Church says girl's communion not valid

[LScot]

but if the bread turns into his body then why would the child experience an allergic reaction?

Ok, maybe it does matter to a Catholic. I'm thinking of that thief on the cross with Jesus that day. He was forgiven and taken to paradise (which, of course, wasn't Heaven, but at that point people didn't die and go to Heaven)

Everyone can believe what they want. If people don't believe that an all powerful God can sustain His Word if He wants and that we can know truth, then so be it. God is more powerful than we seem to believe around here.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Originally posted by LScot
From what I read in the Bible, Jesus had problems with the pharisees and all their rules too. We make this all too complicated.
Luckily for that little girl, salvation isn't based on what she puts in her mouth or doesn't--it is what is in her heart that counts.

It wasn't the rules of the Pharisees that Christ had the problem with -- it was the manner in which the Pharisees demanded adherence to God's rules without regards to the needs of the individual. That said -- it could be argued (but not by this ecumenically minded minister) that the Church's refusal to allow for a gluten-free option can be interpreted as Pharisaical. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada does allow for such options with the intent that Holy Communion is not a time to exclude individuals based on medical needs. (e.g. gluten and/or wheat allergies; allergies to wine or those opposed to drinking alcohol for various reasons.)

However, too many options can get in the way. I worshipped in one congregation in Winnipeg, Manitoba a number of years ago that offered bread, gluten free wafers, wine for intinction (the dipping of the bread in the wine), wine in a common cup, wine in individual glasses, and grape juice in the same three options. There were more communion assistants roaming around the chancel than there were people communing at the altar rail at any one time. To receive any one option you needed to hold up various signals to receive what you wanted. Very confusing and very distracting for this worshipper.

As for the little girl: be glad that it is neither what she eats nor what she holds in her heart that counts. The Bible is quite clear that God's mercy is for all -- not for those who deserve it (i.e. those with good things in their hearts) or for those who follow the rules (i.e. the reception of the Sacrament in a particular fashion.)

That said, we cannot discount the value of the regular encounter with the Divine through the Sacraments. While I'm Lutheran and don't hold to the Roman Catholic theologies concerning the Sacrament of the Table -- I do understand it to be a means through which I may receive God's grace and thereby encounter God and a means through which I may join with all the saints -- both those alive and those who now rest in God -- and thereby encounter my neighbour. It is a wonderful celebration.

 

[LScot]

It wasn't the rules of the Pharisees that Christ had the problem with -- it was the manner in which the Pharisees demanded adherence to God's rules without regards to the needs of the individual. That said -- it could be argued (but not by this ecumenically minded minister) that the Church's refusal to allow for a gluten-free option can be interpreted as Pharisaical.

Glad you saw what I was saying.

As to what is in our hearts... God's mercy is for us all but we have to accept it. And to me, that means she has Jesus in her heart, OK? One either does or doesn't. You are a believer or you are not. And God is the only one who knows our hearts.

Please don't twist what I say or don't say. Thanks.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Originally posted by LScot
Glad you saw what I was saying.

As to what is in our hearts... God's mercy is for us all but we have to accept it. And to me, that means she has Jesus in her heart, OK? One either does or doesn't. You are a believer or you are not. And God is the only one who knows our hearts.

Please don't twist what I say or don't say. Thanks.

I certainly didn't intend to twist your words and I'm sorry it may have been seen that way. I believe that what may be perceived as twisting is simply a different understanding of the same theological point.

For instance -- the Lutheran theology of justification by grace through faith would tend to suggest that acceptance of God's gifts is not necessary for the gift to be effective. That is to say -- God's mercy is given to all and is effective even upon those who do not accept it. Lutherans believe that it what God does -- and not our own works -- that matters. God places the faith within us at our baptism -- whether we put it to use or not. God forgives all sins, even the sin of not using the faith we were given.

 

[LScot]

OK then, thanks.

You need to know that you need to use the phrase "that is to say..." when talking with me ok? I'm not a bit too proud to let you know you'll talk right over my head if you don't talk in simple terms. LOL

So, your saying that Since Christ died for all and since God loves us all, that it doesn't matter whether we accept Him, we have salvation anyway? That is what I get out of your last paragraph.

Although I don't believe in "good works" either, I do believe that we must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved. I do believe Jesus died to save everyone and that God loves everyone whether they love Him back or not but I don't believe everyone has salvation with out a belief in Christ.

 

[susy]

Thanks Jennydots! I was going to say that it is in the torah that one must must drink blood.

I was Catholic, then Christian, then studied Judaism (very hard work!)

The problem is that Christians do not study the torah (they read it alright) and do not connect what Jesus is doing with the fact that he is JEWISH. When you connect the two, many things become more clear-the passover being one of them.

As for the Gentiles becoming Christian, I don't know why there was a controversy. The torah does state that those Gentiles wanting to join themsleves to God may. I know there was the question of whether they had to follow the "oral" tradition". I don't think following the torah would even have been a question. Many Christians believe the old testmanet was somehow abolished (there are ways to twist scripture to mean this). One scripture int eh NT talks about collecting money on the first day of the week. Christians don't realize that money would not have been collected during a sabbath service (as is done in Christians churches). The handling of money on the sabbath is forbidden .Most also do not know the pagan roots of certain Christian festivals (SUNday worship, Christmas (Saturnalia), Easter).

Not a fun thing to study and VERY hard to accept.

 

[Laura]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
if I understand the concept of transfiguration correctly (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong), according to Catholic tradition, isn't the body and blood of Christ hidden beneath the bread and the wine? I just can't see Jesus and his disciples with cups of "blood" at the table.

Just FYI because you're interested. It's transubstantiation, and no the body and blood isn't hidden beneath the bread and the wine, it is the body and blood of Jesus. It just has the appearance of bread and wine. It's really a tricky idea, like having three gods in one.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

Transfiguration is something else.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15019a.htm

I just don't see why transubstantiation can't happen with rice as well as wheat.

 

[Ellester]

Originally posted by Laura
I just don't see why transubstantiation can't happen with rice as well as wheat.

That's my opinion as well. God can certainly change a rice wafer as easily as a wheat one.

 

[zagafi]

Hey, if you want to get technical I'd say that wafers weren't present at the Last Supper, either. But *men* decided wafers were an "ok" substitute for a loaf of unleavened bread, so how anyone could possibly try to argue this isn't a *manmade* rule might want to rethink that notion.

 

[jennyanydots]

thanks for the correction -- I've got a degree in history, I had to become familiar with Catholic theology when I studied the medieval world, but that was a long time ago. transubstantiation. got it.

I'm not an expert on Torah either, but this week's parsha happened to be on Deuteronomy, and the weekly e mail fro AishHatorah discussed the passage.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Originally posted by zagafi
Hey, if you want to get technical I'd say that wafers weren't present at the Last Supper, either. But *men* decided wafers were an "ok" substitute for a loaf of unleavened bread, so how anyone could possibly try to argue this isn't a *manmade* rule might want to rethink that notion.

Exactly....This is Church Doctrine which is subject to change. It is not Dogma. The people that say if you do not like how it is set up to find another religion must not understand that Doctrine can be changed and that it is OK to make changes. It is just hard as all heck to get it done but I say go for it.

 

[phillybeth]

Originally posted by jennyanydots

if I understand the concept of transfiguration correctly (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong), according to Catholic tradition, isn't the body and blood of Christ hidden beneath the bread and the wine? I just can't see Jesus and his disciples with cups of "blood" at the table.

Yes, that is part of the miracle of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine maintain their physical appearance, taste, etc, while still becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus.
And thank you for clearing up my confusion over who could partake in the sacrificial lamb. Were there options for those who could not afford a lamb in Biblical times? I know for certain sacrifices, like the birth of a first-born son, a poor woman could substitute doves if she could not afford the usual sacrifice.

 

[phillybeth]

Originally posted by Ellester

That's my opinion as well. God can certainly change a rice wafer as easily as a wheat one.

That is my personal opinion as well. I'm just giving the official party line, what the Church teaches and believes to be so.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Originally posted by LScot
OK then, thanks.

You need to know that you need to use the phrase "that is to say..." when talking with me ok? I'm not a bit too proud to let you know you'll talk right over my head if you don't talk in simple terms. LOL

So, your saying that Since Christ died for all and since God loves us all, that it doesn't matter whether we accept Him, we have salvation anyway? That is what I get out of your last paragraph.

Although I don't believe in "good works" either, I do believe that we must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved. I do believe Jesus died to save everyone and that God loves everyone whether they love Him back or not but I don't believe everyone has salvation with out a belief in Christ.

I had a seminary professor who could never give a straight answer. It was never "YES", it was never "NO" It was always "YES" and "NO". I've taken too many courses from this man and have problems giving straight answers now.

Yes -- I believe we need to have faith in Christ in order to be saved (remembering, however, that the Jews are "saved" through the covenant God made with Abraham -- Christians are reminded of this fact through one of the letters of the Apostle Paul.) But, we also need to remember that faith is not something we do -- it is something God has given us. We cannot eliminate the factor of "Faith" from the concept of "justification by grace through faith."

However, we need to always remember the alleged man on the desert island. Is he not saved just because he has never heard the Good News? Is it his fault that he doesn't believe in Jesus Christ simply because nobody has told him about Jesus Christ? "That is to say" -- can I be saved if I don't believe in Jesus Christ? If we hold to the concept of undeserved grace and the thought of the man on the desert island -- then the answer must be "Yes", despite the demand for faith.

 

[DVC Jen]

That is horrible! It also validates all my reasons for leaving the Catholic Church.

 

[jennyanydots]

Originally posted by phillybeth
Yes, that is part of the miracle of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine maintain their physical appearance, taste, etc, while still becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus.
And thank you for clearing up my confusion over who could partake in the sacrificial lamb. Were there options for those who could not afford a lamb in Biblical times? I know for certain sacrifices, like the birth of a first-born son, a poor woman could substitute doves if she could not afford the usual sacrifice.

I can't give you a cohesive answer. we're commanded in Deuteronomy to do two things for Passover -- to sacrifice a lamb and to eat matza. elsewhere in Deuteronomy there are directions to bring grains and other agricultural products to the priests for a tithe. there is a commandment to share any animal you sacrifice with everyone in your household, including your slaves. Jewish tradition is to share the Passover -- "Let all who are hungry come and eat." in theory, at least, all the poor of Jerusalem should have been invited to share in the sacrifice at the Temple. as with all religious institutions, theory and fact may not have aligned.

 

[LScot]

Originally posted by RoyalCanadian

However, we need to always remember the alleged man on the desert island. Is he not saved just because he has never heard the Good News? Is it his fault that he doesn't believe in Jesus Christ simply because nobody has told him about Jesus Christ? "That is to say" -- can I be saved if I don't believe in Jesus Christ? If we hold to the concept of undeserved grace and the thought of the man on the desert island -- then the answer must be "Yes", despite the demand for faith.

I believe in a just God. I thnk there is a difference for the man who hasn't heard and the man who has and rejects.
I think the gift of salvation is for everyone who accepts it. However, I think one must accept it.
I'll compare it to the manna God provided in the wilderness. Each person was to go and get enough for himself. I believe there is a parallel to that and that we each need to chose for ourselves--you aren't saved because grandma was.


I believe that Jesus fulfills the promises made in the Old Testament. I think there is a direct connection between Jesus' death and the Passover. I don't think the New ends the Old. JMHO.

 

[TiggerPiglet]

First let me state that I am Catholic. Like others have said, I don't see why this girl cannot receive a rice wafer instead. I can't imagine God would want this girl to risk her life just to eat the host the church feels is the only one that will count. The church throughout the years have changed "their rules". For example, you used to not be abe to eat meat on ANY Friday, now it's only during lent and when St. Patrick's Day falls on a Friday during lent, the church says it's okay to have meat.
When I was a kid I remember not being able to touch the host because it was considered so sacred, the only one allowed was the priest. Now everyone and their mother touches it.
I know the church said if she drinks the wine it will count, but wine is alcohol. Maybe the mother doesn't want to send her mix messages, "you can't drink alcohol with your friends, but it's okay at church". JMHO