Here we see a case of a girl being denied the Eucharist because of coeliac disease.  In short, she cannot eat wheat-based products, which means that, in the Catholic Church, it can range from uncomfortable to potentially lethal to take communion in this form.

The article mentions that the option of wine only was suggested - it doesn't explain why this option was not used.  Catholicism teaches that both the Body and Blood of Christ are present under the appearance of bread, and both the Body and Blood of Christ are present under the appearance of wine.  So this should not be a problem.

In general, the following seem like good guidelines in such cases:

• The Eucharist can be taken from the chalice only - the host is not necessary in such cases.
• Low gluten hosts are available.  "With a level of gluten content of 0.01% it is safe enough for consumption by almost all celiac suffers, according to Dr. Alessio Fasano of the University of Maryland and other medical experts." [source; note that it applies to most, not to all, coeliac disease sufferers.]  This is the Conception Abbey that makes them.  However, cost may be a problem - who imports these into Africa, or China?
• The Eastern rite Catholic Churches may have different practices, although Rome may not find this option attractive.  I do not know if Eastern Catholic priests think this way, but the Orthodox Church's position, as explained on Wikipedia, seems very sensible to me.  In my experience, Eastern Catholic priests have a similar way of thinking to Orthodox priests.  The coeliac sufferer could attend an Eastern Catholic Church for communion.
  • The Orthodox Church also requires that the bread used at the Eucharist be made with wheat flour; here the bread is leavened with yeast. In the Orthodox practice, the consecrated bread and wine are given together from a chalice with a spoon. Some Orthodox coeliac sufferers have been able to receive communion simply by having the priest take only wine in the spoon; others, more sensitive to wheat, have had to have some of the wine set aside before the bread is added to the chalice. This latter case is extremely unusual, and is strictly speaking only permissible with the blessing of the diocesan bishop. While the Orthodox do not have such an explicit rationale as the Roman Catholic Church, their general understanding is that, in the case of exceptions made for the sake of Economy, the Holy Spirit makes up whatever is lacking. [source]

Regarding the use of non-alcoholic wine for alcoholics - the Catholic Church says that grape juice is not on.  It must be wine.  Mustum is allowed.  "By 'mustum' is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature)." - letter by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now HH Pope Benedict XVI.  Since fermentation begins virtually immediately, it must be quite an effort to get juice out of grapes without fermentation starting.

The USCCB guidelines say: "A little over a year ago, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, once again took up this question on behalf of the Holy Father when he wrote: "Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.""

"I received several comments regarding the use of low-gluten hosts (see Sept. 14). One reader wrote that the problem he sees with the "low-gluten solution is that one could eventually reach 0.00000001% gluten content, and then would the Church still recognize it as valid? It seems that this is chasing a chimera."" - source

Gluten is not what makes wheat-based bread wheat-based.  Surely if the time came when all gluten could be removed from wheat-based communion hosts, it would not be problematic?  I suspect it won't - but not before much debate.

This has been blogged before:

"The pastor and DRE should never have let it get to this point. If they were properly educating both parents and children they might understand the church’s teaching." - source

"It was ironic that the coeliac ruling appeared in the newspaper the same day that the readings for daily Mass featured the beginning of Matthew 23: 'On the chair of Moses have sat the scribes and Pharisees' - though 23:23 is even more relevant." - source

"It seems obvious that Jesus took what was the basic food and drink of his time. What would Jesus have chosen for Eucharist if his place of birth did not have wheaten flour (gluten-free or otherwise) and grape wine. This has been the case in many countries. Would Jesus have initiated Eucharist in, say, Papua New Guinea, by using sago and coconut water, which were the staple food until wheat flour later became introduced?" - source

I don't think we can just use sago and coconut water, but surely this sort of ruling, no matter which way it goes, has the blessing of God?

(Mat 16:19 KJV)  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The above source references a good article on the topic by Fr John Crothers.

The idea that certain races of non-white people are derived from mating between animals and humans won't go down well in today's society.  Which is one reason why you won't hear it taught from Adventist pulpits, or hear it preached in the prophecy seminars you later discovery to be Adventist-run.

This was written by Ellen White (no pun intended on her name) - the Adventist prophetess, whose inspiration is of the same degree as the inspiration of the Bible ["We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture."]

Although modern Adventists try to deny that she taught this, it was taught by some during her time by others, and the teaching was defended by some of her contemporaries, such as Uriah Smith, with her knowledge.  Her husband even gave Smith's book a glowing review:

The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures." It is written by the editor of the Review. While carefully reading the manuscript, I felt grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize, which others despise and oppose.
- James White, Review, Aug. 15, 1868.

Ellen's statements:

But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.
- Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64.

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.

Contemporaneous teachings:

...that crosses between men and animals had created a no-man's-land between man and beast, populated by gorillas, chimpanzees, wild bushmen of Africa, Patagonians, and Hottentots.
- Gordon Shigley, "Amalgamation of Man and Beast: What Did Ellen White Mean?", Spectrum, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 13.

... the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other.
- Jasher 4:18. [Evidence that Ellen White used this as a source.]

Uriah Smith's defence:

"Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men." Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men." Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms?
- Uriah Smith, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture, pp. 103-4

Adventism has offered all sorts of ideas that this could refer to - genetic engineering [since the flood???], interracial marriage [enough of those in the Bible] or marriage between godly and ungodly people [how does that alter a race?] - but the evidence is against these excuses.

Sad.  But truly good that these inspired words of Ellen White are not taken seriously by her followers.

More on this racist teaching at the page where I found this horrible stuff.

In July 2005, I blogged on a book by Dennis Embo, a Catholic who left the Worldwide Church of God, and wrote about his experience.  For some reason, I didn't mention the title - it's The God That Prevailed.  In the mean time, someone else has blogged on it, so if you want a longer review, go to the XCG blog.

Dennis has a website where the full version, in book form, is available for purchase.

It can also be found on Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or as an e-book from IUniverse.

A post on the Fifth Column blog, Pagan Flesh, Protestant Bones, caught my attention the other day.

It suggests that Protestant anti-Catholic tendencies are what have resulted in the current attempt by secularists in America to wipe Christmas from the calendar.  They were the first to attack Christmas; the anti-Christians are just finishing what they started.  He has another article on that particular topic here - How the Christians Stole Christmas.

Similarly, the Da Vinci Code book/movie by Dan Brown is, in fact, a form of Protestant view of Christian history.  This is the main focus of this post.

Under the following subjects, Steve Kellmeyer compares the Da Vinci Code's revision of history with the Protestant ... revision of history.

1. "The Roman Emperor Constantine invented the Catholic Church in order to crush True Believers!"
2. "The failure to find True Believers in ancient history is due to the fact that the winners write history."
3. (Catholics) change(d) the Bible
4. "Peter isn't the true head of the Church!
            (Protestants: Paul was. Dan Brown: Mary Magdalene was.)
5. "Jesus was not celibate."

The Da Vinci Code, it seems, has very little to do with Gnosticism.  Steve Kellmeyer has another fascinating article on this topic in an article on the Gospel of Judas (which IS a Gnostic text.)

Is this where Protestantism, at least some of it, is heading?

Here is an interesting - and detailed - letter of resignation from the Adventist church.  Tesa Beem's Letter of Resignation

Most of you know by now that Arthur and I have removed our membership from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This has caused much pain for us as we have gone through the process. We are also aware of the disappointment and hurt it has caused you, our dear family. For this we are truly sorry and we hope that you will continue to pray for us. The official letter is attached at the end.

It discusses Adventism's positions on everything frm abortion to the Sabbath to the Clear Word Bible.

Adventists and others often use Isaiah 28:10 to promote a truly absurd way to interpret the Bible.  It allows them to take snippets here and snippets there, piece them together, and come to conclusions that none of the original passages support.

+ For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little (Isaiah 28:10, KJV)

An Adventist pastor has some insight into this method on his blog, showing what the text is really likely to mean.

The context of this passage is an oracle against drunken priests who are unable to teach even infants, who cannot even speak properly. And verse 13 makes it abundantly clear that "precept upon precept..." is something detrimental, not a principle of Biblical interpretation. Taken alone verse 12 might sound like a reasonable teaching, but in context we realize that it is the product of drunkenness.

A comment tells us that in developing their principle of hermeneutics, they have used terrible hermeneutics.

People who use the text as a guide to how to interpret the Bible have turned a mockery of drunkards into wisdom to emulate.

Paul Brydson of the Church of God in Williamstown says:

The NIV Study Bible footnote calls the verses "The mocking response of Isaiah's hearers."

Concerning Isaiah's response in verse 11 he says:

So Isaiah says that this is their condemnation. The word of God will continue to be nothing but "precept upon precept, line upon line" - simplistic, unintelligible babble to their destruction.

"Misquotes - Here a Little, There a Little" and "Acts 17:11 Sacred Cow - Precept Upon Precept, Line Upon Line? Commentary on Isaiah 28:10,13" are some useful studies of this verse and its misuse.

The Adventist Review's response (by David Marshall) to The Da Vinci Code is critical of the book/movie, but still continues on to agree with it on matters that have long formed part of Adventist mythology.

Yes, Constantine created a religion that represented a mix of Christian and pagan practice. No, he did not rewrite the New Testament.

No, Constantine didn't create a new religion.  Historians today do not subscribe to that opinion, which has long since been condemned to the archives of mythology.  However, because it helps support the anti-Catholic position of Adventism, it's accepted by many Adventists.

Bill Cork writes on his blog:

Fortunately, the church historians I had as professors at Atlantic Union College and Loma Linda University knew better.

So not all Adventist historians subscribe to this view.

But of those who do, what exactly did Constantine add?

The Trinity?  Some Adventists are Arian or semi-Arian, and non-Trinitarian, and would accept this position.  Adventism, as a whole, is Trinitarian, although this took a few decades to reach formal consensus.  Although Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 324 AD, he did not dictate its outcome.  The Trinity had been developing in clarity long before Nicaea in the writings of early Christians, and what needed to be done at Nicaea was decide between two views - the older view that Jesus was fully God, and the later view that he was not.

Sunday observance?  Samuele Bacchiocchi - whose credentials for his thesis/book are being questioned - leads the Adventist voice of disagreement here.  No credible historians claim this any more - it's left for those who avoid historical facts because they disrupt their world-views.

Infant baptism?  This can be dated to long before Constantine in the early Christian writings.

The Catholic clergy?  The basis for deacons, priests, and bishops in a ministerial role is strongly supported by the Bible.  All three words are derived from words used to describe the ministry of Christian leaders in the New Testament.  And Christian witnesses from long before Constantine show that this leadership was recognised from the start.  Not to mention the witness of the New Testament.

I would say that while Dan Brown has rewritten history, so have Adventists.  It was not Constantine that fashioned a new religion out of Christianity and paganism, but Adventism, and other similar fundamentalist groups, who have fashioned a new religion for themselves - out of historical Christianity, adding in myths and legends to support whatever views have no real historical support, and removing history from the equation.

After spending some time browsing the site, I must recommend the Catholic section on experts.about.com.  The one guy there, Sal, answers questions about issues related to Adventism as well.  If you're Catholic and want answers on Adventist issues, or Adventist and want to know more about what Catholics believe, this is the place to go.  Also if you think that Catholics don't read their Bibles - these people know their Bibles well.

Again, on the experts.about.com page, here's an article on the baptism of infants that I missed before.

On experts.about.com, there are two useful articles on the Sabbath and soul sleep, by a Catholic responding to Adventist questions.

Samuele Bacchiocchi's book "From Sabbath to Sunday" attempts to discredit the claims of Protestants and Catholics that Sunday observance is an Apostolic institution, and promotes the idea that it was a later Catholic development.

In his latest newsletter, Bacchiocchi mentions that his alma mater, the Gregorian University, has negated several of his claims about his credentials.

See the Gregorian Controversy exposé.

"Over a year ago I received a document issued by the Academic Dean office of the Gregoriana, which negates my academic achievements, such as the reception of the gold medal donated by Pope Paul VI for earning the summa cum laude distinction. I have asked the Dean for an opportunity to show the original documents, including the gold medal, to Bishop Murray of Kalamazoo, whose jurisdiction includes Berrien Springs, where we live. But such meeting has not yet taken place and I doubt that it will ever take place." - Endtime Issues Newsletter No. 146

A striking remark from the exposé: "When you get a doctorate from a college or university, it’s a pretty serious thing if you later get a letter from your alma mater that “negates� your academic achievements."

In short, he uses his doctoral dissertation to argue that the development of Sunday observance was a later change by the Catholic Church, and not an Apostolic institution.

On his website, he claims:

"In 1969 Dr. Bacchiocchi returned to his native city of Rome to study at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University, where he was the first non-Catholic to be admitted in over 450 years of its history. At the Gregoriana he spent the next five years working toward a Doctoratus in Church History. He was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for attaining the academic distinction of summa cum laude for his class-work and dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday." - Bacchiocchi's website

"The results of this investigation are presented in From Sabbath to Sunday, which is a translation and an adaptation of his Italian doctoral dissertation, presented at and published by the Pontifical Gregorian University Press. ... From Sabbath to Sunday has the distinction of being the first book written by a non-Catholic ever to be published by a Pontifical press with the Catholic imprimatur (approval). The book has already been reprinted fourteen times in English and has been translated in several languages. Hundreds of scholars of different persuasions have praised this book as a definitive treatment of the early history of the Lord’s Day." - Bacchiocchi's website

The claims that he got a medal, a summa cum laude for his PhD, and that his thesis was published by Gregorian University Press elevate his book "From Sabbath to Sunday" to a position where it often gets used by Sabbatarians to tell Sunday keepers that "We are right, and the Catholic Church admits it."

Now these claims are being questioned.  It seems as if this may not be able to be used as that sort of ammunition after all.

A letter from the Gregorian states:

1. He did not receive a summa from the Gregorian as he maintains.
2. He did not receive the Pope’s Gold Medal (this is presented each year in a public ceremony to only a handful of students who have achieved the highest quality of work in their dissertations).
3. He was not allowed to publish his dissertation in whole. Due to extensive problems with the text, he was only allowed to publish one chapter of his work and this only after extensive revision. The publication of one chapter signifies the minimum requirement to receive the doctoral degree at the Gregorian. His publicity and web site indicate that the whole dissertation has been published in book form with surrounding claims about its quality as a Gregorian publication. He has also used the official signature of the Gregorian University Press on the cover page of a book published by Biblical Perspectives.
4. At one time an imprimatur was claimed by Dr. Bacchiocchi, though we understand he later said this had been rescinded. As you know, this does not happen, nor does the Church find a need to give an imprimatur to non-Catholics who write on a variety of topics.

It will be interesting to know the final outcome of any investigations Bacchiocchi pursues.