OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 02:57:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Girl's First Communion Nixed Over Wheat-Free Wafer  (Read 3043 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« on: August 12, 2004, 03:10:53 PM »

Girl's First Communion Nixed Over Wheat-Free Wafer

POSTED: 11:52 am EDT August 12, 2004
UPDATED: 2:31 pm EDT August 12, 2004

BRIELLE, N.J. -- An 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot consume wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained none, violating Catholic doctrine.

Now, Haley Waldman's mother is pushing the Diocese of Trenton and the Vatican to make an exception, saying the girl's condition -- celiac sprue disease -- should not exclude her from participating in the sacrament, in which Roman Catholics eat consecrated wheat-based wafers to commemorate the last supper of Jesus Christ before his crucifixion.

"In my mind, I think they must not understand celiac," said Elizabeth Pelly-Waldman, 30. "It's just not a viable option. How does it corrupt the tradition of the Last Supper? It's just rice versus wheat."

It's more than that, according to church doctrine, which holds that communion wafers must have at least some unleavened wheat, as did the bread served at the Last Supper.

The Diocese of Trenton has told Waldman's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten host, drink wine at communion or abstain entirely, but that any host without gluten does not qualify as Holy Communion.

Pelly-Waldman rejected the offer, saying even a small amount of gluten could harm her child.

Gluten is a food protein contained in wheat and other grains.

"This is not an issue to be determined at the diocesan or parish level, but has already been decided for the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world by Vatican authority," said Bishop John M. Smith.

"Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist," Smith said in a prepared statement released Thursday by the diocese.

Celiac sprue disease, an autoimmune disorder, occurs in people with a genetic intolerance of gluten.

When consumed by celiac sufferers, gluten damages the lining of the small intestine, blocking nutrient absorption and leading to vitamin deficiencies, bone-thinning and sometimes gastrointestinal cancer.

It isn't the first such communion controversy. In 2001, the family of a 5-year-old Natick, Mass., girl with the disease left the Catholic church after being denied permission to use a rice wafer.

Some Catholic churches allow the use of no-gluten hosts, others don't, according to Elaine Monarch, executive director of the Celiac Disease Foundation, a Studio City, Calif.-based support group for sufferers.

"It is a dilemma," said Monarch. "It is a major frustration that someone who wants to follow their religion is restricted from doing so because some churches will not allow it."

"It is an undue hardship on a person who wants to practice their religion and needs to compromise their health to do so," Monarch said.

Haley Waldman, a shy, brown-haired tomboy who loves surfing and hates to wear a dress, was diagnosed with the disorder at 5.

"I'm on a gluten-free diet because I can't have wheat, I could die," she said in an interview Wednesday.

Last year, in anticipation of the Brielle Elementary School third grader reaching Holy Communion age, her mother told officials at St. Denis Catholic Church in Manasquan that the girl could not have the standard host.

The church's pastor, the Rev. Stanley P. Lukaszewski, told her that a gluten-free substitute was unacceptable.

But a priest at a nearby parish contacted Pelly-Waldman after learning about the dilemma, volunteering to administer the sacrament using a gluten-free host.

She said she won't identify the priest or his parish for fear of repercussions from diocese.

On May 2, Waldman -- wearing a white communion dress -- made her first Holy Communion in a ceremony at the priest's church. Her mother, who also suffers from celiac and had not received communion since her diagnosis four years ago, also received.

But last month, the diocese told the priest that Waldman's sacrament would not be validated by the church because of the substitute wafer.

"I struggled with telling her that the sacrament did not happen," said Pelly-Waldman. "She lives in a world of rules. She says `Mommy, do we want to break a rule? Are we breaking a rule?"'

Now, the mother is seeking papal intervention. She has written to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, challenging the church's policy.

"This is a church rule, not God's will, and it can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the people, while staying true to the traditions of our faith," Pelly-Waldman said in the letter.

For her part, Pelly-Waldman -- who attends Mass every Sunday with her four children -- said she is not out to bash the church, just to change the policy that affects her daughter.

"I'm hopeful. Do I think it will be a long road to change? Yes. But I'm raising an awareness and I'm taking it one step at a time," she said.

JoeS
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,520


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2004, 03:19:18 PM »

The answer is so simple - give her a drop from the chalice!

Or as the secular reporter put it:

Quote
The Diocese of Trenton has told Waldman's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten host, drink wine at communion or abstain entirely, but that any host without gluten does not qualify as Holy Communion.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2004, 03:39:15 PM »

Indeed.  So simple.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,370



« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2004, 10:50:43 PM »

It's so simple, in fact, that it's rubricated in the 1979 BCP.
Logged
Etienne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

OC.net


« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2004, 12:01:29 PM »

As a Christian Orthodox this is none of my business, so I try to tred carefully.

Possibly the Roman diocese and the Vatican are so rigid that they cannot apply any innovative thought, unusual as in other areas they appear not to find this difficult. Yet, as Keble has already indicated they do not need innovation but to offer the cup. Possibly, they need lubricating rather rubricating which sounds vaguely 'rude'. Of course, they won't be using the Book of Common Prayer; whenever amended. Clergy of other confessions too would have thought of the obvious too.

I cannot think of a single Orthodox presbyter faced with a similar child who would not have identified the answer without any hullabaloo.....................
Logged

It is afterwards that events are best understood
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2004, 12:58:10 PM »

To be fair, it appears the diocese of Trenton did offer the option of communicating the child from the chalice - but it appears for whatever reason, mother did not consider this good enough.

Quote
The Diocese of Trenton has told Waldman's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten host, drink wine at communion or abstain entirely, but that any host without gluten does not qualify as Holy Communion.

Logged
JohnCassian
At Least Semi-Augustinian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


St. John Cassian


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2004, 01:12:16 PM »


I think the elephant in the living room that everyone is talking around is the fact that Roman Catholics believe (or are supposed to believe) that after the consecration, no wheat gluten remains in the wafer, which is no longer even a wafer, in their view.

I'm amazed Rome isn't more hardline on this, frankly, because its obvious to me from that article that the people in question are somewhat doubting of transubstantiation in Rome's schema.

Also, the not accepting the chalice bit is mind-boggling, since Rome's theology says that Communion in one kind is sufficient.

If these folks are just Zwinglians, they should go to a big mainline church and have white bread.

Logged

"Do leave off speaking of me as an ill-educated and uncouth and unfriendly man, not even worthy to live." - St. Gregory the Theologian in a Letter to St. Basil the Great
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,370



« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2004, 01:15:49 PM »

Well, not knowing the details, I suspect that the issue is that most Catholics are used to communing through the bread only and think of the cup as reserved to the priest (which hasn't been true for a couple of decades).
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,520


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2004, 02:01:24 PM »

Quote
Possibly the Roman diocese and the Vatican are so rigid that they cannot apply any innovative thought, unusual as in other areas they appear not to find this difficult.... Possibly, they need lubricating rather rubricating which sounds vaguely 'rude'.


Uncalled for. As was mentioned, however imperfectly, in the article, the little girl was given the option of communing only from the chalice. Perfectly reasonable.

Quote
Yet, as Keble has already indicated they do not need innovation but to offer the cup.

Not to toot my own horn too much but I said it here first.

Quote
I cannot think of a single Orthodox presbyter faced with a similar child who would not have identified the answer without any hullabaloo.

I understand it's exactly how Orthodox priests commune babies.

Quote
I think the elephant in the living room that everyone is talking around is the fact that Roman Catholics believe (or are supposed to believe) that after the consecration, no wheat gluten remains in the wafer, which is no longer even a wafer, in their view.

Incorrect. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have an identical view of the Eucharist. The latter's definition (often borrowed by the Russians historically), transubstantiation, specifically does not say the 'accidents' - such as the chemical composition and physical properties of things like wheat gluten in a wafer - change. It says they remain. The Platonic/Aristotelian forms or essence ('substance') of breadness and wine-ness change to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, which remains as long as the outward appearances of the accidents do.

An imperfect analogy: suppose I take a door from a shed, which shares in the form of door-ness, and use it for a bridge to go across a flooded spot. Now the chemical composition and properties are exactly the same as when it was being used as a door, but now it participates in the form of bridge-ness.

Quote
Also, the not accepting the chalice bit is mind-boggling, since Rome's theology says that Communion in one kind is sufficient.

It could be that the little girl's mother doesn't understand this, as Keble explains:

Quote
I suspect that the issue is that most Catholics are used to communing through the bread only

What I wonder is if the article is accurate and the little girl's First Communion was in fact ruled 'invalid' because it used a wafer that wasn't really wheat. My guess is if that's true, then the ruling is correct... even if the chalice was offered, because you need both wheat bread and wine that is really and properly wine to confect the Eucharist in both the Roman and the Byzantine rites, yes?
Logged

JohnCassian
At Least Semi-Augustinian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


St. John Cassian


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2004, 02:32:07 PM »


Serge said:

Incorrect. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have an identical view of the Eucharist.

I say:

This statement is both bizarre, and just plain wrong.  I don't have the hours it would require to explain out all the differences, but they are numerous and deep.  The Western Captivity of the Russian Church aside, the Eucharistic theology of East and West has been growing apart for 1200 years.  Rome teaches, for example, that each element in the Eucharist becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.  This is why historically she offered communion in one species only.  This is also why Rome teaches that the Host, as the whole Christ, can be rightly worshipped.  This then led to the development of Eucharistic adoration, which flies in the face of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which clearly declared:  The Eucharist is not an Icon.  This is just one major difference among many.

Serge Said:

An imperfect analogy: suppose I take a door from a shed, which shares in the form of door-ness, and use it for a bridge to go across a flooded spot. Now the chemical composition and properties are exactly the same as when it was being used as a door, but now it participates in the form of bridge-ness.

I say:

Actually, that's a perfect analogy...

...of the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation.  In Rome's definition, at least as explicated by Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle's substance/accidents distinction is followed.  Accidents are purely sensory impressions.  'Chemical makeup' is part of substance.

So, for example, in the Aristotelian scheme, the substance of a door is all the things that make it a door, and not something else.  The accidents are properties like its color, its texture, the noise the hinges make, etc. all of which can be different, and the door remains a door.  A brown, black, or white horse is still a horse.  A marble horse is not a horse anymore, its a statue, with the accidents of a horse.

What the Vatican is saying on this topic is that the Host must contain wheat gluten, because in order to properly be a Host, it must contain at least some unleavened (another difference with Orthodoxy) wheat gluten.  They are arguing that containing wheat gluten is a substantial element of it being a Host, and not some other kind of wafer.  They are saying it is of the substance, specifically not accidental (because they are saying that no wheat gluten = not really a Host).

The difference between Rome and Luther on the Sacrament was that Rome, since the Fourth Lateran Council, as expressly argued by Thomas in the Summa, teaches that after the consecration, no trace of the substance of bread remains, and it is now the whole Christ.  The (sensory) accidents of bread remain, in that it still looks, tastes, smells, and feels like a wafer.  But it is not a wafer.  Therefore, de facto, there is no wheat gluten in a consecrated wafer according to Rome's mandated view.

Luther argued the contrary point, based on other Church Fathers (whom Thomas acknowledged, btw), that after the consecration, the substance of bread and wine remains, and is received around, with, and over the Body and Blood of Christ.  You gave a good example of this view, commonly known as Consubstantiation, though you added an element of Platonic participation.

So, basically, as I posted initially, the real problem here is that the mother has a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist (witness this telling sentence in the article: "the sacrament, in which Roman Catholics eat consecrated wheat-based wafers to commemorate the last supper of Jesus Christ before his crucifixion".)  The higher ups are sticking to their guns not because they hate this little girl and want her to get sick, or lack sympathy, but because of their declared view of the Eucharist.

Logged

"Do leave off speaking of me as an ill-educated and uncouth and unfriendly man, not even worthy to live." - St. Gregory the Theologian in a Letter to St. Basil the Great
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,520


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2004, 04:05:30 PM »

Quote

So do the Eastern Orthodox.

Quote
This is why historically she offered communion in one species only.

There was no utraquist heresy to refute in the East so no reason to give the faithful only one species.

Quote
This is also why Rome teaches that the Host, as the whole Christ, can be rightly worshipped.

A sacramental presence is different to a carnal presence, which medi+ªval RC theology made clear (source: Newman, Tract XC), but essentially yes.

The same reason the Orthodox priest blesses the people with the chalice during Liturgy after Communion.

Quote
This then led to the development of Eucharistic adoration

No heresies about the Eucharist in the East, therefore no Eucharistic adoration outside of Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. (The West was reacting to such in the early Middle Ages, long before the Protestants came along.) Different historical circumstances, same belief.

Quote
the Seventh Ecumenical Council which clearly declared:  The Eucharist is not an Icon.

Quite right: It's more than an icon. Rome accepts Nic+ªa II as well.

Quote
Actually, that's a perfect analogy...

...of the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation.

Which is why I said it's an imperfect one for the true belief.

Quote
'Chemical makeup' is part of substance.

Wrong.

Quote
So, basically, as I posted initially, the real problem here is that the mother has a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist (witness this telling sentence in the article: "the sacrament, in which Roman Catholics eat consecrated wheat-based wafers to commemorate the last supper of Jesus Christ before his crucifixion".)
 

Or the writer doesn't know what he's talking about.

Quote
The higher ups are sticking to their guns not because they hate this little girl and want her to get sick, or lack sympathy, but because of their declared view of the Eucharist.

True. And - again, sigh - they offered the perfectly good option of receiving only from the chalice.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2004, 06:35:53 PM by Serge » Logged

JohnCassian
At Least Semi-Augustinian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


St. John Cassian


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2004, 05:27:05 PM »


Serge said:

So do the Eastern Orthodox [re: each species of the Eucharist being 'the whole Christ'].

I say:

Back that up.  I've never seen an Orthodox author teach this.  And Russian authors from the Western Captivity don't count, for obvious reasons.  As far as I can tell, historically, this theology comes out of the Franks and won the day in the West after the Schism.  While I'm sure it managed to creep into Orthodoxy, like many other Western beliefs and practices, in the early modern period, it isn't Orthodox teaching.  So, while you continue to make sweeping claims (like the teachings of Rome and the East are 'identical' on the Eucharist, you've evinced no evidence whatsoever to prove it, and I don't know of anyone Orthodox who would agree with you, even the boldest ecumenists).

Serge said:

Wrong [in response to my pointing out that chemical makeup is part of substance].

I say:

Back it up.  I could pull rank and ask where and for how long you studied Aristotle.  Rather than that, however, I'll just point out once again that you don't understand his substance/accidents distinction.  Based on the example you gave, I believe you're confusing the distinction between substance and accidents with the distinction between form and matter.

I.e. a door used as a bridge is still the same materially as it was as a door, but now it has the form of a bridge (or, if you're a Platonist, it participates in the form of a bridge).

This is not the same as the distinction between substance and accidents.  I'll use the same example I used before, because its taken directly from Aristotle:

A statue of a horse, and a horse, have the same accidents to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon the quality of the likeness.  What makes one a statue and the other a horse is that they are different substances.  Part of what makes them their respective substances is that one is made of marble or wood, and one is made of flesh and bone.

Applying this to the Eucharist, Christ's body does not contain wheat gluten.  If I make a scarecrow that looks like Christ, and I point at it and say, "That is Christ", you will say, "No, that is the likeness of Christ, but it is not Christ, because Christ is living flesh and blood, while that is dead wheat."  The classically defined doctrine of transubstantiation therefore precludes the presence of wheat gluten in a consecrated Host.  If it is still composed of bread, or if there is still the substance bread present, then Thomistic transubstantiation hasn't taken place.

For the record, this is my last post on this topic unless you provide a more substantive response, like an actual argument or evidence to support your claims.  If you choose to simply deny my clear arguments and evidence without offering the like in return, I'll just let you have the last word, because further debate will be a waste of time.



Logged

"Do leave off speaking of me as an ill-educated and uncouth and unfriendly man, not even worthy to live." - St. Gregory the Theologian in a Letter to St. Basil the Great
Etienne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

OC.net


« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2004, 09:53:33 AM »

AND I'M GOING TO THROW MY TOYS OUT OF THE COT TOO!
Logged

It is afterwards that events are best understood
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2004, 10:02:46 AM »

Hmm...would that be the British equivalent of the "And I'm taking my ball and going home!" sort of little kid fit?

Maybe JohnCassian just doesn't want to spend his time in a conversation that won't go anywhere.  That's understandable and admirable.

As for me, I'm interested in the thread and where it'll go from here -- always nice to read the interaction of two posters I respect.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2004, 03:39:59 PM »

Dear JohnCassian,

It appears that Serge and I are on the "same page" on this topic.

Quote
This statement is both bizarre, and just plain wrong.  I don't have the hours it would require to explain out all the differences, but they are numerous and deep.  The Western Captivity of the Russian Church aside, the Eucharistic theology of East and West has been growing apart for 1200 years.  Rome teaches, for example, that each element in the Eucharist becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.  This is why historically she offered communion in one species only.  This is also why Rome teaches that the Host, as the whole Christ, can be rightly worshipped.  This then led to the development of Eucharistic adoration, which flies in the face of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which clearly declared:  The Eucharist is not an Icon.  This is just one major difference among many.

Mmm, no sir, I think it is you who are just plain wrong, and in a whole assortment of ways.

#1 "Concommitance" : "Concommitance" is the RC teaching (elevated to a dogma in the RCC) that because Christ is Risen, while it is true that the bread and wine are consecrated to become the Body and Blood of Christ (respectively), because He is Risen, the reality is that each is "joined" to the one, single Christ.  Christ can no longer suffer or be physically divided - the reason why the Body and Blood are "seperately consecrated" as it were (why there is His Body and His Blood, under the forms of bread and wine), is to sacramentally re-enact the Sacrifice of Golgotha, to renew and return to the one bloody, sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Though the multiplicity of Temples and Priests gives the impression of "many oblations", in reality the Holy Oblation, and the Priest, are one.

Though the Orthodox Church rejects as an unnecessary innovation the now discarded Latin practice of forbidding the laity from receiving under "both kinds", the reality is that the Orthodox Church communicates infants in precisely this way (but in reverse) - by giving them only the Precious Blood of our Lord.  Is this a "partial" communion?  Of course not - because Christ is Risen, so the child does not receive the spilled separated blood of a man who is dead, but the living Precious Blood of He Who is very much alive.

This is the basic driving import of the Latin teaching - to put it perhaps a little crudely, you cannot receive part of Christ, without by connection receiving the rest of Him.  This does not change however, that strictly speaking what is in the chalice is "His Blood", and what is consecrated from the bread is "His Body."

The Orthodox Church has not dogmatized on this matter in any universal/ecumenical fashion, for the simple reason it's not a controversy, nor do we have any practice to justify before the accusation of heretics (since only infants are typically communed under "one kind", nor would the Church deny the manner of communion Christ enjoined to all who can so receive.)

#2 "Western Capitivity" of the Russian Orthodox Church - there is some truth to this notion, but my experience is that it is more often than not exagerated (by both self styled traditionalists and modernists, strangely enough) in such a way as to actually justify ideas which are contrary to the real Orthodox Church in time and history (as opposed to the idealized, imagined "real" Orthodox Church of both misguided zealots and equally misguided modernists/neo-renovationists).  For example, every time you hear complaints about "overly realistic" Russian Icons from recent centuries, keep this in mind - that prior to Iconoclast heresy, many many Icons were commonly written in this fashion (take a look at some of the pre-Iconoclast images which survived at St.Catherine's monastery on Mt.Sinai if you want evidence of this - most famously the Icons of Christ and St.Peter, which can hardly be distinguished from the "realistic style" of funerary art you find in ancient Alexandria.)  The same can be said of complaints about "Westernized Russian Church music", etc.  As for the issue of theology, the subject is once again "overblown" - for while it is true that the term "transubstantiation" does come from the Latins, the reality is that it adequately describes what the Orthodox Church has always believed about the transmutation of the Holy Gifts.

Just like other areas where extremists/modernists chide the Russian Church's "westernization", the real agenda in getting after the use of the term "transubstatiation" by some Orthodox (not simply in Russia, but it also appears in Jerusalem as well) is not a better adherance to the "mind of the Fathers", but more often than not the promotion of views which are actually heretical.  After treading the murky waters of these kind of arguments before, what you often find out is that the so called "zealots of purity" who frown on the term "transubstantiation" really believe is some form of "consubstantiation" ala Martin Luther, or worse yet something akin to the "transignification" theories you find amongst Roman Catholic liberals/modernists.  Obviously there are some opponents of the term "transubstantiation" that do not fit this mold (some are just distrustful of anything Latin, and to an extent I can understand this - though not if it means we start spitting on legitimate parts of our Orthodox tradition), but I'd say most of the one's I've come across do.

I've also noticed the same thing amongst those who go to extremes in criticizing the "legalistic" way of speaking of the dogma of redemption - very often such persons are not defending the more holistic and sober way of reasoning about these things embodied by the Orthodox tradition, but they themselves in fact entertain ideas on this topic which are un-Orthodox (since any number of Fathers, both ancient and newer, speak of redemption in a distinctly judicial paradigm - not to mention that the New Testament itself often does the same thing!)

#3 Adoration of the Holy Gifts - While I agree that the Latin practice of using the "monstrance" is out of keeping with the Orthodox tradition (and only exists as a reaction to a heresy they encountered, which essentially denied that the Holy Gifts really are the Body and Blood of the Lord), this is not because I do not believe the Holy Gifts are to be adored; simply because their primary "use" is to be consumed.  The truth is that Christ is never remote from us - He can be adored anywhere, there is no "relative distance" between His "substantial presence" which is of any consequence.  IMHO, the Latin practice creates the impression amongst the simple of "Christ in a box", rather than the majestic Pantokrator Who is Lord of all, "above us" as it were, though I think this is more a subconscious/psychological issue than something that would ever be articulated conciously or formally (since it's obvious Roman Catholics, even the most simple amongst them, would never formally profess this.)

However, according to the Fathers Christ is to be received in Holy Communion with adoration.  You are actually incorrectly citing the import of the Second Council of Nicea on the subject of Holy Icons - the import was to state that the Icons themselves are not essentially/substantially participants of Christ (or their Saint-subject), and thus were not to be adored in the way we'd adore the Holy Gifts upon receiving them (precisely because ultimatly the Icon always will remain paint and wood - where as the Holy Gifts have become, really and truly, the Body and Blood of Christ our God.)  The Icons are venerated in varying degrees, because they contain the likeness of Christ and the Saints - the Holy Gifts however are adored, because they are the Lord Jesus.  This is part of the reason why the Altar is reverenced upon entering a Church (though not the only reason).

Quote
Luther argued the contrary point, based on other Church Fathers (whom Thomas acknowledged, btw), that after the consecration, the substance of bread and wine remains, and is received around, with, and over the Body and Blood of Christ.  You gave a good example of this view, commonly known as Consubstantiation, though you added an element of Platonic participation.

You've aptly demonstrated my point - a lot of "purging Orthodoxy of Latinisms" is really a front for preaching heresy and neo-modernism.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2004, 03:52:18 PM »

JohnCassian,

Quote
Applying this to the Eucharist, Christ's body does not contain wheat gluten.  If I make a scarecrow that looks like Christ, and I point at it and say, "That is Christ", you will say, "No, that is the likeness of Christ, but it is not Christ, because Christ is living flesh and blood, while that is dead wheat."  The classically defined doctrine of transubstantiation therefore precludes the presence of wheat gluten in a consecrated Host.  If it is still composed of bread, or if there is still the substance bread present, then Thomistic transubstantiation hasn't taken place.

The accidents of the bread would include those extrinsic qualities that cause allergic reactions (barring a miracle) just as they would include the way the bread crumbles when broken, it's taste, colour, shape, etc.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2004, 03:52:39 PM by Augustine » Logged
Etienne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

OC.net


« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2004, 05:34:27 PM »

Pedro, as an Irishman it would be impolite of me to comment on Brit slang, but it does seem to get 'used'  a lot in similar circumstances to the previous posts. The abrasiveness used juxtaposed to the subject matter just strikes me as .................. incongruous .............., is such abrasiveness a North American trait that my relatives over there forgot to tell me about when they were sending all those goodies parcels? Cool
Logged

It is afterwards that events are best understood
JohnCassian
At Least Semi-Augustinian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


St. John Cassian


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2004, 08:43:17 PM »


Augustine,

We don't have to fight just because of our screen names.  Wink

You say:

Mmm, no sir, I think it is you who are just plain wrong, and in a whole assortment of ways.

But I say:

My objection was to Serge's statement that Rome and Orthodoxy have an 'identical' doctrine of the Eucharist.  Though you and I debate nuance, its pretty clear to me from your argumentation that you argue that this is not the case, so we're actually in agreement that the doctrines are not identical.

You say later:

"Western Capitivity" of the Russian Orthodox Church - there is some truth to this notion, but my experience is that it is more often than not exagerated....every time you hear complaints about "overly realistic" Russian Icons...etc.

But I say:

This is something of a straw man, since I didn't make that argument.  My point in bringing up the Western Captivity was simply to point out that Serge could probably find authors from this period who would support his claim that the Roman and Orthodox views of the Eucharist are one and the same, but that this was not because it is actually the case, but rather because they had adopted the Roman view over against the Orthodox.

I do agree, btw, with the distinction you're making.  If I were to refer to the 'Western Captivity' re: Iconography, I would be referring to, for example, 'icons' of God the Father or the Trinity (other than that of Rublev's school), not to vagueries of style.  Though I've also read Orthodox scholars (I believe Ouspenski makes this point for example) who argue that Christ Pantokrator from St. Catherine's is actually inappropriate because they believe it to have been painted after a live model.  The Church also rejects Codex Sinaiticus which was found there, so this isn't really an anomaly.

You say:

#3 Adoration of the Holy Gifts...

I add:

I'm in agreement.  I find the changes made in the Service of the Veneration of the Holy Gifts incorporated into the St. Andrew's (Western Rite) Service Book to be highly instructive on the nuances of the theological differences here.  Also, you can't rule out the pervasive influence of the Libri Carolini in this regard.

You say:

You've aptly demonstrated my point - a lot of "purging Orthodoxy of Latinisms" is really a front for preaching heresy and neo-modernism.

I respond:

I truly hope that you aren't accusing me of teaching Consubstantiation.  If so, you've grossly misinterpreted me.  I was pointing out that the analogy which Serge used to describe his understanding of transubstantiation was actually an example of consubstantiation, I in no way endorsed that view.

Since this is a public forum, I hope the record is clear that I did no such thing.

In an added post, you add:

The accidents of the bread would include those extrinsic qualities that cause allergic reactions (barring a miracle) just as they would include the way the bread crumbles when broken, it's taste, colour, shape, etc.

I respond:

Yes, I believe I pointed this out.  The girl isn't, however, allergic to wheat gluten.  Her intestines cannot digest wheat gluten.  Where I a Roman Cardinal, I would argue that that's not what she's digesting...which is apparently exactly what they're arguing.

Back at the beginning, you said:

It appears that Serge and I are on the "same page" on this topic.

I respond:

I don't see how.  Serge has made two claims that I've been disputing:

1) The Roman and Orthodox views of the Eucharist are identical.

2) Chemical composition, or the matter of which something is composed, is an accident, not an element of substance.

In your first post on this thread, you seemed to agree with me that there are differences, though you wanted to nuance those differences.

In your second post, you seemed to agree with me that accidents are 'extrinsic elements'.  So I think you're actually on my side, unless I'm radically misunderstanding your position.

Logged

"Do leave off speaking of me as an ill-educated and uncouth and unfriendly man, not even worthy to live." - St. Gregory the Theologian in a Letter to St. Basil the Great
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2004, 12:36:21 AM »

. My guess is if that's true, then the ruling is correct... even if the chalice was offered, because you need both wheat bread and wine that is really and properly wine to confect the Eucharist in both the Roman and the Byzantine rites, yes?

As a former RC with two children who received their First Holy COmmunions in that Church, I can attest that Children receiving their First Holy Communion do not drink from the Chalice. In fact in my former RC diocese a ruling went out stating a child had to be 16 yeras old or older to drink from the Chalice....and then only with their parent's permission and presence .......Wasn't always like this. This is one of the many things that pushed me to discover Orthodoxy.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,520


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2004, 08:38:49 AM »

Again, the diocese said the little girl could receive only from the chalice instead. My point was that if the priest tried to use a non-wheat wafer and an acceptable kind of wine then it wouldn't have counted as a Mass at all. My guess is if he consecrated wheat ones, but tried to consecrate and give her a non-wheat one but not a sip from the chalice, it would have been a Mass but the diocese was still right - she didn't receive Communion.

ISTM the diocese is in the right but the mother just doesn't get it - she seems to think the point of the exercise is for her daughter to get a wafer just like her friends, which isn't the point at all.
Logged

Tags: communion celiac disease 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.105 seconds with 46 queries.