 4:14
By the way how much have you protestants paid for the behavior of these characters?
I find Christ ON the Cross still, to be an unfitting and negative focus quite uncalled for and more than a little cheekily insulting vis a vis His Resurrection.
Sounds like you have issues with St. Paul. You must be under the false impression that you get to pick and choose from Scripture.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Corinthians 1:23-24
"For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until He come." 1 Corinthians 11:26
I’m all for preaching Christ Crucified as our Sacrifice.
That’s different than an idolatrous object of metal, wood or whatever focusing on the wood, iron or whatever instead of focusing on
CHRIST LIFTED UP.
THE OBJECT, the man-made tangible object is
IS NOT CHRIST.
CHRIST LIFTED UP RENT THE 2’ THICK VEIL IN THE TEMPLE.
CHRIST LIFTED UP CAUSED THE SUN TO BLACKEN FOR HOURS.
CHRIST LIFTED UP CAUSED THE EARTH TO QUAKE MIGHTILY.
CHRIST LIFTED UP CAUSED THE ROMAN SOLDIERS TO SAY—THIS WAS THE SON OF GOD.
The crucifix objects in congregation buildings are dust collecters.
And Scripturally forbidden.
“A real and serious question, not a Catholic bash, even though I am a Protestant:
The question is, if the man who took the wafer had destroyed it in some way, such as throwing it in a fire, crushing it, or something like that, what would happen to Christ?”
When consecrated bread no longer has the attributes of bread such as what would happen when it is burned, decomposed or whatever, Christ is no longer sacramentally present.
I don’t mean the following question as an insult or bash.
For 1500 years Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic etc.) universally believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic Bread and Wine. What happened 500 years ago that caused the Reformers to drop this central Christian belief and worship practice?
H-E-B-R-E-W S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E
ie Tanakh; pre-dates Septuagint. Apocrypha books and batteries NOT included.
“According to the Talmud (Bava Basra 14b-15a, Rashi to Megillah 3a, 14a), much of the contents the Tanakh were compiled by the Men of the Great Assembly (”Anshei K’nesset HaGedolah”) a task completed in 450 BCE, and have remained unchanged since that date. Modern scholars are less certain, but believe that the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between 200 BCE and 200 CE[citation needed]. Both the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi’im) appear to have been codified by the time of the composition of the book of Sirach, c. 180 BCE; but the Writings (Ketuvim) may not yet have become an identified unit by this date[citation needed].
Formal closure of the canon has often been ascribed to Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Heinrich Graetz proposed in 1871 that it was concluded at a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew), some time in the period 70–90 CE. However, this view has fallen from favour since the 1960s, and it now questioned whether such a “council” ever occurred. However, Rabbinical writings seem to indicate that certain books were disputed as accepted canon (such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Esther), it may not necessarily be the case. The implication of the Talmud indicates that the books themselves were already accepted canon, but may have been misunderstood on philosophical or ecclesiastical grounds. The Talmud eliminates this misunderstanding.
The twenty-four books are also mentioned in the Midrash Qoheleth 12:12. A slightly different accounting can be found in the book Against Apion, by the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus, who describes 22 sacred books. Some scholars have suggested that he considered Ruth part of Judges, and Lamentations part of Jeremiah; as the Christian translator Jerome recorded in the 4th century CE. Other scholars suggest that at the time Josephus wrote, such books as Esther and Ecclesiastes were not yet considered canonical.”
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh
post 172
Thank you so much for sharing your insights and concerns, dear brother in Christ!
***When consecrated bread no longer has the attributes of bread such as what would happen when it is burned, decomposed or whatever, Christ is no longer sacramentally present.***
Then I don’t see what all the hullabaloo is all about. Once the man took the wafer intended for the Mass and did something other than what it’s use was, it no longer mattered.
Same thing....duh. Same result. Not included in the Hebrew Scripture (Bible). Never were.
“Yes, that is the “only” reason we do so: because Christ told us to do so.”
Christ said this amonst other things....and those without the Spirit will not accept these sayings. So they make up their own meaning due to sinful motivations....and drag others along with them.
The issue is that he misrepresented himself, took and held Something most sacred, that did not belong to him, under false pretenses.
Have you looked at my question to you?
Holding Christ hostage? That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever read on these threads.
We believe in communion as doing it in remembrance of Christ, not that Christ IS the wafer.
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.