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 ...
I haven't a clue what you are rambling about, because I am not catholic nor do I want to be. I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ, baptized, sanctified and filled with the Holy Ghost. I pray, I intercede and I walk in the Spirit. I take communion, and I remember the sacrifice of my LORD JESUS CHRIST and he communes with me daily. All this other stuff is religion. I am a christian, plain and simple.
As for the Pope, I don't really have an opinion of him, I don't know the man. I do know that I ask God the Father, in the name of Jesus to forgive my sins and he does, that's what the word says if you want something "Ask the Father, in my name"...its called GRACE.
We are all God's children no matter where we go to church as long as we recognize JESUS as the Son of God and ask him into our hearts and repent, this other stuff is man splitting hairs and pushing people out of body of christ and God's word says "Warn a divisive man once or twice and then have nothing more to do with him"...so not wanting any arguing...you believe as you wish. I am concrete in my christianity and I know in whom I have believed.
anti catholic spin. I'm sure in the 200 previous posts someone pointed out that receiving wine is the same as receiving bread alone.
Transubstantiation is a major dogma. Included in that concept is the notion of wheaten bread transubstantiated.
I said you are arrogant. Anyone who thinks he or she knows better than the Church's own Tradition is certainly arrogant. You even presume to lecture others on the Church's practices and beliefs--which are universally binding on all Catholics. If you do this as a Catholic, that would make you arrogant. If you do this as a non-Catholic, that would make you hostile. In either case, you are ignorant.
God kept his word, brought it forth, and it is a living word. If this wheat was important issue he would have given someone divine inspiration to get it in there.
Traditional was not what Jesus was, that was Pharisees...Jesus was most non traditional man to ever come to earth...He is an extreme but simple gospel!!
However, if you are catholic I do not want to interfere with your church beliefs, however I know God accepted that little girls communion, no matter what the robed guys declared. Figures of authority many times abuse that privilage due to pride.
"however I know God accepted that little girls communion, no matter what the robed guys declared."
It's not a question of whether God accepted her communion. The question is whether she received the Corpus Christi, the Body of Christ.
She didn't.
So she needs to do First Communion again with valid matter. I can't believe this non-issue has genterated over 300 posts.
"[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment."
And so when God says "Do this as my memoriam", and you fail to do this because you think you know better than He does what he really meant - how exactly are you loving God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind?
"I haven't a clue what you are rambling about, because I am not catholic nor do I want to be."
Since when has a basic philosophy of being been an exclusively Catholic preserve? Or are we the only ones left who have any respect for God's creation and what He created it to be?
"We are all God's children no matter where we go to church as long as we recognize JESUS as the Son of God and ask him into our hearts and repent, this other stuff is man splitting hairs and pushing people out of body of christ"
Ah - the great ecumenical and syncretistic crie de couer - at least we could rely on the Calvinists never to hit us with that one!
"I am concrete in my christianity and I know in whom I have believed."
Concrete is as concrete does, I guess!
No, but thank you for trying. Christ drew a clear distinction between Peter (petros, a small stone or piece of a stone) and the Rock (petra, a large rock) on which He would build His Church in Mt. 16:18. Since the Rock throughout Scripture is symbolic of God in all of His Persons, it's clear that He was speaking of Himself. If you disagree with that, it's the Bible you are arguing with, not me.
Heck, Peter himself considered Christ the cornerstone of the Church and the rest of us, including himself, as the stones that build upon that foundation:
Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.The RCC claims that the Church is seen in its buildings and hierarchy. Christ said that His kingdom, "does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you" (Lk. 17:20-21).Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."
Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious, but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone."
--1 Pt. 2:5-7
For centuries, the RCC has tried to exert power over the kings of the earth and increase its influence, but Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (Jn. 18:36).
It was not the Roman papacy that gave us the Bible. It was the Holy Spirit, through the prophets and the apostles, who were not Roman Catholic in any modern sense of the term. They were Jews who believed in Yeshua Ha'Mashiach, not Latin Christians who believed in a pope.
But let's argue for a moment that the RCC does represent the heirs of the original Church. The Levitical priesthood was ordained by God on Mt. Sinai as His intermediaries and the keepers of the Torah. Their priesthood antiquidates by more than fifteen centuries any Roman claim.
And yet Christ, while acknowledging that the "scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat" in His time (Mt. 23:1)--that is, that they were right in their claim to Moses' authority--yet exoriated them for their abuse of the Law in about the most fiery language possible, and ultimately, as you claim, moved their authority to the Church through Peter.
If God would judge Israel and take away her priesthood for a season for her disobedience to His written Word in favor of their traditions (Mt. 15:6), for their pride, for their sins of both commission and omission, then what makes you think He would leave the Roman papacy unjudged?
As I've said before and will continue to say to my dying day, we did not leave the Church--the Church left Rome. God did not set aside the Levitical priesthood to raise up a new Nicolaitan sect, nor did He put aside the Torah in favor of a Latinized legalism. He instituted grace:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.Clearly, throughout the Bible, it is belief in (that is, putting one's whole trust in) Jesus Christ that is the issue, not the completion of certain sacraments. Even James, which Catholics so often appeal to, is not in disagreement with this. He is not preaching salvation by works, he is teaching that a living faith will produce works. This is exactly what Martin Luther wrote in his commentary on Romans:
--Jn. 3:16For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.
--Rom. 4:2-5This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit from the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
--Gal. 3:2-3For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
--Eph. 2:8-9Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.
--Isa. 28:16, 1 Pt. 2:6
Faith, however, is a divine work in us . . . a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that a man would stake his life on it a thousand times. . . Hence a man is ready and glad, without compulsion, to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, in love and praise to God, who has shown him this grace; and thus it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light fires. . . He who does not these works is a faithless man.If one attempts to do works to win one's salvation, then one is not putting his or her whole trust in the covenant that Christ established with His blood, but is trying to add to what God has completed. ("It is finished.") If, on the other hand, one accepts one's salvation based on nothing more than a complete trust in Jesus Christ and His promise to save us, and then goes on to do good works out of love and obedience, both in the general sense and in rituals designed to remind and instruct us like baptism, the Lord's Supper, keeping the feastdays that God ordained, and so on, then one is acting out his faith.
It's all a matter of putting the horse before the cart instead of the cart before the horse: Faith produces salvation produces love produces works, not faith plus works produces salvation.
The Roman Catholic Church, in direct contradiction to the Word of God, has taught the latter for centuries. Therefore, it cannot be the true Church of Christ--if it ever was, it gave up that claim when it stopped preaching the Gospel of grace. I believe that many Catholics are truly born again, but I also believe that it is despite Rome's teachings, not because of them.
I follow Yeshua, the eternal Son of God, who is my only Lord and Mediator (1 Ti. 2:5). I am happy to learn from others and to be guided by those wiser than I, but if anyone attempts to put themselves between the Lord and I and say that I must go through them or I must do some ritual that only they can mediate in order to attain salvation, I know that that person is not of God, since God would never contradict Himself.
All great soundbytes but Jesus does NOT say anywhere in scripture to "Do this (wheat only) in memory of me!" Sorry, that is your churches own creative additive theology.
Jesus said "today you shall be with ME in Pardise." to the theif on the cross... no wafer, no baptism, no confession... but probably the first person to be converted at the TIME of Christ's sacrificial death.
Poor Jesus... didn't have permission to save this guy from Rome, but did it anyway, no wafers, no grape juice, wine or hocus pocus. Maybe Jesus didn't actually save the poor slob, but was instead deluded? I think not!
The first person some folks around here would want to excommunicate from HIS Church would be Jesus himself, for not doing mass in latin, just like he didn't teach the people in Hebrew (the pure language of the OT Scriptures) but the common everyday aramaic and some greek.
Imagine that. Jesus flunked out of Jesuit University by some twisted "father", who doesn't believe in speaking the linqua franca... of the people he DIED to save.
Somebody pass me the crackers.
that Jesus, always breaking the rules of some religious group's firmly held confession.
then saying FOLLOW ME...
no wonder he drives religious bigots nutso.
especially when HE says, "Other sheep have I but NOT of this fold..." and goes off leaving the presumptious behind.
"But Jesus... YOU got it all wrong... after all WE and WE ALONE are the ONE and ONLY Pillar of TRUTH.. and we say you can't save folks without our brand of crackers...."
stupid, pathetic, and dangerously missing the apparent heart of God almighty. If God cannot save a person without the right brand of crackers, and without checking with a group of old men who have never had sex in their lives, the whole planet is as good as damned. He can, He does and He will continue to do so.
more crackers please.
Faith + good works = Salvation.
What I was taught is that Faith, when true and solid produces good works, because Faith instills in us the ethic to Serve and not to be Served.
But even Paul said that Faith without Charity is not enough.
Excellent, and heart-felt post by the way, very excellent.
Your belief has no basis in Scripture. I just told you why in post# 58. Answer two questions or stop arguing:
1) At the time that Christ was on the cross, had He yet given a commandment or commission that all He had taught must be taught to others under pain of condemnation?
2) What does Christ mean when He states, which the emphatic assertion of "Amen, amen" beforehand, that "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you"?
The RCC should be 'so Christian."
Like protestantism, it leads to moral relativism.
Please, don't preach to the non-Catholic Christians about "moral" anything .... The RCC has no leg to stand on their. Although your patronizing comment is accepted for what it is, it does promote your faith one bit.
We know what Jesus asks of us.
Some of you do, some of you don't. In your case, I am not seeing Jesus in your words but rather simple "my church is right and your's is wrong", something that is quite reminescent of the pharisee and publican at church in prayer.
He founded one church with a living authority that will last to the end of human history.
That He did, and Christ lives on .. He is alive, He is NOT on the Crucifix.
The Catholic Church speaks as Christ on faith and morals.
Words are cheap, actions are much more believable .. And of late the RCC has been quite void.
Jesus would do as we should do...obey.
We do. We obey Our Lord and Savior and stick to His Word and instruction. We all pray that the RCC will continue to learn as it has over the years ... it just takes a generation to turn the RCC, so many people hang on to the rituals, pomp and circumstance and miss the real message of our Saviour. Many do receive it but so much is lost. It may work for you but so many hang on for membership, rather than message, for religion rather than relation. Your faith is between you and God, I will pray for your enlightenment as I do hope you do likewise for me.
In the future, could you just post a link to the King James Bible, so I can go blindly interpret it for myself, deny any Revelation from God and instead rely upon my own opinion, and formulate my own religion in the image of my rationale like you have so done? Thanks.
Alright, Protestants, three questions:
1) Who compiled the New Testament of Scripture as you have it now?
2) Do the contents of Scripture yield obvious truths revealed by God or are they liable to misinterpretation?
3) Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible?
You are mistaken. Tradition itself was not what Jesus opposed. He opposed a man-made tradition instead of the tradition handed-down by Moses which came from God. The mosaic tradition was never opposed by Jesus--it was enshrined by the Scriptures. The Pharisees, on the other hand, gave precedence to the oral Mishna--which became the Talmud. It was this which he so vehemently opposed.
You and I are in perfect agreement about the right relation of faith and works. I must confess that many Protestants get so eager to get away from a gospel of works that they make salvation sound cheap and ignore sanctification--the process by which, after salvation, we grow and come closer to reflecting the image of our Lord--altogether. And believe me, when I encounter that, I come down on it with just as much fervor as I do on any works-based salvation.
I agree that faith without charity is worthless, but here we're often the victims of old english translations. The word most often translated "charity" is agape, which means a pure love such as Christ showed the Church, not the giving of alms to the poor. And indeed, Christ said that the two laws on which all the Torah and the prophets (and by extension, the whole of the NT) hung were to love God above all else and to love your neighbor as yourself (Mt. 22:36-40). Paul's great dissertation on love is in 1 Cor. 13.
Getting back to the original point of the thread, which shows the greater love: To insist on a wheat Host for a little girl who is deathly allergic and to tell her that the non-wheat Host she had didn't count? Or, realizing that the Bible nowhere insists on wheat-based bread, to show love and grace by allowing her to partake in what she can safely consume?
I think Christ would say, "Bring the little girl to Me, and forbid her not."
LOL. I agree, but give the pharisees some credit. They have always held exceptions from scriptural requirements where health was concerned. Yes, there is a gluten-free matzah available for Passover for celiacs.
I do take my communion during the Passover meal, yet the only requirement I see concerning the bread is the one not to take leaven when partaking of the Passover Lamb.
Blessings
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.