Do not sit out there and accuse this writer of "grave sin" because I reported what the priest interviewed should have corrected right after it appeared in the press. Did he not read it? Did he not see what the reporter wrote? Should he not have contracted the reporter to retract or clarify? Should he not have written here or responded to the email stating that he asked The Star for a correction or clarification?
How dare you sit in judgement of this writer.
Go ask the priest!
We have Monsignors using money from who knows where to buy cocaine for a sodomite orgy in the Vatican - a situation totally ignored by the secular press, but this is what they have spent a week reporting to discredit the Church for the few Celiac sufferers who cannot consume Blessed Sacrament under one species, even though the other is available.
Anyone who cannot receive Body of the Lord under the form of bread, can receive the Blood of Christ under what was wine, even a child and even at the traditional Latin Mass.
Look, if there is no gluten, then it is not wheat flour, it does not make bread and there is no confection of the Blessed Sacrament, no transubstantiation, period!
This is not a new instruction by the Church, it is simply a restatement of the facts for the reason that the abuse is occurring by errant priests and bishops and the result is that the Sacrament simply isn't!
Invalid matter does not make for a Sacrament!
The Toronto Star is a notorious and near-bankrupt rag of anti-Catholic bigotry and leftism and it has joined the parade. What the Star writes on the matter is not the point, it is who is interviewed and what is said that must be exposed to the Catholic faithful.
Andrea Adam, a rather poorly catechized Catholic mother has a child suffering from Celiac's disease. Mrs. Adam would not accept her parish priest's decision that gluten-free hosts would not be provided. The Toronto Star reporter states that "in the end, Adam took her daughter to Ottawa, where she was able to receive Holy Communion with a gluten-free host."
I've got news for Andrea Adam.
Your daughter was not, "able to receive Holy Communion." She received a substance made from non-wheat flour that was nothing more than that.
Did know priest ever tell the poor woman this?
Note that this was Ottawa, under the nose of Archbishop Terence Prendergast, S.J.!
Now, for more.
Terry Fournier is a priest of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie and is National Director of Office of Liturgy (English Sector) for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Fournier is quoted in the Toronto Star article as follows:
Did you catch that?
"Symbolizes the blood of Christ."
The reporter does not place the phrase, which symbolizes the blood of Christ, in quotation marks.
Why is this? Did Father say, "don't quote me," with a wink, wink and a nudge, nudge? Is there a reason why the writer quotes him, but does not, at the same time?
I think Father Terry Fournier and Bishop Crosby, President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, should confirm whether the Grand Pub-ha of the liturgical mess of the mass that occurs in Canada actually believes in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic species under the appearance of bread and wine.
Yes, or no, Father Fournier, which is it?
Oh, and, Your Grace, what of that parish in Ottawa with the invalid matter?
13 comments:
The hosts provided to celiac sufferers, as far as I am aware, are only low-gluten hosts, not gluten-free as reported. So Vox, I believe your point is well-taken if hosts are designated gluten-free. That wouldn't be real wheat, I don't think. I don't know if there is such a thing as wheat without gluten. The misnomer of these hosts is causing a tremendous amount of trouble and distracting us from the real issues. Anyone familiar with the gluten issue knows that wheat has been so hybridized over the last 50 years, that it now has exponentially higher levels of gluten than it ever did. It is also now being chemically and radiologically mutated to resist various herbicides. There is absolutely no question that the wheat used now to make hosts is in fact much different from what it was a half century ago. The low gluten hosts now being used are in fact probably closer in gluten content to what hosts were 50 years ago.
The Holy See has decided that genetic modification does not affect whether the host is still considered wheat, and therefore is proper matter for transubstantiation. However, current plant genetic modification typically introduces genes from entirely different species into the genome of plants to provide resistance to various factors. So GMO hosts are essentially (yes, in essence, to use a philosophical term) contaminated with non-wheat genetic material. And yet, such GMO hosts of contaminated essence are still permitted for use in the Eucharist. This is inconsistent with the Vatican's directive that Eucharistic bread be made only from wheat. GMO wheat is not just wheat.
Low gluten hosts made from low-gluten wheat are fine. If we were using low gluten heirloom wheat to make hosts, we would have altar breads that are closer to the bread Jesus would have used at the Last Supper.
I believe a case can be made for GMO wheat hosts being illicit, due to their genetically adulterated, chimeric gene structure. And it is a fact that super-hybridized, chemically and radiologically mutated wheat is making people sick. But nobody wants to talk about this.
Brother Anthony
Hi Father Terry,
You symbolize a non-Catholic jack-ass.
Best always!
They have lost the Faith.
Wheat separating from chaff, real from symbolic.
Distractions, distractions, distractions.
Lovely.
Having these national conferences is proving to be a horrible idea year after year. Can't we just have a centralized Church - and papacy - like we had in the High Middle Ages?
I assumed that the interpretation of "symbolizes" was of the author. I am also assuming Salmaan Farooqui is not Catholic and not familiar with transubstantiation.
I hope you are wrong about Fr. Terry Fournier but do believe a follow-up should be done or a correction by the journalist.
The rest of the article is spot on!
Excellent post, Brother Anthony.
I have worked 18+ years in a family owned health food store. One of my coworkers is celiac. However, she said that receiving receiving the Host was no problem for her.
I also wonder if worrying about gluten is a tacit denial of the Real Presence since after the Consecration, the substance of the bread no longer exists,only the appearance of bread remains.
(For the record, I'm NOT saying this about my coworker.)
Margaret
The fact of the matter is that the article appeared in the Toronto Star as pictured. Priests in these positions (spokesman) must be taken at face value - we should be able to understand by the words they utter exactly what they mean - the fact that this discussion in this combox is even taken place is evidence of the problem. Faith in the Eucharist has been eroded for the last 50 years or more, and for a man in this position to use ambiguous terms in the day and age makes his suspect. Look at the state of our church - Benedict himself described the church as a vessel that has taken so much water that is on the verge of capsizing in a statement read out at Cardinal Meisner's funeral. Priests in these positions no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt simply because they are priests. To say that they do is so foolish that it borders on idiotic.
Margaret, thank you for the reply. In the sacrament, transubstantiation indicates that what once was bread is now Christ's Body and Blood. The Church tells us that the substance or essence of the host is no longer bread. However, as I understand it, it still retains the "accidents" (to use a philosophical term) of bread, which do not undermine its essence as Christ's Body and Blood: It looks like bread, crumbles like bread, tastes like bread, behaves like bread (with gluten) in the digestive system... but its essence, its substance (in Greek, "ousia") has changed, and it is now Christ Himself. If this were not the case (if it did not look like, crumble like, taste like, behave like bread), we would not require faith to worship and adore Christ in the consecrated Host.
Christ is present in the sacraments whether we have faith or not. But if we don't have faith, believing that He is present under the appearance and taste etc., (accidents) of bread and wine, we wouldn't approach them.
All this to say that I think the gluten issue is a valid concern. Years ago, I would have a terrible week-long reaction to the gluten in a regular host. Now, I am not so sensitive. To be consistent with sound sacramental understanding, gluten sensitive people are reacting to the "accidental" characteristic (in the philosophical terminology) of the consecrated Host. It is no longer gluten in essence, but retains its appearance and effects on the one who consumes it. I hope this clears things up.
Brother Anthony
To respond to Anonymous, I don't think wheat 50 years ago was low-gluten. It depends on what kind of wheat you're using to make the flour.
In Canada all purpose flour can be used to make bread because our wheat has enough gluten to do the job. I don't think we've ever had to add anything to our flour to be able to make bread.
In the US, OTOH, they have to use bread flour because their all-purpose made from the wheat they grow doesn't have enough gluten for bread. If they use all-purpose they have to add gluten to it to get the results they are looking for.
I'm sorry Margaret, but believing in the Real Presence will not stop you from getting drunk if you consume enough of the Precious Blood. The accidents of the wine are still present.
Get a clarification, and stop overreacting, for goodness' sake!
There was a survey that was done several years ago indicating that approximately 70 % of American Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Remember how Mother Angelica publicly criticized on air Card. Mahoney's diocesan letter regarding the Holy Eucharist? Not one mention of Our Lord present in the Eucharist or that bread and wine are appearances after Consecration. So is it any wonder about this article? Catholics all over the world are apostasing.
Calling into question the beliefs of a priest based on the absence of quotation marks seems very close to a grave sin against charity especially when there are many obvious explanations why this statement and its lack of attribution exist, e.g. a person ignorant of Catholicism wrote the article and incorrectly paraphrased Father. We are supposed to confront our brothers and sisters before going public with our complaints. Have you tried to contact His Reverence before implying that he may deny Our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist with a "wink, wink, and a nudge, nudge."
Post a Comment