Pro-abortion activists threaten to burn the Eucharist

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

John 2:15-17

Hmmm. I guess he just whipped the ground then and politely tipped over their tables.

Now I agree it could end in people getting hurt, because when two people are passionate about something they won't be able to agree. If I agreed with you, that the Eucharist meant nothing and signified only bread, sure, let them burn it. But I and other Christians don't. It is more than that, it is the body and blood of Christ and to agree with you that Christians must hand it over to someone who demands it would be to undermine the value we put on it.

Christians during roman times were excommunicated for handing over to the authorities the sacred books. They were expected to be willing to die for the sake of these things and what they represent. How much more so should we be willing to defend the Eucharist and prevent it from ending up with these people?

As Christians we don't have to be doormats to everyone who demands to do harm to us. It's a cowardly position you have.

Click to expand...

If you crack a whip near someone they move. You don’t have to hit someone with it to chase them away. My position has nothing to do with cowardly it has to do with restraint and thinking ahead about the consequences of my actions. Your “courage” is going to do nothing more than start a riot and add more fuel to the fire resulting in serious injury or death, and for what? Jesus doesn’t suffer when that piece of bread is burnt, He’s in heaven seated at the right hand of God. No, what your talking about is nothing more than vengeful pride. Your plan plays right into their agenda which is to cause conflict, the best remedy is to remove that conflict by giving them a whole bunch of bread and telling them here go burn this we have tons more. This makes their efforts fail to accomplish what it was intended to do. Then they have to say to one another well that didn’t work. Your idea just plays right into their hands and makes their plan successful. It’s not the smart way to handle it, it’s the vengeful way to handle it.

tall73 said:

Into a baby. So admitting that is the process, which we all know, makes the point that abortion removes all the rights of the baby.



So then they were offended, and by your standard, should control themselves.

The court just noted (though not officially yet) that the constitution does not give a right to abortion.

And this would simply ask the states to rule. Even non-religious people get to weigh in on that. And some non-religious people are against abortion.

So all those who are offended or outraged need to control themselves, per your standard.



Yes, you did say that Christians might be offended by it, they shouldn't lash out at them, sometimes we need to stay calm, we are in control of our own actions.

For instance:



I fully support them protesting as well. And voting.

As long as they control themselves when they are offended, and don't conduct illegal activities. But this group didn't control themselves. They illegally disrupted worship services, and called on others to do so. That is illegal. They should control themselves.

Click to expand...

Amen

• We believe that all men are created equal and that their Creator has endowed them with certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not given to us by our government nor anyone else but belong to everyone naturally as part of their being human beings.

BNR32FAN said:

If you crack a whip near someone they move. You don’t have to hit someone with it to chase them away. My position has nothing to do with cowardly it has to do with restraint and thinking ahead about the consequences of my actions. Your “courage” is going to do nothing more than start a riot and add more fuel to the fire resulting in serious injury or death, and for what? Jesus doesn’t suffer when that piece of bread is burnt, He’s in heaven seated at the right hand of God. No, what your talking about is nothing more than vengeful pride. Your plan plays right into their agenda which is to cause conflict, the best remedy is to remove that conflict by giving them a whole bunch of bread and telling them here go burn this we have tons more. This makes their efforts fail to accomplish what it was intended to do. Then they have to say to one another well that didn’t work. Your idea just plays right into their hands and makes their plan successful. It’s not the smart way to handle it, it’s the vengeful way to handle it.

Click to expand...

Or he used the whip on actual people. The text doesn't give either of our opinions explicitly. Both are potentially valid. In any case, there were things Jesus was not going to permit. The sacredness of his Father's house was enough for him to use coercive force to remove people. The threat of violence. Now, your strategy on the other hand, holds that the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ should given directly to those who would desecrate it and that this is to win in the end. That is cowardly, because it is he refusal to defend what is good. To you, as a modern along with the atheists in this thread, it is just a piece of bread. To historic Christians, it is more. It is worth is dying for. So why i agree with you or the atheists here that it is something that Catholics shouldn't defend? We're not protestants who reject the Eucharist, we're not atheists who also reject it.

Is there any point at which you would defend something Christian? Or would you hand over everything that an enemy demands of you simply to satisfy them? That to is cowardice.

In this case, who would be starting the riot? The Catholics defending the Eucharist or the aggressors you are encouraging to do this thing? Whose side are you on? You're clearly not on the side of the Catholics here in that you are encouraging them to give in to those who threaten them because they don't have the opinion on abortion that the progressives have. It's not as if Christians don't any power to resist their enemies at the moment in the USA. If you stand up for yourself and draw a redline and make your enemy know that you are willing to die for something, they have to be willing to have the same resolve to act. The Eucharist is worth that, despite what you and the atheists here say.

cow451 said:

Jesus only did that one time. He did not gather a militia nor encourage his followers to do the same.

Click to expand...

Once is enough to set an example. Christians do not have to be passive in the face of all aggressiveness. Especially on the things they hold most sacred.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Or he used the whip on actual people. The text doesn't give either of our opinions explicitly. Both are potentially valid. In any case, there were things Jesus was not going to permit

Click to expand...

You think those merchants weren’t selling animals in the temple the very next day? Those people had been doing that for centuries, they didn’t know who Jesus was so they had no reason to stop. As far as they knew Jesus was just some crazy guy that scared them out of the temple. There’s no way they stopped selling sacrificial animals just because of that. The whole purpose of that was to fulfill the prophecy. “Zeal for Your house will consume Me”.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Now, your strategy on the other hand, holds that the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ should given directly to those who would desecrate it and that this is to win in the end.

Click to expand...

I said give them bread not consecrated bread.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

To you, as a modern along with the atheists in this thread, it is just a piece of bread. To historic Christians, it is more. It is worth is dying for

Click to expand...

Jesus gave that bread to Judas at the last supper.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Is there any point at which you would defend something Christian? Or would you hand over everything that an enemy demands of you simply to satisfy them? That to is cowardice.

Click to expand...

Yeah I would defend innocent lives not material possessions.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Whose side are you on? You're clearly not on the side of the Catholics here in that you are encouraging them to give in to those who threaten them because they don't have the opinion on abortion that the progressives have. It's not as if Christians don't any power to resist their enemies at the moment in the USA. If you stand up for yourself and draw a redline and make your enemy know that you are willing to die for something, they have to be willing to have the same resolve to act.

Click to expand...

I am on the side of Catholics haven’t you seen my other posts in this thread? You are overreacting like some sort of extremist. You think Jesus wants us fighting people over the Eucharist?

BNR32FAN said:

You think those merchants weren’t selling animals in the temple the very next day? Those people had been doing that for centuries, they didn’t know who Jesus was so they had no reason to stop. As far as they knew Jesus was just some crazy guy that scared them out of the temple. There’s no way they stopped selling sacrificial animals just because of that. The whole purpose of that was to fulfill the prophecy. “Zeal for Your house will consume Me”.

Click to expand...

You're probably right, so why did Jesus do it then? If it was fruitless, if it was antagonistic, if it was pointless. Why didn't Jesus do what you recommend welcome them into the sanctuary and give into the merchants even more?

BNR32FAN said:

I am on the side of Catholics haven’t you seen my other posts in this thread? You are overreacting like some sort of extremist. You think Jesus wants us fighting people over the Eucharist?

Click to expand...

I believe Jesus would want us defending his body and blood. Not handing it over to those who would desecrate it. You're saying I'm an extremist for holding this position, for not surrendering immediately. Seems entirely reasonable to me to defend what has value to you. You defend the protestors and their interests, I see more value in defending the Catholics and their interests.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

You're probably right, so why did Jesus do it then? If it was fruitless, if it was antagonistic, if it was pointless. Why didn't Jesus do what you recommend welcome them into the sanctuary and give into the merchants even more?

Click to expand...

Your missing the point and your comparison doesn’t fit the situation. The merchants want to make money. The protestors just want to antagonize Christians. Giving the merchants more business is giving them exactly what they want just like getting angry and resorting to violence is giving the protestors exactly what they want. Your plan of retaliation makes their efforts to antagonize you successful. Your letting them win by giving them what they want. What they don’t want is for it to not bother you. That’s the whole point of burning the bread. You give them just regular bread and smile and say go ahead we’ve got plenty then that ruins their entire plan because they’ve failed to antagonize you which was their whole intention from the beginning.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I believe Jesus would want us defending his body and blood. Not handing it over to those who would desecrate it. You're saying I'm an extremist for holding this position, for not surrendering immediately. Seems entirely reasonable to me to defend what has value to you. You defend the protestors and their interests, I see more value in defending the Catholics and their interests.

Click to expand...

Why are they burning it? What’s the purpose of burning it? What’s the goal they’re trying to accomplish?

Why don't they just set themselves on fire like Thich Quảng Đức? Now THAT is devotion!

BNR32FAN said:

Your missing the point and your comparison doesn’t fit the situation. The merchants want to make money. The protestors just want to antagonize Christians. Giving the merchants more business is giving them exactly what they want just like getting angry and resorting to violence is giving the protestors exactly what they want. Your plan of retaliation makes their efforts to antagonize you successful. Your letting them win by giving them what they want. What they don’t want is for it to not bother you. That’s the whole point of burning the bread. You give them just regular bread and smile and say go ahead we’ve got plenty then that ruins their entire plan because they’ve failed to antagonize you which was their whole intention from the beginning.

Click to expand...

Letting them win would be to give into their position on abortion and letting them burn the Eucharist. The group itself, Ruth Sent us, said they would burn the Eucharist. Not bread, not an unconsecrated host, but the Eucharist. They may indeed want to antagonize Christians, because they believe they can pressure them into a pro-abortion position or keeping silent, but Christians don't have to consent to that. Nor do they have to bend the knee to these protestors. It isn't losing to resist to them. They do not have all the power here and Christians should have an interest in defending their sacraments from these Moloch worshippers.

Now, given that this group has not said it wants to burn bread but the Eucharist, are you on the side of Catholics and other Christians who would defend the Eucharist or are you on their side?

BNR32FAN said:

Your missing the point and your comparison doesn’t fit the situation. The merchants want to make money. The protestors just want to antagonize Christians. Giving the merchants more business is giving them exactly what they want just like getting angry and resorting to violence is giving the protestors exactly what they want. Your plan of retaliation makes their efforts to antagonize you successful. Your letting them win by giving them what they want. What they don’t want is for it to not bother you. That’s the whole point of burning the bread. You give them just regular bread and smile and say go ahead we’ve got plenty then that ruins their entire plan because they’ve failed to antagonize you which was their whole intention from the beginning.

Click to expand...

Just curious: is there a situation where they don't get their way? If they antagonize you, they win, but if you let them take what they want, then they win.

What's someone who actually has a concept of the holiness of the sacraments supposed to do?

dzheremi said:

Just curious: is there a situation where they don't get their way? If they antagonize you, they win, but if you let them take what they want, then they win.

What's someone who actually has a concept of the holiness of the sacraments supposed to do?

Click to expand...

BNR32FAN said:

You give them just regular bread and smile and say go ahead we’ve got plenty

Click to expand...

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

The group itself, Ruth Sent us, said they would burn the Eucharist. Not bread, not an unconsecrated host, but the Eucharist

Click to expand...

That would fall under the category of theft and you could call the police and press charges on them.

BNR32FAN said:

That would fall under the category of theft and you could call the police and press charges on them.

Click to expand...

You can also prevent them from stealing it and not hand it over to them. Both are fine options and both are recommended.

BNR32FAN said:

That would fall under the category of theft and you could call the police and press charges on them.

Click to expand...

Before the law the bread (or ashes of the bread) are just what it appears to be; at best you could get a “hate-crime” maybe, but the “theft” would be the “market value” of the consumable. I’m not even sure that a court could recognize the wafer as “the Eucharist”.