"BRIELLE, New Jersey (AP) -- An 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot eat wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained no wheat, violating Roman Catholic doctrine."
I understand that the Church is struggling to find a place for itself in modern times... but lordy loo, when was the last time they had positive press?
[ August 20, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I hadn't realized that doctrine teaches that, say, rice cakes cannot be translated through the power of God.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Rice is soooo Buddhist, Tom. Please.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
The article states that doctrine requires at least some amount of alcohol in communion wine, that grape juice is not acceptable. Must make it hard to be a Catholic recovering alcoholic....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First, Catholics believe that Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species. This is more commonly used to justify only distributing bread at Communion, but clearly partaking only of the wine is a full reception of the Sacrament. This neatly solves the problems for both celiac sufferers and alcoholics, although an alcoholic with celiac has some issues that need to be dealt with.
Second, Catholic beliefs on Communion are deeply held and considered sacred. We believe that during the Eucharist Christ is literally, substantively present.
You might want to think about that before mocking, Tom and Elizabeth.
Finally, as to this particular case, the priest exceeded his authority. If this decision is overturned, it will be on the schedule of the Church and following the correct forms of the Church. Again, this touches on something at the very core of Catholic beliefs. Should such a decision be rushed?
Some of you may consider this trivial. I can assure you many others see the physical form of the Eucharist as very important.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"We believe that during the Eucharist Christ is literally, substantively present.
You might want to think about that before mocking, Tom and Elizabeth."
I DID. Which is why I mocked you. Because if you believe that the body of Christ is in some way empowered by God to BECOME the piece of bread being nibbled, why the heck do you require that the bread be of a certain sort? What logic demands that God only be capable or willing to manifest within wheat-based meal?
Bear in mind that you believe that the bread is, in some imperceptible way, transformed into the body of Christ without physically changing. What aspect of this process requires the presence of ground wheat, and why? Do you honestly believe that Christ does not stoop to, say, cohabiting a corn muffin?
[ August 20, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I respect your beliefs, Dagonee..
FG
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't consider the Communion trivial. I am, however, astounded that such a vital part of a religion can be denied to someone who is physically incapable of receiving it.
Since I cannot accept that God would do this, I must assume that it is the Church's decision. I hope that they come to a conclusion that allows a substitution of some sort, and I think they could have handled it in such a way as to leave no doubt that one way or another this girl would receive the Eucharist.
Posted by Anti-Christ (Member # 5714) on :
Start your day off the holy way, with Christ Chex!!
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Dag, I apologize for making light of this, but to be honest, these (to me) trivial aspects of Roman Catholicism are why I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I am truly sorry to offend you, but I will leave my post in so the reference to what I am apologizing for is there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"We believe that during the Eucharist Christ is literally, substantively present.
You might want to think about that before mocking, Tom and Elizabeth."
I DID. Which is why I mocked you. Because if you believe that the body of Christ is in some way empowered by God to BECOME the piece of bread being nibbled, why the heck do you require that the bread be of a certain sort? What logic demands that God only be capable or willing to manifest within wheat-based meal?
Bear in mind that you believe that the bread is, in some imperceptible way, transformed into the body of Christ without physically changing. What aspect of this process requires the presence of ground wheat, and why? Do you honestly believe that Christ does not stoop to, say, cohabiting a corn muffin?
As you've so lovingly pointed out before, Tom, it's not a question of logic. It's also not a question of God's power - God can do anything, so technically we could dispense with the Mass, the altar, and the priest and just call lunch Communion, right?
It's a question of the Church's interpretation of the command given by Christ at the Last Supper. Frankly, you have no basis for comprehending what this means to Catholics.
You can either accept at face value that at least one practicing Catholic, whom you're at least somewhat acquainted with, is incredibly insulted by such comments and take steps to avoid such insults in the future, or you can keep being insulting.
I can't convince you to stop. But it says more about you than it does about Catholics.
Dagonee
[ August 20, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't consider the Communion trivial. I am, however, astounded that such a vital part of a religion can be denied to someone who is physically incapable of receiving it.
Since I cannot accept that God would do this, I must assume that it is the Church's decision. I hope that they come to a conclusion that allows a substitution of some sort, and I think they could have handled it in such a way as to leave no doubt that one way or another this girl would receive the Eucharist.
As I explained in my first post, in no way is she denied Communion. The substitute is there, in the wine, and is complete as receiving bread alone is. Most Catholics receive only bread at Communion, at least in America.
Thanks Farmgirl, and thanks Elizabeth.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Dag, what was your take on Dogma?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough, but as I said I think the Church representatives could have made that point more clearly in the story (although it is always possible that they did, but the reporter either missed it or chose to go the more accusatory route).
Now that you've mentioned it, though, I do wonder how they would handle an alcoholic with celiac. Possibly extremely watered-down wine? What has been done in the past?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, what was your take on Dogma?
That if you're going to make a movie mocking an institution where the entire plot turns on the interpretation of several points of that institution's doctrine, then you better make sure you understand and present those points well.
In other words, it was too stupid to be offensive.
quote:Now that you've mentioned it, though, I do wonder how they would handle an alcoholic with celiac. Possibly extremely watered-down wine? What has been done in the past?
I don't know what they would do - maybe watered down wine, maybe low-gluten hosts, depending on which is worse for the person. Maybe gluten-free hosts will be allowed - the decision isn't final yet.
The entire orgaization of the Catholic Church is set up to guarantee the availability of Communion to its members. It's not like the Church has a motive to prevent as many people as possible from receiving Communion. I'm sure they'd think of something.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, WHY does the Catholic church believe that Christ only chooses to manifest in certain types of grain? What basis do they use for that belief?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
There are two things in the article that I don't quite understand:
quote:The diocese has told Haley's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten wafer, or just drink wine at Communion, but that anything without gluten does not qualify. Pelly-Waldman rejected the offer...
If this is the case, why does the girl's mother have a problem with her just drinking the wine?
quote:Last month, the diocese told the priest that the church would not validate Haley's sacrament because of the substitute wafer.
Why not, if she drank the wine?
. I guess that I also don't really understand why one can receive the sacrament by just drinking the wine. I was taught (as a Religion major) that transubstantiation requires both wine and bread. I check the Catholic Church's web site and it basically confirms what I was taught:
quote:2. Doctrine about the Eucharistic sacrament, sacrificial meal and sacrificial food: The Holy Eucharist is a true sacrament, instituted by Christ. Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist, even when not being received. It is therefore to be honored and adored. The whole Christ is present in either kind and is received by the communicant. For the wheat bread and grape wine are transubstantiated by the ordained priest into the flesh and blood of Christ so that only the appearance of bread and wine remains.
Isn't it illegal for an eight year old girl to imbibe an alcohol-based liquid at communion? Or is it low enough % that it's okay? I didn't think that religion trumps drug laws. Though presumably it's legal to give your children nyquil.
BTW I'd like to suggest that celiac sprue, whichs is what the girl has, is not that rare.
quote:In the US: The frequency of celiac sprue in the US is relatively low, about 1 in 4700 persons. This might be due to underdiagnosis of the disease in part because of the lack of diagnostic laboratories experienced in celiac sprue. Internationally: Celiac sprue is prevalent in some European countries with temperate climates. For example, the frequency of the disease is between 1 in 250 persons and 1 in 300 persons in Italian and Irish populations. In comparison, the disease is rare in Africans or Asian
It's almost become a trendy thing to be "gluten-free," as seen in WholeFoods-like stores. But it's true that many people are likely undiagnosed. Check out eMedicine if you're curious, especially if you feel you get diarrhea, cramps, and fatigue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because that is what was used at the Last Supper? As to why that's so important, the Church has to meet two very different goals - meeting the needs of a vastly changing society while preserving two-thousand year old beliefs, traditions, and commands received directly from God and Christ. This requires a very difficult balancing act, and any change has to be thoughtfully and prayerfully considered.
Maybe the Church will decide that non-wheat hosts are OK; maybe it won't. But it's not nearly as clear cut or straightforward as you make it out to be. Especially when an alternative already exists within current Church teaching.
Dagonee
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"The entire orgaization of the Catholic Church is set up to guarantee the availability of Communion to its members. It's not like the Church has a motive to prevent as many people as possible from receiving Communion. I'm sure they'd think of something."
That is the most sensible thing I've read in this thread. Thanks for being patient with us Dag. Our questions are motivated by curiosity and they are not intended as an insult to your religion.
::...is reminded of the Simpsons episdoe where Bart's Sunday School teacher was forced to consider whether a ventriloquist and his dummy will both go to heaven (answer: the ventriloquist will go but the dummy won’t) and what would be the fate of a robot with a human brain. She finally snaps under the theological pressure and cries: “I don’t know! All these questions! Is a little blind faith too much to ask?” ::
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, when I was confermed (when I was still Catholic) they just used the wafer, so eithr both isn't neccessary, or I was confermed incorrectly.
Not that either would bother me at this point.
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was taught (as a Religion major) that transubstantiation requires both wine and bread. I check the Catholic Church's web site and it basically confirms what I was taught:
Both must be present on the altar during the Mass for transubstantiation to occur.
A recipient receiving Communion receives the full measure from either, although it is considered best to take both.
As I said before, most American Catholic churches only pass out bread during normal masses.
As to why her Communion was invalid, it may be that there was no wheat-based bread on the altar, which would mean transubstantiation did not occur, making the wine insufficient.
Dagonee
[ August 20, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:As I said before, most American churches only pass out bread during normal masses.
We got goldfish crackers Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Isn't it illegal for an eight year old girl to imbibe an alcohol-based liquid at communion? Or is it low enough % that it's okay? I didn't think that religion trumps drug laws. Though presumably it's legal to give your children nyquil.
I received wine when it was distributed from the time I was 6 or 7 (can't remember when I received First Communion). It's not the percentage, it's the amount. A very small sip is all that's taken.
I'm not sure it's strictly legal, but trust me when I say it would be soon if anyone was prosecuted for it. There's a LOT of Catholics in this country.
Dagonee
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hmm... 8 year old girl condemned to the fires of hell for the mortal sin of a having a digestive disease.
At least, that's the impression I had from the article and upon reading most of this thread. And given my opinion on religion I was ready to jump all over it.
However...
quote: The diocese has told Haley's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten wafer, or just drink wine at Communion, but that anything without gluten does not qualify. Pelly-Waldman rejected the offer, saying her child could be harmed by even a small amount of the substance
There's no gluten in wine and that was part of the offer so why is this even a story? Looks like just a smear campaign on the Catholics.
(edit: looks like Mrs.M found the same quote interesting as me.)
[ August 20, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We got goldfish crackers
I'm assuming you weren't raised Catholic?
I meant most American Catholic churches.
Dagonee
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
BTW, afaik, a smidge of gluten isn't going to kill the girl, maybe just give her a bit of an upset stomach. Many celiac-sprue sufferers don't realize they have the disease for a long time, and just deal with the ill effects.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I'm all for allowing kids and teens sips of alcohol if they're curious, or with dinner or ceremonies when they're big enough to handle it, but it's still illegal. In a situation like this, where the girl can't eat the wafer option, isn't it a little squicky to force an 8-year-old girl to drink wine?
[ August 20, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suppose if you're forced to choose between hell and breaking the law, it's not really a hard choice, right?
-----
Seriously, though, Dag: what's the justification for limiting Christ to specific types of grain? I haven't read the logic behind that, and I'm legitimately intrigued.
[ August 20, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Well, she has three choices. Hell, breaking the law, or getting sick.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, she'll have learned a valuable lesson if she drinks the wine, won't she? It's good to learn that sometimes we have to think for ourselves no matter what the freaking law might say.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm all for allowing kids and teens sips of alcohol if they're curious, or with dinner or ceremonies when they're big enough to handle it, but it's still illegal. In a situation like this, where the girl can't eat the wafer option, isn't it a little squicky to force an 8-year-old girl to drink wine?
It may not be illegal in a Communion context - I don't have time to check right now.
quote:Seriously, though, Dag: what's the justification for limiting Christ to specific types of grain? I haven't read the logic behind that, and I'm legitimately intrigued.
As I said above, it's based on carrying on the tradition of the Last Supper. Proper form is important in Sacraments, though not as important as substance. Whether this is an acceptable reason to adjust the form is a theological question I'm not at all equipped to look into.
And it's not a question of limiting Christ. If anything, it's a question of accepting limits Christ has placed on himself.
Dagonee
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: Both must be present on the altar during the Mass for transubstantiation to occur.
A recipient receiving Communion receives the full measure from either, although it is considered best to take both.
Beat me to it. This is what I was going to answer alr's comment about recovering alcoholics with. I stopped taking the wine when it occured to me that that might be a good way to catch the flu. (dang that was a long time ago)
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
No one's forcing her to drink the wine - her mother has no problem with her drinking the wine. Also, I don't think that it's illegal to give underage people the amount of wine required for communion (which I understand is only a sip).
Great minds think alike, Pix.
Thanks, Dag, for answering my question. Maybe it's time for me to look over my Christianity notes.
edit: didn't feel like adding another post
[ August 20, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Mrs.M ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm pretty certain that children are allowed communion wine. You only get a few drops after all.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Dag, You mentioned two thousand year-old traditions. Some Catholic traditions that we think of as eternally Catholic, are more recent innovations, such as priests marrying. I would really like to see a link to the history of this dogma, and, like Tom, would like to know the basis for the need for wheat. I believe what you say is true, I would just like to know the history.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In South Caroline, which is the first state I found a link for, Communion wine for underage drinkers is perfectly legal:
quote:If I'm under 21 can I drink alcohol at home with my parents' permission? You can drink alcohol at your parents' home with their permission. You can also drink alcohol as part of a religious ceremony, as long as the alcohol was purchased legally. Communion is an example of a religious ceremony where it is legal to consume alcohol. S.C. Code Section 20-7-320
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I personally can't figure out why the type of grain in the pita being passed around at the Last Supper is considered a relevant "tradition" for the sacrament, when things like the date, the Jewish prayers recited, the robes being worn, and the oils being anointed are NOT relevant.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:The first element is wheaten bread (panis triticeus), without which the "confection of the Sacrament does not take place" (Missale Romanum: De defectibus, sect. 3), Being true bread, the Host must be baked, since mere flour is not bread. Since, moreover, the bread required is that formed of wheaten flour, not every kind of flour is allowed for validity, such, e.g., as is ground from rye, oats, barley, Indian corn or maize, though these are all botanically classified as grain (frumentum), On the other hand, the different varieties of wheat (as spelt, amel-corn, etc.) are valid, inasmuch as they can be proved botanically to be genuine wheat.
The necessity of wheaten bread is deduced immediately from the words of Institution: "The Lord took bread" (ton arton), in connection with which it may be remarked, that in Scripture bread (artos), without any qualifying addition, always signifies wheaten bread. No doubt, too, Christ adhered unconditionally to the Jewish custom of using only wheaten bread in the Passover Supper, and by the words, "Do this for a commemoration of me", commanded its use for all succeeding times. In addition to this, uninterrupted tradition, whether it be the testimony of the Fathers or the practice of the Church, shows wheaten bread to have played such an essential part, that even Protestants would be loath to regard rye bread or barley bread as a proper element for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
Now the question is why Jewish custom requires using only wheaten bread. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
here is another entry in New Advent
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, I KNOW why the Jewish custom demands unleavened wheaten bread. I'm just surprised that the Catholics choose to recognize that specific aspect of Passover when neglecting the rest of it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Note that it allows for the possibility of non-wheat grains in some theologians writings, but it's unsure. And some of these grains may also have gluten, I think.
I'm not saying wheat is the only possibility. I'm saying that it's possible that wheat is the only possibility, if that makes sense.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I personally can't figure out why the type of grain in the pita being passed around at the Last Supper is considered a relevant "tradition" for the sacrament, when things like the date, the Jewish prayers recited, the robes being worn, and the oils being anointed are NOT relevant.
Those weren't the things being referenced when Jesus said, "this."
Non-Jews were not supposed to conform to Jewish law upon becoming a follower of Christ. So the essential element was extracted.
I'm at a loss to imagine why you feel qualified to decide which parts are essential.
Dagonee
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Found this:
quote:When it comes to powerful Biblical imagery, few words can match the status of wheat -- the grain that first must fall to the ground and die before being reborn as the Bread of Life.
Well, most grains have to fall and "die" before they can grow into another plant. It does seem to be based on geography. Whatever a people's "corn," it would have to become an encased seed before growing again.
quote: With the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, the wheat-only position for Communion wafers is strongly held. The Vatican office ruled in 1994 that men with celiac disease should not be ordained. A Vatican official told NCR that it's a matter of fidelity to revelation. "If a candidate cannot celebrate the Mass under the forms instituted by Christ, that is an obvious problem," the official said -- though another official noted that the norm is subject to the judgment of a local bishop.
I just think that is really sad. Glucose intolerant need not apply. Isn't it hard enough getting priests into the church these days? Is this true?
[ August 20, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From the same article:
quote:He pointed out that Jennifer could drink from the Communion cup and receive the full presence of the Eucharist.
The Richardsons said Twomey's solution was unacceptable because a celiac sufferer could accidentally be exposed to gluten through the chalice.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the parish would be willing to keep the children's portion of the wine separate so it couldn't be contaminated. If a rice wafer on the altar is acceptable, surely a separate cup would be as well.
Further quotes from the article:
quote: Walsh also said the Richardsons had been assured that an uncontaminated Communion cup could be used for Jennifer to receive the precious blood of Christ.
Annette Bentley, president of the American Celiac Society and a practicing Catholic, told the Associated Press that some priests quietly make a substitution to help parishioners. "To be Christian is to be more flexible," Bentley said.
Gary Macy, theology professor at the University of San Diego, said allowing rice wafers as an exception for people with celiac disease is a reasonable option, despite a clear sacred tradition that elevates wheat and wine to important places of status in church ritual. The tradition is unlikely to be changed on an institutional level, he said. But making an exception "does not change the whole ritual," Macy said. "All kinds of things have been dispensed within the history of the church."
Macy said the important role of symbols in worship should not obscure the more important sacramental reality: "The Real Presence of the Lord is there for persons whether they receive Communion or not." Modeling the life of Christ and living a holy life are at the crux of the gospel, Macy said. "The most important thing is not the symbolic act but what the symbolic act stands for."
As for Twomey's proposal that Jennifer receive Communion from the cup alone, Huck and Macy both said the church had been remiss by failing to convey to Catholics that Communion in either species constitutes the complete body of Christ. The cup, Huck said, has been regarded by many as a "secondary symbol."
Servite Fr. John Huels, a professor of canon law at Ottawa's St. Paul University, proposed a third possibility. "If for some medical, psychological, or other reason a communicant declines to drink from the chalice, the diocesan bishop could grant a dispensation to allow the person to [dip] the edge of a rice wafer -- unconsecrated, of course -- in the precious blood," he told NCR. "The person would be receiving under one species, that of the wine, but would be receiving the whole Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity."
Frankly, it's hard to have a good opinion of the parents from this article. A reasonable solution was offered; why wouldn't they take it?
Dagonee
[ August 20, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
It also said it (the part about the priests) was subject to the local bishops' decsions. Is the whole wheat business subject to the bishop's decision? I am so confused.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So the essential element was extracted."
And, to clarify, the essential element of the Passover supper was the fact that the bread was made at least partially of wheat? Because, let's face it: the wafers used today bear no other resemblance to the bread being referenced.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Walsh also said the Richardsons had been assured that an uncontaminated Communion cup could be used for Jennifer to receive the precious blood of Christ.
This quote made me wonder - since the wine and bread are thought to become the body and blood of Christ - would they still retain their non-flesh and blood compounds after consumption? Should the gluten base even be a factor? Is this really just a test of their faith?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote: The next day the Pope meets with the College of Cardinals to say that he has good news and some bad news.
"The good news is that the Church has come into $5 billion."
"The bad news is that we are losing The Wonderbread Account!"
-Trevor
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
I've always been kinda partial to this scripture regarding this issue myself:
quote:LISTEN to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful. For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory -— remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.
Of course, that's from the LDS Doctrine and Covenants so our Catholic friends don't believe it -- but it makes it so that we don't have to worry about silly arguments like this either, and haven't needed to since August of 1830 when this was written down.
And I have to agree with the previous people who said that if the wine is considered enough by itself, why is this even coming up at all? I agree that it just sounds like a smear on Catholics, trying to promote an image of stodgy intolerance. And that says more about the reporter than it does the church.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Taal, the doctrinal distinction between “substance” and “accident” makes it clear that the outer form of the bread, including the gluten, remains unchanged. So I highly doubt that any Catholic priest or theologian would ever suggest that the girl would be unaffected by it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
dkw, what do you mean? I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between substance and accident.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"So the essential element was extracted."
And, to clarify, the essential element of the Passover supper was the fact that the bread was made at least partially of wheat? Because, let's face it: the wafers used today bear no other resemblance to the bread being referenced.
No, Tom, the essential element was bread with some connection to the bread of the time. They chose wheat to maintain that connection.
I'm having a very hard time taking you at face value on this, mainly because you seem to be looking to find fault. People who believe a lot of things you don't and who have studied a lot of documents you haven't have made this rule. I'm not saying they won't change it to accomodate celiacs, but it is something for Catholics to decide, not someone with an incredibly superficial understanding of Catholic theology.
You don't believe a couple hundred things necessary to believe the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Picking nits downstream from the more basic beliefs is pretty silly, given that I know you don't believe in transubstantiation at all.
quote:This quote made me wonder - since the wine and bread are thought to become the body and blood of Christ - would they still retain their non-flesh and blood compounds after consumption? Should the gluten base even be a factor? Is this really just a test of their faith?
The change is not physical. Physical attributes are an element of form, the change is to the substantive aspects of the bread and wine.
A physical inspection of a host after consecration would reveal no differences.
Dagonee
[ August 20, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The change is not physical. Physical attributes are an element of form, the change is to the substantive aspects of the bread and wine.
A physical inspection of a host after consecration would reveal no differences.
Dagonee, what is the change? What do you mean by substantive aspects?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Kat, it’s based on a bunch of medieval philosophical distinctions that really aren’t in use anymore except in academic theology. A lot of the detailed explanations don’t make much sense to people today, because they’re based on what was current in “natural philosophy” (science) at the time the doctrines were formulated. But the church has held onto the basic doctrine, even though the language used to explain it is outdated. Basically, the “essence” of the elements changes, but nothing physically observable about them does. Which includes the way the human body metabolizes (or is unable to metabolize) them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've read the history of chemistry, so I do know a little about what they thought then, but...
Dag, you're an intelligent, thoughtful, faithful person. I'd like to know your understanding of what happens. You can e-mail me if that would be better.
[ August 20, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kat, I don't have time to do it justice, and I might not have the skill even if I did.
The basic premise is that certain ettributes are essential to what something is, and certain ones are not. The former are called substance, the latter accident. This is a gross oversimplification, though.
Catholics believe that the observable attributes of the bread are accident, and that the actual substance of the bread is transformed into the entire being of Christ during consecration (body, mind, and spirit).
But without all the background, this explanation makes little sense except as background knowledge.
A very loose analogy would be when Moody transformed Draco into a ferret. The ferret was entirely different physically than Draco, but was still him. This would be a case of the accident changing but the substance staying the same.
Transubstantiation during consecration is the reverse - the accident stays the same but the substance changes.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
dags that's one of the best succinct explanations I've ever read.
AJ
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I've changed the title to more accurately reflect the topic.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What is the substance? Is it the soul of the matter?
I know this is a sensitive subject, and I'm trying as hard as I can to be sensitive. I have a dozen things that I believe that I can't fully explain, and I have my reasons for them, so I do hope you know that I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
1. The "substance" and "accident" dilineations make sense to me in light of my own beliefs. I believe that everything was created twice - once spiritually, and once physically. In light of that, you could say that the wafer is changed spiritually, but not physically. In transubstantiation, you could say that the soul of the bread is changed. Is that what you mean?
2. I understand the analogy of Draco becoming a ferret and still being Draco, but Dag...that was magic. That doesn't really happen. That kind of change exists, but only as an idea, a story. Is that what you mean?
[ August 20, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
well they are claming it is a miracle...
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do believe in miracles, so it is possible, but that leads me to the second question.
Where did this belief come from? Was it revelation, or arrived at by reasoning?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
1. I don't know enough about LDS beliefs to know if what you mean by spiritually is the same. I don't think it is, but it probably provides a reference point.
2. I know Draco doesn't exist and that he didn't turn into a ferret, but I meant that as an analogy to what actually happens during Communion - the substance literally changes to Christ, a transformation far more significant than a person becoming an animal. We believe it happens in every single Eucharistic Mass.
And Kat, you're being very respectful. My hesitency is based on my unwillingness to post about matters of faith I don't feel I can adequately explain. I have neither the formal training in the vocabulary nor the complete understanding of every nuance to feel comfortable.
Dagonee P.S., thanks AJ!
[ August 20, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Where did this belief come from? Was it revelation, or arrived at by reasoning?
The third link above, on the Real Presence, has a pretty good explanation of the scriptural foundation. Many Protestants interpret this differently - this is strictly a Catholic interpretation.
So I guess the answer is both, reason applied to revalatory scripture.
Dagonee
[ August 20, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:I'm all for allowing kids and teens sips of alcohol if they're curious, or with dinner or ceremonies when they're big enough to handle it, but it's still illegal.
No way. The only states prudish enough to even consider such a restriction are the same ones that take Christian observance very seriously. A few places clamp down on parents distributing alcohol to non-relative minors, but in general not even MADD nazis are looking for reasons to restrict what your family drinks.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Dagonee, you're my new hatrack hero of the day.
quote:Of course, that's from the LDS Doctrine and Covenants so our Catholic friends don't believe it -- but it makes it so that we don't have to worry about silly arguments like this either, and haven't needed to since August of 1830 when this was written down.
Magson, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate protestants and Catholics calling essential parts of your faith silly. If you want your beliefs to be treated with respect, please respond in kind.
I don't believe the same things about communion that Dag does, but I would never call the ceremony, or the discussion about its import, silly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you Belle, for both parts of that post.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you, Dag.
Who did the reasoning?
In a larger sense, what do you have to believe in order to believe everything? Just the scriptures? Scripture and current papal pronouncements? Scriptures, current papal pronouncements, and past papal pronouncements in their sphere? Scriptures, current papal pronouncements, past papal pronouncements in their sphere, and Thomas Aquinas?
In other words, what makes a believing Catholic? Who is it okay to flat-out not believe and still be honestly a believing Catholic? Is there a single definition?
It seems like there should be for Catholics. Despite the efforts of many, there can't be one restrictive definition of a Christian because Christianity isn't hierarchal; there is no recognized central authority for Christianity. There is, however, for Catholics.
There are some things in my own religion that I don't understand, and there are other things that I didn't understand before and came to a testimony of them after much prayer, experience, and wall-bashing. If someone wants to live an honest life, then they can't claim to belong to a creed that they don't believe. To be an honest Catholic, what defines that creed?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Kat, I cannot answer your question, but I can say that, for me, the creed became too different from my beliefs. I felt increasingly hypocrytical going to mass, and so stopped going, and decided to raise my children outside of that church.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kat, the simple answer is that the beliefs are contained in the Catechism. Each point in the Catechism is justified either by Scripture, tradition, or both.
A Catholic is not supposed to receive Communion if they do not believe the Catholic teachings or live a life of notorious (or scandalous) sin. For purposes of this rule, the Catechism is pretty much a good guide as to what the beliefs are.
Writings from the Pope and Bishops must be prayerfully considered, but those parts which extend beyond the Catechism are not binding. It is expected that Catholics will apply their reason to them in prayerful consideration, and tha deviations from them are truly thought out to be in accordance with the teachings. I guess the way to put it is to give them a presumption of correctness.
The exception to the above is when the Pope speaks from the chair, which means his declaration is binding on all Catholics. This has only happened twice, and both times are represented in the Catechism now, so I'd assume if it happens again the same thing would be done.
In addition, Catholics owe obedience in matters of faith to their clergy. This means, if a priest says someone should not take Communion, they should not in that parish. If a Bishop says someone should not take Communion, they should not in that diocese. There are other similar matters in which obedience is expected, but not in matters that require the application of "worldly" knowledge.
I have a copy I'm slowly (VERY slowly - I get distracted too easily) going through myself.
From what I understand, the Catechism is the Official explanantions of what the doctrines are, and under what basis they have them. Also has some really nifty 'essays', for lack of a better term, on their view of Faith, Tradition, the Sacraments, the Trinity, and many other topics. Fascinating reading.
[ August 20, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
I hope I don't insult anyone, Lord knows I'm doing my best not too. When I read about this case my first thought was "Would Christ have kept this child from observing his last meal based on her allergy?" I have a hard time imagining He would. While I understand that the Catholic Church adheres to certain doctrines that I, as a Protestant believer, cannot really connect with, the whole thing seems rather extreme. Does God really, really care if the wafer is wheat or not? Does the actual wafer matter and wine matter as much as the observance of His command "as often as you do this, do this in remembrance of Me."
We celebrate communion as remembrance of Christ's life, His impact on our own lives, and His sacrifice for our eternal wellbeing.
All of this sort of reminds me of the way the Pharasees of Jesus' day had rules for everything and almost any act could possibly cause you to be separated from God. When we focus on rules too much, we bind ourselves. When we focus on Christ and the desires of His heart (which are communicated in many ways), then we will have a harder time being bound by things like wheat.
Once again, I hope I've not caused offense. This is but one Protestant's stand point.
God Bless you all!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, third question. If it is the substance that is changed while the accident stays the same, does the accident matter? Why does it matter?
This relates to my earlier question. If it does matter, how do you know? Are you sure, or was that someone's opinion?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Would Christ have kept this child from observing his last meal based on her allergy?
Except that she's not being kept from observing his last meal - note the part about taking wine only being a complete celebration of the Eucharist, as long as both are present at the consecration.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Okay, third question. If it is the substance that is changed while the accident stays the same, does the accident matter? Why does it matter?
This relates to my earlier question. If it does matter, how do you know? Are you sure, or was that someone's opinion?
I'm now into the realm of speculation, but the accident is not unrelated to the substance, especially when something is created by natural means. It's not that the substance of some random object is being changed, it's that the substance of bread, which has substance of its own, is being changed.
So if someone knew how to make the substance of bread with a different accident of rice flour, then it would be possible. But it doesn't seem like it is possible for human beings to do so.
This is all contigent on an unproven premise that the substance of wheat bread is different than the substance of rice bread.
So the question to be decided is, "Does rice bread contain the appropriate substance to be transformed?"
Remember, all transformations have a starting and ending substance.
Dagonee
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
I did wonder about that too, but chose to focus my argument on the idea of taking communion. I also wonder why the family was told that taking communion with the alternative wafer was acceptable, but then the diocese said no. I thought the diocese would have been more assertive to churches offering alternative options and their stand would have been clear ahead of time.
The offer of wine only does raise questions concerning the mother's choice. Perhaps in her mind communion means the bread and the wine and to take less is wrong. Or she could have seen it as the church being prejudiced in not offering a bread substitute.
It's something to consider.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:This is all contigent on an unproven premise that the substance of wheat bread is different than the substance of rice bread.
So the question to be decided is, "Does rice bread contain the appropriate substance to be transformed?"
From the article, it sounds like the question has already been decided. When/where was that decision made?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One of the New Advent links above has lists of theologians through the ages, as well as a list of types of bread used in different Christian communities. Best I can do at this point.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perhaps in her mind communion means the bread and the wine and to take less is wrong. Or she could have seen it as the church being prejudiced in not offering a bread substitute.
The first would only arise from a misunderstanding of the teachings of her faith. The second presupposes that the type of bread doesn't matter. I'm not in a position to say it doesn't. And given the teachings, it's really only critical for celiac alcoholics, for which the dipping solution might suffice.
Dagonee
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
Ok, so she was given the option of just taking the wine. SHe should have just done that right? She's a little girl who wanted to make her 1st Communion with the rest of the class and not look weird or different like she probably already has to due to her condition sometimes. I believe that Jesus is present on that altar when the bread/wine is consecrated. I don't think he gives a fig about these rules. I have always felt that too much emphasis has been placed on the letter of the law and not the basic intent of Jesus' message. Singling that little girl out wasn't a message of love. It was a message of intolerance. How much energy is wasted making sure every I is dotted and T crossed when there are real issues in the world to be addressed, real people to help bring to God. Jesus is love, forgiveness and above all acceptance. He wants us to come to him warts and all in whatever form we have. I am not a true scholar of Church doctrine, I am just an average everyday Catholic that feels the Church is getting farther away from it's people everyday. I don't understand the whole has to have wheat in it rule. I just know that it's things like this that I don't think have a whole lot to do with how I commune with Jesus. I think I could be just as filled with His spirit if the priest concecrated a rice cake. I pray that little girl can see past this broo-haha and feels the love that Jesus intended her to feel as she made her 1ST Communion. Ok, I've said my piece, you can flame me now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:if the priest concecrated a rice cake.
What if the priest CAN'T consecrate a rice cake? Wouldn't it be better for her to actually be receiving the Sacrament than to think she is receiving the Sacrament? And wouldn't it be an act of love to ensure she does?
Dagonee
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The "digestive disorder" this girl suffers from is hardly rare -- it effect ~1/250 people of European ancestry (including me, my brother and one sister in-law). It's also not accurate to call it a digestive disorder -- it is a genetic auto-immune disorder.
My brother and I are LDS and have never had any problem persuading our Bishops to allow us to substitute a rice cracker for the bread used in our sacrament services. Every Sunday I take a little zip-lock bag with my rice cracker in it to the priests at the sacrament table. They bless it during the service along with the bread and the deacons bring it to me.
My SIL is catholic and although I have read in several places on the internet that the Catholic Church requires that the Eurcharist contain wheat, the Monsenier in her parish has told her that this is an issue left to the discretion of each individual parish. Her parish allow her to use a rice cracker rather than the wheat based wafers. She also tells me that in the Catholic Communion it is allowable to take either the wafer or the wine -- one need not take both. If one belongs to a parish where the priest will not allow a rice based bread, it would be perfectly acceptable to take only the wine. If one is a recovering alcoholic, it is acceptable to take only the wafer. (I have no idea what you would do if you were a gluten sensitive recovering alcoholic).
I would also note, that in this disease it is a particular protein within the wheat which triggers the immune disease. There is a huge controversy among those who have the disease over whether it is safe to eat products made with highly purified wheat starch or whether the minute quantities of protein that remain in the starch are sufficient to cause long term health problems. Most of the scientific studies, indicate that the ultra-pure wheat starch is safe but there is significant anecdotal evidence from both physicians and patients suggesting the opposite. The bottom line is that in Italy, the official medical and patients organizations believe that the pure wheat starch is acceptable. There are places that make a wafer for the Eucharist from this ultra-pure wheat starch which is officially approved by the Vatican.
The US societies for this disease, tend to be fanatically conservative (sometimes to the point of utter irrationality) so in the US wheat starch based products are considered to be unacceptable to people with this disease. As a result, this is a big controversy here where it is not a problem in most other places in the Catholic world.
[ August 20, 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Excellent. Thanks for the info, Rabbit.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I could be wrong, but I think the Catholic doctrine of the wafer and wine becoming Christ's actual body and blood are based on such New Testament scriptures as these:
Matthew 26:26 & 28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Christ says "this is my body" and "this is my blood".
I can understand the concern about "doing things right" because there is quite a bit of that in the LDS faith also. Ordinances must be performed by the correct authority and done according to the correct pattern to have efficacy. If the priests blessing the sacrament say the words of the prayer wrong, the bishop directs them to start again.
From The Book of Mormon:
3 Ne. 14: 14
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Elsewhere in The Book of Mormon when the importance of baptism is discussed, these same phrases are used to express the idea that "the gate" is a narrow one, a specific one.
I am confident that the Catholic Church is highly interested in making sure that every person who desires Communion has access to it, but is also highly motivated in holding to the requirements. I am not concerned about them finding an appropriate solution to this problem.
[ August 20, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
*bump* for Eduardo.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Thanks. I was too dumb to read page 2 before posting the other topic. (*smacks himself) Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm a little confused. Did the girl take the wine as well as the non-approved wafer in her 1st communion?
If so, then based on the fact that she took the wine, wouldn't her communion be valid? If the wine alone makes it valid, why wouldn't the wine plus "unapproved wafer" also be valid?
Does ingestion of an unapproved wafer invalidate the transformation of the wine into Christ's blood?
Or did she just not take the wine?
I'm so confused...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Maybe God wants this girl to be Protestant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, here's my assumption based on incomplete reporting:
A Catholic need only receive one or the other to fully partake of Communion.
But in order to consecrate bread and wine, both must be present on the altar. If only the rice wafers were present, then no consecration took place. So the wine she drank was not consecrated, which means no Communion occurred.
One of the articles mentions the validity of dipping non-consecrated rice wafers in consecrated wine (which presumably had been consecrated w/ wheat hosts on the altar). So the mere ingestion of an invalid wafer isn't enough.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: What if the priest CAN'T consecrate a rice cake?
That's what this boils down to. Those that believe in the Catholic faith believe that something real happens with the consecration. It just doesn't make sense for people that don't believe that to tell them they are doing it wrong.
It's almost like saying "We all know your faith isn't real anyway -- all it does is make people feel better. So you might as well do it in a manner that makes as many people feel good." It's preposterous to start with an assumption in that vein and then expect the true believers to listen to you seriously.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Now you guys have gone and made me have a Hatrack Related dream. In part of my dream last night, I was in an LDS Sacrament meeting, and the as the sacrament was passed, I noticed they used little garlic cruton cubes for the 'body', and white grape juice for the 'blood'. Two old ladies behind me were asking if the church would ever go back to using 'real wine', and I went off by giving them a complete run down of the official Catholic practices concerning the Eucharist, most of which I'd learned in this thread.
*sighs*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Taalcon, that's hilarious.
Thanks Dag. I think you must be correct in your assumptions. I was thinking that the girl had gone through 1st Communion with other kids and so the wine and other hosts had been consecrated, but the article does leave open the possibility that she'd been given her own separate ceremony.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mine was separate, as were all the ones in my two parishes growing up. I think the whole class getting theirs together is a big-city parochial school kind of thing.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ah...I grew up in a VERY Catholic part of the country in the suburbs where LOTS of people were having kids at the time (mid-to-late 1950's). So, we did things en masse. (In mass?)
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
quote: Frankly, it's hard to have a good opinion of the parents from this article. A reasonable solution was offered; why wouldn't they take it?
Because for so many "believers" it's more about how God can bend to them, than how they can bend to God.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
More like believers can't fathom how God would approve of "believers" -- such as the silly occultists who came up with the "wafers must have wheat" ruling -- trampling on those less "perfect" than themselves.
[ August 21, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:such as the silly occultists who came up with the "must have wheat" ruling
Well, looks like aspectre has made a contribution to the thread filled with the usual civility and grace.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Because for so many "believers" it's more about how God can bend to them, than how they can bend to God.
I suspect, like many Catholics, this woman wasn't aware of the rather arcane and seemingly bizarre regulations of her church and has, instead, grown believing that "Communion" is the taking of the wafer, with the wine as sort of an afterthought or certainly subservient role to the taking of Christ's body in the form of the wafer.
While it is possible to research this stuff (now even easier because of the web), I'm sure that the vast majority of Catholics have never even studied the chatechism, of if they studied it, they don't really remember it. And, moreso, many of the rules of the church just aren't in there. And the rules alone (without the expository material) make no sense to a modern person.
Also, Americans are generally raised to think that they can have an influence on their institutions. So it's perfectly reasonable to ask the Church to recognize a special need and make some sort of accommodation.
Actually, if you think about it, she hasn't really done anything that bizarre. She raised the issue with her local church. They gave her one answer, but then another local church gave her a different answer that seemed to work. Then the diocese stepped in and said her kid's communion wasn't a true sacrament.
So after the fact she's asking for an appeal. Maybe she should've jumped on the offer that was made to her, but she did have the other priest telling her that the rice wafer was going to be okay.
As for writing to the Vatican, is that really so wrong? I mean, maybe they haven't really considered the implications for 8 year olds with immune system problems. Perhaps this could start a review process in the church that would enable them to update their understanding of the issue.
Or at least let them decide what's more important; adherence to the "must have wheat" provision or something else about the bread.
I think she's doing exactly what she should do.
And she's not attacking the church. Notice she isn't calling it silly. She's being a good Catholic. Just not accepting their decision as final. What's wrong with that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, if you think about it, she hasn't really done anything that bizarre. She raised the issue with her local church. They gave her one answer, but then another local church gave her a different answer that seemed to work. Then the diocese stepped in and said her kid's communion wasn't a true sacrament.
Bob, the comment was in reference to my comment about another article in which they refused to accept the alternative after it was explained to them and quit the Church, not the one in which the Communion was later called invalid.
I don't mind the questioning, calling the Vatican, or trying to get other opinions in the Church. I do mind the receiving a perfectly reasonable explanation and alternative, leaving the Church immediately over it, and then whining to reporters.
Dagonee
[ August 21, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I didn't read where she'd left the church.
I don't think the alternative is perfectly reasonable, however. I think Communion is about taking the "host" and I think the vast majority of Catholics think the same way. That's what we DO at communion. Falling back on some arcane rule as opposed to figuring out a way for this girl to take the host seems monstrous of the Church. And their particular solution to it makes no sense to anyone who hasn't studied the arcana of Catholicism.
The prospect is that if this little girl cares at all, she'd have to go through her life explaining why she can't take the body of Christ but how the Church told her it was still "Communion".
I think the Church did her a disservice and this rule isn't really in line with what the daily practice or experience of most Catholics really is.
But then, most Catholics don't study the rules of their faith so much of this stuff is going to come as a surprise to them.
Something as obscure as this would probably be news to every Catholic who hasn't had to actually deal with the issue first hand.
As for going to the media with it: well, it is rather newsworthy. From this girl's perspective, the Catholic Church is acting like a giant uncaring bureacracy. They know that when they hand down these pronouncements it is going to be newsworthy. I suspect they welcome it in the higher reaches of the Church.
They can't have it both ways. You can't treat people like you don't care and expect them to remain faithful to the Church.
But maybe this really is God's way of creating more Protestants.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, there are two different articles in the thread. My comment and the subsequent response was about the second article, linked by Elizabeth.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You can't treat people like you don't care and expect them to remain faithful to the Church.
Alternatively, you can't expect a Church to survive because it won't make doctrinal changes based on the misperceptions of its members.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Dag. I found it now...
quote:As for Twomey's proposal that Jennifer receive Communion from the cup alone, Huck and Macy both said the church had been remiss by failing to convey to Catholics that Communion in either species constitutes the complete body of Christ. The cup, Huck said, has been regarded by many as a "secondary symbol."
I think I agree with these folks. I can count on one hand the number of times I've even been offered the chalice in a Catholic Church. And frankly, it squicked me out since we were all drinking from a communal cup that they wiped the edge of between people. Yuck! I mean, have they hever heard of the germ theory of diseases?
I wonder is it necessary that the wine be fermented? I mean can you just use grape juice?
Sounded like it from the comments earlier about recovering alcoholics.
Ah well...I sincerely doubt that the church will alter its rules for these folks. But I think they should have greater flexibility than they do now. I mean the bread is not special until it is consecrated. What exactly would prevent God from transforming a different grain into the body of Christ? It seems like the Church's rite of consecration would be the important thing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Alternatively, you can't expect a Church to survive because it won't make doctrinal changes based on the misperceptions of its members.
What misperception? They've grown up in the Church. If they came away believing that the host was necessary for it to be Communion, maybe the Church needed to do a better job communicating it's real stances on things.
But really, this isn't a question of the Church's survival. It's a question of whether a human being is more important than a rule. The Church sided with the rule. I think that's a mistake. But then I'm a humanist more than a Catholic.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Alternatively, you can't expect a Church to survive because it won't make doctrinal changes based on the misperceptions of its members.
Dag, not that I am saying that this is the case in this situation, but I would think that if enough members hold the same misperception, than a Church not making doctrinal changes would be exactly the thing that causes it not to survive. That is, if enough people become disenfranchised with their Church and leave to find a different outlet for their faith, wouldn't it hurt the Church? Again, this is just conjecture and I'm not saying that this is happening here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wonder is it necessary that the wine be fermented?
Yes, at least according to the same rules that specify wheat. Also, note Rabbit's comments earlier on purified wheat starch - it's not just the Church being rigid, here.
saxon75, at the point the Church has to decide its mission. In this case, the Church believes it is the institution directly established by Christ whose mission is to preserve the essential elements of the faith while serving as the community of faith for Christians. I would hope it never becomes democratically run on matters of faith, while become more responsive where possible on matters of administration.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In my experience, it's the rare American Catholic who has any clue what "transubstantation" means, much less actually believes it. I'd say -- and I'm just pulling a number out of the air, here, but it's an educated guess -- fewer than one in a thousand have ever heard the "accident/substance" rationale.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tom,
I agree.
And Dag, I think the Church is being rigid. That's not ALL that's going on here, but it is part of what's going on here.
By the way, the article that Liz pointed to was from 2001 -- at least that's the copyright date at the bottom of the page. Is this story really 3 years old? I thought we were discussing something current.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, just because the majority of Catholics may not even know what "transubstantiation" means does not change the fact that it is an official teaching of the church, and therefore what the church stands for. But still, there is no logical reason to say that only unleavened bread made from wheat could be the body of Christ.
All the Bible says is that Jesus took unleavened bread and broke it, and divided it among the disciples. When He said "Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you," He was obviously saying the bread was symbolic of His body. Catholics take the extreme view that He meant it literally. Most Protestants (except some Lutherans) think that is silly, a failure to use common sense in reading Scripture. And this is the church that claims we need to have it interpret the Word for us?
When church traditions become more important than the Word of God, then we are worshipping man instead of God. The Bible does not specify that the bread at the Last Supper was made of wheat. Nor is there any rational or spiritual reason why it would have to be.
Many times, more often actually than I am comfortable to admit, I find myself in agreement with positions the Catholic church takes, especially on social issues. But then every once in a while the Catholic church does something really pig-headed like this, that manifests once again its exaltation of a human priesthood with all the traditions and trappings of its human ecclesiastical system, in place of Christ, our High Priest in the Temple of God in Heaven, and the teachings of His Word, and I am thankful again that I am a Protestant.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: I am thankful again that I am a Protestant.
*sigh*
I'm probably going to get into big trouble over this - but I'll be largely unavailable for about a week and a half after Wednesday this week.
I don't usually jump into these threads - I'm not a Catholic and it doesn't really seem up to me to judge the standards and practices of a faith I don't hold. I have a hard time understanding what drives people in discussions like these.
I know if it was me instead of Dag, I'd be really tired of having to go through this. He isn't me, so maybe he's not.
Sometimes I wonder if part of what fuels this is just a latent hostility that is felt by many Protestants - not all, probably not most - but it's very real. I see it firsthand in my own work, where pro-euthanasia groups know that Catholic-bashing is a good way to drum up nonrational, emotional and substantial support.
I'll probably regret this - I'm in a pissy mood and probably shouldn't have done this. But a thread on Catholicisim almost always goes the way this one has.
I keep wondering why and the answers that suggest themselves are ones I'm not comfortable with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think there are two simple answers:
1) A number of Protestant churches are actively and openly hostile to the Catholics.
2) The Catholic church, in its dogma and practices, is becoming less and less mainstream as American society secularizes away from religious ritual. As Americans are reflexively suspicious of rituals they don't share, they become suspicious of Catholicism.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
3) Doctrine indiluted by personal preferences is hard, and it's easier to disparage it than change to fit it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Nice post count.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I really, really hate this thread. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Theca, how come?
(Dag, you get post 14,000 as a present.)
[ August 21, 2004, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kat, #3 is just another way of saying #2. There's really no practical difference.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, I guess I've been making people uncomfortable. For my part in it, I'm sorry.
I forget that as a person who USED TO BE Catholic, I am no longer an "insider" criticizing the leaders of his own faith, but an "outsider" attacking the faith of others.
That wasn't my intention. Again, I apologize.
I'll quit it now.
As a Catholic I never learned the Catechism, so I probably wasn't much of a Catholic to begin with. I did go to Catholic school up to grade 10. And I was an altar boy from grade 6 through 8. I figure I would've absorbed stuff by just being there, but really, I just learned to dislike the Church. I still have some deep-seated resentment towards my former faith, but that doesn't excuse me being so negative about it.
I left the Church, but I don't wish to destroy it or tear it apart. I'm just being negative for personal reasons that really have nothing to do with this particular story.
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
Bob_Scopatz, I think I love you. You said exactly what I feel in a much more eloquent way then I could ever have. Thank you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom and sndrake, I purposely avoided bringing anti-Catholicism into it, although the question at the end of the very first post gave me a fine jumping off point for two paragraphs of pretty good prose yesterday. Mainly, I just didn't think it was helpful; today I regret even calling anyone on the joke early in the thread. I'd like to think that at least a few people who read my posts, probably those who followed the thread as it developed, have a more charitable understanding of the Church's position in this matter.
As for transubstantiation, I'm not going to get in a discussion about it's validity with non-Catholics. There's little point to it; I believe what I believe and they believe what they believe.
I will say that I think it's one of the most beautiful parts of my entire faith, and it has literally moved me to tears before. It's at the top of the list as to why I could never leave the Church. It's also a doctrine that justifies the Church's position in this matter.
If Communion were only a symbol, or even if it were the ceremony that brought about the real presence in a spiritual manner, then wheat v. rice could have no effect. But it's not - it's a real, substantial change, and the substance of the original material might matter. I don't know that it does. I only know that the Church wants Catholics to receive as often as possible, and that a perfectly valid alternative already exists to accomodate those with this disorder.
No one who doesn't believe in transubstantiation can truly understand this, and no explanation of mine will cause understanding. It requires having experienced it.
I want to thank sndrake for saying what he did. I also want to thank all those who asked questions in the spirit of understanding, even if they still disagree with the Church's position on this.
I'd also like to note that as a group, the LDS here have been the most accepting of this, even though their beliefs on this matter are further from the Catholic Church's than any other Christians'. It's raised my respect for that faith even higher, despite the differences between it and mine. Thank you.
Dagonee P.S., Kat, thanks for 14,000. Edit: Bob, the story Liz posted is a different, older story, with very different facts. The current story has a believer trying to get an answer from the Church, acting within the Church, and I respect her greatly for that.
[ August 21, 2004, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
You are a class act.
And thanks for clarifying the two-different-stories thing. I figured it out after looking at the names. Duh! Oh well, it got very confusing for a few minutes there.
Sheesh. No wonder my reading comprehension scores are so low.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Bob. Right back at ya. Your second to last post could be the dictionary example for class.
Dagonee
[ August 21, 2004, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Let's not get into a class struggle. YOU are the classy one.
Usually when the word "class" was associated with me, it was followed by the word "clown."
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
You're lucky, Bob.
Usually, when "class" is used in reference to me, it's preceded by "you have no..." Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:it's a real, substantial change
You know, this statement will never be the same for me anymore. By saying something is 'substantially' different, it really literally means 'different to its innermost being'. Yay! Fun with words!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag,
for a non-Catholic, I may be oversensitive to the issue of "bashing" due to seeing how often and effectively it gets used by groups advocating legalized euthanasia. It's ugly and I'm tired of it. And I may see it when it's not there because I've gotten to expect it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
sndrake,
Oh, it's out there. It's at a low, constant level in society, and usually only gets cranked up when it's being shamelessly exploited. But it's definitely out there. There's an answer to Zeugma's question that isn't pretty at all.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
sndrake,
Whenever anyone tells you have no class, tell them you have one in 15 minutes.
Okay, that works better on campuses, but still...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know I'm coming really late to this thread, but I did want to clarify one thing:
quote: Now the question is why Jewish custom requires using only wheaten bread.
It doesn't, actually. It does require using one of the five grains -- wheat, barley, oat, rye, spelt. I had an apartment-mate, years back, who was wheat-intolerant (not celiac, I think, since she was intolerant of a bunch of stuff) and ate lots of rye bread. For Passover I think she got oat matzahs.
And pitas are leavened.
You may return to your regularly-scheduled punnish derailment now. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Whenever anyone tells you have no class, tell them you have one in 15 minutes.
One problem, Bob. I forgot to mention that there's one person who's said that to me more than anyone else:
My mother.
(Guess which parent I take after in the sarcasm and related humor department)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)