The Eucharist and the Wheat

[dizzy_dave]

I’m Confused :banghead: I thought I read before that after the host is consecrated (transubtantiation) that ONLY THE APPEARANCE of bread remains, the Host is now actually the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. So my question is if this is true how can someone have an allergic reaction to the wheat used to make the host if it no longer bread, or is my understanding wrong on this. I’m not sure I understand what actually really takes place. I think I also read that Lutherans view their communion as bread and Jesus present and I read that that is untrue from a Catholic viewpoint because the host can’t be both at the same time. So my main question is about the allergy to the host and if my view on the Eucharist is correct. If someone could go into more detail on this I’d appreciate it, thank you. God Bless! :tiphat:

 

[_veritas]

The quick answer to this is that the person is allergic to the “accidents” of wheat – the accidents including the molecular structure of gluten.

Remember, transubstantiation means that the very essence of the bread changes to the Body of Christ. In substance, the bread no longer remains, because, as you pointed out, you cannot have two different physical things occupying the same space at the same time. The accidents (or external/observeable aspects) remain.

Allergies are responses to the physical aspects (the “matter”) and not to the abstract nature they possess (the “form”). Therefore, an allergy to wheat will still exist as long as the “accidents” of wheat remain – even if the substance (“essence”) of wheat is changed entirely!

The miracle of the Eucharist is one of the absolute mysteries of our faith – it cannot be understood directly by any empirical means (observable/scientific means). You believe in the Eucharist because you see it with eyes of faith – not blind and unthinking faith (“fideism”) but faith that has rational grounds behind it (you have reasons for believing in Jesus and His Church, therefore you have reason to believe in the teachings of His Church, whether or not they can be completely understood by us)

Perhaps other Thomists out there can explain this more clearly…

+veritas+

 

[dizzy_dave]

Can you be more descriptive on the accidents you are referring to?

 

[Dr.Colossus]

The Church’s definition of transubstantiation is fairly nuanced. It does not teach that the bread/wine *physically *change into the Body and Blood of Christ, but that they *substantially *change. When a priest confects the sacrament, Christ becomes present, but the appearance (or accidents) of bread and wine remain. These accidents encompass all physical attributes, including molecular structure. Scientists in a lab would not be able to tell the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated hosts (with the exception of a few miracles), as the change in substance is a matter of faith. A person who has an allergic reaction to gluten molecules would continue to react the same way to those molecules of consecrated host, as they would be physically identical.

 

[JimG]

The appearances (accidents) of bread and wine are those things which are perceptible to the senses, including any scientific instruments which are extensions of the senses.

So, while the bread and wine are gone after the consecration, your body would not know it; it reacts to the accidents exactly as it reacts to the bread and wine.

 

[Maurelian]

I cut and paste this post from LauraL on another thread under Family Life. I think it’s an excellent explanation. I hope it helps you as much as it did me.

She said:
I recommend you tell him that the Church, thanks to St.Thomas Aquinas and a Greek philosopher named Aristotle (whose work in philosophy helped St. Thomas in his theological studies) uses a one-hundred dollar word called TRANSUBSTANTIATION to explain what happens at the Consecration.

Aristotle figured out that everything that is, has two parts of its being – its Substance and its Accident. The Substance is what makes something that thing. For example, a tree is not a flower nor a shrub nor a beanstalk. We say “tree” and we automatically think of all those things that distinguish “tree” from everything else that exists. That’s the Substance. But you could speak of a pine, a maple, or a dogwood, and all those particulars that distinguish one tree from another are the Accidents.

You could even use “Man” as an example. All those things that we think of when we say Man are the Substance – when we think of Man and not woman or boy or girl or cocker spaniel. But the Accidents are those particulars that distinguish you from Grampa or from Uncle Bob or Mr. Smith down the street.

Now – you see the word? TranSUBSTANTiation. The “Is-ness” of the bread and the wine are changed, their SUBSTANCE become literally the Body and Blood of Christ. Their Accidents remain the same, they don’t become muscle tissues or corpuscles (which is also why we’re not cannibals!). That’s why if you looked at consecrated Host or the Precious Blood under the microscope, you wouldn’t know that it was the Body of Christ, because the accidents, those physical particulars, are the same; it’s the Substance that God alters to be Himself.

 

[Riley259]

Following the consecration, the accidents of the wheat still remain even though it is now the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. For a good explanation of why wheat must be used, see Why Matter Matters by David Lang.

 

[Paul_W]

They are still bread and wine in every manner of physical sensation. Your physical body can still sense the physical gluten in what appears to be bread.

In the same way, the Precious Blood still has all of the physical attributes of wine. Yes, it is possible to become inebriated after drinking a suffient quantity of Precious Blood. If the wine had a certain alcohol content pefore consecration, it has the same alcohol content afterwards. The physical properties of what-appears-to-be-wine have not changed. If I have not eaten before Mass, and I inadvertantly take a large sip, I will definitely feel a buzz.

 

[Katholish]

Veritas,

Allergies are responses to the physical aspects (the “matter”) and not to the abstract nature they possess (the “form”). Therefore, an allergy to wheat will still exist as long as the “accidents” of wheat remain – even if the substance (“essence”) of wheat is changed entirely!

I don’t think that substance can be equated with form and accidents with matter. Can you provide a source or explaination for making this equation?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I always just said that it is flesh and blood in a supernatural way, not a natural way. This is why the charge of cannabalism falls flat.

Scott

 

[JimG]

Katholish:

I don’t think that substance can be equated with form and accidents with matter. Can you provide a source or explaination for making this equation?

Accidents or appearances are whatever is apparent to the senses. That means that whenever our senses perceive the accidents of bread and wine, they will always appear to the senses as bread and wine, even after the consecration, when the bread and wine are gone, with only the accidents remaining.

 

[Theodora]

dizzy_dave:

I’m Confused :banghead: I thought I read before that after the host is consecrated (transubtantiation) that ONLY THE APPEARANCE of bread remains, the Host is now actually the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. So my question is if this is true how can someone have an allergic reaction to the wheat used to make the host if it no longer bread, or is my understanding wrong on this. I’m not sure I understand what actually really takes place. I think I also read that Lutherans view their communion as bread and Jesus present and I read that that is untrue from a Catholic viewpoint because the host can’t be both at the same time. So my main question is about the allergy to the host and if my view on the Eucharist is correct. If someone could go into more detail on this I’d appreciate it, thank you. God Bless! :tiphat:

dizzy_dave

For an eye-opener, please click here www.spiritdaily.com/glutenhosts.htm

God Bless You

Theodora

 

[Theodora]

dizzy_dave:

I’m Confused :banghead: I thought I read before that after the host is consecrated (transubtantiation) that ONLY THE APPEARANCE of bread remains, the Host is now actually the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. So my question is if this is true how can someone have an allergic reaction to the wheat used to make the host if it no longer bread, or is my understanding wrong on this. I’m not sure I understand what actually really takes place. I think I also read that Lutherans view their communion as bread and Jesus present and I read that that is untrue from a Catholic viewpoint because the host can’t be both at the same time. So my main question is about the allergy to the host and if my view on the Eucharist is correct. If someone could go into more detail on this I’d appreciate it, thank you. God Bless! :tiphat:

dizzy_dave

For an eye-opener, please click here www.spiritdaily.com/glutenhosts.htm

God Bless You

Theodora

 

[Lourdes]

Theodora:

dizzy_dave

For an eye-opener, please click here www.spiritdaily.com/glutenhosts.htm

God Bless You

Theodora

This is incredibly hurtful. So when people get sick from the host they’re just not believing good enough even if they think they are?

Perhaps this girl’s illness is psychosomatic.

 

[Brendan]

Not only do the accidents remain, but the substance reverts when the complete accidents of wine and bread are gone.

Once the digestion process starts and the Blessed Sacrament ceases to have the accidents of bread, the Sacrament and the Real Presence are no longer there.

What remains is water, carbohydrates and protiens (glutin) in both substance and accident. That glutin has an adverse effect on those with Ciliac’s Disease.

In much the same way, someone can become drunk if you recieve too much of the Precious Blood. The dilution process of the stomach removes the accidents of wine and the Precious Blood no longer remains. What is left is water, carbohydrates and alcohol, in both substance and accident. And that alcohol is abosorbed into the blood stream like any other alcohol
Scott Waddell:

I always just said that it is flesh and blood in a supernatural way, not a natural way. This is why the charge of cannabalism falls flat.

Scott

It is real flesh and real blood in every sense of the word, but It’s only cannibalism if you’re a God

 

[Philthy]

dizzy_dave:

I’m Confused :banghead: I thought I read before that after the host is consecrated (transubtantiation) that ONLY THE APPEARANCE of bread remains, the Host is now actually the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. So my question is if this is true how can someone have an allergic reaction to the wheat used to make the host if it no longer bread, or is my understanding wrong on this. I’m not sure I understand what actually really takes place. I think I also read that Lutherans view their communion as bread and Jesus present and I read that that is untrue from a Catholic viewpoint because the host can’t be both at the same time. So my main question is about the allergy to the host and if my view on the Eucharist is correct. If someone could go into more detail on this I’d appreciate it, thank you. God Bless! :tiphat:

Great post and a lot of others have done a very good job with the topic. I will add one concept: Transubstantiation is a SUPERNATURAL event and as such does not, of necessity, alter the natural properties of the host. In brief, all the NATURAL properties of the host remain unchanged(molecular structure/proteins etc and therefore any allergy to those elements), but a SUPERNATURAL reality has also taken place.
As a final thought, don’t think that our ability to comprehend transubstatiation is a requirement for its belief. We’re talking about God here… :bowdown: