S
stpurl
Guest
No, ACCURACY is a word we use over here.
It has some gluten. It is not gluten-free.
It has some gluten. It is not gluten-free.
- Status
U
Uriel1
Guest
Q. How much gluten?
A. No discernable gluten
In the UK we call that nitpicking, and you know it
God love you
P
Pup7
Guest
That’s a problem, because of medical considerations.
I would hope - and will assume - that the Church has consulted with the correct experts in insuring it’s below thresholds that could trigger an episode for celiac patients.
I would hope - and will assume - that the Church has consulted with the correct experts in insuring it’s below thresholds that could trigger an episode for celiac patients.
Ah - didn’t see that before I posted. Thanks.
Last edited:
U
Uriel1
Guest
details here Catholic Religious AustraliaThat’s a problem, because of medical considerations.
I would hope - and will assume - that the Church has consulted with the correct experts in insuring it’s below thresholds that could trigger an episode for celiac patients.
Uriel1:
Ah - didn’t see that before I posted. Thanks.
S
stpurl
Guest
Call it what you will, but scientifically speaking, according to my daughter who happens to have a Ph.D in chemistry, I’m correct, and if something still has gluten, it is not ‘gluten-free’.
No offense, though the charge is ‘lousy’, all due respect to Rabbie Burns.
No offense, though the charge is ‘lousy’, all due respect to Rabbie Burns.
P
Pup7
Guest
So per the FDA, the US government considers anything with less than 20 ppm gluten to be “gluten free” for the purposes of legally bearing the gluten free label. Also, per the FDA, medical experts state that this is below the threshold to cause a reaction in most celiacs.
Most celiacs can eat foods with small amounts of gluten present as noted in the link.
www.fda.gov
It’s sounding as though legally the hosts are indeed gluten free and can be labeled as such, and everything’s peachy.
Most celiacs can eat foods with small amounts of gluten present as noted in the link.
'Gluten-Free' Now Means What It Says
The only way to manage celiac disease is to avoid eating foods containing gluten. Learn how FDA's definition of 'gluten free' on food labels makes that possible.
It’s sounding as though legally the hosts are indeed gluten free and can be labeled as such, and everything’s peachy.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
The problem is that the use of the term gluten-free would be taken by the majority of English speakers to indicate exactly that, that the bread is ‘gluten free’, NO Gluten. . .but that specifically is not permitted by the USCCB. Their term is LOW Gluten, precisely because of the misunderstanding that would ensue if people think that gluten-free hosts mean absolutely no gluten. If so, then why not allow Rice? It’s gluten free, right? Etc. etc.
Low-Gluten Hosts and Mustum
The most recent Church teaching on the use of mustum and low-gluten hosts at Mass remains the letter from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. . . on July 24, 2003 (Prot. n. 89/78-17498), which was addressed to the Presidents of Conferences of Bishops. In that letter, pastors and the faithful are reminded that for bread to be valid matter for the Eucharist, it must be made solely of wheat, contain enough gluten to effect the confection of bread, be free of foreign materials, and unaffected by any preparation or baking methods which would alter its nature. The amount of gluten necessary for validity in such bread is not determined by minimum percentage or weight, though hosts which have no gluten are considered invalid matter for Mass. (In the Roman Rite, the bread prepared for the Eucharist must also be unleavened.)
Low-Gluten Hosts and Mustum
The most recent Church teaching on the use of mustum and low-gluten hosts at Mass remains the letter from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. . . on July 24, 2003 (Prot. n. 89/78-17498), which was addressed to the Presidents of Conferences of Bishops. In that letter, pastors and the faithful are reminded that for bread to be valid matter for the Eucharist, it must be made solely of wheat, contain enough gluten to effect the confection of bread, be free of foreign materials, and unaffected by any preparation or baking methods which would alter its nature. The amount of gluten necessary for validity in such bread is not determined by minimum percentage or weight, though hosts which have no gluten are considered invalid matter for Mass. (In the Roman Rite, the bread prepared for the Eucharist must also be unleavened.)
S
stpurl
Guest
You see, I’m not trying to be a picky picky or a pill. If the US bishops think it’s important enough to term hosts “low-gluten” instead of gluten free because it is vital for people to know that in order for the bread to be valid it MUST contain ‘enough’ gluten to be so, then I think here in the US anyway we should take our cues from them. . .
And I’d like some responses. I’m asking people, if you did not know (and probably most of us did not) that something could be labeled ‘gluten free’ and still contain enough gluten to make a host ‘wheat bread’, and you were just reading the words "gluten free’, would you think there was gluten in the bread? Really, would you?
And I’d like some responses. I’m asking people, if you did not know (and probably most of us did not) that something could be labeled ‘gluten free’ and still contain enough gluten to make a host ‘wheat bread’, and you were just reading the words "gluten free’, would you think there was gluten in the bread? Really, would you?
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
The equivalent to the “gluten” content is like putting a drop of vinegar in a gallon of water.
People with celiac know the deal, I’m sure.
People with celiac know the deal, I’m sure.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Whatever host is placed in my hand, is the body of our Lord, the chemical content has no meaning to me. Even if the host manufacturer gets the ingredients wrong, our Lord is still present.
I have taken communion in an Anglican church on occasions, and I accept this as the body and blood of our Lord. There is only one Jesus Christ, we cannot divide him into denominations.
U
Uriel1
Guest
"Wee sleekit, cowrin’ an’ tim’rous beastie,
Oh what a panic’s in thy breastie…
_I’m truly sorry man’s dominion _
Has broken nature’s social union"
The 6ppm gluten host is about as good as it gets
The emeritus Pope advised (not infallibly) and is wrong about the definition of wheat bread.
The 6ppm Australian stuff IS the real deal
God is astonished at his US of A followers for getting their knickers in a twist over ths
God love you all
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
You’re speaking for God now? Oh. . .kay. You’re calling the Pope Emeritus as wrong? Claiming that this isn’t infallible teaching, etc?
Well, nothing further needs to be said, does it?
On the one hand, the USCCB, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, 2000 years of tradition, canon law regarding valid matter. . .
on the other . . . somebody claiming otherwise.
I still don’t understand why you don’t see that to the majority of people, "gluten-free’ (like ‘anything-free’) is going to be understood as not containing any gluten at all, and since Catholic infallible teaching regarding the valid matter of the Eucharist requires wheat bread which must contain some gluten, you’re going to get people who are already confused enough over what it perceives as the Church ‘changing’ this, that or the other centuries/millennial teachings, thinking that oh sure you don’t have to have wheat bread anymore because science/celiac, therefore you can have hosts made of all sorts of things. It isn’t as though humans have a record, once they have made these little adaptations, of not taking those and going to points much much ‘farther away’. (sarcasm off).
Don’t you have enough problems down there with your government telling your priests they have to break the seal of confession? You want the Catholics Down Under to feel that the Church not only ‘changed that law’, they changed what the Eucharist is. . .hey, surely ‘same sex marriage’ and ‘women priests’ are coming to, right?
Make it clear that while the low-gluten hosts are sufficiently low that they would not ‘scientifically’ cause a problem with the body’s chemistry, but that they are still containing gluten and therefore still wheat bread, and you solve any perception problems.
So you see, honey chile, I ‘get the science’ and I’m ‘down’ with the Church accepting ‘very low gluten’, and if your bishops call it ‘gluten-free’ then you go with your bishop, no problems for me. It’s not like bishops here don’t make some howling mistakes in practice (they do and have, and they have to eat crow to fix them). I just feel sorry for all the people who are going to get a bad deal through mistaken understanding that could have been easily ‘fixed from the start’. . .
Well, nothing further needs to be said, does it?
On the one hand, the USCCB, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, 2000 years of tradition, canon law regarding valid matter. . .
on the other . . . somebody claiming otherwise.
I still don’t understand why you don’t see that to the majority of people, "gluten-free’ (like ‘anything-free’) is going to be understood as not containing any gluten at all, and since Catholic infallible teaching regarding the valid matter of the Eucharist requires wheat bread which must contain some gluten, you’re going to get people who are already confused enough over what it perceives as the Church ‘changing’ this, that or the other centuries/millennial teachings, thinking that oh sure you don’t have to have wheat bread anymore because science/celiac, therefore you can have hosts made of all sorts of things. It isn’t as though humans have a record, once they have made these little adaptations, of not taking those and going to points much much ‘farther away’. (sarcasm off).
Don’t you have enough problems down there with your government telling your priests they have to break the seal of confession? You want the Catholics Down Under to feel that the Church not only ‘changed that law’, they changed what the Eucharist is. . .hey, surely ‘same sex marriage’ and ‘women priests’ are coming to, right?
Make it clear that while the low-gluten hosts are sufficiently low that they would not ‘scientifically’ cause a problem with the body’s chemistry, but that they are still containing gluten and therefore still wheat bread, and you solve any perception problems.
So you see, honey chile, I ‘get the science’ and I’m ‘down’ with the Church accepting ‘very low gluten’, and if your bishops call it ‘gluten-free’ then you go with your bishop, no problems for me. It’s not like bishops here don’t make some howling mistakes in practice (they do and have, and they have to eat crow to fix them). I just feel sorry for all the people who are going to get a bad deal through mistaken understanding that could have been easily ‘fixed from the start’. . .
U
Uriel1
Guest
So the Pope emeritus spoke infallibly on this gluten rule, did he? Are you really certain of that. I am unaware of such a claim but am prepared to be proved wrong. Caritate non ficta.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Not what I actually said there. You know what, though? I’m tired of addressing this because it’s hijacking a thread and I’ve already laid it out. So if you want to keep going, PM me and we’ll go back and let the actual topic continue on.
So, Catholics cannot receive communion in a Protestant Church (not even Anglican or Lutheran, whose understanding of the Eucharist not being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just bread and wine’ can come close to the Catholic understanding but who lack valid succession for their priests), but not because we think the Protestants ‘don’t have Jesus in their church" or because "we think we’re better’, but because participating in services implies a full acceptance of all the beliefs of said churches. And we do not fully believe all their teachings, nor do they fully believe ours. It’s a mutual respect thing, really, not wanting to be dishonest in claiming ‘we do’ when we don’t, or we don’t, when we do, etc.
So, Catholics cannot receive communion in a Protestant Church (not even Anglican or Lutheran, whose understanding of the Eucharist not being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just bread and wine’ can come close to the Catholic understanding but who lack valid succession for their priests), but not because we think the Protestants ‘don’t have Jesus in their church" or because "we think we’re better’, but because participating in services implies a full acceptance of all the beliefs of said churches. And we do not fully believe all their teachings, nor do they fully believe ours. It’s a mutual respect thing, really, not wanting to be dishonest in claiming ‘we do’ when we don’t, or we don’t, when we do, etc.
J
JimG
Guest
If it doesn’t have any gluten, it is not bread. And bread is the only valid matter for the Eucharistic host.
www.catholic.com
It's Got to Have Gluten or It Isn't a Host
Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oi...
M
MaryClare
Guest
I think its disrespectful for someone to receive communion in a Protestant Church when they are Catholic. It means something entirely different to most Protestants then it does to Catholics. Its the real presence of Jesus Christ entering you and changing you and empowering you to live your purpose in this world. To take Protestant communion is to take a scared thing and make a mockery out of it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK. So, in other words, “I do not assent to the teachings of the Church”.
“I do not assent…”
“I do not assent…”
“I do not assent…”
So… besides making it clear that you believe that the Church’s sacramental theology is in error, do you any rationale to support your claims?
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
That is one way of looking at it. My guess is that many of your non-Catholic brothers and sisters would be startled and a bit offended at what you have written.
We are all part of the church of Christ. We all read and love the sacred Scriptures, especially the ones which tell the stories of Jesus’s time on earth. Christians throughout the world read the story of the Last Supper and practice the ritual of breaking bread together as a sign of remembrance of that story. The effects of that ritual are different for different Christians, but the story in and of itself is the same. Why would we not participate in breaking bread together, even if there is a difference of the ritual outcome? It is still the same story. And more importantly, it is still the same table that Christ invites us to.
My parish and diocese practices Open Communion. All are invited to the Table. No one is turned away unless they walk away by choice. As it is with Christ.
M
MaryClare
Guest
I have to respectfully disagree. Its close to the same principal as pretending to be married when there is real marriage. Why would you want to pretend when you can have the real thing? If someone wants to join the church the doors are still open as far as I know. The sacraments require proper attitude to receive them.
It’s not because we think we are better than Protestants. It’s because we don’t have the same beliefs and at the core of these beliefs for Catholics is Transubstantiation.
I could role play having communion with Jesus in a church that does not believe that is what we are doing, or I could receive communion in full communion with the church Jesus established, and really have communion.
It may not sound charitable and might have been put a little better, but this is not about feelings, its about mutal respect for sacred things.
It’s not because we think we are better than Protestants. It’s because we don’t have the same beliefs and at the core of these beliefs for Catholics is Transubstantiation.
I could role play having communion with Jesus in a church that does not believe that is what we are doing, or I could receive communion in full communion with the church Jesus established, and really have communion.
It may not sound charitable and might have been put a little better, but this is not about feelings, its about mutal respect for sacred things.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. There are many different kinds of breads.
No… valid matter is “bread made solely from wheat and water”.
Two thoughts:
- First, he wasn’t “pope emeritus” when he discussed the matter. He was the head of the CDF, and as such, he was the appropriate person to issue the document.
- Second, the issue isn’t infallibility, it’s authority. The CDF is the authoritative voice on this matter.
It’s a definition of valid matter. As such, it’s not mistaken.
Right. So, the answer to the question “is vinegar present?” is “yes”, and the answer to the question “is it discernable?” is “no.” So, we’re good on both counts.
“Gluten-free” is simply a government designation, not an assertion of chemistry. For instance, the government regulations for the designation “calorie free” include the requirement that “less than 5 calories” are present. In other words, it merely meets a threshold. Same deal here.
- Status