posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, what do you mean? I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between substance and accident.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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 But the church has held onto the basic doctrine, even though the language used to explain it is outdated.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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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?
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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!
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?)
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.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
