Kathy Shaidle has a point;
“I too have to object to the use of the word “cracker”.
Unlike Protestants, Catholics believe that the communion Host is the actual Body of Christ. We’re touchy about people pocketing the Host because believe it or not, there are weird people into Santeria and stuff who use them in pagan rituals.
Also, er, it’s Jesus.”
It’s just not a very good one.
(Peace Be Upon Him.)
I’m such an authentic Cracker you could call me Saltine. Forget these artifical wannabes. As a native Texan I’m the real deal.
The well-known Protestant Principle says:
“The P.P. may be negatively expressed as the protest against any absolute claim made for a finite reality, whether it be a church, a book, a symbol, a person, or an event. Positively, it may be expressed as the confession that Grace is not bound to any finite form, that God is the inexhaustible power and ground of all being, and that the truest faith is just that one which has an element of self-negation in it because it points beyond itself to that which is really ultimate.”
So Protestants would not see the Host as an embodiment of Christ, because Protestants would see Jesus not beckoning people onto himself, but pointing beyond to God.”
Because he “sacrificed himself as Jesus to himself as the Christ”.
— A Handbook of Theological Terms by Van A Harvey
However, this by no means diminishes the idea of the Mass and the Sacrament as a Sacred event in the lives of Christians.
I very much appreciate the way most Catholic churches remain open, while Protestant churches are usually only available during specific functions.
Catholic churches are often open for prayer, for the Rosary, to light candles, and to offer a respite from the commercial world.
If you think about it, you can find a place in any big city to do just about anything except to try to associate yourself briefly with the Sacred. You can even go to a porno movie if you want to. So everything is available just so long as it does not point to something beyond the temporal realm.
I have a lot of respect for Catholic laymen who rose up against the pedophile priests in their church and have done more than anyone to begin to change the character of lavendar seminaries and orders dominated by gays. And it is they, the people in the pews, and the good priests who remain, who have to bear the brunt of the fallout the pedophiles brought to them.
Oh, and I doubt there is a diocese in North American that hasn’t seen some Protestant inadvertently given the Eucharist. This is almost always innocent, simply because a vistor is not accustomed to the rules, and there have been times when ruder things than a commercial communion wafer have been used to celebrate mass. During war time, people behind enemy lines, and so forth, and sometimes crackers have been used as a substitute.
“If it is now an insult to describe a small wafer as a “cracker”, ”
It’s not, however, calling a small wafer, after it has been consecrated, a cracker, is dismissive and offensive, or, at least, a reasonably intelligent person, should understand, that people of faith, may find it offensive, just like calling Muhammad a pedophile, is offensive to Muslims, regardless of the factual nature of the statement.
I swear like a stevedore, just not here, because, based on the “Profanity is discouraged.” sentence below, it might offend you, and, you might banish me from a site I’ve come to enjoy quite a bit over that past year.
Yeesh, I’m like Vitruvius with the commas tonight.
“By the way, if anyone wants to make fun of what I believe, go ahead; why the he11 should I care what you think?”
Stupid Jews and their stupid hats. Crybabies always whining about antisemitism. Circumcision is gross and torturous, the CMA recommends against it. Is it true the Jewish priest sucks the penis of the baby after circumcision to drink up the blood? Ew. What a stupid, gross, backward culture. There was no Noah, no burning Bush. The Talmud is garbage, just disgusting. The Torah is not historically accurate. An assbackwards stone age culture, I’m glad we knocked down their stupid temples and imposed Greek and Roman culture on them to civilize them.
I can keep going, let me know when you’ve had enough.
I think what I appreciate most about Christianity is that, unlike Islam, it seems to have a sense of humour. Is there any Christian symbol that hasn’t been parodied by now?
Okay, Indy, E.T., since I’m in charge of hellish softdrinks, I guess I’ll bring the Cherry Mountain Dew.
But you know, I think Vitruvius must be coming with us, even as the righteous gloat – and remember, there is no cheese in hell.
Just every Alanis Morisette album after JLP.
And a permanent link-up to Warren K.’s website.
Repent? Repent now?
I altogether agree with bluetech about the media being the hypocrites and fools on this one. And, yes, the irony of the MSM being offended on behalf of the RC Church (anything to disparage PMSH) is rich.
Like GM, I’m a Catholic convert (one of the best things I’ve ever done). I also find quite distasteful and often ignorant certain disrespectful comments here, over the long run (GM, mainly, I think, not from other Christians), about an institution, which gave the West not only our educational and health institutions, but some of the most sublime art on this planet, as well as the underpinnings of the rule of law. “By their fruits ye shall know them”: to look at only the negatives of the Roman Catholic and other Christian churches is simply dirty pool.
There is a huge blind spot concerning Christianity in our now post-Christian and even anti-Christian (most of our public institutions make sure of it) society. I’d go so far as to say that much criticism of Christians and Christian churches—even here—is undeserved and some of it decidedly bigoted. (Kate’s use of the term “cracker” is probably meant to be disrespectful: not a big deal, IMO.) However, it’s a free society: where people have the freedom to say what they choose, many will choose to be willfully ignorant and biased. That’s their loss and one more nail in the coffin of civil discourse and society, I’d say.
I don’t blame the PM in any way. Both the RC hosts—sorry!—and the PMO are at fault here. Surely someone among them should have made it his/her business to be sure the PM knew what was expected: it’s not very difficult. And, IMO, Monsignor Brian Henneberry, Vicar General and Chancellor for the Diocese of St. John, sounds uncharitable to me: it’s his kind of “jot and tittle” legalism that often gives the Church a bad name. I KNOW that if the PM had been briefed on the protocol of the occasion, he would have respectfully followed suit. I believe he’s entirely absolved of any impropriety.
The MSM? Not at all. What degenerates!
Everyone here has missed the issue completely. The Archbishop is the one who violated canon law as this Canon Lawyer points out:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/07/canadian-communion-blunder.html
And catch this closer from a US Canon Lawyer who is no shrinking violet when it comes to Catholic theology:
Update: Sources say Harper consumed the Host, some claiming right away, others, just after Mass when he asked a Catholic what to do with it. Either way, the PM’s decorum is commendable. Now, about Catholics putting Protestants in such positions to begin with . . .
Well that is the MSM sport isn’t it?
..to make a mockery of the other guy’s God/ideology. But of course they didn’t have the courage to sportingly mock the Muslim faith.
It only stings when its their ox getting gored.
Truly spineless wimps.
But if you can’t stand the heat, then stay out of Hades.
But then from God’s perspective, God might think that we’re all bastards.
It’s just that some of us are bigger bastards.
Agreed, lookout their is no greater hypocrisy.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
It is simply a common courtesy to stay away from patently insulting something you do not care about.
If Harper put the host in his pocket, which thing he did not do, it would be not that terrible. Once in downtown church in Calgary, the priest gave communion to a person obviously high on something else.
This, a kind of insult to call it a cracker is not helpful. The only thing to be said, don’t do it in a decent company, if you do it anyway, I’ve had my say, go ahead knock yourself out.
While a church attendee, I would say that I fall short , there are many better people commenting here that do not attend a church, than your agent.
Those that go to church are not necessarily zealots although there are many.
It’s also common courtesy to not take something
as an insult when it’s not intended as an insult.
You remember: mens rea.
“…how can any Catholic be allowed to have any position of responsibility (like supreme court justice) if they believe a cracker is actually the body of Christ because some priest said so?”
They don’t believe the Host is the body of Christ because a priest said so: they believe it because JESUS said so. Of course transubstantiation doesn’t make logical scientific sense. That’s why it’s called a Mystery.
People believe all sorts of things. Unless they ACT on those beliefs in a way that produces a demonstrable harm, who cares what someone’s religious beliefs are?
Great line, Kate. Others are entitled to object, but it’s strange to see this sudden outburst of propriety from some quarters.
As for the media, it is clear, as Posted by: ET at July 10, 2009 4:48 PM earlier, that this has nothing to do with religion, it is to put down Harper.
At last.
A maze of posts for “new” to have to navigate.
LOL.
Insults don’t touch me, though there are some pretty decent people that may feel insulted, they don’t even have to be zealots.
Correction re Lutherans (above): Luther rejected transsubstantiation (the RC belief that the elements actually become the body and blood) and said that Christ is spiritually present “in, with, and under” the physical elements. Calvin (Happy 500th, John!) and most other Protestants adopted approximately similar positions to Luther.
In a Lutheran church, those who don’t want communion are free to remain seated and not go up to the altar at the relevant point in the service (similarly for RC and Anglican), but many Calvinist and probably Baptist denominations (likely including the PM’s) have the elders distribute the elements to the congregation in the pews, and a service where things are done quite differently than what you’re used to can be a bit “interesting”.
I may not know much about religion,and I’m OK with that.My god can beat up your god,if he ever shows up.My suggestion to those who have their knickers in a knot,is to turn on the TV and watch for that ‘slap chop’ commercial,and then order a few. These gadgets will improve your life and make you thinner faster than any religion. Just do it. Cheers and a joyous ‘wallah wackbar’ to all.
“a reasonably intelligent person, should understand, that people of faith, may find it offensive, just like calling Muhammad a pedophile, is offensive to Muslims, regardless of the factual nature of the statement.”
But that rather misses the point.
I didn’t refer to Muhammed as a pedophile.
Islamic law forbids any representation of Muhammed, good, bad or indifferent. Cartoon, line drawing, historical art, doesn’t matter. It is impossible for a infidel to publish any representation without giving offense.
Therefore, avoiding offense is in essence, submitting to Islamic law. You cannot have one without the other. I chose that cartoon simply because it is republished so frequently on conservative blogs, including Kathy’s.
Just as I reject the demands of Muslims that I observe their religious laws, I do not recognize demands by Catholics that I conform to Catholic terminology that suggests I believe that a biscuit, wafer, or cracker is the “body of Christ”.
I don’t.
You find it offensive that a non-believer uses common terminology to describe an aspect of Catholicism.
I find it offensive that a person of faith in a free society would demand non-believers submit their expression to your rules and traditions outside of your places of worship.
What outburst of propriety? As a Catholic, I have the right to be offended by someone calling what I believe to be the Body of Christ a ‘cracker’ – Just as Kate has every right to call it one if she deigns to do so. It’s the marketplace of ideas and opinions baby, and my opinion is that it was disrespectful to many of Kate’s Catholic readers, including myself, to call it such. Your witticisms aside Kate, when a Catholic Priest consecrates that whole aisle I’ll be offended. ’till then, enjoy your crackers.
Only thing I ever figured out about agnostics and atheists is their obvious blind spot, but so what.
ST!
You rock,Kate. Rub their noses in it. Religion is organized superstition. It is a crutch for the weak. Religions,from the barbaric islam to the supposedly gentle Buddhists,allow their SUBJECTS to shirk personal responsibility. Grow up people,there is no god,there is only you.Do the best with what you have.
I am a practicing Catholic. No apologies. My religion is right up there with my wife, kids and grandkids of what I love and am proud of. I have a serious problem with those who are on the outside looking in and know less than nothing about my religion, its tenets, rituals, liturgies, doctrines and history telling us what we should or should not be doing.
None of your business folks. You want to change the way we do things. Come and join. Our doors are open and you are welcome. Then you can express yourself and maybe someone will listen. In the process you might just save your sorry ass.
Oh – and BTW – none of your crap about priest and boys. That was not Christ and he is the God I follow.
I don’t know which God or Jesus the “complaining Catholics” on this thread know…the Jesus that I was taught about wouldn’t give a tinker’s damn about the “cracker” crack. If he wouldn’t care, why would I?
Folks, even the Pope would’ve chuckled. It was harmless. Take offense if you like, but I’m sure that Kate will continue to say whatever she darn well pleases (as will I).
Good for you ‘a different bob’. Couldn’t care less how you do things. Do whatever you want.
Just, please, don’t expect me to give you tax relief, or a separate school system.
Fortunately, since it’s no more your business than mine, my sorry ass doesn’t need your kind of saving.
I don’t bear any animosity towards organized religion. I just draw the line at demands that I acquiesce to their various doctrines in the public sphere.
Being “offended” by neutral terminology suggests that you think I have an obligation to conform to belief system I don’t share.
That’s not going to happen.
“Look at that nice tree.”
“That’s not a tree, you insensitive clod, that’s the miraculous hand of Saint Phillip. Apologize at once! I am deeply offended.”
“Yeah, but that’s a tree.”
What knots people tie themselves into over religion, that you can’t call a cracker a cracker.
LOL… indeed.
“They don’t believe the Host is the body of Christ because a priest said so: they believe it because JESUS said so.” (Dave J., 8:23 pm)
Jesus also said, “I am the Vine,” and “I am the Door.” Was he a vine? Was he a door?
Dear Catholics: we don’t believe those crackers become Jesus’ Christ’s body, and we never will. He died once for all our sins. You deny that Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient everytime you believe you need to eat him to be saved.
“Do this in remembrance of me.” Protestants think those words of Jesus are just a wee bit more on the reasonable side of the whole bread-and-wine thing.
I would say that this whole argument misses the point.
As a catholic, I don’t especially care if Kate called a host a “cracker”- in purely physical terms, it’s not a bad description. Moreover, she isn’t bound by the rules of a faith, unless she chooses to belong to it.
Moreover, I don’t think anyone seriously contests her right to say so.
But that said, Why all of the anti-catholic statements? They seem, well, un-christian
(or intolerant, depending on your views).
Having the right to say something doesn’t mean it is always productive to do so.
Calling the ‘host’ a cracker is really a stretch. I broke into a ‘united’ church when I was a kid. We stole a bunch of wine and a batch of ‘cracker/hosts’. The wine was crap,but those cracker things were gross. I don’t think that even a liberal slathering of the best jam or jelly would have rendered them palatable. I know that some think that I will be going straight to hell for this,but I don’t. I know that I will leave this place with a smile. Life is a cabaret,my friends,life is a cabaret.
Wallyj:
I won’t make any jokes about the crackers tasting bad cause the body of Christ is almost 2000 years beyond its “best before” date, cause that would be really offensive and I’d catch a lot of flack.
Oh, see, now I’m just going to the agnostic’s hell. You two are going to the hell where they play The View on a loop, 24-7, for ever and ever…
(Possible Get Out of Hell Free Card: The United Church doesn’t count…)
“You find it offensive that a non-believer uses common terminology to describe an aspect of Catholicism.”
Kate,
Nope. Not in the least. See my comment at 6:47pm.
I also never said you called anyone a pedophile, nor would I support any “demand” that you or anyone else to follow the tenants of any religion.
What I did say was calling the host a “cracker” was dismissive and Catholics might find it offensive.
I believe that you knew this when you wrote it making your post at 7:01pm seem disingenuous and that’s the bit I found disagreeable; your comments at 8:48pm seem to show that you were aware.
In short:
I fully support mocking/insulting everyone’s most sacred tenants/beliefs. I just like everyone to be up front and say “I know this is insulting; I don’t give a shit.”
Shmeh,the MSM are comma-toast to me.
Like Iv’e said before. No one has a sense of humor anymore.
That’s funny.
Except nobody said you had to conform or adhere to Catholic terminology, Kate. You can call it a ‘cracker’ all you want. And we have the right to call you on it and say that we find someone calling what we believe to be the Body of Christ a cracker is offensive to our beliefs. That’s the beauty of free speech.
You don’t have to change at all – you can keep doing what you’re doing ’till the end of your days, long may they be – but pity the person who chooses to alienate their friends over a preference to be obstinately tactless.
Have to agree with Kate on this one… For an individual who’ll happily go out of her way to offend muzzies, It’s a bit rich for Kathy to take offense when Kate calls a cracker a cracker…
Intellectual honesty isn’t a suggestion, it’s a requirement…
Black Mamba,as long as the shows with Rosie aren’t in the loop ,well,I can die with that.Otherwise ,that would be hell. …Jeevus,forgive me for I have sinned,and place the symbol of your life in my mouth,to cleanse me of these sins. I feel better now and will continue to be an a-hole until next Sunday.
When I was a kid growing up in Midland, Texas, I wasn’t a Catholic, but my best friend was.
Eventually Jack went to the seminary and became a priest.
Before he got the call, we chased the same women, drank out of the same jug, and hung around with the same crowd.
Sometimes when I saw him coming from mass I would grin and say, “Hey, it’s my favorite mackerel snapper.”
He would grin and say, “I’d rather be a mackerel snapper than a blankety-blank-blank-blank.”
And then we would take off for whatever outrageous mischief we could get into that day.
You gotta love symbolism and ritual.
Been to a number of funerals (do rituals get better than this?). To be perfectly honest, never even gave a thought to service vs. mass, or host vs. cracker, etc. Is this the type of sh1t you think about when you go to a funeral?
Funny, I can’t recall ever thinking I have to catch that funeral because it’s RC or Jewish or whatever.
What anti-Catholic statements, GM? Are you perhaps confusing lack of submission with anti-Catholicism? If so, you’re obviously not alone in this regard.
I’m disappointed, and a bit surprised, with the attitude of some of the Catholic commenters, Kathy included. To — in effect — *demand* that non-Catholics describe a baked flatbread — a cracker, a wafer — as being the body of Christ is….kind of greedy, or something; it’s a bit like inappropriate touching, or something. It’s oddly pushy — odd because the forward thrust is portrayed as resistance to meanness and aggression. Odd one.
Bottom line: any demand, by anyone of any faith, that others bow unreasonably — alter their use of common language, in this case — in enforced obedience to another person’s privately held belief is a little bit piggish, and the extra topping of righteousness doesn’t lessen the effect, to put it mildly. Especially in this instance, where it’s entirely clear that Kate, in her original — and supposedly offending — post, meant no offense, and was decidedly NOT attacking religion. She was talking about the idiot media.
No, this one isn’t about theology, or Christ, it’s about rudeness, pushiness, and self-victimization — and Kate isn’t the guilty party here.
Vitruvius summed it all up nicely, and nailed it shut:
“It’s common courtesy to not take something as an insult when it’s not intended as an insult.”
Verily.
Amen to that.
Black Mamba: “… hell … they play The View on a loop, 24-7, for ever and ever…”
Nah, I heard that they just installed 200″ HD plasma tvs all over hell. They play soccer 24/7 … the breaks feature womens golf … they are thinking of adding womens hockey and womens ski jumping.
Repent.
And the WNBA has just contacted the HRC’s.
“What’s that?”
“It’s our sacred mound.”
“It’s a beaut!”
“No. it’s a mound.”
Gotta apply for a zombie job.
EBD,
I never suggested that referring to the host as a “cracker” was an issue for me- in fact, I said the exact opposite:
“As a catholic, I don’t especially care if Kate called a host a “cracker”- in purely physical terms, it’s not a bad description. Moreover, she isn’t bound by the rules of a faith, unless she chooses to belong to it.”
When I used to the term “anti-catholic”, I was referring to some of the other things said about catholics and their faith in this thread.
I acknowledge the right of people to say what they please, but at the same time I question the usefulness of some of what has been said.
I HAVE NEVER AND WOULD NEVER suggest that anyone “submit” to my faith- any more than I would expect to submit to that of a stranger.
My faith is not one of “submission”- it is one of choice, period.
I don’t think Kate did anything wrong here- but I don’t see the need to start a religious fight over nothing- which some people here seem to be trying to do.
Well, it seems the gauntlet has been thrown down and it is now okay to be offensive to one another’s religious beliefs, but especially to Roman Catholics. It’s not like this was an inadvertent snub, but that the comment comes from someone with a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic faith. But, having experienced it many times and knowing that it comes from a spiritual anemia (something common to many Protestants who generally attend Church once or twice a year) we have developed big shoulders. There is some truth to the statement that the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic, but I know few with the kind of foul resentment of their fellow Christians that is often seen in Protestants.