#(the holy eucharist says that the communion bread/wafers is the body of christ and the wine his blood)

[aelloposchrysopterus]

The ho-ho-ho-ly eucharist

Cookies represent the body of Santa while the milk represents the blood of Santa

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Wait, is the Catholic Church really against gluten-free communion? Because I could have sworn one of my parishes (or maybe my Catholic school masses) had a gluten free option when it came to communion

The Vatican states that communion wafers cannot be wheat-free.

I grew up learning that's because Jesus's bread would have contained wheat (and been unleavened, hence why the wafers are flat), and Catholic communion repeats/shares in the Last Supper across time and space so it should be as similar as possible. A quick google search confirms that, but if anyone's heard of other reasoning let me know.

However, what individual congregations or communities do may vary...if it's a specifically Roman Catholic community i daresay they'd get a slap on the wrist or something if "caught" but if they're out there, i applaud them!

On the other hand, the Vatican does approve gluten-reduced wafters — and luckily, they're not too hard to acquire (at least in some portions of the world):

"The Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration in Clyde, Missouri, have made Vatican-approved, low-gluten altar breads since 2004. These breads have been tested by independent laboratories and deemed safe for use by many people with Celiac Sprue Disease."

... In 2004 Dr. Alessio Fasano, at the time director of the the Center for Celiac Research at the University of Maryland*, maintained that the amount of gluten contained in one of the Benedictine Sisters’ low-gluten altar breads (tested at < .01 percent) was so minute that someone diagnosed with Celiac Sprue Disease would have to consume 270 wafers daily in order to reach the danger point. A test done in 2016 indicated the gluten content was even more minimal - less than .001 percent.

There are some people who are so sensitive to gluten that even the tiniest amount can cause discomfort. The Benedictine Sisters follow the recommendation set forth by the USCCB that those with such a serious gluten sensitivity discuss their condition with their pastor or Eucharistic minister. If the parish offers a separate chalice for Celiac sufferers, he or she may partake only of the Blood of Christ. It's best to avoid chalices that are used by those digesting regular altar breads because cross-contamination may occur.

(source from 2017)

^ So yeah, most folks with a gluten intolerance can inquire about reduced-gluten wafers; but if you're super sensitive, even that's not enough. I am really glad there's any accommodation at all, but that small percentage of people for whom even that's not enough, and for whom the wine is also not an option, I fume.

Those people matter, even if they aren't numerous. Jesus was all about the 1 person in 100, in the 1,000, in the 1,000,000.

For Catholics in particular, the Eucharist is vital: we believe it not only symbolically but literally is the Body and Blood of Jesus. To be denied that is cruel; every Catholic deserves to participate in that holy communion — without it inflicting health issues on them! Jesus came to bring abundant life and healing, not pain.

So yeah, the compassion in saying "fine, it can contain a little drop of gluten instead of all the gluten" is a great start. But the theology around it having to have wheat at all is flawed, and I wish the Vatican would revisit that more reflectively.

(There are also cultural things to ponder when it comes to like. places that don't have wheat as a staple but DO have rice etc. Why can't they use the staple of their diets for the eucharist? That could be the foundation of a cool theology, too)

[savedfromsalvation]

CHRISTIAN CANNIBALS

An argument of why Christians are cannibals (and possibly vampires) from Christianity's own perspective

by Jim Walker (an ex-cannibal)

Originated: 07 January 2003Additions: 10 July 2006

How many Christians realize that when they eat that wafer and drink the wine during communion service that they, in effect, practice cannibalism by the partaking in the eating of human flesh and blood?

I certainly did not know that when I underwent communion in my religious days. It sounds so innocent and benign; "Communion" imparts the concept of sharing thoughts and feelings, or so I thought. Oh how the priests fooled me. They used other obscure terms too, like "Eucharist" and "Sacrament of the Last Supper." At no time did a priest or deacon explain to me that I would share in the communal eating of the human flesh and blood of Jesus.

Cannibal: A person who eats the flesh of human beings.

Since Jesus represents an actual human being, and I ate him, that made me a cannibal. And if you have ever undergone communion, then you too fall into that category.

The Church tricked me and turned me into a cannibal!

Not only did I drink blood and eat flesh, but they made me do it in front of a statue of a bloody corpse hanging by nails on two pieces of lumber, a representation of the human whom I had just eaten. (Imagine eating a hamburger in front of an image of a freshly slain cow.)

The Church indoctrinates cannibalism at an early age. Here we have a priest putting pieces of raw human flesh into the mouths of children.

While Popes and priests visit foreign countries, they also make sure to spread their cannibalism.

Did this priest tell this child that she would eat human meat before putting a slice of it into her mouth?

When I discovered the shocking realization that I had eaten human flesh, and drank human blood I felt like vomiting. Where in the world did this morbid practice begin, I wondered. I reread the Bible for clues. Could that explain the mystery of the empty tomb of Jesus (Luke 24:3)? Did the disciples eat him?

Several Christians tried to console me by explaining that Communion only represents the symbolic eating of flesh, not the real thing (I later discovered that many Protestant Christians don't believe in the literal eating of Jesus, although some do). I felt relieved for awhile until other Christians told me otherwise (virtually all Catholics and Episcopalians believe in the literal interpretation). I began to do a bit of research for myself from the Catholic Church's own position. My stomach began to churn again as I discovered what communion and the Eucharist really means.

Communion

Communion, or "Holy Communion" as the Church officially calls it, means the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, "For real reception of the Blessed Eucharist it is required that the sacred species be received into the stomach. For this alone is the eating referred to by our Lord (John 6:58)."

So you can't just put it in your mouth and spit it out. Oh no. You have to make sure you swallow it into your stomach!

I looked up the Biblical chapter in John 6 and found this diabolical revelation:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:53-55)

Egads, I thought. Jesus really wants them to EAT HIM! It would make perfect sense if the disciples did eat his dead corpse. Of course you wouldn't want to admit your cannibalism to the unbelievers and you'd have to explain the missing body to the authorities. You might say something like, "He is not here, but is risen..." (Luke 24:6). Yeah, right, that's the ticket.

If the disciples did eat Christ, it may have looked something like this.

Eucharist

Eucharist describes the name given to the "Blessed Sacrament of the Altar," (older religions also used blood sacrifices to an altar. Some used virgin humans, bulls, lambs, etc.). The Christians use it to mean an actual sacrifice by Jesus where they truly believe the bread and wine turns into the actual corporal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Christians also use other titles such as, "Table of the Lord" (Mensa Domini) or the morbid term, "Lord's Body" (Corpus Domini).

From the Catholic Church and as far back as the pronouncement from the Council of Trent, the quintessence of the Eucharist means that "the Body and Blood of the God-man ARE truly, really, and substantially present."

Here we have a community of Christians lining up to eat and swallow the uncooked flesh of Jesus in what Christianity calls the "Blessed sacrament of the Altar" or better known as the 'Eucharist' during a ceremony of communion. Looks innocent, doesn't it? Not at all the image of cannibalism as usually depicted in folklore.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), stresses the centrality of the Eucharist to Catholic life:

The Eucharist is 'the source and summit of the Christian life.' The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, or Pasch.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1324

So if you practice Catholicism, and wish to remain a Catholic, you must honor the connubiality of the Eucharist. Not only does it mean eating the flesh and blood of Christ as a sacrifice, it means a union with the gore:

In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be untied with his offering.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1368

Moreover, you must never deny the priesthoods power of consecrating the flesh and blood:

If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, No. 961

Note: anathema means cursed, a malediction on your soul.

So how does bread and wine turn into actual flesh, you may ask? The Christians believe it comes from the concept of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Hildebert of Tours (~1079) probably first used the term transubstantiation and the Church later adopted the practice in the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) and the Council of Lyons (1274), and finally, the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

Transubstantiation basically means, the transition or conversion of one thing into another in some aspect of being. Turning water into wine gives one example of transubstantiation, and turning bread into flesh and wine into blood gives another. Transubstantiation, however, doesn't just describe a simple conversion of one thing into another but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis). Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance gets converted into another.

[Advice to the Church: Before converting the wine into blood, why not also transubstantiate water into wine? No need for expensive grape orchards, harvesting, or processing because Jesus would do the entire conversion for you for free. That way, you could give (or better yet, sell) bottles of wine to your congregations (you could call it "Jesus Juice"). You could establish Catholic wineries around the world! Just imagine the new converts you would get and, oh how your coffer cups would overflow. Just a thought.]

In the Eucharist, two extremes of conversions occur, namely the bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem (before and after). In other words, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, comes as the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).

This theophagy (god eating) of course did not come first from the Catholics but had occurred throughout pagan religions long before Christianity. The notion that eating another living human being lies at the belief of absorbing his nature into his own, thus becoming, in some sense, more godlike, similar to the even more primitive belief that eating one's enemies makes one more powerful.

No true Christian should doubt it. Eating that wafer and drinking the wine in Church actually means truly and really eating human meat and blood. In fact, it's the entire body: eyes, brains, gall bladder, spleen, rectum, penis, testicles, etc. Everything. If you've ever watched the TV program, Fear Factor, that's nothing compared with eating the components of an entire human body. According to the Council of Trent, if you deny the Transubstantiation, then you are accursed (anathema). You will also get to spend eternity in hell.

Bon appetit!

For the full reading of this official Church doctrine from the Council of Trent, click here.

How does transubstantiation work?

So how does transubstantiation actually work; what process does the Church use to transform bread and wine into human flesh and blood (and guts, etc.)? Apparently this remains a deep Church secret. However, we do know that the priests make verbal incantations, pass smoking incense about, and pray a lot during a rite they call "Offertory" (Offertorium). Apparently the actual transformation occurs during the Prayer of Consecration, by which the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, and are converted into the flesh and blood of Christ. At just what miraculous moment during the prayer it turns into human flesh, I haven't a clue and I suspect the priests don't either. Apparently Jesus does the actual conversion, but I haven't discovered the method of how the priests know when this occurs or what test procedures they use to insure that Jesus made the transubstantiation (what if Jesus got lazy that day or just decided, enough is enough?).

In any case, by the time the priest places the wafer into your mouth, you can rest assured that you are actually eating Christ's meat. (It tastes like chicken.)

We do know that an industry exists to make the bread and wine. For example, S&M (I kid you not) stands as one of the companies that make official communion bread for the Church:

If you don't know what S&M means, in colloquial terms it stands for sadomasochism or the practice of sadism (sadistic) and masochism (subjecting oneself to abuse or physical pain).

Now I doubt that this company's name means or intends a connection with sadomasochism, but it seems an appropriate term if you consider what the eating of human flesh means to the recipient or the giver of one's own flesh. I cannot think of another word than sadomasochism to better describe the act of consciously eating the flesh of a human from another person (a sadistic act) who willingly gives them their flesh and blood to eat (an extreme masochist act).

Frankwright Mundy & Co. Ltd. sells communical sets. They even offer briefcases and shoulder bags for carrying around the flesh and blood of Jesus. What next, I wondered; will they one day build fast food outlets where a Christian can get Jesus meat anytime of day? McJesus? Christ-In-A-Box?

Vampirism

Not only did I eat human flesh in my communion sacraments, but I also drank the "actual" blood of Jesus. Doesn't this make me a vampire also? Although vampires supposedly suck blood instead of drinking it, this seems an insignificant distinction. On the contrary, the drinking and the whole swallowing of blood as opposed to sucking seems to me a bit more bloodthirsty if you ask me.

If you consider the folklore surrounding vampire stories and compare them with the beliefs of Christianity, the claims appear similar. Vampire myths (see Dracula) and Christianity both believe that by drinking human blood, you will live forever. Actually Christianity goes one step further by requiring the eating of human flesh along with the blood (John 6:53-55). And of course you're also eating the penis of Jesus (does that make one gay, I wonder?) and the small and large intestines of Jesus, and the bladder of Jesus, etc. Only by this cannibalistic act can you achieve "eternal life."

Consider also that vampirism and their drinking of blood and immortality represent fiction, whereas Christians actually believe their communal drinking of blood and eating of Jesus' corpse will earn them eternal life. Doesn't this, at the very least, put Christian vampirism in a more deleterious light than fictional vampirism?

Note that the actual Dracula (not the fictional one) lived as a Christian. Click here for more information. No doubt the real Dracula thoroughly enjoyed his communal ingesting of human blood.

Addiction?

Now I don't know why just one eating of flesh and drinking of blood won't get you to heaven, but I've yet to get a good explanation of why Christians need to eat flesh and blood every week. This continual practice of ritual cannibalism and vampirism brings up even more pressing questions about this gruesome practice. Does the act of communion lead to habitual use or an addictive need for more flesh and blood? Consider that Christians have done more to promote bloody wars throughout history than any other group, and their insistence on evangelizing every human on earth to their faith, should non-believers fear that the Christians might turn them into human flesh eaters too?

(

Click to enlarge

)They start this addiction at the earliest possible age. For the first communion, they actually give a reward for remembering their first cannibalistic act, usually in the form of a certificate. (You'd think the promise of everlasting life would serve as enough reward.) Note that nowhere in the certificate does it say that you've just eaten the human meat of Jesus.

Here we have a Christian boy eagerly awaiting his fix of Jesus' flesh. (Note the extra large portion.)

Christian Cannibalism and vampirism continues into elderly life.How many glasses of Christ's blood has this woman drank over the years?

Another concern involves the length of time of transubstantiated bread and wine. Just how long does this conversion last? We now know that you must swallow it for its effect to work, but at what stage does it turn back into naturally digested bread and wine? Does it remain transubstantiated even after digestion? Does it ever reconvert? If not, consider what this means as we move our bowels. Should we not treat the remains of Christ as sacred, just as we do the remains of the bodies of dead saints? Perhaps we might consider a better form of elimination of the excrement made from our Redeemer than just thoughtlessly flushing Him down the toilet.

I find the practice of sacred cannibalism disturbing and potentially life threatening, regardless of how many of the addicted faithful tell us it will give us everlasting life. I humbly make the following proposal: that the FDA and the CDC get involved in the study of the composition of the Transubstantiated bread and wine and the narcotic or addictive effects they may impose on the human body.

I hope that I have alarmed you enough to contact your local law enforcement office and state representative about this pressing matter. If you and I don't do it, who will?

Conclusion

Even if you still stubbornly cling to the belief that the Eucharist represents only a symbol of eating flesh and drinking blood, that still makes you a cannibal, if only a symbolic cannibal. If you partake in communion as a metaphorical representation of eating Christ's body, then that still makes you a metaphorical cannibal. You simply have no easy out of this predicament as a symbolic cannibal sits as a subset of cannibalism.

You might also want to question the metaphorical or symbolic stance because if the Eucharist presents metaphor, then what does that say for Jesus himself and what Jesus directly says from the Bible about eating his meat? Metaphorical also? How do you distinguish between metaphor and reality in the Bible when it treats all doctrines equally as the inspired words of God? Would you object to the title of Symbolic Christian or Metaphorical Christian? If you consider yourself a metaphorical or symbolic Christian, then you still fall under the label of Christian just as a symbolic cannibal falls under the label of cannibal.There simply exists no way out for a Christian to escape the cannibal label, except of course to exit Christianity entirely. I did just that and by doing so, I escaped cannibalism along with all the other nonsense. I wrote this article as satire but if you live as one of the millions of faithful that believe in the Bible and the doctrines of Christianity then you must take this article as a serious argument.

Sources:

Catholic Encyclopedia

Holy Communion

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Offertory Rite The Council of Trent The Thirteenth Session

[astridstorm]

Holy Communion Sunday: Not Angels, but Sheep

This is a weekend full of transitions, and a busy weekend even by our standards at St. James. And that's saying something!

Yesterday, many of us were down at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine to see Susie ordained a Deacon, and it was a beautiful celebration--I mean, really beautiful. A lot of people from St. James were there, and I don’t know how many times after the service I heard someone say “This is why I’m an Episcopalian!” It was grand, and heartfelt, and the sermon by the cathedral dean amazing, all about the deacon’s role as one who keeps us awake to the needs of the world.

Susie will still be our Christian education director, but as a deacon she’ll be more than that; she’ll represent us in our community and our diocese, and she’ll continue to cultivate a side of herself that (as she’s told us before) was what got her into ministry in the first place, many years ago as a volunteer in Haiti. The bishop said yesterday that a deacon’s work is closer to Jesus’ ministry than a priest’s, and I think that’s true. A deacon’s sole responsibility is to engage the world outside the church, and help us to do the same.

So again -- congratulations to Susie and it will be very exciting to work alongside her in this new phase of life and ministry!

Another transition we're celebrating today is the baptism of little Rachel Frank. Her parents, Sam and Sherin, recently moved up here from the city, and have joined us as official members of St. James. You'll recognize them. They sit back there with all the parents with babies over in that section of the church. Welcome to the Franks, and to their families and friends, and godparents. We’re so happy you’re now a part of this community.

And last but not least are our 2nd and 3rd graders who have just completed their four-week class on Holy Communion and are sitting right up here in front today: Hannah and Shields Hatcher, Stella Dugan, Lincoln Russell, James Brady, Elivia Thompson, Amelia Ryan, Quinn Cocco, and Rhyse Horner.

Some of them will be receiving Communion today for the first time, some have already been receiving. The Episcopal Church has no rule about when a child can receive Communion, only that he or she be baptized first. I explained to the kids at their class last Wednesday that we see this message--first baptism, then communion--in the architecture of our church. When you enter the main entrance in the back, you have to pass by the baptismal font in order to get to the altar. In many churches (as in ours) they’re placed on the same axis so the connection is more obvious. When you enter our church it’s clear, without even opening a prayer book or hearing a word spoken, what the most important thing we do here is: celebrating at this altar. And to do that (the official teaching of the church says), you have to be baptized. Nothing more.

So, we are so happy to welcome these kids to share with us in this sacrament of Holy Communion. You will do this thousands of times in your life, starting (for some of you) today.

Today is Good Shepherd Sunday, the Fourth Sunday of Easter when our readings always emphasize the image of God and of Jesus as the shepherd of his sheep. It’s a lovely image for a day on which we celebrate all these children, including this little baby. This is one of the earliest images for Christ among the first Christians. In fact, our oldest visual depiction of Jesus comes from the Roman Catacombs, where many of the Christians persecuted and killed by the Roman emperor were buried. It’s a faded picture but you can still clearly see the figure of a young, beardless Jesus, painted in vegetable dye, carrying a lamb about his shoulders. When my family visited Ravenna in Italy last summer we saw another very famous early depiction of Jesus as a shepherd in the form of a grand colorful mosaic (by this time Christianity was the official religion of the empire). In this one Jesus surrounded by adoring sheep all looking lovingly on their master. Jesus as the Good Shepherd also graces the window back there by our baptismal font for all the children to see each time they witness another baptism.

It was the first visual image of Jesus in Christianity, and it’s the first many of us encounter as children. Susie said she often uses this image in chapel services for the nursery school, and many of us can probably remember sheep on felt boards in our Sunday school classes growing up. I mentioned last year on this day having a drawing of Jesus with carrying a lamb on his shoulders in my bedroom as a child, an image so comforting and powerful to this day that I credit it with my never leaving the church as I grew up and matured.

The other appealing aspect of this metaphor is of us, as sheep. It’s not at all a flattering image, and yet that’s what draws us--even children--to it. Sheep are fluffy and wooly and cute, but the Bible stories make clear that they’re also helpless, get themselves often into dangerous situations, need a lot of guidance, need each other, and are vulnerable animals. They give expression to what we know of ourselves from a very young age: that we’re fragile, imperfect and vulnerable, and we need the guidance of loving people in our lives and, most importantly, of a loving God.

On Wednesday I had the privilege of teaching the last of four classes these kids attended to learn about Holy Communion. Deacon Susie and Lisa-Marie Hatcher taught them about baptism being the first sacrament we receive. They made pretzels, which are a symbol of blessing. They made little Paschal candles. And then by the fourth class I got to walk them through the church. We learned about the font and the altar facing each other, on the same axis. We visited the sacristy, the room in which we keep the sacred vessels and the bread and wine. We even set up the altar for this morning. This is their handiwork. Finally we practiced receiving the bread and the wine.

At the end of all this, we had a little extra time, so we sat up here at the altar and the kids were full of really good questions. What’s the difference between blessed and unblessed bread? Can you chew the bread since it’s God’s body? (The answer by the way is Yes. God comes to us as we are, human beings with teeth and mandibles for chewing.) What do you do if you drop your wafer? Where does the leftover bread and wine go if it’s been blessed?

I also put some questions to them: What does “Paschal mean?” When do we light the Paschal candle? What does the word “Eucharist” mean? What’s the name of the plate we serve the bread on?

At one point I asked What do you have to do before you can receive Communion? expecting the answer, baptism. But the first response was, “You have to be good.” Now, ideally that’s true. But we come to this rail throughout our lives in all sorts of states. We bring our best selves here some weeks, and others, our worst selves. We’re not angels, we’re sheep. Or just humans. Imperfect but always loved, and always welcome to this rail where we receive God and God receives us.

So again, congratulations to these kids, and now let us all open our hymnals and prepare to welcome this newest member into our faith.