It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus is in the Wheat!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   
You'd think the Catholic Church would have a little more sense, not to mention compassion...


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

Catholic doctrine still however has nothing to say about Parkinsons drugs or pedophellia coverups.




posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
When I was a child, brought up Catholic, I was told that during the mass, the wafer actually became the flesh of Jesus Christ. This, I was told, is not symbolic but actual (Transubstatiation).

So - if Transubstantiation is true, it shouldn't make any difference if the wafer contained wheat or not, since according to Catholic doctrine, the wafer becomes Christ's body. (ie no longer its original substance).

Either they allow this child's Communion to stand or they just dump the whole doctrine - they can't have it both ways.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
They take transubstantiation seriously. Not as seriously as say, the Baptists I know that consider all Catholics cannibals because of it. But serious in that they are basically promoting a from of alchemy, based on faith of ingredients.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I was once told a story when I was very young about a woman who took one of those wafers home instead of consuming it. When she got home she broke it with a hammer and it started to bleed and would not stop. She had to have a priest come by to say a few prayers and stop the bleeding. That story freaked me the hell out when I was little. I was always a bit nervous when receiving communion for awhile after that. I was afraid that if instead of letting it melt in my mouth and I bit into it, I would get a mouthfull of blood...

One day I was pissed at my parents for making me go to church when I had another place I wanted to be so I figured I woule bite right through this wafer and get a mouthfull of blood just to piss my parents off. Unfortunately the wafer just broke in two... no blood.


Ahh good times, I was a gullible child.


Anyhow just thought I'd share that. I think its a bit rediculous that they can't make a special wafer for this poor girl. Surely God could make an exception?




So now Jesus is a gluten-based entity?

Jesus = wheat, who knew?
Perhaps this girl is the antichrist, since she is allergic to Jesus?
LMAO



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Okay, looks like it's time for a crash course in Catholic sacraments for the uninitiated...

According to Catholic belief, in order for a sacrament to be valid, two things are necessary:

1. Proper matter

and

2. Proper form

Matter refers, in the case of the Eucharist, to things like the bread and wine that are consecrated and become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. In some cases, it can refer to less tangible things, such as repentance in the case of Reconciliation, but that doesn't apply so much in the case of the Eucharist (although partakers must be properly disposed and not in a state of mortal sin to receive actual graces from the sacrament).

Form refers to the words and actions involved in the sacrament (in the case of the Eucharist, one of the Eucharistic prayers and certain other important words/actions).

If the matter and/or form of the sacrament is not proper, then the sacrament is invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Now how does this apply to this case? Simple: The matter for the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of unleavened bread made of wheat and pure, acceptable quality wine made of grapes and containing at least some minimum amount of alcohol that I don't recall off the top of my head. This matter has been used by the Catholic Church in this way for approx. 2000 years, based on a combination of Scripture and the established traditions of the Church (which are the two sources of Catholic doctrine). The idea is this: Scripture and tradition tell us that at the Last Supper (which is where Catholics believe Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist), He said "This is my body," referring to bread that was undoubtedly made of wheat and "This is my blood," referring to wine that was pretty much undoubtedly made of grapes and contained alcohol, and that is how the Church has done it for 2000 or so years now. It's not that the Catholic Church is just tyring to be cruel or "drive away more followers," but it does not feel that it has any right or even ability to change anything other than wheat bread into the Body of Christ, because the Church has never been given any divine authority or ability to do so. In other words, the Catholic Church knows that wheat bread can be changed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, but it has no particular reason to believe that other things would be changed in the same way; it would be seen as rather presumptuous to just make up new ingredients and say, "Alright, God, we're gonna change this little detail, alright? Surely He won't mind, huh. Nah." And I mean after that, how far might it go? Jello as the Eucharist if there isn't any bread around? It could get a bit ridiculous. Basically, it's not that the Church wouldn't like to be able to make an exception - it's that it believes itself to be powerless to do so. You can agree with that belief or not, but regardless, this is a matter of inability, not heartlessness.

That being said, it needs to be understood that although receiving the Eucharist is very important to Catholics, the Catholic Church does not teach that God is somehow limited by the sacraments He has instituted. After all, He created them, and He can bypass them if necessary. The Eucharist is an ORDINARY means by which the Church teaches that God imparts grace, but it is not the ONLY way possible. God is just, and He doesn't just say, "Oh, well, I allowed you to be born with an allergy to wheat gluten, so I guess you're just out of luck. Burn in hell, sucker!" He has other ways that the Catholic Church does not claim to know or understand by which He can impart all the same graces that this girl would have normally received through the Eucharist, and I htink He will make use of them here. She's just sort of a special case, if you will...

By the way, this is not the only case in which people can be (and sometimes are) denied access to certain sacraments in the Catholic Church for reasons that aren't necessarily "their fault," so to speak. For example, people with certain forms of paralysis cannot get their marriages recognized by the Catholic Church if it is not possible for them to consummate their marriage. Again, it's not like the Church is punishing people for their medical conditions, it's just that in this case, sexual intercourse is a necessary part of the Catholic sacrament of marriage (those with this wrongheaded and misinformed belief that the Catholic Church sees sexual relations as inherently "dirty" or even a taboo topic of discussion may find this hard to believe, but it's true), and if that's not possible, neither is a sacramental marriage within the Catholic Church. It's not cruelty or heartlessness, just an unavoidable result of a certain part of the faith.

Now for my comments on a few specific posts:




When I was a child, brought up Catholic, I was told that during the mass, the wafer actually became the flesh of Jesus Christ. This, I was told, is not symbolic but actual (Transubstatiation).

So - if Transubstantiation is true, it shouldn't make any difference if the wafer contained wheat or not, since according to Catholic doctrine, the wafer becomes Christ's body. (ie no longer its original substance).

Either they allow this child's Communion to stand or they just dump the whole doctrine - they can't have it both ways.


Not exactly, Pisky. As I said, this is purely a matter of having the proper matter (no pun intended) for the sacrament. It has nothing to do with what the substance of the ingredients is after consecration - the problem is that if the proper matter is not present, the Church does not believe that the "consecration" (rendered invalid by the improper matter) takes place at all. The flaw in your logic is the assumption you are making that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation states that anything, be it a brick, a blob of slime, an ice cube, the air in a room, or whatever (since the ingredient used "shouldn't make any difference"), as long as it is consecrated, will become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That is just not what the doctrine states - it applies only to wheat bread and grape wine. In reality, nobody is trying to "have it both ways" here.




I have read and re-read and read this article again, trying to make sense of it. So now Jesus is a gluten-based entity? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life, denying a child the sacraments because of the church's dogmatic dietary rules. It's not like we're talking kosher vs. non-kosher here. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the bible or anywhere else that says Jesus = wheat gluten.


No, nobody said that, "Jesus is a gluten-based entity." This is a classic example of somebody taking a Catholic doctrine that he/she does not understand and using it to make fun of the Church. The whole idea of transubstantiation is that the substance of the bread changes into the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. There is a change in substance from gluten to Jesus. Once the substance becomes Jesus, the substance is no longer gluten. If Jesus were a "gluten-based entity" to begin with, there would be no need for the substance to change from gluten to Jesus. Thus, there is no need (or even possibility) for the substance of the ingredients at the beginning of the sacrament to be the same as the substance of the ingredients at the end of the sacrament. Does that not make sense? You are exactly right to say that there is nothing in the Bible that says "Jesus=wheat gluten," but it does say in the Bible that Jesus used bread (which consists of wheat gluten) at the Last Supper, and that is in part the reason why only wheat bread can be used according to Catholic belief. As I have stated previously, the problem is with invalid matter, not "dogmatic dietary rules."




Are they just looking for new ways to alienate more followers? As if they didn't have anough problems already!


No. They are holding fast to a tradition that has been around for millenia and that Catholics believe has been handed down from Christ Himself. The teaching that the matter for the sacrament of the Eucharist is wheat bread has been around for an extremely long time. It's not a "new way to alienate more followers." Yeah, we have plenty of problems, but throwing our sacred traditions out the window is not the answer to them. I'm truly sorry you feel such contempt for the Catholic Church, but if the Church got rid of everything that makes some misinformed people feel contempt toward her, I dare say there probably wouldn't be that much left.



I mean, it must be something to condemn a five-year-old over it.


If this is a five-year-old, she should not be receiving First Communion yet anyway, because the age of reason has been set by the Catholic Church as seven years of age. That said, regardless of age, she isn't being condemned. I would think whatever priest presided over the sacrament might be disciplined, because this is stuff Catholics learn in high school, and he should know better. However, the girl could not be reasonably expected to understand the details of all this, and I'm sure she is not the one being "condemned." It's just that the sacrament has been (correctly) declared invalid.



Surely God could make an exception?


As I said before, the Catholic Church is not saying He won't, and I think He will. The Church is just sticking to what it knows it has been given authority to do and leaving the rest to God, nothing more, nothing less. God may very well make an exception (and I don't doubt that He will), but that is for God to decide, not the Church. As I have said before, the sacraments are the ordinary way God set up to impart grace, but He has others that do not necessarily involve Him working directly through the Church in the way that He does in the Eucharist. Again, she is a special case. There are many examples of this. Just one: Let's say somebody tries hard to form a sound conscience and does the best job he/she can to live a good life according to the dictates of that conscience, but he/she is not baptised because he/she never had any opportunity to hear about Jesus Christ, or maybe had Jesus and His Church presented in a way that made Him seem evil or something (note that this does not mean that we think laziness in forming the conscience or seeing Jesus and His Church as good and necessary for salvation and still willingly rejecting them are acceptable). That person had what we Catholics call an "invincible obstacle" in his/her way that prevented him/her from receiving the sacrament of baptism. However, God can still impart the graces of baptism to this person, and this person can still be saved and can still go to heaven through a "baptism by desire." In much the same way, if this girl has an invincible obstacle that prevents her from receiving the Eucharist, God has other options open to Him, being omnipotent and all. Oh, and by the way, this girl is not "allergic to Jesus" either. The allergic reaction is a reaction to chemical attributes, which do NOT change as a result of the consecration! Thus, I would argue that she would still just have an allergic reaction to the chemical attributes of wheat gluten, not actually Jesus, who is substantially but not chemically present following consecration. However, this gets into some really deep philosophical stuff about substance and accidents and could turn into a very long, complicated discussion on the finer points of Catholic doctrine on transubstantiation in the Eucharist... Anyway, I guess she's not the Antichrist after all! ;-)

Oh, and one more general thing. This is kind of going out on a limb and would not really be the usual way of doing things per se. I could be wrong - I'd have to ask some more knowledgeable person - but I don't see anywhere that this girl is allergic to wine. It is generally said, even by Catholics, that the bread turns into the Body and the wine turns into the Blood, but this is not strictly true. The actual doctrine is that BOTH become the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Thus, it MIGHT be possible that this girl could actually receive the fullness of the sacrament without any wheat gluten involved. Like I said, I might be missing something, but I wonder... Maybe this is all just much ado about nothing! Nevertheless, I hope this has to some degree enhanced everyone's understanding of the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the sacrament of the Eucharist according to Catholic belief. Sorry this was quite long, but it can be a complex subject, and I felt that it needed to be said. If anyone else has any other questions, or if other more knowledgeable people around here have comments, feel free to throw them out, of course!



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
LEAVE IT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO MAKE ME LAUGH MY A$$ OFF!!!

TheIndependentJournal



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Once again the catholic church is something else than christian churches.
Loads of people will disagree with me, but that's okay. ;+)
I am a christian myself and I have lost trust in the catholic church a long long time ago.

I am not saying they are not going to heaven by the way, as the onlyone who can make that kind of decisions is God Himself.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   
chrishack14 - nice post. you explained catholic doctrine on the subject very well, much better than I could have. Unfortunaley, you won't receive much praise for your effort. there is a deep hatred towards the Catholic Church across these message boards. that is alot of the reason why people who know nothing of Catholic doctrine see articles like this one about the girl and immediately jump on the bash the Catholics bandwagon. So much for deny ignorance....



Originally posted by Jakko
Once again the catholic church is something else than christian churches.


I'm sorry you feel that way, Jakko, especially since before the protestant reformation all christians were the same thing. i'd be interested to know what makes the catholic church "something else than christian churches" for you.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The Christian doctrine is all the same Catholic or protestant, but in my opinion the different churches that we have are just a way to make money and profit from the Christian doctrine and away from the Catholic church after seen how the Catholic church has profit from their followers through the years it is fair to say that anybody that practices Christianity and build a church can profit from it too.

And yes I was also brought up thinking that I was actually eating the body of Jesus and drinking his blood also during communion. Scare tactics can be very powerful in the mind of a child.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
catholics are funny! every comedian has made a crack at them in one point of their lives.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps13
I'm sorry you feel that way, Jakko, especially since before the protestant reformation all christians were the same thing. i'd be interested to know what makes the catholic church "something else than christian churches" for you.


Oh don't be sorry.
It's not like I look down on catholic people or anything.
I try not to look down on anyone, by the way, regardless of what they believe.

The catholic church has rituals, traditions and rules that do not come out of the bible, that were clearly not made to serve God.
I am talking about having a pope, honoring all these statues, buying candles for sick people, praising people instead of God and having narrow-minded rules and laws.

Bread actually turning into flesh, wine actually turning into blood, it's like a puppet-show and it's about the outside, the superfacial things.
Christianity should not be about superfacial things, it should be about realness, truthfull to the core and not for hypocrits.

That's basicly why I don't see myself in the same "cornor" as catholics.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   


chrishack14 - nice post. you explained catholic doctrine on the subject very well, much better than I could have. Unfortunaley, you won't receive much praise for your effort. there is a deep hatred towards the Catholic Church across these message boards. that is alot of the reason why people who know nothing of Catholic doctrine see articles like this one about the girl and immediately jump on the bash the Catholics bandwagon. So much for deny ignorance....


Hi BlackOps. Thank you very much for your comments - they were very kind!
I know I probably won't receive a lot of praise (I was pleasantly surprised to get anyone's - it put a big grin on my face). I have experienced the anti-Catholic (really anti-Christian in general, but especially anti-Catholic) bias of these boards firsthand before, having been accused of "deliberately closing my eyes to the facts" and promoting a closed-minded "Mobile, Alabama version of Christianity" for saying that I am a Catholic and that I don't worship a pagan sun god. Go figure...
So much for deny ignorance, indeed... Nevertheless, I try my best to at least explain things in a way that I hope others can understand if they are willing to give it a chance. People rarely change their minds on an issue just because of one discussion, much less a few posts on a message board, but I figure I can at least maybe plant a seed or two and let God do the rest. After all, as a Catholic I believe that faith and acceptance of the Church is a gift from God. He can work through people, but the people aren't the source of the gift.

Anyway...



Once again the catholic church is something else than christian churches.
Loads of people will disagree with me, but that's okay. ;+)
I am a christian myself and I have lost trust in the catholic church a long long time ago.


I, too, am sorry you feel this way. I would be interested to know what it was that caused you to have "lost trust in the Catholic Church a long long time ago." Contrary to the first part of that post, the Catholic Church is a Christian Church, and I'd say there's a good chance that the Catholic Church has more in common with your own than you may realize. What sources did you use to arrive at your distrust? Some (Jack Chick and friends, for example) are notoriously unreliable, and even many Protestants agree that they grossly distort Catholic doctrine.




The Christian doctrine is all the same Catholic or protestant, but in my opinion the different churches that we have are just a way to make money and profit from the Christian doctrine and away from the Catholic church after seen how the Catholic church has profit from their followers through the years it is fair to say that anybody that practices Christianity and build a church can profit from it too.


Do you actually have any evidence for this claim that the purpose of Christianity is make a profit, or are you just going on assumptions or what other people told you? Yes, there are unscrupulous leaders of pretty much every Christian group in history who have tried to make themselves rich by exploiting others. However, to indict Christianity in general for the actions of a minority within Christianity is, in my opinion, rather irresponsible. Look at people like Mother Theresa, St. Maximilian Kolbe, cloistered nuns (Cathoic examples), missionaries, all of the many Chrisitians who spend their entire lives making very little (if any) profit doing volunteer work to help the poor and bring about positive social change. There are examples of Christians profiting materially from the faith, but there are far more stories of Christians, Catholic and otherwise, who have done the exact opposite, giving up every material possession they had and even their very lives to help others. Also note that you could make the same comments about pretty much any given government, but that doesn't mean most people would say that government in and of itself is a totally bad concept. Just some things to think about...




catholics are funny! every comedian has made a crack at them in one point of their lives.


Yep, and most of the jokes are based on a flawed understanding of the faith. Unfortunate, huh?




The catholic church has rituals, traditions and rules that do not come out of the bible, that were clearly not made to serve God.I am talking about having a pope, honoring all these statues, buying candles for sick people, praising people instead of God and having narrow-minded rules and laws.


You are partly right here, but there are, in my opinion, serious flaws in your reasoning. To say that Catholics have "rituals, traditions, and rules that do not come out of the Bible" is absolutely correct. On the other hand, so does every other Christian group I know of. The biggest example: The Bible itself is a product of extrabiblical tradition. The list of books accepted as making up the Bible, whether it is a Catholic or Protestant Bible, is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Many books of the Bible do not claim to be divinely inspired, and there are many books that do claim to be divinely inspired but are not accepted by very many Christians as being part of the Bible. So where does every Christian denomination get its Bible? Simple: tradition. Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition do not oppose one another - they complement one another. By the way, if the papacy is not in the Bible, how do you explain Matt. 16:18, in which Peter is clearly given very "Pope-like" authority by Christ himself? Why in Acts, at the Council of Jerusalem, did Peter have the absolute, final say on such controversial matters, and there is no record of anybody at the council questioning him after he makes the final decision? There is plenty of historical evidence for the papacy as well... The others, yes, are basically extrabibilical, but if you only rely on the Bible, where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the only legitimate source of Christian doctrine? Unless they actually contradict the Bible, on what grounds do you object? And what are these "narrow-minded rules and laws" you speak of? I'm not trying to be hostile, just giving you things to think about...




Bread actually turning into flesh, wine actually turning into blood, it's like a puppet-show and it's about the outside, the superfacial things.Christianity should not be about superfacial things, it should be about realness, truthfull to the core and not for hypocrits.

That's basicly why I don't see myself in the same "cornor" as catholics.


Just because a doctrine involves physical things does not mean that it is, as you say, "superficial." Human beings are not purely spiritual beings - we have a physical nature as well. God touches and works through the whole person, according to Catholic doctrine, not just the spiritual, and I think this is reasonable. After all, if the physical isn't important, why did Jesus take on a partly physical human nature and physically die on the cross for us? If He worked physically in that way, why is it unreasonable to say that He could work physically in other ways. Catholicism is not a "puppet-show." It has very physical aspects, but behind the physical aspects there are also spiritual aspects. That has always been one of my favorite things about the Catholic faith - it is concerned with the whole person - physical and spiritual - and I think it is only reasonable that this is as it should be. To me, that is exactly what makes it "about realness, truthful to the core, and not for hypocrites."

One final note - upon reading the article more closely, it appears that my theory about this girl receiving from the cup was indeed going to be allowed. Apparently, this girl was offered a perfectly good way to receive the Eucharist and her mother pitched a fit anyway. She is not going to get anywhere with this "This a tradition of the Church, not the willl of God..." stuff - this is very much at odds with Catholic doctrine, and Cardinal Ratzinger isn't going to go for it. Really, people, this is actually a very silly complaint from the mother when considered in light of the real Catholic teaching on the subject - she would receive exactly the same thing by receiving from the cup that she would by receiving in the "normal" way (under the appearance of bread). As I said in my first post, it's really much ado about nothing...

[edit on 20-8-2004 by chrishack14]



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Thank you 'chrishack14' for explaining Catholicism. I have to say as a Christian that I am fairly ignorant about the details of the Catholic Mass. Oddly enough, I was talking with a young lady earlier today about the very same subject. I am very glad that I came across your posts tonight, so thank you...

For others: "Deny Ignorance" does not mean to deny stupidity, it means to deny not knowing. There are more definitions to 'ignorance' than most people on these boards take it as meaning, and that is sad because they are still being ignorant by not knowing the meaning of the word in question. Also, why is there such a strong urge for people to bash someone or diss them because they might believe differently than you do? It seems as if some people on ATS are "denying civilization" by acting so childish and being so brutal towards the sincere feelings of another individual.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   


Thank you 'chrishack14' for explaining Catholicism. I have to say as a Christian that I am fairly ignorant about the details of the Catholic Mass. Oddly enough, I was talking with a young lady earlier today about the very same subject. I am very glad that I came across your posts tonight, so thank you...


You're more than welcome petey. I'm glad I could be of some assistance. What I said really just scratched a small piece of the surface, though, so I wouldn't stop with just my post if you really want to know about the details of the Catholic Mass and the reasoning behind it. There are good books out there about that and all the sacraments in general, as well as several excellent websites, like:

Dave Armstrong's "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" -

"Matt1618's Catholic Apologetics" -

Those two are based on debates that these two Catholic guys (and sometimes other people) have had with non-Catholics (atheists, protestants, schismatic Catholics, all kinds of people) in which they try to explain various aspects of the Catholic faith and why they are reasonable. Catholicanswers.org might be a more straightforward, "non-Catholic friendly" approach, although I can't say I particularly care for a few of the things on there... Anyway, try those or just run a Google search for some other material if you're interested in learning more. It's nice to meet a non-Catholic Christian who is willing to actually try to learn more about Catholicism before just attacking it as "unbiblical" or "unchristian" or something. God bless you!

-chrishack14



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I do check out websites, but it's extremely hard to know what is backed by the Faith and what is just downright anti. I go to the LDS Church, so I have seen my share of untrue websites on the internet and people that had no clue what my religion means to me. I do not try to learn about different religions in textbooks which combine all religions, because the author obviously is not a member of EVERY religious movement out there.

So far this summer I wanted to know what the Muslims believed, so I talked to a guy in Knoxville, TN that was Muslim and we discussed his religion so that I could know what it meant to him to be a Muslim. I wanted to know what it meant to be Hindu, so I asked a Japanese girl about it on campus before everyone went home for the summer. Then the Jehovah Witness people came to my door back in June, and I explained to them that my intentions were not to convert, but that I would listen to their teachings so that I would no longer be ignorant on what they believe. So far that too has been a wonderful experience, because the JW man has started teaching me how to read Hebrew (which I am not very good at).

Now that I want to learn about Catholicism, I have asked someone that is Catholic and does participate in Church activities, plus your explanation only restated what she has told me recently. Therefore, it looks like a very stable explanation, and I thank you for that. In the coming weeks I will check out the websites that you listed (since I feel that your credibility is worthy to believe). I have become weary of a lot of websites out there, because the majority are plain anti- websites. And the saddest thing is that they are made by "Christians" that are wanting to "show the truth to everyone". It is no wonder that there are so many people in this world that are non-believers. How can we expect anyone to convert to Christianity while seeing two different denominations of self-proclaimed "Christians" arguing and fighting over who is right, when in all reality it is a very good possibility that nobody has it exactly right (that would be my personal belief).

There are good people in ever religion (as long as it's not a religion developed on evil, but that's another story), but there are also bad (for lack of a better word) examples of people in every religion as well. Thank you for scraping the tip of the iceberg on the Catholic Mass...

CTR



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I am a mild Celiac. (Alergy to Gluten)
As a matter of a fact, my best buddy that now lives out of town, was in town this past Tuesday. When we get together the $hyte hits the fan and the beers get broken out for old time sake... Even thought beer is not a great thing to drink being a Celiac (Wheat in beer)... Well I've been having alegry sickness since Wednesday morning after only 6 beer allnight... ok I had a peice of pizza too, also not a good thingto eat being a Celiac.

Needless to say Iam paying for that case of partying for about 3 days now. I get extreme stomach and intestinal cramps, which do not allow me to eat anything (water is hard to take in) without purgeing it mins later, 200% involentaraly. I try to fight the pukes off with no avail. Nasty, but Iam trying to let you guys know what that little girl might have felt if she has a more potent case of Celiac than my sort of mild one.

At one point 2 years ago when I was trying to figure out what the hell was wrong with me I saw many doctors and specialist. I had over 35 test and 3 stomach scopes done on me to find out what was wrong... The main stream doctors told me that they could NOT find ANYTHING wrong with me, ANYTHING!!! They then desided to tell me that this was a mental thing, and that I was imagining the pain, or plain and simply making it up.

NOT ONCE DID THE DOCTORS DO AN ALERGY TEST ON ME, NOT ONCE IN 19 MONTHS OF LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM.

... Finally my mother was watching T.V. and saw a program on that was talking about Wheat and how its was a new big algery in the states... Well my mom put me in the car and took me the a Naturalpath doctor, this man did a couple test on me and determined in about 5 mins that I had a gigantic Wheat alergy at that time. He treated me with some multi vitamins and other digestive enzyms to help me get my insides back in track. 1-1/2 DAYS AFTER I STOPPED EATING WHEAT, THE PAINS WHERE GONE AND I FELT LIKE I WAS REBORN, honesty I have never felt so good after feeling so bad for about a year.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOL, for one thing I do not go to church so this really does not affect me, but if in the rare chance that I do go to church to please my grandmother the pastor can shove that cracker up his a$$ for all I care. I dont care if it was GODs body or what ever delusional thing they want to call it, IAM NOT GOING TO EAT SOMETHING THAT CAUSES ME 2-3 DAYS OF PAIN... Unless your a best friend that I havent seen in ages, Iam not touching Gluten.

[edit on 8/20/04 by HumptyDumpty]



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Thanks for the info. I was married in the Catholic Church (since divorced) and although I was required to take rudimentary courses I wasn't required to convert so I am not familiar with the intricacies.

I guess the crux of my argument in this post was in my throwaway line at the end when I stated that Catholic doctrine had no word on Parkinsons drugs. A thousand years ago the Pontiff's unfortunate illness would have been diagnosed as posession by the Devil and treated as such. Today we know better.

Catholic doctrine also prohibits remarriage in the Church if you have been divorced. The rich and powerful ie) Ted Kennedy can side step this problem by using their influence to expedite an annulment (after years of marriage and children) so that they can recieve the sacrament.

It's hard to believe that powerful Catholics with gluten allergies would be treated in the same manner.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Hello again, everyone.

First of all, Petey, after reading your second post in this thread and thinking more carefully about my suggestions, I think maybe I would do well to revise them a little. I still think they are good sources of information on Catholic doctrine, but many of the articles and stuff on those sites was originally written, at least in part, as responses to attacks on the Catholic faith by people of other religions. Thus, they might come across to you as being rather "anti" as I think you put it, or trying to "show you the truth." Of course, we Catholics believe that what we believe is the truth and would love to show it to you (although we also recognize that almost every religion has at the very least some "grain of truth" in it), but it seems to me that you would rather learn from a more neutral, totally non-adversarial source, which is fine. Which leads me to the one source that, like a complete idiot, I left out of my first list of "suggested reading" if you will - the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (duh, silly me). An English translation is online at usccb.org (the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website - just click on "Catechism" on the left side), along with a wealth of other information about Catholicism, like papal encyclicals, etc. It might take a long time to download though, unless there is some way to get just pieces of it, since the book version is something like 850 pages long. It has just about everything you could possibly want to know about Catholic doctrine in general, whereas the sites I posted before were concerned mainly with specific objections to Catholic theology and such. Anyway, the point is, if the sites I listed turn you off, you might like the Catechism better, but you are probably going about it the right way by asking various Catholics to explain - that may very well be the best approach. Anyway...

deevee, I am glad to see that you at least have an open mind about this doctrine. Honestly though, I think I only partially understand what you were trying to say in that last line of your first post. First of all, I get the thing about annuments, and to some extent I actually agree with you. So do quite a few Catholic leaders. In recent years it has gotten way too easy to get an annulment (in the United States at least). It is my understanding that in other countries where the bishops are a little more theologically and morally conservative, it is still quite difficult to do so, and some dioceses in the U.S. have been strongly criticized by Pope John Paul II and others for making it WAY too easy to get an annulment for just any reason. I don't know much about the specifics of Ted Kennedy's case, but if he had been married with children for a very long time, I would go out on a limb and say he probably shouldn't have gotten one. On the other hand, I know a bunch of basiclally average Joes in my archdiocese who probably should not have gotten annulments but did, just because it is seen as being cruel or heartless to prevent someone from remarrying in the Church. Really, an annulment is only supposed to be allowed when the original marriage had some flaw in it that made it invalid from the very beginning. An annulment, contrary to popular belief, is not a "Catholic divorce" - rather it is a declaration that there was no valid sacramental marriage to begin with. If the marriage was valid to begin with, it's supposed to be "until death do us part," period. No exceptions. You can live separately if you just can't stand the person anymore or whatever, but you aren't supposed to be allowed to remarry. You are exactly right to say that the whole annulment thing in the U.S. is indeed a mess, but it has actually gotten that way because too many leaders in the Church in the U.S. are all too willing to do essentially the same thing the priest in this article did. They are throwing out genuine Catholic doctrine and replacing it with what they think people want. In this case, I agree with you. Change needs to be made. However, I don't think that the problem in this case is that the rich and powerful are getting too many favors (though that does happen sometimes - Church leaders are human and do stupid things sometimes). I think it has more to do with a general trend in the Church in the U.S. toward the attitude of the priest in the article that it's okay to mess around with established doctrine as long as you have good intentions.

The connection to Parkinsons drugs still eludes me, though. I don't know of any specific Catholic doctrine dealing with Parkinsons drugs (although there may very well be such a thing that we just don't know about), but I don't see why that bothers you so much. They are not forbidden (unless they are embryonic stem cell-related), and there is no theological reason that I can think of why they should be. On the other hand, there is a theological reason for not allowing the use of rice cakes or whatever they used in the article in the Eucharist. I just don't see the connection with that one.

Finally, I kind of doubt that powerful Catholics with gluten allergies with gluten allergies would be treated differently. As I said, lots of people get exceptions made in the case of annulments, whether they are powerful or not. This is largely because it is fairly easy for Church leaders to sort of make up some pretty shaky ways of justifying that kind of thing to themselves. They can say, "Well, there was this that he didn't know about his wife all those years ago, and I imagine he was probably immature when he got married, and he might have been pressured a little by his parents..." and so on by kind of stretching certain parts of each individual case a little (because some of the guidelines on annulments are a little unclear). There is a lot of gray area in the case of annulments to allow for some not-so-good justifications that at least seem okay on the surface, but witht the wheat gluten thing, the doctrine is more black and white. There is some room for individual consideration of a lot of complex factors with an annulment (not that I'm trying to justify "annulments on demand"), but in the Eucharist, either it is wheat or it isn't. The gray area that you have in the annulment process just isn't there. Like I say though, you're correct to say that there is some degree of corruption in the Catholic Church in the U.S. and that reforms are needed in some areas. I think that is being worked on, and I hope that the problems that do exist will be fixed in the near future. It's nice to know that at least there is some common ground here.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join