Church bans gluten-free host

[TheRealJuliane]

Much of the “problem” lies in the fact that the Church is good at producing and educating young Catholics but not necessarily forming all of them to be sinless obedient servants.

How many people do you know who are baptized Catholics, products of Catholic school, yet don’t practice their faith; indeed they renounce and mock it at every chance? The sad fact is that some people are weak in faith, some people reject God, some can’t be bothered to delve in and actually learn what the Church teaches in such matters that they can make an informed decision to submit to the Truth.

There is nothing in these failures that reflects poorly on the Church. Instead, it is merely human nature. Jesus Himself predicted this and preached about its effects when He told us of grain scattered in a field. Some falls on rocky ground, some is eaten up by birds. Some withers and dies, some thrives and produces much fruit. It is the mission of each Catholic and certainly each priest and bishop to call to the lost sheep, convert them and help them see the light of Truth. But as humans, we have free will. All are called but few are chosen. All are free to reject the gospel message they have heard. The chaff will be discarded and burned on the last day.

No matter how many Catholics wish that ABC were moral, or women could be ordained, or hosts could be rice crackers, it just won’t be so. The subject of this thread is misleading. There is no “ban” on gluten-free hosts. God Himself has ordained that there can be no such thing. Without wheat, there is no Eucharist. Without procreation, there can be no sexual relations. Without men, there is no priesthood. These are ontological realities, not the traditions of men. You must either assent to them and submit your will to God or be cast out.

AMEN! :clapping::clapping::clapping::sad_yes:

 

[EvelynEVF]

Of course everyone has to decide what they will do, I will tell you that I have been receiving from the Chalice for 5 1/2 years and not once have I been “glutened.” I sit close to the front, but others have received before me.

I am very sensitive. I have had reactions from a grill not being totally clean and from a crouton that touched my lettuce, but I have never had a reaction from the Chalice.

It’s great that you can do that! I have been an EMHC for a few years and have seen contamination firsthand, more likely from seniors than young children. One of my kids does not think on her feet, and she would panic if she tipped up the chalice and saw bits of host, so it’s easier at this point to just avoid.

To the poster who asked why the parish doesn’t just get low gluten hosts for everyone, they are significantly more expensive because of the careful processing of the wheat starch. For a few parishioners it is not a big deal at all, but if you were looking at hundreds every week, forget it.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Finding a host ‘tasty’ how strange. Tasty!!!

Why? In my kids’ school, many of the children are very worried about how both host and Precious Blood will taste. They are not allowed to taste the unconsecrated forms, and they get worried that they will make a face if the alcohol bites or whatever. Shoot, I remember commenting after my own First Eucharist that the accidents of wine were surprisingly delicious. I came out of a non-Catholic churc where what was used was a truly nasty sherry, perhaps to keep the altar boys out of it.

It does remind me of the joke that it is easier to believe that the host is Jesus, than it is to believe it was ever bread.

 

[johnnykins]

I saw a poll in the US Catholic1-2 years ago that found that 52% (as I recall) of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. Are these 52% ‘Protestant’ Catholics?

Yeah, that’s a good term. It was one of the main issues in the Reformation.

Or, what exactly are they?

Ignorant Catholics or lapsed Catholics - they have rejected dogma

My own personal poll seems to suggest that most Catholics are not reflected in hidebound rules that traditionalists insist upon.

Truth and “rules” are differnt things. In any case, why limit this to Catholics - most of the world is not Catholic. Most reject the Church and her teachings.

Just because something goes back 2000 years, when the world was so full of superstition, socery, and beliefs clearly in contradiction to what we know now ro be true, why do we continue to insist upon it?

What makes you think the world today is not “full of superstition, socery (sic), and beliefs clearly in contradiction to what we know now ro (sic) be true?” Certainly the Virgin Birth, Resurrection and the Son of God who is God becoming human is unbelievable? But, hell I know many who buy into feng shui, crystals, etc. Maybe it is all the same?

Sorry, but I believe in a Catholicism that doesn’t keep announcing that it alone has the truth and then continues to require the faithful to believe things that are unbelievable.

Ok - well there goes Christianity in toto: Virgin Birth - out Resurrection - out a guy the Son of God - Out miracles (by definition) -Out Lot’s of folks believe as you do. No shame in it. It’s just neither Christian nor Catholic.

I find that Catholics are overwhelmingly independent thinkers. They admire much about their church, find comfort in their faith, but think as they please on many issues that the Church demands conformity.

True - that’s life - always has been; always will be

The large majority believe in artificial birth control, for example.

and in any number of sins…

A majority favor the marriage of clergy

OK that is a matter of prudence and can be changed or not…

and a bare majority also seem to want the ordination of women.

Again, the issue is that the Church has declared women incapable of confecting the Eucharist - they can’t be priests. Many disagree. That’s life. Whether it is True or not is another matter.

There is enormous dissatisfaction among many Catholics with the hierarchy,and this feeling is shared by many nuns.

No doubt - I have many issues with the hierarchy - as well as having issues with many nuns…so what? This is a surprise?

Awhile back I sat beside a prominent nun at a dinner to honor donors, sponsored by a college run by her order. She was quick to sum up the main problem within Catholicism today with only one word: “hierarchy”.

Glib and true - but not complete in any way.

Will the Church insist upon becoming more and more a relic of an earlier era?

Don’t know - maybe it is simply insisting on the Truth and you think that is a relic of another era?

Or, will the Church move into the 21th century with a new openness that began with John XXIII and Vatican II but seems to have been stymied by those determined to keep the Church from going forward?

Or have they determined to keep the Church from falling into error? From losing the Truth? From becoming just another feel-good group? You disagree with the Church - Ok - that is your right. That certainly doesn’t make you right, however. Indeed, it may make you dangerous and possibly at risk of damnation? On the other hand, you may be right.

 But why argue about it? Thank God we live in a country where we don't get burned at the stake for having different opinions.

Why argue - One argues to try to find Truth and because if you and others are heading for damnation you might need a “heads-up.” As you say, we can argue…

 

[anp1215]

Just wanted to point out that just because a percentage of Catholics don’t believe in transsubstantiation doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t believe in the real presence. I’d be willing to bet there are Catholics who believe in the real presence-that the host is really Jesus-but aren’t familiar with that word.

Of course I do think the percentage of Catholics who don’t believe is still high.

 

[curlycool89]

So, because some people don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches, the teaching should change?

That’s why I like one of Chesterton’s quotes:

“We don’t need a religion that is right when we are right; we need a religion that is right when we are wrong”.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That’s why I like one of Chesterton’s quotes:

“We don’t need a religion that is right when we are right; we need a religion that is right when we are wrong”.

Exactly. Too bad it’s too late for Christopher Hitchens.

 

[Crescentinus]

That’s why I like one of Chesterton’s quotes:

“We don’t need a religion that is right when we are right; we need a religion that is right when we are wrong”.

A quote which had slain argumentum ad populum like a boss.

 

[Link0126]

They should 21 flavors of hosts that way every man woman and child on earth can find a taste they like. Maybe then the media would be happy, but probably not.

 

[eamonnroma]

I notice many posts referring to receiving wine at mass. What has happened to using the term Precious Blood?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I notice many posts referring to receiving wine at mass. What has happened to using the term Precious Blood?

I see that in the original article, and perhaps one other poster who identifies as Catholic. That is not “many posts.”

We all know the difference. Before it is consecrated, the wine is just wine. After consecration, it is the Precious Blood, but with the accidents of wine.

 

[adopted_heir]

I’m kind of surprised no one has mentioned yet the practice of Spiritual Communion for when (for whatever reason) you can’t receive either Species. There’s a lovely Act of Spiritual Communion right in my 1962 missal that I use frequently.

I’m not celiac, but when I was pregnant with my first child I could not swallow any bread–I mean anything. It would immediately come back up, and obviously I didn’t want that to occur at Mass with the Body of Christ.

 

[maryjk]

I’m kind of surprised no one has mentioned yet the practice of Spiritual Communion for when (for whatever reason) you can’t receive either Species. There’s a lovely Act of Spiritual Communion right in my 1962 missal that I use frequently.

I’m not celiac, but when I was pregnant with my first child I could not swallow any bread–I mean anything. It would immediately come back up, and obviously I didn’t want that to occur at Mass with the Body of Christ.

I made a Spiritual Communion every week for a year.

I have to say it was awful. I hated being properly disposed to receive yet staying in my seat. It happens now if I am visiting a parish that doesn’t offer the Cup. I still hate it.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

It blows my mind that this made it into the newspaper.

She is deprived of nothing. Furthermore, she can receive the host if she wants, but doesn’t like the taste. How… monstrously silly.

What a waste of bandwidth on their part.

Oh, I don’t know. It sounds like nitpicking on the Church’s part as far as I’m concerned.

The wafer doesn’t become the Lord’s body until the Holy Spirit is requested by the priest to “change” it into Christ’s body. Until then it’s just one more chip in a bag of wafers. When I was doing my RCIA, I remember the priest joking that if an altar boy broke into the sacristy cupboard and drank the wine, he’d be making a big mistake, as it would give him a terrible headache. The inference was that it was not even particularly good wine, let alone the blood of Christ in its unconsecrated form.

Do you think the Holy Spirit is going to quibble because it’s not literally wheat, particulary if He knows that a girl with caeliac disease seriously wants to receive commune?

And in many countries, the staple carbohydrate grain is rice, not wheat. But there’s not much rice grown in the Middle East.

This sort of nit picking doesn’t help the Church’s image much in the eyes of unbelievers. Every day thousands of unbelievers are probably disappearing into the jaws of hell, but the big issue of the day in that parish is the wafer components.

 

[maryjk]

Do you think the Holy Spirit is going to quibble because it’s not literally wheat, particulary if He knows that a girl with caeliac disease seriously wants to receive commune?

If the girl seriously wants to receive Communion all she has to do is to receive. No one is stopping her.

But she doesn’t like the flavor. As though the Church should have multiple options so she can pick and choose. Maybe they should offer a chocolate Communion.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Oh, I don’t know. It sounds like nitpicking on the Church’s part as far as I’m concerned.

The wafer doesn’t become the Lord’s body until the Holy Spirit is requested by the priest to “change” it into Christ’s body. Until then it’s just one more chip in a bag of wafers. When I was doing my RCIA, I remember the priest joking that if an altar boy broke into the sacristy cupboard and drank the wine, he’d be making a big mistake, as it would give him a terrible headache. The inference was that it was not even particularly good wine, let alone the blood of Christ in its unconsecrated form.

Do you think the Holy Spirit is going to quibble because it’s not literally wheat, particulary if He knows that a girl with caeliac disease seriously wants to receive commune?

And in many countries, the staple carbohydrate grain is rice, not wheat. But there’s not much rice grown in the Middle East.

This sort of nit picking doesn’t help the Church’s image much in the eyes of unbelievers. Every day thousands of unbelievers are probably disappearing into the jaws of hell, but the big issue of the day in that parish is the wafer components.

Good thing your individual opinion is rather insignificant. We’ve stated again and again on this thread that there is NO PROBLEM here. It is a created controversy. The girl can receive safely in at least 2 different ways. In case you didn’t realize it, our Church doesn’t bend to our individual desires. We are to be obedient to the Church, not the other way around.

 

[curlycool89]

A quote which had slain argumentum ad populum like a boss.

Well, when you really think about it, what’s the point of a religion (or any moral or ethical code for that matter) that doesn’t require you to strive for something better? Even Mill’s utilitarianism (which is, subjectively speaking, probably one of the “easier” ethical theories) wants people to strive for the greatest aggregate happiness.

Catholicism (and Christianity in general) is not a Jesus Fan Club. It’s not like a Dr. Who fan club where we get together and talk about what a great show Dr. Who is (because, obviously, it is ). A religion is something that demands you live your life in a certain way and in accord with certain teachings. If all you’re paying is lip service, then functionally you’re agnostic (or even an atheist if it’s nothing more then a cultural thing).

Any ethical theory is going to tell you what you should do in certain situations, which by definition means there is a right way and a wrong way of doing something. Calling “right” and “wrong” based on whether or not you like it or how you feel is called emotivism, something that even atheist ethical philosophers would call a junk theory (most of them would probably be Kantian or Utilitarian in nature, and both of those have an objective right and wrong). Unfortunately, most of the population seems to generally follow emotivism or some sort of personal-short-term-utilitarianism (greatest happiness for me and me alone right now (short term). Basically any “looking out for #1” people, which is something even Mill would probably denounce).

 

[EvelynEVF]

One thing about the complicated arrangements is that in a parish with small daily Masses, it’s easier to figure things out. We’ve had screw-ups on the weekend, but daily Mass has fewer variables to manage, so that’s an option to make it more likely that things work out to receive.

 

[epan]

Oh, I don’t know. It sounds like nitpicking on the Church’s part as far as I’m concerned.

The wafer doesn’t become the Lord’s body until the Holy Spirit is requested by the priest to “change” it into Christ’s body. Until then it’s just one more chip in a bag of wafers. When I was doing my RCIA, I remember the priest joking that if an altar boy broke into the sacristy cupboard and drank the wine, he’d be making a big mistake, as it would give him a terrible headache. The inference was that it was not even particularly good wine, let alone the blood of Christ in its unconsecrated form.

Do you think the Holy Spirit is going to quibble because it’s not literally wheat, particulary if He knows that a girl with caeliac disease seriously wants to receive commune?

And in many countries, the staple carbohydrate grain is rice, not wheat. But there’s not much rice grown in the Middle East.

This sort of nit picking doesn’t help the Church’s image much in the eyes of unbelievers. Every day thousands of unbelievers are probably disappearing into the jaws of hell, but the big issue of the day in that parish is the wafer components.

You bring up some good points. Can someone give me a scriptural reference to the requirement for wheat?

 

[zenith15]

To me, it honestly just seems Pharisee-like. Jesus did not specify the exact ingredients of the bread or wine, and I can just see Him shaking his head at all this arguing over whether gluten MUST or may not be a part of the Host if it might make someone ill. Even if all parishes DID offer the cup at all masses, perhaps those with celiac disease would also like to partake of the Lord’s body–would He truly forbid them to do so? Would He say “Let the little children come unto me, and forbid them not…unless they are wheat intolerant”?

Just from curiosity as a new Catholic I am wondering where the tradition came from that either the Precious Blood or the Body of the lord is sufficient–that both do not need to be received, except by the priest–and why only by him?