What would you be willing to do

[Jaime]

I was subbing for my sister at adoration (She goes every Friday) and as I sat there, I realized that part of my responsibility was to be there to protect the Eucharist. Then of course I started imagining terrorist satanists crashing through the windows to steal the Eucharist. How far would I go to protect it?

So I pose the question to you.

[Aloysius]

I too have had that daydream. I'd certainly risk my life, what better way could you ask to die than to be martyred for the Eucharist?

[TheoGrad07]

I sure hope I'd rise to the occasion and protect Our Lord ... as I've been discussing on another thread ... I'd certainly have the grace to do so, but whether I'd respond is up to my free will. God grant that if I'm ever in that situation, I correspond to his grace.

But Al, if you died, what would happen to Our Lord? Wouldn't the bad guys get him then? I'd hope both could happen: martyrdom and they didn't get him.

[Guest Rick777]

Good question, I would lay down my life for Jesus truly present in the Eucharist in a heartbeat.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='TheoGrad07' date='Nov 22 2005, 03:06 AM']I sure hope I'd rise to the occasion and protect Our Lord ... as I've been discussing on another thread ... I'd certainly have the grace to do so, but whether I'd respond is up to my free will.  God grant that if I'm ever in that situation, I correspond to his grace.

But Al, if you died, what would happen to Our Lord?  Wouldn't the bad guys get him then?  I'd hope both could happen: martyrdom and they didn't get him.
[right][snapback]797520[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Certainly my goal will be to stop them from anything they might do with any means necessary. If I am unable to do so before I die, then may God have mercy on their souls on that day of their murder and sacrilidge.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 21 2005, 11:40 PM']Then of course I started imagining terrorist satanists  crashing through the windows to steal the Eucharist.  How far would I go to protect it? 

So I pose the question to you.
[right][snapback]797331[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If you lived in Baltimore, that wouldn't just be your imagination. My Baltimore parish has had episodes of people breaking into the Adoration chapel. I know a guy who went to Mass, took communion and put it in his pocket, and then his Wicca group used it in a spell.

Lord have mercy!

Jesus truly is a prisoner in our tabernacles. I would use all the strength in my being to defend Him.

[Paphnutius]

I voted to lay down my life....but if terrorists did attack and there was no way that you could defend it, would it be permissible to consume the Blessed Sacrament to prevent defilement?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 22 2005, 09:02 AM']I voted to lay down my life....but if terrorists did attack and there was no way that you could defend it, would it be permissible to consume the Blessed Sacrament to prevent defilement?
[right][snapback]797600[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well , they could dismember you in revenge.

[Thumper]

Here's an additional question to the one hot stuff raises. By what means do you think it is permissible to defend Christ in the Eucharist?

For example, could you foresee that the amount of force used could cause, though not intend, the death of the aggressor?

Or might you choose to defend the Eucharist in a non-violent manner along the principles of peaceful resistance?

Other ideas?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 22 2005, 08:02 AM']I voted to lay down my life....but if terrorists did attack and there was no way that you could defend it, would it be permissible to consume the Blessed Sacrament to prevent defilement?
[right][snapback]797600[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, you can and that is the ultimate defense.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 22 2005, 10:16 AM']Yes, you can and that is the ultimate defense.
[right][snapback]797677[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thanks for the response.

For my own personal knowledge, do you know where one might material regarding this?

[Thumper]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Nov 22 2005, 05:05 AM']Jesus truly is a prisoner in our tabernacles.  I would use all the strength in my being to defend Him.
[right][snapback]797566[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've always had difficulty with the idea of Christ being a prisoner in the tabernacle. The Lord of the Universe broke the bonds of sin and death--and a nicely decorated box confines him?

I understand the "prisoner" imagery as reinforcing the great care we should take of his Body. But others (not necessarily you) seem to take it too far, and ignore that his precious Body and Blood in the consecrated host and wine are always in union with the glorified Lord in heaven----no one can take him captive.

I'm so sorry to hear about what has happened in Baltimore. I fear that it happens all to often elsewhere, as well.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Thumper

[Timothy]

As I have sat in adoration the daydream of some walking in the door with the intent of doing harm to the Eucharist has entered my head as well. I have come to the conclusion that if protecting Christ in a nonviolent manner is the last resort, then I pray that I am up to the task. After thinking about actually having to do harm to another and whether or not it is just or unjust, personally I bnelieve it is a just cause. The only thing that confuses me is the time when Peter went to draw his sword to defend Christ when he was arrested, and Christ told him to put his sword down. However, there is also much support for protecting people in a violent manner if it is the last option. i.e. just war. So, I have come to the conclusion that if protecting Christ in a nonviolent manner is not an option, and I am wrong for inflicting pain to someone...well I guess I will have to live with that, but I know my heart was in the right place.

[Cam42]

[quote]Jesus truly is a prisoner in our tabernacles. I would use all the strength in my being to defend Him.[/quote]

I agree with Thump.

This understanding of the role of the Tabernacle is askew. The tabernacle is not a prison, but rather it is a house or a home for the consecrated host.

Let us not forget that the the traditional form of the tabernacle as a cupboard in the reredos of the altar didn't originate until roughly the 14th century.

Before that the tabernacle was most properly:

1. a cabinet in the sacristy, a custom that is connected with early Christian usage;
2. in a cupboard in the wall of the choir or in a projection from one of the walls which was constructed like a tower, was called Sacrament-House, and sometimes reached up to the vaulting;
3. in a dove or pyx, surrounded by a cover or receptacle and generally surmounted by a small baldachino, which hung over the altar by a chain or cord;
4. lastly, upon the altar table, either in the pyx alone or in a receptacle similar to a tabernacle, or in a small cupboard arranged in the reredos or predella of the altar.

While I am a fan of having the Blessed Sacrament in the reredos or predella, I know that it is a rather late adaptation. Yes, it is for protection, but it is also seen as in the third instance listed a symbol for the Holy Spirit and also the second instance as Sacrament-House.

It wasn't until 1863 that the Vatican decided that the recepticle should be in the reredos.

Also the understanding of the tabernacle is not be a hidden place, because it is not allowable to make it incospicuous in any way. It cannot be hidden.

As a rule, in cathedrals and monastic churches it is not set upon the high altar but upon a side altar, or the altar of a special sacramentary chapel; this is to be done both on account of the reverence due the Holy Sacrament and to avoid impeding the course of the ceremonies in solemn functions at the high altar. On the other hand it is generally to be placed upon the high altar in parish churches as the most befitting position ("Cærem. ep.", I, xii, No. 8; "Rit. rom.", tit. IV, i, no. 6; S.C. Episc., 10 February, 1579).

A number of decisions have been given by the Sacred Congregation of Rites regarding the tabernacle. According to these, to mention the more important decisions, relics and pictures are not to be displayed for veneration either on or before the tabernacle ("Decreta auth.", nos. 2613, 2906). Neither is it permissible to place a vase of flowers in such manner before the door of the tabernacle as to conceal it (no. 2067).

[zunshynn]

I pray I would have the courage to do whatever it took to protect the Eucharist... But I would absolutely not want to kill them as they commit a mortal sin. I would want them to have the opportunity for conversion of heart and reconciliation.

[Thumper]

[quote name='Timothy' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:20 PM']After thinking about actually having to do harm to another and whether or not it is just or unjust, personally I bnelieve it is a just cause.  The only thing that confuses me is the time when Peter went to draw his sword to defend Christ when he was arrested, and Christ told him to put his sword down.  However, there is also much support for protecting people in a violent manner if it is the last option. i.e. just war.  So, I have come to the conclusion that if protecting Christ in a nonviolent manner is not an option, and I am wrong for inflicting pain to someone...well I guess I will have to live with that, but I know my heart was in the right place.
[right][snapback]797762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Timothy, that passage gives me pause as well--but it may be that it makes me come to a full stop! I agree that there is a tradition about being able to protect others from harm by using force. It seems to me, though, that Jesus made it pretty clear through the story of Peter and the sword (not to mention numerous other passages about persecution for faith and turning the other cheeck) that we shouldn't defend him in a violent manner. Again, that ties in to my understanding that Jesus Christ is Lord of the Universe--nothing human can truly injure the King of Glory.

Which leads me to a question--when would protecting Christ in a nonviolent manner not be an option?

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 22 2005, 12:28 PM']I agree with Thump.

This understanding of the role of the Tabernacle is askew.  The tabernacle is not a prison, but rather it is a house or a home for the consecrated host.
[right][snapback]797774[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
a lot of adoration prayers say stuff like "Sacred Heart of Jesus, who hast made thyself a prisoner in our tabernacles, have mercy on us" and stuff like that. The wording comes up a lot in traditional prayers. I don't think it necessarily alludes to the tabernacle being a prison (yes, it is God's house), but of Christ making Himself vulnerable in the hands of people. He allows Himself to come into the world in the form of bread and wine in the hands of a priest, and in a sense is very vulnerable.

[Thumper]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Nov 22 2005, 02:09 PM']a lot of adoration prayers say stuff like "Sacred Heart of Jesus, who hast made thyself a prisoner in our tabernacles, have mercy on us" and stuff like that.  The wording comes up a lot in traditional prayers.  I don't think it necessarily alludes to the tabernacle being a prison (yes, it is God's house), but of Christ making Himself vulnerable in the hands of people.  He allows Himself to come into the world in the form of bread and wine in the hands of a priest, and in a sense is very vulnerable.
[right][snapback]797821[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree it's imagery that is used in the tradition. If the imagery calls us to be respectful and careful and pious in regard to the Blessed Sacrament, that is all well and good.

My point, in light of this thread, is how "vulnerable" Jesus Christ is at this point in salvation history when he is sitting in glory at the right hand of the Father. I think my question is, given the fact that many would defend the Blessed Sacrament with their life, why is such a defense necessary?

Nothing human beings can do can harm Christ. So the idea that we would defend the Blessed Sacrament to the death in order to protect a "vulnerable" Jesus Christ doesn't make sense to me. Also, in the sad cases of the Eucharist being stolen for black masses, etc., I don't believe that Jesus Christ will allow his own Body to be used for evil. So it is not as if the defense is for the purpose of preventing the Blessed Sacrament to be used to give Satan power (though Satanists may believe they are giving power to Satan).

I think the answer to my question is more in the area of recognizing our own responsibility to act on behalf of Christ. In a sense, we are not simply defending Christ, but are defending what we believe to be most sacred, true and holy. In other words, I think defense of the Eucharist, and how we go about it, ends up being more about preserving our integrity as believers and friends of Christ than it is about protecting Christ per se.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Thumper

[Timothy]

So if the Church and we as Catholics believe in just war, how is defending Christ not just? If we are to lay our life down for our brothers and sisters and take others life for a just cause, then how can we not defend Christ with the same virtues?


I hope this doesn't come off like I want to go around looking to hurt people

[Thumper]

[quote name='Timothy' date='Nov 22 2005, 04:31 PM']So if the Church and we as Catholics believe in just war, how is defending Christ not just?  If we are to lay our life down for our brothers and sisters and take others life for a just cause, then how can we not defend Christ with the same virtues?
I hope this doesn't come off like  I want to go around looking to hurt people
[right][snapback]797948[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, I don't think you're wandering around looking for a fight.

I'm just giving my opinion about how I think it would be best to defend Christ, given the fact that I see him as the foundation for teachings about peace and justice. And I think scripture passages such as the one with Peter and the sword may point us to another way of thinking about defending Christ apart from violence.

You indicated in the previous post that if defending the Eucharist in a non-violent manner was not an option, then you would defend the Eucharist through violence. OK, that's your opinion. I'm wondering at what point you would say "non-violence isn't the answer--I'll need to use violence at this point"?