Desecration Of The Eucharist

[Hassan]

[quote name='picchick' post='1665676' date='Sep 28 2008, 01:08 PM']What events are you referring to? If you are referring to the terrorist attacks and those who bomb their cities it is totally not the same thing. They are not protecting anything. Instead they are FOLLOWING what the Quran is telling them to do. If someone were to desecrate their sacred book then it would not be called "irradical". They would PROTECTING their sacred object. There is a difference.[/quote]

The terrorists claims to be protecting Islam from Western Imperialism.

[quote]Irradical is the killing of people who had nothing to do with the Quran. Those in the WTC were not desecrating the Quran....those in the pentagon were not desecrating the Quran. Those in the public square in where ever people are bombing themselves are not protecting the Quran.[/quote]

That, the Danish Cartoon etc. Fanatical Muslims who engadge in violence claim to be protecting and defending Islam from Blasphamey.

I really see no substantial defference between a Muslim killing someone over a sophmoric Danish cartoon, a Jewish radical killing an Israeli PM over terriroty, or a Catholic killing someone over a piece of unleven bread which they claims to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of their God.

There is a great deal of good in religion but things like this show the sinister side of religion.

[quote]I do not think that deadly force should be used, as I have stated above. I think that we need to protect what we hold sacred, which we believe is the Body and Blood, Soul Divinity of Christ. If you do not hold that belief, you are still obligated to respect our belief, just as we are obligated respect other's belief.

Meg[/quote]

No one is obligated to respect any beliefs. I think the world will be a better place if everyone does but it is a personal choice.

[eagle_eye222001]

Satanists exist. Really weird to think that.

As for protecting the Eucharist...I don't know exactly.

I think I would follow picchick's formula as you deal with it (post 23).

One of those situation decisions I think I would make at the moment and I think I would know what I should do at the moment.

Good line to follow though....when in doubt ask WWJD...quicker method than playing 20 questions.

[picchick]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665683' date='Sep 28 2008, 01:28 PM']The terrorists claims to be protecting Islam from Western Imperialism.



That, the Danish Cartoon etc. Fanatical Muslims who engadge in violence claim to be protecting and defending Islam from Blasphamey.

I really see no substantial defference between a Muslim killing someone over a sophmoric Danish cartoon, a Jewish radical killing an Israeli PM over terriroty, or a Catholic killing someone over a piece of unleven bread which they claims to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of their God.

There is a great deal of good in religion but things like this show the sinister side of religion.



No one is obligated to respect any beliefs. I think the world will be a better place if everyone does but it is a personal choice.[/quote]

Ok, what we are saying is that if someone desecrates the Eucharist we are not going to go out and kill just a bunch of random people. What the terrorists did was go out and kill a bunch of random people. We are defending the Eucharist AT THAT moment in THAT situation against the person who is desecrating the Eucharist. That is the situation. There is a difference. I do not understand how blowing oneself up in your own city's market place is defending anything. You are just killing a bunch of random people.

Again, no one should kill another human being. Yes, it is God. We should use force to take the Eucharist away to avoid Him being desecrated. However, no one should be killed. Hatred, anger towards another is NOT what God wants.

I totally disagree with you on the respect thing. Religion is a personal choice. People are obligated to respect each other. No it doesn't happen but that does not mean that the obligation does not exist.

Meg

[Winchester]

If you're going to attack someone's beliefs, be ready for any response from nothing to violence.

And no whining.

[eagle_eye222001]

Found this on AntiCatholicTube



[i]Inappropriate Content: Flagging term definitions
We've given our definitions of YouTube's flagging terms below:

1. Graphic sexual activity
"Graphic sexual activity" describes content which contains actual visible or implied sex acts.

2. Nudity
"Nudity" refers to exposed or see-through coverage of areas typically covered by a bathing suit or underwear. Sometimes nudity is allowed on YouTube, depending on the context.[/i]

3. Suggestive, but without nudity
"Suggestive" content refers to materials with sexual themes that do not necessarily depict sexual activity or nudity. Sexually suggestive content may not be suitable for all audiences and may include fetish-related content.

4. Shocking or disgusting content
"Shocking or disgusting content" refers to disturbing imagery, such as graphic depictions of violence, accidents or gore, which lack an appropriate context.

[b]5. Promotes hatred or violence against a protected group
Hate speech is content that promotes or encourages hatred or violence towards a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender identity.[/b]

6. Harmful dangerous acts
"Harmful dangerous acts" may include content which depicts behaviour likely to cause serious injury or death to a third party.



The link is not here...but [url="http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=78716"]here[/url]!

Now the question is.....do all these desecration videos fall under this? I strongly think yes.

These videos should not be according to youtube's policy and they should be although I wonder if the person checking the flags is biased?

Edited September 29, 2008 by eagle_eye222001

[eagle_eye222001]

Whoops. Posted the wrong post in the thread. And the edit option has expired. That's just great. Now it looks ridiculous.

[picchick]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1666060' date='Sep 28 2008, 11:12 PM']Whoops. Posted the wrong post in the thread. And the edit option has expired. That's just great. Now it looks ridiculous.[/quote]



Thank you. I was wondering what it was referring to.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='picchick' post='1664469' date='Sep 26 2008, 06:06 PM']I know that they exist It really makes me mad. It happened a couple times in my diocese.

I guess what I'd do is use a ladder type thing. If you saw them leaving the Church I'd call the cops let them know what was happening. Then I'd try to stop them to the best of my ability. I would follow them in my car so that I could tell the cops where they went.

See the desecration of the Eucharist makes me very upset. By upset I mean angry. By angry I mean throw punches angry. I am not sure that God would want me to cause physical harm to another for His sake. I kinda draw from what the Saints have done. They didn't mind if they themselves got hurt but they would not hurt another for the sake of the Eucharist. God doesn't strike dead those who desecrate Him so I am not going to.

I don't think I am answering your question specifically enough. I have parameters (probably more personal than something that everyone should use) that I would follow when defending the Eucharist.

Meg[/quote]


Bet You Saint Louis would have cut them down like dogs. Saint Charles the Good too. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, would have certianly approved and well imagine what Saint James the Moor Slayer would have done?


Personal parameters are fine, but hey do little to help with the moral question.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1664493' date='Sep 26 2008, 06:37 PM']I can.[/quote]



*#*# $*% *%*$*#*@*$**% and other things I can't say on Phatmass

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665301' date='Sep 27 2008, 09:10 PM']hm

Muslims who would kill to defend the Qur'an from desecration are "terrorists", or "Islamofascists" or "Islamic radicals"

What does a willingness to kill to defend the Eucharist make those of you here who say you'd kill to defend it?[/quote]

Catholics.

I have no quarrel with Moslems who defend thier faith, their faith tells them to. I have quarrel with people that say that Islam is not a violent religion which demands the conquest of other religions.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1665714' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:12 PM']Satanists exist. Really weird to think that.

As for protecting the Eucharist...I don't know exactly.

I think I would follow picchick's formula as you deal with it (post 23).

One of those situation decisions I think I would make at the moment and I think I would know what I should do at the moment.

Good line to follow though....when in doubt ask WWJD...quicker method than playing 20 questions.[/quote]


Well jesus whipped the money changers.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1666187' date='Sep 29 2008, 09:00 AM']Well jesus whipped the money changers.[/quote]

That's open to interpretation of the passage. It doesn't specifically say he whipped the money changers. It says he drove them away with whips. Why do proponents of violence like to cling to their hope that Jesus whipped people? (I just looked up all four accounts of The Cleansing of the Temple to be sure before I posted this, btw. I use the RSV SCE.)

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1666362' date='Sep 29 2008, 04:41 PM']That's open to interpretation of the passage. It doesn't specifically say he whipped the money changers. It says he drove them away with whips. Why do proponents of violence like to cling to their hope that Jesus whipped people? (I just looked up all four accounts of The Cleansing of the Temple to be sure before I posted this, btw. I use the RSV SCE.)[/quote]


douey-rheims

"And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew."

New American

"He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, 13 as well as the money-changers seated there.
He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, "Take these out of here, and stop making my Father's house a marketplace."

He drove them out with the sheep and the oxen, with a scourge. First, it's a scourge, which he made from donkey tethers, not a bull whip, this thing doesn't crack, the only way it causes anything to move is to hit it with the thing (while the new american translationuses whip instead of scourge, unless the the creation of it was a miraculous event there is no way it could be a bull whip, such a thing takes a very long time to weave.) Second it list the money changers with the oxen, and the sheep and says that he drove them with the livestock. In otherwords, he treated them like livestock, he whipped them as you would an oxen. Now those would be my actual scriptural reasons for saying that he hit them butthere are very practical reasons as well. He turned over their money changing tables, this is not something that they are going to allow to happen unless he is actually hurting them, to much money would be lost. But armed with a scourge which he was hitting people with, well thats another issue entirely.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1666362' date='Sep 29 2008, 04:41 PM']That's open to interpretation of the passage. It doesn't specifically say he whipped the money changers. It says he drove them away with whips. Why do proponents of violence like to cling to their hope that Jesus whipped people? (I just looked up all four accounts of The Cleansing of the Temple to be sure before I posted this, btw. I use the RSV SCE.)[/quote]



And who exactly is a proponant of violence?


Besides there is plenty of scriptural justification for violence, even in the New testement. Try reading Saint Augustine, or Saint Thomas Aquinas.

[Guest]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1664454' date='Sep 26 2008, 04:43 PM']Thats why i gave a possibly choice.


About 15 years ago Satanist ( yes believe it or not they really exist) broke into my Church. they cut through the side of the Vault to get the holy vessals and broke open the tabernacle ( they left the several thousand dollars in cash from the collection) and desecrated the Eucharist with feces and urine, and took some of the Host with them. The Police told my pastor that it had been an issue in the area in the past and that the Cult apparantly used the Holy Vessals for the Black Mass. The expectation was that the Eucharist that was taken would be subject to ritualized desecration.

So had come along in my truck when that was happening how much force would be appropraite?[/quote]

In my humble opinon Don John these "people" should be killed asap.