Vatican outlaws gluten-free bread for Holy Communion

[pnewton]

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?

As said earlier, the elements, what St. Thomas called the accidents, remain capable of causing a reaction. Think of it this way. When Jesus was alive, he was in substance divine, that is, God. Yet the accidents that was his flesh could still bleed and die. He was still subject to physical suffering. It is from what we know of Jesus, God in the flesh, that we can understand the Holy Sacrament, God in the bread. While this seems weird, the step down from the infinite to the finite is the biggie, whether it be human flesh, the bread, the burning bush for Moses (latter the box they created), or the still voice for Elijah.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Just out of curiosity, *why *does the Church not allow gluten-free hosts?

 

[pnewton]

Just out of curiosity, *why *does the Church not allow gluten-free hosts?

Jesus initially used simple bread, defined as a starchy substance made from wheat that is cooked (without leaven, in that instance). Therefore, the Church insists on the same matter, that is a bread, defined as above.

 

[Brendan]

Just out of curiosity, *why *does the Church not allow gluten-free hosts?

The Church does not have the authority to allow it.

The Church can only do what Christ said that it could do. Christ gave the Church the authority to use wheat bread and grape wine in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. No other authority was given.

Thus, if the Church desires to have a valid Eucharist, it can only use the materials that Christ Himself offered. The Church simply has no choice otherwise.

Wheat without gluten is not bread. Gluten it is the protein that allows the starch molecules to bind as dough.

Without gluten, there is no bread. No bread means not a valid Eucharist.

 

[JimG]

Just out of curiosity, *why *does the Church not allow gluten-free hosts?

Because they would not be bread.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The Church does not have the authority to allow it.

The Church can only do what Christ said that it could do. Christ gave the Church the authority to use wheat bread and grape wine in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. No other authority was given.

Thus, if the Church desires to have a valid Eucharist, it can only use the materials that Christ Himself offered. The Church simply has no choice otherwise.

Wheat without gluten is not bread. Gluten it is the protein that allows the starch molecules to bind as dough.

Without gluten, there is no bread. No bread means not a valid Eucharist.

Did Christ explicitly say “No gluten-free bread” (or words to that effect) or is it just the simple fact that he used “regular” bread the reason we continue to do so?

And FWIW, I doubt Christ used the wafers like we do today.

 

[tafan]

Did Christ explicitly say “No gluten-free bread” (or words to that effect) or is it just the simple fact that he used “regular” bread the reason we continue to do so?

And FWIW, I doubt Christ used the wafers like we do today.

He used bread, made from wheat. So when he said “do this in memory of me”, He was saying to do what He did, which was to use bread. Gluten-free bread is not bread in the traditional sense (its an artificial knock-off). So in effect, he did explicitly say no gluten free bread.

As for wafers like we do today, well assuming the Last Supper was a Passover meal (ie as described in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John’s Gospel), he would have certainly been using unleavened bread, which is pretty dang close to the wafers we use today. So you doubt is probably misplaced on that last point.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Did Christ explicitly say “No gluten-free bread” (or words to that effect) or is it just the simple fact that he used “regular” bread the reason we continue to do so?

And FWIW, I doubt Christ used the wafers like we do today.

As another poster mentioned, the wafers probably resembled what was served at the supper.

And it is more than the fact that Christ used wheat bread ‘then’ --we have the Holy Spirit who through the Church continues to proclaim and lead to all Truth.

We don’t just depend on 'The words in red" in the Bible and ignore anything else, even the Bible states that Jesus said and did much more than was ever recorded in “the gospel (John)”, and it also states that the Church has authority and the guidance of the Spirit, because let’s face it, if we could limit Christ’s teaching authority only to the ‘words in red’ and state that if He never said anything personally about anything but those, we’d have utter chaos. Heck, even as it is, when He does say something ‘in red’, people are arguing that "He didn’t really mean that, He was speaking metaphorically, He was ‘limited by the culture’, He was only addressing things ‘then’, etc. "

 

[Padres1969]

Because they would not be bread.

Well not wheat bread to be more accurate. Wheat is not required to make bread, which can also be made from rice, rye, millet, oats, barley, maize, etc…

 

[Brendan]

Did Christ explicitly say “No gluten-free bread” (or words to that effect) or is it just the simple fact that he used “regular” bread the reason we continue to do so?

The Church uses only what Christ used. Wheat bread and Grape wine.

It does not have the authority to use anything else.

As several have pointed out, one cannot use wheat to make bread without the presence of gluten.

Ergo, if it is gluten free, it would not be wheat bread, and therefore, the Church does not have the authority to use it.

And FWIW, I doubt Christ used the wafers like we do today.

It was unleavened wheat bread ( being the Passover) so it would certainly be recognizes as such.

 

[Dorothy]

Imagine being in authority, like the admiral of a ship, and having five-hundred deck hands telling you what to do.

 

[FrDavid96]

Did Christ explicitly say “No gluten-free bread” (or words to that effect) or is it just the simple fact that he used “regular” bread the reason we continue to do so?

And FWIW, I doubt Christ used the wafers like we do today.

It’s a fair question.

For some reason, and I don’t know what that reason might be, the Church decided that gluten is a necessary component of bread.

Bread must be made from wheat. We can remove some parts of the wheat (for example, we can use white flour as opposed to whole wheat flour) and still have bread. However, removing all gluten simply goes too far.

For some reason, that I am not aware, the Church decided that at least a minimum of gluten is necessary to meet the definition of bread; in the same way that a minimum of alcohol is necessary for wine.

True. Christ did not use the wafers like we do today. We use them simply as a matter of convenience. What is important remains. We use bread baked from wheat flour and water, which is the same as Christ Himself used. The shape is irrelevant.

Comparing those 2 issues, gluten-free and wafers, is not a fair comparison to make. One has to do with an essential quality of bread, the other is a non-essential quality of shape.

 

[RevDon]

As another poster mentioned, the wafers probably resembled what was served at the supper.

And it is more than the fact that Christ used wheat bread ‘then’ --we have the Holy Spirit who through the Church continues to proclaim and lead to all Truth.

We don’t just depend on 'The words in red" in the Bible and ignore anything else, even the Bible states that Jesus said and did much more than was ever recorded in “the gospel (John)”, and it also states that the Church has authority and the guidance of the Spirit, because let’s face it, if we could limit Christ’s teaching authority only to the ‘words in red’ and state that if He never said anything personally about anything but those, we’d have utter chaos. Heck, even as it is, when He does say something ‘in red’, people are arguing that "He didn’t really mean that, He was speaking metaphorically, He was ‘limited by the culture’, He was only addressing things ‘then’, etc. "

I suppose the Vatican possesses the “Last Supper Recipe Book.”
The essential element in the Body of Christ offered in communion is the faith of the Body of Christ, the Church. This ruling makes no more sense than the plum wine prohibition that hampered the Christianization of Japan, and it is a slap in the face to those who cannot digest gluten.
The church permits a substitute of grape juice for alcoholics.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I suppose the Vatican possesses the “Last Supper Recipe Book.”
The essential element in the Body of Christ offered in communion is the faith of the Body of Christ, the Church. This ruling makes no more sense than the plum wine prohibition that hampered the Christianization of Japan, and it is a slap in the face to those who cannot digest gluten.
The church permits a substitute of grape juice for alcoholics.

NO it does NOT. Mustum is not ‘grape juice’.

Snarky rude comments are not a substitute for authentic knowledge.

And please don’t presume to tell Catholics untruths. Your post from start to finish is not truthful both with regard to history and with regard to what the Church is and what She does.

 

[FrDavid96]

I suppose the Vatican possesses the “Last Supper Recipe Book.”

Yes.

The definition of the word “bread” as it is used in the bible, especially with respect to the Jewish religious meals make it quite clear that the Church does indeed know that the bread used at the Last Supper had gluten. There is no doubt about it.

No one disputes the historical record. It was wheat bread. There’s no possible way to deny it.

It wasn’t even possible to have gluten-free bread 2,000 years ago, and for that reason alone, there’s no point in trying to “prove” that it wasn’t gluten-free.

You might as well expect someone to prove that the Apostles weren’t texting during the Last Supper.

I won’t “quote” your insults against the Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My goodness “Rev”" Don, it **has **been a while since you graced us with your presence.

 

[Brendan]

The church permits a substitute of grape juice for alcoholics.

It does not. Mustum is a low alcohol wine, but it is still wine.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

He used bread, made from wheat. So when he said “do this in memory of me”, He was saying to do what He did, which was to use bread.

So you are taking His words literally, right down to the minutest detail. Using your line of thinking, “Do[ing] this in memory of me” should also include the exact recipe for the bread, how many ounces of bread were served, etc. And what about the wine? Red or white grapes? If you are going to do something in memory of Christ you need to know these things; otherwise it is just a lame attempt at imitation.

And since in Christ’s time there was probably no concept about the idea of gluten-free bread, how could He explicitly forbid it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So you are taking His words literally, right down to the minutest detail. Using your line of thinking, “Do[ing] this in memory of me” should also include the exact recipe for the bread, how many ounces of bread were served, etc. And what about the wine? Red or white grapes? If you are going to do something in memory of Christ you need to know these things; otherwise it is just a lame attempt at imitation.

And since in Christ’s time there was probably no concept about the idea of gluten-free bread, how could He explicitly forbid it?

So Christ had no idea about gluten-free and couldn’t have made provision for such?
Oh wait --He did know (being God) and He DID make provision, leaving us a Church with authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to both authoritatively interpret His words and teachings, and to continuously proclaim them.

Which Church has, with authority and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, given us the answers. . .

but apparently you don’t choose to accept the answer? That’s another thing entirely.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

but apparently you don’t choose to accept the answer? That’s another thing entirely.

I didn’t say I didn’t accept it; I’m trying to understand it.