Church denies Communion to autistic boy

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
symbolism ftw! so why hold it like its real? you're not really consuming jesus's flesh...

you shouldn't mock other's faith.

Unless it's not widespread? Like scientology?

is that you Tom? :Q

 

[LeadMagnet]

Gays, retards, and people that promote stem cell research - don't have souls so they cannot be baptised or given communion.

 

[Xylitol]

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Gays, retards, and people that promote stem cell research - don't have souls so they cannot be baptised or given communion.

even with the wink, that stinks.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
My son screams and cries because he can't go to the movies. What's your point?

I don't know or understand his full learning capabilities, nor does the article specifically state them. Regardless of what his understanding may or may not be anyway, his being denied communion in church is ridiculous. Though again, it doesn't matter.

The idea seems to be this, and correct me where I'm wrong here. God creates Matthew with physical/mental/whatever problems. As a result, Matthew has a difficult time partaking of communion, which was established by God. Since he will not take it, he will not be forgiven for any "sins" he may have committed and will therefore be consigned to hell.

If this is the type of God that Catholics believe in, I'm proud to say I'm not a Catholic. I find it hard to believe though that the Catholic church would feel this way, especial consider how much good does come from that church. For crying out loud, if the kids has a hard time swallowing or drinking small amount of any substance, give him more of it. I don't recall Christ telling his apostles at the Last Supper to only drink a tiny bit. As longs as there was enough for all, what difference does it make how much you drink? It's not like your sins will be "more forgiven" if you drink more, so what difference does it make?

The point is that whether he knows what is going on is NOT the questionable matter here, so your entire argument is moot point.

As I already said in the thread, communion is NOT required by the church and is NOT a key to heaven or anything... it's mostly a matter of being closer to Jesus/God. It doesn't mean that you are forgiven of your sins, it one to to accept the fact that Jesus died for your sins.

Once again, the issue is NOT that he has a hard time swollowing certain amounts of it or anything, it's that his disability makes him really picky about what he will eat. (to dumb it down... which is not the entire effect of autism). He's physically capable of consuming it, but not mentally capable.

So what is your argument? Your reply to my initial comment was that he is "totally in tune with what is going on", yet now you're saying that's not the issue.

Christ is and was compensating for people with disabilities, and if the Catholic church is God's church, it should be compensating for people with disabilities also. Obviously the sacrament IS necessary, or Christ would not have instituted it. Therefore, if the church IS NOT willing to be accomodating to his needs, they are in fact punishing him and depriving him of something that IS necessary. The parents obviously feel this way or they wouldn't be worried about it.

FTW, the church should be more accomodating to the needs of its members and understand that exceptions have to been made for certain individuals.

If I have missed your point, please be so kind as to explain to me exactly what it is.

 

[IEC]

RTFA. Pyonir is using a flamebait title AGAIN. For the record, I am not Roman Catholic and I have many disagreements with Catholics, but if this boy cannot/will not consume the "host" in communion it's a serious issue to Catholics. Leave this kind of issue to Catholics, it has nothing to do with any of us and has no effect on us. Read the article - it's not about discrimination against the disabled.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Gays, retards, and people that promote stem cell research - don't have souls so they cannot be baptised or given communion.

Everyone can be baptized or given communion. It's just a question of whether or not its necessary.

 

[Syrch]

wow this is going to cause some protesting or something along those lines!

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Injury
The point is that whether he knows what is going on is NOT the questionable matter here, so your entire argument is moot point.

As I already said in the thread, communion is NOT required by the church and is NOT a key to heaven or anything... it's mostly a matter of being closer to Jesus/God. It doesn't mean that you are forgiven of your sins, it one to to accept the fact that Jesus died for your sins.

Once again, the issue is NOT that he has a hard time swollowing certain amounts of it or anything, it's that his disability makes him really picky about what he will eat. (to dumb it down... which is not the entire effect of autism). He's physically capable of consuming it, but not mentally capable.

So what is your argument? Your reply to my initial comment was that he is "totally in tune with what is going on", yet now you're saying that's not the issue.

Christ is and was compensating for people with disabilities, and if the Catholic church is God's church, it should be compensating for people with disabilities also. Obviously the sacrament IS necessary, or Christ would not have instituted it. Therefore, if the church IS NOT willing to be accomodating to his needs, they are in fact punishing him and depriving him of something that IS necessary. The parents obviously feel this way or they wouldn't be worried about it.

FTW, the church should be more accomodating to the needs of its members and understand that exceptions have to been made for certain individuals.

If I have missed your point, please be so kind as to explain to me exactly what it is.

The church itself did not question whether or not he knew what was going on. He was taken to religious education classes for 2 years to prepare for this. If he didn't know what it was about, he wouldn't have been able to partake in the sacrament to begin with. But the point still stands that the church is not questioning his ability to understand what is going on, so that is not the issue. So since you need the point spelled out... They are NOT turning him down because of his level of knowledge on communion. They are NOT turning him down based on his disability.

Once again, the sacrament IS NOT NECESSARY. It's just flatout not true. The sacrament was something that was performed by Jesus the night before he died... there's no mention of him saying "look guys... umm... you need to recount this night every Sunday... or you're all going straight to hell." You saying the church hasn't accomodated him is a crap, too. They've tried to see if he'll take different types of host, take just the wine, various things... they're trying to find a solution. It's not like they just rejected him and told him to get lost. What I gather from the article is that either :

1) The parents are self-righteous and feel that their desire to do things their way is more important that whatever study decided that the host should not be taken out of the mouth once it is in or that they generally think that the church should renounce parts of their teachings because they are unwilling to keep working to find an alternative.

2) The media outlet who published this story has some sort of vendetta against the Catholic church and wants nothing more than to ridicule them in any way possible so that it brings everyone who feels the same way out of the woodwork so they can give their view on a relgion that they aren't a part of and doesn't affect them so they can cry about it.

Your last paragraph is really just rambling to me because you clearly haven't read anything I or the article has said about it being a mental hadicap that dictates what foods he will eat. If he's not going to swallow a little bit of one, he isn't going to swallow more of it.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Injury
The point is that whether he knows what is going on is NOT the questionable matter here, so your entire argument is moot point.

As I already said in the thread, communion is NOT required by the church and is NOT a key to heaven or anything... it's mostly a matter of being closer to Jesus/God. It doesn't mean that you are forgiven of your sins, it one to to accept the fact that Jesus died for your sins.

Once again, the issue is NOT that he has a hard time swollowing certain amounts of it or anything, it's that his disability makes him really picky about what he will eat. (to dumb it down... which is not the entire effect of autism). He's physically capable of consuming it, but not mentally capable.

So what is your argument? Your reply to my initial comment was that he is "totally in tune with what is going on", yet now you're saying that's not the issue.

Christ is and was compensating for people with disabilities, and if the Catholic church is God's church, it should be compensating for people with disabilities also. Obviously the sacrament IS necessary, or Christ would not have instituted it. Therefore, if the church IS NOT willing to be accomodating to his needs, they are in fact punishing him and depriving him of something that IS necessary. The parents obviously feel this way or they wouldn't be worried about it.

FTW, the church should be more accomodating to the needs of its members and understand that exceptions have to been made for certain individuals.

If I have missed your point, please be so kind as to explain to me exactly what it is.

The church itself did not question whether or not he knew what was going on. He was taken to religious education classes for 2 years to prepare for this. If he didn't know what it was about, he wouldn't have been able to partake in the sacrament to begin with. But the point still stands that the church is not questioning his ability to understand what is going on, so that is not the issue. So since you need the point spelled out... They are NOT turning him down because of his level of knowledge on communion. They are NOT turning him down based on his disability.

Once again, the sacrament IS NOT NECESSARY. It's just flatout not true. The sacrament was something that was performed by Jesus the night before he died... there's no mention of him saying "look guys... umm... you need to recount this night every Sunday... or you're all going straight to hell." You saying the church hasn't accomodated him is a crap, too. They've tried to see if he'll take different types of host, take just the wine, various things... they're trying to find a solution. It's not like they just rejected him and told him to get lost. What I gather from the article is that either :

1) The parents are self-righteous and feel that their desire to do things their way is more important that whatever study decided that the host should not be taken out of the mouth once it is in or that they generally think that the church should renounce parts of their teachings because they are unwilling to keep working to find an alternative.

2) The media outlet who published this story has some sort of vendetta against the Catholic church and wants nothing more than to ridicule them in any way possible so that it brings everyone who feels the same way out of the woodwork so they can give their view on a relgion that they aren't a part of and doesn't affect them so they can cry about it.

Your last paragraph is really just rambling to me because you clearly haven't read anything I or the article has said about it being a mental hadicap that dictates what foods he will eat. If he's not going to swallow a little bit of one, he isn't going to swallow more of it.

Well, if you're correct, and he has indeed been taking religious classes to prepare for it, and his handicap is in no way prohibiting him from partaking of it, then WHY IS HE SPITTING IT OUT!!!!

Think that one through next time before you start calling peoples quotes nothing but rambling. It's clear that the only person who hasn't thought this through or read anything is YOU. The fact that you are unwilling to believe that the Catholic church does not believe communion is necessary is your problem. You're 100% wrong, but you're welcome to feel that way.

The point comes down to this quote.

The church's concern is that the host or wine not be desecrated in any matter.

The church obviously feel that him not completely drinking the water in some way is blasphemous, which is ridiculous. According to the article, he's received it before and they didn't have a problem with. So what's the problem now?

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: ariafrost
RTFA. Pyonir is using a flamebait title AGAIN. For the record, I am not Roman Catholic and I have many disagreements with Catholics, but if this boy cannot/will not consume the "host" in communion it's a serious issue to Catholics. Leave this kind of issue to Catholics, it has nothing to do with any of us and has no effect on us. Read the article - it's not about discrimination against the disabled.

I did not (and again? WTF? Have i ever done that?). I copied and pasted the title of the article from the website. Click on the link, there is the title of the article. I added nothing to the title that wasn't already there.

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: Molondo
i say burn the church.

Totally. I'm at the point were I don't care for any f'n religion anymore. It's all man-made and therefore is flawed in EVERY way.

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: pyonir
I know you guys like arguing Catholic "rules" or the church in general, so here you go.

Text

Phoenix Diocese officials contend that Matthew has not been prohibited from Communion, only that the bishop is "not able to approve the present practice," according to his letter. He offered assistance, which has come in the form of various hosts for Matthew to try, educational material and other recommendations for the parents, including respite care, in which trained personnel would look after the children while the parents took time for themselves.

I debated whether to put this here or in P&N. After hours of contemplation, I chose here. Deal with it.

I don't see the problem...

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
From a technical point of view, the church is right. The kid is not able to receive the sacrament because he does not or cannot eat the wafer.

He says the bishop's letter has caused anger, anxiety and frustration in his home.

"We are out of our minds over this," said the father, who with his wife, Dr. Jean Weaver, has two other children, one of them also disabled.

I think he's taking this way too damned seriously.

From a technical point of view, the catholic church is fundamentally wrong. The original communion, which was the basis of the tradition, was simply a dinner. The actual point of communion is to be with one another and enjoy each other's company. It has nothing to do with kneeling in front of a fancy robed priest and having a wafer shoved in your mouth. Every ritual, tradition, and rule in the catholic church was made up by and for the catholic church and have zero basis in the bible.

 

[Viper0329]

Originally posted by: Malak
Every ritual, tradition, and rule in the catholic church was made up by and for the catholic church and have zero basis in the bible.

Wow. How much do you know about Catholicism...really?

Along that lines of argument, then all Christian religions are completely fabricated for their own purposes with no zero basis in the Bible. Only one Church existed until 1054, and Protestant religions didn't originate till the 16th century. Where do you think it all came from?

Granted, the Catholic Church is not "sola scriptura," but it's not "made up with zero basis in the bible." Lots of Catholic dogma and doctrine is based on Scripture.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Viper0329

Originally posted by: Malak
Every ritual, tradition, and rule in the catholic church was made up by and for the catholic church and have zero basis in the bible.

Wow. How much do you know about Catholicism...really?

Along that lines of argument, then all Christian religions are completely fabricated for their own purposes with no zero basis in the Bible. Only one Church existed until 1054, and Protestant religions didn't originate till the 16th century. Where do you think it all came from?

Granted, the Catholic Church is not "sola scriptura," but it's not "made up with zero basis in the bible." Lots of Catholic dogma and doctrine is based on Scripture.

There are no Christian religions. That's where you are losing the arguement already. There is one church, always has been that way. Read the bible, read any major creed, they all refer to one church. That church, which is described in the bible, is nothing like the catholic religion. Every piece of catholic dogma is made up by them. It would take a lengthy essay to point out EVERY SINGLE piece of tradition and dogma they have, as extensive as it is. Hell, their dogma is bigger than any amount of quoting the bible has of Jesus, which proves right there they made it up.

 

[Sqube]

Malak, I can only laugh out loud and leave a thread like this. I knew someone like you would show up sooner or later.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Malak
There are no Christian religions. That's where you are losing the arguement already. There is one church, always has been that way. Read the bible, read any major creed, they all refer to one church. That church, which is described in the bible, is nothing like the catholic religion. Every piece of catholic dogma is made up by them. It would take a lengthy essay to point out EVERY SINGLE piece of tradition and dogma they have, as extensive as it is. Hell, their dogma is bigger than any amount of quoting the bible has of Jesus, which proves right there they made it up.

"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." - Jesus

Jesus gave Peter this authority, and the Catholic church inherits this authority from Peter as his successor.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
So what is your argument? Your reply to my initial comment was that he is "totally in tune with what is going on", yet now you're saying that's not the issue.

Christ is and was compensating for people with disabilities, and if the Catholic church is God's church, it should be compensating for people with disabilities also. Obviously the sacrament IS necessary, or Christ would not have instituted it. Therefore, if the church IS NOT willing to be accomodating to his needs, they are in fact punishing him and depriving him of something that IS necessary. The parents obviously feel this way or they wouldn't be worried about it.

FTW, the church should be more accomodating to the needs of its members and understand that exceptions have to been made for certain individuals.

If I have missed your point, please be so kind as to explain to me exactly what it is.

The church itself did not question whether or not he knew what was going on. He was taken to religious education classes for 2 years to prepare for this. If he didn't know what it was about, he wouldn't have been able to partake in the sacrament to begin with. But the point still stands that the church is not questioning his ability to understand what is going on, so that is not the issue. So since you need the point spelled out... They are NOT turning him down because of his level of knowledge on communion. They are NOT turning him down based on his disability.

Once again, the sacrament IS NOT NECESSARY. It's just flatout not true. The sacrament was something that was performed by Jesus the night before he died... there's no mention of him saying "look guys... umm... you need to recount this night every Sunday... or you're all going straight to hell." You saying the church hasn't accomodated him is a crap, too. They've tried to see if he'll take different types of host, take just the wine, various things... they're trying to find a solution. It's not like they just rejected him and told him to get lost. What I gather from the article is that either :

1) The parents are self-righteous and feel that their desire to do things their way is more important that whatever study decided that the host should not be taken out of the mouth once it is in or that they generally think that the church should renounce parts of their teachings because they are unwilling to keep working to find an alternative.

2) The media outlet who published this story has some sort of vendetta against the Catholic church and wants nothing more than to ridicule them in any way possible so that it brings everyone who feels the same way out of the woodwork so they can give their view on a relgion that they aren't a part of and doesn't affect them so they can cry about it.

Your last paragraph is really just rambling to me because you clearly haven't read anything I or the article has said about it being a mental hadicap that dictates what foods he will eat. If he's not going to swallow a little bit of one, he isn't going to swallow more of it.

Well, if you're correct, and he has indeed been taking religious classes to prepare for it, and his handicap is in no way prohibiting him from partaking of it, then WHY IS HE SPITTING IT OUT!!!!

Think that one through next time before you start calling peoples quotes nothing but rambling. It's clear that the only person who hasn't thought this through or read anything is YOU. The fact that you are unwilling to believe that the Catholic church does not believe communion is necessary is your problem. You're 100% wrong, but you're welcome to feel that way.

The point comes down to this quote.

The church's concern is that the host or wine not be desecrated in any matter.

The church obviously feel that him not completely drinking the water in some way is blasphemous, which is ridiculous. According to the article, he's received it before and they didn't have a problem with. So what's the problem now?

I think it's your reading comprehension skills that are wrong. I did not at all say that his handicap is prohibiting him from receiving communion. I did, however, state that neither the fact that he is handicapped nor the idea that he doesn't understand what the sacrament is about is not the issue. Not only did I say that, I bolded it for you.

Why don't you do a better job of reading what people wrote before you go around saying that people don't understand things.

I know that the catholic religion does not require communion for salvation. If this were the case, babies would be baptised and given their first communion at the same time. You're welcome to search www.vatican.va and find where it says that it's required. If you find it, I'll gladly apologize for claiming it does. The whole process is mostly just a means of being closer to Jesus and accepting him into your life.

The sheer fact that in your last sentence, you refer to it as drinking the water makes me think you know nothing of communion because there is no drinking of water involved. Again, if you would read the article, you would realize that the problem was someone making an error in judgement and saying it was acceptable. They moved across the country and a different diocese decided that it wasn't.

If you do not understand the Catholic religion, then please don't comment on it because you are doing nothing more than building a dissatisfaction with it over information that isn't true and things you don't understand..

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Injury
They are NOT turning him down because of his level of knowledge on communion. They are NOT turning him down based on his disability.

I think it's your reading comprehension skills that are wrong. I did not at all say that his handicap is prohibiting him from receiving communion. I did, however, state that neither the fact that he is handicapped nor the idea that he doesn't understand what the sacrament is about is not the issue. Not only did I say that, I bolded it for you.

Gee, I wonder how someone could misunderstand you when you speak like this. Is it my reading, or your writing that isn't working? Judging from these comments, I'd go with your writing, but thanks for playing.

As for the necessity of Communion, let's see what's taugh in Catechism

1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

Here's another little one from, also from Catechism, but a different section.

"Do this in memory of me"

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.167

1342 From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it is written:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.168

1343 It was above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread."169 From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the center of the Church's life.

1344 Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus "until he comes," the pilgrim People of God advances, "following the narrow way of the cross,"170 toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom.

Hmm, so what they're saying is that the apostles met together, the first day of the week, and had communion. Why? Because it was commanded of them to do to show rememberence of the intercession of Christ.

But hey, let's look at one other example.

1388 It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required dispositions, receive communion when they participate in the Mass. As the Second Vatican Council says: "That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended."

So if you go to mass, you are expected to partake of the Holy Communion. Why? Because it is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist. So, the young man could a) Go to mass and NOT partake, and therefore NOT be in keeping with this, b) NOT go to church at all so as to not be disrespectful to such a sacred item, or c) The new church he's going to could get over their problem and let him partake.

You spent a lot of time telling me I know nothing about the Catholic church and yet you have no idea of my religious background. I actually know more than you can imagine about the Catholic church. I do apologize for saying that they drink the water, as I know that the Catholic church does not use water. My current religion does, as do many others, and I simply typed that before thinking about the way the Catholic church performs this ordinance. Guess I figured you'd understand what I meant even if I typed it wrong. Guess I was mistaken.

Is it possible for both of us to come to two different understandings of the necessity of Communion. Absolutely. The specific standpoint of the church is something along these lines. "It's necessary to help us remain free from sin, which me all must be, but it's not absolutely necessary." Hmm, nothing confusing there.

So, why don't you continue feeling the way you do about it, and I'll continue feeling the way I do about it? From either standpoint though, it still does not answer the question of why he is being denided communion. You say it's not because of his handicap, or because of his knowledge. If this is the case, I again ask, why? Perhaps this time you could answer that question.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Injury
They are NOT turning him down because of his level of knowledge on communion. They are NOT turning him down based on his disability.

I think it's your reading comprehension skills that are wrong. I did not at all say that his handicap is prohibiting him from receiving communion. I did, however, state that neither the fact that he is handicapped nor the idea that he doesn't understand what the sacrament is about is not the issue. Not only did I say that, I bolded it for you.

Gee, I wonder how someone could misunderstand you when you speak like this. Is it my reading, or your writing that isn't working? Judging from these comments, I'd go with your writing, but thanks for playing.

As for the necessity of Communion, let's see what's taugh in Catechism

1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

Here's another little one from, also from Catechism, but a different section.

"Do this in memory of me"

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.167

1342 From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it is written:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.168

1343 It was above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread."169 From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the center of the Church's life.

1344 Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus "until he comes," the pilgrim People of God advances, "following the narrow way of the cross,"170 toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom.

Hmm, so what they're saying is that the apostles met together, the first day of the week, and had communion. Why? Because it was commanded of them to do to show rememberence of the intercession of Christ.

But hey, let's look at one other example.

1388 It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required dispositions, receive communion when they participate in the Mass. As the Second Vatican Council says: "That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended."

So if you go to mass, you are expected to partake of the Holy Communion. Why? Because it is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist. So, the young man could a) Go to mass and NOT partake, and therefore NOT be in keeping with this, b) NOT go to church at all so as to not be disrespectful to such a sacred item, or c) The new church he's going to could get over their problem and let him partake.

You spent a lot of time telling me I know nothing about the Catholic church and yet you have no idea of my religious background. I actually know more than you can imagine about the Catholic church. I do apologize for saying that they drink the water, as I know that the Catholic church does not use water. My current religion does, as do many others, and I simply typed that before thinking about the way the Catholic church performs this ordinance. Guess I figured you'd understand what I meant even if I typed it wrong. Guess I was mistaken.

Is it possible for both of us to come to two different understandings of the necessity of Communion. Absolutely. The specific standpoint of the church is something along these lines. "It's necessary to help us remain free from sin, which me all must be, but it's not absolutely necessary." Hmm, nothing confusing there.

So, why don't you continue feeling the way you do about it, and I'll continue feeling the way I do about it? From either standpoint though, it still does not answer the question of why he is being denided communion. You say it's not because of his handicap, or because of his knowledge. If this is the case, I again ask, why? Perhaps this time you could answer that question.

Owned.

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
From a technical point of view, the church is right. The kid is not able to receive the sacrament because he does not or cannot eat the wafer.

He says the bishop's letter has caused anger, anxiety and frustration in his home.

"We are out of our minds over this," said the father, who with his wife, Dr. Jean Weaver, has two other children, one of them also disabled.

I think he's taking this way too damned seriously.

From a technical point of view, the catholic church is fundamentally wrong. The original communion, which was the basis of the tradition, was simply a dinner. The actual point of communion is to be with one another and enjoy each other's company. It has nothing to do with kneeling in front of a fancy robed priest and having a wafer shoved in your mouth. Every ritual, tradition, and rule in the catholic church was made up by and for the catholic church and have zero basis in the bible.

It was the Catholic church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that
decided what would be in the Bible.

Christ explicitly said (Luke 22:19) "This IS my body...do this in memory of me."

The earliest Christians understood communion in the sense that Catholics
have always understood it:

Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110):

They even abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised up again.

Justin Martyr, A.D. 155:

And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed in the bath for the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration, and who so lives as Christ has directed. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Injury
They are NOT turning him down because of his level of knowledge on communion. They are NOT turning him down based on his disability.

I think it's your reading comprehension skills that are wrong. I did not at all say that his handicap is prohibiting him from receiving communion. I did, however, state that neither the fact that he is handicapped nor the idea that he doesn't understand what the sacrament is about is not the issue. Not only did I say that, I bolded it for you.

Gee, I wonder how someone could misunderstand you when you speak like this. Is it my reading, or your writing that isn't working? Judging from these comments, I'd go with your writing, but thanks for playing.

As for the necessity of Communion, let's see what's taugh in Catechism

1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

Here's another little one from, also from Catechism, but a different section.

"Do this in memory of me"

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.167

1342 From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it is written:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.168

1343 It was above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread."169 From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the center of the Church's life.

1344 Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus "until he comes," the pilgrim People of God advances, "following the narrow way of the cross,"170 toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom.

Hmm, so what they're saying is that the apostles met together, the first day of the week, and had communion. Why? Because it was commanded of them to do to show rememberence of the intercession of Christ.

But hey, let's look at one other example.

1388 It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required dispositions, receive communion when they participate in the Mass. As the Second Vatican Council says: "That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended."

So if you go to mass, you are expected to partake of the Holy Communion. Why? Because it is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist. So, the young man could a) Go to mass and NOT partake, and therefore NOT be in keeping with this, b) NOT go to church at all so as to not be disrespectful to such a sacred item, or c) The new church he's going to could get over their problem and let him partake.

You spent a lot of time telling me I know nothing about the Catholic church and yet you have no idea of my religious background. I actually know more than you can imagine about the Catholic church. I do apologize for saying that they drink the water, as I know that the Catholic church does not use water. My current religion does, as do many others, and I simply typed that before thinking about the way the Catholic church performs this ordinance. Guess I figured you'd understand what I meant even if I typed it wrong. Guess I was mistaken.

Is it possible for both of us to come to two different understandings of the necessity of Communion. Absolutely. The specific standpoint of the church is something along these lines. "It's necessary to help us remain free from sin, which me all must be, but it's not absolutely necessary." Hmm, nothing confusing there.

So, why don't you continue feeling the way you do about it, and I'll continue feeling the way I do about it? From either standpoint though, it still does not answer the question of why he is being denided communion. You say it's not because of his handicap, or because of his knowledge. If this is the case, I again ask, why? Perhaps this time you could answer that question.

Participating in Eucharistic Communion and Receiving Eurcharistic Communion are, by everything I've been taught, not the same thing. It's understandable that many people think that they are, or that one implies the other, But do you really think that all the people that lived before the last supper who never knew what it was, all the people who are physically and mentally unable to receive Eucharistic Communion, and those people who live in parts of the world where it is not possible to receive it have all been damned to hell?

I don't.

As far as the question that you seem to think I haven't answered, it's because he's not consuming the host. From the sound of it, I'm not alone in thinking that having it taken out of your mouth is not truly receiving Eucharistic communion.

I've already said that I feel bad for the situation and wish it could be worked out, but if a cardinal, of all the people, says that it's not truly receiving it, then I side with him.

Not to mention that the diocese has tried to find workarounds.

If the Cardinal comes to the decision that it is acceptable or if the Pope intervenes and approves it... go team!