VeniteAdoremus Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 By the way, I find the point of it being sacrilege if you don't [i]intentionally[/i] burn it intriguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1622823' date='Aug 9 2008, 05:58 PM']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! )[/quote] Well, I'm no scholar on this topic, but I think it all happened exactly as it needed to happen to fulfill every letter of the Law. If Jesus had died any other way, his death and resurrection would not have effected our salvation. The Law is very specific in what it requires and it doesn't make sense that it could have been fulfilled by Jesus simply being whipped to death or thrown off a cliff. Reminds me of that joke... if Jesus had died from bee stings, instead of crossing ourselves when entering church, we would erratically waves our hands around our faces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 [quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1623944' date='Aug 11 2008, 10:50 AM']By the way, I find the point of it being sacrilege if you don't [i]intentionally[/i] burn it intriguing.[/quote] Curious why you find that intriguing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeniteAdoremus Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 [quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1623947' date='Aug 11 2008, 04:57 PM']Curious why you find that intriguing?[/quote] Because in both cases it's being burned, and in neither case there's someone dancing around it singing "ha ha ha we're burning the host" (I hope), if you catch my drift. I understand a host falling on the ground being sacrilegious, because you should have taken better care. And if the tabernacle is damaged in an earthquake or something and the hosts fall, it's sacrilegious because the host should be in a container that's as near to worthy of it as we can manage (which isn't very near, but still). But apparently there's nothing inherently wrong with burning the host, because we can do that intentionally in several specified cases (like with the man who had been sick), so why is unintentional burning sacrilegious? Instead of, say, unfortunate and to be avoided as much as humanly possible? Or isn't there a difference between the two? I'm just interested (Note: I'm a physics student, so I'm disproportionally likely to think things like "a fire is a fire is a fire".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 [quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1623946' date='Aug 11 2008, 08:56 AM']Reminds me of that joke... if Jesus had died from bee stings, instead of crossing ourselves when entering church, we would erratically waves our hands around our faces [/quote] That would be so fun! Although maybe a bit less dignified... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 [quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1623956' date='Aug 11 2008, 11:17 AM']Because in both cases it's being burned, and in neither case there's someone dancing around it singing "ha ha ha we're burning the host" (I hope), if you catch my drift. I understand a host falling on the ground being sacrilegious, because you should have taken better care. And if the tabernacle is damaged in an earthquake or something and the hosts fall, it's sacrilegious because the host should be in a container that's as near to worthy of it as we can manage (which isn't very near, but still). But apparently there's nothing inherently wrong with burning the host, because we can do that intentionally in several specified cases (like with the man who had been sick), so why is unintentional burning sacrilegious? Instead of, say, unfortunate and to be avoided as much as humanly possible? Or isn't there a difference between the two? I'm just interested (Note: I'm a physics student, so I'm disproportionally likely to think things like "a fire is a fire is a fire".)[/quote] I must have missed something in this thread... I went back through it and couldn't find any references to burning hosts, besides the OP. My understanding is anything caused by accident, assuming all appropriate precautions are followed, can be a sacrilege. If a host is dropped by accident, the sacrilege would be in not immediately and carefully retrieving it. So, who said that unintentional burning is sacrilegious? That doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 [quote name='Winchester' post='1616413' date='Aug 3 2008, 01:02 PM']Isn't Jesus a human? I'd be able to rescue both, of course, but the family gets priority.[/quote] Of course you would. You're a [i]fireman.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 [quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1625181' date='Aug 12 2008, 08:48 AM']So, who said that unintentional burning is sacrilegious? That doesn't make any sense.[/quote] I was thinking the same thing, but just assumed I hadn't paid enough attention to things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggyjoan Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I would say WWJD. Jesus wouldn't get himself the heck outta there, he'd stay and help everybody. Family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeniteAdoremus Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 [quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1625181' date='Aug 12 2008, 04:48 PM']So, who said that unintentional burning is sacrilegious? That doesn't make any sense.[/quote] [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1626322' date='Aug 14 2008, 01:35 AM']I was thinking the same thing, but just assumed I hadn't paid enough attention to things.[/quote] Aloysius said it would be unintentional sacrilege. So, still sacrilege... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 [quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1626693' date='Aug 14 2008, 10:37 AM']Aloysius said it would be unintentional sacrilege. So, still sacrilege...[/quote] Maybe he can explain it then. It has to be intentional to be guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 yes, it has to be intentional to be guilty... no one is committing sacriledge, but it's still a sacriledgeous event while disposing of the host by fire is not a sacrilidgeous event. if a host accidentally gets dropped, it's a sacriledge but not a sacriledge perpetrated by anyone and there is no guilt for anyone. the unintentional burning is different because of the intention... the hosts were not unusable and were not intentionally and reverently being disposed of. it's like the word "sin"... sin still happens even if no one is culpable/guilty for the sin.. it's just not anyone's sin if no one is culpable, but the damage is done by the sin just the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 "Sir, I do not share your faith. But if I did - if I believed what you say you believed - then although England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would crawl the length and breadth of it on hand and knee and think the pain worthwhile, just to save a single soul from this eternal hell of which you speak." ~Charles Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
let_go_let_God Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 I would have to go with the family. One of the proper way to properly dispose of Holy relics, blessed objects and other things is to burn them. So I would allow the Eucharist to burn if it meant saving the family. How ever if the Tabernacle was open and the Ceborium and Monsterance hosts were in sight and on my way to save the family. Well then I would do my best to save both. God bless- LGLG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 This thread isn't controversial enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now