Protestant Communion and Catholic Communion cannot be compared. Catholic communion is much, much, much more meaningful to that religion. Many Protestant churches have communion rarely, it’s a side thing. The Eucharist IS Catholicism. The entire religion is about that sacrament, more or less, and the beliefs about it are far more involved.
When you are participating in the Sacramental presentation and action of the Sacrifice of Christ and consuming his ACTUAL body and blood, it’s taken a lot more seriously than when you’re saying a prayer over croutons and passing them out as mere “symbols.”
I have no idea what you’re saying here…I’ll try again.
You’re mocking the RCC for having “laws”…I’m just curious why you don’t mock Judaism (and of course, Jesus as a practicing Jew) for having their own set of “laws”. I guess they get a pass?
Some non-Catholic churches which use wafers buy non-wheat wafers. For reasons given by others above, this option is not available for Catholics. But there is such a thing as deglutinated flour, from which deglutinated wafers can be produced – and they’re both in accord with canon law and available with effort.
Given that the girl’s family refused “communion under the species of wine only,” and the parish/diocese is not looking into deglutinated wafers, I smell a bit more of a set of issues here than meets the eye.
In short, it’s quite possible to both hold to strict rules and accommodate medical necessity/strong recommendation – and nobody seems to be willing to budge in the instant case.
Actually, while I don’t have the usual on-line cite handy, Jesus threw out Jewish dietary laws saying, “What goes into the body doesn’t matter because it goes in through the mouth and goes out the other end.” I don’t remember the entire quote well enough to continue, but He then goes onto talk about how it’s what comes out of men’s hearts which matters. It’s somewhere in Matthew, I think. The weekend’s looking rather busy, thanks to someone Polycarp knows of, but if no one beats me to it, I’ll give you a full cite on Monday. At any rate, it’s that section which I see as abolishing Kosher for Christians.
As for the OP, I never have understood American attitudes toward drinking, and I agree that there is more going on here than meets the eye, and I suspect both sides are acting in a less than Christian fashion. Surely there must be a better way? But then again, a better way might involve both sides admitting they were wrong about some things, and that’s a very difficult thing to do. In the meantime, these folks wouldn’t be the first ones to find us loose-living Episcopalians a better fit than the Catholics.
Interestingly enough, that’s not the way I read that chapter.
The chapter at hand is Matthew 15:
It was common custom in the times of the Temple to wash one’s hands before eating so as to attain a state of ritual purity. However, as a rule, only sacrificial foods had to be eaten in such a state. Unconsecrated foods could be eaten in any state. Yet, nonetheless, it was common practice to wash one’s hands before eating even unconsecrated foods. But in no way did this rise to the level of a commandment (as eating Kosher is). I highly doubt that Jesus was saying in this chapter that one may eat non-kosher food. He was discussing concpets of tumah (ritual uncleanliness) and taharah (ritual cleanliness), not kosher and non-kosher.
In any event, I still fail to see what the big deal is about this matter. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we seem to have the following scenario here:
[ul]
[li]A young girl is unable to consume gluten products[/li][li]The wafers used for communion must contain gluten, since Jesus’ last super (which the Eucharist represents) was of bread (gluten) and wine.[/li][li]The sacrement could also be taken with wine.[/li][li]One who cannot take either is exempt from the ritual - with no ecclesiastic penalties attached[/li][/ul]
I presented a situation that can occur in Judaism before as an analogy – where there is no matzah available on Passover. If so, then one is simply exempt from the commandment. One cannot substitute rye bread for matzah and then claim that they are fulfilling the commandment.
Is this situation really any different? Why are they asking the Church to change the rules that they’ve had in place for hundreds of years when there is simply no real need to? What am I missing here?
Nothing, IMHO. Of course, I’ve been pretty seriously lapsed, as Catholics go, for quite some time, but your description of the situation seems pretty accurate.
There’s certainly some attitude problem on the parents’ part, possibly touched off by a difficult or less than entirely diplomatic priest, but not neccesarily so. That would be my guess. I’m leaning in favor of “not neccesarily,” possibly unfairly, just because of the weird attitude towards the girl taking wine. I have to admit, I find that completely incomprehensible.
Umm my point was NOT about dietary laws for Christians.
I’ll try this one more time.
vanilla was mocking the RCC for having “laws”…
I was pointing out to her (using dietary laws…but good gravy there are plenty of others) that Jesus, as a Jew growing up…certainly followed “church rules”…but apparently THOSE rules are okey dokey for vanilla…
FWIW…I’m not addressing the particular canon law(s) at issue in this thread…just vanilla’s general broadswipe. I’m betting that even vanilla’s “non denom” church might have some “church rules” concerning how it does things…but again, apparently those are OK.
What zev_ and Bren_ said. This smells of deeper issues between that priest and mother. And a serious case of “Let’s do the reasonable thing: YOU back off.” By now it has become not so much about the girl’s condition or the Church’s rules, but about who gets to bust whose face.
Interesting that the mother is quotes as saying something to the effect that going thru with the rituals is very important… but then wants the rules bent to accommodate, even when there IS an alternate ritual for this case. (AND they could always do her FHC using a specially set-aside cup of must, that is kept clean from bread. In any case, for the rest of her life she will be unable to partake either the bread or the communal cup during regular Sunday Mass at virtually any church she visits and the Church is OK with that, she will still “receive Christ”.
(BTW Poly - I think the problem is that the authorized “de-glutenated” hosts are not quite completely gluten-free)
Is the mother’s concern about the wine itself, or about her daughter being put on the spot by being given communion differently than the other kids?
Because I know in some cultures, where eating fruits and whatnot was liturgically important to pre-Christian religious services, the form of the mass has a degree of flexibility (in some cultures, you get a wafer, and can also take a traditional fruit like a grape, which is symbolically meaningless but culturally important). Similarly, could a rice wafer have a drop of the consecrated wine placed on it (provided it is pourous enough to not let it run off), and the girl then be given wine as communion, but in a wafer form that won’t make her stand out?
What the FUCK is wrong with you? How the FUCK do YOU know what God wants any better than these people? Do you have some kind of proof that they’re wrong? Did God speak to you and tell you the Pope is on crack and Christ wants this little girl to eat rice patties and soy milk for the Eucharist?
I’m offended by the Catholic Church. I’m just as offended by those who argue against it on spiritual grounds. Neither point of view has a fucking leg to stand on, because the argument is devoid of factual information.
You don’t like it? You think the Church is run by a bunch of fucking assholes? Good! Leave! Get the fuck out and do the world a favor. Better still, renounce your irrational conviction that you do or do not know what is or is not contraty to God’s will. The fact is, you have no fucking idea better than they do. You argue on purely emotional grounds. You can comb the scriptures all you like for doctrinaire justifications for your value-based convictions, but you’ll find your adversaries have got as many or more lines of Biblical text that can be used to argue against your personal point of view. Scripture is so diverse in its sources there’s enough there to make everyone happy, or unhappy, depending on how you use it.
You wanna help? Shut the fuck up about what God wants. You have no fucking idea. Nor does anyone else.
Bullshit! Prodistant superstition is much more important and deep than Catholic superstition! God himself said so! How can you even claim otherwise? :rolleyes:
What a lot of people aren’t getting is that by the teachings of Church doctrine that have been formally coded for at least a thousand years (and are part of universal church tradition from the beginning), the girl didn’t receive communion. It’s not like she received communion and now the mean old Church is coming along and saying it wasn’t good enough, it’s that invalid matter was used for the host. Invalid matter cannot be consecrated to be the Body, and so all the girl did was eat a rice cracker. Either the host was the Body or it wasn’t, and every single apostolic branch of Christianity (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, etc.) would say she didn’t, the same way she wouldn’t be considered baptized if she had been dunked in olive oil instead of water. The mother’s refusal to allow her daughter to consume the Blood is just bizarre; by Catholic theology, the stuff is no longer wine but the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of wine. The mother is free, of course, to reject Catholic beliefs and consider the Blood to be wine, of course, but then one must question why she would choose to remain a Catholic.
This could be done, but I could understand church officials being leery of doing something like this, lest it lead to an incorrect understanding of the Eucharist by misleading people into believing the wafer itself was consecrated. Historically, when situations like this have come up, the Church has responded by making clear the orthodox position, even when it goes against popular piety. As an example, in the Middle Ages the belief developed that one must receive both the Body and Blood to be properly communicated; the Church responded by taking away the chalice from the faithful, to drive home the point that the Body and Blood are both fully present under both species. Something similar may need to be done here.
Well, lets take things in perspective. The Church here has bent over backwards, but I also admit it won’t take that last step. A step that is either “reasonable” or “heresy” depending on how you look at it. But in any case- the Church has tried to be reasonable (I admit that some think they could have gone a step further). In any case- a whole bunch of posters here, including our OP is getting very het up about this. Of course- if you don’t beleive in God or Communion at all- it make no never mind either way does it?
But still dudes here are getting all excited- calling the RC Church “Fucking appalling Church acting totally against God” “asshats” “an empty, totalitarian farce” and “offended by the Catholic Church”- which last isn’t so bad.
Now let us turn, brothers and Sisters, to today’s newspaper. A couple (The Hoskins Family) out in Hillsboro OR were recently convicted of assualt. Their crime- to punish their children, (a 8yo girl and a 7yo boy) they sic’ed their Pitbull on them- causing multiple tears and puncture wounds that required stitches.
Let us compare this to our situation in this thread, where this poor girl- horrors of horrors- was offered “The church offered to use low-gluten hosts, but since there is still a very small amount of gluten present she refused. Fair enough. They also offered to give her daughter her first communion with a sip of low-alcohol instead of wine”. Note that if she just said “no” she could get a special blessing instead. So basicly- she either eats the low gluten MOSTLY safe wafers, or doesn’t- which is OK too, just that she doesn’t get “communion”- which most posters on this board think is a meaningless ritual anyway. :dubious:
Now- don’t you feel a tiny bit ashamed for getting all het up about this teeny tiny problem, when somebody else is fucking feeding their kids to the damn dog? I mean- get a grip on reality- everyone- OP, The Mom, etc. Who gives a fuck about some kid in an otherwise safe and happy life, when two other kids are getting brutalized?
Maybe we could save our swear words, anger, rightous indignation, and all that for some assholes who really truely deserve it- instead of a problem that is not even up to “molehill” status?
Well, the reason they’re so upset is because they know what God wants better than somebody else. Given that they posess this incredible power, you know, to tap into the omnicient intellect of the Almighty, and use this God-given wisdom to sort right from wrong and condemn the Church on theological grounds, I guess they must also know with great certainty what is or is not worth getting all hrumphy about.
Umm, Dave, as someone raised non-denominational Protestant (Campbellite, not that anyone knows what that means), I gotta tell ya: The point of Xtianity as my people understand it is that at least some of the Jewish laws were a false “religion” over the true godly ethic. If being Christian doesn’t mean getting to mock the other monotheists’ legalism–if it doesn’t at least mean getting to eat pork (on Friday, even) & not be circumcised, you’re probably doing it wrong.
Not that you should mock the devout Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, as a person. They’re trying to do the right thing. But devotion to “the finger that points to the moon” (actually a Discordian phrase, but it fits here) is superstition, not enlightenment.[/“raised fundamentalist” hat]
[“and then I blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the name of my sanity” hat]By the way, I hate Jack Chick lots & lots, but that was (Lord help me) a good tract. To conflate imagery of God with the transcendent God himself is the very definition of idolatry. Now if only poor Jack would stop deifying a 2000-year-old prophet.[/“and then I blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the name of my sanity” hat]
