Eucharist Or People?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1616673' date='Aug 3 2008, 08:58 PM']However, this is nonsense.

saving the human lives should take first priority.[/quote]
THIS is what I wanted to hear! Thank you.

[LouisvilleFan]

No, I'd run to the tabernacle first, eat all the Eucharist, and then blow out the fire, thus saving the family.

[Deb]

I think God would allow me to save both. If I can save eleven others, surely there is time to grab the Eucharist in there. Course, that is silly, there would only be three others in my family in Church to begin with, not all eleven.

[Divided]

I haven't read through any responses yet. My gut instinct would be to save the family. I don't know if that's the right response, but a fire cannot kill Christ...whereas it could and would kill the family.

[MissyP89]

Family, of course.

[Aloysius]

by saving your family, you are saving Christ. the special presence Christ has in the Eucharist is indeed more of a presence than the presence He has in your fellow man, but it's a different type of presence for a different type of purpose. it needs to be defended vigorously against intentional sacriledge because He has entrusted such a presence to our care, and as much as possible against accidental sacriledge. and though it bares similarity to how we dispose of sacred objects, it is indeed still accidental sacriledge since it is not the intentional disposing of an unusable sacred object (I was unaware that actual hosts were ever disposed of in such a manner, is this actually supposed to be done? I suppose they would be if something made them unconsumable but otherwise, any Church that is regularly consecrating too many hosts to the point where they go bad needs to seriously reconsider how many hosts it has consecrated)

imagine the incarnate Christ Himself, 2000 years ago, was being pushed off a cliff on one side of a mountain while a family of eleven was being pushed off a cliff on the other side of the mountain, and you definitely had the power to save only one of them... you'd save the family still, wouldn't you? I would. His disciples at the time probably wouldn't but that's because they did not yet fully understand His mission in the world.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1617821' date='Aug 5 2008, 12:19 AM']imagine the incarnate Christ Himself, 2000 years ago, was being pushed off a cliff on one side of a mountain while a family of eleven was being pushed off a cliff on the other side of the mountain, and you definitely had the power to save only one of them... you'd save the family still, wouldn't you? I would. His disciples at the time probably wouldn't but that's because they did not yet fully understand His mission in the world.[/quote]
Interesting situation... although I can't say I agree 100%. After all, if Christ died before being crucified, that would change the nature of our redemption, would it not?
Of course I'm not taking circumstances into account, and you definitely have a point.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1617821' date='Aug 5 2008, 02:19 AM']imagine the incarnate Christ Himself, 2000 years ago, was being pushed off a cliff on one side of a mountain while a family of eleven was being pushed off a cliff on the other side of the mountain, and you definitely had the power to save only one of them... you'd save the family still, wouldn't you? I would. His disciples at the time probably wouldn't but that's because they did not yet fully understand His mission in the world.[/quote]

That exact scenario of Jesus being pushed of a cliff is recorded in the Gospels. I won't ruin the ending, but suffice to say, the disciples did not rush to defend Jesus

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1619587' date='Aug 6 2008, 05:15 PM']Interesting situation... although I can't say I agree 100%. After all, if Christ died before being crucified, that would change the nature of our redemption, would it not?
Of course I'm not taking circumstances into account, and you definitely have a point.[/quote]

I don't know if it would, but I remember a theology prof. asking the question in a somewhat blunter way, "If a clumsy shepherd was carrying the infant Jesus and he tripped and Jesus was impaled on a farm instrument, would that change our redemption?"

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1620403' date='Aug 7 2008, 03:12 PM']I don't know if it would, but I remember a theology prof. asking the question in a somewhat blunter way, "If a clumsy shepherd was carrying the infant Jesus and he tripped and Jesus was impaled on a farm instrument, would that change our redemption?"[/quote]
Would that change it? I don't really know formal theology. The way it looks to an uneducated person like myself, I would think that the actual sacrifice of the crucifiction, the pain and humiliation and murder, was one of the central elements.
Enlighten me?

[LouisvilleFan]

[i]And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.[/i] --John 3:14

Moses did not impale the serpent on a gardening hoe. He lifted it up on a tree so that when the Israelites looked upon it they would be saved.

Some other verses I find relevant to this question:

[i]Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.[/i] --John 10:39

[i]They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way. [/i]--Luke 4:29

[i]When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself. [/i]--John 6:15

[i]Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."[/i] --Galatians 3:13

If Jesus died any other way, how would the curse from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil have been reversed? Bottom line is, Jesus in his human form was not subject to anyone on earth. He was always capable of saving himself, as he did on at least a few occasions. At the right time and place, he subjected himself to the will of sinners, and no other way than the way it happened would have done the job.

Edited August 8, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1621230' date='Aug 8 2008, 08:33 AM']If Jesus died any other way, how would the curse from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil have been reversed? Bottom line is, Jesus in his human form was not subject to anyone on earth. He was always capable of saving himself, as he did on at least a few occasions. At the right time and place, he subjected himself to the will of sinners, and no other way than the way it happened would have done the job.[/quote]
Ok, I think I understand.
Are you saying that the redemption would have been the same as long as Jesus sacrificed himself? If He could have saved himself but didn't?
Makes sense to me.
(Although different topic from the original thread! )

[truthfinder]

Now I feel like a fool, I made my choice beofre reading the scenario, having done so, I change my vote to the family - of course!
I actually think there was a Eucharistic miracle that a church burnt to the ground but the tabernacle was completely perfect or something of the like, but I can't remember when, and it was probably 500 years ago.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='truthfinder' post='1623272' date='Aug 10 2008, 12:49 AM']Now I feel like a fool, I made my choice beofre reading the scenario, having done so, I change my vote to the family - of course!
I actually think there was a Eucharistic miracle that a church burnt to the ground but the tabernacle was completely perfect or something of the like, but I can't remember when, and it was probably 500 years ago.[/quote]
Hehe, what did you think I was asking? Should we eat people instead of the Eucharist?
Not surprised by the idea of that miracle though. Sounds right up the alley of Eucharistic miracles.

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='truthfinder' post='1623272' date='Aug 10 2008, 08:49 AM']I actually think there was a Eucharistic miracle that a church burnt to the ground but the tabernacle was completely perfect or something of the like, but I can't remember when, and it was probably 500 years ago.[/quote]

We have the Miracle of Amsterdam in which a man was sick after receiving the Eucharist and it was thrown in the fire because the Host was in there - everything burned but the Host, which floated in the fire, and the wife of the man was able to take it out with her bare hand without burning herself.

So, family. No-brainer. (Although I almost voted wrong too, luckily I read the post.)

The story goes on, by the way, with the Host re-appearing at the house several times until the parish priest got it right and organised a procession to properly escort it back to the church. Oh, and that one's still repeated every year, yadda yadda yadda