8-year-old's first Holy Communion invalidated by Church

Newsday ^ | August 12, 2004 | John Curran

[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.

[Fifthmark]

For a priest to mediate in any way between Man and Christ also puts him as a mediator in between Man and God, which violates the clear message of Hebrews...

You'll notice that St. Paul was speaking in the present tense at the time he wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews:

"For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was" (Hebrews v.1-4)

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Ha ha!

[Oberon]

Stupid you say? What did Christ Himself use?

Hard to say, exactly. No reason it couldn't have been barley or oats or rye, is there?

[Fifthmark]

Nothing wrong with a metaphor - it's the imputation of one where it doesn't exist that causes trouble. The real and objective presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a doctrine of the Apostles that can be historically verified and which was not called into question until the revolt of the Reformers. St. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD, attested to Christ's real presence against the errors of the Docetics in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead. And so denying the gift of God, these men perish in their disputatiousness."

One of the earliest known dissenters against this doctrine was Berengarius of Tours (c. 1010-88), who was required to take an oath by Pope St. Gregory VII to remain in good standing with the Church:

"I Berengarius, believe interiorly and profess publicly that the bread and wine, which are placed on the altar, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of our Redeemer are substantially changed into the true, proper, and life-giving flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. After the consecration it is the true Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world, and which sits at the right hand of the Father. And it is the true Blood of Christ which poured forth from His side. And Christ is present not merely by virtue of the sign and power of the Sacrament, but in His proper nature and true substance as is set down in this summary, and as I read it and you understand it. This I believe and I will not teach any more against this faith. So help me God and this holy Gospel of God!"

[Buggman]

You'll notice that St. Paul was speaking in the present tense at the time he wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews:

I'll double-check the Greek when I get home, but allowing for that, what's your point? (And I mean that seriously, not snottily.)

[FormerLib]

When this type of spin is done to issues like gay marriage, or abortion most of the critics on this thread see the crap for what it is.

It would appear that the author of the article was very effective in this particular spin.

Just to clarify, would having a sip of consecrated wine have sufficed? If so, was that done here and if not, why not?

[armydoc]

"The real and objective presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a doctrine of the Apostles that can be historically verified and which was not called into question until the revolt of the Reformers. St. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch..."

Thus goes the "early church fathers" argument. If they believed something, it must be true. The only thing it proves is that error can arise very quickly. Look at your "earliest" church father- Peter. Jesus rebuked him for error while he was still alive! Paul rebuked Peter for error! By the time Luther did his thing, error was codified in cannon law, making correction of the error impossible. That is why adherence to Scripture is so vital-error is too easily propogated and enshrined when Scripture is not used to as the filter.

[Buggman]

Very well presented, armydoc.

[SoothingDave]

Just to clarify, would having a sip of consecrated wine have sufficed?

Yes.

If so, was that done here and if not, why not?

Apparently not and that is the great unanswered question. I hate news articles that leave you with more questions.

The Diocese offered for her to either have a "low gluten" host or to take the wine. The mother refused. No further explanation is given.

Likewise, it says the mother has not taken communion in 4 years. No followup there either? Is the mother just ignorant? Doesn't her priest know he can offer her the Cup? Why did this unnamed other priest go along with this traveshamockery?

All things a reporter should have found out.

SD

[Buggman]

Yeah, but the Apostles drove Hondas: They were all in one Accord.

[Xenalyte]

So the first Hondas were made like clown cars? That's a lot of apostles in one vehicle.

[Fifthmark]

St. Paul spoke of those being "ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins" - a clear reference to the priesthood of the Old Testament, but also indicative of the priesthood of the New Testament, whereby ordained men renew the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the altars at Mass.

[Fifthmark]

That is why adherence to Scripture is so vital-error is too easily propogated and enshrined when Scripture is not used to as the filter.

That's a real dopey argument given that the quote I posted from St. Ignatius and St. John Chapter 6 are in perfect accord. You don't seem to be worried that no evidence exists from the earliest Church to support your denial of Catholic doctrine - instead you rely upon your fallible interpretation of Scripture. I'm not sure what path you're headed down, but it certainly isn't "The Way."

[Fifthmark]

A little late - I was slapping my knee back at post# 100.

[Buggman]

Post historical evidence from the early Christians (Church Fathers, etc) that supports your interpretation of Scripture and denies Catholic Tradition.

I might do that just for the fun of it, but really, what's the point? I already posted an allusion to Origen showing that there was serious debate about Peter's primacy in the fourth century, and you dismissed it out of hand. Why should I bother do do the extra groundwork when it's not going to have a bit of effect on you? Will you commit to change your mind about Catholic doctrine if I do find such examples?

Besides, you miss the point. You're the one who argues for the primacy of Tradition; I'm arguing that the Scriptures speak for themselves and contradict your traditions, so what would be the point of using tradition to prove my point?

I've provided Scriptural reference after reference, and so far the bulk of your counter argument is to simply ignore the Scriptures altogether. Since that's our mutually accepted source of authority, you need to be able to prove all of Rome's teachings from the Bible, not from your ever-changing traditions.

The only thing Catholics are threatened by is the possibility of embracing your errors and losing their soul.

The fact that you think believing in Christ over the papal decrees will lose your soul pretty much tells us who you really put your trust in . . . and it's not Him.

So who decides when He is being literal and when He is metaphorical?

The context, both the immediate and the context of the rest of Scripture. To take the Peter argument, not only does the original Greek disprove your assertion, but the whole context of the rest of Scripture tells us that the Rock is the Lord, and no one else.

Or to take the Eucharist debate, the immediate context (Jn. 6) tells us that those who partake of Him will never hunger or thirst. If He meant the whole discourse in purely literal terms, then no Catholic should ever eat or drink again to prove their interpretation. But, if Catholics do indeed get hungry like the rest of us, then something more than physical hunger and thirst is meant--and something more than Christ's physical flesh and blood is meant as well.

He made the bread His Sacred Body and the wine His Precious blood.

That's the weakest argument for the Eucharist. Christ was standing there in His literal flesh and blood; He was therefore obviously being symbolic in the presentation of the bread and wine, or else He would have presented a miraculous sign that the bread and wine had literally transformed.

St. Matthew's Gospel was written in either Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek, as we know from Eusebius of Caesarea.

Nevertheless, we do not have this Aramaic original, so you are merely speculating without any basis as to what it said. My speculations on the other hand, are based on the clear differences between the two words translated "rock" from the Greek--I'm assuming that the translator had a clue and a specific reason to call attention to the difference between the words.

When we find Matthew's Aramaic autograph, give me a call. Until then, the RCC has absolutely no Scriptural basis for its claim that Peter was hereby made the first pope.

How many times does Christ have to say something to make it true?

How many times does God have to claim that He is the Rock for it to be true?

[Fifthmark]

Why should I bother do do the extra groundwork when it's not going to have a bit of effect on you?

Ditto.

Will you commit to change your mind about Catholic doctrine if I do find such examples?

Not an iota.

You're the one who argues for the primacy of Tradition...

Wrong - I argue for the congruency of Scripture and Sacred Tradition as a means of knowing the Revelation of God.

Since that's our mutually accepted source of authority, you need to be able to prove all of Rome's teachings from the Bible, not from your ever-changing traditions.

No - I need only prove that Christ instituted a Church. Do your readings of history disprove this in your mind as well?

...or else He would have presented a miraculous sign that the bread and wine had literally transformed.

So, Bill Clinton, what truly was the meaning of "is" when Christ blessed the bread and wine?

[Buggman]

If it won't make a bit of difference, if you're going to ignore all evidence placed before you, then I refuse to play your game by your rules.

I need only prove that Christ instituted a Church. Do your readings of history disprove this in your mind as well?

He did indeed establish a Church--but it wasn't the Roman papacy. I've already hit this question from several different angles (Scriptural and historical), and see no reason to restate my arguments again.

So, Bill Clinton, what truly was the meaning of "is" when Christ blessed the bread and wine?

My, the Catholics here are certainly being nasty today. I've already explained my position--I'm still waiting to hear how long you've gone without going physically hungry or thirsty.

[Buggman]

Actually, that's not quite fair. Some of the Catholics here have been nasty today. Others, like AlbionGirl, have been the soul of grace, and to those who have, I appreciate the love and fellowship you've shown.

[Fifthmark]

My, the Catholics here are certainly being nasty today. I've already explained my position--I'm still waiting to hear how long you've gone without going physically hungry or thirsty.

My, the heretics certainly are thin-skinned today - but I couldn't help but point out the parallels between your mode of argument and that of our disgraced ex-Commander-in-Chief.

I've already explained my position--I'm still waiting to hear how long you've gone without going physically hungry or thirsty.

Christ, by saying "He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall not thirst," was quoting Scripture - Ecclesiasticus, in fact - one of your dismissed apocryphal books. Chapter xxiv, verse 29 reads:

"They that eat me shall yet hunger: and they that drink me shall yet thirst."

"Me" referred to here is Wisdom - so it is understood that Christ, who has commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, is calling Himself the Eternal Wisdom by quoting this passage.

[Buggman]

St. Paul spoke of those being "ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins" - a clear reference to the priesthood of the Old Testament, but also indicative of the priesthood of the New Testament, whereby ordained men renew the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the altars at Mass.

Okay, now that I'm home from work and have my sources in front of me: Paul, or whoever the author of Hebrews was, was drawing a comparison between the Aaronic high priests and Christ: Both are appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, both can have compassion on the people they mediate for since both are drawn from that people, and both are annointed for this position by God rather than by man. So far so good.

But then the author goes on to write, "So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You.' As He also says in another place: 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'" (vv. 5-6).

He goes on to explain the significance of Christ being of the order of Melchizedek in chapter seven.

Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

So you see that Hebrews does not support the continuation of a mortal priestly office at all, but instead insists on the sole sufficiency of Christ's high priesthood. It also, as indicated by the bold, denies the continual re-sacrifice of the Mass, as Christ died "once and for all" (repeated in Heb. 9:27-28).

In a similar vein, Peter himself calls all believers "a royal priesthood" in 1 Pet. 2:9. This is repeated in the Revelation (1:6 and 5:10). This is why the universal priesthood of all believers was attested to by the early Church fathers:

I have shown that all the disciples of the Lord are Levites and priests, they who used in the temple to profane the Sabbath, but are blameless.
--Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.34

We are the true adorers and the true priests, who, praying in spirit, sacrifice, in spirit, prayer,--a victim proper and acceptable to God, which assuredly He has required, which He has looked forward to for Himself!
--Tertullian, On Prayer

But you will say, "Then all others may (marry more than once), whom he excepts." Vain shall we be if we think that what is not lawful for priests is lawful for laics. Are not even we laics priests? It is written: "A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us." It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order, which has established the difference between the Order and the laity. Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics.
--Tertullian, On Exhortation to Chastity

So here we see that the Bible does not support a new quasi-Levitical priesthood, but rather names us all priests with Christ Himself appointed our High Priest, as the Early Church Fathers affirm (though Tertullian does indicate that some division between priest and laity had developed by his time, he does not cite Scripture to back it). Nor does it support the repetative sacrifice of the Mass, but rather Christ's singular and eternally sufficient sacrifice on the Cross. Thus, Roman Catholic tradition is in direct conflict with the Scriptures--and indeed, even with its earlier traditions.