Church says girl's communion not valid

Originally posted by lenshanem
Thanks beattyfamily. :) I usually avoid debates like this, but the food allergy aspect got me!
Now, about those errands. Darn this computer! :p

Ummm, I know what you mean, did you see my countdown clock?? I've got a million things to do!!
 
I beleive the Catholic church has every right to set the rules about communion. I strongly disagree with those rules, but I am not Catholic. As a Christian, it distresses me that any conditions at all are placed on Communion (and the Catholic faith is not the only one that restricts it), but I recognize that those who beleive in transubstantiation see Communion differently and restrict it in an attempt to avoid direspecting the host they are consuming.

As a lay speaker for the Methodist church, I freqeuntly administer communion when preaching for a Sunday service at a local assisted living center. The elements must be blessed by our minister before I take it with me to the center and even this small restriction irks me. There were no such restriction on the earliest Christians and I see no reason for such a requirement now. Still, once the elements are blessed, the communion table is open to all who would receive it.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, while I disagree with the Catholic tradition in this case, I think all Christian denominations have traditions or beleifs that someone can take issue with, including my own. The wonderful thing is that we are all Christians and we can all find a denomination that helps to bring us closer to the love of God. If these folks feel the Catholic faith does not meet their needs, perhaps they should seek out a denomination that does rather than trying to change the church. That siad, I also beleive that the Catholic church should use this as an opportunity to examine their traditions and be sure that they are not missing the spirit of the law in order to enforce the letter of the law.
 
I did not read the replies here, but based on the article, I say that is DUMB. :rolleyes:
 
The first Christmas after I made my First Communion, the oldest priest in our parrish was giving me Communion and he missed my mouth. The wafer rolled down the floor next to me. He didn't notice and moved on to the next people. I picked it up and put it in my mouth hoping no one had noticed. Touching the host was wrong at the time "according to the fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church". I felt guilty for years and thought I was doomed to Hell. Several years later, the "fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church" changed and everyone could touch the host.

Here are some more "fundamental tenets" that I used to adhere to:

No meat on Fridays.
Women wearing a hat or cover in church.
Masses in Latin only.
Only priests giving communion out.
Confession to a priest rather than directly to God (is this one still in force?)

While the Catholic Church is extremely slow to change, they do change. I am sure this wheat thing will not be an issue in the future once someone in the Vatican figures out there is nothing in the Bible that requires it.
 

Originally posted by vacationman
The first Christmas after I made my First Communion, the oldest priest in our parrish was giving me Communion and he missed my mouth. The wafer rolled down the floor next to me. He didn't notice and moved on to the next people. I picked it up and put it in my mouth hoping no one had noticed. Touching the host was wrong at the time "according to the fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church". I felt guilty for years and thought I was doomed to Hell. Several years later, the "fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church" changed and everyone could touch the host.

Here are some more "fundamental tenets" that I used to adhere to:

No meat on Fridays.
Women wearing a hat or cover in church.
Masses in Latin only.
Only priests giving communion out.
Confession to a priest rather than directly to God (is this one still in force?)

While the Catholic Church is extremely slow to change, they do change. I am sure this wheat thing will not be an issue in the future once someone in the Vatican figures out there is nothing in the Bible that requires it.

I HIGHLY doubt this particular doctrine will change.

Of course, we must still confess to a priest. That, too, will never change.

We are still not suppose to eat meat on Fridays and Ash Wednesday.
 
Originally posted by WDWHound



I guess what I am trying to say is that, while I disagree with the Catholic tradition in this case, I think all Christian denominations have traditions or beleifs that someone can take issue with, including my own.

My sister is Methodist and I hear a lot about the way you guys worship -- she's very happy with her church and I'm happy for her. But would you really like it if I started a thread about all the stuff that I thought was wrong about the way she chooses to worship? Why would I do that? She's happy and I'm happy. You're not a Catholic because you don't agree with Catholicism. Nothing wrong with that. But I just don't see what's to gain by telling us "what you are taking issue with." I wouldn't do that to you. I'm happy you've found your path to God.
 
FYI, here is "chapter and verse" from the Committee on the Liturgy,
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops


"Chapter VI
The Requisites for the Celebration of Mass


I. The Bread and Wine for Celebating the Eucharist

319. Following the example of Christ, the Church has always used bread and wine with water to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

320. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.

321. The meaning of the sign demands that the material for the Eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. It is therefore expedient that the eucharistic bread, even though unleavened and baked in the traditional shape, be made in such a way that the priest at Mass with a congregation is able in practice to break it into parts for distribution to at least some of the faithful. Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it. The action of the fraction or breaking of bread, which gave its name to the Eucharist in apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the force and importance of the sign of unity of all in the one bread, and of the sign of charity by the fact that the one bread is distributed among the brothers and sisters.

322. The wine for the eucharistic celebration must be from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is, without admixture of extraneous substances.

323. Diligent care should be taken to ensure that the bread and wine intended for the Eucharist are kept in a perfect state of conservation: that is, that the wine does not turn to vinegar nor the bread spoil or become too hard to be broken easily.

324. If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again."
 
Originally posted by auntpolly
My sister is Methodist and I hear a lot about the way you guys worship -- she's very happy with her church and I'm happy for her. But would you really like it if I started a thread about all the stuff that I thought was wrong about the way she chooses to worship? Why would I do that? She's happy and I'm happy. You're not a Catholic because you don't agree with Catholicism. Nothing wrong with that. But I just don't see what's to gain by telling us "what you are taking issue with." I wouldn't do that to you. I'm happy you've found your path to God.
Actually, I have seen threads about things like child baptism that did call Methodist practices into questions. I have zero problem with that, as long as it is done respectfully. If my post came of as sounding disrespectful, please accept my appoligies. It was not intended to. I tried to state my beliefs without disrepecting yours, but apparently I failed.

I think its healthy that as Christians we can openly disagree about the differences in the way we practice our faith and openly discuss those disagreements. I have learned a great deal about the Cathlolic faith from threads like this. The Catholic church does seem to be getting more of its share of time in the spotlight recently, but it is also one of the more tradition based faiths, so this tends to make it stand out a but more when topics like this arrise.
 
Any man-made rule is subject to change.

As for the no meat of Friday rule/non-rule:

I guess if the "National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the United States' Episcopal Conference) is currently debating whether to rescind the determination (described below) and require all Catholics to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year." there must not be any current rule against it here in the United States.

Here is what I found on Catholic Pages.com:


Meat on Fridays

Most Catholics think that Vatican II did away with the requirement of not eating meat on any Friday of the year. Most think it is now just Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent that we cannot eat meat.

This is what the new Code of Canon Law brought out in 1983 says about the matter:

Canon 1251

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays!

Of course, most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing. But, do you ever remember to abstain from a particular food or do some other penance on Fridays? And, at any rate, the main rule is still to abstain from meat on Fridays, the performance of another penance instead is an optional alternative.

It's very interesting to note that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the United States' Episcopal Conference) is currently debating whether to rescind the determination and require all Catholics to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. The Bishops are considering that a return to meatless Fridays for all Catholics would be of benefit because:

It is an expression of one's Catholicity; and
In reparation for the grave sin of abortion
 
Growing up (as a Catholic), my family's idea of no meat on Fridays usually went something like this:

What do you guys want for dinner? No meat.

Ummm... PIZZA!

Ok, we'll do pizza. What kind?

PEPPERONI!

:smooth:
 
Originally posted by jrydberg
Growing up (as a Catholic), my family's idea of no meat on Fridays usually went something like this:

What do you guys want for dinner? No meat.

Ummm... PIZZA!

Ok, we'll do pizza. What kind?

PEPPERONI!

:smooth:

I solved this problem once and for all by becoming a vegetarian!:D
 
Originally posted by Big Dude
This is one of the few things that really irk me about the Catholic Church. Luke chapter 22 verses 19 and 20:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.


Jesus said the bread and wine were given for YOU. I don't ever remember seeing it written that YOU meant "only practicing Catholics".

Adam aka Big Dude

I totally agree with you!
 
The Bible is supposed to be the first and last word of God. While the RCC doctrine is the church's history and tradition, it is NOT the word of God. So, chapter and verse, from the Bible that says the bread must be made with wheat?

If God is God, can't he turn a rice wafer into his body too? I think the "wheat" rule is a man made rule, not in the Bible.

I grew up Catholic, now I'm....agnostic, but ambivalent is probably a better word. But, things like this are the reason.
 
The Bible is supposed to be the first and last word of God. While the RCC doctrine is the church's history and tradition, it is NOT the word of God. So, chapter and verse, from the Bible that says the bread must be made with wheat?

Just wondering, chapter and verse, where in the Bible does it say "The Bible is the one and only true word of God." ??
 
Originally posted by 6_Time_Momma
The Bible is supposed to be the first and last word of God. While the RCC doctrine is the church's history and tradition, it is NOT the word of God. So, chapter and verse, from the Bible that says the bread must be made with wheat?

Just wondering where in the Bible does it say "The Bible is the one and only true word of God." ??

Well...what else could it be? I mean, can anybody make anything up and call it the word of God?
 
It is the word of God. However, so is what Jesus told Peter and what Jesus said to Mary, etc. and what they passed on to others. No, you can't just "make up" stuff and have it be the word of God. My point is God did not only speak to those who wrote the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is NOT the sole word of God IMO.

Also, to the poster previous who quoted Jesus' words at the Last Supper saying "it was given up for you", He also said "This IS my body. This IS my blood", and yet most protestants say He was not being literal with that statement. So, how can you pick up on one part of His quote, but ignore the other?
 
Honestly, I don't have the answer. In MY reading of the Bible, there are many, many inconsistancies. Maybe I'm just not reading it right, I don't know. No offense was intended with my comments. I just think the wheat thing is incredibly persnikity, for no real Biblical reason. I don't think the Pope is any closer to God than any other person can be, etc.. Even though I grew up Catholic, I don't really "get" it. Things like this are bad for "The Church" and I do find that sad because it is part of my family history and tradition. I don't know if that clears anything up or makes any sense, but those are my personal feelings.

One more thing...How can we know which things are made up and which things are inspired by God? I'm not asking to be a PITA, I'm really just throwing some thoughts out there....
 
When my DD's had first communion last May, we were told that they had to take both the host and wine for this. Afterward, they didn't have to take both but should bow their head in respect to the one they were not receiving.

I don't take the wine because I really don't want to drink after everyone else. I don't care how well you wipe the cup after someone. I do bow my head though in respect.

mt2
 
For those who don't believe the Bible is the only true word of God and can haves new man-made rules added to it, check out these:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you" (Deuteronomy 4:2).

"Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar" (Proverbs 30:6)
 
Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the "winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still measure the "historical accuracy" of a given concept by examining how well it concurs with our existing historical record. Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?

This is a quote by Dan Brown, and one that I found very interesting.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible is a one sided story and an incomplete one at that. The Catholic Church went about and destroyed hundreds of documents that disagreeded with their beliefs. Some of those documents survived - the Dead Sea Scrolls being an example. There are hundreds of stories of Jesus - the majority of them did not make into the bible.

There is fact and fiction in the bible and I think the sooner people accept that the sooner we will have a better understanding of God. Fact: Jesus was not born in December. Now is this an imporant fact - yes and no. Some of the biggest Catholic celebrations take place over what is considered the date of Christ birth. However if you know history then you would know that this date was chosen so as to help conform Pagans to Christinanity and ignore the winter soltice (sp?). This one simple Fact just goes to show that the Catholic Church CHANGED things to help conform beliefs.

Now in regards to this little girl - it is my honest opinion that the Catholic Church has a lot bigger problems then wheat within their religion. Obviously they don't seem to think they need to acknowledge that their faith has some serious issues, but rather concentrate on pathetic instances as this one. I'm sure God is up there rolling his/her eyes and thinking "Ya gotta be kidding me?" But it is due to these types of issues that more and more people are turning their back on the Catholic faith.

~Amanda
 












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top