I go back and forth in my feeling for the Catholic Church, in which I was raised. One of the hardest things to deal with is Papal machine. It’s like dealing with lawyer, ewwwww.
My addition to this thread is that my priest when I was an altar boy, was a recovered alcholic. He recieved special permission from the Vactican to use non-alcholic wine for himself. /aside/he was a pretty cool guy/end aside/
I’ll try and be clearer. According to Catholic doctrine, it’s wine or wafer or both. But what a given priest, at a given time, decides to offer is up to him. At least that’s the way it was back when I was still brainwashed.
Yes, you have to go to mass every Sunday, but you you do not have to take communion (although you are encouraged to do so). On Holy days of Obligation, again, the rule is you go to mass. Communion recommended but optional. As for the ‘minimum obligation’, I was taught that one’s minimum obligation to the church was to take communion, and go to confession, once per year (measured from Easter to Easter).
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just contributing what I was taught. (Born and raised a catholic, taught by priests for my entire schooling up to 18, kept all the sacraments (as appropriate) for the first 25 years of my life.)
I’ve never been to a mass where both weren’t offered. She could just take the wine.
No, you were right about Communion obligations. See gigi’s post above. I believe this has changed since some long time ago, though, hence my mistake. But the rules may have always been this way too. Don’t know.
Well, Jesus was celebrating Passover, and he was a Jew. The safe money bet is that it was unleavened bread, like Jews have been doing for some 3500 years, every year.
And did anyone else read that Chick Tract? How offensive is that to Catholics?!?
The requirement to receive the sacrament of Holy Euchiarist at least once per year is one of the seven precepts of the Church. There were traditionally six; the seventh was added in the early 1970s. Those are:
To assist at Mass on all Sundays and Holydays of Obligation.
To receive the sacrament of penance at least once per year, if serious sin is present.
To receive Holy Communion during the Easter Time.
To observe the laws of the Church concerning marriage.
To contribute to the support of the Church.
To fast and abstain on the days appointed.
To join in the missionary spirit and apostolate of the Church.
That’s interesting, Bricker – but there are only 5 precepts in the CCC:
A few thoughts. One is that being allergic to wheat sucks. Poor kid.
Second, I think the priest did the right thing by initially refusing her request because the rules are clearly stated. And it is not up to him to decide which rules he should break. However, he could and should have appealed to the bishop, then the vatican to allow a special dispensation for this child’s unique circumstances. Rules are rules, yes. But sometimes rules SHOULD be broken. And if the church can hand out annulments like they are peanuts, well surely they can find room to bend on this one.
Perhaps he should have asked himself: WWJD? 
You know how they get the anullments? Bribes.
Pay enough money, you get one. My uncle did that so he could officially marry my aunt in the Catholic church. (they were married in a Civil Ceremony or whatever).
my aunt is my dad’s sister, just thought I’d mention it.
So maybe if they greased the bishop’s palm…
Bricker, You were right about the Vatican Ban. I should go to church more often.
I spoke to two ministers of the eucharest - (lay people who are allowed to give out communion) and they said that celiacs now only recieve wine, but most of them don’t bother as it is too much hassle.
Oh please…you’re again distorting the process here. There are plenty of good arguments against the annullment process in the Catholic Church without having to resort to falsehoods or incomplete stories.
To get an annullment in the RCC, you have to petition a diocesan tribunal which examines the particulars of your “marriage” to determine if it was a valid marriage in the eyes of the church (a different notion than a “civil” marriage).
The process typically can last 12-18 months…Yes there are fees involved in the process (much, like I guess there are fees involved in a church marriage…right?) But to call it a bribe is silly…especially when the local bishop is NOT involved in the tribunal process.
More details about the annullment process in general can be found at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JosephCBuckley/queries.htm
(although particular details probably vary by locale)
I’m just repeating what happened with my uncle. There was no valid reason for his annullment, as far as I know. It was just that he wanted to suprise my aunt with a Church wedding.
Trust me-the Catholic church is pretty corrupt at times.
No, you’re repeating what you think happened with your uncle; not what you know happened.
You misspelled “in my opinion.”
Yeah, right. Kind of hard to get surprised by something that requires some discussion between the celebrant and the bride and groom before it happens. After all, the marriage ceremony in the Roman Catholic church is a sacrament and the celebrant knows that; even if you don’t.
Yeah, that’s enough proof right there for anyone.
Like most large organizations, I have no doubt that there is corruption in the Catholic church.
An unsupported anecdotal story (which, as Monty suggested, may or may not be accurate in all of the important details) does not support a statement saying that the way to get an annullment in the Catholic church is to grease the palm of the Bishop.
To get an annullment, your uncle would have to present testimony to a tribunal…that’s not an optional exercise…it’s a requirement. Unless your uncle outlined his entire case to you (and I’m guessing he didn’t …since all you recall is an exchange of money)…I’m not sure how you are confident that “there was no valid reason for his annullment”.
Like I said earlier, I’m not a huge fan of the annullment process as it is currently executed, but characterizing it as a bribery scheme is just plain false.
I took some care in phrasing the OP to avoid looking like a call for Catholic bashing. If some of you have grievances against the Catholic Church which do not relate to teh Eucharist/Communion, I would appreciate it if you voiced them elsewhere.
What I was really interested in was a discussion upon the basis and particulars of Communion policies. I think that has been covered pretty well. I am also curious about how different Christian churches approach this sacrament, particularly in the why’s, when’s, and how’s behind the ritual.
My WAG (based upon experiences in friends churches) is that other denominations who do communion rituals are not as concerned with the physical dimension of the host as the RCC is…
The eucharistic rite is of major importance in the Catholic mass…and is offered weekly (actually daily, in most parishes). My understanding of the Methodist church, is that many congregations would have communion service monthly. I think that many Lutheran churches have weekly communion servives as well…although they would consider the rite to be “consubstantiation” as opposed to “transubstantiation”.
from blackwellpublishers.co.uk
transubstantiation:
The medieval doctrine according to which the bread and the wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, while retaining their outward appearance.
consubstantiation
A term used to refer to the theory of the real presence, especially associated with Martin Luther, which holds that the substance of the eucharistic bread and wine are given together with the substance of the body and blood of Christ.
RCC teaching is that only baptized Catholics may receive communion. This is a policy not always followed in certain instances. At my wedding, for example, the presider invited any who wished to receive communion to do so…Often times at weddings or other events with many non-Catholics, the presider will invite non Catholics to approach and give a sign (usually arms folded across chest) that they are non Catholics, and he will offer a simple blessing.
Many groups (Catholic or protestant) also have “bread breaking” (or what Poly referred to as “agape”) rituals, that do not involve any consecration rite. Typically, it’s a ritual designed to focus on community building or forgiveness, as opposed to the “real presence” focus of eucharist.
If I’ve blown the descriptions of the rituals of my protestant friends, I hope somebody will kindly rescue my butt with some clarification.
Look, I’m only repeating what I was told. For the record, I guess you guys kicked my ass and kicked it good. I retract my statement and admit I was wrong.
Fair enough?
:o
Guin: You are too cool. Fair enough for me.
Spiritus: In the LDS church, the sacrament is bread and water. The prayers for same can be found in Moroni 4 (for the bread) and 5 (for the water*). The key thing about them is that the prayer is asking “God, the Eternal Father” to “bless and sanctify” the sacraments “to the souls” of those who partake of them.
*These can also be found in D&C 20; however the word used is “wine” (same as in Moroni 5), meaning actual wine. To explain why it’s water and not wine, well D&C 2:2 states “…It mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to {Jesus’) glory…”
So, apparently, if all one had handy is graham crackers and orange juice, the sacrament service can still proceed.
Thanks. For the record, when I’m wrong, I admit it.
It saves me a hell of a lot of hassle.
Thanks…we now return to your regularly scheduled debate.
For the record, matzah, the unleavened bread used for Passover, can be made of any of the five Biblical grains: wheat, oats, rye, barley, or spelt, although to my knowledge only wheat and oat matzah are generally available. Oat matzah is very expensive, however, so typically only those with severe wheat allergies use it.
Also, those who find matzah particularly difficult to digest (usually the very old and very young) may eat special matzah made with eggs or fruit juice during the holiday, although they are required (if they are able) to eat a certain minimal amount of the plain flour-and-water variety at the seder meal.
Thanks, all, for the interesting look into what is one of the most puzzling parts of Christianity for this nice Jewish boy. I can’t say I’m any less puzzled, but my confusion has been raised to a much higher level.
Rick
Guinastasia:
Hey, young lady! You’re breaking one of the unwritten rules of Great Debates: “Thou shalt argue on in defense of an intenable position, falling back as necessary.”
Or at least that’s how most people seem to think the game is played.
[sub]Elements of sarcasm in this post are purely intended.[/sub]
