Over 200 consecrated hosts stolen, desecrated in Spain art exhibit

[ProVobis]

I don’t think Provobis has tried to live in a vacuum if s/he’s read books on particle physics. For the record, I don’t have a problem with reception in the hand, and that is how I regularly receive. However, Provobis’ point seems practical; concern that the ability to receive by hand makes theft for the workaday person easier.

Thanks, but I wasn’t necessarily targeting reception by hand. That’s not my agenda. Laity had been using all kinds of rationale to handle consecrated hosts before then. Communion ministers are now very plentiful and administer without the watchful eyes of a priest or bishop.

But my point was more that given enough time and desensitivity and and permissions there will be no such thing as desecration of the sacrament any more. I mean 200 years from now, or even 50 years, these events will probably not be so shocking and blood-boiling.

 

[ProVobis]

I just saw this thread and am disgusted by it, but I guess it comes down to whether they were truly consecrated or not, if the claim is they were, I have to wonder why God did not take any action against this, surely that would be plenty to get at least some kind of divine warning.

That brings up an interesting theological point. In the case of sacrilege, why doesn’t Christ remove Himself from His own Presence in the consecrated particles? What purpose does it really serve for Him to remain there? It certainly doesn’t benefit the desecrator.

 

[TCEL]

But my point was more that given enough time and desensitivity and and permissions there will be no such thing as desecration of the sacrament any more. I mean 200 years from now, or even 50 years, these events will probably not be so shocking and blood-boiling.

Do you mean in the eyes of the faithful?

 

[Phil502]

If he actually went to Mass 200 times you think he might have learned something good.

 

[ProVobis]

Do you mean in the eyes of the faithful?

You could say that. I mean it’s not shocking that lay communion administrators distribute on their own anymore. Imagine if you had shown someone a picture of them doing so in the 50’s, for example.

In the eyes of God, I don’t know. Refer to the theological questions I posited.

 

[TCEL]

If he actually went to Mass 200 times you think he might have learned something good.

That’s what I was thinking. I also wonder if his parents are Catholic…

 

[Crusaderbear]

I don’t think Provobis has tried to live in a vacuum if s/he’s read books on particle physics. For the record, I don’t have a problem with reception in the hand, and that is how I regularly receive. However, Provobis’ point seems practical; concern that the ability to receive by hand makes theft for the workaday person easier.

Hey, a lot of stuff involving particles physics happens in a vacuum! Jus’ sayin’…
Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate it!

 

[pepipop]

he can say they were consecrated hosts, but they probably weren’t.
he just knows he will enrage people more by saying they are.

I’d agree, I doubt he could have sat through that many masses to accumulate them. Hence one picture up of his doing so, and the others non-consecrated.

Still absolutely dreadful, but if he doesn’t believe in the host being the body and blood of Christ then he doesn’t believe.

How any of this can be viewed as ‘art’, is also pathetic, but the devil’s working overtime and has been for quite some time now.

 

[Abba]

May God bless the ‘private citizen’ who picked up the hosts. I guess the artist is trying to become famous overnight and leave his dirty footprints in history. Praying for him…

This reminds me of a medieval story, I don’t recall who mentioned it - maybe Saint Teresa or some Spanish mystic. It goes that there was an artist who painted what can be called soft porn, but they were supposedly artistic oil paintings. When he died he appeared to someone, a monk ( I forget the details) who was very surprised to learn he was in purgatory or hell. Well, it was on account of his art, but, I forget if the monk collected all the paintings and destroyed them to get him out of purgatory or what.

 

[Micosil]

I wonder who took his picture!? How weird! Thanks for posting the link to this picture.

That brings up an interesting theological point. In the case of sacrilege, why doesn’t Christ remove Himself from His own Presence in the consecrated particles? What purpose does it really serve for Him to remain there? It certainly doesn’t benefit the desecrator.

The thing is, the Sacraments carry real grace with them, and there’s no immediate way to “undo” a Sacrament or “take back” the grace they convey.

 

[ProVobis]

The thing is, the Sacraments carry real grace with them, and there’s no immediate way to “undo” a Sacrament or “take back” the grace they convey.

I understand that. It’s a valid point. But grace gets “wiped out” by the sacrilegious act, no? At least sanctifying grace, if there is any. Even when consumed there reaches a point where the Real Presence doesn’t exist anymore, no?

 

[Thomas_White]

Mine start boiling when they started allowing the laity to handle the sacred particles with their hands. Seems like it was a precursor to all these public displays of desacralization.

I have to agree.

 

[Micosil]

I understand that. It’s a valid point. But grace gets “wiped out” by the sacrilegious act, no? At least sanctifying grace, if there is any. Even when consumed there reaches a point where the Real Presence doesn’t exist anymore, no?

I think the fact that the priest speaks in the very person of Christ during the words of consecration has something to do with it. In the Bible we repeatedly see that whenever God says something, it takes immediate effect in physical reality (think of Genesis, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light”, or Romans 4:17, “as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”).

So, during the Institution Narrative, when Jesus speaks the words of consecration, His word, being divine, changes or alters physical reality – so it is for the priest, who speaks in the very person of Christ during consecration. And since this change has been, through the priest, divinely performed, I am not sure how it can be “taken back”.

As for when it is consumed, I am guessing that when the very smallest specks, grains or crumbs that can in and of themselves be called “bread” or “host” have been broken down by the digestive system, the Real Presence ceases to exist. I assume these smallest pieces would be of molecular size. But this is just my educated guess.

 

[Billy112]

I think the fact that the priest speaks in the very person of Christ during the words of consecration has something to do with it. In the Bible we repeatedly see that whenever God says something, it takes immediate effect in physical reality (think of Genesis, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light”, or Romans 4:17, “as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”).

So, during the Institution Narrative, when Jesus speaks the words of consecration, His word, being divine, changes or alters physical reality – so it is for the priest, who speaks in the very person of Christ during consecration. And since this change has been, through the priest, divinely performed, I am not sure how it can be “taken back”.

As for when it is consumed, I am guessing that when the very smallest specks, grains or crumbs that can in and of themselves be called “bread” or “host” have been broken down by the digestive system, the Real Presence ceases to exist. But this is just my educated guess.

The Real Presence is gone when the Host is dissolved in water (which is what is done with dropped hosts, if I remember correctly), so I would think you’re right.

 

[Micosil]

The Real Presence is gone when the Host is dissolved in water (which is what is done with dropped hosts, if I remember correctly), so I would think you’re right.

Thank you for confirming. I added a small bit to my reply after you posted your response, by the way, regarding the molecular size of the host. Just a heads up since you have a slightly different quote.

 

[pianistclare]

he can say they were consecrated hosts, but they probably weren’t.
he just knows he will enrage people more by saying they are.

That’s what I was thinking. He gets far more press if he says they were consecrated hosts.
God will take care of him, none the less.

 

[chero23]

This is just sad.

People need to wake up and understand that God is with us, we need to show some reseliance against the enemy.

 

[vsedriver]

…there might have been such a time when all the Catholics in the area might have engulfed this ‘exhibition’ and seized the hosts from the hands of the vandal, .

there were no hosts to seize. The exhibit is of a photograph of the hosts not the real thing. Who knows what happened to those hosts?

 

[ProVobis]

So, during the Institution Narrative, when Jesus speaks the words of consecration, His word, being divine, changes or alters physical reality – so it is for the priest, who speaks in the very person of Christ during consecration. And since this change has been, through the priest, divinely performed, I am not sure how it can be “taken back”.

I’m not sure either but I’m almost positive it doesn’t remain the Real Presence forever. I could be wrong.

But that doesn’t answer the more philosophical question, why wouldn’t Christ withdraw His Real Presence when it’s a cause for further desacralization? Are those Hosts a benefit to the desecrator which I haven’t seen? This of course doesn’t preclude the possibility to repentance in the future. It’s still an objective grave matter.

 

[Abba]

there were no hosts to seize. The exhibit is of a photograph of the hosts not the real thing. Who knows what happened to those hosts?

“The Hosts were laid out on display until a private citizen removed them from the art exhibit.”