Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

8-year-old's first Holy Communion invalidated by Church
Newsday ^ | August 12, 2004 | John Curran

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 ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; celiacsprue; eucharist; holycommunion; look4arealchurch; ratzinger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 521-538 next last
To: Fifthmark
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.

Why? Do you think God less capable of giving a clear message through His written Word than the popes?

The old "your interpretation" argument is remenicent of the Left arguing over whether "right to bear arms" really means "right to bear arms" and what the proper definition of "is" is--in fact, I often hear it from liberal friends who just don't want to hear what the Bible says. It's a convenient dodge.

341 posted on 08/12/2004 7:42:55 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Before I answer that, WHY can't you explain to me why Christ, on the cross, told the thief that he would be in paradise with Christ, that day?

Because Jesus can do anything he wants to do. Period.

Your suggesting that rituals save you is wrong.

Oh Yikes! Your suggestion that I suggested rituals save you is wrong, wrong, wrong. I suggested nothing of the sort. Of course rituals don't save you.

Thanks, but please don't cut and paste bible verses out of context in order to support your interpretation. Why waste the bandwith? I have about 7 different bibles in my house and the internet for the translations I don't possess. And I like reading in context for the entire meaning.

Faith is obedience, is it not? Do you consider the 10 Commandments to be 'rituals' or baptism as a 'ritual"?

342 posted on 08/12/2004 7:44:32 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
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?

Neither. Give her the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the species of wine, something which is in no way inferior to receiving him under the appearance of bread. It is giving her the true Sacrament which demonstrates the most love - not giving her normal bread. "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him shall not thirst for ever".

the Bible nowhere insists on wheat-based bread

The divine law of Christ requires wheat bread. "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone" (John 12:24) "the rest I will set in order, when I come" (1 Cor 11:34).

343 posted on 08/12/2004 7:50:02 PM PDT by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

You are pious and judgmental. You and the Church are also petty to think God cares about the wheat content of Communion, rather than what's in the heart of the recipient, in this case an 8 year old girl. You are also ignorant in all your assumptions about me, as you've never met me nor thankfully will ever do so. Again, you sum up all that is stereotypically negative about Catholicism, but at this, you excel.


344 posted on 08/12/2004 7:51:22 PM PDT by Blzbba (John Kerry - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
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.

I couldn't be more in agreement with you. And you are absolutely right about Paul's 'great dissertation.' It never grows old, it never loses it's appeal, it never loses the power to make me weep.

I think Christ would say, "Bring the little girl to Me, and forbid her not."

As a Catholic, I understand the argument that the side that opposes your viewpoint brings to bear here, but I can't help but hearken back to the distinction Christ himself made about the 'letter of the law' and its Spirit.

Also, I find it curious that the Church, of all the obstacles it currently faces, would pick this to apparently take such a vehement stand on.

After I read this piece, I couldn't help but remember a quote I read sometime ago:
"those who are foolish in serious things, will be serious in foolish things."

345 posted on 08/12/2004 7:53:45 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Yes - even a small particle of wheat can kill a person with celiac disease. Since Christ is fully present in both species, most priests (even at Traditional Latin Masses I have attended) simply serve the sacred blood (wine) to the person. They have to be sure it is not the cup in which the priest has dropped a piece of the host however.

I can't understand why this common solutin was not applied in the young girls case.


346 posted on 08/12/2004 7:56:47 PM PDT by CatholicLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The Pharisees, on the other hand, gave precedence to the oral Mishna--which became the Talmud. It was this which he so vehemently opposed.

Exactly. And we agree wholeheartedly with the traditions recorded in the Bible. What we oppose, using the written Scriptures just as Jesus did, are the oral "Mishna" of the Roman Catholic church which became the Catechism, the Council of Trent, the decrees of the popes, and so on.

That's not to say that tradition is utterly worthless. Even the Talmud is often useful in its commentaries on the OT, and the traditions of the Church can often be a useful guide when dealing with difficult passages. But when a tradition says one thing and the Bible plainly says another, it's no longer a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of which you're going to believe.

347 posted on 08/12/2004 7:56:58 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
Also, I find it curious that the Church, of all the obstacles it currently faces, would pick this to apparently take such a vehement stand on.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's straining out a gnat while swallowing the camel of giving pro-abort politicians the Eucharist. Why should Kerry enjoy the Host when this child cannot?

After I read this piece, I couldn't help but remember a quote I read sometime ago:
"those who are foolish in serious things, will be serious in foolish things."

lol I like that! Mind if I steal it for my tagline? Mine's about due for a change.

348 posted on 08/12/2004 7:59:54 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

It's all yours, and God Go With You.

AG


349 posted on 08/12/2004 8:03:05 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: nmh
The thief did NOT have Communion or perform any rituals.
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? ... Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae q. 68 a. 2)

Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation? ... the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Pt. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (68, 2), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism ... (ST III q. 73 a. 3)

NO ritual saves anyone.

(not by works that [are] in righteousness that we did but according to His kindness,) He did save us, through a bathing of regeneration, and a renewing of the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)

350 posted on 08/12/2004 8:07:20 PM PDT by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
The divine law of Christ requires wheat bread. "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone" (John 12:24)

Um, I'm looking at the context of that passage right now, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist at all. Care to try again?

351 posted on 08/12/2004 8:20:13 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl

Thanks, and may He go with you too.


352 posted on 08/12/2004 8:21:05 PM PDT by Buggman ("Those who are foolish in serious things, will be serious in foolish things.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: sidewalk
The Diocese of Trenton has told Waldman's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten host, drink wine at communion or abstain entirely, but that any host without gluten does not qualify as Holy Communion.

So what's the problem here? The woman wants to go on and on with the refrain "my daughter and I can't have wheat" when the Diocese has pointed out (as if she didn't know) that she can receive wine? It's an undue hardship?

Three hundred odd posts have magnified the strife in the heart of this troubled woman. God help us, forgive us our trespasses, and deliver us from evil.

353 posted on 08/12/2004 8:22:09 PM PDT by delacoert (imperat animus corpori, et paretur statim: imperat animus sibi, et resistitur. -AUGUSTINI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Christ is contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and he compares himself to a grain of wheat.


354 posted on 08/12/2004 8:33:11 PM PDT by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; american colleen; Fifthmark; Tantumergo

gbcdoj,american colleen, Fifthmark, Tantumergo,

gbcdoj, it's a shame you cannot quote from the Bible ... words of fallible mortals will often mislead you. It is in the Bible that you will find truth and consistency. As for american colleen, Fifthmark and Tantumergo I didn't bother to read your replies. You don't appear to be serious about what Christ says. Rituals appear to be what gets you into heaven.

Furthermore NONE of you have addressed this problem of Jesus NOT requiring rituals to go to heaven. NONE of you. You completley ignore this.

Just as the thief on the cross was NOT required to be baptized or required to take communion, neither is anyone else to be saved. Eternal life is a gift. You cannot earn it. You will never be worthy of it. It's free and it's by the grace of God that it is offered to you. It is Christ who lived the perfect life for us since we are not capable of that. It is Christ who loved us so much that He took on the punishment that ALL of us deserve, even your pope, so that through belief/faith/trust in Him we would be able to seek Eternal Life. The wages of sin are death and Jesus is a ransom for many. The least we can do is to follow His teachings and not pervert them as the Priests in the Bible frequently did - ritual driven and concerned about appearances but their heart was NOT right with God.

Jesus didn't lie. He cannot lie. If you keep insisting that baptism or communion is a requirement for eternal life, then you are calling Jesus a liar. Either these rituals are required or they are not. It is one or the other. The rules if you will, are the same for ALL mere mortals.

That man on the cross is with Him in heaven. To suggest that baptism and other rituals are a requirement for eternal life is legalistic requirement of man. It is perverted God's Word - just as the hypocritical Jewish Priests did. God would like us to be baptized and take communion however to not do so is not damming you to hell. People that are ritually driven won't be in heaven if their heart is not sincere. It is your HEART, LOVE and BELIEF that He clamors for.

Maybe if you read the Biblical passage, you'll realize that rituals are NOT required for eternal life:

Luke 7:39-43

[39] And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

[40] But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

[41] And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

[42] And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

[43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The thief repented and Jesus saw his heart as being sincere. God is not fooled or mocked. Yes, He would LIKE us to all be baptized and take commununion etc. however if your heart is NOT sincere there is not point to you doing these rituals. Also His teachings are NOT ritual driven - again Hw wants your HEART and LOVE and from that obedience will occur IF you are sincere.

For those that are ritual happy and works oriented the Lord has this to say about that:



Matt. 7:21-23

[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

There are MANY hypocrites out there - performing "works" and rituals for mortal recognition but their heart is not right with God. Hopefully you will not find yourself in this position.

All of you may have the last word. I realize that is very important to you.


355 posted on 08/12/2004 8:45:25 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Fifthmark
Alright, Protestants, three questions:

1) Who compiled the New Testament of Scripture as you have it now?

Jewish rabbis for the OT and the Apostles for the New.

Look, ignoring the fact that the modern-day RCC is a far-cry from the ante-Nicean Church, claiming that compiling a list of authoritative Scriptures gives you a special authority over them would be like me compiling a list of great classical musicians and claiming that I was greater than them. The Scriptures canonize themselves by virtue of their annointing by the Holy Spirit, not by virtue of being ratified by a later heirarchal body.

2) Do the contents of Scripture yield obvious truths revealed by God or are they liable to misinterpretation?

Yes. The Bible is, as one commentator put it, "waters shallow enough that a child can play in it, but deep enough that an elephant can immerse in it." Frankly, on most of the issues that divide us, the Bible is quite clear and you're forced to rely on out-of-context quotations and on placing tradition over the Scriptures.

Granted, there are a number of places where the Scriptures are obscure enough that honest theologians will doubtless disagree until Christ returns to explain them personally. In some cases, we're arguing about shades of meaning; in others, one side or the other is dodging the plain and natural interpretation in favor of one more comfortable to them or one that they were taught.

But either way, in regards to the issues of salvation, the nature of the Church, works vs. faith, Christ (not Peter) being the Rock, etc., the passages involved are extremely plain in their meaning, so much so that the Catholic is often reduced to simply dismissing the messenger rather than discussing the text.

3) Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible?

On every single point? I doubt it. Neither is yours, or the pope's, or tradition's. The goal is to continually grow in our understanding of the Scriptures, and through them, to know God better--not to simply accept some other authority's word on the matter.

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers (rabbis); for One is your Teacher, the Christ" (Mt. 23:9-10).

Many Catholics like to get around the obvious injunction in the above by saying, "What do you call your earthly father?" That's not the point. The point Jesus was making was not to put anyone between you and Him as some kind of master interpreter or intermediary.

356 posted on 08/12/2004 8:58:31 PM PDT by Buggman ("Those who are foolish in serious things, will be serious in foolish things.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Christ is contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and he compares himself to a grain of wheat.

He also calls Himself the true Vine (Jn. 15:1). Was He green and leafy? Can berries be used in place of wheat? He also calls Himself the Door (Jn. 10:1)--can the Eucharist be taken by consecrating and chewing on a piece of wood? These have about as much to do with the Eucharist as John 12:24.

Come on, gbcdoj! Either produce an explicit passage of Scripture which says that gluten must be used in the Eucharist, or just admit that you can't!

357 posted on 08/12/2004 9:04:58 PM PDT by Buggman ("Those who are foolish in serious things, will be serious in foolish things.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

All the little girl has to do is take a sip of consecrated wine. End of story. No need to disregard the "heart of the recipient", etc. In other words, there was no problem in the first place. Your pious indignation is pretty foolish.


358 posted on 08/12/2004 9:18:32 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
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."

Well summed up!

359 posted on 08/12/2004 9:19:04 PM PDT by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
He also calls Himself the true Vine (Jn. 15:1).
As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of wheat, so also He compared Himself to the vine, saying (John 15:1): "I am the true vine." But only bread from wheat is the matter of this sacrament, as stated above. Therefore, only wine from the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament. (St. Thomas, ST III q. 74 a. 5)

I do not think we are going to convince each other.

360 posted on 08/12/2004 9:33:56 PM PDT by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 521-538 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson