News-Record.com

Although I respect the RCC’s respect for the Eucharistic elements; as a Reformed Protestant, I disagree with their theology. One of the reasons that the Lord's Supper was done only infrequently prior to the Reformation, and the wine withheld from the laity, was because of the Medieval Church’s belief that the elements are changed (transubstantiated) into the actual flesh and blood of Christ at the consecration. Any mishandling or disrespect for the break or wine was done directly to Jesus IN the elements. The Reformers all parted with this view to one extent of another. They felt that it generated superstition, and was, in fact, contrary to Jesus’ covenant-remembrance intention. I personally believe that the bread and wine do become, for us, the Body and Blood of Christ – spiritually and by faith; but not actual “protoplasm and platelets.”

It is incidents like the one described in this article that highlight the superstitious attitude that can result from the RC view, in which the focus is on the physical nature of the elements rather than the spiritual edification conveyed to the communicant by faith, as he remembers that Jesus’ blood was spilled and His body broken to
atone for his sins – with all the attendant spiritual assets and blessings it purchased for him.

In the Protestant view, the wafer should be honored and respected as truly representing, or making-real-again Christ’s atonement, but Jesus’ crucified, OR ascended, flesh is not “contained” in it; and whatever someone does with it is HIS problem and not the Church’s. Although I must say that the young man had it coming for doing such a dumb thing, knowing full well it was not acceptable. Therefore, he should have the civility and decency to return it, regardless of his own views and hang-ups.

Apparently, the story was finally resolved a week after the wafer was "kidnapped." The student received death threats and decided to let these nuts have their cracker.

What sort of crazy people live among us? Seriously?

Oh well, so much for fair and balanced.

So making threats and accusing this student of going "beyond hate crimes" isn't crazy? Care to give some reasoning to balance things out and support the Catholic response of posting armed guards to protect the crackers?

I think I addressed these points quite thoroughly, expressing my opposition to the RC view of the mass, AND saying that "It is incidents like the one described in this article that highlight the superstitious attitude that can result from the RC view"

I tried to explain, as I think you already probably know, that the false transubstantiation doctrine of the RCC implies that the VERY Body of Christ is resident in a consecrated host. If this view is ardenty held, it is predictable that the RCC would protect it by all means possible.

Personally, I reject this view, along with all Reformed Christians. Though I have a high view of the Eucharist, I do not accept transubstantiation. This is the balancing part, Namtac. All you can see is this one poor dude's plight for having transgressed what he KNEW to be a cadinal doctrine of the RCC. He has since rightly returned it.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the Baptistic view, which sees the bread cube as a mere memory-jogger of the atonement. The Reformed view sees it as a sacrament, imbuing the believer with grace; but NOT because it is the "protoplasm and platelets" of Jesus, but because it becomes FOR US the Body and Blood of Christ, sacramentally and spiritually - by faith. It is the anemnesis of the entirety of the crucifixion and resurrection, with its personal implications of saving grace, ones wiht Christ and the other Christians, and the promise of eternal glory that is the spiritual power in the Eucharistic act. Christ is truly present in this sense, and the act is a key element in the Church's being the Body of Christ on earth.

The RCC view is, rightly, a high view, but with a wrong turn into transubstantiation a few centuries back. With transub'n also comes the mistaken view that the mass is another, or secondary, sacrifice - if it is indeed the very body of Christ which is being sacrificed by the priest on the altar. The Scriptures are quite clear that there was only ONE sacrifice 2,000 years ago: no other is needed, no other is possible!

I think I addressed these points quite thoroughly, expressing my opposition to the RC view of the mass, AND saying that "It is incidents like the one described in this article that highlight the superstitious attitude that can result from the RC view"

I tried to explain, as I think you already probably know, that the false transubstantiation doctrine of the RCC implies that the VERY Body of Christ is resident in a consecrated host. If this view is ardenty held, it is predictable that the RCC would protect it by all means possible.

Personally, I reject this view, along with all Reformed Christians. Though I have a high view of the Eucharist, I do not accept transubstantiation. This is the balancing part, Namtac. All you can see is this one poor dude's plight for having transgressed what he KNEW to be a cadinal doctrine of the RCC. He has since rightly returned it.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the Baptistic view, which sees the bread cube as a mere memory-jogger of the atonement. The Reformed view sees it as a sacrament, imbuing the believer with grace; but NOT because it is the "protoplasm and platelets" of Jesus, but because it becomes FOR US the Body and Blood of Christ, sacramentally and spiritually - by faith. It is the anemnesis of the entirety of the crucifixion and resurrection, with its personal implications of saving grace, ones wiht Christ and the other Christians, and the promise of eternal glory that is the spiritual power in the Eucharistic act. Christ is truly present in this sense, and the act is a key element in the Church's being the Body of Christ on earth.

The RCC view is, rightly, a high view, but with a wrong turn into transubstantiation a few centuries back. With transub'n also comes the mistaken view that the mass is another, or secondary, sacrifice - if it is indeed the very body of Christ which is being sacrificed by the priest on the altar. The Scriptures are quite clear that there was only ONE sacrifice 2,000 years ago: no other is needed, no other is possible!

I guess I misunderstood your "fair and balanced" comment. If so, I'm sorry.