Vatican outlaws gluten-free bread for Holy Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FrDavid96 said:
This seems to leave the door open to using something other than wheat bread and grape wine:

Following a widespread and ancient tradition, congregations of the Episcopal Church use bread made from wheat and wine made from grapes. Other sources of bread and wine may be more appropriate in other cultures.
episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/eucharistic-elements

This document here
anglicancommunion.org/media/42392/ialc_report_on_elements_used_in_communion.pdf

says this
The reasons for substitution include allergies, concern for alcoholics, cost, desire to
avoid alcohol, unavailability, legal situation.
Commodities substituted include rice or gluten-free bread, grape juice, de-alcoholised
wine, biscuit, round cake, Coca-Cola, Fanta, banana juice, pineapple or passion fruit
wine, raisins boiled in water with a little sugar added, rice cakes etc.

I’m not making this up. I’m reading it from the Anglican Communion’s own website.
Click to expand...
From Father David’s PDF regarding the Anglican Communion:

Aotearoa NZ & Polynesia:
Rice or gluten-free bread where there are allergies; grape juice for children and alcoholics

Australia:
Non-alcoholic wine for wine

Burundi:
Wine is expensive and some Anglicans don’t take alcohol
Some countries are using locally made nonalcoholic wine which of course doesn’t prevent the blessing from God at Eucharist. Coke is less considered in many countries like USA or UK, in some others it is highly estimated as a luxurious drink

Canada:
Some aboriginal communities use dealcoholized red wine. Gluten-free/rice bread for those with wheat allergies (Exceptions occur but are not officially sanctioned)

Congo:
Flour bread, biscuit, round cake, Coca, Fanta

Pakistan:
Raisins boiled in water with a little sugar added

Philippines:
First raised prior to the autonomy in 1988 (Mostly in ecumenical services)
Rice cakes and rice wine (It has always been taught in our only Seminary that the primary symbols of the Eucharist are not bread and wine, but people)

Scotland:
Gluten-free bread for allergy sufferers, unfermented grape juice

Sudan:
Biscuits and fruit juice (In villages without bread or biscuits, people are encouraged to use local staple foods)

Uganda:
Biscuits for wheat bread, soda e.g. coca cola for wine. Banana juice, pineapple or passion fruit wine also used. Many churches did this during the difficult years of Idi Amin 1971-79. It was difficult to get bread and wine. Not sure whether the practice is still going on (Canon 2.13.3 of Canons of Church of Uganda, “In absence of grape wine well boiled banana juice wine or pineapple or passion fruit wine may be used, in consultation with the bishop”.)

USA:
Rice cakes are sometimes used. A chalice of grape juice is sometimes available for alcoholics. (Deviations are mostly at parish not diocesan level)
 
FrDavid96 said:
This seems to leave the door open to using something other than wheat bread and grape wine:

Following a widespread and ancient tradition, congregations of the Episcopal Church use bread made from wheat and wine made from grapes. Other sources of bread and wine may be more appropriate in other cultures.
episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/eucharistic-elements

This document here
anglicancommunion.org/media/42392/ialc_report_on_elements_used_in_communion.pdf

says this
The reasons for substitution include allergies, concern for alcoholics, cost, desire to
avoid alcohol, unavailability, legal situation.
Commodities substituted include rice or gluten-free bread, grape juice, de-alcoholised
wine, biscuit, round cake, Coca-Cola, Fanta, banana juice, pineapple or passion fruit
wine, raisins boiled in water with a little sugar added, rice cakes etc.

I’m not making this up. I’m reading it from the Anglican Communion’s own website.
Click to expand...
Read further down, namely the recommendations section 👍

Also keeping in mind that the Anglican Communion does not set the normative practices for its constituent churches.
 
Padres1969 said:
Read further down, namely the recommendations section 👍

Also keeping in mind that the Anglican Communion does not set the normative practices for its constituent churches.
Click to expand...
I don’t find that very comforting.

What do you see there that warrants a “thumbs up”? I’m curious.

If anything, even the recommendations does nothing more than make me even more convinced than I was before that the Church should not even consider re-visiting the question of Anglican attempts at Orders.

For others’ sake, here’s the text:

Recommendations
In respect to the responses reported in the survey, and the considerations set out
above:
  1. We reaffirm that the normative principle and practice of the Anglican Communion
    has always been and continues to be the use of the elements of bread and wine at
    the Eucharist.
  2. We do not think that it is necessary or helpful to define ‘bread’ or ‘wine’ in
    precise detail. It is enough that the elements should be realistically capable of
    being called ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ in the context of the celebration of the Eucharist in
    a particular culture at a particular time.
  3. We note that in some Provinces the Eucharist is celebrated with elements other
    than bread and wine. This is because it is very difficult for them to obtain either
    bread or wine, or it is because those particular communities use other elements for
    reasons to do with local culture or pastoral necessity. We consider these to be
    exceptional circumstances best dealt with by the Province concerned, giving
    serious consideration to the effect of such variation on other Provinces. We do not
    think it necessary, at the level of the Communion as a whole, to do other than
    reaffirm the general principle in 1. above.
 
Padres1969 said:
Read further down, namely the recommendations section 👍

Also keeping in mind that the Anglican Communion does not set the normative practices for its constituent churches.
Click to expand...
I’ll see your response later as it’s bedtime for me and I will be traveling the next 2 days.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
This is news? This has always been the case. I’ve known for at least 10 years anyway, when my parish first introduced these hosts.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t news. The point of this story is to attack the Catholic Church as mean, cruel bullies denying communion to those suffering from celiac disease. This should not surprise anyone. Christ and His Church have been under attack literally since His birth.
 
Tim_D said:
It is a worthless endeavor to hear one who is either hostile to the Church or to religion itself offer commentary on a subject that they are either wholly ignorant of or fail to uphold the standard of respect on which a view is based.
Click to expand...
I engage in many endeavors that people deem worthless.
 
If a person with celiac disease wants to receive Holy Communion they could either receive the Eucharist with a low gluten host, if they can tolerate that, or they could receive the Precious Blood instead.
 
Holly3278 said:
If a person with celiac disease wants to receive Holy Communion they could either receive the Eucharist with a low gluten host, if they can tolerate that, or they could receive the Precious Blood instead.
Click to expand...
I went to the last post before I saw this posted. There is literally no reason to receive the host, that is the Most Holy Sacrament, in the form of bread if one has an extreme gluten allergy. All one needs is to receive from the cup, which also contains the Body of Christ. I have known of one case where a specified cup was consecrated without a bit of the host for someone with zero tolerance for gluten.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I don’t find that very comforting.

What do you see there that warrants a “thumbs up”? I’m curious.

If anything, even the recommendations does nothing more than make me even more convinced than I was before that the Church should not even consider re-visiting the question of Anglican attempts at Orders.

For others’ sake, here’s the text:

Recommendations
In respect to the responses reported in the survey, and the considerations set out
above:
  1. We reaffirm that the normative principle and practice of the Anglican Communion
    has always been and continues to be the use of the elements of bread and wine at
    the Eucharist.
  2. We do not think that it is necessary or helpful to define ‘bread’ or ‘wine’ in
    precise detail. It is enough that the elements should be realistically capable of
    being called ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ in the context of the celebration of the Eucharist in
    a particular culture at a particular time.
  3. We note that in some Provinces the Eucharist is celebrated with elements other
    than bread and wine. This is because it is very difficult for them to obtain either
    bread or wine, or it is because those particular communities use other elements for
    reasons to do with local culture or pastoral necessity. We consider these to be
    exceptional circumstances best dealt with by the Province concerned, giving
    serious consideration to the effect of such variation on other Provinces. We do not
    think it necessary, at the level of the Communion as a whole, to do other than
    reaffirm the general principle in 1. above.
Click to expand...
What warrants the thumbs up is that the Communion affirms belief that bread and wine are to be the elements of communion. And that Point 3 while not telling the constituent churches what to do specifically regarding bread and wine, points out that any deviation from that is both an extraordinary measure (ie: not one to be undertaken lightly that must have a valid reasoning) and that the individual Church doing so should consider the effect such action has on it’s fellow Anglican Communion members given Point 1.

Which is why I’ve yet to encounter a Parish of the Anglican Communion personally that actually partakes in anything but bread and wine. Indeed even on the questionnaire put to the Communion it does appear deviations from that are very rare and in most cases not officially sanctioned, and most listed appear to occur in Africa and Islamic countries where access to wine and/or wheat bread in particular is problematic. (Which frankly I find a tad bit amusing given that it’s the African Provinces of GAFCON that raise the biggest stink about what they see as western “innovations” in other provinces).
 
Please do not debate Church teachings in the L&S forum. Take any such debate to the Apologetics forum.

Also, please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss wine substitutes, please start a new thread.

Thank you all. 🙂
 
FrDavid96 said:
On the one hand I agree with you. It’s nothing new, and in many ways, society has made the issue of gluten avoidance much more of an issue than it needs to be (we don’t need “gluten warning” next to every menu item, for example).

However, I would also ask that you be a bit sensitive to those for whom gluten intolerance is a very real crisis. For them, it’s no joke.
Click to expand...
Any insensitivity was unintentional, being the product of my “occasionally” sardonic nature. A fellow parishioner suffers from celiac disease, one of many autoimmune conditions. If she ingests gluten, her immune system is triggered to attack her small intestine. If this continues, it is strongly associated with a rare and aggressive cancer (Enteropathy Associated T-Cell Lymphoma), much like those I have fought.

What rankles me is the wave of hysteria which does not apply to 98+ percent of the population. The Church long ago recognized and accommodated these parishioners and offers, in many locations, a low-gluten host - which may be acceptable to many. As we know, the reception of the low-gluten Host, or of the precious Blood is the full reception of Christ. She chooses to receive His Blood.

From a Dutch Catholic’s blog: incaelo.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/in-new-directive-church-ignores-plight-of-coeliacs-except-it-doesnt/
 
po18guy said:
Any insensitivity was unintentional, being the product of my “occasionally” sardonic nature. A fellow parishioner suffers from celiac disease, one of many autoimmune conditions. If she ingests gluten, her immune system is triggered to attack her small intestine. If this continues, it is strongly associated with a rare and aggressive cancer (Enteropathy Associated T-Cell Lymphoma), much like those I have fought.
Click to expand...
My friend’s mom has celiac and refrains from receiving Communion except at Christmas and Easter. She’s 95, has never received from the Cup and has no intention of doing so. She receives a Host and suffers for the next couple of days. That’s her choice.
 
I don’t understand

It’s not bread anyway, whether gluten free or not but the body of Christ.
 
ela2 said:
I don’t understand

It’s not bread anyway, whether gluten free or not but the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
The substance is Christ, the accidents are those of bread.

Just like drinking enough of the Precious Blood can make you drunk because the accidents of the wine (alcohol) are still present, eating the Body of Christ can make you ill due to the accidents of bread )gluten).
 
ela2 said:
I don’t understand

It’s not bread anyway, whether gluten free or not but the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
Phemie said:
The substance is Christ, the accidents are those of bread.

Just like drinking enough of the Precious Blood can make you drunk because the accidents of the wine (alcohol) are still present, eating the Body of Christ can make you ill due to the accidents of bread )gluten).
Click to expand...
Indeed. And if I might piggyback on that, we often speak of “The body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine” but that doesn’t mean that accident is synonymous with *appearance. *
 
ela2 said:
I don’t understand

It’s not bread anyway, whether gluten free or not but the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
The Lord used actual ‘unleavened bread’ to become His body, blood, soul and divinity, He didn’t say “I’m using unleavened bread, but feel free to use whatever you want” and if we follow this line of thinking, hey, why not have a piece of beef jerky instead? why not use some lasagna, mud cake or a packet of chips?

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Question: If the host changes in substance into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, why would the communicant be worried about Celiac’s disease? Is not the percent of gluten in the host irrelevant at that point?

I ask because I recently heard a priest who is a recovering alcoholic asked how we could consume the wine. Father responded that the “wine” is no longer wine, but the precious blood, and therefore he had nothing at all to be concerned about.

EDIT: Sorry, I see this was partially addressed above. Did not see that before posting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top