Cracker Stealing

[tzor]

By the way in the case some of you really don't realize why a Roman Catholic would find it offensive, here is a web page from Catholic Ansers on the Real Presence and Christ in the Eucharist.

Yes for Roman Catholics this is serious stuff indeed.

[tzor]

You boring cunt.

I have to admit you are using the combinations completely ...

"Coming from Mr. Serious Boring Tit....."
"TZOR IS AN ABSOLUTE CUNT "
"He is a tit to the nth degree."

But in terms of BORING, no one can out bore your one liners.
"BORING" - New York Times
"Boring Scandal of Britian" - Daily Telegraph

[Nickbaldwin]

Says him.

[Neoteny]

By the way in the case some of you really don't realize why a Roman Catholic would find it offensive, here is a web page from Catholic Ansers on the Real Presence and Christ in the Eucharist.

Yes for Roman Catholics this is serious stuff indeed.

We know why they are mad, it is just a ridiculous reason to be angry. It's both funny and scary at the same time. There are death threats being sent over this. I don't care what juju you believe in, threatening someone's life over something so trivial is disgusting.

[jay_a2j]

So what he left with a cracker, maybe he wanted to partake of in in private.

I think this is the third time we agree on something jay, maybe we do have a few things in common after all.

AND we were both born in Germany? We both love a good jagersnitzel and spetzle? (forgive my spelling)

I'm really not the monster some make me out to be.

[tzor]

We know why they are mad, it is just a ridiculous reason to be angry. It's both funny and scary at the same time. There are death threats being sent over this. I don't care what juju you believe in, threatening someone's life over something so trivial is disgusting.

First of all, even the links do not provide enough information about the "death threats." Assuming they were real, (which I would like to believe they are not, but alas such is the nature of man) I would have to categorically state that such a thing is, without a doubt, absolutely and completely wrong. No matter how stupid, irrespective or sacrilegious his actions was. After all, if Jesus could forgive the people who crucified him because "they knew not what they do," then no Christian has a reason or a right not to do likewise.

[Neoteny]

I would have to say that I agree with you, but that doesn't stop it from happening. He has a thread where he listed all the responses he got via email. Here's a few choice one's that I enjoyed...

You just don't have the backbone to attack the Muslims do you? A bit of a castrati are we? Coward

if your college wont fire you ill come out there and take care of the problem for them

You're a bigot and a hypocrite. Try insulting Muslim's and then I'll support your biased attack against Catholics.

idiot.

I just want you to know that I and my family will be praying for you. God bless you.

You are a monster. We need another Inquisition to root out idiots like you (and anyway, the Church only excommunicated heretics and witches, then handed them over to the state for punishment. We never executed them directly). How dare you insult the Lord God like that. Losers like you will suffer. I hope and pray that this will loose you your job and your career.

Since you mentioned fatwa, I bet you don't have the balls to descreat a Koran. They are a people of the Book also. Go ahead, I dare you.

Why are your people so fowl towards Catholics?

If you want to have anti Catholic views, fine. do so on your own time.

You should be checked out by a very good psychiatrist. Your mind is indeed in trouble. You now have had your 15 minutes of fame. What next? You should be praying for your life.

You are really fucked now. Lock your doors at night, and check under your car before you turn the ignition key.

I know the majority of Catholics (and other transubstantial sects) are wonderful people (I've mentioned before that most of my closest friends are Catholic) but beneath the calm exterior is this disgusting underbelly that we all need to deal with. People like the above (not all, some were merely well wishers, and I included them in the minority, but put them up there to show that quite a few were offering their prayers and condolences for whatever reason) are allowed to hide under the veil of peace and all that other nonsense people claim are inherent in religion. I don't really think there's much left to say. Their will to prevent feelings of "deep hurt" obviously doesn't extend to everybody, so why should PZ's?

EDIT: Also, what's with this ironic obsession with Muslims? I'm more worried about Catholics now than I am of Muslims...

[MeDeFe]

So what he left with a cracker, maybe he wanted to partake of in in private.

I think this is the third time we agree on something jay, maybe we do have a few things in common after all.

AND we were both born in Germany? We both love a good jagersnitzel and spetzle? (forgive my spelling)

I'm really not the monster some make me out to be.

Well, I wasn't born in Germany and I prefer my meat without breadcrumbs (Schnitzel tend to be crumbed, poor animals, what did they do to deserve an end like that?), Spätzle is ok, though.

[tzor]

I would have to say that I agree with you, but that doesn't stop it from happening. He has a thread where he listed all the responses he got via email. Here's a few choice one's that I enjoyed...

Out of them only one might be vaguely considered a "death threat." As for idiots on email, that is, alas far too commonplace and people often talk out of their asses when writing on the internet. (Just look around here, or in the forum for flaming and we are all nice people here.)

Consider the Good Old Days of death threats when the KKK could come and break all of your bones while the police stood on the sidelines and watched. (Ah yes those were equal opportunity bastards, African Americans, Roman Catholics and Union Organizers - the later they considered "communist.") Email idiots? Please.

[Neoteny]

I would have to say that I agree with you, but that doesn't stop it from happening. He has a thread where he listed all the responses he got via email. Here's a few choice one's that I enjoyed...

Out of them only one might be vaguely considered a "death threat." As for idiots on email, that is, alas far too commonplace and people often talk out of their asses when writing on the internet. (Just look around here, or in the forum for flaming and we are all nice people here.)

Consider the Good Old Days of death threats when the KKK could come and break all of your bones while the police stood on the sidelines and watched. (Ah yes those were equal opportunity bastards, African Americans, Roman Catholics and Union Organizers - the later they considered "communist.") Email idiots? Please.

They are internet morons, but they still exist, and if you're only conceding one of those to be threatening than my respect for your skills of discernment have dropped to a new low.

[animorpherv1]

"TZOR IS AN ABSOLUTE CUNT "

[F1fth]

I would have to say that I agree with you, but that doesn't stop it from happening. He has a thread where he listed all the responses he got via email. Here's a few choice one's that I enjoyed...

Out of them only one might be vaguely considered a "death threat." As for idiots on email, that is, alas far too commonplace and people often talk out of their asses when writing on the internet. (Just look around here, or in the forum for flaming and we are all nice people here.)

Consider the Good Old Days of death threats when the KKK could come and break all of your bones while the police stood on the sidelines and watched. (Ah yes those were equal opportunity bastards, African Americans, Roman Catholics and Union Organizers - the later they considered "communist.") Email idiots? Please.

They are internet morons, but they still exist, and if you're only conceding one of those to be threatening than my respect for your skills of discernment have dropped to a new low.

And when the hell has one death threat not been enough to qualify something as a serious matter?

[Hologram]

By the way in the case some of you really don't realize why a Roman Catholic would find it offensive, here is a web page from Catholic Ansers on the Real Presence and Christ in the Eucharist.

Yes for Roman Catholics this is serious stuff indeed.

Oh I knew why it was a serious offense, I just found it hilarious and stupid.

[Neoteny]

This is apparently being referred to as "Crackergate" now. I like it.

[Juan_Bottom]

This is apparently being referred to as "Crackergate" now. I like it.

I love how adding "gate" to the end of anything makes it a scandal. Neat-o!

[apey]

screw the idea that he stole a freakinn CRACKER
I am thoroughly outraged that they now have guns in the house of the lord
( the college is now having armed university police officers standing guard during mass.)
I mean seriously what are they gonna do shoot the next person that wont spit out a cracker. and they won't let us kill people that rape children

[apey]

this is a funny comment: And of course you'll have heard about the new low-fat communion wafers: "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus®!".

[tzor]

this is a funny comment: And of course you'll have heard about the new low-fat communion wafers: "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus®!".

That is so wrong, but it's so close to another situation in the Catholic Church, the desire to use non wheat based communion hosts for those who suffer from gluten allergies. The church insists that unless it is wheat it is "invalid matter" for communion.

That will be 30 days in purgatory for you apey, and you know what purgatory is around here ... that's when the white dice roll nothing byt 6's.

[apey]

yay I might get some good defending dice rolls for once

and I thought that it didn't matter what kind of grain was used as long as it was unleavened
(for those who don't know yeast free)

[Nickbaldwin]

"TZOR IS AN ABSOLUTE CUNT "

Nicely done!

SPREAD THE WORD!

[tzor]

yay I might get some good defending dice rolls for once

and I thought that it didn't matter what kind of grain was used as long as it was unleavened
(for those who don't know yeast free)

The eastern churches have used leavened bread and there was a time when the west used it as well.

The basic requirement, from the Code of Canon Law is as follows:

Can. 924 ß1 The most holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be celebrated in bread, and in wine to which a small quantity of water is to be added.

ß2 The bread must be wheaten only, and recently made, so that there is no danger of corruption.

ß3 The wine must be natural, made from grapes of the vine, and not corrupt.

I found the following on Catholic Answers

The reality is that a valid consecration requires a host made of wheat flour and water. In the West, the host is unleavened; in the East, it is leavened. But otherwise the host is nothing but wheat by the time it is brought to the altar (the water already having evaporated, of course).

No other flour may be used: not rice, not barley, not corn, not rye, not anything else. The use of any flour other than wheat flour makes the bread invalid matter. If a priest said the words of consecration over such bread, nothing would happen. There would be no consecration, just as there would be no consecration if the wine were replaced with plain grape juice or with any other liquid.

Why did Jesus choose wheat bread and wine as the elements of the Eucharist? Why didn't he choose, say, rye bread and water or cheese and beer? Theologians offer us several reasons, but the bottom line is that our Lord could have chosen whatever he wished as the elements. Wheat bread and wine may have been the most suitable, for many reasons, but he could have chosen anything.

We need to keep in mind that he did choose wheat bread and wine, and that's that. Only those elements can be consecrated. Only those can be transubstantiated into his body and blood. Nothing else will work. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the earliest centuries, and it is an unchangeable teaching. Take it or leave it.

and on another page ...

Still the question remains to be answered: Why, among all grains, is wheat the most conducive for the Blessed Sacrament, in which Christ’s body is truly present under the appearance of bread? Wheat bears to a superlative degree both the agricultural and biblical connotations of being sown, fallen, crushed, buried, and then after harvest risen into life-giving bread that is broken and shared. These are all symbols of Christ’s passion, death, resurrection, and Real Presence to us in the sacrifice of the Mass.

But why wheat and not, say, barley or rye, which have the same physical characteristics? Because of the historical and cultural context of the Incarnation. Wheat was the predominant grain in the Middle East of biblical times. This can be seen by the scriptural references below. We may speculate that if Jesus had chosen to incarnate in Japan, rice would have been the proper grain for altar bread. But he did not, and it is not.

Scripture may be cited to support the thesis that no grain except wheat is appropriate for the Eucharist. First, Jesus compares his own body to wheat in John 12:24 when he declares: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."

Next, he compares Peter—and, by extension, the other apostles—to wheat in Luke 22:31–32, when he admonishes him, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." These rich verses indicate a participation of the Church’s hierarchy (successors of the apostles) in our Lord’s redemptive suffering, as well as a share in his supreme authority to teach the faith infallibly and to sanctify the community.

Finally, in the parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13:24–30, which ends with the command "gather the wheat into my barn," Jesus compares his own chosen people to wheat, the people of whom his Mystical Body is comprised.

Throughout these passages we hear Christ provide the unifying metaphor of wheat for himself, the head of the body, and his members (both clergy and laity). He mentions no other grain in this context. Since the Eucharist is preeminently the sacrament of unity, we are forced to conclude that its proper matter, willed by the founder of the Church, is wheat flour.

To buttress this conclusion, we can quote some pertinent verses referring to wheat from the Old Testament. For example, Psalm 81:17 prophecies God’s eucharistic plan for the Church (the New Israel): "I would feed you [Israel] with the finest of wheat." Moreover, announcing the fulfillment of this plan, Psalm 147:14 proclaims, "He fills you with the finest of the wheat."

Hmm, I suppose it's time for Nick Boring to make another colorful ejaculation about me.

[Nickbaldwin]

sorry to dissappoint.

[MeDeFe]

So they use wheat because they've always used wheat?

[Neoteny]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... n.php#more

So here's the results plus 1650 comments. Exciting.

[MeDeFe]

The wafer, once consecrated, is considered sacred and must be immediately consumed, according to church teachings. Cook, who reportedly was raised Roman Catholic, has said he did not realize he was required to swallow the wafer right away and merely wanted to show it to a friend.

From one of the articles linked to in Pharyngula, tells you something about how thorough some catholics are when it comes to telling their adherents about their religion.