[Scientist]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/19/com....ap/index.html

This seems a little ridiculous to me...

[lil'babykitten]

Sheeesh.

[Dakar]

Its nice to see religion can have arguments that are just as worthless as politics.

[macvillage.net]

This happened pretty close to me, as I'm in the Diocese of Trenton.

I agree 100%. It's extremely pathetic. And to be perfectly honest. As a Catholic I'm embarassed that we are denying people on the basis of medical conditions. It yet another dark cloud over the catholic church.

It's not like she's asking to do somethimg immoral. She's asking to do what Christians have gone as far as threatining people to do: practice the faith.


Here's an interesting note:

If someone is dying, and wishes to be baptized, it can be done without water if no water is available. That's considered acceptable.

I remember that from a religion test when I was in catholic school way back when.

[BRussell]

The great irony is that Jesus would eat with anyone - sinners, tax collectors, etc. The social meal was very important to him. And now the Catholic church has made this some kind of double secret ritual. Some people have even said that Kerry and other pro-choice politicians shouldn't be allowed communion because of their abortion position.

[dcolton]

I'm torn on this one. I am not the biggest fan of the Catholic Church, but I believe that doctrine is doctrine...no matter how pathetic or reasonable it may be. Why should the Church change an age old doctrine for a fraction of a minority? Doesn;t that essentially moleste everything the church stands for?

If someone had a rare disease and could only eat the other white meat, pork...would Islam change its view on pork?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The great irony is that Jesus would eat with anyone - sinners, tax collectors, etc. The social meal was very important to him. And now the Catholic church has made this some kind of double secret ritual. Some people have even said that Kerry and other pro-choice politicians shouldn't be allowed communion because of their abortion position.

Yeah, but communiion is a very symbolic and spiritual ritual. Like I said, I am not Catholic or very fond of the 'church'...but I can understand it;s position.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I'm torn on this one. I am not the biggest fan of the Catholic Church, but I believe that doctrine is doctrine...no matter how pathetic or reasonable it may be. Why should the Church change an age old doctrine for a fraction of a minority? Doesn;t that essentially moleste everything the church stands for?

If that "molests" everything the Church stands for, then the Church stands for sh*t.

[chris v]

I AM THE GLUTEN-FREE BODY OF CHRIST

I AM THE ALCOHOL-FREE BLOOD OF CHRIST

What the hell difference can it make? It's a CEREMONY, with SYMBOLISM. Does G*D give a rat's ass what the wafer is made out of?

[OldManMac]

This is just another example of the inflexibility of organized religion, which is really all about rules, designed to keep people in place, and not question anything. If they, particularly the catholic church, happen to lose a few souls along the way, they don't really care. As long as they have one of the world's most extensive, and expensive, art collections, and they can keep wearing their idolatrous garments, everything is cool.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I'm torn on this one. I am not the biggest fan of the Catholic Church, but I believe that doctrine is doctrine...no matter how pathetic or reasonable it may be. Why should the Church change an age old doctrine for a fraction of a minority? Doesn;t that essentially moleste everything the church stands for?

If someone had a rare disease and could only eat the other white meat, pork...would Islam change its view on pork?

Not exactly...

it used to be mass could only be done in latin, communion must be swallowed hole (so nothing left on teeth, or in mouth, which was sinful), priest performed mass with back to congregation.

A whole bunch of doctorine changed. Take a look at Vatican Council
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

Go way back, and the only baptism was full body submersion.

Also go way back, and any statue was a 'false idol'. A curicifix wasn't always allowed either.

For sure no statues of saints that people pray to. Now most churches have a statue of the patron saint which you can offer a prayer two. And they even have a collection jar... way back when that would have been unheard of to exchange money in god's house. Jesus made a big deal in the temple over selling goods in the temple if you recall.

we could go on for hours with the major changes the church went through.


Heck go back a few hundred years, Priests in the Catholic church could marry and have a family. Then a pope had erectile disfunction and decided if he couldn't do it, nobody can.

[Luca Rescigno]

That's irrelevant, dcolton. This is Catholocism, not Islam, and the two churches work in different ways. Besides, if a Muslim was really unable to eat any meat except pork, they would simply become a vegetarian. As far as I know (as a person who hasn't studied Islam), there is no part of their religion which mandates the consumption of meat, so they would be fine.

There are lots of age-old religious traditions that have fallen by the wayside. Just because it has happened for the last thousand years, does that mean it must continue no matter what? Is it really that incredibly important that the wafer actually contain gluten, or that the wine contain fermented grapes? If this little girl were at the Last Supper, would Jesus force her to leave because she would have died if she were to eat any bread, or would he offer her something else? And the wafer is supposed to be the Body Of Christ, not the Wafer Of Wheat. Christ's Body is not made of wheat any more than it's made of rice, so I don't see why a rice wafer would be any less fitting other than the fact that it's not part of the official tradition.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I'm torn on this one. I am not the biggest fan of the Catholic Church, but I believe that doctrine is doctrine...no matter how pathetic or reasonable it may be. Why should the Church change an age old doctrine for a fraction of a minority? Doesn;t that essentially moleste everything the church stands for?

Someone who wishes to honor the God and asks for the ability to do so in a manner that won't kill her is molesting doctrine? It's that kind of absolutism that's stupid.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
That's irrelevant, dcolton. This is Catholocism, not Islam, and the two churches work in different ways. Besides, if a Muslim was really unable to eat any meat except pork, they would simply become a vegetarian. As far as I know (as a person who hasn't studied Islam), there is no part of their religion which mandates the consumption of meat, so they would be fine.

There are lots of age-old religious traditions that have fallen by the wayside. Just because it has happened for the last thousand years, does that mean it must continue no matter what? Is it really that incredibly important that the wafer actually contain gluten, or that the wine contain fermented grapes? If this little girl were at the Last Supper, would Jesus force her to leave because she would have died if she were to eat any bread, or would he offer her something else? And the wafer is supposed to be the Body Of Christ, not the Wafer Of Wheat. Christ's Body is not made of wheat any more than it's made of rice, so I don't see why a rice wafer would be any less fitting other than the fact that it's not part of the official tradition.

Like I said, I am not fond of the Catholic Church for many of the reasons stated above. Nonetheless, I respect the fact that their doctrines define their religion and their religion defines their doctrines. Do we change laws for cleptomaniacs? Since they have a disease, should they be allowed to continue to steal?

All I am saying is that this is their religion. No matter how ridiculous their ideas may seem, law is law.

Macvillage,

Yes, the catholic church has made changes. I am not certain about all of the changes you quoted, especially collection jars...which is given to the church and NOT an example of what pissed Jesus off in the temple. There is a difference in doctrine that is defined by man (services in latin, etc) and doctrines that are defined by the Bible. Is wheat a sacrament defined by the word of God? I don't know. Are they basing it on a biblical event, yes.

Either way, I guess my final word would be that things happen for a reason. If this doctrine is not of God, it will eventually be changed...and perhaps that is why this little girl with this rare disease is in the news. Perhaps that is why this little girl exists...to open the eyes of the Catholic Church.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Someone who wishes to honor the God and asks for the ability to do so in a manner that won't kill her is molesting doctrine? It's that kind of absolutism that's stupid.

Why would the Church change it's doctrine for one person? If the family of the little girl doesn't like the fact, they can become lutheran, protestant, or christian. You guys think that since one person cannot do something, all rules should change. That is not true and it is just a harsh reality of life.

edit: and lets change the word moleste to integrity. Bad choice of words on my part

[Earth Mk. II]

I'm gonna quote my post in this Lounge thread because it's vaild here too:

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
To put some more light on this issue:

Most of the people I've talked to (yes, Catholics, and yes.. clergy) think this is absurd, and the kid should be allowed to have the gluten free host.

Also, this isn't an official church teaching (not doctrine). This is a cannon law - formed with the good intention to formalize the Mass as a recollection of the Sater meal that is now more commonly known as "The Last Supper."

What is doctrine is the belief that Christ is actually present in the Host after it's been consecrated. Though this is an issue of faith, it has little to do with the material the Host is made from. (Though this belief is not shared among all Christian faiths, it is an important belief to keep in mind when discussing Catholicism - The real presence of Jesus in the host is central to the Latin-Rite Catholic Mass.)

Really, the whole thing shouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, it is because some people in the Church hierarchy would rather focus on their own power, rather than being the progressive force in Society it's called to be.

That said, the case is already being advocated in the Vatican, and since this is not a faith or doctrine/magisterium issue, will most likely lead to the cannon law preventing the use of gluten-free hosts to be modified.... eventually.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why would the Church change it's doctrine for one person? If the family of the little girl doesn't like the fact, they can become lutheran, protestant, or christian. You guys think that since one person cannot do something, all rules should change. That is not true and it is just a harsh reality of life.

edit: and lets change the word moleste to integrity. Bad choice of words on my part

So because the girl was born with this disease, she's not good enough for the church? Is this about worshipping God or ceremony?

I might add that there are always exceptions. I don't see why they should be ignored.

[BlackGriffen]

God doesn't create wheat-allergic girls! She must have chosen to be this way in order to have an excuse for not partaking in the One True Communion!

She's a sinner, and she'll burn in Hell for it.

</sarcasm off>


BG

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
So because the girl was born with this disease, she's not good enough for the church? Is this about worshipping God or ceremony?

I might add that there are always exceptions. I don't see why they should be ignored.

So the church should change it's doctrine for a person that is allergic to grapes? For a person who believes Jesus was only a profit and not the Saviour? Where do you draw the line? Do o chang doctrines for each individual or do you create laws and stick with them?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So the church should change it's doctrine for a person that is allergic to grapes?

If drinking wine is a required point of communion, I don't see why not. Or do you think people will come out of the wood-work and claim they're allergic to grapes for some odd reason?

Do you think the girl is trying to exploit the situation? I certainly don't. And since she's not trying to exploit the situation, she's trying to honor God, and to deny her that is to say, "You're not good enough for us, or God. "

Originally posted by dcolton:
For a person who believes Jesus was only a profit and not the Saviour?

Apples and Oranges.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Where do you draw the line? Do o chang doctrines for each individual or do you create laws and stick with them?

I draw the line at making changes for changes sake. For conveniences sake. She qualifies as neither, unless you consider her not dying a convenience.

You still haven't told me what's wrong with ther trying honor God in a way that won't kill her other than "It's their law." It's a stubborn, short-sighted person who doesn't realize there will come times when the rules can't or won't apply.

Their committment should be to bring people to God and God to people first. Symbolic tradition can come second.

[CreepingDeth]

The **** you commies get away with.
Red child bashes Catholics=
Conservative bashes Muslim Extremists=

[Dakar]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Red child bashes Catholics=

Out of curiosity, what lead you to believe the child is communist? Wheat allergies are a common trait?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Yes, the catholic church has made changes. I am not certain about all of the changes you quoted, especially collection jars...which is given to the church and NOT an example of what pissed Jesus off in the temple. There is a difference in doctrine that is defined by man (services in latin, etc) and doctrines that are defined by the Bible. Is wheat a sacrament defined by the word of God? I don't know. Are they basing it on a biblical event, yes.

Either way, I guess my final word would be that things happen for a reason. If this doctrine is not of God, it will eventually be changed...and perhaps that is why this little girl with this rare disease is in the news. Perhaps that is why this little girl exists...to open the eyes of the Catholic Church.

No, it's not any different than the others.

We redefined baptism.

Go back in time, and it was done in a river, lake, or pond (natural water source, because God gave us the gift of water: life, ability to cleanse). NOT in a church. In fact it was intentionally done outside a church. You get baptized before 'entering the church'. And it was full submersion (for obvious symbolic reasons).

We had no problem redefining that to blessed tap water in a basin. Now it's often done in the FRONT of the church, right in front of the altar, so family, friends, congregation could watch! On a historical note: this is also why many old churches are built by water. Otherwise, baptism was held less often, and they would travel outside town to the water.

In some Christian faiths, this tradition is still kept alive.

Originally posted by Dakar:
So because the girl was born with this disease, she's not good enough for the church? Is this about worshipping God or ceremony?

I might add that there are always exceptions. I don't see why they should be ignored.

Very old beliefs of catholicism would back that: God choose for her this path of being unable to participate.

It was also felt that to die a painful way was a blessing (because it was like Jesus's death). Anything to prevent the suffering (such as medicine) was sinful, and not the way of christ (he didn't resist his fate, though he asked god to take it away from him). This is an ultra-conservative interpretation... but at one point did have some popularity... now it's pretty much died out, though it does live on in spirit (mercy killings/euthanasia).

But this stuff mainly isn't modern teaching by any sense.


Heck go back and you couldn't eat meat, sugar, etc. for entire lent. That's the real tradition. But it's since been changed to friday's for adults (after confirmation), ash wednesday. And it's not as strict. In some interpretations you would fast during lent, and starve on fridays (to symbolize good friday). In others, there was *no* meat on friday (Fish included, since that was a primary source of meat for many christians).

I never bought into that much though... people call it a sacrifice to not eat pork, and instead go get lobster. Come on. Who are you kidding. Good friday indeed is good for some.

Where else does sacrifice involve not eating pork or beef, instead going for something like lobster, or other seafood.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Very old beliefs of catholicism would back that: God choose for her this path of being unable to participate.

As long as they own up to that then, I guess I have no problem.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Out of curiosity, what lead you to believe the child is communist? Wheat allergies are a common trait?

No, this thread gets away with outright hate of Catholics, but when the conservatives on this board question the intentions of radical Islam, Logic pops up and the rest of you come out the woodwork to call us intolerant.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dakar:
As long as they own up to that then, I guess I have no problem.

I don't buy it because we change other stuff.

All old churches in the world have ramps for the disabled.

Why touch an ancient structure to help the disabled? In some countries churches are protected structures (legal battles to do this).

There's an old parable from an unknown author:

Footsteps In The Sand

One night a man had a dream.
He dreamed he was walking along the beach with the LORD.
Across the sky flashed scenes from his life.
For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand:
one belonging to him, and the other to the LORD.

When the last scene of his life flashed before him
he looked back, at the footprints in the sand.
He noticed that many times along the path of his life
there was only one set of footprints.
He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times of his life.

This really bothered him and he questioned the LORD about it:
"LORD, you said that once I decided to follow you,
you'd walk with me all the way.
But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life
there is only one set of footprints.
I don't understand why when I needed you most you would leave me."

The LORD replied:
"My son, My precious child, I love you and I would never leave you,
During your times of trial and suffering,
when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."

Author unknown

Lots of references in the bible which mimic the Lord's reply. In fact, it's a core doctorine carried from the old testament to the new. Most Christian teachings are based on the concept if you analyze christianity.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
If drinking wine is a required point of communion, I don't see why not. Or do you think people will come out of the wood-work and claim they're allergic to grapes for some odd reason?

Do you think the girl is trying to exploit the situation? I certainly don't. And since she's not trying to exploit the situation, she's trying to honor God, and to deny her that is to say, "You're not good enough for us, or God. "

No, I do not think the girl is trying to exploit the situation. But I guarantee you there are many more people allergic to grapes than to wheat. And let me reiterate...I am not catholic and the only thingh I am defending is the Catholic's church right to define doctrine. If they choose to exclude someione for whatever reason, no matter how much I agree or disagree with it, it is their right. As for communion, I believe it to be an extremely symbolic and spiritual event. IMO, if you want a glass of water and a peanut to represent the blood and body of christ, that is fine with me.

Apples and Oranges.

True

I draw the line at making changes for changes sake. For conveniences sake. She qualifies as neither, unless you consider her not dying a convenience.

Changing doctrine for the benefit of one person doesn't cheapen that doctrine?

You still haven't told me what's wrong with ther trying honor God in a way that won't kill her other than "It's their law." It's a stubborn, short-sighted person who doesn't realize there will come times when the rules can't or won't apply.

You don't have to be a member of the Catholic Church to honor God.

Their committment should be to bring people to God and God to people first. Symbolic tradition can come second. [/B]

That is their commitment, nonetheless, their doctrine is the basis for that purpose...no?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
No, this thread gets away with outright hate of Catholics, but when the conservatives on this board question the intentions of radical Islam, Logic pops up and the rest of you come out the woodwork to call us intolerant.

Well, when we see Muslims kicking out mutes who worship Allah because they can't recite prayers, and the liberals defend it, come talk.

Edit: Clarity

[Montezuma58]

Originally posted by Dakar:
So because the girl was born with this disease, she's not good enough for the church? Is this about worshipping God or ceremony?

Let's face it. This little girl is going to hell. See what happens when you look to an anachronistic bureaucracy for spiritual guidance.

Some people just don't understand symbolism. They confuse the physical object with the values or ideas that the object was chosen to represent. Placing too much importance on the physical object cheapens the abstract concept that it is supposed to represent. You could just as easily substitute a different food stuff and convey the same meaning just as there are many ways to put words together to express the same idea.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Well, when we see Muslims kicking out mutes who worship Allah because they can't recite prayers, come talk.

When many Catholics kill in mass for God-er, Allah, come talk.

You liberals wet yourself any time anything stupid like this comes up. Excuses for you to hate em for no reason.

For the story, I really don't care. Can't they just use rice or something? Then again, should they change everything for a handful of people? I don't think changing something like that can be decided on the parish level.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
The **** you commies get away with.
Red child bashes Catholics=
Conservative bashes Muslim Extremists=

Would you please try and make sense for a change. No one is bashing Catholics, just the weirdness of some of their leaders. And there is certainly no "hating" going on in here either. And who are these "commies" you speak of, Mr. Mccarthy, sir.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
When many Catholics kill in mass for God-er, Allah, come talk.

You liberals wet yourself any time anything stupid like this comes up. Excuses for you to hate em for no reason.

For the story, I really don't care. Can't they just use rice or something? Then again, should they change everything for a handful of people? I don't think changing something like that can be decided on the parish level.

Cru-****ing-sades. Remember?

[CreepingDeth]

Boo. Hoo.
What happened before the crusades? Hmm?

You must be pretty pathetic is your hate of Christians is based on a 500 year old war. Way to go, intellectuals.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No, I do not think the girl is trying to exploit the situation. But I guarantee you there are many more people allergic to grapes than to wheat.

And if they too want to practice communion, this is a bad thing? At least this exception wouldn't be for a 'lone girl'!

Originally posted by dcolton:
And let me reiterate...I am not catholic and the only thingh I am defending is the Catholic's church right to define doctrine. If they choose to exclude someione for whatever reason, no matter how much I agree or disagree with it, it is their right. As for communion, I believe it to be an extremely symbolic and spiritual event. IMO, if you want a glass of water and a peanut to represent the blood and body of christ, that is fine with me.

I knew you weren't Catholic from the get go. That doesn't invalidate your opinion to me. My beef is with my interpretation of what a church is supposed to do, and what it's doing, and the reasoning behind it.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Changing doctrine for the benefit of one person doesn't cheapen that doctrine?

It depends what you consider more important. Giving people a relationship with God or Doctrine.

Originally posted by dcolton:
You don't have to be a member of the Catholic Church to honor God.

You're absolutely right. And hopefully this woman will reconsider the religion she's chosen to bring up he daughter in because of how they've treated her.

Originally posted by dcolton:
That is their commitment, nonetheless, their doctrine is the basis for that purpose...no?

I'm not clear what the purpose of their dotrine is. Especially after this.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
No, this thread gets away with outright hate of Catholics, but when the conservatives on this board question the intentions of radical Islam, Logic pops up and the rest of you come out the woodwork to call us intolerant.

1. I am a Catholic
2. WTF is this post about?
3. Stick to the topic, the personal attacks are getting a bit much.

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
When many Catholics kill in mass for God-er, Allah, come talk.

Do we need to do this again?

There were many times where Catholics, as all Christians killed anyone who refused to convert. Sometimes took them as slaves, sometimes rape (in particular with native americans).

Then we have many wars.

All together that's clearly in the millions that were killed/tortured in the "name of god" (quotes intentional because I think it's quite contradictory to teachings of the church, but that's what people felt and justified it with).

Every faith has done this at some point. Sadly.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Boo. Hoo.
What happened before the crusades? Hmm?

You must be pretty pathetic is your hate of Christians is based on a 500 year old war. Way to go, intellectuals.

No 2000 years of history works just fine, thanks.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Boo. Hoo.
What happened before the crusades? Hmm?

You must be pretty pathetic is your hate of Christians is based on a 500 year old war. Way to go, intellectuals.

I don't hate Christians. Unlike you I don't hate Muslims either.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Scientist:
I don't hate Christians. Unlike you I don't hate Muslims either.

You have to admit (and I am not pointing to you in any way) that there seems to be a lot of anti Christian/ Cathoic sentiment around these parts. My God, you guys want a 2000 year old church to change its doctrine for one person.

And just to clear some things up...cathiolics practice catholocism and christians practice Chritianity. There is a difference.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Would you please try and make sense for a change. No one is bashing Catholics, just the weirdness of some of their leaders. And there is certainly no "hating" going on in here either. And who are these "commies" you speak of, Mr. Mccarthy, sir.

I am a Catholic, and I agree with this post.

There's been no hate in this thread at all. Fact is, this is a stupid rule (and, as a mentioned in my post above, and in the other thread, is a cannon law - not faith or doctrine), and should be changed.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You have to admit (and I am not pointing to you in any way) that there seems to be a lot of anti Christian/ Cathoic sentiment around these parts. My God, you guys want a 2000 year old church to change its doctrine for one person.

Let's be clear here--lots has changed in how they do things over the past 2000 years. It would seem this matter should be trivial in comparison to Masses being recited in Latin and Women wearing headgear in Church.

I'm just glad this girl lives in a time where science identified her allergy before she committed unintentional suicide trying to honor God.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You have to admit (and I am not pointing to you in any way) that there seems to be a lot of anti Christian/ Cathoic sentiment around these parts. My God, you guys want a 2000 year old church to change its doctrine for one person.

Actually, it's much more than 1 person.

Between alergies, and a few disorders/diseases, it's actually quite common to not eat wheat.

It's a terrible thing to have, makes it real tough to eat out, since many things contain wheat or gluten as a way to thicken soups, sauces, etc. Unless you know for sure what it is, can't eat it. Seasoning on meat even could contain enough to get you very sick.

Quite a miserable thing to have. Makes eating a real task. And not many things you can have. Since everything needs to be made from scratch (most things you take for granted use wheat as filler, or thickener).

[Zimphire]

[Millennium]

Unfortunately, this is somewhat logical in its own weird way, if you consider the doctrine of transubstantiation. This was actually one of the big disagreements between Catholicism and Lutheranism, back when that religion was being formed.

Quick explanation: Transubstantiation holds that the wine and wafers literally become the body and blood of Christ as they are being consumed. This is a very old belief of the Catholic Church, and although it's not stressed today I believe it's still extant. There are two competing beliefs concerning this. Consubstantiation, a belief held by many Protestant sects, states that although the body and blood of Christ are present in a metaphysical sense, the wine and wafer do not literally become these things. There's another belief, held by the remaining sects, which believes that the rite is entirely metaphorical; I don't think this belief has a name.

Ahem. Anyway, look at this from the perspective of someone who believes in transubstantiation. The wafers and red wine literally become the body and blood of Christ as they are being consumed. If the wrong type of wafers or wine are used, then it cannot transform in this way. If you're not consuming Christ, then how can the sacrament possibly be valid, since taking in Christ's actual body is the whole point?

I don't believe in transubstantiation. In fact, I find it rather creepy, since it turns the whole thing into a kind of ritual cannibalism. Since I don't believe in this, I find the whole situation to be absurd. At the same time, if you assume that belief then it all falls into a sad kind of logical sense.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ahem. Anyway, look at this from the perspective of someone who believes in transubstantiation. The wafers and red wine literally become the body and blood of Christ as they are being consumed. If the wrong type of wafers or wine are used, then it cannot transform in this way. If you're not consuming Christ, then how can the sacrament possibly be valid, since taking in Christ's actual body is the whole point?

Nope - The idea of transubstantiation is based on metaphysics. The belief is that the form of the host changes, but not the material.

Since the material does not change, I see little importance what the gluten content of the Host makes.

[dcolton]

Here is a much better article with comments from the church and their reasoning.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...37/ai_70926886

[BRussell]

Maybe Atkins dieters could eat some steak instead of the wafer?

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Here is a much better article with comments from the church and their reasoning.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...37/ai_70926886

I think what that article does, more than anything else, is highlight the growing rift between the people of the Catholic church, and the Church's leadership.

As I've stated before, this is a cannon law and has no basis in faith or doctrine. It's merely there to formalize the Mass. It really seems that some people (especially Cardinal Law) are more concerned with their own power than they are with the good of the flock. That's a serious problem that's going to bite the Church in it's ass later on, imho.

I think this person has the right idea:

Macy said the important role of symbols in worship should not obscure the more important sacramental reality: "The Real Presence of the Lord is there for persons whether they receive Communion or not." Modeling the life of Christ and living a holy life are at the crux of the gospel, Macy said. "The most important thing is not the symbolic act but what the symbolic act stands for."

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
I think what that article does, more than anything else, is highlight the growing rift between the people of the Catholic church, and the Church's leadership.

As I've stated before, this is a cannon law and has no basis in faith or doctrine. It's merely there to formalize the Mass. It really seems that some people (especially Cardinal Law) are more concerned with their own power than they are with the good of the flock. That's a serious problem that's going to bite the Church in it's ass later on, imho.

I think this person has the right idea:

If you disagree with the doctrine, choose another religion. It is that simple. This is like complaining about the republican party and its platform. If you don't believe in their platform, then you are not republican, and that person needs to evaluate his or her association. It is that simple.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Quick explanation: Transubstantiation holds that the wine and wafers literally become the body and blood of Christ as they are being consumed. This is a very old belief of the Catholic Church, and although it's not stressed today I believe it's still extant. There are two competing beliefs concerning this. Consubstantiation, a belief held by many Protestant sects, states that although the body and blood of Christ are present in a metaphysical sense, the wine and wafer do not literally become these things. There's another belief, held by the remaining sects, which believes that the rite is entirely metaphorical; I don't think this belief has a name.

Actually, it's only when blessed that it becomes the body/blood of Christ.

Before that, it's just bread/wafer/wine whatever they use in your portion of the world (some actually use real unleavened bread... though that's rare these days because wafers are cheap and can be purchased by crate, and come in sealed little bags to keep them from going bad to quickly). And holds no spiritual value. In fact, it's tradition in most churches to let a child practice with one unblessed before first communion. You don't need the sacrament to do that, since it's just ordinary wafer/bread.

All the bible says is he celebrated passover with his deciples. Nowhere does it dictate the requirement for gluten. Passover is traditionally for: 'unleavened bread'.
http://www.innvista.com/culture/reli...e/passover.htm

[andi*pandi]

another Unitarian family in the making.

What seemed more significant to me, as a child, than getting the wafer was the exchange of words when you met the priest. It was a blessing. It seemed very holy, and as a child who has studied to make communion, then not being able to make communion... there's a rite of passage that's gone.

I've been to churches where the actual wafer was a chunk of bread, a thin wafer, a thick wafer, really, does it matter what the thing is made of? Either way it sticks to the roof of your mouth and you spend the rest of the communion kneeling at the bench pretending to say your hail mary's while unobtrusively trying to scrape it off.