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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, there are two different articles in the thread. My comment and the subsequent response was about the second article, linked by Elizabeth.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
3) Doctrine indiluted by personal preferences is hard, and it's easier to disparage it than change to fit it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
