Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

Author Topic: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?  (Read 11625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline songbird

Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2018, 10:32:03 AM »
A priest can still give a crumb.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2018, 11:27:35 AM »
Quote from: songbird on November 12, 2018, 10:32:03 AM
A priest can still give a crumb.
Yes that is the way it is done. When the priest gets to the person, he breaks off a small chip and gives it to the person.

However, in the example the OP gave, the priests is giving a special communion to the person. I have seen it done, the priests after he is done with everyone, goes up to the tabernacle and brings back the special host just for that one person. It is quite a spectacle on Sundays. 

In my opinion, it is an unnecessary spectacle for the parents or the person. I think it has to do more with pride than avoiding illness. If the person was so allergic to wheat that they can't even eat a small chip, then they would be sick all the time, because there are more accidental pieces of wheat in all the food that they eat every day.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2018, 11:42:33 AM »
Quote
In my opinion, it is an unnecessary spectacle for the parents or the person. I think it has to do more with pride than avoiding illness. If the person was so allergic to wheat that they can't even eat a small chip, then they would be sick all the time, because there are more accidental pieces of wheat in all the food that they eat every day.
I think you're being too judgemental here and overly dramatic.  If the priest decides that such a thing is necessary or prudent, then accept his decision.  If you were involved with the discussions, then you are allowed an opinion, but i'm assuming you weren't.  Exceptions like this are allowed by the Church, who is Our Mother and not a liturgical dictator.  It's not a "spectacle" for a priest to make an allowance in an extraordinary case.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2018, 12:11:02 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 12, 2018, 11:42:33 AM
I think you're being too judgemental here and overly dramatic.  If the priest decides that such a thing is necessary or prudent, then accept his decision.  If you were involved with the discussions, then you are allowed an opinion, but i'm assuming you weren't.  Exceptions like this are allowed by the Church, who is Our Mother and not a liturgical dictator.  It's not a "spectacle" for a priest to make an allowance in an extraordinary case.
I'd be more interested in what other celiac sufferers have to say, as I know two, and all their lives they've just taken the small fragment from the priests. That is the reason for my opinion. I really do not give a hoot about  a priest going through that extra effort. The question is, is it necessary? Are there any celiac sufferers who want to enlighten us?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2018, 12:23:18 PM »
Actually, a lot of people who have issues with gluten have no problems if they go back to "ancient grain" forms of wheat.  Gluten only became a problem in the 50s when they genetically mutated wheat (not GMO like today but creating mutations and picking out the desired strains).

From a Prot site:
Quote
There certainly are many references to grains in the Bible, and with good reason. The Bible was compiled during a predominately agricultural time, and this would have been a reference that was easily understood by the people during that time period.

Though the Bible references grains, the grains consumed a couple thousand years ago bear little to no resemblance to the grains we consume (or don’t consume!) today.

In Jesus’ time, there were only three major types of wheat in existence: Einkorn, Emmer, and later Triticuм aestivum along with simple, non-hybrid varieties of other grains like barley, millet, and rye. These grains had (and still have) a higher protein content and lower anti-nutrient content than grains of today.

This is a stark contrast to the 25,000+ species that exist today, most of which we created in a lab to be disease resistant or produce high yields. In order to achieve these traits like disease and pest resistance, scientists had to enhance the part of the grains that naturally resists disease and predators: mainly, the glutens, lectins, and phytates- the most harmful parts of the grains to humans.

In addition, these hybridized strains are often allergen producing and usually sprayed with pesticides and chemicals. It is interesting to note that some people who are allergic to modern strains of wheat show little to no reaction to (properly prepared) Einkorn wheat in small amounts.

So, the grains of Jesus’ time weren’t genetically similar to the grains of today, and had lower concentrations of the harmful com
ponents. In addition, they were prepared much differently:
  
My wife and one of my daughters have serious gluten intolerance, and yet they had no issues at all with Emmer (when we obtained some).

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
« previous next »