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 ...
ROTFL... ; )
bread, plain old bread...and it does not matter what its made from... ..it is in REMEMBRANCE of Christ.
She had a wafer made without the wheat...so what. Splitting hairs is not what Jesus is about, and WHERE in Lords'supper do you see a recipe for the flour??? IF he wanted a special bread he would have given the recipe where the Lord's Supper is spoken about....this is nonsense, Perid.
Show me where Jesus gave out the ingredients for bread of the Last Supper. It does not have anything to do with Ezekials bread cause that was for a different purpose in OLD Testament.
The child suffers from a rare and unusual disorder which prevents her from participating in customary Church traditions. There is no doubt that the Church will find a way to accommodate the child once the slow wheels of Church bureaucracy become better informed as to the nature of her disability. Until that happens, there will also be plenty of opportunity for anti-Catholic bigots to denounce and belittle the Church.
On a more positive note Communion is NOT required to be saved. It is highly recommended IF the person is able but will NOT exclude the person from being saved.
The situation with this 8 year old is a simple example of rituals taken to an extreme and forgetting what the Bible teaches. Communion is NOT required to be saved or have a personal relationship with Christ. If you diagree with me, then argue with Christ about why the thief on the cross was saved. Christ could see his heart and told him he would be with Him in paradise. This thief had NO time for rituals yet he was saved. There are other examples in the Bible as well but this is one that is better known.
Thanks for getting to the bottom of the Catholic/"Reformist" argument over the Eucharist. To Catholics, it's not only a remembrance. It is also the same eternal Sacrifice of Calvary, but through unbloody means. I think the "Reformists" can agree that the consequences of Christ's Sacrifice are eternal.
Jesus used unleaved wheat bread. He didn't use cake. He didn't use barley. He didn't use peanut butter. He didn't use fried chicken. Your quarrel is with Jesus, not the Church.
You're speaking of baptism of desire. However, it is quite apparent that this is an emergency situation. I would consider the digestive disorder situation to be regretful situation, not an emergency situation. Their salvation isn't in jeopardy because of it, as long as they are free of mortal sin. However, normatively speaking, Christ desires that we are baptized in the way He instituted, and that we receive Him in the way He instituted.
Communion is NOT required to be saved or have a personal relationship with Christ.
Then how do you explain Christ's words that I quoted from before?
I don't know about every diocese, but I can tell you that when my son married about 10 years ago (in Philadelphia), there was an issue of whether or not he had received his First Communion. We'd had it recorded in our family bible so we even knew the date. He'd made his first communion in Metuchen, but the parish of his baptism never recorded it. I'm not sure what happened, but there was some issue of paperwork that involved two different parishes - St. Francis in Metuchen and St. John Baptist in Philadelphia. Eventually, his pastor stepped in for him and the issue was resolved. I'm not sure how, but I do know he would have had problems marrying in the Church without some sort of certification.
Right...as opposed to say, varying methods of infanticide and it's offspring, which is clearly Gods, law.
And we know how solemnly those duties are being taken.
The actual body and blood of Christ didn't contain wheat then. Why should it now?
Transubstantiation means that the substance of the bread and wine are changed in the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But the accidents remain.
The accidents are the actual appearance of the thing, while the substance are what the thing is. So after transubstantiation, it still, looks, feels, tastes, and acts just like bread and wine, even though we believe what it is has become Christ.
We don't believe the bread and wine are an illusion - a trick of our minds or some other monstrous belief; but rather that the whole Christ is a new reality underneath the appearances of bread and wine.
So if you are allergic to wheat or alcohol, you will have still have a difficult time receiving Holy Communion. You receive the reality of Christ, but the physicality of the bread and wine.
The presence of Christ is the spiritual reality. The appearance of bread is the physical reality.
We believe Christ is physically present, but He is not physically apparent. You still see bread and wine, and it still tastes like bread and wine. It is in fact still bread and wine by all outward appearances.
I hope this aides your understanding of what we believe.
You're right--you don't get it. All matter is comprised of substance and accident. The concept of Transubstantiation means that the accidents of wheat--color, taste, shape, etc., remain the same, but the substance--the essence of wheatness--is changed into the Body of Jesus. "Wheatness" per se no longer exists after the Consecration.
Do you think God would mind celebrating Holy Communion with doritos tortilla chips, chocolate chip cookies, pizza, crabcakes, deep fried chicken, or a pastrami on rye? They all have grain don't they?
If not, where exactly is the line drawn between wheaten bread and all other foods as to what is and is not acceptable for use at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and why?
My Bible says He used King Arthur® Unbleached Bread Flour. Not a trace of rye or oats, or anything non-wheat.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The thief on the cross was NOT baptized nor did he take communion yet Christ said, you will be with me in paradise. If the words of Christ are not suffient for you, I don't know what to tell you.
Rituals do NOT save anyone. It is you HEART that He evaluates. Rituals are nice but they do NOT save anyone. This thread is an example of a ritual, communion, taken to an extreme and is not the teachings of Christ of the Bible.
Can't she recieve the Precious Blood instead? I don't see what the problem is.
The Divine Commission had not yet been given to the Apostles at the time of St. Dismas' death (St. Matthew xxviii.18-20, St. Mark xvi.15-16). Would you like to contend that Christ did not say the following?
"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (St. John vi.54).
LOL. That's funny. This is actually a long-standing argument in Christian circles, as the Church spread to areas where wheat isn't the staple grain.
Actually, they're taken very seriously in the Catholic Church, hobbes.
What the hell's the matter with you?
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.