Despite sufficient disagreement with the Catholic Church on various matters both trivial and profound, I have a lot of respect for its centuries-old traditions and ritual (which is one reason I became Episcopalian, the next best thing but with a cute English accent). Such things are important, and bind worshippers today with those of the years and centuries past in a way that less traditional churches cannot do.
That said, this is ridiculous.
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.
Um … excuse me? It seems to me (obviously not a Catholic Theologian, nor Keeper of Doctrine) that the Catholic holy mystery of Transubstantiation means that the consecrated host becomes the true Body of Christ. While someone might argue that means that little Haley doesn’t need to worry about an allergic reaction (“Don’t worry, honey, it’s just Christ’s body”), I’ll be a bit more practical and assert that it means the source bread doesn’t make any difference. It’s not magic we’re talking here. The bread isn’t a “material component” to a “spell.” It’s all a miracle. To say that Christ’s Body is only there if there’s a bit of wheat is an affront to that Mystery. And denying Communion to a member of the Church because of the recipe takes legalism to the point of absurdity, if not actual evil.
This isn’t a trivial food preference, either.
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.
The locals, though, are busy passing the buck upstairs.
“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.
It gets even better.
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.
That’s just lovely, people. I’m sure Jesus would approve.
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.
Given Cardinal Ratzinger’s apparent unwillingness to consider any ideas more recent than, oh, the Sixteenth Century, as being possibly true to God’s will, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
My heart goes out to Haley. I suspect so does Jesus’.
(via J-Walk)
I don’t know what gluten is, or where it appears in the biochemistry of wheat. But I wonder if it might be possible to make a communion wafer what technically contains wheat by using some part that isn’t normally used. For instance, maybe the stalk is gluten-free; I have no idea. It doesn’t need to be digestible as long as it isn’t poisonous.
Not that that would make this story any less,um…outrageous is the right word, but too strong to describe how I was affected. It would, however, make for a workaround until the church grasps the concept that little girls needn’t sacrifice their intestines to save their souls.
You mention magic and that reminds me of a word origin. The Latin for the invocation of the Mass is: Hoc est corpus maeum. (This is my body.) During the Middle Ages priests would race through the Mass and the people did not understand what was going on. It seemed for lack of a better word, magical. From this came the word hocus pocus.
That’s the common etymology (suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself in the 17th Century), but at least a few folks disagree.
David says “little girls don’t need to sacrifice their intestines to save their souls”. Actually, the Church agrees. Some people are giving the impression that the Church is trying to force Haley to consume a normal wheaten host with gluten. Not at all. The Church is allowing three options – she can receive a low-gluten host (which contain 0.0374 milligrams of gluten, and which the Italian Celiac Association said “can be consumed daily with absolute tranquility ” by people with the disease); she can abstain; or she can take a tiny sip of low alcohol wine. Her mother doesn’t want her to drink alcohol. Now, I’m not blaming the mother for making HER rules (although it’s hard to see how a half teaspoonful of low alcohol wine would harm her), so why should so many people blame the Church for also having rules? Haley is prevented from receiving Holy Communion by three things – her disease (which prevents her from taking a normal Host), the Church’s law (which forbids a rice substitute), and her mother’s rules (which forbid a tiny sip of low alcohol consecrated wine).
I’m sorry for Haley, but I don’t see why the Church should be blamed. Remember, the Church believes that she was given the power by Christ to transform wheaten bread into His Body. She takes the doctrine of transubstantiation very seriously. (At least, the OFFICIAL Church did. I cannot begin to fathom what the priest who offered her a rice cake was thinking of.)
A question for all those who proclaim that the Church should allow the rice cake. If a priest said the words of consecration over a rice cake, would you all fall on your knees before that rice cake? Would you bow down in awe before it? Would you think it appropriate to have it exposed in a monstrance so that people can spend some hours praying before it? Would you truly believe with all your heart that this was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of your Lord and Saviour? If not, do you really have the right to demand that the Church should use rice? Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is not about sharing some kind of holy bread in a spirit of friendship; it’s about Jesus Christ being made present on the alter. You may think that’s ridiculous, but it’s what the Church believes (and what I believe). That’s why so many priests were prepared to sneak into England and risk being tortured and executed under Elizabeth I – so that the people would have a valid Eucharist. Not just, “hey it’s no big deal, let’s use a rice cookie instead”. We don’t baptize with milk or oil. We can’t: it wouldn’t “take”.
I don’t want to imply that the sacraments are like magic, but I’d like to use magic as an analogy. Supposing a Harry Potter book says that Harry needs a leaf of an oak tree for some spell. (Let’s say he’s highly allergic to acorns.) He uses a leaf of a chestnut tree instead, and the spell doesn’t work. Is this discrimination? The problem is that we can’t actually SEE anything happening at the consecration, so we don’t KNOW (except by faith) that anything really did happen. So if Harry’s spell has no visible results, nobody is surprised. But since the priest’s consecration isn’t supposed to have any visible results, people think that we can make substitutes. Since I don’t personally believe in Harry Potter magic, I don’t consider that I have the right to demand that his book of spells be updated to accomodate his allergy to acorns. (Okay, I made that up, but you get the point.) If it were some man-made rule (as Haley’s mother seems to think), I’m sure that the Church would be very happy to accomodate Haley. (In fact, she is trying to accomodate Haley by offering a sip of low-alcohol consecrated wine. It’s mother’s man-made rules that are forbidding that.) However, the Church has two thousand years of unbroken tradition in consecrating unleavened wheat bread, which is what Christ used at the Last Supper, and which is what He gave His Apostles (and their successors) the power to confect when He said, “Do this in memory of Me.” The Church did not “invalidate” Haley’s First Communion: it was never valid in the first place.
As the article notes, there is a difference of opinion between medical opinion in Europe vs the US on whether the low-glutin host is a safe alternative. Indeed, as the article notes, the low-glutin version is not approved by the American bishops, only the Italian ones. Given the potential issues, I don’t know that I’d want my daughter to take the risk.
I agree that taking Communion through the wine should be an alternative. The question, to my mind, is not whether that’s an alternative, but whether only a glutin host should be considered authentic under any circumstances.
If a priest said the words of consecration over a rice cake, would you all fall on your knees before that rice cake? Would you bow down in awe before it? Would you think it appropriate to have it exposed in a monstrance so that people can spend some hours praying before it? Would you truly believe with all your heart that this was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of your Lord and Saviour?
I think such a consecreated host would deserve all the respect and reverence that any other consecrated host would.
Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is not about sharing some kind of holy bread in a spirit of friendship; it’s about Jesus Christ being made present on the alter.
Absolutely, which, to my mind, make asserting that Jesus would be limited by an ingredient list even less defensible.
Not just, “hey it’s no big deal, let’s use a rice cookie instead”. We don’t baptize with milk or oil. We can’t: it wouldn’t “take”.
So God cannot (or will not) wash away someone’s sins and welcome them into the Church unless only pure water is used? Granted that water is the preferred and traditional medium (just as wheat is the preferred and traditional constituent), were there no other choice, I would think that God would choose to act regardless, should the will and desire be sincere.
I don’t want to imply that the sacraments are like magic, but I’d like to use magic as an analogy.
Your analogy demonstrates the difficulty I have here, since as presented it seems to work exactly like magic — unless the precise words, gestures, ingredients, and setting are used, God cannot be conjured up. I prefer to believe that God will make that decision, looking at the hearts and sincerity of those coming to His table.
If it were some man-made rule (as Haley’s mother seems to think), I’m sure that the Church would be very happy to accomodate Haley. […] However, the Church has two thousand years of unbroken tradition in consecrating unleavened wheat bread, which is what Christ used at the Last Supper, and which is what He gave His Apostles (and their successors) the power to confect when He said, “Do this in memory of Me.”
(Emphasis mine.) I don’t know that I understand the distinction between a human institution’s traditions and a man-made law.
As to it being modeled off of Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper, one could as easily assert that it’s not valid unless it’s conducted upstairs, or as part of a dinner, or when invoked in Aramic, or at Passover, or using Kosher wine. Jesus did not provide any detailed instructions on the constituent parts of the ritual, only to “do this in memory of me.” It seems to me that the Church is selectively picking and choosing which aspects of the Last Supper to consider essential.
The same argument has been used by the Church to assert as well why women cannot be priests (because Jesus was male). In Matthew 26, at least (Mark 14 and Luke 22, too), only the Twelve, thus, only men were present at the Last Supper, so one could also assert that only men should take Communion.
Tradition should certainly be respected, but not mistaken for God’s commandments. While I do agree that a sip of the Precious Blood should be considered as profoundly holy as eating of the Precious Body, I don’t think Haley’s mother’s “rule” should be given any less weight than Church’s in this case.
Of course, I’m not Catholic, and I certainly can’t dictate how it comports itself. But as a former Catholic, and with a deep respect for how God worksin this world, I find the Church‘s decision in this difficult to agree with.
Hello again. You’ve certainly given some thought to my comments. Can I just clarify a few things? I am not suggesting that Jesus is limited in His power: I am saying that the Church is limited to the power that Jesus gave her. Since the Church teaches that something really happens – and not just in a symbolic way – when a priest says Mass, then she insists that he use bread and wine, according to the tradition handed down from the Apostles. She doesn’t mess around and start using fried potatoes and orange juice. The validity of the sacraments is terribly important. We can’t risk losing it. From your answer about whether you would fall on your knees before a “consecrated” rice cake, I take it that you do not believe that Jesus Christ would be truly and subtantially present in any kind of host, and that no accidents of rice or wheat would remain. Fair enough. I know many educated, intelligent, reasonable, and genuinely good people who do not believe the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation. I just don’t think they’re qualified to say that the Church should use rice cakes.
I didn’t say that God can’t wash away sins unless there’s pure water. (Actually, the water doesn’t have to be pure. Sea water is okay in an emergency; thick vegetable soup is not.) However, the Church teaches that Baptism is not valid unless real water is used. God can see into hearts and forgive before baptism. If I were an unbaptized, repentent convert, in the middle of a desert with a friend, and with no water but just a bottle of oil, I would ask God to forgive my sins. I would not ask my friend to perform an invalid baptism on me. Of course God can look into the hearts of people who can’t receive Holy Communion and He can come into their hearts. He doesn’t need them to go against Church law and doctrine and start messing around with cookies.
So yes, Dave, Christ is all powerful, and can come to Haley even if she can’t receive a wheaten host. However, the Church cannot confect a rice cake and make it into something infinitely precious, something to be worshipped in awe, something which we would expose on our altars after Mass and pray in front of. We do believe that Christ can come to Haley. We don’t believe that the priest can truthfully say “The Body of Christ” as he is giving her the rice cake. And we don’t believe that priests should lie, just to make someone feel better. And why are people who believe that Christ can come into someone’s heart without “going through” the usual channels of a wheaten host making such a fuss demanding that the Church uses something she believes to be invalid?
Regarding “the distinction between a human institution’s traditions and a man-made law”, as a former Catholic you possibly remember that the Catholic Church does not consider herself to be a “human institution”. The Church was founded by Christ, and is His Body. I understand you may disagree with that, but it’s reasonable that the Catholic Church should make laws according to her beliefs, and not according to Protestant ones. Yes, we do have many man-made traditions in our Church. They’re not necessarily bad just because they’re man made. If the question of valid matter for a sacrament were a man-made tradition, then it could be changed – like, for example, Friday abstinence, Mass in Latin, etc. However, a Tradition (with uppercase) cannot be changed. What’s the difference? Tradition (uppercase) is oral teaching handed on, preserved from error, and in some cases, eventually defined at a Church Council or by a Pope. For example – how do you know which books belong to the Bible? The Bible itself doesn’t tell you. Matthew doesn’t end with “Be sure to read Luke: he’s also inspired.” The books that make up the Bible weren’t originally published together in a bound volume. So how do we know that The Gospel of Luke is inspired and that The Gospel of Thomas is not? We know from Tradition. It’s not something explicitly taught in the Bible, but it’s not a man-made rule either.
Concerning the low gluten host, you say you wouldn’t want your daughter to take the risk. I appreciate that. I know very little about gluten intolerance. I believe there are varying degrees, and most people with this illness can, in fact, take a low gluten host. It’s also possible to take just a particle of a low-gluten Host. However, as I pointed out originally, the Church is not trying to make Haley consume wheat. The media is portraying it that way, but the truth is that that Church is saying (truly in my opinion and falsely in yours) that she does not have the power to change rice cakes into Christ’s Body, and she is offering Haley all the alternatives which she believes are possible.
Finally, the Pope and the Bishops did not invent Catholic teaching; they inherited it. Even if you disagree with it, please give them some credit for sincerity when they say that they don’t have the power to change certain things. People seem to think that the individual men at the Vatican, who have studied (and prayed over) the teachings of previous Popes and Councils, of Saint Thomas Aquinas and many of the Doctors of the Church, and who are convinced that only wheaten bread is valid matter, should decide to allow a rice cake to be used just to be “nice” to Haley. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. If that teaching is false, it was false centuries before Haley was born. If it’s true, it can’t suddenly become false because of Haley’s allergy.
I am not suggesting that Jesus is limited in His power: I am saying that the Church is limited to the power that Jesus gave her.
Certainly. Is your argument that the Church is not allowed by God to provide communion with non-glutin hosts? It seems to me that the rule is one interpreted by humans and merely established by long tradition, not clearly defined by Scripture. Has God actually limited the Church in what it can do this way, or has man?
The sticking point is, ironically, the slippery slope you point out. If we allow something other than wheat-based unleavened hosts, then how do we draw the line at milk shakes and fried pork rinds?
From your answer about whether you would fall on your knees before a “consecrated” rice cake, I take it that you do not believe that Jesus Christ would be truly and subtantially present in any kind of host, and that no accidents of rice or wheat would remain. Fair enough. I know many educated, intelligent, reasonable, and genuinely good people who do not believe the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation. I just don’t think they’re qualified to say that the Church should use rice cakes.
I don’t know what happens. I believe it is more than just a rerun of the Last Supper — that something of a miraculous sort occurs. Whether it’s Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation or what is, well, a Mystery to me.
We do believe that Christ can come to Haley.
Me, too.
We don’t believe that the priest can truthfully say “The Body of Christ” as he is giving her the rice cake.
That’s the part I don’t understand, but it probably doesn’t bear much debate. It’s a matter of faith and axioms, neither of which are very debatable.
And why are people who believe that Christ can come into someone’s heart without “going through” the usual channels of a wheaten host making such a fuss demanding that the Church uses something she believes to be invalid?
I’m certainly not “demanding” anything — I simply don’t understand the rationale it uses, as it appears to be a matter more of man-made tradition than Scriptural demand.
So how do we know that The Gospel of Luke is inspired and that The Gospel of Thomas is not? We know from Tradition.
As settled by the Church Councils of Laodicea, Hippo and Carthage in the Fourth Century.
It’s not something explicitly taught in the Bible, but it’s not a man-made rule either.
Hopefully it’s something done with prayerful consideration and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, arguing that it’s the Only Thing to Do simply because We’ve Always Done It That Way doesn’t seem divinely inspired. But, of course, that’s just me.
[T]he Pope and the Bishops did not invent Catholic teaching; they inherited it. Even if you disagree with it, please give them some credit for sincerity when they say that they don’t have the power to change certain things.
Of course they have the power to do so (Matt. 16:19 ). I agree that willy-nilly changing things for the sake of changing them is not in the interest of the Church, either as an institution or for its members. But arguing that their hands are bound by law and tradition is something of a cop-out, it seems to me, especially for something that seems so trivial to change and so meaningful in what would result.
People seem to think that the individual men at the Vatican, who have studied (and prayed over) the teachings of previous Popes and Councils, of Saint Thomas Aquinas and many of the Doctors of the Church, and who are convinced that only wheaten bread is valid matter, should decide to allow a rice cake to be used just to be “nice” to Haley. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. If that teaching is false, it was false centuries before Haley was born. If it’s true, it can’t suddenly become false because of Haley’s allergy.
I would actually be interested in how much study of the matter has actually been done (does Aquinas actually address this question?). I could certainly respect a studied theological difference of opinion; I find it difficult to respect a restriction solely for the sake of doing things how they’ve been done in the past.
Sorry, Dave, I didn’t mean to imply that you were “demanding” anything. I was speaking of people in general. I have read some very offensive remarks already on the internet regarding this case – including one which begins with, “I love slamming the Catholic Church”.
I agree that the rule is one interpreted by humans, but that doesn’t make the interpretation wrong. The Bible is not a recipe book, and cannot possibly give a full list of all the limitations of authority which the Church has. The Church believes that she is preserved from error (“I am with you always”, “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” etc.), though of course that does not mean that church leaders are automatically protected against appalling sin or idiotic stupidity in some decisions. But she would consider that she is protected against error in something that would pertain to the loss of validity of sacraments. So she places great importance in studying what has always been believed, even if it’s not explicitly in the Bible. Remember St Paul told the Thessaloninans to hold fast to the teachings which had been handed on by word of mouth or my letter.
You mention the Councils which determined which books belonged to the New Testament, but perhaps you forget that the question wasn’t really settled until the list was approved by Rome. (Didn’t St Augustine say, “Rome has spoken; the case is ended.”) It seems that you’re prepared to accept the authority of the Church for one thing, but not for another.
You quote Matthew 16:19 to say that “of course” the Church has the power to change certain things. Well that’s true. My statement that the Church does not have the power to change certain things is also true. A lot depends on what the certain things are. For example, telling the truth is sometimes awkward. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Pope issued an encyclical saying that telling lies is no longer a sin? How about the Church allowing valid marriages between seven-year-old children? Or deciding to insert some new books into the Canon of Scripture? I have read somewhere that Pope Pius IX once said, “I am only the Pope. What power have I to touch the canon?”
Yes, St Thomas Aquinas did addres the question of valid matter. In his Summa Theologica Part Three, he deals with the question of valid matter for sacraments in general , and then with the more specific question of valid matter for the Eucharist, both with regard to whether bread should be used and whether the bread should be of wheat . The question has often been studied, defined and laid down. The Code of Canon Law, Can. 841, states: “Since the sacraments are the same throughout the universal Church, and belong to the divine deposit of faith, only the supreme authority in the Church can approve or define what is needed for their validity.” Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1125, says: “No sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community.”. Long before this story hit the headlines there were hundreds of Catholic books saying that the addition of any ingredient other than wheat flour was forbidden, and if this were done in large quantities, the Mass would not be valid. In other words, if you put a little bit of salt in, it’s ilicit, but valid. If you put in large quantities of butter and honey and eggs, it’s ilicit and invalid. The reason that we’re not allowed to add anything is precisely because we’re dealing with something terribly sacred and terribly important, and we don’t know at what precise moment the validity is lost. That is, the Church would say the validity is lost when the accidents can no longer be considered to be wheaten bread, but she doesn’t state how many grams of butter and honey would change it from wheaten bread to something else. If (as most Protestants believe) it’s a holy meal in a spirit of remembrance of Christ, then the ingredients might not seem so important. But the Catholic laws are determined by Catholic doctrine, not by Protestant beliefs.
One final point – please do not think that the Church’s belief that a rice cake would be invalid means that the Church is limiting God’s power. Of course Jesus could have chosen to use rice cakes. It’s like hearing someone saying that the Epistle of Barnabas is not part of the canon of Scripture and then accusing the person of thinking that God couldn’t have inpired the writer. We’re not talking of what God can do; we’re talking about what he does. There are very moving stories of priests in concentration camps having tiny quantities of bread and wine smuggled in so that they could say Mass. I’ve never heard a story of such a priest using rye crackers and beer. No doubt a priest who couldn’t say Mass would ask God to come to him spiritually. The Church has offered to allow Haley a tiny sip of Consecrated wine. Mother has refused. I really think it would be easier for Mother to give in on this one. She can’t seriously think a half teaspoon will harm her child. It’s more that she’s standing on principle. The Church is standing on her sacred beliefs concerning validity, as taught over the centuries.
I have read some very offensive remarks already on the internet regarding this case – including one which begins with, “I love slamming the Catholic Church”.
While there are any number of decisions and actions of the Church I disagree with, or even condemn — and while some Church leaders seem to act in a fashion other than what would engender respect for it — I have always defended the Church’s right to behave, theologically, as it sees fit. I may disagree with its reasons (or conclusions), but it and its members can and must be allowed to do as they will as a religion, or else all other faiths and beliefs are as likely to suffer.
You mention the Councils which determined which books belonged to the New Testament, but perhaps you forget that the question wasn’t really settled until the list was approved by Rome. (Didn’t St Augustine say, “Rome has spoken; the case is ended.”) It seems that you’re prepared to accept the authority of the Church for one thing, but not for another.
I am prepared to accept the authority of the Church to make its own decisions. I am not prepared to accept those decisions as automatically correct, or to not critique those decisions or their reasoning.
In short, the Church certainly has the right (and responsibility) to order itself as it sees fit. I reserve the personal right to note where that ordering does or does not fit with my own reasoning, beliefs, and prayerful understanding of God’s will.
For example, telling the truth is sometimes awkward. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Pope issued an encyclical saying that telling lies is no longer a sin? How about the Church allowing valid marriages between seven-year-old children? Or deciding to insert some new books into the Canon of Scripture? I have read somewhere that Pope Pius IX once said, “I am only the Pope. What power have I to touch the canon?”
Certainly one would hope that any changes or reconsiderations of such matters would only take place in the context of prayerful consideration of God’s revealed will. That doesn’t mean that such changes or reconsiderations cannot be made — even something as straightforward as the canon of the New Testament was, as noted, only established centuries after the fact. Establishment of clerical celibacy within the Church took place centuries after that. And, as you’ve noted above, matters such as the language of the Mass, dietary laws on Fridays, etc., have come and gone.
Such decisions should, of course, be made prayerfully, with consideration. That doesn’t mean they cannot be made, nor that they should not be made.
Thanks for the links to Aquinas. I ought to have known that he would have addressed these items. I don’t necessarily agree with his reasoning or differentiation between wheat bread and barley bread and corn bread, and he draws some conclusions that are not at all obvious to me, nor to this present age (e.g., the commonality of folks eating bread and wine). I would certainly concur that, within the confines of the Church, if the Church establishes what the standard is, localities ought not to violate it at will.
(Heck, I think there are those who would argue that the “poker chip” hosts most commonly used in Catholic churches hardly qualify as recognizable food anyway. 🙂 )
The reason that we’re not allowed to add anything is precisely because we’re dealing with something terribly sacred and terribly important, and we don’t know at what precise moment the validity is lost.
It occurs to me that spirit by which one approaches Holy Communion ought count at least as much, if not more, than the particular circumstances. In other words, if approached as terribly sacred and terribly important, the precise ingredients brought to the kitchen table are of secondary, if any, importance.
But, then, as you note, I’m not the one making (or loosening) the rules, only arguing as to whether they ought to be (or can be).
If (as most Protestants believe) it’s a holy meal in a spirit of remembrance of Christ, then the ingredients might not seem so important. But the Catholic laws are determined by Catholic doctrine, not by Protestant beliefs.
And, for that matter, there are those Protestant demoninations that believe that alcoholic wine is not in keeping with their perception of God’s will.
For what it’s worth, as an Episcopalian, our official beliefs about what happens at the Communion table are only a bit different (and no less reverent) than Catholic beliefs, so please don’t think I’m being flip in how I reach these judgments.
[P]lease do not think that the Church’s belief that a rice cake would be invalid means that the Church is limiting God’s power.
Your point is well-taken, in the context you’ve pout together. It’s not that God cannot be present as the Body within a consecrated rice cake, it’s that the Church believes it cannot use rice cakes to that end (though for reasons I don’t find I can agree with). If the church is not limiting God’s power, then, it is limiting, at the very least, its rightful ability to witness to God’s power.
There are very moving stories of priests in concentration camps having tiny quantities of bread and wine smuggled in so that they could say Mass. I’ve never heard a story of such a priest using rye crackers and beer.
Well, if the Church wouldn’t consider it valid, what then the point of doing so. Though, frankly, I’d rather have Communion under the latter circumstances than not at all. Nor do I think that God would withhold it from me.
Although I am sure that churches need some type of rules regarding communion, it seems such a small trifle when one considers the message of Jesus (excluding the idea that the early Christians actually had meals that they considered “holy” in remembrance of Jesus). I am sure that communion has an importance to those who participate, one that I may not ever understand.
One thing I do understand, however, it that the message of Jesus Christ is lost in this debate. A man who would defy convention and invite all who were hungry to eat at his table could not countenance the hours spent over an item like this. Those who would argue over how many angels can stand on the head of a pin are not seeing the true message of God’s son. Arguments like this one are the primary reason I don’t attend an organized church.
Hello again, Dave. I was working on a university assignment – hence my silence. I’d just like to make a few more comments. This is not simply a case that some men in the Vatican thought – oh we can’t possibly allow a change, because we’ve always done it this way. That would sound as if the Church had never considered the idea of validity before, and just flatly said no because the use of a rice cake would be “different” from what had always been done.
Now, our efforts to safeguard our teachings and the validity of our sacraments by holding on to what has always been done are not totally ridiculous. But it’s not just a question of what has always been done: it’s a question of what has always been believed. For example, you implied that using the argument of “men only” at the Last Supper to exclude women from ordination is as illogical as using it to exclude them from receving Holy Communion. But, you see, we have evidence from early Church history that women received and that it was considered proper for them to receive. There’s no record of it having been introduced as a novelty. Therefore, there’s no fear that there might be something wrong with allowing this. So with women’s ordination or with the grain used for altar breads, it’s not a case of some men in the Vatican in 1813 or 1952 or 2004 saying, “Oh, gosh, I’ve never thought of that before. But, no, we can’t allow this because it’s never been done.” It’s a question of looking to see whether there is any record of the Church having thought that the matter of the Eucharist or the sex of the candidate for ordination would make any difference to the validity.
I’ve quoted St Thomas Aquinas already. In 1570, Pope Pius V wrote in Section III of De Defectibus:
3. If the bread is not made of wheat flour, or if so much other grain is mixed with the wheat that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it is adulterated in some other way, there is no Sacrament.
4. If the bread has been made with rose-water or some other distillation, the validity of the Sacrament is doubtful.
5. If the bread has begun to mold, but it is not corrupt, or if it is not unleavened according to the custom of the Latin Church, the Sacrament is valid but the celebrant is guilty of grave sin.
Note that the Pope didn’t claim to know if the Eucharist would be valid when the bread was made with rose-water. The Church claims to be preserved from error in her official teaching on faith and morals; she doesn’t claim to be inspired to know what is true. And she certainly doesn’t claim to be able to make something true that isn’t. So, for example, if the Church was wrong to teach officially that Purgatory exists, God will not have made it suddenly true. The “what you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven” promise does not mean that Our Lord would say, “Oops, that Pope has made a bit of a mess. Now, I did promise to bind in Heaven whatever the Church bound on earth, and I don’t want to break My promise. I know what I’ll do. I’ll create a place called Purgatory now, and put a few souls in there. I can do it. I’m all powerful.”
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says:
For valid consecration the hosts must be:
made of wheaten flour,
mixed with pure natural water,
baked in an oven, or between two heated iron moulds, and
they must not be corrupted.
It goes on to say that for licit consecration, the bread must be “at present” unleavened in the Western Church. (The Eastern Churches have different rules.) So the Church did recognize that there was a difference in between something that was just a “rule” and something that would make the whole sacrament invalid. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law (both written before Haley was born) specify that wheat bread is required for validity.
The Church does not teach that the faith of the person receiving the Eucharist affects the validity. If a dog swallowed a Consecrated Host it would still be the Body of Christ. The faith of the recipient would, however, have some bearing on the graces received from the sacrament. So if it’s not valid, Haley’s faith won’t make it valid.
To sum up, I don’t expect people who aren’t Catholic to accept Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. But I do expect that they should try to look fairly at this story, and that they should be able to accept the following:
1) The Church is not trying to make Haley doing something that will damage her health. She is not being forced to consume a Host with wheat.
2) The Church is not refusing the Eucharist to Haley. Haley is permitted by the Church (but not by her mother) to receive a low-gluten Host (even a particle would be sufficient) or the safer option of receiving from the Chalice – a tiny sip of the Precious Blood under the form of low alcohol wine.
3) The Church’s reason for refusing to allow the rice cake option is because it is not considered valid, not because it’s not considered appropriate. Haley’s mother’s reason for refusing the low-alcohol wine option is because she doesn’t consider it to be appropriate.
4) Haley’s mother was told by her priest beforehand that according to Church teaching, she would not be receiving Jesus if she went for the rice cake option. However, she chose to go ahead and do it anyway.
5) If the Church is correct in her long-standing teaching that the sacrament is invalid when a non-wheat flower is used, her teaching does not suddenly become inaccurate because a child suffers from celiac.
6) The fact that the Church will not allow the rice cake option which she believes to be invalid does not mean that the Church has no compassion for celiac sufferers. Nor does it mean that she has. That question would have to be decided on other evidence. However, those who think that this story proves that the Church doesn’t care about the spiritual wellbeing of people with medical problems should explain why the Church is offering other options – and remember that the Church believes that you receive the full Christ even when you receive under only one form. They would also have to explain why – if the Church is more concerned with making rules than with the wellbeing of sick people who want to receive the sacraments – she allows sick people and those looking after them to receive Communion without fasting for an hour. Also why were sick people allowed to receive under the form of wine at a time when that was not generally permitted?
It is with great sadness and shame that I say that the failure of many Catholic Bishops to take steps to protect children from sexual abuse has given outsiders (and insiders) a lot of material with which to attack us. Don’t attack us for the things we haven’t done.
This is not simply a case that some men in the Vatican thought – oh we can’t possibly allow a change, because we’ve always done it this way. That would sound as if the Church had never considered the idea of validity before, and just flatly said no because the use of a rice cake would be “different” from what had always been done.
Actually, it sounds more like some folks in the diocesan offices in New Jersey making that judgment. And certainly you will concede that institutional inertia and confusion of tradition with dogma is something that the Church (as with any institution, let alone one so old) has on occasion been guilty of.
For example, you implied that using the argument of “men only” at the Last Supper to exclude women from ordination is as illogical as using it to exclude them from receving Holy Communion. But, you see, we have evidence from early Church history that women received and that it was considered proper for them to receive. There’s no record of it having been introduced as a novelty. Therefore, there’s no fear that there might be something wrong with allowing this.
We also have evidence of married clergy at that time, and for centuries thereafter.
There were also, as Aquinas pointed out, traditions of other ingredients for Holy Communion; these were, in fact, then disallowed, regardless of what the Early Churchfolk did.
Note that the Pope didn’t claim to know if the Eucharist would be valid when the bread was made with rose-water. The Church claims to be preserved from error in her official teaching on faith and morals; she doesn’t claim to be inspired to know what is true.
Though he claims to know that the Sacrament is invalid when made with non-wheat bread. Asserting a negative doesn’t seem distinguished from asserting a positive here.
Were the Pope to say, “We know that a Sacrament made with wheat flour, etc., etc., is valid, after the example of our Lord Jesus Christ at the Last Supper,” that would be a fair statement. “We do not know that the Mystery of Transubstantiation takes place when barley flour is used” would be even moreso. To assert, “If it’s not wheat, it’s not Our Lord’s Body” seems to be an assertion of something that cannot be known.
It is, of course (and as I’ve allowed from the beginning) the Church’s right to say, “We don’t know that Holy Communion with a rice cake is legitimate, therefore we will not accept it as such when performed.” Its others’ right as well to observe that the Church is picking and choosing what factors of the Last Supper it is going to consider essential to recreating the circumstances of that Mystery.
The Church does not teach that the faith of the person receiving the Eucharist affects the validity. If a dog swallowed a Consecrated Host it would still be the Body of Christ. The faith of the recipient would, however, have some bearing on the graces received from the sacrament. So if it’s not valid, Haley’s faith won’t make it valid.
Ah. An interesting distinction. Does Haley’s faith have some bearing on the grace received from an invalid sacrament?
As to the options being offered by the Church, I am of the opinion that Haley’s mother is wrong in not allowing her to partake of the wine or mustum. That does not, to my mind, mean that the Church’s interpretation of what makes for valid ingredients in the bread is, in fact, correct or defensible aside from simple assertion. The article from the Trenton diocese is interesting and informative, but not persuasive.
I do thank you, Ann, though, for an interesting and even-tempered discussion of this. I do respect your opinions (even where I disagree with them), and am glad to have read such a reasoned defense of the Church’s policies and stand in this.
Btw, I find amusing that the Google Adsense ads for this post are all for an array of gluten-free products … 🙂