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 ...
Have you missed the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that the entire full complete Sacrament: the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ is contained within either species?
The girl is not being refused anything.
I repeat, the girl is not being refused anything.
One more time, the girl is not being refused anything. She can fully participate and receive all of the graces of Communion by partaking of the consecrated wine from the Chalice.
Again, she can fully participate and receive all of the graces, the enitre, full and complete Body Blood Soul and Divnity of Christ by drinking from the Chalice.
So, again, what part of this is not getting through, to you and to some of the others here?
SD
The term "deuterocanonical" was not used before the sixteenth century, when it became necessary to categorize what the Protestants rejected.
In any case, the only reason you cling to those books (which were not considered canon until Trent)...
Wrong. Canon XXIV of the Council of Carthage, 393:
"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures.
Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon, the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra, and the two books of the Maccabees.
The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John.
Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read."
I totally agree with you, SD. While we can all sympathize with this girl, as well as anyone else with disabilities, ultimately we have to set aside our emotions, and we are faced with the issue that people are putting their own pride ahead of obedience to Christ and the Church.
Not so. Tradition simply means something--a custom or ceremony or belief--passed-down through the generations. Jesus was circumcised, he celebrated the Passover, he observed the Sabboth, etc. These were part of the Jewish Tradition which he fully accepted. It is true he broke the Sabbath laws elaborated by the Pharisees, as you say. But this didn't mean the Sabbath itself did not form part of the Mosaic Tradition. It was the idea that you could not heal on the Sabbath or satisfy one's hunger on the Sabbath that he opposed. This was because this was contrary to the original spirit of the Mosaic Tradition; these rules were elaborations invented by the Pharisees who interpreted the law in a way that contradicted the divine intention. Clearly the Sabboth had been given to men through Moses so that they might enjoy rest after labor, not so they might be burdened further by life's exigencies. So Jesus did not oppose the Mosaic Tradition at all--only the false elaborations invented by the Pharisees which ran contrary to its original spirit ordained by God. This is what he defined as their "tradition". But he didn't oppose all tradition.
Huh?
"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. vi.9).
So, after accepting the New Covenant, you cannot commit sin?
"And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all" (St. James ii.10).
Not even in one point?
...a Covenant every bit as unilateral and unconditional (beyond the condition of accepting it in the first place) as the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 15.
So the Abrahamic Covenant was "unconditional"? Was every Jew under it saved?
Sum's up JohnB2004's pretty completely.
Santifying grace saves; ignorance doesn't.
On the contrary, while there were some debates about a few of the books (e.g. Hebrews because of its annonymous author, 2 Peter because of its stylistic difference from the first, Revelation because of its strange content), one of the key attributes of all of the books that were ratified by the later councils is that they were in wide use already in the Church. Frankly, if we lost every copy of the NT, we could reconstruct the entire document (sans about six verses, IIRC) from the ECF's quotes, because they constantly appealed to that written Word, and not unwritten traditions, to support their theology.
Again, the canon is not an authoritative list of books, it's a list of authoritative books. The fact that the early Roman church (which was a far cry from what exists today) put together such a list no more gives you exclusive right to "interpret" them than the rabbis putting together the canon of the OT gives them the right to "reinterpret" the Messianic prophecies to exclude Jesus.
What's really disingenuous here is to claim that the RCC is "the Church" when it rejects the sola gracia so clearly taught by the prophets, the Apostles, and Christ Himself.
Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture are the two fonts of Revelation - I don't have to place one over the other, as they are in perfect harmony.
No, they're not. Scripture claims that Christ paid the full price for our sins on the cross, and that He was crucified once and for all. Catholic tradition claims that we also have to either burn in purgatory or obtain (via purchase or otherwise) indulgences to pay for our own sins, and that Christ still relives the agony of the cross in the "bloodless" sacrifice of the Mass. Scripture claims that Christ alone is our mediator before God and that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. The Catholic traditions say that we must also have a priest, the saints, the angels, and Mary to mediate between us and God, and that only the traditions can lead us into the truth of the Scriptures.
The claim that there is perfect harmony between Scripture and Tradition is disingenous--if there was, Catholics wouldn't be so threatened by sola scriptura, since they would be able to prove all their beliefs by the Scriptures apart from Tradition.
By what means does a Protestant such as yourself interpret this passage?
Did Christ not often speak in parables and symbols? To resume my earlier flippancy, when Christ said He was the Vine, does that mean He was green and leafy? When He said that He was the door of the sheepfold, does that mean that He is made of wood and has hinges? Clearly, Christ often used metaphors to describe Himself!
In all cases, the unclear must be interpreted by the clear. John himself clearly states that "all who believe in [Christ] shall not perish, but have eternal life" (3:16). Clearly, it is belief that is key, and the ritual of "eating" Christ is an outward reflection of that--as I've said several times on this thread, the key is to partake of Christ as we would of our daily bread.
Furthermore, Christ also said in Jn. 6 that those who ate of His flesh would never hunger, and those who drank of His blood would never thirst. Now if the flesh and blood are literal, then I defy you to go a year without eating or drinking anything. If on the other hand, Christ was speaking of spiritual hunger and thirst, just as He earlier had been speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, then the "transubstantiation" of the bread and wine must be spiritual rather than physical as well.
Likewise, Christ Himself when instituting the Lord's Supper said, "Do this in rememberance of Me," thus clearly making the act a memorial, as indeed Passover was a memorial of both Israel's rescue from Egypt and the sacrifice of the Lamb of God which rescued us from our sins.
Is Christ truly present in the Lord's Supper? Absolutely. But is it the priest that causes Him to be present, as the RCC declares? Absolutely not. Christ said that where two or more are gathered together in His name, He is truly there among them; therefore, the only condition for Communion is that we be gathered together with our brothers and sisters in Christ and partake of the Supper in His name, and we have truly partaken of the body and blood of Christ which He gave up for us on the cross.
Christ sent his Apostles to "teach all nations" with the condition that "he that believeth not shall be condemned."
Go back and reread Jn. 3:16. The key is to believe in--and the Greek means to put your trust in, not simply to make a mental acknowledgement of--Jesus Christ. Having a fully correct theology is not the issue, though having a fully correct theology will help you in the process of sanctification (another issue entirely). Having a personal covenant relationship with the Lord, which He made available to all with the shedding of His blood, is.
To refer to my earlier post, did God rescue Israel from Egypt before or after they had received and properly understood His Torah?
Yes, the passage is plain: Peter is the rock upon which Christ will build His Church.
Except for two things. First, Christ used two different words for "rock"--petros and petra--indicating that two different rocks were in view: Peter as the "piece of rock," and Himself as the great rock on which the Church was founded. Peter, as Paul later pointed out (Galatians, I think), did not die for us to make us his Church; Christ did.
Secondly, get an exhaustive concordance and go through the whole of the Scripture. Who is repeatedly throughout the whole referred to as the Rock of our salvation? It isn't Peter.
How would the sentence read in the language Christ spoke at the time, Aramaic?
Do you have an original Aramaic copy of the Matthew on hand? No? Then you are merely making assumptions based on your pre-existing viewpoint, not learning from the Scripture what it has to say. Perhaps Christ said "little Cephas" and "big Cephas" respectively, and Matthew rendered those into "petros" and "petra" in the Greek. Perhaps He used the same word but pointed to Himself when He said, "On this Rock I will establish My Church." Heck, Greek was in such common use in those days, the Lord could have easily interjected the Greek words into His Aramaic presentation the same way we might pepper our sentences with Latin! For whatever reason, the Greek makes a clear distinction, and citing a non-existant Aramaic translation is clear evidence that you have to really stretch to get the RCC interpretation.
In any case, even if Peter was appointed the chief of the Apostles (certainly, he often served in a leadership role), and even if he did pass that on to his successors (which really isn't defensible, even by Acts 1), I don't think you can maintain that an office that was repeatedly bought or taken by the sword counts as an "unbroken line of apostolic succession." Either Biblically or historically, the Roman claim fails.
. . . and that the earliest recorded Christians were deceived in attributing to Peter the supremacy of rule over the Church of God.
As I pointed out earlier, not all of them did. Origen for one rejected Peter's supremacy. For that matter, both the Bible (Acts 15, where James gets the last word and is the one to render judgment) and Josephus confirm that it was James the brother of Jesus, not Peter, who was head of the Church in Jerusalem, its original headquarters. Peter was busy being a missionary; he didn't have the time or the inclination to rule from his supposed throne.
You can grow in understanding of Scripture, but you must hold its teachings in the same sense as the Apostles or you will fall into error. The "doctrine of Christ," as St. John calls it, must be held in continuity, and those who revolt against it "have not God" (2 John 9).
I agree completely. That's why I reject the RCC's claims.
What an arrogant thing to say. Do you reject all authority, or just that which doesn't suit your fancy?
I've explained this nine different ways: I reject all authority which presumes to put itself over, rather than under, the Scriptures, and I reject all teachings that in letter or in Spirit contradict the Bible.
Of course I have violated those commandments! However, I work out my salvation in fear and trembling... I fall and with the grace of God, I get up, repent, and try again - with His help of course. I can do nothing on my own.
Now, if you do indeed put your whole trust in Jesus Christ, you will have a new life guided by the Holy Spirit in which you will want to follow His commandments completely, be baptized, partake in His Supper, etc. But none of those things will save you, nor will breaking a commandment or failing to do a ritual after you have accepted the New Covenant break that Covenant and void your salvation.
This is where we get all bolloxed up I think and all it is is a matter of language. None of those things [works] will save you BUT OTOH, with a saving faith you have those works in your life by the grace of God. If you have no works, you have no faith. If you have faith you have works. So you cannot separate them. Neither one can stand alone - and we see this exactly in Matthew chapter 25. All of them had faith and some of them had works. They were then judged by the Judge on their works.
I can agree with your sentence in logic, but not in specifics.
1) This child's handicap is not preventing them from accepting communion, or the church's insistance that the 'host' must be wheat.
2) Since the church says only one element is needed, then the church seems to be showing its own 'handicap' in making this child's dietary uniqueness have to be visible in a 'ceremonial' first communion (which is what is bothering the mother most likely) rather than just use a rice wafer for the second element for this child alone.
Answer that. Let's set our priorities. Is it pretending that the child is not disabled that is important, or his soul?
Good question ... but is 'wheat' consumption really a measure of ones 'soul' or it more reflective on the shallowness of the church in matters such as this.
I mean I can see the argument that "if you want communion in a catholic church, this is how we do it and this is the only way we do it. Hence if you can't do it that way, this is how we would accomodate you." I understand your point. But it seems like such a 'silly' restriction that the church is making, causing undue strife between a parishioner and the church. If the church was consistant on such things accross the board (communion, confession, abortion, who can and who can't receive, etc.) that would be an entirely different matter.
I think someone else already made the point of how hypocritical this is for the church who allows avowed pro-abortionist to accept Christ but will turn away an innocent on their first communion on a extra-biblical definition.
For me, part of being disabled is accepting the fact that you can not engage in all activities as "normal." I know the first President Bush outlawed such thinking with the Americans with Disabilities Acts, but reality is stubborn. Handicapped people do not, no matter what the law says, experience life as fully-abled people do. There is no "normal" for them.
Good point but is this really an individual's disability we are discussing here or is it more of an indication of the need of the church to get back to God's Word. Religion vs Relationship with Him. That is really what 'communion' is all about, isn't it?
But I do appreciate your points.
I would rather the child receive a valid sacrament, as he already can fully from the Chalice.
"If you mean my charge of syncretism, you can find articles referring to the event here, here, and here (the latter two are taken from Catholic sources). Heck, just do a Google search on "ecumenical" and "Assisi" and see what you come up with for yourself. The current pontiff's inter-religious activity isn't exactly a secret, even among Catholic commentators."
Perhaps you could work on reading comprehension. I asked for magisterial documents, not editorials or media accounts of papal events.
"As long as we're showing our cards, which priests have denied Kerry and all other pro-abort Catholics the Sacraments? Rome's made some noise about it, but it's just talk so far (though I'm glad to see the Vatican taking its stand on abortion)."
The Church has spoken. I admitted indiviual prelates can be weak. The teachings and laws are there. The "noise" is canon law. read it.
"Unlike some of the popes and certain papists here, I'm not so arrogant as to claim infallibility on anything. But really, how much interpretation do any of the quotes or allusions that I've made here need? You're not even trying to offer an alternative view--you're just arrogantly demanding that I submit to your authority (via the RCC) without giving me a single logical or Scriptural reason that I've not already refuted."
I have no authority. I submit to Christ through His vicar. You can read and study the documents for yourself. I see no reason to debate bible verses. Christ did not found a book. I accept the bible and Sacred Tradition.
"I can tell you from having been reading a great deal of them in the last few years that there were just as many debates among the ECF as there are between us--the "universal consent" that Catholics sometimes speak of simply did not exist."
There have always been debates. The issue is who settles those debates.
"God does not want you to follow an earthly authority blindly--He wants you to follow Him."
Yes, faith and reason. The Church teaches that. Following the Church is following Christ. You can't accept that because then you would have to submit to authority and change the way you view life and what is required of you.
Look, you pick out scripture verses and interpret them to suit your argument as do many thousands of others, all conflicting. You cite historical cases that suit your point, but in the end it is your sole interpretation, not God's. That is the problem.
1 Pet 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
9 Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.
10 Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.
11 If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
Suffering for Being a Christian
12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.
13 But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.
14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.
16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
18 And, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"
19 So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.
----------------
y'all have a good day
Your right. I must be missing something.
Some Catholic churches allow the use of no-gluten hosts, others don't, according to Elaine Monarch, executive director of the Celiac Disease Foundation, a Studio City, Calif.-based support group for sufferers.
Last year, in anticipation of the Brielle Elementary School third grader reaching Holy Communion age, her mother told officials...the girl could not have the standard host.
The church's pastor...told her that a gluten-free substitute was unacceptable.
But a priest at a nearby parish... volunteering to administer the sacrament using a gluten-free host.
On May 2, Waldman...made her first Holy Communion in a ceremony at the priest's church. Her mother, who also suffers from celiac and had not received communion since her diagnosis four years ago, also received.
But last month, the diocese told the priest that Waldman's sacrament would not be validated by the church because of the substitute wafer.
Seems to me she was refused SOMETHING. Perhaps you would care to explain why two priests and the diocese failed to find the solution which you know about.
In fact, this site makes an interesting observation:
In support of the inclusion of 12 books of the Apocrypha in the canon, Trent pointed to two regional councils which met under Augustine's leadership in Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.). The bishops of Trent claimed these councils formally defined the canon as including the Apocrypha.Since neither Christ nor His disciples quoted from any of the books in question (at best, you have a couple of vague allusions) and called them Scripture, and since they were not nearly so widely quoted in the ECF and medieval periods as the unquestioned books. Most regarded them as useful histories and pious works, but not necessarily Scripture.There are a couple of things wrong with this claim: 1) these were regional councils not authorized to speak for the church as a whole; and 2) the endorsement they gave the Apocrypha was quite different from what the RCC claims – a matter I shall deal with later.
The claims of Trent ignore the very significant fact that there was an established canon of Scripture long before anyone met in church council at Hippo or Carthage. There is a strong body of evidence that the Old Testament canon found in the Christian Bible (non-Catholic) is the same as that used in Palestine at the time of Christ's ministry. That canon did not include the Apocrypha. Christ referred to Scriptures in Luke 24:44:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
Neither Jesus nor any of the New Testament writers ever once quoted from the Apocrypha. There are 263 quotations and 370 references to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocrypha
The RCC herself acknowledges that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, for it was not a part of the Hebrew canon. A respected Catholic source informs:
"For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible." ("New Catholic Encyclopedia," Vol. II, 'Canon, Biblical' (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 29)
Besides, you don't seem to get the point I mistakenly hit another poster with: If the apocryphal books were truly Scripture, you would find all of their teachings spread throughout the rest of the Bible. You don't; you're depending on a single verse of 2 Macc. to support prayers for the dead, for example.
Oi vey. Apparently you have problems with being confronted by the truth that not everything the RCC or its pope does is absolutely the perfect will of God. Check my second post (which I rewrote in error when I thought the first hadn't gone through--sorry about that), and you'll see where I've linked to some pictures of the event in question. Like I said, do your own research.
But, just for sake of further proof, I've got some quotes at home by JPII that I'll share this evening once I can get to them. (I don't have time to find them again in the Vatican's website archives right this minute.) Of course, you'll keep raising the bar, because you really don't want to hear this or admit that the RCC might ever be wrong about anything.
For the rest of your post, you continue to declare without reason or Scriptural backing the RCC's claims. I'm not going to bother repeating the same answers I've given you three posts in a row.
Look, the problem with citing Scripture is that even the Devil does it. A single passage can be variously interpreted. This is where tradition comes in. We interpret Scriptural references exactly as the ancient Fathers did--and that comes to us through tradition.
When you speak of two or more gathering in Jesus' name, it is indeed true that he is present among them, but virtually--as he is present in the Word. But when the priest consecrates at the liturgy, repeating the action as Christ commanded--"do this in memory of me"--Christ becomes present in a different way--physically and substantially: "This is my Body...This is my Blood..."
As for mediation--it is true Christ is the sole mediator between Man and the Father. Nobody denies this. But the Liturgy has always been deemed a sacrifice--the ancients always used this term. This is why there must be a priest, a person who sacrifices. But the priest prays "Through Him and with Him and in Him"--through Christ, not himself. And it is Christ who is offered to the Father. The mediation of the priest is of an altogether different order--as one who effects the sacrifice.
Finally, the Church alone has the authority to determine what kind of bread must be used. This is because she alone has kept the tradition alive from the ancient apostolic past to today. In this, she has always affirmed the necessity of wheaten bread--and the eastern Church would agree. No other was ever used. The idea that the "spirit" of the Eucharist is what matters in this case is not true--any more than it would be to use sand instead of water for baptism merely because it's the "spirit" that counts.
Not that there isn't such a thing as a "spiritual" communion--and there's no doubt that the little girl would have been blessed spiritually whether or not her communion were valid. But we mortals for the most part are spiritually weak and need the physical reassurance that Jesus provided through his concrete sacrament.
Your only response is thus: "You reject the Roman pope! Therefore, everything you say is wrong!" That's not a reasoned discussion in the Spirit of Christ; that's an a priori assault.
Good day, and God bless.
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.