Tuesday, April 25. 2006
Wheat wafers and Holy Communion
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Interestingly an article appeared in the Yorkshire Evening Post this week about a Reverend who after 10 years of illness has finally been diagnosed as a coeliac.
He has to celebrate Communion, and receive Communion himself, but being allergic to gluten means that he can no longer eat the wheat wafer.
The article says that he has special gluten free blessed biscuits shipped to his church for his use.
So if the Church of England allows him to have specially blessed gluten free biscuits for his own personal use, why is the Roman Catholic Church making such a fuss about coeliacs who need gluten free wafers, and not allowing them to take Communion if they use them, or declaring it invalid if it has already taken place?
Surely if it's acceptable for the Church of England then it should be acceptable for the Roman Catholic Church, after all don't they all ultimately have the same boss?
He has to celebrate Communion, and receive Communion himself, but being allergic to gluten means that he can no longer eat the wheat wafer.
The article says that he has special gluten free blessed biscuits shipped to his church for his use.
So if the Church of England allows him to have specially blessed gluten free biscuits for his own personal use, why is the Roman Catholic Church making such a fuss about coeliacs who need gluten free wafers, and not allowing them to take Communion if they use them, or declaring it invalid if it has already taken place?
Surely if it's acceptable for the Church of England then it should be acceptable for the Roman Catholic Church, after all don't they all ultimately have the same boss?
My daughter also suffers from celiac disease and we are Catholic. She has the option of receiving only the consectrated wine (Christ's Precious Blood) or of using a low gluten host.
The Catholic church has been around for over 2000 years defending and preserving both the Word of God and the traditions that Christ handed down to the apostles and they take that role quite seriously. It is not the Church who made the choice to use wheat and grapes for this very holy sacrament, but Christ Himself.
We believe that the bread and wine become the very substance of Christ's own Body and Blood even while still maintaining the appearance of bread and wine and we believe it because Christ said it Himself at the last supper and in John chapter 6 where He commanded that "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you."(Jn 6:53)
The Church does not have the authority to now change the substance of the bread or the wine that is used. The ingredients are what they have always been and to change them would be to create an invalid sacrament, meaning that transubstantiation would not occur (Christ would not become present). For a Catholic, this would make receiving communion rather pointless.
While this does create a problem for those sensitive to those substances, with a little help from the parish priest, a solution can usually be reached.
The Catholic church has been around for over 2000 years defending and preserving both the Word of God and the traditions that Christ handed down to the apostles and they take that role quite seriously. It is not the Church who made the choice to use wheat and grapes for this very holy sacrament, but Christ Himself.
We believe that the bread and wine become the very substance of Christ's own Body and Blood even while still maintaining the appearance of bread and wine and we believe it because Christ said it Himself at the last supper and in John chapter 6 where He commanded that "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you."(Jn 6:53)
The Church does not have the authority to now change the substance of the bread or the wine that is used. The ingredients are what they have always been and to change them would be to create an invalid sacrament, meaning that transubstantiation would not occur (Christ would not become present). For a Catholic, this would make receiving communion rather pointless.
While this does create a problem for those sensitive to those substances, with a little help from the parish priest, a solution can usually be reached.
"It is not the Church who made the choice to use wheat and grapes for this very holy sacrament, but Christ Himself."
Did he choose it because it has some holy quality to it, or because that was the sort of bread people had at the time? Unless you can demonstrate that the former is the case, then I suggest your point is without basis.
Additionally, did Jesus not remark with disdain on how people quabbled over the technical aspects of the Law while ignoring the more important matters of forgiveness & mercy? Should people really have to go to the hospital to partake in the most holy Rite in Catholicism? Does communion not work without Gluten in the wafers? Also, didn't the disciples eat bread, rather than wafers? If that is the case, then the whole of Catholicism's Eucharist is off the mark.
May I kindly suggest that the Eucharist is a spiritual Ritual with very profound meaning/significance which does not rely on the content of the wafer & wine, but rather that they correspond with the flesh & blood and that they are taken in Rememberence of Him. Communion is a powerful thing, and this debate debases it's holyness much more than non-gluten wafers ever could.
Thanks for reading my rant.
Did he choose it because it has some holy quality to it, or because that was the sort of bread people had at the time? Unless you can demonstrate that the former is the case, then I suggest your point is without basis.
Additionally, did Jesus not remark with disdain on how people quabbled over the technical aspects of the Law while ignoring the more important matters of forgiveness & mercy? Should people really have to go to the hospital to partake in the most holy Rite in Catholicism? Does communion not work without Gluten in the wafers? Also, didn't the disciples eat bread, rather than wafers? If that is the case, then the whole of Catholicism's Eucharist is off the mark.
May I kindly suggest that the Eucharist is a spiritual Ritual with very profound meaning/significance which does not rely on the content of the wafer & wine, but rather that they correspond with the flesh & blood and that they are taken in Rememberence of Him. Communion is a powerful thing, and this debate debases it's holyness much more than non-gluten wafers ever could.
Thanks for reading my rant.
"did Jesus not remark with disdain on how people quabbled over the technical aspects of the Law"
Jesus said that it doesn't matter what goes in the mouth that counts, it's what comes out of it. So yes you are correct, just thought I would help clarify.
"transubstantiation would not occur (Christ would not become present). For a Catholic, this would make receiving communion rather pointless"
I think LifeTeen does a good job of that...Where exactly in Holy Scripture does Jesus or any of the Apostle's whip out a guitar, drums, speakers....
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you."
What about those who are recovering alcoholics? Those who are in AA and vow to never touch alcohol again...should it be forced upon them?
Jesus said that it doesn't matter what goes in the mouth that counts, it's what comes out of it. So yes you are correct, just thought I would help clarify.
"transubstantiation would not occur (Christ would not become present). For a Catholic, this would make receiving communion rather pointless"
I think LifeTeen does a good job of that...Where exactly in Holy Scripture does Jesus or any of the Apostle's whip out a guitar, drums, speakers....
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you."
What about those who are recovering alcoholics? Those who are in AA and vow to never touch alcohol again...should it be forced upon them?
Thank you for the initial clarification. I was commenting on a different verse, but the one you quoted seems especially pertinent when applied to this issue. Christ also emphasized the Spirit over Law, and I find it hard to come to the conclusion that Jesus was instuting a gluten Commandment in regards to the Eucharist.
As I stated before, they did not eat wafers, but loaves of bread as part of their passover meal. Why is there budge room on the loaves vs. wafers issue and not any budge room on gluten vs. non-gluten for alcoholics and those with wheat allergies?
Additionally, the argument that trans-substantiation will not occur without gluten seems to be missing the entire point of what it means to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man." The transformation of Bread into His Flesh is of a manner which goes well beyond the ingredients, imo. Same goes for wine/grapes transforming into His Blood. I really just don't see any scriptural support for this stance.
I don't mean to cause contention against the Catholic Church here, I just feel that some more important matters are at stake here. The Eucharist was at the center of early Christian tradition. People would meet and break bread together, discussing Jesus and his works/words. This central event of the Eucharist was highly symbolic (though not merely symbolic) as the Liturgy surrounding it attests to. And the Liturgy is not merely symbolic either. Though I am not a practicing Catholic, I have participated in a couple of Masses where I didn't even take the communion and the Liturgy itself invoked some very profound experience.
So, what exactly is the Flesh of the Son of Man? And what exactly is his Blood? In my opinion, these are more important questions to resolve.
thanks,
mark
As I stated before, they did not eat wafers, but loaves of bread as part of their passover meal. Why is there budge room on the loaves vs. wafers issue and not any budge room on gluten vs. non-gluten for alcoholics and those with wheat allergies?
Additionally, the argument that trans-substantiation will not occur without gluten seems to be missing the entire point of what it means to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man." The transformation of Bread into His Flesh is of a manner which goes well beyond the ingredients, imo. Same goes for wine/grapes transforming into His Blood. I really just don't see any scriptural support for this stance.
I don't mean to cause contention against the Catholic Church here, I just feel that some more important matters are at stake here. The Eucharist was at the center of early Christian tradition. People would meet and break bread together, discussing Jesus and his works/words. This central event of the Eucharist was highly symbolic (though not merely symbolic) as the Liturgy surrounding it attests to. And the Liturgy is not merely symbolic either. Though I am not a practicing Catholic, I have participated in a couple of Masses where I didn't even take the communion and the Liturgy itself invoked some very profound experience.
So, what exactly is the Flesh of the Son of Man? And what exactly is his Blood? In my opinion, these are more important questions to resolve.
thanks,
mark
Anyone with a bible can make an argument I guess. The point isn't what you, or I for that matter, can "kindly suggest". The point is, what is Truth?
The Catholic religion's authority and teaching comes from 3 different sources, the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium. Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium have been around 400 years longer than the New Testament. The canon of the NT was assembled and pronounced to be the inspired word of God in A.D. 397 at the council of Carthage and confirmed at a second council in 419, at which time the exact content was decided and approved to the exclusion of all others. My point in this is that taking a few verses from the Bible out of the context of history and apostolic tradition can lead us to all sorts of erroneous conclusions.
You have really good questions. So many of us seek only the answers that we want to hear. The Catholic church is not a democracy so we really cannot take a vote or a poll to figure out what it should be doing about things like celiac sufferers.
I imagine that the rigidity in the ingredients of the precious body and blood may have something also to do with curbing abuses but the bottom line is that the church acts only to preserve the faith the way that Jesus handed it down to us. You can argue how you feel about it all you want but what I wrote above is simple fact and the Catholic Church's official stand on the matter, not my point, or my opinion or the compilation of all my friends and acquaintances opinions.
My heart goes out to anyone struggling to find where they fit in with this disease. Keep digging for the answers to your questions and find out why the church teaches what it does so you can form your opinions on facts and not feelings. I hope that the answers eventually lead you back home to Rome.
The Catholic religion's authority and teaching comes from 3 different sources, the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium. Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium have been around 400 years longer than the New Testament. The canon of the NT was assembled and pronounced to be the inspired word of God in A.D. 397 at the council of Carthage and confirmed at a second council in 419, at which time the exact content was decided and approved to the exclusion of all others. My point in this is that taking a few verses from the Bible out of the context of history and apostolic tradition can lead us to all sorts of erroneous conclusions.
You have really good questions. So many of us seek only the answers that we want to hear. The Catholic church is not a democracy so we really cannot take a vote or a poll to figure out what it should be doing about things like celiac sufferers.
I imagine that the rigidity in the ingredients of the precious body and blood may have something also to do with curbing abuses but the bottom line is that the church acts only to preserve the faith the way that Jesus handed it down to us. You can argue how you feel about it all you want but what I wrote above is simple fact and the Catholic Church's official stand on the matter, not my point, or my opinion or the compilation of all my friends and acquaintances opinions.
My heart goes out to anyone struggling to find where they fit in with this disease. Keep digging for the answers to your questions and find out why the church teaches what it does so you can form your opinions on facts and not feelings. I hope that the answers eventually lead you back home to Rome.
The Catholic eucharist is intended to be a ritual that recreates the last supper -- which was not a Passover feast, as evidenced by an enormous amount of scriptural scholarship.
The instruction on the eucharist dictates that the consecrated matter be of water and wheat only because one of the virtues of a central instruction is that it's unitive. Catholics all over the world receive the same eucharist . . . and around the world, the most commonly available materials are flour and water. So what, really, is the oppression in using the most simple ingredients available?
And receiving wine on its own, at least in the Catholic Church, is a full communion. There is no need to receive both or to receive the body of Christ.
The instruction on the eucharist dictates that the consecrated matter be of water and wheat only because one of the virtues of a central instruction is that it's unitive. Catholics all over the world receive the same eucharist . . . and around the world, the most commonly available materials are flour and water. So what, really, is the oppression in using the most simple ingredients available?
And receiving wine on its own, at least in the Catholic Church, is a full communion. There is no need to receive both or to receive the body of Christ.
yes some wine are made with wheat try red wine is less alcohol and wheet and avoid fish with wine its give u allergy problem
Archives
Calendar
|
|
September '10 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||

