OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 12:42:13 PM *
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 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does Holy Communion affect Celiac Disease?  (Read 1812 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #45 on: January 14, 2013, 03:37:49 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2013, 03:49:38 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.

I disagree.  I've seen a lot of people basically argue using transubstantiation and basically ends up saying that the Eucharist is not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ, except when its not, like in cases like this.  So it creates more confusion to someone who doesn't understand the mysteries fully.  It never answers anything.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,331


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 14, 2013, 03:57:20 PM »

If we believe that Holy Communion is harmful to a certain subset of individuals, then what do we believe?

If expressing a view that Holy Communion is harmless equates to arrogance and "holier than though," then what do we believe?

Bread and wine are products of a fallen world and that the mystery of consecrating them as the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ is supposed to remove their "taint" even if they continue to look like bread and wine.

What do we believe?  Obviously, we don't believe that people with celiac disease are excluded from the chalice; people have to tell the Priest they (and/or their loved ones) have celiac disease.  An ignorant Priest may not bother preparing a gluten free chalice or request gluten free prosphora (or for our Catholic friends, gluten free wafers).  That Priest would be considered arrogant and holier than though.  If a Priest prepares a gluten free chalice for one (or 1,000) person(s), then he deserves my commendation.

I will continue to believe that Holy Communion is harmless; however, I'll acknowledge that in this fallen world some people are affected by bread and wine.  When I made those comments in '08, they were not intended to be abrasive and heartless although I apologize if they were interpreted that way.

Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #48 on: January 14, 2013, 04:09:28 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.
I disagree.  I've seen a lot of people basically argue using transubstantiation and basically ends up saying that the Eucharist is not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ, except when its not, like in cases like this.  So it creates more confusion to someone who doesn't understand the mysteries fully.  It never answers anything.
That's not right. Such a person does not have a full understanding of transubstantiation then. By transubstantiation, we believe that the bread and wine fully become the Body and Blood of Christ. However, we also believe that all of the physical, observable attributes (the accidents) of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine. Because of that, the Precious Blood would still react with the body of the communicant just like regular wine would. The person would experience the effects of alcohol, so it could cause a relapse in an alcoholic. In the same way, the Body of Christ could aggravate harmful symptoms in someone with a gluten intolerance. To believe that people are absolutely immune from such effects because it is the Holy Eucharist is, I think, naive and dangerous.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2013, 04:13:37 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.
I disagree.  I've seen a lot of people basically argue using transubstantiation and basically ends up saying that the Eucharist is not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ, except when its not, like in cases like this.  So it creates more confusion to someone who doesn't understand the mysteries fully.  It never answers anything.
That's not right. Such a person does not have a full understanding of transubstantiation then. By transubstantiation, we believe that the bread and wine fully become the Body and Blood of Christ. However, we also believe that all of the physical, observable attributes (the accidents) of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine. Because of that, the Precious Blood would still react with the body of the communicant just like regular wine would. The person would experience the effects of alcohol, so it could cause a relapse in an alcoholic. In the same way, the Body of Christ could aggravate harmful symptoms in someone with a gluten intolerance. To believe that people are absolutely immune from such effects because it is the Holy Eucharist is, I think, naive and dangerous.

You just validated my point.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #50 on: January 14, 2013, 04:18:28 PM »

I resurrected the thread in hopes of hearing how other people have dealt with this situation. I know that the vast majority of the world have no clue what celiac is. I was looking for what their experiences were in asking for a chalice of the wine separate from the lamb.

We are in the process of removing all gluten from out household. We are going to do another trial run of having Taz take communion in a couple weeks after a deep gluten purge, then take him home so there is zero chance of gluten exposure at coffee hour. We already bring his food, but maybe be got some off a table or something? And if he has a reaction again, I will have to go thru the process of documenting celiac and what it is and asking our priest/bishop if they can set aside some of the blood for Taz (and myself as long as he is breastfeeding). This issue also has to do with the next baby we will be welcoming in the coming months. The chance this baby will be celiac is there. I would rather keep this child free from gluten exposure until we know whether or not they are celiac. So I would be requesting that Taz, the new baby, and I receive the blood alone. Hopefully the new baby will not be celiac. But our household will be GF simply for the health of Taz.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 04:19:29 PM by Quinault » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #51 on: January 14, 2013, 04:21:11 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.
I disagree.  I've seen a lot of people basically argue using transubstantiation and basically ends up saying that the Eucharist is not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ, except when its not, like in cases like this.  So it creates more confusion to someone who doesn't understand the mysteries fully.  It never answers anything.
That's not right. Such a person does not have a full understanding of transubstantiation then. By transubstantiation, we believe that the bread and wine fully become the Body and Blood of Christ. However, we also believe that all of the physical, observable attributes (the accidents) of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine. Because of that, the Precious Blood would still react with the body of the communicant just like regular wine would. The person would experience the effects of alcohol, so it could cause a relapse in an alcoholic. In the same way, the Body of Christ could aggravate harmful symptoms in someone with a gluten intolerance. To believe that people are absolutely immune from such effects because it is the Holy Eucharist is, I think, naive and dangerous.
You just validated my point.
How so? Obviously the accidents don't change or else the Eucharist would appear as human flesh and blood, but it doesn't. I think believing that, no matter what one's personal circumstances are, that the Eucharist can be received normally and that no harm can come from it is a misunderstanding of the Mystery.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2013, 04:36:44 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.
I disagree.  I've seen a lot of people basically argue using transubstantiation and basically ends up saying that the Eucharist is not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ, except when its not, like in cases like this.  So it creates more confusion to someone who doesn't understand the mysteries fully.  It never answers anything.
That's not right. Such a person does not have a full understanding of transubstantiation then. By transubstantiation, we believe that the bread and wine fully become the Body and Blood of Christ. However, we also believe that all of the physical, observable attributes (the accidents) of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine. Because of that, the Precious Blood would still react with the body of the communicant just like regular wine would. The person would experience the effects of alcohol, so it could cause a relapse in an alcoholic. In the same way, the Body of Christ could aggravate harmful symptoms in someone with a gluten intolerance. To believe that people are absolutely immune from such effects because it is the Holy Eucharist is, I think, naive and dangerous.
You just validated my point.
How so? Obviously the accidents don't change or else the Eucharist would appear as human flesh and blood, but it doesn't. I think believing that, no matter what one's personal circumstances are, that the Eucharist can be received normally and that no harm can come from it is a misunderstanding of the Mystery.

See, the problem is you're now caught up in "accidents" and "substance" which has trivialized a great mystery.  It is nice to use accidents and substance to explain the change, but when the conversation turns into things like Celiac Disease, it becomes a weaker tool to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist.  In fact, by arguing that the accidents still interact with our physical bodies the same way bread and wine does argues more closely to consubstantiation than transubstantiation.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #53 on: January 14, 2013, 05:41:53 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.

Not necessarily, but it might resurrect the old devotional practice of "spiritual communion". I had a great-aunt (RC) who was forbidden to receive Communion because she had remarried. But she continued going to Mass and asked God to forgive her and give her the benefits of receiving "spiritually if not sacramentally" (there's actually a special prayer which used to be printed in the Missalettes, don't know if it still is). She was very devout and it seemed to be very comforting to her that she could at least do this much.

And my observation is that the Orthodox don't have this mindset that you have to receive the Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy. So perhaps your little one could just receive a few times a year and still benefit from the other aspects of the Faith.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 05:42:42 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2013, 06:25:01 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.
I disagree.  I've seen a lot of people basically argue using transubstantiation and basically ends up saying that the Eucharist is not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ, except when its not, like in cases like this.  So it creates more confusion to someone who doesn't understand the mysteries fully.  It never answers anything.
That's not right. Such a person does not have a full understanding of transubstantiation then. By transubstantiation, we believe that the bread and wine fully become the Body and Blood of Christ. However, we also believe that all of the physical, observable attributes (the accidents) of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine. Because of that, the Precious Blood would still react with the body of the communicant just like regular wine would. The person would experience the effects of alcohol, so it could cause a relapse in an alcoholic. In the same way, the Body of Christ could aggravate harmful symptoms in someone with a gluten intolerance. To believe that people are absolutely immune from such effects because it is the Holy Eucharist is, I think, naive and dangerous.
You just validated my point.
How so? Obviously the accidents don't change or else the Eucharist would appear as human flesh and blood, but it doesn't. I think believing that, no matter what one's personal circumstances are, that the Eucharist can be received normally and that no harm can come from it is a misunderstanding of the Mystery.

See, the problem is you're now caught up in "accidents" and "substance" which has trivialized a great mystery.  It is nice to use accidents and substance to explain the change, but when the conversation turns into things like Celiac Disease, it becomes a weaker tool to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist.  In fact, by arguing that the accidents still interact with our physical bodies the same way bread and wine does argues more closely to consubstantiation than transubstantiation.
I don't see how it trivializes the great Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Also, it is in no way like consubstantiation because consubstantiation would be believing that the substance of bread and wine remain along with the Body and Blood of Christ. This is not a true expression of the doctrine of the Real Presence and is certainly not biblical in any way. Christ did not say "this bread contains my Body" and "this wine contains my Blood." He simply said "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood." A real and full transformation has taken place.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2013, 06:39:25 PM »

This thread seems to demonstrate why the doctrine of transubstantiation is actually important.

Not necessarily, but it might resurrect the old devotional practice of "spiritual communion". I had a great-aunt (RC) who was forbidden to receive Communion because she had remarried. But she continued going to Mass and asked God to forgive her and give her the benefits of receiving "spiritually if not sacramentally" (there's actually a special prayer which used to be printed in the Missalettes, don't know if it still is). She was very devout and it seemed to be very comforting to her that she could at least do this much. And my observation is that the Orthodox don't have this mindset that you have to receive the Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy. So perhaps your little one could just receive a few times a year and still benefit from the other aspects of the Faith.

I have seen this idea in a couple places, but I wanted to just add this quote regarding it, fwiw...

Quote
Then, you will say, if a living man has the dispositions you mention in his soul, and yet does not partake of the holy mysteries, will he nevertheless receive the sanctification which the sacrament gives? Not in all cases; only when it is physically impossible for him to receive the elements, as it is for the dead. Such was the case of the solitaries who lived in the desert, or in caves and grottoes in the mountain-side, and could not avail themselves of priest or altar. Christ gave them this sanctification in an invisible manner. We know this because they had life, which they could not have had without partaking of the sacrament, for Christ himself said: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Another proof is the fact that God sent angels to several of these men with the sacrament. - St. Nicholas Cabasilas, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 42

Surely if someone has a medical reason for not partaking (or not often), God would not withhold grace from such a person because of it!

Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2013, 06:57:34 PM »

I don't see how it trivializes the great Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Also, it is in no way like consubstantiation because consubstantiation would be believing that the substance of bread and wine remain along with the Body and Blood of Christ. This is not a true expression of the doctrine of the Real Presence and is certainly not biblical in any way. Christ did not say "this bread contains my Body" and "this wine contains my Blood." He simply said "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood." A real and full transformation has taken place.

But that is essentially what is being said here, that the Eucharist is not bread and wine, except in all other cases where it is.  So it is not bread and wine, yet people with celiac react to it, and alcoholics react to it as well.  So it is said that the accidents make it so, but isn't it in every way possible in the physical world it would react as if it were bread and wine?  So that is consubstantiation, that is Christ living within the bread and wine.  Otherwise, how can you say it is not bread and wine and yet in all other matters, it is?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2013, 09:20:26 PM »

But that is essentially what is being said here, that the Eucharist is not bread and wine, except in all other cases where it is.
*sigh* No...that's not what I'm saying at all.

So it is not bread and wine, yet people with celiac react to it, and alcoholics react to it as well.  So it is said that the accidents make it so, but isn't it in every way possible in the physical world it would react as if it were bread and wine?  So that is consubstantiation, that is Christ living within the bread and wine.
No, it is Christ living within the appearance of bread and wine. He is completely and fully present in the Sacramental veil. Consubstantiation would be if the substance was both Body and Blood and bread and wine together. That is not transubstantiation.

Otherwise, how can you say it is not bread and wine and yet in all other matters, it is?
It's a Mystery. If it is truly His Body and Blood, why doesn't it look like flesh and blood? It's one of the Mysteries of our faith.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 09:20:41 PM by Wyatt » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,331


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2013, 11:42:10 PM »

[statement of what is actually happening to her child]

[assertion that this can't possibly be happening because, well, I just don't believe it can, so you must be wrong.]

This seems a bit ridiculous to me.  Roll Eyes

Quinault, you do not have to convince SolEX01 or get his approval, unless he is somehow in direct authority over you.

You're the second person to suggest that I was a Priest or a Bishop.  Gee, I don't know what to say.   Roll Eyes

The others are right: speak about this with your priest - AND your baby's  doctor - and do what is right for your baby. You certainly do NOT need to worry about placating some guy on an Internet discussion board who has only anecdotal evidence and is NOT a part of your life.  Angry

I don't need to be placated.  You're taking this a bit too personal; don't you think?   Huh
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2013, 11:46:25 PM »

I didn't suggest you were a priest or a bishop. Quite the contrary, I'm pointing out thar you're neither. And presumably you're not a doctor, either,  and thus shouldn't be giving medical advice
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,331


WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 15, 2013, 12:12:22 AM »

I didn't suggest you were a priest or a bishop. Quite the contrary, I'm pointing out thar you're neither. And presumably you're not a doctor, either,  and thus shouldn't be giving medical advice

Then why suggest the possibility that I was in direct authority over someone else?  This is an Internet forum where random people say well-intentioned things (hopefully) about the plight of others.  Notice, I haven't said anything about Roman Catholics and Holy Communion other than suggesting gluten free wafers.   Smiley
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #61 on: January 15, 2013, 12:16:25 AM »

There's a whole spectrum to celiac disease and other wheat-related conditions that I doubt a physician could give solid advice if the person with the condition did not first at least try it out if the person has no experience.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Tags: celiac disease 
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.088 seconds with 45 queries.