New York Times misidentifies the Blessed Sacrament as a statue of Jesus

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Ron]

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.

[230RN]

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.




Terry, 230RN

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[freakazoid]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[freakazoid]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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.