Should You Thank The Catholic Church?

[TrillumHunter]

they get denied communion

You, and others, can continue to say this but it is not true. Once again, Holy Communion can be received fully with only the Precious Blood. There is no need to receive under both species. To tell a child anything but that is an error.

Comparing circus peanuts and pretzels to Jesus? But you're not out to offend, right? You're trying to understand how Catholics really feel about this issue. You're making an effort to grasp a Mystery that we believe was instituted by Christ Himself at the Last Supper. Perhaps you are, but I cannot hear it in your posts.

Nah, we should just get over it, right?

[blueeyedmanda]

I got Celiac as an adult THANK GOD!!!

Me too, and I am glad because as a kid I am not sure I would have stuck with things no matter how sick I was. It sounds very silly to say this.

[CarlaB]

I know you are not intentionally hurting anyone, but nonetheless, your comments can be taken as hurtful.

The Church teaching is the Church teaching. Opinions about it will differ. All we really should discuss here is how to live within the parameters of what the Church teaches as a celiac, not how to change Church teaching or why Church teaching is wrong.

I think kids have more understanding than we give them credit for. If they understand that they can't have a kid's meal at McDonalds, which all celiac kids do, then they will understand that they can only receive the cup .... after all, some people only receive the host. Plus, there is the very low gluten host that they can receive.

Many times priests go about things the wrong way because of their human nature .... so the girl being denied communion might not have been handled compassionately .... but, it's living with the Church teaching that we should be discussing here.

I generally find my kids more accepting of how things are than we adults are. I am also guessing that these kids with celiac will grow up more mature adults than the kids today who are handed everything on a silver platter .... I don't know about where you are, but here most high schoolers have very nice cars of their own .... brand new ... plus every other thing they want in life. At the very least, these celiac kids will know some restraint!

I think the better way is to show these kids how to live with it in a positive way rather than to teach them to grow up questioning everything and always feel like they're being slighted .... otherwise they will just turn into bitter adults.

[Darn210]

Well said, Carla.

[confused]

I agree with everything carla has said on this thread. When i first seen this topic i figured it would turn into an debate because it always does when it has to do with the catholic shurch for many reasons. I am proud to be a catholic and i just receive an blessing and drink the wine when i go to church.

paula

[melrobsings]

Clearly, I was comparing circus peanuts to Jesus....NO! Not even, I was just pointing out how hard it would be as a kid and I couldn't imagine it!

I just wanted to point out rejection of a celiac from a well respected person, it sucks. That's that and yes, get over it!

[larry mac]

I'm not entering this discussion to defend the church. For one, I don't consider myself Catholic, although I grew up one and my family is Catholic. Many times as a youngster, I rode my bike to school early to help the priest say 6:30am Mass for the Nuns in the Convent. Yes, I was an alter boy.

Secondly, I don't see where anyone is being denied communion. It is offered. You can choose to accept it, or not.

The church has doctrines that are many hundreds of years old. They take them very seriously, no matter how "unpopular" they may be. There's no "what's the big deal" or "just get over it". When I hear those kinds of statements, I'm reminded just how ignorant non-Catholics are of the Catholic Church's teachings and beliefs. War's have been fought, King's excommunicated, Queen's beheaded, many new christian donominations started over such things. No, they wouldn't just "get over it"!

best regards, lm

[Nic]

It can only be wheat and water. The wheat must have all the components of wheat, so must have gluten ..... the approved wafers have the smallest amount of gluten possible ... they're made primarily from gluten-free wheat starch.

I imagine in Europe there is not much of a debate because of the Codex Standards .... they already accept a small amount of gluten as okay.

Anyway, it can't have more than wheat and water. Go to the sister's website .... it's interesting how they came up with the recipe.

Has anyone here ever had a reaction to the approved wafers for Celiacs? I don't forsee a problem for my son because he is not overly sensitive, I am just curious.

Nicole

[CarlaB]

I don't know, I haven't talked to anyone who has tried them.

I actually would be more concerned about taking proper precautions to avoid contamination from the other hosts than a reaction to the low-gluten host.

[Ridgewalker]

My mom ordered the low-gluten wafers and tried one last week. She didn't seem to show any reaction, although she intends to test again. Frankly, I was surprised, because she is pretty sensitive.

We're in an odd situation. I'm a non-Catholic who attends a Catholic church. My mom was raised in another church, and is currently about 1/2 way through the process of converting to Catholicism. My oldest son and I have been attending Catholic church with her for a little less than a year.

Since I was not raised Catholic, but have been attending the church and learning a lot... I feel like I can really see multiple points of view. But here's my 2 cents.

Forgive me if I use inappropriate terminology--

These rituals are not done simply because they have always been done. There are beliefs behind them. It is the underlying beliefs that cannot be "gotten over," nor should they be.

This is one more part of life that is affected by having Celiac Disease. There are many others. And as with other aspects of life, there is choice involved. I think it's wonderful, and feel grateful to the sisters who developed the low-gluten wafer for giving people an additional choice.

Melrob, I DO see what you're saying. It's just that it's more complicated than changing an old recipe, you know?

[debmidge]

Those who are posting Catholic Canon Law are most definitely correct about the Law of Church concerning the Eucharist. (note to Yellow Rose - I am still waiting to obtain the website addresses you mentioned you would share). The websites they post are authentic sources of information and those posting are defending their faith. I am Catholic myself and even own a shortened copy of Canon Law and a Modern Catechism, not just the old "blue" covered document from 1950 that many of us fondly remember.

In my opinion, and at the risk of stating a sincere opinion - and saying it as a fellow

life-time member of the Catholic Church --- and risk being disparaged, reproved and

censured (not to be confused with censored) for it, I believe that this topic

becomes "alive" from time to time due to new Celiacs who are Catholic and want to

know how the Communion Host will impact them; then there's the

media publicity of celiac church members who are too gluten sensitive to receive

communion and in each case they have been told on this board that there are a

number of church-based solutions to the problem; and, lastly, there's the celiac

Catholics who cannot live within the parameters of these church-

based solutions - either due to the severe gluten intolerance or they feel

disenfranchised by the whole matter. It's this latter group that does have the

right to air their situations, in a respectful way, by writing to their archbishops

and ultimately the Pope.

I am putting myself in the shoes of the person who feels hurt and bewildered by

Cannon Law through no fault of their own. I believe "here" is where it

can be and should be discussed when the celiac cannot live within the parameters

of what the church teaches as a celiac. This is a forum where coping is

discussed and yes, this topic concerns coping and will pull in the facts of where this

doctrine comes from (Councils) and why it is the way it is. (And those who contribute

the facts must feel that this is becoming repetitive and wish that posters would give it

up and leave it alone).

That can't be avoided, as it part and parcel of the topic of coping, (i.e., why must I

accept this ? Answer: it's Canon Law - it's the nature of the topic). Arguments?

There will be some -- from those who are not familiar with Canon Law and from those

who view Canon Law as unnecessary and those who troll for arguments (of which

they can be ignored).

I have noticed that the consenus here is "if you as a Catholic Celiac cannot live

within the parameters of what the church teaches as a celiac communicant "get

over it," you have no recourse or voice."

Now who's being hurtful and insensitive, while taking on the mantle of being offended

by the mere fact that Catholic celiacs are voicing an emotion (emotion which might

contain anger, bewilderment, confusion, rejection) and non-Catholics are just

unaware of Canon Law? With all due respect, when I recall past Communion threads

combined with this thread, I don't feel a reciprocated agape empathy

for church brethern, but I see admonishment to those who feel compeled to write to

church elders and only cold shrill reminders of what Church Law states.

[Ridgewalker]

Very, very good points, Deb!

[CarlaB]

Deb, at first I didn't think you were addressing me as I didn't get offended, but then I noticed you bolded the word "parameters" twice, and I believe I was the only one who used that word, so I feel obligated to respond.

I will continue to help celiacs learn what their options are in the Church as far as Communion goes. I think it is agape to Church brethren to tell them what their real options are. I have been thanked by some here for telling them ... some were very happy to find out that they are in fact receiving complete Communion when they receive the cup alone.

I don't think it's compassionate to give people the impression that they can change this Church teaching. History just does not show that Church teaching is changed by popular opinion. Even kings haven't been able to change Church teaching .... so though we can write to the Holy Father, I don't honestly think it's going to change anything.

I think it shows far more compassion to show someone what their real options are and to tell them their kids are going to be fine.

I am not going to tell them to find a dissident priest who will use a rice host ... the fact is, we believe the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are really present in Communion -- both the host and the wine -- and the Church has said that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity will not exist in a rice wafer. I do not think I'd be doing anyone a favor or be showing them compassion to tell them a rice wafer is acceptable .... because with a rice wafer they are not receiving Christ, but with the Cup, they are.

I did not make the Church teaching, I am just helping others to live with it.

[Ridgewalker]

More good points.

[CarlaB]

More good points.

Aren't you just "little miss agreeable"!!!!

That's because there's truth to both sides here .... Deb had good points about having compassion. We just have a differing idea of what compassion is.

Thankfully, our usual troll is not on this thread.

[debmidge]

Aren't you just "little miss agreeable"!!!!

That's because there's truth to both sides here .... Deb had good points about having compassion. We just have a differing idea of what compassion is.

Thankfully, our usual troll is not on this thread.

To All:

Carla is correct we are both promoting compassion and this isn't an argument but a discourse of ideas. I used Carla's words merely to frame my discourse as this was about "coping" - and not as a means of offending her... it was basicallly a way to stay on topic.

Carla is a wealth of what Roman Catholics need to know about what the Eucharist (and other relative information about Catholicism, believe me she knows a great deal about it) and about the alternatives for celiac Catholics that exist at this point. I do not advocate allowing a dissent Priest to give you a gluten-free host nor do I want anyone to act against a church law or invite others to do so. Roman Catholicism is not a "cafeteria plan."

I, on the other hand am a rebel - but with a "cause." Kings throughout the centuries did not change Church teachings because they wanted to "be" the church - and God would not allow that for His Church. We may often feel that God is not in control, but He is.

During the "old days" many kings were in competition with the church and they had wanted doctrine changed in order to take power, wealth or land from the church (especially during the times of Pope Innocent IV, and Alexander VI to name a couple - and yes one wanted a divorce). These were basically money disputes and wars, and, with the case of divorce, a moral issue.

I am not looking to change the Church to attain anything monetary and the Church knows that Her people who look to Her for change (i.e., using gluten free hosts) aren't doing it for land, money or power. I believe that the Church can change this by special dispensation. It might not happen in the time frame of the "here and now" but I believe it will happen. I believe that God lives and works within and does have a hand in the movements of His Church. So praying about it and writing to those in charge, while it might seem fruitless, will someday take root.

As a Catholic, it makes me sad that there are other Catholics who cannot take the low gluten host and it really, reallly bothers me because the only Catholics who cannot take communion are those who have sinned or who have left the teachings of the church (heretics). Inasmuch as my spiritual mind understands that I should not view it this way for celiacs (they have not sinned), somehow on some level I do feel that it inadvertently reduces the celiac to a "second class" citizen status.

So while I advocate change (and I do have a compromise for the Church) I don't do it to disrupt a centuries old Doctrine, I do it so that there's inclusion. (I do have to add that when these Doctrine were forumlated, wheat was not considered a poison (for lack of a better word) and would the clerics have formulated the doctrine had they known?).

Regards

Deb

[gfp]

I'm not entering this discussion to defend the church. For one, I don't consider myself Catholic, although I grew up one and my family is Catholic. Many times as a youngster, I rode my bike to school early to help the priest say 6:30am Mass for the Nuns in the Convent. Yes, I was an alter boy.

Secondly, I don't see where anyone is being denied communion. It is offered. You can choose to accept it, or not.

The church has doctrines that are many hundreds of years old. They take them very seriously, no matter how "unpopular" they may be. There's no "what's the big deal" or "just get over it". When I hear those kinds of statements, I'm reminded just how ignorant non-Catholics are of the Catholic Church's teachings and beliefs. War's have been fought, King's excommunicated, Queen's beheaded, many new christian donominations started over such things. No, they wouldn't just "get over it"!

best regards, lm

I think for one people would get less upset if they separated dogma and doctine from faith ....

The problem with organised religions is that they by definition believe their dogma/doctine is correct and hence everyone else is wrong.

The reality is that the Devil (so to speak) is in the details.

The record of the catholic church speaks for itself, not only has the odd queen been executed .. hundreds of millions have been tortured and killed over the details ... yet the Catholic Church like more or less all the others is full of caring and compassionate people...

As Larry mentioned, many new denominations of the Christian faith have been formed and they have been formed over the details. Pretty much all of them have the same core values and beliefs... and even within each denomination the weight given to each part of the details varies enormously.

Faith is Faith ... if you believe that then you are halfway to overcoming the details...

If you believe that God created he earth and all that ... then eventually God created celiac disease.

If you believe God is instrinsically Good then God would not have you hurt yourself because of some detail ...

The bottom line is the Catholic Church (and it is far from alone in this) is essentially a business which is wrapped up in its own rules and doctrines.

A latin mass can be a beautiful thing for example but I fail to see why it is used? Surely if it was to be said in any language (other than one we all understand) Aramaic or Hebrew would be more correct... yet at times the importance of a latin mass has been enough to kill people over.

If you view the Church as an organisation in the literal sense then it is just that.. it organises, it sets standards and rules etc. and despite some pretty bad stuff in the past it mostly manages to set good rules that help society... it is however a HUGE organisation and the rules change and evolve slowly but they do change. Whereas once you would be burned alive for the idea the world was not flat or that the earth circles the sun this is now not only accepted but encompassed by the Church... it just takes time...

Carla is correct we are both promoting compassion and this isn't an argument but a discourse of ideas.

The Church is an organisation ... hence talking about it being compassionate or not is not really productive. People are compassionate or not, organisations are simply the formal expressions of those people in the organisation ... the Church is a collection of individuals some of whom are compassionate and doubtless others who are not... simply belonging to (or not belonging to) an organisation does not make an individual compassionate or not.

If you TRULY believe in the new covenant then what happened to all the heretics burned alive for suggesting the earth was round or circled the sun? In the meantime what will happen to those who do not take the communion wafer ..? Imagine the Church does catch on... (and sooner or later it will) then surely we will look back and put these people in the same category as those burned as heretics for expressing opinions the Church now accepts as fact.

The bottom line is arguing over church law, be it cannon law or a papal bull is somewhat pointless as some will view one item as more important than another...

[home-based-mom]

I have found this thread fascinating. It has reinforced much of what I already realized. For instance:

• A lot of people have very strong personal religious convictions.
  
• Some church doctrines - including but not limited to Canon Law - sometimes deviate from Scripture. If you don't currently own a Bible, they can be found in any bookstore at a very reasonable price. Buy one, read it and compare with your choice of doctrines. (Caution - this may take years of study, but you will be better off for havng done it!)
  
• Where there are differences, some people will choose doctrine and some people will choose Scripture.
  
• Nothing anyone says here will change anyone else's opinion about anything. This is just a very interesting exchange of perspectives.
  

[CarlaB]

[*]Where there are differences, some people will choose doctrine and some people will choose Scripture.

For the record, I disagree. None of the doctrine discussed here conflicts with scripture. Read John chapter 6.

[*]Nothing anyone says here will change anyone else's opinion about anything. This is just a very interesting exchange of perspectives.

I think we all agree on this point!

[home-based-mom]

For the record, I disagree. None of the doctrine discussed here conflicts with scripture. Read John chapter 6.

Just curious here. The only thing discussed as actual physical food in John chapter 6 are manna and barley loaves.

The definition (or translation) of the word "manna" is "What is it?" because according to tradition that is what the Hebrews said when they came out of their tents that first morning and found it all over everything for them to gather up. (Sort of like Mikey and the Life cereal - "What's this stuff?")

But I digress . . .

Barley loaves are, well, barley loaves, which probably tells us that the event took place during the time of year shortly after the barley harvest when barley was available (and before the wheat harvest, which came next - see Ruth 2:23) and also maybe that the boy with the basket of loaves and fishes was poor as barley was less costly than wheat.

Anyone fluent in Hebrew is more than welcome to jump in here and provide insight on the original words used for "bread" as in "bread of life" "bread of God" and "bread from heaven."

[CarlaB]

I would guess, but this is just an educated guess, that they were barley loaves because of the time of year, as you already mentioned. I was referring more to the discourse after the feeding of the thousands ... where he says you must eat my body and drink my blood. This teaching was so repulsive to the followers that ALL of them left over it! All except for the apostles, who he turned to and asked if they were going to leave, too. So, this teaching has a VERY long history of people leaving the Church over.

Anyway, the wheat at the Eucharist comes from the bread used for the Passover/Last Supper, which had certain restrictions in making it. In the Catholic Church it's still unleavened bread made from wheat.

This is the basis for the Catholic practice of Communion -- the Passover bread and "eating the Body of Christ" as stated in John chapter 6.

I would suggest www.catholic.com for a more in-depth understanding ..... check out both 'sacraments' and 'scripture and tradition'.

[gfp]

Just curious here. The only thing discussed as actual physical food in John chapter 6 are manna and barley loaves.

The definition (or translation) of the word "manna" is "What is it?" because according to tradition that is what the Hebrews said when they came out of their tents that first morning and found it all over everything for them to gather up. (Sort of like Mikey and the Life cereal - "What's this stuff?")

But I digress . . .

Barley loaves are, well, barley loaves, which probably tells us that the event took place during the time of year shortly after the barley harvest when barley was available (and before the wheat harvest, which came next - see Ruth 2:23) and also maybe that the boy with the basket of loaves and fishes was poor as barley was less costly than wheat.

Anyone fluent in Hebrew is more than welcome to jump in here and provide insight on the original words used for "bread" as in "bread of life" "bread of God" and "bread from heaven."

Which sums it up pretty well....

The surviving gospels are just what was chosen to be in the NT. They were also badly translated in the first instance but non of that actually matters if you believe that Paul, John or any of the founders were more worried about the ideals than the details.

Way before the Catholic Church became the Catholic Church in pre-nicean times people pretty much took communion or not in different ways. I can't see how it matters 2c if its wheat or barley ... specifically since wheat at the time of Moses was not the same as Wheat at the time of Jesus which is no longer the same wheat as today....

Moreover under Roman rule "wheat" became the most basic staple of currency ... prices varied enormously and Syrian Wheat (The Roman province encompassing Judea and Isreal) was one of the cheapest ... (only North african grain was priced lower) ...

These prices are very well known ... they were recorded just like barrels of oil are today with the same indexes (Well WTX wasn't discovered but different oil qualities have different prices) and the prices are part of historical record.

So far as Rome was concerned at the time of Augustus 'wheat' had one purpose, to feed Rome and the Legions.. and it didn't matter if it was strictly Barley,Rye or anything else that could be made into bread....

Moreoever I'm sure CC existed in 33AD every bit as much as today....

which probably tells us that the event took place during the time of year shortly after the barley harvest when barley was available (and before the wheat harvest, which came next - see Ruth 2:23)

And all the grain would be stored in the same warehouses and CC would occur... (Jumping forwards to AD 33 here) ...

The notion that the bread broken by Jesus would have been 100% wheat seems unlikely.... its just described as wheat... in much he same way as we talk about "corn gluten" today... The Apostles were not agriculturalists, had Peter specified a specific fish at the feeding of the 5000 I'd be more happy to trust his professional opinion that that of John on a type of grain which was bought by a baker already ground to flour and sold to someone who put it on Jesus's table.

In the Catholic Church it's still unleavened bread made from wheat.

This stipulation is somewhat more recent than :

1/ The passover (by a thousand + yrs depending which timescale you believe)

2/ The use of unleavened bread specifically was not introduced until about 1000AD... before the schism both types were used .. and the Eastern Orthodox Church still uses leaven bread,

(like I said the Devil is in the details)

As a point of recorded Church history Pope Leo IX's papal forces were defeated at the Battle of Civitate in 1053, when led to the imprisonment of the Pope by the Normans whom themselves were busy retaliating tit for tat over the letter from Leo of Ohrid criticising Western practices of eating non Kosher food and using leavened bread ....

So in many ways this comes down to a set of trivial arguments between East and West ... before Leo Ohrid criticised the west noone cared if it was leavened or not... and it was only a knee jerk reaction in the opposite sense that made the Catholic Church use unleavened...

A millenium later we forget the reasons for this and only see the edicts.... when it is the really the result of petty arguing and political power plays of the 11th C.

The excommunication of Leo Ohrid and hence the term "Prosmymite" hereitcs, is invalid since the pope had already died before Humbert of Mourmoutiers delivered it.... hence he had no authority and it is questionable whether his serving the papers so to speak was even the original intention of Leo IX... and if the papers would even have been served if he had not died... (and we will never really know)...

Which brings me back to how trivial it really is....

The Catholic church was more than happy to accept unleavened or leavened as valid before it was criticised ... so one has to presume that the communions taken with either before this are equally valid and if they are then why not the ones after?

[CarlaB]

Well, they say you learn something new every day. It's always funny learning something new about my own faith from a professed atheist !

I am right about the wheat part .... right about the "why" of the use of unleavened bread in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church .... but I learned today that the Eastern Orthodox, along with the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church, use leavened bread.

There also is no question of the validity of leavened vs. unleavened .... it's a matter of licit or illicit ... but using another substance than wheat is invalid.

[gfp]

Well, they say you learn something new every day. It's always funny learning something new about my own faith from a professed atheist !

I am right about the wheat part .... right about the "why" of the use of unleavened bread in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church .... but I learned today that the Eastern Orthodox, along with the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church, use leavened bread.

There also is no question of the validity of leavened vs. unleavened .... it's a matter of licit or illicit ... but using another substance than wheat is invalid.

Manna:

"--And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it" (Numbers. 11:9).

"The people scattered and gathered it" (Numb. 11:8).

"And the people went out and gathered a portion every day" (Exod. 16:4)

However

Joshua 5:11-12 And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day. 12 And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year. (KJV)

The Interlinear Bible follows the text of the KJV. The word translated as old corn is the Hebrew word

[CarlaB]

Steve, I think you get the point .... it forever amazes me that you have all this knowledge and lack faith. I know there's more to it for you .... we've discussed it before ...

What he took in his hands is important, as are the words ... if you accept rice, where do you make the cut-off? Are potato chips okay, too? My point is, when the question came up, the Church had to answer. This is where we as Catholics believe in the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost .... that He will send the spirit to guide us ....

Oh, and the bread used for Passover, isn't the same bread as used in your Leviticus quote .... but then again, I don't think we're really nit-picking this much right now ... at least I'm not.

I didn't bring up you being atheist to discredit you ... you know more about this stuff than I do .... and I know a lot, LOL.

So, I got my kitchen remodeled, when are you going to teach me to cook? I got a nice red "cooker" from England.