Wheat hosts

[grasscutter]

My parish has recently started offering gluten-free hosts. However, we are instructed to request them in advance.

Maybe your parish could do the same.

 

[Brendan]

This is an interesting topic. It makes me wonder about transubstantiation. Maybe someone can help me understand it better (I’m a convert)… I thought that the entire substance of the bread (including the gluten) was transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that only the appearance of the host remained after the consecration by the priest. If the entire substance changes, wouldn’t that mean that it’s basic chemical properties would be changed as well from that of bread to that of flesh? If so, why are people worried about gluten when there’s no longer gluten in a consecrated host? And if celiacs do get sick from eating Jesus, can someone explain why His flesh is acting like it’s gluten? Why doesn’t it act like flesh? Thank you for helping me to understand this.

Chemical properties are, by definition, part of the Accidental nature of the Substance. The Substance changes, but the accidental properties ( color, taste, texture, ability to react with other chemicals) remain the same.

If it acted like the Substance, it would appear be the entire Christ living before you. Since it’s kinda hard to eat a fully grown human adult, Christ takes on the appearance (including chemical) of bread.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If it acted like the Substance, it would appear be the entire Christ living before you. Since it’s kinda hard to eat a fully grown human adult, Christ takes on the appearance (including chemical) of bread.

Not to mention the implications of eating raw flesh and drinking raw blood. Christ wants to give us everlasting life, not kill us. Jesus did say that His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink. To accomplish this, the accidents retain the properties of the food and drink that they are.

 

[ProVobis]

This is an interesting topic. It makes me wonder about transubstantiation. Maybe someone can help me understand it better (I’m a convert)…

I don’t know if it will help to understand better but let me try by breaking down the Latin:

trans {“across, over, beyond, through”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})
• vernacular ending

(Don’t worry if it’s still a mystery. It was meant to be. )

Contrast this with the Lutheran theology: (it’s both bread/blood and Body/Blood)

con {“with, together”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})
• vernacular ending

 

[trace_9r]

Thank you (everyone who posted) for helping me solidify my knowledge about transubstantiation. I didn’t know that about Lutheran doctrine. It’s interesting. Also, I read up a little on Aristotle and about accidents and substance. I also found a list of his categories including action and affection. These would seem to agree with the explanation given above regarding chemical interactions between substances which are purely accidental.

When you broke down the Latin I thought of “transaction” and “transmission”. Both of these words also imply a complete delivery, if you will, of something. A crossing of the Red Sea where nothing remains where it once was. “Trans-” indicates some chasm that is crossed over and a complete exchange occurring. E.g., the card leaves the deck entirely and manifests in my pocket.

That being said, I am sympathetic for the suffering of celiacs. I appreciate the work of the sisters who make low-gluten hosts. Speaking of which, I saw that ‘host’ means ‘victim’. Then I thought how sacrificing a party host must be to play that role. It is an appropriate title!

 

[ConstantineTG]

That being said, I am sympathetic for the suffering of celiacs. I appreciate the work of the sisters who make low-gluten hosts. Speaking of which, I saw that ‘host’ means ‘victim’. Then I thought how sacrificing a party host must be to play that role. It is an appropriate title!

I think it comes from the context of a living organism where a parasite dwells in, which is also called a host.

Either way, host doesn’t really sound like such a swell word.

The context from which the term host for the Eucharist comes from the Latin “hostia” which is the one that translates to victim. If you think about it, the host in a parasitic relationship is also a victim in some way.

 

[ProVobis]

When you broke down the Latin I thought of “transaction” and “transmission”. Both of these words also imply a complete delivery, if you will, of something. A crossing of the Red Sea where nothing remains where it once was. “Trans-” indicates some chasm that is crossed over and a complete exchange occurring. E.g., the card leaves the deck entirely and manifests in my pocket.

You seem to have a good understanding of the “trans” in this case. Some Latin prefixes have multiple meanings, including strengthening the root such as “ad” or “con” in some cases, so each one has a purpose. It also helps to break down the word “substance” as well because this word is little understood as it has developed into many meanings today.

Speaking of which, I saw that ‘host’ means ‘victim’. Then I thought how sacrificing a party host must be to play that role. It is an appropriate title!

Indeed. Ten thumbs up. This is where perhaps the translations in the older missals fail when they just simply translate the word hostia as “host.” Cognates don’t always work.

 

[trace_9r]

More on “host”, below…

---

**Word Origin & History

host**
“person who receives guests,” late 13c., from O.Fr. hoste “guest, host” (12c.), from L. hospitem (nom. hospes ) “guest, host,” lit. “lord of strangers,” from PIE *ghostis- “stranger” (cf. O.C.S. gospodi “lord, master,” Goth. gasts, O.E. gæst “guest”). The biological sense of “animal or plant having a parasite” is from 1857. The verb is early 15c., from the noun. Hostess is attested from late 13c.

host
“multitude” 1265, from O.Fr. host “army” (10c.), from M.L. hostis “army, war-like expedition,” from L. hostis “enemy, stranger,” from the same root as host (1). Replaced O.E. here, and has in turn been largely superseded by army. The generalized meaning of “large number” is first attested 1613.

host
“body of Christ, consecrated bread,” c.1300, from L. hostia “sacrifice,” also “the animal sacrificed,” applied in Church L. to Christ; probably ult. related to host (1) in its root sense of “stranger, enemy.”
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

---

Speaking of the ‘stranger, enemy’ context, perhaps this is where we get “hostile”?

 

[ProVobis]

Speaking of the ‘stranger, enemy’ context, perhaps this is where we get “hostile”?

hostile
late 15c., from M.Fr. hostile “of or belonging to an enemy,” from L. hostilis, from hostis “enemy” (see guest). The noun meaning “hostile person” is recorded from 1838, Amer.Eng., a word from the Indian Wars.

Here’s the connection:

Hostia, ae - victim, sacrifice
Hostiatus - provided with victims
Hosticus - hostile, strange, foreign
Hostificus - hostile, malicious
Hostilis, e - hostile, inimicable
Hostis, is - stranger, foreigner, enemy, foe

 

[oremus]

I have celiac disease and receive the low gluten host with no problem, and I am extremely sensitive. I don’t think I have heard of anyone who doesn’t tolerate them who has celiac disease. The level of gluten is below the U.S. level set by the medical experts to be considered “safe.” It could be broken in fourths to further reduce the gluten level, but it is a small host to begin with; smaller than regular hosts.