*Sigh* New anti-Catholic wave because of refreshed 'celiac disease' controvesry

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Poor Bishop of Trenton. Media can't find any _new_ dirt, so they just to an uncreative rehash of an old one: poor helpless little celiac-suffering girl gets Communion stolen away from her by the Big Bad Vatican-types.

The way this is getting reported--and the way people are just gobbling it up and righteously preaching about how "it's just wheat vs. rice", is making me very, very sour.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004

Answers

Im sorry, but I really do agree that the composition shoudl be alloed to be rice, in the case of some individuals who suffer medical issues.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 21, 2004.

I guess you would have to take that up with Jesus, then.

I'm surprised at you, Zar--do you actually suppose that we should just start choosing to consecrate for ourselves whatever matter we think is best? Is the unity of the One Bread so meaningless that we can junk it in favor of a political power-move? Can we just carve tradition into Our Own Image; maybe rewrite the Bible like the Jehovahs Witness?

Here are some articles you should maybe look at.

The news story corrected by a Catholic publication

Catholic Encyclopedia: Sacrament - This long article is good for a general orientation on the internal logic of Sacraments in general. There is a section, called "Matter and Form," which partially explains the importance of external elements in Catholic sacraments.

Rabbi Jacob Neusner defends wheat in the Eucharist. This interesting article goes into the botany of it--enzymes and wheat varieties, and combines considerations of tradition, science, and symbol to give an interesting perspective on the controversy.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.


Anon, I think this says it all from your cwnews link:

It's true that in order to receive Communion from the chalice alone, the individual may have to make prior arrangements with the parish priest. But anyone who suffers from celiac disorder is quite accustomed to making such arrangements-- at restaurants, in friends' homes, at school-- in order to avoid wheat products

I wonder from your Rabbi Neusner link if it's ok to use 2) barley, (3) spelt, (4) rye, and (5) oats. Could it have been possible these were used at the Last Supper or is it post-christian era Jewish thought in contention?

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 21, 2004.


I don't know the answer to your question, but I suspect that there are important similarities AND differences between the rules governing the Jewish Passover and Christian practice of the Eucharist.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.

When God described the Passover meal to the Jewish people - a mere symbolic precursor to the Eucharist - He specified the exact species which were accepteble; the required age of the animal; the required sex of the animal; the required level of perfection of the animal; the manner in which it was to be prepared; the exact time of sacrifice; the precise manner in which it was to be cooked; the manner in which it was to be distributed; the types of bread and other food which were allowable; the manner of disposal of the leftovers; and even what they were to wear while consuming it.

Is it likely then that in giving us the true Eucharist, where He Himself is the sacrificial lamb, He would allow us to take liberties with the form and matter which He Himself defined?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.



Side note (before I forget).

Some claim that Christ partook of the Last Supper by eating of His own body and blood based on the facts(?) that Christ and the Apostle customarily partook of the Passover Supper upon invitations by friends. I would argue that the Passover Supper and the Last Supper are two distincly different events making one supper reasonable for Christ to eat while the other supper being one offered to His Apostles. The Last Supper is not the Passover Supper and I sense that the two should not be equated as the same by some believers. I don't know for sure, but am I at least in the ball park with this view of the two suppers?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.


My only poin was that in this case the bread is supstetutied not for choice. I agree that the wine shoudl have sufficed, however, shodl a full communion been desired so greately, then can not our Lord perfrm the same upin a patten of rice as wheat for oen who is incapable of consuming the latter?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 21, 2004.

Zarove,

The Lord could consecrate a three-topping pizza if he wanted to, but as we have no revelatory indication of his willingness to do so, it would be a grave sin of presumption and blasphemy to teach that he does.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.


I think you may have something there, rod. That's a question worth looking into... My understanding is the Passover meal includes eating the cooked flesh of the lamb. The focus in the Last Supper is on the blessing and breaking of the bread. Was the Last Supper part of a Passover meal or a prepatory meal for the upcoming Passover? I'm not sure.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 21, 2004.

Read Matt 26:17-28. The disciples ask Jesus where He wants to eat "the Passover". Jesus tells them to find a certain man and to tell him that they will be eating "the Passover" meal at his house. Then the disciples prepare "the Passover". The rest of the passage is a description of the meal they prepared, including the institution of the Eucharist.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.


The key element is the consecration of the bread and wine, which was performed directly after the meal had started. It also does not say that Christ ate the consecrated bread or wine, at least I cannot for certain say that Jesus did eat the bread and wine.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.


No, Jesus surely did not consume his own body and blood. There would be no possible reason for this theologically. Scripture specifically says He GAVE IT to THEM, and instructed THEM to consume it. He still does so today.

Matthew 26:26 - "While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and GAVE IT TO THE DISCIPLES, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

Matthew 26:27 - And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He GAVE IT to THEM, saying, "Drink from it, all of YOU;

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.


Well, in another forum I made the same assertion that it was theologically illogical for Christ to partake of His own body and blood. Whew! I'm glad to hear that not only was I in the ball park, I'm actually batting. Thanks, Paul.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ