J
JuliusCaesar21
Guest
If I have Celiac (severe gluten intolerance) disease, and am a recovering alcoholic, can I participate in the Eucharist?
- Status
J
johnmann
Guest
I don’t know what’s involved in alcoholism recovery but is even a tiny sip not allowed? If not, you can always speak to the priest and have him consecrate a low-gluten host for you.
H
Havard
Guest
My sister has Celiac disease, and I do know that there are some kind of Celiac-safe wafers which she provides the priest before Mass. Many priests are apparently familiar with this, and with their handling.
J
JuliusCaesar21
Guest
Doesn’t it not even matter because the wine becomes blood (which is not alcoholic) and the wafer becomes flesh (which contains no gluten).
I have heard of low-gluten wafers, and that if you can’t have gluten, you can just take the wine portion, but if it really is the flesh and blood of Christ, I should be good right?
Why does the church even bother with alternatives?
If I do eat the wafer, and I do get sick, does that mean that the real presence of the flesh and blood of Christ isn’t really real?
I have heard of low-gluten wafers, and that if you can’t have gluten, you can just take the wine portion, but if it really is the flesh and blood of Christ, I should be good right?
Why does the church even bother with alternatives?
If I do eat the wafer, and I do get sick, does that mean that the real presence of the flesh and blood of Christ isn’t really real?
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
For both concerns it will entirely depend on the individual’s circumstances. Most self-help organizations for recovering alcoholics suggest to not take even a swig of alcohol ever for risk of relapse. My grandfather was an alcoholic and quit drinking when he joined the LDS Church (Mormons). He recounted to me many times that even the sweet yet pungent smell of whiskey emanating from a neighbor’s glass caused all sorts of (fond) flashbacks that seriously jeopardized his sobriety.
Celiac disease is a full-blown autoimmune disorder due to severe gluten intolerance which manifests itself by the destruction of the intestinal lining. For some individuals with Celiac disease, even the tiniest bit of gluten (in the nanogram range) can induce severe effects. Even in the case of an individual with Celiac disease who can otherwise tolerate a negligible amount of gluten at a time there is concern over chronic exposure to that small amount of gluten. Such an individual could be seriously jeopardizing her health by frequently receiving the host.
All in all this question is best answered:
- on an individual basis,
- in consultation with:
* the individual’s physician,
* spiritual adviser,
* and rehab mentor/sponsor.
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
It does matter since only the substance of bread and wine are entirely changed to flesh and blood, respectively. The accidents of bread and wine remain. This is why, presumably, the Host and the Blood taste, look, and smell like bread and wine. Since the accidents remain a person can theoretically get sick from the gluten and get drunk from the alcohol. Similarly contagions can be passed among communicants through the blessed Sacrament. (I say “presumably” as I’m LDS and have never received the Eucharist in a Catholic church).
As I understand it, the Catholic Church provides alternatives for those who can tolerate the alternatives. As I mentioned in my previous post, not all individuals with a gluten-intolerance (which is different than full blown Celiac disease) react the exact same way to gluten. Alternatively, not all alcoholics respond to alcohol in sobriety the same way. I previously mentioned my grandpappy who couldn’t even tolerate the smell of alcohol. God help him if he were to even wash his mouth out with a sip of alcohol! I’ve also know two actors who both are alcoholics yet have not in any way jeopardized their sobriety by sipping alcohol on stage when their parts have called for it.
No. This brings me back to the distinction between the substance of a thing, and the accidents of a thing.
J
JuliusCaesar21
Guest
What is meant by “Accidents”? and where can I read more about substance vs. accidents of the wine and wafer?
J
JuliusCaesar21
Guest
Also, I’d like to explain myself. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). But I am fascinated with Catholic theology. Too often, I think Catholics and Mormons just assume that the others are complete idiots for believing the way they do. I, rather, like to understand where people are coming from.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The change is a change in substance; it’s not actually a physical change that takes place. The accidents of the symbols remain, so it would be dangerous for those who have these illnesses and medical conditions to try to receive the Eucharist.
Of course it’s real - but the species retain their outward physical characteristics. They are Christ, but their physical properties are the properties of bread and wine.
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
With respect to the distinction between an accident and an substance (or essence, as Aristotle would say) I’ll let the Catholics explain this. In general though, The accidents of a thing are qualities that are not necessary for the identity of the thing while the substance is the very defining quality of the thing itself.
The classic example is a chair: chairs are defined principally by their function. Chairs are for sitting on. The accidents of a chair could include its material (wood, metal, glass, paper, what have you), its color, its size, the number of legs it has, whether there is a back to it, etc. You can change all of these accidents of the chair while keeping the essence of a chair in tact. A blue chair can be painted green and still be a chair. A four-legged chair can have its legs removed and swapped for a rocker and it is still a chair. But when I pick that chair up and clobber you over the head with it it ceases to be a chair and its essence becomes that of a weapon (even though I haven’t changed any of its accidents).
As I understand it, Catholic dogma dictates that Transubstantiation of the elements only involves the changing of the substance/essence but not the accidents. What this actually means in terms of the Sacrament vis a vis. blood, flesh, wine, and bread I don’t fully understand yet (which is why I’m leaving the question open for actual Catholics to answer).
T
travissbeloved
Guest
You should not be taking the Eucharist at all if you are not Catholic. It is not that we do not want to welcome you into the Church but you must go through RCIA and be baptized before you can take the Eucharist. You are welcome to mass and can just sit in the pew while others go up for communion.
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
I interpreted the OP as a hypothetical exercise in “what-ifs”, not an indication that (s)he is actually receiving the Eucharist. If the poster is a very devout Mormon (s)he will be abstaining from the Eucharist out of respect for both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church. LDS members are counseled to not participate in the religious ordinances of other churches.
J
JuliusCaesar21
Guest
Oh never fear. This is all hypothetical. I’m just trying to educate myself.
T
travissbeloved
Guest
Oops! My bad, sorry!
J
Jamie_Burns
Guest
One way to describe the difference between Essence (what something IS, its “beingness”) and Accident (what we can physically PERCEIVE about something-through our senses or measurement or analysis) is to point out that for most transformations the thing can remain what it is, and the accidents change. liquid water, ice, vapor all have the same essence-it is water, but the accidents-what we perceive-have changed.
But in the Most Holy Eucharist the accidents of the original substances-wheat bread and grape wine-have remained, but the essence has changed. It is no longer bread or wine but both are completely the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That is why we have a long word Transubstantiation to describe this special transformation of a substance.
But in the Most Holy Eucharist the accidents of the original substances-wheat bread and grape wine-have remained, but the essence has changed. It is no longer bread or wine but both are completely the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That is why we have a long word Transubstantiation to describe this special transformation of a substance.
J
JuliusCaesar21
Guest
Oh never fear. This is all hypothetical. I’m just trying to educate myself.
I
in_servitude
Guest
The following is within the teaching of the Catholic Church (as I understand it). I do understand that the LDS Church uses the term “sacrament”. Keep in mind that the definition of the word sacrament might be understood very differently between the LDS Church and the Catholic Church.
We believe, as Catholics, that Christ was True Man and True God. In being True Man, that means that Christ was human, and if he (prior to his resurrection) were to be examined by any physical method, he would appear to be completely human. An x-ray of Christ would be unremarkable in comparison to any other x-ray of a human. The same goes for a blood sample, or whatever other laboratory testing you’d care to do.
But, we believe, as Catholics, that he was not strictly of the form of human. He was of a different form - he was “True Man and True God”.
Christ established the sacraments - and these sacraments are in keeping with his nature. It is critical that the bread and wine continue to appear to be bread and wine in every physical way despite their radical transformation. However, we believe, as Catholics, that the bread and wine are not of the same **form **after the priest has consecrated them. The bread and wine are the “body and blood, soul and divinity” of Christ.
Therefore, your question about the effects of alcohol on a person is counter to the nature of Christ. If you could give a person wine prior to consecration - and that wine would have a different physical effect after consecration - then this would be something outside the nature of Christ. Thus, it cannot and should not happen.
We also know that Christ would have the occasional time when he would do something that demonstrated his supernatural character. And, there are times when the same thing occurs with the Eucharist. The consecrated host will manifest a supernatural miracle. For example, this happened in Lanciano in the 8th century (and continues through this day.)
I could carry on into other aspects of the sacramental nature of Christ and his Church, but I’m going to stop here to honor your initial question.
J
JuliusCaesar21
Guest
So what is the “essence” or “substance” of the blood and body of Christ? Is it Holiness? Love? Peace? Or is it chemical, like the substance of of water is H2O?
What defines the Body of Christ in its basic essence?
What defines the Body of Christ in its basic essence?
J
jmcrae
Guest
It is His glorified Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. 
E
epan
Guest
Most celebrants are aware of Celiac disease(an immune response to a protein in wheat, barley and rye), and also wheat allergies. They usually have gluten free wafers. Some nuns figured out a way, after much experimentation and effort, to produce a wafer which was acceptable to the rite, and also gluten free.
It is advisable to inform someone prior to going up to the alter, so you don’t send them scrambling to get the wafer for you.
If you partake of one species, then it is not necessary to partake of the other.
So, the answer to your question is yes. You may partake of a gluten free host, which is generally available. If you partake of the host, then you have received the sacrament with no need for the wine.
- Status