Valid Communion Issue in NJ

[KennySe]

Juxtaposer:

Isn’t it true though, that only His blood is present in the wine? If I’m wrong, sorry. I’m not Catholic.

The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and dvinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He is not divided. He cannot be divided.

What is perceived by human perception as bread, upon the words of consecration, is the Holy Eucharist.

What is perceived by human perception as wine, upon the words of consecration, is the Holy Eucharist.

---

In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church [which is the largest rite, and the only one that most folks know about] our PRACTICE is to offer Eucharist (in the form of bread)… and then to offer Eucharist (in the form of wine).

Eucharist is Eucharist.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Juxtaposer:

Isn’t it true though, that only His blood is present in the wine? If I’m wrong, sorry. I’m not Catholic.

No. Christ whole and complete, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is present under both forms.

There are also certain words and actions during the Mass to give this emphasis.

The first thing is to realize that St. Paul say’s He who eats the bread OR drinks the cup in an unworthy manner sins against the Body AND Blood.

The Priest places a small piece of the main Host into the main chalice. Mingling the contents together as a symbol of the re-uniting of the Body and the Blood of Christ that was separated on the Cross. The contents of all the chalices and all of the Hosts are united to one another. In fact all Chalices and all Hosts in the whole world are mystically united to each other because it is the same Christ who is present everywhere.

The girl could receive from a secondary chalice that would not contain a fragment of Host and receive before anyone else so that there would not be any possibility of gluten being present in the chalice.

Christ is alive and a body without Blood is dead and Blood without a Body is dead, they must be present together in order for a living person to be present.

 

[tom.wineman]

I can’t believe anybody would consider the secular media as being valid reporting

This comes up every year lately and should be considered church bashing. The are so many alternatives that it seems a waste of tine reiterating them every year.

Where were all these wheat people ten years ago ?
Where is the documentation that she is so sensitive that she will fall into a coma and die if she consumes a recognizable flake of a low
glutton host once a week or month ?
Is she sensitive to wine also.

This is blown way out of proportion again this year.
Expect it again next year

 

[Newman60]

juno24:

If that is possible, that certainly would be a wonderful solution to the girl’s problem! I’m no apologist, so I don’t know for sure that it is possible, but it seems like a fair solution. I wonder if it was explained to the parents that the girl might be able to receive communion in this manner.

Have a great day!
Judy

The article which I read specifically said “The diocese has told Haley’s mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten wafer, or just drink wine at Communion…” So the issue has already been handled. This mother has chosen to ignore the obvious solution.

 

[kevinfraser]

Benignus:

That is true. You know, I think this child’s mother is just trying to stir up trouble. The Benedictine Sisters in Clyde, MO make a low-gluton host, but for this woman that’s not good enough. It HAS to be rice. I think she is wrong.

Also, how many people are there that have this condition? Very few. I think the Secular Media seeks out the negative stories, while ignoring anything positive.

Her opinions about gluten are beside the point. Anything but plain bread and plain wine (including mustum) are invalid matter and so cannot become the Blessed Sacrament.

You can demand steak all you want. If they only have hot dogs, you’re still not getting steak.

The last time I checked, it’s estimated that of the general population, 24 out of 10,000 have gluten intolerance enteropathy (also called “celiac disease”). Of those 24, only 8 are diagnosed and of these 8, 1 is male.

 

[kevinfraser]

Juxtaposer:

If you accept this argument

You mean the first thing Jesus said to the Apostles after he ressurrected himself from the dead? That argument?

Juxtaposer:

it should also seem to as though we have God on a string instead of the other way around.

Maybe to you, but not to a Catholic. God keeps us in the palm of His loving hand. He doesn’t demand understanding, but obedience. We don’t have to understand God–not that we can–we just have to follow Jesus no matter what.

Juxtaposer:

As if He has to go along with what the magisterium says.

The Magisterium is Jesus teaching authority through the apostles, not something we think up.

Juxtaposer:

Do you think, then, that God is like, “Boy, I’d really like to transform that rice wafer into Jesus’ body, but the magisterium says I can’t.”?

God exists outside time, in eternity. He doesn’t encounter “new situations.” He doesn’t get “surprises.” We’re the ones with limitations. That’s why He offers to protect us from moral error by offering Him our obedience.

Juxtaposer:

Power abuse! Power abuse!

Jesus abusing His power? What do you think He is, a trickster? Ever notice we always get in trouble when we start to say “rules were meant to be broken.” This has to be one of the most pernicious lies ever to be un-critically accepted into the popular canon of immoral un-thought.

The virtue of obedience is widely considered worthy only of contempt. Watch out. Jesus said the way is narrow not wide. Everybody disobeys, don’t we? Did He?

Secular humanism places “personal expression” and “personal freedom” on a far, FAR higher plane of importance than “mere” God. This mother is on some kind of a personal expression trip and she’s going to “show” the authorities “what’s what” when it comes to her child. It’s probably an irrational emotional overreaction as I indicated in my first post. She’s probably going to look back at it and say “what was I THINKING?”

Take a look around. Obedience is viewed as a vice to be scorned, a sure sign of a weak mind.:

“Smart people KNOW how to cheat WITHOUT getting caught!”

“The worst crime is getting caught.”

“Just don’t let me CATCH you doing that”

Is that what this disobedient priest was thinking? What about the mother?

“Rules are made to be broken,” INDEED. Not very clear thinking going on there.

The Magisterium is not some sort of a popularity contest, and nobody has, ever has had, nor ever could have the authority to change any aspect of it because of Who instituted it.

Auto-pilot? You better believe it–consider the Divine Pilot who set the course. He knew this exact situation was coming before He created the stars. He told us in effect, “all you have to do is keep the sails in trim, I’ll do the rest.” And as Catholics, we believe ALL the promises of Jesus. We never turn them around to use as weapons… as though we could somehow undermine His Divine authority.

If the mother would have simply followed the instruction lovingly given her by the Church, instead of notifying the media, she would not have these worries. No child with a healthy liver will be harmed by the 3% alcohol present in the accidents of a few drops of His Consecrated Blood, give me a break. The hysterical mother and the rice-priest are the only ones abusing their power. All of which comes from above, Jesus told Pilate.

 

[Juxtaposer]

LOL… Wow, kevinfraser. Is this the pick-on-Juxtaposer-thread? Did you read anyone else’s posts? No matter. Here we go!

kevinfraser:

Maybe to you, but not to a Catholic.

My point was that it seems as though the magisterium thinks it has God on a string. I’m pretty sure I don’t.

kevinfraser:

God keeps us in the palm of His loving hand. He doesn’t demand understanding, but obedience. We don’t have to understand God–not that we can–we just have to follow Jesus no matter what.

So, when did God say He’ll only transform wheat?

kevinfraser:

Jesus abusing His power? What do you think He is, a trickster?

Negative! I was refering to the magisterium.

kevinfraser:

The virtue of obedience is widely considered worthy only of contempt. Watch out. Jesus said the way is narrow not wide. Everybody disobeys, don’t we? Did He?

And he who consecrates wheat shall be damned?

kevinfraser:

Secular humanism places “personal expression” and “personal freedom” on a far, FAR higher plane of importance than “mere” God.

Right on! I just hope you’re not calling me a secular humanist!

kevinfraser:

Take a look around. Obedience is viewed as a vice to be scorned, a sure sign of a weak mind.:

If I knew Jesus said to only consecrate wheat I would be fine with the magisterium’s decision!

 

[Daria]

My point was that it seems as though the magisterium thinks it has God on a string. I’m pretty sure I don’t.

The way I see it–and somebody is free to correct me if I’m wrong, since I’m no apologist–is that it’s the exact opposite. It’s a recognition of the limits of the authority of the Vatican or the bishops in light of what is (as understood by the Catholic Church) given by Jesus.

The sacraments have a certain form that the Church simply does not have the authority to alter. Sure, that doesn’t mean that Jesus can’t be present in other ways also–people have mentioned spiritual communion above, I think, and for the same reason it’s possible to be saved without physical baptism. But that doesn’t mean its okay for a priest to start doing baptisms without water if some parents don’t want their babies getting even the tiniest bit wet. (Dumb hypothetical, but it’s the first that came to mind.)

 

[Erich]

I know, of course, that for validity a Sacrament must have proper form, matter, and intent. I’ve also read the article entitled “I Would Feed You with the Finest of Wheat” in the January 2002 issue of This Rock magazine (the one that discusses some of the Scriptural bases for using wheat flour instead of something else for the host).

But, what would you say to someone who, after all that, still counters with the following:

1. The Passover account in Exodus 12 doesn’t say anything about wheat flour, just unleavened bread.
2. Leviticus 2 (about bringing cereal offerings to the LORD) doesn’t say anything about wheat flour, either. In fact, it says flour and oil should be used, not flour and water.
3. By commanding his disciples to “go and prepare the Passover” Jesus did command them to use unleavened bread, but he didn’t say anything about using wheat flour.
4. The grain used isn’t important, as long as it’s one that would normally ferment, and the bread is unleavened.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Erich:

I know, of course, that for validity a Sacrament must have proper form, matter, and intent. I’ve also read the article entitled “I Would Feed You with the Finest of Wheat” in the January 2002 issue of This Rock magazine (the one that discusses some of the Scriptural bases for using wheat flour instead of something else for the host).

But, what would you say to someone who, after all that, still counters with the following:

1. The Passover account in Exodus 12 doesn’t say anything about wheat flour, just unleavened bread.
2. Leviticus 2 (about bringing cereal offerings to the LORD) doesn’t say anything about wheat flour, either. In fact, it says flour and oil should be used, not flour and water.
3. By commanding his disciples to “go and prepare the Passover” Jesus did command them to use unleavened bread, but he didn’t say anything about using wheat flour.
4. The grain used isn’t important, as long as it’s one that would normally ferment, and the bread is unleavened.

Jesus might not have said wheat flour but what did the Jews use?

Also you are falling into a Scripture only argument. In the Catholic Church we also have Tradition.

You also seem to make many references to unleavened bread. The Byzantine Catholic Churches us leavened bread.

This is drawn from the Gospel of St John the Evangelist as in that Gospel the has the Last Supper occuring before the Passover as Jesus dies at the moment the Passover Lambs are slaughered as Jesus is our Passover Lamb.

 

[Brendan]

Erich:

I

But, what would you say to someone who, after all that, still counters with the following:

Christ Himself said so. In the Last Supper Narriative Christ’s words is infalliblly recorded are “this bread”* tar arton* in Greek.

The Greek work used , Artos, specifically referes to wheaten bread. Bread from the other common grain, Barley, had a different word (which I can’t recall right now, I’ll look it up)

 

[Erich]

Brendan:

Christ Himself said so. In the Last Supper Narriative Christ’s words is infalliblly recorded are “this bread”* tar arton* in Greek.

The Greek work used , Artos, specifically referes to wheaten bread. Bread from the other common grain, Barley, had a different word (which I can’t recall right now, I’ll look it up)

Thanks!

BTW, I did know that Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox use leavened bread, and that Catholics also have the benefit of Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching in addition to Sacred Scripture. But in conversations with Protestants, who don’t attach the same weight to Sacred Tradition that we do, it’s particularly good to be able to go back to what was originally written!

 

[Erich]

ByzCath:

You also seem to make many references to unleavened bread. The Byzantine Catholic Churches us leavened bread.

This is drawn from the Gospel of St John the Evangelist as in that Gospel the has the Last Supper occuring before the Passover as Jesus dies at the moment the Passover Lambs are slaughered as Jesus is our Passover Lamb.

I’ve also seen other explanations of how leavened bread came to be used in the Eastern Churches, namely: (a) to symbolize the resurrection; (b) because yeast in bread is like the soul in the body (i.e. the soul gives life, so therefore the “living bread” of the Eucharist must have yeast); and (c) because of Scripture passages like Matthew 13:33 which state, “…The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven…”

The only explanation I’ve ever seen as to why the Western Church uses unleavened bread is that (at least, according to the synoptic Gospels) that’s what Jesus used.

Clearly, both traditions are equally valid. Out of curiosity… do the Eastern Churches also stick to using only wheat bread?

 

[Erich]

Brendan:

Christ Himself said so. In the Last Supper Narriative Christ’s words is infalliblly recorded are “this bread”* tar arton* in Greek.

The Greek work used, Artos, specifically referes to wheaten bread. Bread from the other common grain, Barley, had a different word (which I can’t recall right now, I’ll look it up)

Are these definitions online somewhere? Because on another board, I saw the following claims:

Nowhere does the NT specify the grain used to make the bread at the Last Supper, and nowhere does the NT specify whether the bread used at the Last Supper was leavened or unleavened; the word used, artos, is “bread,” generically, and can be made from various grains and can be iether leavened or unleavened. Cf the first definition of artos in BDAG: “a baked product produced from a cereal grain.”

John 6:9 – in a passage thought by many to have Eucharistic implications – specifically says the bread was made of barley (artoi krithinoi), although neither the presence nor the absence of leaven is mentioned.

I know that, by the beginning of the third century (if not earlier), it was acceptable for Jews to fulfill their obligation to eat unleavend bread on Passover by using bread made from either wheat, barley, spelt, rye, or oats. Were all these grains acceptable at the time of the Last Supper, or just wheat?

I’m kind of hoping that the answer to the question in my previous post is that the Eastern Churches have used only wheat bread since day one (i.e. both West and East use wheat bread, with the only difference between West and East being the use of leaven) – and that this is documented online somewhere.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Erich:

I’ve also seen other explanations of how leavened bread came to be used in the Eastern Churches, namely: (a) to symbolize the resurrection; (b) because yeast in bread is like the soul in the body (i.e. the soul gives life, so therefore the “living bread” of the Eucharist must have yeast); and (c) because of Scripture passages like Matthew 13:33 which state, “…The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven…”

The only explanation I’ve ever seen as to why the Western Church uses unleavened bread is that (at least, according to the synoptic Gospels) that’s what Jesus used.

Clearly, both traditions are equally valid. Out of curiosity… do the Eastern Churches also stick to using only wheat bread?

I have heard those other explanations also. I just gave you one from scripture becuase that seemed to be what you were using.

I understand your comment about using scriputral arguments with protestants but I do not think that that is the right thing to do as we have more than scripture to go on. To limit yourself is to give them a lead in the discussion as they then assume that you buy into their sola scriputra argument.

As for your last question, yes, wheat bread only… Wheat, water, and yeast are the only ingredients.

 

[Erich]

ByzCath:

I understand your comment about using scriputral arguments with protestants but I do not think that that is the right thing to do as we have more than scripture to go on. To limit yourself is to give them a lead in the discussion as they then assume that you buy into their sola scriputra argument.

Guess I should clarify… I try not to rely 100% on scripture, preferring instead a mix of scripture, Early Church Fathers (i.e. Tradition), the Catechism (i.e. the Magisterium), and other like-minded resources such as the Catholic Answers web site and these fora (of course). In my discussions with Protestants, it seems that the “tighter” I can make the links between Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, the more strongly I can make my case (at least, as measured by the amount of time it takes for a reasonable counter-argument to be made).

ByzCath:

As for your last question, yes, wheat bread only… Wheat, water, and yeast are the only ingredients.

That’s the answer I was hoping to receive – but, then, of course, you’re Byzantine Catholic. Is it safe to assume that the Eastern Orthodox also only use just wheat, water, and yeast (and not some other fermentable grain)? If so, where would this be documented?

For what it’s worth, a search for “jewish law for passover unleavened bread” (no quotes) turned up this link on an evangelical fundamentalist site: sxws.com/charis/passover.htm

While I certainly don’t agree with the anti-Catholic content on this site, clearly this particular link (at least) seems to be a well-researched account of the events that transpired between the first Palm Sunday and the first Easter Sunday. Anyone know of anything similar on a Catholic site? Bonus points if the apparent contradictions between the synoptic Gospels and John (yes, I know that Scripture can’t contradict itself, so there must be some other explanation) are included/reconciled as well!

 

[Erich]

kevinfraser:

You can demand steak all you want. If they only have hot dogs, you’re still not getting steak.

You’re just getting “tube steak”

 

[tasstl]

Catholic29:

There is now a situation in New Jersey where an 8 year old girl who suffers from a rare congestive disorder, Celiac sprue disease, where she cannot consume wheat. For her first communion she recieved a communion wafer made of rice, which was invalidated by the Church.

The Diocese of Trenton told the family that they could have their daughter recieve a low-gluten host, drink the wine at communion or abstain entirely. But her mother rejected the offer, saying even a small amount of gluten could harm her child. The family is now seeking intervention from Rome.

In a similiar case 3 years ago in Massachusettes, another family left the Catholic Church after their 5 year old daughter was denied the use of a rice wafer.

This is a very sad situation. What should the Church or Family do to resolve this matter?

The story can be found here newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj–communioncontrove0812aug12,0,6656242.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

 

[puzzleannie]

J_Chrysostomos:

One of my old roommates used to have a mild wheat allergy. I understand that those who have the more aggressive form of this disease could get sick just by sipping wine after someone else who took the bread. What then? Do these people not get to receive the body and blood because of a defect?

Haven’t they made gluten-free wheat bread in the past? Would there be some way to make a totally gluten-free wafer?

the situation is handled properly in many parishes, a small amount of wine is poured in a separate vessel and consecrated with the rest of the wine, and this vessel is presented to the individual. this relies on the family making the needs known to the pastor and the care of the sacristan and ministers making the proper preparation without undue fuss and fanfare. If the parent refuses to accept this option they are making a political statement and putting their agenda – rejection of Church authority – ahead of their child’s right to the sacrament. There is indeed an extremely low-gluten host available and approved. The medical judgement of the physician should be followed, and he should be apprised of its availabilty and content. Celiac sprue is not a simple allergy to gluten. It is an increasingly common disorder because previously children died of its complications shortly after starting on solid food because it was poorly understood and managed. It is up to the parents to apprise the pastor and come up with a solution. The solution exists, thousands of people with this disorder received the blessed sacrament regularly without problems.

 

[draftpad]

As one who lives with this condition myself, I think the mother is just grandstanding. Her daughter is perfectly able to receive the Eucharist. What more can she want? (If she’s concerned about the alcohol, someone should tell her that, in the Byzantine rite, everyone - even tiny infants! - receives a few drops of the Precious Blood at Mass. )

The mother in Massachussetts took the cake, though…if you’ll pardon my pun. She was upset that her child (supposedly) wasn’t receiving the “whole” Eucharist…so she took her to a church that has no valid Eucharist at all! How much sense does that make?

To answer the original question, the precise arrangements for celiac communicants vary from one place to another, depending on local medical opinion. In Europe, doctors think it’s fine for celiacs to use the low-gluten hosts. They’re made from specially processed wheat starch, which is considered “gluten-free” by European standards, and is used in a variety of commercial baked goods for celiacs.

In North America, medical authorities have taken a “zero tolerance” attitude, and don’t consider the special wheat starch to be “gluten-free”. Therefore, celiacs in the US and Canada are advised to receive from the chalice instead. This isn’t hard to do, since many parishes offer Communion under both species.

For those who are unwilling to risk the slight possibility of gluten contamination from the regular chalice, the priest can consecrate some wine in a separate vessel. Celiac parishioners can then receive Communion separately: before everyone else, or after everyone else, or off to one side. In my travels, I’ve visited several parishes that already have such procedures in place. Others will surely adopt them in the years to come, as gluten intolerance is becoming more widely diagnosed. (1 in 200 Americans has celiac disease, though most don’t know it yet.)

God bless,
Mrs. R