Church bans gluten-free host

[WingsOfEagles]

I think the whole idea of the restrictions and definitions is to keep communion breads and wines as close to the original as possible in modern times. Also, perhaps to prevent communion from down grading into pancakes, waffles and fruit drinks.

I understand this on the surface, but like the other poster, it seems like it can get to the point of silly. For example, a host that in all ways is like a regular host, but is gluten free and actually made out of rice. Would Jesus care? Somehow I think he used the bread he dead because of the culture he lived in. I don’t think the wheat content was a primary issue.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I understand this on the surface, but like the other poster, it seems like it can get to the point of silly. For example, a host that in all ways is like a regular host, but is gluten free and actually made out of rice. Would Jesus care? Somehow I think he used the bread he dead because of the culture he lived in. I don’t think the wheat content was a primary issue.

Ours is not to ask why, but to obey. We try not to deviate from what Jesus has given to us. Anyway, there are non-alcoholic wine and low-gluten bread that can be used for consecration, so there cannot be any issue with that.

 

[zenith15]

I agree. Clearly she needs to realise her priorities when receiving the sacraments.

As a citizen of the so-called “third world” - as you put it - I have to point out to you that even though coeliac disease is rare in my country, it is prevalent in Africa and South America, as well as in Europe and North America. I’m not sure what you intend by making such a statement, but if you’re suggesting that coeliac disease is not a valid disease, you are sorely mistaken.

Also, I understand your intent to make a humorous point about lactose intolerance, but Chris Rock is wrong. In fact, lactose intolerance is common in Africa - more so than in Europe or North America. The same goes for Asia.

Very true. Very fair skinned people from far north countries like the Netherlands, etc are much less likely to be lactose intolerant than those from more southern climes.

 

[zenith15]

Ours is not to ask why, but to obey. We try not to deviate from what Jesus has given to us. Anyway, there are non-alcoholic wine and low-gluten bread that can be used for consecration, so there cannot be any issue with that.

Why can’t we ask why, while still obeying? Why is it bad to want to know the thinking behind such decisions of our own church? They might have a very good explanation which would satisfy and clear up the confusion.

 

[Brendan]

I really just do not understand the insistence of the Church that the host be made exactly in such and such a way with ONLY wheat and water or it won’t be “valid” matter. I mean, says who? Certainly not Jesus–I don’t recall him making any such point at all at the Last Supper…

More specifically, Christ, at no point, told the Church that it had the authority to change what was used in the Eucharist.

The Church would be wrong to try and claim any authority that Christ did not give to it.

It is only with wheat bread and grape wine do we know for certain becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Anything else is a guess on our part. It becomes a theological **** shoot on if Transubstantian occurs, because we really would not know. We would have no assuraces that rice cakes and apple wine become the Eucharist. We HAVE such assurances for wheat bread and grape wine.

So if rice cakes are used and the priest holds one up and says “Body of Christ”, the only thing a Catholic could respond with is “Maybe, Maybe Not”. Anything else would be dishonest.

 

[zenith15]

Ours is not to ask why, but to obey. We try not to deviate from what Jesus has given to us. Anyway, there are non-alcoholic wine and low-gluten bread that can be used for consecration, so there cannot be any issue with that.

But we HAVE deviated. We don’t use bread exactly like Jesus ate that night, nor wine exactly like what He drank. I’m certain Jesus did not use small, circular, embossed, machine-made hosts with His disciples, and we have no idea what other ingredients may have been in the bread (salt perhaps?). Does that make them invalid?

 

[zenith15]

More specifically, Christ, at no point, told the Church that it had the authority to change what was used in the Eucharist.

The Church would be wrong to try and claim any authority that Christ did not give to it.

It is only with wheat bread and grape wine do we know for certain becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Anything else is a guess on our part. It becomes a theological **** shoot on if Transubstantian occurs, because we really would not know. We would have no assuraces that rice cakes and apple wine become the Eucharist. We HAVE such assurances for wheat bread and grape wine.

So if rice cakes are used and the priest holds one up and says “Body of Christ”, the only thing a Catholic could respond with is “Maybe, Maybe Not”. Anything else would be dishonest.

Yes I understand that. But, as to size, shape, or other commonly used ingredients in the making of wheat unleavened bread (like salt), how do we know what the bread Jesus used contained?

 

[Filii_Dei]

Why can’t we ask why, while still obeying? Why is it bad to want to know the thinking behind such decisions of our own church? They might have a very good explanation which would satisfy and clear up the confusion.

I apologise for the misleading phrasing of my statement. Of course we are permitted to ask why, because it is perfectly acceptable and desirable to understand, but we have to be prepared to realise that not everything is knowable from the outset. It takes reading, prayer and much contemplation to realise, and I believe even our saints have probably gone through their whole earthly lives without knowing every single thing about their faith.

But we HAVE deviated. We don’t use bread exactly like Jesus ate that night, nor wine exactly like what He drank. I’m certain Jesus did not use small, circular, embossed, machine-made hosts with His disciples, and we have no idea what other ingredients may have been in the bread (salt perhaps?). Does that make them invalid?

Of course we have deviated - we do not know exactly what bread He held in his hands, nor exactly the vintage in the chalice enough to replicate it 100%. But we do know it is bread made from wheat, and it is wine from grapes. And it is these specifications that we are compelled to abide by to the best of our ability. The only thing that is specified explicitly is that it was bread and wine, not tortillas and beer.

Yes I understand that. But, as to size, shape, or other commonly used ingredients in the making of wheat unleavened bread (like salt), how do we know what the bread Jesus used contained?

We do not know every single detail, but we know what Holy Tradition has told us: Jesus used bread. He did not use rice, or corn, or barley, or sorghum, or oats. Whether salt was part of the ingredient is not known to us, but it is not essential to it being bread.

 

[gus]

I think if Jesus, any of the Apostles,or for that matter any villager in in the holy land at that time could certainly identify a wheat field of today quite easily.

So to would they know how to separate the grain from the chafe.

The article, a marginal news story from the beginning was answered completely in the first or second day.
Why is this tread still alive?
Be completely honest for a large number of posters this is
only an issue because it involves the Catholic Church
Wheat doesn’t seem to make news elseware and it used pretty widely throuh-out the world.

Its more about Catholic Bashing than wheat. Its also another thinly veiled attack on the Eucherest.

 

[zenith15]

I think if Jesus, any of the Apostles,or for that matter any villager in in the holy land at that time could certainly identify a wheat field of today quite easily.

So to would they know how to separate the grain from the chafe.

The article, a marginal news story from the beginning was answered completely in the first or second day.
Why is this tread still alive?
Be completely honest for a large number of posters this is
only an issue because it involves the Catholic Church
Wheat doesn’t seem to make news elseware and it used pretty widely throuh-out the world.

Its more about Catholic Bashing than wheat. Its also another thinly veiled attack on the Eucherest.

I don’t agree with that at all. I just think it raised questions for some folks that they then thought to ask about. I don’t really see any “bashing” going on–where do you see that? I agree, the article was old news, but as often happens, threads develop into discussions about a similar or related topic. Just because people have questions, does not mean they are trying to argue or bash.

 

[Phemie]

First of all, to say that the Body of Christ “tasted disgusting” is a terrible thing to say, albeit, she said it unknowingly.

Secondly, has anyone ever heard of people from the third world being Celiac? As Chris Rock said, “I bet no one in Africa is lactose intolerant!”

Chris Rock is obviously not an authority on medicine since in some African countries up to 90% of the population is lactose intolerant. Canada became a laughing stock a few decades ago for generously sending powdered milk to a population that couldn’t consume it.

 

[salusanimarum17]

I read somewhere that often when people are allergic to something, the food will taste horrible on their tongues. It is kind of a pre-wired thing to prevent us from eating something harmful to our bodies. …

I’m allergic to several foods. None of them taste bad to me.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I’m allergic to several foods. None of them taste bad to me.

It’s not everyone, but there is scientific study that shows that it is not uncommon.

 

[salusanimarum17]

It’s not everyone, but there is scientific study that shows that it is not uncommon.

Never heard of it. It would be handy…although there are lots of things I don’t like that don’t cause allergic reactions.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sigh.

So many wanna-be Popes. . .

The Church, with 2000 years of Scripture and tradition, prays to the Holy Spirit for guidance.

Guided by the Spirit, the Church determines the nature of a given substance (bread.wine) and what would be its proper matter for a sacrament.

The Church, guided by the Spirit, after much prayer, makes the determination.

And what happens?

“I don’t think Jesus would CARE.”
"I think the Church should change.’
“I think the Church is wrong.”
“I think the Church is trying to impose things that JESUS would not.”
“I think what the Church is doing hurts others.”
“I don’t know why the Church has to do this.”
“I don’t want to listen.”
“I want the Church to do what want.”

It’s like they’re saying, "Well, gee. We believe the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit when it put together the Scriptures. We believe the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit when it defined the Trinity. . BUT we just can’t believe the Church can make a decision like what constitutes a sacrament. WE want to decide what we will eat and drink in our Eucharist according to whatever WE think is ‘best’.

You know, it’s no wonder that the ‘little things’ are so contentiously argued. It’s EASY to consider oneself not only a practicing Catholic but a GOOD Catholic when one can say, “Oh I believe in the Trinity, and I believe in Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and I believe in the Eucharist and all that.”

Because NONE OF THAT has any impact on our ‘day to day’ life, you know? You don’t (usually) have people demanding that you NOT believe in the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception or the Real Presence. And while you will have SOME people hooting at you for being ‘mindless sheep’ you have an awful lot of people who agree.

AH, but the ‘other issues.’ Gay marriage? Used to be you’d have a LOT of company saying, "wrong’. NOW though, it’s the other way around. It’s a lot harder to say that you are opposed to this. NOW people throw ‘bigot’, "Homophobe’, ‘hater’ at you. Hard to take. Hard to look like a stumbling ‘yokel’ in the sight of your generous, enlightened, and tolerant folks who ‘support’ gay marriage, isn’t it?

I have to wonder how many people start out ‘questioning’ the Church on these ‘little things’ like what makes a valid Eucharist, because they are CONCERNED about the ‘poor celiacs’. . .and how that leads to questioning on OTHER things. Hey, once you’ve found the Church to be ‘intolerant’ and ‘questionable’ on the Eucharist matter, then you start to wonder where else it has ‘gone wrong’, and pretty soon, the ONLY thing “Catholic” about you is that you still believe in the Trinity (but think the Jesus Seminar people had it right). Everything else you either disagree with completely or dismiss as ‘optional’. . .

Note I am NOT saying that anybody here who is ‘questioning’ the ‘gluten’ matter etc is going to wind up rejecting the Church. (That’s why I used words like ‘wonder’ and ‘how many’ instead of ‘Know’ and ‘all’) It’s not as though people leave the Church overnight (some do, most don’t). It could take years for those who do wind up rejecting; and they might return, reject, return many times. But it does SEEM (another word which indicates I am not saying this is absolutely factual and provable!) it does SEEM as though many on these forums who identify themselves as former Catholics started out questioning ‘one little thing’ and over a period of time found themselves rejecting more and more after that. . .

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Sigh.

So many wanna-be Popes. . .

The Church, with 2000 years of Scripture and tradition, prays to the Holy Spirit for guidance.

Guided by the Spirit, the Church determines the nature of a given substance (bread.wine) and what would be its proper matter for a sacrament.

The Church, guided by the Spirit, after much prayer, makes the determination.

And what happens?

“I don’t think Jesus would CARE.”
"I think the Church should change.’
“I think the Church is wrong.”
“I think the Church is trying to impose things that JESUS would not.”
“I think what the Church is doing hurts others.”
“I don’t know why the Church has to do this.”
“I don’t want to listen.”
“I want the Church to do what want.”

It’s like they’re saying, "Well, gee. We believe the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit when it put together the Scriptures. We believe the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit when it defined the Trinity. . BUT we just can’t believe the Church can make a decision like what constitutes a sacrament. WE want to decide what we will eat and drink in our Eucharist according to whatever WE think is ‘best’.

You know, it’s no wonder that the ‘little things’ are so contentiously argued. It’s EASY to consider oneself not only a practicing Catholic but a GOOD Catholic when one can say, “Oh I believe in the Trinity, and I believe in Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and I believe in the Eucharist and all that.”

Because NONE OF THAT has any impact on our ‘day to day’ life, you know? You don’t (usually) have people demanding that you NOT believe in the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception or the Real Presence. And while you will have SOME people hooting at you for being ‘mindless sheep’ you have an awful lot of people who agree.

AH, but the ‘other issues.’ Gay marriage? Used to be you’d have a LOT of company saying, "wrong’. NOW though, it’s the other way around. It’s a lot harder to say that you are opposed to this. NOW people throw ‘bigot’, "Homophobe’, ‘hater’ at you. Hard to take. Hard to look like a stumbling ‘yokel’ in the sight of your generous, enlightened, and tolerant folks who ‘support’ gay marriage, isn’t it?

I have to wonder how many people start out ‘questioning’ the Church on these ‘little things’ like what makes a valid Eucharist, because they are CONCERNED about the ‘poor celiacs’. . .and how that leads to questioning on OTHER things. Hey, once you’ve found the Church to be ‘intolerant’ and ‘questionable’ on the Eucharist matter, then you start to wonder where else it has ‘gone wrong’, and pretty soon, the ONLY thing “Catholic” about you is that you still believe in the Trinity (but think the Jesus Seminar people had it right). Everything else you either disagree with completely or dismiss as ‘optional’. . .

Note I am NOT saying that anybody here who is ‘questioning’ the ‘gluten’ matter etc is going to wind up rejecting the Church. (That’s why I used words like ‘wonder’ and ‘how many’ instead of ‘Know’ and ‘all’) It’s not as though people leave the Church overnight (some do, most don’t). It could take years for those who do wind up rejecting; and they might return, reject, return many times. But it does SEEM (another word which indicates I am not saying this is absolutely factual and provable!) it does SEEM as though many on these forums who identify themselves as former Catholics started out questioning ‘one little thing’ and over a period of time found themselves rejecting more and more after that. . .

With all due respect, I think you’re blowing a question over why the host needs to contain wheat out of proportion. It’s amazing how on a board set up for learning, people are attacked if they question anything about Church teaching. I mean, why have a discussion board then?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With all due respect, I think you’re blowing a question over why the host needs to contain wheat out of proportion. It’s amazing how on a board set up for learning, people are attacked if they question anything about Church teaching. I mean, why have a discussion board then?

Ah, but I’m not attacking anybody for questioning anything about Church teaching, am I?

I’m just discussing things. . .

If you’ll notice, I not only used questioning, speculative language, I also was careful to say that it was not the questioning per se that was the problem, it was the rejection of truth.

Part of the thing about questioning is that it demands an answer. You can’t question forever. In the end, you have to either accept an answer to a question, or reject it, or 'ignore it.

We can’t spend the rest of our lives saying that the Church has not given us an answer to what constitutes the Eucharist, so that we can argue that it ‘should’ offer gluten free, or it ‘should’ change wine to grape juice, or it 'doesn’t matter, because the ‘question’ hasn’t been settled. it has.

We CAN question things like, "Why did the Church decide this? How did it happen?’

Because that we can get an answer to. We can look it up, we can check it out. Plenty to question.

But, with respect, the answer itself is out there and it is beyond question.

 

[Boulder257]

Like the normal unleaven bread tastes amazing. You’re not partaking of the body for it’s taste. Not to mention you can wash it down w/ the wine.

Exactly! Since when is taste even a factor? This is just a microcosm of what we have become as a society. I don’t tend to let this stuff bother me, but this is absolutely ridiculous on so many levels.

 

[Jacqueline1966]

Chris Rock is obviously not an authority on medicine since in some African countries up to 90% of the population is lactose intolerant. Canada became a laughing stock a few decades ago for generously sending powdered milk to a population that couldn’t consume it.

Need your sources, please!

Grew up in several countries in Africa and we pretty much lived on “Nido” powdered milk and “Carnation” milk as well. I can’t recall anyone being lactose intolerant.

Also, many Nomadic people, like the Maasai, subsist on cattle milk etc.

But again, Chris Rock might say that lactose intolerance is not the subject of this thread…!

 

[Jacqueline1966]

My understanding is that modern breeding has created wheat with a much higher percentage of gluten, and our more processed diets mean we eat a whole lot more of it in the developed world. So people may be celiac everywhere, it may not have enough exposure to become symptomatic. Plus, breastfeeding causes the growth of more villi in both mother and baby, so places where kids nurse for years rather than weeks would be less likely to see celiac on the scale we do in the US.

Brilliant explanation!