Church bans gluten-free host

[zenith15]

Those priests can receive mustum. If a priest cannot even receive that, I believe that is a canonical impediment to Holy Orders (if it’s known before ordination).

Jesus used wheaten bread because that’s what was used. Jesus used wine because that’s what’s used at passover (real wine, not grape juice). We are obligated to do as He did, and it’s not within our power to change it.

Okay, but must it be a certain TYPE of wine? Must the wine be processed in a certain way? I understand it must be real wine, but I see wines advertised in Catholic catalogues as being suitable for communion usage and I wonder, why those wines and not just some regular Cabernet or something from the grocery? And why would adding anything to the bread besides wheat and water (such as salt for example) taint it irrevocably? I mean really-it would seem like if Jesus were intending it to be THAT strict he would have mentioned to make absolutely sure to use ONLY such and such bread and wine. I’m honestly NOT trying to be argumentative–I just–sometimes it seems like things are done for no apparent unbend-able reason.

 

[Trishie]

I’m confused. I am reading that the host must be high wheat content, but also reading that a low gluten host is available. It can’t be both.

This may help:

glutenfreevendors.com/low-gluten-hosts-approved-by-the-us-conference-for-catholic-bishops/

(I’m celiac myself)

 

[Holly3278]

I really don’t understand why people with Celiac disease get all upset over this. The teaching of the Church is that the host must contain wheat, period! You can always receive the Eucharistic wine which is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ just the same as the Eucharistic Host is.

 

[epan]

I really don’t understand why people with Celiac disease get all upset over this. The teaching of the Church is that the host must contain wheat, period! You can always receive the Eucharistic wine which is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ just the same as the Eucharistic Host is.

Then why bother with the bread, at all? (That is meant rhetorically)

 

[salusanimarum17]

Okay, but must it be a certain TYPE of wine? Must the wine be processed in a certain way? I understand it must be real wine, but I see wines advertised in Catholic catalogues as being suitable for communion usage and I wonder, why those wines and not just some regular Cabernet or something from the grocery? And why would adding anything to the bread besides wheat and water (such as salt for example) taint it irrevocably? I mean really-it would seem like if Jesus were intending it to be THAT strict he would have mentioned to make absolutely sure to use ONLY such and such bread and wine. I’m honestly NOT trying to be argumentative–I just–sometimes it seems like things are done for no apparent unbend-able reason.

There always has to be a standard or limits. The limit of the Church is very simple and removes much doubt: wheat bread and natural, grape wine. In other communities, they’ll still have standards: they might be “broader” but there is still a point where they would say “No, you can’t do that.” If they don’t have any standards, obviously they don’t really care about the matter (in both senses of the word).

As far as how much/many additives would make the bread or wine invalid matter, I’m not sure.

 

[Trishie]

I really don’t understand why people with Celiac disease get all upset over this. The teaching of the Church is that the host must contain wheat, period! You can always receive the Eucharistic wine which is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ just the same as the Eucharistic Host is.

Holly, the chalice isn’t offered in some parishes. In that case celiacs miss out on Communion, or have to make a special issue of things.
And it is understandable that people don’t want to be, what they feel is a nuisance, by requiring special attention. And nobody likes to be different, nor does one like making extra work for a priest. Some people are shy, consider small children, and anyone who is shy.
If you go to a funeral and the chalice isn’t offered, a celiac misses out.
If you are traveling and are in an unfamiliar parish, it is difficult.
Nobody likes bailing a priest up in the sacristy before Mass, asking for special treatment. I sure dont!
If the priest forgets, and that has happened to me several times, a celiac feels a nuisance when the priest does a double-take, realizes he’s forgotten your pyx, and has to return to the altar for it.
It’s okay if you aren’t celiac, but to people who are, it can be a sore trial.
I’ve known I’m a celiac for many years, and there are still times when it is a big issue regarding Communion.

We can all see others problems as negligible, until and unless we face the problem in our own lives.

 

[englishredrose]

Then wouldn’t it be far simplier for churches to order all gluten free hosts so priests don’t forget because some priests will feel as bad as you do, that they have forgotten you, at that moment. that way too there wouldn’t be any mix up between the hosts-as relies on whoever puts the hosts out in the church not to mix them up because there are a lot of people out there who really don’t undersand how severe allergies can be including those in authority at the Vatican by sounds of it?

But as of the earlier postings though kids don’t like the taste of either host or wine very get by it as best they can. Is this not an argument for why children should be made to wait until they are old enough to be confirmed so they are not upsetting themselves or other adults around them until they are old enough to understand that the Eucharist is not about taste. Or perhaps it should be built into confirmation classes, that they more than likely won’t like the taste. The gluten free version probably just as bland and tasteless as the usual version of hosts but one gets so little normally. Kids don’t like the taste and adults learn its nowt to do with taste.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Okay, but must it be a certain TYPE of wine? Must the wine be processed in a certain way? I understand it must be real wine, but I see wines advertised in Catholic catalogues as being suitable for communion usage and I wonder, why those wines and not just some regular Cabernet or something from the grocery? And why would adding anything to the bread besides wheat and water (such as salt for example) taint it irrevocably? I mean really-it would seem like if Jesus were intending it to be THAT strict he would have mentioned to make absolutely sure to use ONLY such and such bread and wine. I’m honestly NOT trying to be argumentative–I just–sometimes it seems like things are done for no apparent unbend-able reason.

It is why the priest doesn’t just say any old thing during Mass. He repeats the words Jesus spoke, over 2,000 years ago. Jesus told us what to do and what to say. He didn’t say, “Whatever you consecrate, it’ll be just fine with me, and you can just say whatever words you want, I’ll be there!” No, he gave us very specific and clear directions, and he didn’t consecrate anything else other than bread and wine. So that’s what we do, to this day.

 

[johnnykins]

Okay, but must it be a certain TYPE of wine?

For a valid consecration only grape wine - no apple, strawberry or elderberry, etc. wine

Must the wine be processed in a certain way?

To be licit there must be no additives - this is to ensure validity.

I understand it must be real wine, but I see wines advertised in Catholic catalogues as being suitable for communion usage and I wonder, why those wines and not just some regular Cabernet or something from the grocery?

communion wines are certified as grape wine having no additives. Any grape wine will do for validity and any grape wine (it used to generally be required that a minimum % alcohol was required for liceity but I’m not sure if that general rule has been abrogated) without additives is licit.

And why would adding anything to the bread besides wheat and water (such as salt for example) taint it irrevocably? I mean really-it would seem like if Jesus were intending it to be THAT strict he would have mentioned to make absolutely sure to use ONLY such and such bread and wine.

The issue you raise concerns both validity and liceity. To be valid wheat bread and grape wine must be used. The issue then becomes what is wheat bread and grape wine. At what point does the bread become cake or rye bread or something else. When does grape juice become wine: alcoholic and how much? Addition of salt is a matter of liceity - the rules say don’t do it. Adding a small bit might not change the bread to something else, but why get into “how much salt” issues? When is it no longer grape wine and is now vinegar or diluted to the point of being water? The laws of the Church - the rules on liceity - are designed to ensure there is no such questions. They are stricter than absolutely necessary, but in the ordinary circumstance compliance is not a problem. Those rules can be waived in particular circumstances - such a use of mustum or low gluten breads - but in those cases a determination that the species are bread and wine still are made. There are cases from WWII when priests in concentration camps used camp bread and a raisin to confect the sacrament (unclear if it was valid or not): was the bread wheat bread and the juice of the raisin wine - that was left up to God. But, under the circumstances what the priest did was held laudatory though clearly illict and possibly invalid. The reason is without bread and wine the consecration does not take place at all, e.g., rice cakes done become the BBS&D of Christ. So the rules - the laws, issues of liceity, in this case - are to mandate the use of species that clearly are needed for a valid sacrament.

I’m honestly NOT trying to be argumentative–I just–sometimes it seems like things are done for no apparent unbend-able reason.

You’re not argumentative and the rules are neither unbendable nor unreasonable. However, there are limits to bend-ability.

 

[Roy5]

It is difficult for me to understand how this issue can become so prominent. If, as the Church teaches, there already is a miracle - that the priest’s consecration changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ - why wouldn’t it change gluten-free hosts into the same body and blood? There is something about this that troubles me, that the miracle is limited by the precise content of the bread.

 I am quite sure that Christ isn't all that concerned about the exact recipe of the bread. The real miracle is in the faith of the believer. Otherwise I worry that the Eucharist can become a source of pious superstition for many believers. Sorry, but that's my view. I'm aware that it could be a 'heresy' and probably I will be accused of putting my personal opinion above the teaching of the Church. So be it. As I recall, Cardinal Ratzinger, some years ago, declared that conscience was paramount in this arena. Am I wrong about that? 

  Let the little girl and all who need gluten-free bread have it. God works all miracles and I trust in Him above any human or human institution. The Church does not equal God. I've seen the Church fail too often to believe that. Is this a heresy, too?

 

[ellipsis2]

It is difficult for me to understand how this issue can become so prominent. If, as the Church teaches, there already is a miracle - that the priest’s consecration changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ - why wouldn’t it change gluten-free hosts into the same body and blood? There is something about this that troubles me, that the miracle is limited by the precise content of the bread.

 I am quite sure that Christ isn't all that concerned about the exact recipe of the bread. The real miracle is in the faith of the believer. Otherwise I worry that the Eucharist can become a source of pious superstition for many believers. Sorry, but that's my view. I'm aware that it could be a 'heresy' and probably I will be accused of putting my personal opinion above the teaching of the Church. So be it. As I recall, Cardinal Ratzinger, some years ago, declared that conscience was paramount in this arena. Am I wrong about that? 

  Let the little girl and all who need gluten-free bread have it. God works all miracles and I trust in Him above any human or human institution. The Church does not equal God. I've seen the Church fail too often to believe that. Is this a heresy, too?

I don’t think it is heresy, Roy. It seems to be common sense. This would be the kind of point that Jesus would tweek the Pharisees over.

 

[sojo]

Someone asked about special wine. We live in the wine country, and traditionally the local wineries are proud to donate their wines to the local churches to use. It isn’t different or special until the consecration, and some wineries donate some very nice vintages to their favorite church.

I’m not sure about the wine used by alcoholics is extremely low in alcohol but not entirely so?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It is difficult for me to understand how this issue can become so prominent. If, as the Church teaches, there already is a miracle - that the priest’s consecration changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ - why wouldn’t it change gluten-free hosts into the same body and blood? There is something about this that troubles me, that the miracle is limited by the precise content of the bread.

 I am quite sure that Christ isn't all that concerned about the exact recipe of the bread. The real miracle is in the faith of the believer. Otherwise I worry that the Eucharist can become a source of pious superstition for many believers. Sorry, but that's my view. I'm aware that it could be a 'heresy' and probably I will be accused of putting my personal opinion above the teaching of the Church. So be it. As I recall, Cardinal Ratzinger, some years ago, declared that conscience was paramount in this arena. Am I wrong about that? 

  **Let the little girl and all who need gluten-free bread have it**. God works all miracles and I trust in Him above any human or human institution. The Church does not equal God. I've seen the Church fail too often to believe that. Is this a heresy, too?

She is not limited to that choice. Christ is present in BOTH species. She can receive from the cup. Also, a low-gluten host is available, as stated in the article, but she decided that the taste of it is “disgusting.” I hope she didn’t say that about a consecrated host, for she would have then been declaring Jesus Himself to be “disgusting!”

The point is not that the Church tries to shape herself around us, and our needs. We follow what Jesus Christ instituted. He said and did what he wanted us to say and do, and that is what we do. It’s called “obedience.”

 

[Roy5]

I’m not aware that we know anything specific about the bread at the Last Supper. Maybe it did not contain wheat? In any case, this is an example when the Church majors in minors. There is a liturgical legalism that may be as questionable as other prissy forms of legalism. I don’t find it in the teachings of Christ.
Just a thought.

 

[zenith15]

For a valid consecration only grape wine - no apple, strawberry or elderberry, etc. wineTo be licit there must be no additives - this is to ensure validity.communion wines are certified as grape wine having no additives. Any grape wine will do for validity and any grape wine (it used to generally be required that a minimum % alcohol was required for liceity but I’m not sure if that general rule has been abrogated) without additives is licit.The issue you raise concerns both validity and liceity. To be valid wheat bread and grape wine must be used. The issue then becomes what is wheat bread and grape wine. At what point does the bread become cake or rye bread or something else. When does grape juice become wine: alcoholic and how much? Addition of salt is a matter of liceity - the rules say don’t do it. Adding a small bit might not change the bread to something else, but why get into “how much salt” issues? When is it no longer grape wine and is now vinegar or diluted to the point of being water? The laws of the Church - the rules on liceity - are designed to ensure there is no such questions. They are stricter than absolutely necessary, but in the ordinary circumstance compliance is not a problem. Those rules can be waived in particular circumstances - such a use of mustum or low gluten breads - but in those cases a determination that the species are bread and wine still are made. There are cases from WWII when priests in concentration camps used camp bread and a raisin to confect the sacrament (unclear if it was valid or not): was the bread wheat bread and the juice of the raisin wine - that was left up to God. But, under the circumstances what the priest did was held laudatory though clearly illict and possibly invalid. The reason is without bread and wine the consecration does not take place at all, e.g., rice cakes done become the BBS&D of Christ. So the rules - the laws, issues of liceity, in this case - are to mandate the use of species that clearly are needed for a valid sacrament. You’re not argumentative and the rules are neither unbendable nor unreasonable. However, there are limits to bend-ability.

Thank you for your polite, thorough response, made without sarcasm, unlike the response above yours. I appreciate the explanation. I am still trying to learn.

 

[zenith15]

She is not limited to that choice. Christ is present in BOTH species. She can receive from the cup. Also, a low-gluten host is available, as stated in the article, but she decided that the taste of it is “disgusting.” I hope she didn’t say that about a consecrated host, for she would have then been declaring Jesus Himself to be “disgusting!”

The point is not that the Church tries to shape herself around us, and our needs. We follow what Jesus Christ instituted. He said and did what he wanted us to say and do, and that is what we do. It’s called “obedience.”

As was already noted, not all parishes offer the chalice, many people fear germs drinking from a communal cup, and let’s remember this is a YOUNG CHILD. I’m certain she in no way meant to call Jesus “disgusting”. SHe simply didn’t like the way the wafer tasted. Perhaps she needs more catechesis before she tries again. But is she to be denied communion in any parish which does not regularly offer the cup?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

As was already noted, not all parishes offer the chalice, many people fear germs drinking from a communal cup, and let’s remember this is a YOUNG CHILD. I’m certain she in no way meant to call Jesus “disgusting”. SHe simply didn’t like the way the wafer tasted. Perhaps she needs more catechesis before she tries again. But is she to be denied communion in any parish which does not regularly offer the cup?

She’s 11, she’s a “tween,” not a young child. Her parents can go to their parish priest and discuss how she may receive. I became my son’s EM for years. We brought his little pewter chalice to church with us, I took it up and placed it with the other cups before Mass. The other EMs poured a little wine into it for consecration. I took it, served him, consumed any that was left, and put the chalice back into a small traveling pouch I had. We never asked for him to receive on days like Good Friday when no wine was consecrated, but had we asked, I’m pretty sure Father would have made it available to him.

My point is that these stories cause scandal to the Church. There are safe ways for celiacs to receive the Body and/or Blood of Christ, without getting the news media involved and stirring up all sorts of controversy.

 

[ellipsis2]

She’s 11, she’s a “tween,” not a young child. Her parents can go to their parish priest and discuss how she may receive. I became my son’s EM for years. We brought his little pewter chalice to church with us, I took it up and placed it with the other cups before Mass. The other EMs poured a little wine into it for consecration. I took it, served him, consumed any that was left, and put the chalice back into a small traveling pouch I had. We never asked for him to receive on days like Good Friday when no wine was consecrated, but had we asked, I’m pretty sure Father would have made it available to him.

My point is that these stories cause scandal to the Church. There are safe ways for celiacs to receive the Body and/or Blood of Christ, without getting the news media involved and stirring up all sorts of controversy.

Scandal? A bit hyperbolic methinks.

 

[jilly4ski]

Scandal? A bit hyperbolic methinks.

Actually no, one only has to read the comments below the article and see that the people reading it think the Church is engaging in unjust discrimination or that this proves the Church is an evil, mean, backwards church who doesn’t let little girls participate. If this isn’t scandal…

 

[johnnykins]

It is difficult for me to understand how this issue can become so prominent. If, as the Church teaches, there already is a miracle - that the priest’s consecration changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ - why wouldn’t it change gluten-free hosts into the same body and blood? There is something about this that troubles me, that the miracle is limited by the precise content of the bread.

Yours is a common misunderstanding that many Protestant also have. It is Catholic theology that the bread MUST be wheat bread and the wine grape wine. NOTHING else will work. Therefore it is a serious issue to Catholics. As to the presence of gluten in a consecrated host - if you test it chemically you will find gluten before and after the consecration. You will not find human flesh and blood after consecration. That is not a problem for Catholics as the miracle is one beyond human and scientific comprehension. Catholics use certain language taken from Aristotle to describe what happens, but essentially it is a manifestation of the power of God. The Aristotelian use of “substance” and “accidents” is helpful and useful for understanding and describing what’s happening - and what’s happening is essentially beyond understanding. The bread and wine retain all the chemicals and appearances when looked at in this world - the “accidents” remain bread and wine. But in reality - a greater reality than this limited world because of the power of God - the “substance” has changed truly into the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ despite the fact that if you test it, it looks like bread and wine. The transcendent reality is that it has changed. You may not believe that. Many do not. (Although I’ve always wondered at the Protestants who get exercised in the miracle of the immanent God in the Eucharist but easily accept the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and all the Biblical miracles? If a man can come back from the dead and God can become man, why can’t bread and wine be transformed truly in to body and blood but retain all the characteristics of bread and wine? Much of what you say reflects that same mentality - not hammering you, just pointing it out. Let’s face it: to truly believe what the Church teaches requires FAITH because it makes no sense in this world.)

I am quite sure that Christ isn’t all that concerned about the exact recipe of the bread.

Well, if like Catholics you believe you must use wheat bread and grape wine to have a valid Eucharist - Christ may not care about the exact recipe, but certainly the effective recipe matters He cares about that! …So maybe the Church’s care for an exact recipe maintains the effective recipe? Certainly that’s reason for the Church to care so much.

The real miracle is in the faith of the believer.

See, that’s where Catholics differ from Protestants - there is a real miracle in the Eucharist to Catholics - not a simple matter of faith. Like Christ truly rising from the dead - it’s real to us and, yes, that matters. Many Protestants now claim the Resurrection didn’t really happen - the miracle is the faith of the Apostles and Disciples that created this new Religion of love they say (or some such). But, for Catholics the Resurrection is real. If a Protestant does believe in the actual Resurrection, why is this miracle of the Eucharist so hard to accept for them and that one of the Resurrection so easy?

Otherwise I worry that the Eucharist can become a source of pious superstition for many believers. Sorry, but that’s my view.

Sure, but that’s always a risk. If the Bible is not really the Word of God - where does that leave us? Fools believing in an ancient book of fables and philosophy?

I’m aware that it could be a ‘heresy’ and probably I will be accused of putting my personal opinion above the teaching of the Church.

Many people in reality are not so much opposed to an infallible Church or Pope as much as they want to be that infallible Church or Pope. It’s a common malady.

So be it. As I recall, Cardinal Ratzinger, some years ago, declared that conscience was paramount in this arena. Am I wrong about that?

Actually an informed conscience is all we got to work with. Note the word 'informed" and all that implies. Invincible ignorance can be an issue.

Let the little girl and all who need gluten-free bread have it.

But then you cannot have Eucharist - that is the TRUTH God’s Church teaches

God works all miracles and I trust in Him above any human or human institution. The Church does not equal God. I’ve seen the Church fail too often to believe that. Is this a heresy, too?

yes, sadly - to all your comments. Unfortunately, that position denies the Church, His love for His Church, and places you above His Church. However, many had walked the path you’ve started down.