I was reading this story on CNN.com and this really just baffled me. Read this story. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/19/communion.denied.ap/index.html

Why would the Catholic church want somebody to risk their life over this? Seriously, what difference does the wheat really make? Did any of you who were raised Catholic ever get taught about there being an importance of wheat in the waffer? I think this is just plain stupid. Honestly, would Jesus really care if the waffer that symbolizes his last supper was either made out of wheat or rice? Let me know what your reaction is.

-- John (example@unknown.com), August 20, 2004

Answers

If it isn't done the same way Jesus did it, what reason would there be to believe that the same thing was done? He demonstrated precisely how the Eucharist was to be consecrated. Then He said "DO THIS in remembrance of Me". Not "do something similar to this". If we change the words He said, or the matter He used, why should we expect that the effect would be the same? If we can use rice wafers, why not Ritz Crackers? Why not chocolate chip cookies? God described the sacrament. We obey.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 20, 2004.

The issue is whether the little girl should eat the wafer or not and what will happen to her if she does not partake of the Holy Eucharist in the wheat form. Evidently, she is denying the wine. Basically, she is rejecting or denying the Holy Eucharist in one or both forms that is being offered. I don't think it is an issue of rice or wheat.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 20, 2004.

Paul M. and rod have described the situation accurately. The Church is not at liberty to redefine the form or matter of the sacrament, because it did not invent the sacrament -- Jesus Himself did. By canon law, no-one is obligated to receive communion more than once a year, and even then either the Body or the Blood will suffice for the purpose of receiving Him in the sacrament. If the girl's mother intends to keep her from receiving the Blood, that is not the Church's problem.

-- craig (not@here.com), August 20, 2004.

I don't understand it either--to me, it shouldn't be in the form of these artificial-looking paper-thin wafers, that aren't even akin to flatbread or tortillas, it should be BREAD. You can make BREAD out of all sorts of flour, not necessarily wheat. Was wheat the only thing they had to use for bread back then? One parish I used to attend actually used a flat "bread" (about the thickness of a cookie) for Communion.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 21, 2004.

"Unleaven" bread represents the sinless nature of Christ. "Bitters" represents the oppression of the Chosen People, the Jews. The wine represents the blood of Christ that is shed in payment for our Salvation. The representation becomes more than mere symbolism. It becomes real.

The elements of Holy Communion are not limited to a sale at Walmart on oyster crackers, as I've witnessed at some gatherings. The wafers are made with one sole reason and purpose, with great understanding of what it represents, and with what it is to become. Perhaps to some people it should be as convenient as animal crackers or pretzels, but it should not be that way.

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

Hosts are made of pure wheat without any additives, and are baked. If that isn't bread, what is? The advantage of used a "dehydrated" form of bread is obvious. It is not subject to decomposition as long as it remains dry. It really would not do to have the Body of Christ getting moldy in the tabernacle. For this reason, any approved form of bread other than hosts which is used in a Eucharistic celebration must be fully consumed at that Mass. It may not be stored for future use.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.

Paul, your argument destroys itself. If we were to do it exactly, or even almost exactly as the way Jesus did it, we would have to do away with a great deal of our liturgy.

-- Brian (Brian@Brian.com), August 21, 2004.

Brian, since it is the consecration itself, nothing else, which Jesus demonstrated for us and commanded us to do, that and that alone is what we must do as He did it. The rest of the liturgy, which has in fact been changed innumerable times, is there only to provide introduction, context and closure to the single act which truly constitutes the Mass - the act of transubstantiation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.

According to this, it seems to be ENTIRELY a US issue....

http://www.celiac.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=696

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 25, 2004.