Posted on 08/12/2004 10:41:10 AM PDT by sidewalk
BRIELLE, N.J. -- An 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot consume wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained none, violating Catholic doctrine. Now, Haley Waldman's mother is pushing the Diocese of Trenton and the Vatican to make an exception, saying the girl's condition _ celiac sprue disease _ should not exclude her from participating in the sacrament, in which Roman Catholics eat consecrated wheat-based wafers to commemorate the last supper of Jesus Christ before his crucifixion.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Nevertheless, the permission to use mustum can be granted by Ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after the presentation of a medical certificate.
C. By mustum is understood fresh juice from grapes, or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing of other methods which do not alter its nature).
Rice could be used, if it were not consecrated and intincted in consecrated wine or mustum.
"Exactly! The Perfect Sacrifice, the Eucharist, instituted by Christ in his Passover ritual, which he commanded all of us to repeat until he comes again, with the Form (the words) and the Matter (unleavened wheat) he used."
I agree we should do it, because Jesus told us to do it to remember him. It is not, however, the basis of, or even a condition of, our salvation. BTW, when I was growing up Catholic, the Eucharist was leavened bread. Oops. I'm sure Jesus wanted to be in that host, but, you know, rules are rules.
Perhaps you could cite the passage which offends you so that we might all read it.
The Church certainly isn't saying that.
It would seem that a child with this 'life and death' problem should easily be allowed to have their first communion with the wine/juice alone...
This would be completely valid but the girl's mother is refusing this option.
...or a substitute non-wheat bread.
This would be illicit and is completely unnecessary for this situation since receiving the Eucharist under one species (the consecrated wine alone) would be a completely valid first communion.
If not, the church is being 'very' hypocritical.
The Church is being completely consistent in this instance.
Ah, that true church of Christ "spirit" ...
No one is forcing the girl to eat Communion, which would kill her.
That is true, only that if she wants both elements like all the other children the church is doing its worse to make this child 'not' be treated equally. If there is no matter what the host contains as long as she drinks the 'blood', then let her have a rice host and the 'blood'. As someone already stated would be a valid communion with just one valid element (valid as the RCC defines, not Jesus).
But, no, the first communion is declared invalid for silliness.
The church is doing here what it does so many other places, i.e. let's divorce people feel 'lesser' than non-divorced (I know, I was one), 'annulled' feel lesser than married, and now letting a girl that can't take wheat feel lesser than her classmates ('sorry little girl, since you can't have a wheat host your first communion is invalidated').
Sorry friend, the church that I was raised in (RCC) just continues to show that it is out of touch with the message of God's word.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COMMUNION, OR TO CALL YOUR FAUX-COMMUNION THE REAL DEAL.
Our Lord and Savior gives me every right. Just as he showed the money changers when they made a mockery of His Father's house, the legalist church rules that make one child 'lesser' than another in an act of recieving His Communion makes a mockery out of that church.
If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone,' say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,' and say: 'Papists and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to tell me that. It is true that those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate ... It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out.
Jesus did not say our unleavened bread had to be made from wheat or it would not be accepted, if it had been an order he would have clarified it....he did not. So therefore 'unleavened is key' not the flour used.
A clear voice is heard! thanks my friend. thats a good way of putting it .. 'if everone were adequately catechized ..', well everyone sure talks as if they are, don't they!! ;-) God Bless
What a sweet Saint good old Martin was, wasnt he. Just full of love and humility.
The rice host would promote idolatry.
Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant, commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host; because, as Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he first adore it." (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III q. 80 a. 6)
The church is doing here what it does so many other places, i.e. let's divorce people feel 'lesser' than non-divorced
You can blame Christ for that one: "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder".
I don't see anyone defending the Church on this tread interpreting anything that way. Again, receiving the consecrated wine alone would be a completely valid first communion but the girl's mother is refusing this option.
LOL You got me there Sinky, although I doubt that is the function anyone else had in mind for the rice.
I am having a difficult time finding the document you are refering to. The only 1994 Ratzinger document I can find on the Vatican website is in what I am guessing to be latin, which I am unable to read. Could you give me and english title or link to it?
Well, the people HERE seem to be properly taught. They seem to know that if the girl receives the Blood, she gets everything she needs,and she need not endanger her life by eating gluten. So they ask: why doesn't she just take the Blood and not make a fuss? Her mother appears to be poorly chatechized.
I don't think so, sinkspur. See the cite from St. Thomas I posted. Even if the host were intincted, some in the Church might still believe it to be consecrated and give it that reverence which is reserved for God alone.
Careful -- you're about to get into the argument about transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and so on. The folks in this article believe that the bread becomes the real flesh of Christ, so it's a pretty big deal to them.
As for me, I think an insistence on wheat (and not some other sort of bread) is indeed quite pharasaical.
Thanks ... just look at how this thread has grown all sorts of legs, when the answer is already published.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.