obviously i disagree with the Catholic church about the significance of the sacrament. i think it's a symbol...i don't think it matters what kind of bread you're using. it could be a freaking hot dog bun. the significance, to me, is in the moment...it's remembering Christ's words at the time..the price paid for me on the cross. i think symbols are important...i think ritual can be quite meaningful and spiritual...i just don't think we should be so caught up in the trappings of the ritual if we're getting the meaning and significance. just my two cents...
Chruches surprise me with how discompassionate they can be sometimes considering they are built on the teachings of maybe the most compassionate man ever to walk the earth.
But you are also basically saying they are wrong. The Church believes that it is more than symbolic and it has been treated that way for far longer than it hasn't so on what ground can you say that they are wrong? I don't really understand why the Church always gets such a reaction. Also, the Church says that the girl can have the reduced-alcohol wine. That is already a concession. Further, Church doctrine requires communion only once a year in order for a person not to be committing a sin, so why is it such a big deal?
This is something I actually agree with the church on. I don't think should should be denying communion or not be so particular with the form they use. But I do think the sacrament is more than a symbol, but maybe it just comes down to the question what is a symbol? After all, words are only symbols. I grew up Catholic, I didn't even get this until a few years ago. When we are truly there, dwelling deeply in the present moment, we can see that the bread and the wine are really the Body and Blood of Christ and the priest's words are truly the words of the Lord. The body of Christ is the body of God, the body of ultimate reality, the ground of all existence. We do not have to look anywhere else for it. It resides deep in our own being. The Eucharistic rite encourages us to be fully aware so that we can touch the body of reality in us. Bread and wine are not symbols. They contain the reality, just as we do." ~Thich Nhat Hanh. Then Jesus broke bread and poured wine and said, this is my flesh, my blood. Drink it, take it, eat it and you will have life eternal. You eat and drink as a way to receive the life of Christ into your body. The "miracle" happens when you eat in mindfulness. The bread is life itself. Eating it deeply, you become reborn, you touch the sun, the clouds, the earth everything in the cosmos. You touch life and The Kingdom of God. It is real. Are these words I am typing on the screen my thoughts or just symbols of my thoughts? When you tell your wife you love her, is that showing love, or are the words just symbols of your love? I think these are the trappings of the "symbol" argument. I read somewhere that the Latin roots for the word "remember" means "to make come alive." When we truly do something in remembrance of someone, we are truly keeping their spirit alive. Personally, I think their spirit is always alive, but we kind of come in contact with it, and making it alive within us (if that makes any sense). It's like you know there are parts of our parents in us. You can just see it. I think everything Jesus did was dynamic and alive, I don't think he would even bother to do something that was just "symbolic." But what you described sounded more than symbolic to me. But that's just my two cents.
there are people who can't speak. they find other meaningful ways to communicate love. the meaning behind the words is more significant than the words, themselves. i think you can "remember" and participate in communion in that moment with God without worrying too much about whether or not the wafer is comprised of wheat or not. frankly, that's the kind of legalism that Christ preached so heavily against. this is a split between catholics and protestants. we just view Communion differently.
just because something has been done for a while, doesn't mean it's right. ask martin luther. protestant churches don't get it right all the time either in any aspect. i disagree with them. yes...i think holding on to legal distinctions to deny people who seek Christ a place at communion is something that Christ would shake his head at...like restrictions against healing on the sabbath. there is a way in which we adopt religion and deny God. that's my take on it. my interpretation of it.
Well, I was mostly just saying that the inventors of Christianity believed in it just as the Church does now...so it has a lot of historical merit. Of course, Luther disagreed with the result of the Protestant Reformation and he kept very close to the Catholic communion, believing that Christ's real presence came through in the process.
when i was a kid i remember going to one Catholic Church here in Houston (which wasn't the one we usually went to) and they used that King's Hawaiian Bread for communion and I've been hooked on that stuff ever since. I don't know if that was the regular practice at that parish or if they were just out of wafers for that mass but that's good bread. listen to this hilarious comedy mp3 by dane cook
they did? i've never read that before. and again...i read the teachings of Christ, himself...and I have a hard time getting there. when you read this account of the Last Supper...he says, "this is my bread which is broken for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins...as often as you eat it, think of me." he doesn't say..."unless it's pita bread...or rye. then it doesn't work." and he doesn't say that not taking communion leads to eternal damnation. i'm just baffled by how the catholic church arrives at some of the conclusions it arrives at. but that is not a condemnation of the Catholic church, at all. we agree on the big stuff...disagree on the little stuff. i have tons of catholic friends whom i love dearly.
Got to just love religion. I mean they are so tolerent and caring, and are so grounded in common sense. SHEESH !!! Could be worse though, the kid could be required to wear a frock and not eat pork. Oh wait,,...that is another religion with idiotic rules. DD
Pre-Catholic Christians definitely practiced communion, if that is what you mean. Further, they believed that it was true flesh and blood. They were more mystical than the Catholics, actually. Apparently, the words used in the bible point to it only being wheat and additionally the understanding that Christ adhered to the Jewish custom of using only wheaten bread in the Passover Supper. But he said for his followers to "Do this for a commemoration of me" so it would follow that not doing what Christ said would be a sin. I know you are not closed, Max, I am just providing a counterpoint. I know that I can discuss religion with you without it getting nasty so I always enjoy it regardless of the specifics. And you are honest.
Some of the opposition to early Christians distorted their views on communion to accuse them of cannabilism. The Catholic church teaches today that the eucharist (communion) is true flesh and blood.
I do think the Catholic Church is being to rigid and wrong in saying that communion wafers have to contain gluten to "work", but I also think communion is way more than just symbolic.
thanks, rimbaud. i'm not aware of the early church...are we talking first century...sharing that view of communion. are there any sources for that? i find nothing in letters, cannon and otherwise, that would indicate that, at all. when you say early church, are you talking 3rd century?? 1st century?? Luke 22:19And 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." 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Totally agreed, it was Passover. Totally agreed it was bread appropriate for the passover feast. But again..I just can't imagine the Jesus Christ I read of in the New Testament saying, "yeah...your communion doesn't count. your heart was there...you were centered and focused on following me...but it doesn't matter because you didn't have wheat in your wafer."
It certainly would not be 1st century because there simply are no signs of organized Christian activity. That does not really start until the mid-late 2nd century and the earliest house that we have found that was turned into a "Christian" church dates from a little before 250...in the 3rd century. As Cesar said above there were definitely Christian opponenents who wrote nasty things about cannibalism...but I can't remember the dates on that and will have to look them up. I think the earliest would be a late 2nd century text called the Octavious or something that supposedly reports a debate between a pagan and a Christian. There are a lot of things like that, if not written together, then written in response to each other. Christians burned a lot of them later, but we still have some left. If you want I can look up some stuff when I get home.
Wierd, I'll have to ask my sister. She has a little girl with Seliac's Disease sp?(gluten intolerace. She is Catholic.
First things first. If she is Catholic, and claims to believe the teachings of the Church, then she believes that to be Christ's body, no longer bread, and Christ's blood, not wine. There should be no confusion there, either she believes, and wants her daughter to be raised with these beliefs, or she doesn't. Pretty simple. She should research the history of transubstantiation. Second, I went to school with someone who had that disease, and he never had any trouble taking communion. This kid couldn't eat bread, or even take a sip of beer without getting horribly sick, yet he could take the Eucharist without any trouble. Anyways, anybody gonna be at the 'stros game on Monday night?
I'm Catholic and this really, really galls me. You're going to deny this girl her first Communion because.....it doesn't have wheat in it! This is beyond stupid. I've always divided religious law into two categories: laws of God, which are direct commandments from God that are intended to help keep us safe and free from harm and laws of man, which originate from the minds of men and have no bearing on being a good and moral follower of God, except in the minds of the hierarchy. This is definitely in the laws of man category, because I really don't think the Lord cares if the communion wafer is damned Oreo cookie and we drink purple Powerade rather than wine.
First off, she was not denied her first communion. The Church is simply staying true to its teachings regarding the Eucharist, which is central in Catholic Theology. From their viewpoint, changing the circumstances with which Christ initiated the sacrament changes the sacrament. Now, you are perfectly able to disagree with this teaching, however, that is the teaching of the Church, and it's their perogative to keep it.
