Gluten free hosts?

[Suslar]

I did talk with the pastor. He’s going to continue on with rice crackers that are 100% gluten free. Even after showing him the statement from the USCCB and giving him the contact info for 3 companies that make extremely low gluten hosts, his answer was, “well they are approved and all the parishes in the Arch buy from this supplier so they must be ok.”

Lord, help us!!!

On to the next step . . . .

 

[aspirant]

I did talk with the pastor. He’s going to continue on with rice crackers that are 100% gluten free. Even after showing him the statement from the USCCB and giving him the contact info for 3 companies that make extremely low gluten hosts, his answer was, “well they are approved and all the parishes in the Arch buy from this supplier so they must be ok.”

Can. 924 §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

§2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

§3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.

(Link)

Canon 706 - In the Divine Liturgy the sacred gifts which are offered are bread made of wheat alone and recently made so that there is no danger of corruption and natural wine of the grape and not corrupt.

(Link to English; Latin only on the Vatican website)

I hope the “Effective Lay Witness Protocol” proves helpful.

 

[Elizium23]

I did talk with the pastor. He’s going to continue on with rice crackers that are 100% gluten free. Even after showing him the statement from the USCCB and giving him the contact info for 3 companies that make extremely low gluten hosts, his answer was, “well they are approved and all the parishes in the Arch buy from this supplier so they must be ok.”

Wow… it’s going to get ugly. What supplier is it? Perhaps he just got a SKU mixed up and everyone else is getting “low gluten” approved breads, while the same supplier happens to offer invalid rice crackers in the same line?

Well, good luck with the chain of command. I hope the bishop acts decisively and swiftly; this is a grave problem if the facts are as you say.

 

[quiet52]

I did talk with the pastor. He’s going to continue on with rice crackers that are 100% gluten free. Even after showing him the statement from the USCCB and giving him the contact info for 3 companies that make extremely low gluten hosts, his answer was, “well they are approved and all the parishes in the Arch buy from this supplier so they must be ok.”

Lord, help us!!!

On to the next step . . . .

THANK YOU for being a warrior.
I am praying for you and your pastor.

 

[josh987654321]

It is certainly a miracle that it has not affected you because that is not part of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Unfortunately, people do not understand how this works and think some sort of transformation takes place

A transformation does take place, the Eucharist IS! the body and blood of Christ, surprisingly alot of Catholics don’t understand this or they refuse to believe due to a lack of faith, Im not sure if I have miss understood you or not but I can gauarntee you that a transformation of the bread and wine does take place during transubstanciation, once transubstanciation has taken place and it becomes the Eucharist, it is no longer bread or wine, therefore it would make sense that they were not affected by it, even if they are intolerent to gluten.

To think of the Eucharist as anything less than the flesh and blood of christ is a mistake, have you not heard of any of the miracles where the Eucharist literally turned into blood and flesh?

These are some of the Eucharistic miracles -

Eucharistic Miracle of Santarém; Santarém, Portugal
Eucharistic Miracle of Betania; Los Teques, Venezuela
Eucharistic Miracle of Sousa; Sousa, Paraíba, Brazil (1814)
Eucharistic Miracle of Ludbreg; Croatia, Ludbreg, Croatia

There is also another which is featured on the Documentary “Signs From God”

There is also another where a starved donkey prostrated itself before the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

How many more miracles must occur before people will realise that during transubstanciation the bread truly becomes the literal flesh and blood of Christ?

The Eucharist is truly a miracle that occurs at every mass celebration, anyone who claims that the Eucharist is less than the blood and flesh of christ is making a huge mistake and the ministers who place Christ’s words in doubt do much harm when blessing the host.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

My Apologies, this post is for corrections.

once transubstanciation has taken place and it becomes the Eucharist, it is no longer bread or wine,

Once the bread and wine have been concecrated, it becomes the flesh and blood of christ and is no longer bread or wine.

This is why it makes sense that those with gluten intolerances were unaffected.

How many more miracles must occur before people will realise that during transubstanciation the bread truly becomes the literal flesh and blood of Christ?

How many more miracles must occur before people will realise that when the bread and wine are consecrated, it truly becomes the literal flesh and blood of christ?

Transubstantiation is truly a miracle that occurs at every mass celebration, anyone who claims that the eucharist is less than the blood and flesh of christ is making a huge mistake and the ministers who place Christ’s words in doubt do much harm to souls when concecrating the host along with those lay people who also place his words in doubt.

These are some of the Eucharistic miracles -

Eucharistic Miracle of Santarém; Santarém, Portugal
Eucharistic Miracle of Betania; Los Teques, Venezuela
Eucharistic Miracle of Sousa; Sousa, Paraíba, Brazil (1814)
Eucharistic Miracle of Ludbreg; Croatia, Ludbreg, Croatia

There is also another which is featured on the Documentary “Signs From God”

There is also another where a starved donkey prostrated itself before the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Doubt no longer and believe in this absolute truth.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[aspirant]

Josh: The substance changes, the accidents do not.

 

[josh987654321]

Josh: The substance changes, the accidents do not.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘accidents’ however, when the bread and wine is consecrated it does turn into the flesh and blood of Christ, it’s the unique sacrament where Christ gives himself to us and that is why it is so valuable.

It is not Christ’s flesh and blood in a figurative sense, it’s in a literal sense.

That’s why I have a list of miracles here where ministers have doubted Christ’s real presense in the Eucharist - therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

The simplest way to express what Christ asks us to believe about the Real Presence is that the Eucharist is really He. The Real Presence is the real Jesus. We are to believe that the Eucharist began in the womb of the Virgin Mary; that the flesh which the Son of God received from His Mother at the Incarnation is the same flesh into which He changed bread at the Last Supper; that the blood He received from His Mother is the same blood into which He changed wine at the Last Supper. Had she not given Him His flesh and blood there could not be a Eucharist.
We are to believe that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ - simply, without qualification. It is God become man in the fullness of His divine nature, in the fullness of His human nature, in the fullness of His body and soul, in the fullness of everything that makes Jesus Jesus. He is in the Eucharist with His human mind and will united with the Divinity, with His hands and feet, His face and features, with His eyes and lips and ears and nostrils, with His affections and emotions and, with emphasis, with His living, pulsating, physical Sacred Heart. That is what our Catholic Faith demands of us that we believe. If we believe this, we are Catholic. If we do not, we are not, no matter what people may think we are.

Father John A. Hardon S.J.

There are so, so many eucharistic miracles that prove that it is literally Christ’s flesh and blood, that is why I wanted to point it out to anyone who doubts this such as this quote -

Unfortunately, people do not understand how this works and think some sort of transformation takes place - although I don’t see how that would be better, because humans can easily contract disease from eating actual human flesh.

A transformation truly does take place please view this link Elizium23 - therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

There are many Catholic’s who are Ignorant to the true value of the eucharist, to the flesh and blood of christ in the literal sense, I used to be one of them, I always knew that the eucharist was christ, however I was in doubt to the literal sense of his flesh and blood in the eucharist as I thought it was all spiritual, the eucharist truly is Christ’s flesh and blood in the most literal sense, this is one of those teachings that is only acceptable with faith, hopefully the miracles I have linked here will help you to see the true value of the eucharist that many Catholic’s are Ignorant of.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Joannm]

I don’t know what you mean by ‘accidents’ however, when the bread and wine is consecrated it does turn into the flesh and blood of Christ, it’s the unique sacrament where Christ gives himself to us and that is why it is so valuable.

It is not Christ’s flesh and blood in a figurative sense, it’s in a literal sense.

That’s why I have a list of miracles here where ministers have doubted Christ’s real presense in the Eucharist - therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

There are so, so many eucharistic miracles that prove that it is literally Christ’s flesh and blood, that is why I wanted to point it out to anyone who doubts this such as this quote -

A transformation truly does take place please view this link Elizium23 - therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

There are many Catholic’s who are Ignorant to the true value of the eucharist, to the flesh and blood of christ in the literal sense, I used to be one of them, I always knew that the eucharist was christ, however I was in doubt to the literal sense of his flesh and blood in the eucharist as I thought it was all spiritual, the eucharist truly is Christ’s flesh and blood in the most literal sense, this is one of those teachings that is only acceptable with faith, hopefully the miracles I have linked here will help you to see the true value of the eucharist that many Catholic’s are Ignorant of.

Thank you for reading
Josh

I believe you are misunderstanding the doctrine of transubstantiation, a term introduced by St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is a good simple explanation ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha4.htm

As far as saying the bread and wine become the “literal” Body and Blood of Jesus, that is not a word you will find in any document regarding the Eucharist. It is a Sacramental Presence. That does not make it any less a Real Presence or that it is only symbolic or just spiritual. The bread and wine are Jesus but any accident of the elements remain. Serving as an EM at a community Mass the priest and I had to consume whatever Precious Blood was remaining (He overfilled the cups). I can tell you that I got quite a buzz from it. So much so that I was afraid to drive home and waited around for an hour and ate something before I did go home.

The Church also does not say we must believe in Eucharistic miracles such as the ones you posted. It says they are worthy of belief but just as with apparitions of Our Lady, we don’t have to believe in them.

 

[aspirant]

I don’t know what you mean by ‘accidents’

Transubstantiation means that the substance (the what-ness) changes. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ and nothing else. The accidents, such as the color, size, texture, flavor, weight, and so forth, do not change. Though the Eucharist is Christ and only Christ, the Eucharist still appears to be bread and wine in every way perceivable to the senses. This also means that if you were to drink a sufficient quantity from the chalice, you would still get drunk, or that if a person with celiac consumed the Host, his body would react as if he had consumed wheat.

 

[Phemie]

At Consecration the substance of the bread and wine change to the Body and Blood of Christ but the accidents of the bread and wine remain. That means that if you were to analyze what’s in the chalice it would still be wine and what’s in the ciborium would still be a wheat product.

An alcoholic who has taken Antabuse would get violently ill if he/she took Communion from the chalice and anyone who drank enough of the Precious Blood would get drunk.

 

[aspirant]

I believe you are misunderstanding the doctrine of transubstantiation, a term introduced by St. Thomas Aquinas.

The term predates Aquinas. Some trace the first usage to Hildebert of Tours (about 1079), others to Stephen of Bruge (around 1140).

 

[josh987654321]

I believe you are misunderstanding the doctrine of transubstantiation, a term introduced by St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is a good simple explanation ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha4.htm

As far as saying the bread and wine become the “literal” Body and Blood of Jesus, that is not a word you will find in any document regarding the Eucharist. It is a Sacramental Presence. That does not make it any less a Real Presence or that it is only symbolic or just spiritual. The bread and wine are Jesus but any accident of the elements remain. Serving as an EM at a community Mass the priest and I had to consume whatever Precious Blood was remaining (He overfilled the cups). I can tell you that I got quite a buzz from it. So much so that I was afraid to drive home and waited around for an hour and ate something before I did go home.

The Church also does not say we must believe in Eucharistic miracles such as the ones you posted. It says they are worthy of belief but just as with apparitions of Our Lady, we don’t have to believe in them.

Thank you for your link, I understand what you mean by ‘accidents’ now.

Im trying to say that the ‘accidents’ do change in the eucharist, in some cases as in the miracles I had linked, the accidents changed right after consecration.

However I believe that it takes a certain amount of time after we have consumed the eucharist for the accidents to change so that we can actually consume the eucharist, the accidents don’t generally change before we consume the eucharist accept for in the cases of the miracles to assure us that the accidents do change and that it truly is the whole presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Elizium23]

However I believe that it takes a certain amount of time after we have consumed the eucharist for the accidents to change so that we can actually consume the eucharist, the accidents don’t generally change before we consume the eucharist accept for in the cases of the miracles to assure us that the accidents do change and that it truly is the whole presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist.

Are you suggesting that the Eucharist always transforms into literal flesh and blood as we consume it? Eucharistic miracles are classified as private revelation. Catholics are free to believe or not believe them as we see fit. Frankly I do not believe many of them. For me, the real proof of the miracle of the Eucharist is John 6. And as Jesus said later, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” (John 20:29).

 

[PJM]

=Suslar;10622865]We have several people in our parish who suffer from Celic’s Disease and cannot tolerate gluten. So, our pastor has purchased “gluten free hosts” - 100% free of any gluten and all traces of wheat. They are made from thickened water and rice flour and a bunch of additives/preservatives. What the heck? Doesn’t the host HAVE TO be made from some percentage of wheat gluten to be valid matter? Can you list sources please so I can look them up?

Also, what about the non-suspecting EMHC’s who are told to retrieve these gluten-free “hosts” and put them in separate pyx so they can be consecrated during Mass? If it is not valid matter, is it really consecrated? Is the unsuspecting EMHC then passing out nothing more than a cracker? What about the Communicant? Should he/she be told about valid matter? One woman with this condition already approached the pastor and simply asked that she be able to receive the Precious Blood (solved her problem and there is no issue). But another has a daughter who will receive 1st Holy Communion next Sunday and wants her kid to receive one of these “hosts”. Suggestions?

It is VALID matter:thumbsup:

 

[porthos11]

It is VALID matter:thumbsup:

Reread. OP said they were made of rice flour which makes it invalid matter and a very grave concern.

 

[Theophorus]

Thank you for your link, I understand what you mean by ‘accidents’ now.

Im trying to say that the ‘accidents’ do change in the eucharist, in some cases as in the miracles I had linked, the accidents changed right after consecration.

However I believe that it takes a certain amount of time after we have consumed the eucharist for the accidents to change so that we can actually consume the eucharist, the accidents don’t generally change before we consume the eucharist accept for in the cases of the miracles to assure us that the accidents do change and that it truly is the whole presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist.

Thank you for reading
Josh

What you describe is transformation rather than transubstantiation(literally put across/exchange the substance) only the substance changes in transubstantiation, the non-substantial aspect of the bread remains. This is the teaching of the Church via the 13th session of the council of trent:

Canon 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and, holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation,[43]

Appearence is another way of saying accidents/non-substantial aspect of the bread. The substance changes the accidents remain. Very,very rarely God in his goodness will completely flout the natural and supernatural order of things and miraculously give us the accidents(appearance of flesh and blood) as well as the divine substance of Christ, but such eucharistic miracles are very rare and we venerate and adore such miracolous signs of God’s love, we don’t consume them.

 

[josh987654321]

Are you suggesting that the Eucharist always transforms into literal flesh and blood as we consume it? Eucharistic miracles are classified as private revelation. Catholics are free to believe or not believe them as we see fit. Frankly I do not believe many of them. For me, the real proof of the miracle of the Eucharist is John 6. And as Jesus said later, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” (John 20:29).

I don’t know if it always does, however in many cases the accidents can and does change, however not generally before we consume it so that we can actually consume the eucharist.

What you describe is transformation rather than transubstantiation(literally put across/exchange the substance) only the substance changes in transubstantiation, the non-substantial aspect of the bread remains. This is the teaching of the Church via the 13th session of the council of trent:

Appearence is another way of saying accidents/non-substantial aspect of the bread. The substance changes the accidents remain. Very,very rarely God in his goodness will completely flout the natural and supernatural order of things and miraculously give us the accidents(appearance of flesh and blood) as well as the divine substance of Christ, but such eucharistic miracles are very rare and we venerate and adore such miracolous signs of God’s love, we don’t consume them.

The accidents can and do change, at first I thought that the miracles were to prove that it is the real presense of Jesus Christ, however later I found Katya describe how the accidents had canged in her mouth as she consumed it, maybe that was to assure her also of his real presence and is not meant to happen all the time, however I think that if the accidents changed as she ate it, than it wasn’t just for “show” having the accidents change and that we can still consume it.

I know that the accidents generally remain as we eat it, so that we can actaully consume the eucharist, however I am sure that the accidents can and do change, it’s not just a figurative miracle it is a very real miracle.

The accidents have changed to assure us of his real presense, however I don’t think it’s right to say that the accidents never change after we have consumed the eucharist, because they have been known to, I am unsure if they are meant to change as we consume it though, whether it’s only for those who doubt his real presense in the eucharist or not, but don’t discount the fact that the accidents can and have been know to change after consumption.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I Apologise, I understand what you are all saying now.

Once the bread and wine have been consecrated, it becomes the literal flesh and blood of Christ, however the accidents don’t normally change (I say normally because in many cases the accidents have been know to change to assure us of the real change of substance), which is the texture, size etc.

Once the bread and wine have been concecrated it truly becomes the literal flesh and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine, the eucharist is the literal flesh and blood of Christ and to prove this there have been many miracles where the accidents have changed to assure us of the true and very real presense of Christ’s flesh and blood in the eucharist.

There have also been instances where the accidents have changed after consumption, which is why I assumed that the accidents always changed, the accidences don’t always change, however there are some cases where they have been known to.

Link - therealpresence.org/eucha…r/engl_mir.htm

I understand what you all mean by change of substance and change of accident, however don’t rule out the possibility of a complete change of both substance and accident, as it has been known to happen, but I think it is more in circumstances of Christ assuring us of his real presense of his literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist, just because the accidents don’t change, doesn’t mean that his flesh and blood are any less real in the Eucharist, the miracles assure us of this.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

form of bread and wine

Correction “Appearance” not form.