tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post112671699859646344..comments2023-11-02T07:47:10.433-04:00Comments on Vindicated: Sacramental TheologyKylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1127150508453366112005-09-19T13:21:00.000-04:002005-09-19T13:21:00.000-04:00I commend to you "A Short Introduction on Communio...I commend to you "<A HREF="http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/celiasprue.shtml" REL="nofollow">A Short Introduction on Communion and Celiac Sprue Disease</A>" (particularly point #5) by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as <A HREF="http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/celiasprue.shtml" REL="nofollow">paragraph 1390</A> of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>In the first document:<BR/><BR/>"Such communicants may still receive the Precious Blood. Catholics believe that whoever receives Holy Communion only under the form of bread or only under the form of wine still receives the whole Christ, in his Body and Blood, soul and divinity."<BR/><BR/>And the second:<BR/><BR/>"Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But 'the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.' This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites."<BR/><BR/>It should be noted as doubtful that the Catechism had Celiac disease in mind, so only bread is mentioned as the sole species. But the point is the same. <BR/><BR/>I do confess to some confusion as to why you care about what Roman Catholics consider to be valid sacramental rites, or the Baptists for that matter. Frankly, since baptists are not sacramental (by definition, perhaps?) I don't see why they wouldn't use a gluten free substitute, or why the bread should even be necessary. <BR/><BR/>I also recognize that you may not want to engage it here, but I am interested...Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1127144857012373432005-09-19T11:47:00.000-04:002005-09-19T11:47:00.000-04:00I'm familiar with this. Can you point me to a pass...I'm familiar with this. Can you point me to a passage in a cathecism that says this, though? It would be thoroughly appreciated.JHearnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14938224568383367403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1127091333215133932005-09-18T20:55:00.000-04:002005-09-18T20:55:00.000-04:00I think that the Eucharist is an important, even a...I think that the Eucharist is an important, even an indispensable vehicle for the reception of Christ's presence. That's probably clear in my writings.<BR/><BR/>I should say, dear brother, that I don't quite understand the question, and this is why:<BR/><BR/>It's not pointed out nearly often enough, but I affirm along with the rest of the catholic churches that one receives the full spiritual benefits of the Eucharist whether or not one receives it in both kinds. <BR/><BR/>There is no difference whether one takes only bread or only wine or both bread and wine.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1127086586102698982005-09-18T19:36:00.000-04:002005-09-18T19:36:00.000-04:00So to ask a familiar and old question:What about t...So to ask a familiar and old question:<BR/><BR/>What about those of us who either cannot or do not take the Eucharist?JHearnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14938224568383367403noreply@blogger.com