Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by virividox, Aug 19, 2004.
the church is being retarded again
Yet another reason I'm Lutheran and not Catholic.
That's just sad really.
Reassign pedophile priests to new parishes? Sure.
Offer a rice substitute host to allow a girl who wants to participate fully in the rituals of her religion to do so without risking her life? That's against policy.
There is a time to uphold tradition and times to make exceptions.....
The individuals making these decisions need to ask themselves what it is they're trying to do here. I think someone is missing the big picture....
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, whether it is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.
I doubt that the gluten contained in one Communion wafer is enough to kill her. I think the promise of eternal life outweighs the risk that she would take if would partake in the Eucharist. This doctrine has been thought over for many years (probably at the Council of Trent) and I'm sure the Church has good reasons for invalidating her Communion.
BTW virividox, watch your capitalization. church and Church are different things.
And another reason i am Protestant. Some of the traditions that the catholic church hold are just silly. I believe that the core of your church should be at faith and not worrying about all the technicalities.
Giving organized religion another black eye to those who think all such organizations are dumb.
The Pope, if he has any sense left in him, should just accept the girl's communion. Willing to believe in the religion and practice it's rituals is already a sign of her belief and faith in her beliefs. What more would God ask for in a believer?
God: "NO WHEAT? You're going to hell!"
I just can't understand people that seem to think that god who loves is really going to say to this girl who is trying to accept him into her life sorry because you diddn't eat wheat during communion you are going to hell. It just seems ridiculous to me. Sometimes the catholic Church angers me
ANOTHER reason why I dislike the catholic Church the pope is not god. God ultimately decides who is going to receive eternal life not the pope!
Good reasons, indeed.
I suppose they have a procedure already in print describing what to do with people who die during the ritual, from the ritual. I would hate to think that the church (don't yell at me) would force her to die by eating the wafer and then, pronounce her condemned to hell because she didn't complete the ritual.
Its doctrine and has been around for a long time and is not easy too change without a bunch of guys dressed in red robes and hats and the Pope talking about it for several years.
I'm sure that a reason why they declared her Communion invalid has something to do with wheat being necessary for Transubstantion and Real Presence.
if the girl only drinks the wine/blood it still counts as recieving Communion, whether or not she eats the wafer. so instead of worrying about the wafer being wheat or rice, she can just have the wine and it will be a valid Communion
I think you are getting too caught up in the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Law and that is something that Jesus warned about.
I do not intend to debate whether or not one believes in God...or...which God... or... any topic other than Christianity.....and Communion... Because that is the only subject that this article really applies to.
So that being said here is what I see as the Proper outline of this discussion
1. The question is whether or not something can be substituted other than what the Bible authorizes for Communion
2. The Bible is the authority on all matters of Christianity and derives that authority by claiming to be Gods inspired word.
So if one is to debate tenants of Christianity of which Communion is... one must look to the Bible to see what was authorized...
During the Last supper Mathew 26:17 - 29
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
LUKE 22: versus 7-22
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.
Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."
"Where do you want us to prepare for it?" they asked.
He replied, "As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, and say to the owner of the house, `The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?'
He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there."
They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.
He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
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."
Notice that it does not say wine.... and also notice that it doesnt say alcoholic wine
Therefore the Catholics Church's requirement for Alcoholic wine... is NOT Biblical
Now lets turn to the BREAD ..... what kind of BREAD is required?
The Bible clearly says unleavened BREAD.....
Some may say but the BREAD was made of wheat.... WAS IT?
All of Yahwehs seven annual Feasts or moedim (appointments) revolve around the harvest cycle of cereal grains and other produce. This is clear with the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, which occur at the BARLEY harvest (Ex. 9:31).
Then comes the Feast of Firstfruits, also known as Pentecost in the New Testament. Penecost occurs seven weeks after Unleavened Bread and represents the firstfruits of the wheat harvest made into two loaves of bread that were waved (Lev. 23:17).
So as can be clearly seen the Biblical BREAD was made from BARLEY.... NOT wheat...
So the Catholic Churches REQUIREMENT for Wheat bread is not Biblical...
Now... The BIBLE also did not require the Bread to be Barley just like it didnt require it to be wheat....
The requirements were for it to be bread and most important for it to be UNLEAVENED...
So lastly the girl should be allowed to comply with Biblical doctrine and partake of Communion with rice bread thats unleavened..
And the Catholic Church should quit teaching error and correct their error in their method of practicing communion
That's right, the pope is not God. But who said he was? It certainly isn't part of Catholic doctrine.
I'm wondering why the wine/blood isn't acceptable for them, is she (the mother) afraid of her (the kid) taking a bit more than a sip?
I was born and raised a Catholic, made it all the way through Confirmation, was in the church youth group, etc. I'm now agnostic. Or an atheist. Depends on my mood. In any event, things like this are part of the reason I left the Church. To believe that God would want his believers to risk the life - or at least the health - of one of his followers - and a child at that - just so they can participate in a ritual seems to me to imply a God who is more concerned with following the rules and making his people "dance" than in being loving. Not a God I choose to believe in, nor a religion.
It never ceases - even after so many examples - to amaze me how people will do or advocate something in the name of religion that they would never even consider doing or advocating if it weren't part of that religion.
Saying this girl cannot be a Catholic unless she risks her health sickens me. I don't see how it's far removed from those religions that forbid medical help; seems like every week I read a story on how some child died because his or her parents decided not to take their gravely ill child to a doctor because they'd prefer to leave him/her "in God's hands".
I hear you and agree....
But it isnt Christianity that does those things... Its people with their own agendas...who do it in the name of their paticular twist of Christianity...
Hmm, last time I checked, "fruit of the vine" = wine. And I doubt that non-alcoholic wine even existed then. Read this:
All wine was alcoholic back then.
Agreed. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." pretty much summarizes all I think you need to know and is the basis of my set of ethics. The rest is a bunch of power plays.
Last time I checked, "fruit of the vine" = grapes.
im presbyterian and we have regular wheat wafers at communion, and also glutenfree ones for those who cant have gluten. we also have welch's grape juice instead of wine. it seems to me that trying to force the girl to eat gluten goes against everything God stands for, like love and tolerance and such
Yeah, what's with this, "Dance puppet, dance....risk your health and life....and I will allow you into heaven" crap? Goodness. From what I know about the Bible, I don't really believe that God is anything like Osama Bin Laden.
Sure, you can say that the girl should be wiling to eat at least a bit of the cracker for the Communion, because how much of a problem can it cause. Of course, these are the same people who don't have this disease themselves, or have to watch their own child suffer from this deficiency. Its easier to suggest it than to actually make your child eat a cracker that will risk damage to her gastrointestinal tract. Some people just don't understand how such damage to the walls of the GI tract pose a risk to a person's life.
I hope the little girl and family come to their senses and realise that this isn't humane. Even if she wouldn't "die" from eating a bit of this cracker, its the principal of it that I stand against.
Death? Unlikely. Seriously ill? Yes.
My sister, who is in her early 30's, suffers from the same disorder and things as simple as trace amounts of gluton in shampoo can give her a painful rash and stray bread crumbs in butter (from when you butter toast/bread and then use the "dirty" knife to get more butter) can make her ill for a few days. Injestion isn't even required. She can have a topical reaction from merely touching things made with gluton.
I can only imagine the reactions that someone so young would have. And for what? Over a technicality that doesn't even exist?
Excellent post, by the way, macsrus.
homerjward, unfortunetly the Church today is largely a church of man "weilding" God's word as they see fit. The Church, more often than not, reminds me of those that hated Jesus instead of those that followed him.
AS to the comment about "fruit of the vine = wine"
Are you aware of the fact that that term ("fruit of the vine") is used 7 times in the Bible....
Only once in the New Testament... And it should be interesting that Jesus chose those words instead of "onus" for an example...
And it should also be interesting that his word choice was almost the same as him calling himself the true vine...
And just to let you know all 6 in the old testament refer to the whole fruit being included in the drink...(Not wine in any of those cases)
Not so... While I do not attempt to deny that the ancients had a thorough undestanding of making (alcoholic)wine... They also had a common practice of making (non-alcoholic)wine...
The ancients on many occasions intentially boiled the grapes to stop any chance of fermentation..
I will site a few of thousands of examples
Homer wrote extensively on boiled wines and the diluting of such.
Hippocrates wrote of Thracian wines that were made from boiled fruit of the vine... and the diluted by 20 parts water to allow it to be drunk.
Horace spoke of innocent wines that did not go to the head.
Virgil wrote of boiled wines that dont dull the senses.
The Spartans boiled all their wines to prevent fermentation and then stored them for years...
The ancient Egyptians Boiled wine until it had the thickness of honey... and then stored it.... so that it could be diluted later for drink....
Also the reading of ephesians is just as well translated.... AS
be not drunk with wine wherein is excess but be drunk with the spirit.
and also as ...
be not filled with wine wherein is excess but be filled with the spirit....
Do NOT make the assumption that the word translated drunk means intoxicated.... It doesnt.
I could spend days debating you on whether the word wine in the new and old testaments refered/refers to alcoholic/non-alcoholic wines and when and where it does....
Unfortunately for the modern reader... We used the english word wine to mean both alcoholic and non-alcoholic in the Translation from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to English
BUT what you decided to try to make your points on was really off topic....
because the real arguement was about the BREAD and no interpretation of scripture can support the Catholic Churches wrong doctrine on it
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments