Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on April 20, 2019, 01:34:18 PM
-
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/04/20/nolte-new-york-times-believes-body-christ-statue/
As the article says:
And this is what happens when your newspaper is a closed, secular echo chamber, one so closed and secular, this article managed to make its way through the Times‘ legendary “layers and layers of fact checkers” without coming across the desk of even one person who practices the Faith, or one person who knows enough about the elementary basics of a world religion that would allow them to catch an error literally everyone in my neighborhood would have immediately corrected.
-
But does it have a shoulder thing that goes up?
Same thing many in MSM and politicians do with guns
-
I believe the statue is mentioned in Eleven Corinthians.
-
I believe the statue is mentioned in Eleven Corinthians.
Is that one of the apocryphal books that appear only in the King Harvey version of the Bible?
-
Yawn.
Important religious statue misidentified is not a cause for outrage.
-
It WASN'T a statue...
-
Yawn.
Important religious statue misidentified is not a cause for outrage.
This.
Also, the article had it as a quote from a firefighter. Either the firefighter got it wrong or something was lost in translation. Either way, no big deal.
-
This.
Also, the article had it as a quote from a firefighter. Either the firefighter got it wrong or something was lost in translation. Either way, no big deal.
NO CLEARLY IT'S A SECULAR PLOT TO DISCREDIT JEEBUS!!!!
-
Also, the article had it as a quote from a firefighter. Either the firefighter got it wrong or something was lost in translation. Either way, no big deal.
Not a quote from a firefighter. It was a quote from the priest -- who happens to be a fire department chaplain, but he was there as a priest, not as a firefighter.
Here’s what likely happened… When the French-speaking priest spoke to the French-speaking Times reporter — in other words, this was not a language problem — the priest said he was primarily concerned with saving the crown of the thorns and the Body of Christ, and the secular Times reporter, who obviously has no education whatsoever about even the basics of a religion practiced by a billion-plus people, a religion that helped to usher in Western Civilization, believed the “Body of Christ” could only be the literal body of Christ in the form of a statue.
Since it was said by a French-speaking priest to a French-speaking "journalist," there was nothing lost in translation. The loss was in comprehension.
It would be like a Rabbi talking about the Ark of the Covenant and a reporter writing about Noah's ark.
-
NO CLEARLY IT'S A SECULAR PLOT TO DISCREDIT JEEBUS!!!!
I don't think anyone's saying that.
As WLJ pointed out, it's as if they were covering a gun-related issue. They lacked basic knowledge of the subject matter, and no one caught the screw-up.
It'd be pretty odd for a Christian to refer to a statue as "the Body of Christ." We believe Christ (along with His Body) is alive, and seated at the right hand of the Father.
It's been pretty widely reported that the priest rescued the bread (or wafers) that were to be used in communion. According to the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, that means they were literally the body of Christ. (And, yes, I know that seems odd, if the same Body is supposed to be on a throne, next to God the Father.) Or maybe he also rescued some sacramental wine (the blood). Not being Catholic, I don't know the logistics of how they do things.
-
There was a photo of a priest holding a container of wafers. That's what they were referring to. The wine is considered to be the blood of Christ.
-
The body and blood of Christ originate in Jesus' statements to his disciples at the Last Supper.
Matthew 26 has the most traditional version of the event.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
-
NO CLEARLY IT'S A SECULAR PLOT TO DISCREDIT JEEBUS!!!!
Honestly do get tired of the disrespect from the non-religious. So very polite.
-
It wasn’t a statue of Christ, y’all — it was the Blessed Sacrament, the Communion bread, the wafer… And, of course, this would be a top priority for Fournier. In fact, a priority over even the crown of thorns.
I'm struggling to comprehend why a priest would try to save some really dry crackers, which are mass produced, often with secular origins.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvaeyb/the-surprisingly-cutthroat-business-of-communion-crackers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/09/religion-communion-wafers-french-nuns
Especially in comparison to something like the Crown of Thorns (I'm skeptical it really is the real crown from the crucifixion, but whatever). I suspect most holy totems/relics the Catholics have at their various cathedrals are purely fantastical/theatrical in nature and lack legitimate origination to their claim.
-
I always thought the Transmutation occurred when the Priest raised the Host (one of the wafers) and repeated Jesus' words: "This is my Body." Before that moment, I thought, they were just specially-made crackers.
Same thing with the wine in the Chalice: "This is my blood." Until that Transmutation by the Priest, it was just vino.
But maybe that was just in the Diocese of Brooklyn.
Honest question.
But frankly, I would not expect the usual reporter, editor, or "fact" checker to be so intimately familiar with the level of detail required to know that the subject was not a statue of Christ. Opinion? Molehill.
Terry
-
I'm struggling to comprehend why a priest would try to save some really dry crackers, which are mass produced, often with secular origins.
Because in Roman Catholic theology, once the wafers have been consecrated by a priest, they ARE "the body of Christ." It's called "transubstantiation." They are no longer dry crackers.
If you remember the account of the Last Supper in Matthew, the Roman Catholic theology is based on the "This is my body, take this and eat it" part. Most (all ???) Protestant denominations focus on the 'Do this in remembrance of me" part and regard the communion wafers (or cubes of bread, in some) as a memorial of/to Jesus rather than somehow magically being transformed into his actual, physical body.
-
But frankly, I would not expect the usual reporter, editor, or "fact" checker to be so intimately familiar with the level of detail required to know that the subject was not a statue of Christ. Opinion? Molehill.
Maybe not the average reporter, but in an organization like the New York Times, that still claims to have layers of fact checkers, I very much would expect that someone, somewhere in the chain, would know enough about Roman Catholic theology to know this. You don't have to be Roman Catholic to know it. I'm not RC, and I've known it since my early or mid teens. This is why the RC church doesn't allow non-Catholics to take Communion -- because they don't expect the non-Catholics to believe that the gift they would be receiving is the actual body of Christ and, therefore, would not appreciate it.
I'm also not Jewish, but I know that the Ark of the Covenant isn't a reference to Noah's Ark.
If you're going to write about something, you have a responsibility to do enough research to not convey glaringly erroneous "information" in your articles.
-
Molehill😴😴😴
-
Molehill😴😴😴
New motto for APS: "Molehills-R-Us"
-
Rabble rabble rabble OUTRAGE!
-
Because in Roman Catholic theology, once the wafers have been consecrated by a priest, they ARE "the body of Christ." It's called "transubstantiation." They are no longer dry crackers.
If you remember the account of the Last Supper in Matthew, the Roman Catholic theology is based on the "This is my body, take this and eat it" part. Most (all ???) Protestant denominations focus on the 'Do this in remembrance of me" part and regard the communion wafers (or cubes of bread, in some) as a memorial of/to Jesus rather than somehow magically being transformed into his actual, physical body.
Lutherans have a slightly different theory, but they also believe in what they call the "real presence" (physical presence) of Christ in the bread and wine.
-
Lutherans have a slightly different theory, but they also believe in what they call the "real presence" (physical presence) of Christ in the bread and wine.
To the point that running into a burning 800 year old cathedral to save these cracker-tokens is a metaphysically wise and rational thing to do?
-
Honestly do get tired of the disrespect from the non-religious. So very polite.
One of the first comments I saw at the bottom.
That there are people who are ignorant of the God of the Bible does not offend me nor does it alarm me. What alarms me is the growing hatred that overlays that ignorance.
-
To the point that running into a burning 800 year old cathedral to save these cracker-tokens is a metaphysically wise and rational thing to do?
I am thinking that as well, but maybe that was his job or something so it was the first thing he thought of. There was likely nothing he could carry out that couldn't be replaced.
-
It WASN'T a statue...
So you're saying it was misidentified?
-
To the point that running into a burning 800 year old cathedral to save these cracker-tokens is a metaphysically wise and rational thing to do?
Metaphysically? I don't know about metaphysically, but keep in mind this happened at about the same time that Christians celebrate how Christ sacrificed His body to save us. It doesn't make sense to you that someone would try to return the favor by risking his life to save the Savior?
For my part, I don't think Christ was really claiming to physically inhabit bread. I think he was giving us a symbol. So I wouldn't worry about the bread, consecrated or not.
-
Honestly do get tired of the disrespect from the non-religious. So very polite.
I used to enjoy asking the fools and mockers questions. Spending time digging down into their inevitably unsupported presuppositions about reality. 9 times out of 10 they have put very little thought into what they claim to believe. Rarely do I bother any longer.
It’s a cool thing to be irreligious, atheist and to mock the religious folks. That’s how they signal to each other that they are part of the “edgy” in crowd. Empty virtue signaling, empty of content.
-
To the point that running into a burning 800 year old cathedral to save these cracker-tokens is a metaphysically wise and rational thing to do?
Early on, I thought maybe the Priest was trying to rescue the supply of wafers ("The Body of Christ") to have enough supply for the next Communion. Seemed to me that would have explained a lot, including the possible miscommunication.
But the thread did not seem to head in that direction and revolved around the assumption that someone in the editorial chain should have known better than to call "The Body of Christ" a statue.
Though I'm no longer a Catholic, I'm pretty well versed in the traditions and practices of the Church (see reply #14), and frankly, I'm not sure I would have picked up on that myself.
(https://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/medibigoff/d98289b4c838408ffdfb52fb20c438e9/mdo-5385536.jpg)
Terry, 230RN
-
Lutherans have a slightly different theory, but they also believe in what they call the "real presence" (physical presence) of Christ in the bread and wine.
That sounds fairly close to the Episcopal view, as well. Except that I think the Episcopalians use "the real presence" to mean that Christ is present spiritually, not physically.
There's enough confusion and debate about just what transubstantiation is and means to various denominations that my college roommate did a major term paper on it.
-
I'm would imagine that Communion would be a thing in pretty much all denominations, not just Catholic. ???
Yawn.
Important religious statue misidentified is not a cause for outrage.
Who said anything about being outraged? It's just another example of the lefts ignorance and how it has permeated it's way through the media.
-
I'm would imagine that Communion would be a thing in pretty much all denominations, not just Catholic. ???
The way a lot of churches try to "be relevant" by avoiding anything traditional, I wouldn't be surprised if some churches have cut it out altogether. In a lot of Protestant or Evangelical churches, it's used as infrequently as once a month, or just a few times per year. The church I attend is, regrettably, in the latter camp. I'd prefer to have it at least once per week.
I don't know of any churches outside Roman Catholicism that consecrate communion bread ahead of time, and then consider it the Body of Christ while it's just waiting to be used in the ritual.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/a2.html
-
I'm would imagine that Communion would be a thing in pretty much all denominations, not just Catholic. ???
Yes, but that's not the issue. As I already commented, for Roman Catholics, the doctrine of transubstantiation means that once the wafers have been consecrated, they literally ARE the body of Christ, and the wine literally IS the blood of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox belief is very close, but they prefer to refer to it as a "mystery" as to exactly when and how the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ.
The there's "consubstantiation," which is more or less what the Lutherans and Anglicans believe. While not saying that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, they believe that Christ is present in them after consecration.
Although I was christened (baptized) as an Episcopalian, there wasn't an Episcopal church in the town where I grew up so my family attended a Congregational church. (New England Protestant, like the Puritans.) We had communion, but for the Congregational church there was no transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Rather than emphasizing the "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body," the Congregational church (and many other Protestant denominations) focuses on "Do this in remembrance of me." They don't believe that the bread and wine (or grape juice, which is what we had) literally become the body and blood of Christ, they celebrate communion in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice of Himself to save us.
So it's not a matter of "Communion would be a thing in pretty much all denominations, not just Catholic. ???" It's a question of the significance of the Eucharist. For a Roman Catholic, wafers that have been consecrated ARE the body of Christ, so it's not surprising that a priest would try to save them before trying to save anything else.
-
Yes, but that's not the issue. As I already commented, for Roman Catholics, the doctrine of transubstantiation means that once the wafers have been consecrated, they literally ARE the body of Christ, and the wine literally IS the blood of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox belief is very close, but they prefer to refer to it as a "mystery" as to exactly when and how the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ.
The there's "consubstantiation," which is more or less what the Lutherans and Anglicans believe. While not saying that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, they believe that Christ is present in them after consecration.
Although I was christened (baptized) as an Episcopalian, there wasn't an Episcopal church in the town where I grew up so my family attended a Congregational church. (New England Protestant, like the Puritans.) We had communion, but for the Congregational church there was no transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Rather than emphasizing the "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body," the Congregational church (and many other Protestant denominations) focuses on "Do this in remembrance of me." They don't believe that the bread and wine (or grape juice, which is what we had) literally become the body and blood of Christ, they celebrate communion in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice of Himself to save us.
So it's not a matter of "Communion would be a thing in pretty much all denominations, not just Catholic. ???" It's a question of the significance of the Eucharist. For a Roman Catholic, wafers that have been consecrated ARE the body of Christ, so it's not surprising that a priest would try to save them before trying to save anything else.
Yeah, but it being thought of as the literal blood and body of Christ doesn't have to do with having no idea what communion is and everyone involved in the article not knowing what the priest was talking about.
-
Yeah, but it being thought of as the literal blood and body of Christ doesn't have to do with having no idea what communion is and everyone involved in the article not knowing what the priest was talking about.
I have to disagree. I think the fact that neither the author nor any of the purported layers of fact checkers knew or figured out that Roman Catholics believe that the host (the wafers) and the wine become (literally) the body and blood of Christ has everything to do with it.