Why is gluten-free not valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter b_ulmen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

b_ulmen

Guest
I found on another thread where someone said gluten-free wafers are not valid for the Eucharist. I did some cursory research and found that gluten is not necessarily a requirement for a substance to be called bread. is there a scientific explanation/definition the Church uses to say bread must contain gluten?
 
Gluten is a protein found in wheat and other grains. Wheat is an essential component of the the bread the Church has said is ‘valid matter’ for the Eucharist.

The term ‘gluten-free’ is not always technically correct. The FDA says that anything with less than 20ppms of gluten is can be called ‘gluten free’. There are some ‘gluten free’ communion wafers that are available commercially that may not fit the criteria for use in a Catholic church as they are made wholly of rice or other flours with no wheat, but the ones that are acceptable (I’m thinking of the ones made by the nuns) are still generally referred to as ‘gluten free’.
 
right, I got that, but what I’m not understanding is the “is MUST be wheat to be bread”. based on what?
 
The answer seems reading the above to just suggest the answer is “because the Church says so”. I for one don’t find that very satisfactory.

The implication is that the Most Sacred Body of Christ can’t be confected without gluten, which given that transubstantiation is a miracle in the first place seems to be pretty ridiculous.
 
It’s not the Church arbitrarily saying no to “no gluten”. Rather, they are preserving the Sacrament as handed to us by Our Lord Himself and the Church has no authority to monkey around with that. It’s not a magic trick. It’s trusting Our Lord and the forms and matters He has given us.
 
Murmurs said:
The answer seems reading the above to just suggest the answer is “because the Church says so”. I for one don’t find that very satisfactory.

The implication is that the Most Sacred Body of Christ can’t be confected without gluten, which given that transubstantiation is a miracle in the first place seems to be pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...
We have to use valid matter in the Sacraments because the Holy Tradition teaches us that valid matter is required in order for it to be a Sacrament. Human beings cooperate with God to confect the Sacraments; God doesn’t do it by Himself (this is on purpose; it’s not because God can’t do it) and it’s not about positive thinking or anything like that. When we are faithful, God is faithful, but we don’t get to just switch out the media and replace it with something we like better.
 
This one hits a bit close to home since both of my teens, have life threatening food allergies. Mine can’t partake in a shared cup due to cross contamination.Thankfully, wheat/gluten isn’t on their list so they can take the eucharist, but I can relate. What happens to the people with this allergy? Is there no option for them to receive?
 
First off, we use wheat bread because Our Lord used wheat bread for the Last Supper.

Wheat bread was also particularly suitable for Communion, because at the Temple and by God’s command, the Bread of the Presence was made of fine wheat flour. Wheat flour and wheat were also associated with many things in the Temple and many of Jesus’ parables.

Basically, this is one of the things that the Church feels she has no authority to change. Missionaries have planted wheat and wine all over the world and in all climates, just for the purpose of following Jesus’ way of doing things.

Gluten is a very good thing for baking bread, whether leavened or unleavened. And ancient varieties of wheat (like kamut/khorasan and emmer) can actually have more gluten proteins than our current forms of wheat. Even the wild ancestor of wheat has the same proteins and gluten that trigger celiacs.

Celiac disease also existed in the ancient world, btw. Here’s a link to an archaeological discovery of an ancient Roman woman who suffered from the disease.
 
glad2bhome said:
This one hits a bit close to home since both of my teens, have life threatening food allergies. Mine can’t partake in a shared cup due to cross contamination.Thankfully, wheat/gluten isn’t on their list so they can take the eucharist, but I can relate. What happens to the people with this allergy? Is there no option for them to receive?
Click to expand...
If a person cannot consume bread or even low gluten approved by the Church then the only option is for them to partake in the Cup.
Bear in mind here also there are some caveats. It is NOT grape juice. Must be wine made from grapes and yes, it HAS to have some alcohol in it.
Minimal because the wine is mingled with water which lowers the alcoholic content but it is there none the less.

I believe that this is one of the reasons why priests cannot officiate more than 3 masses a day. Even the 3rd mass needs to be dispensed (approved) by the Bishop.

…
 
JerryZ said:
If a person cannot consume bread or even low gluten approved by the Church then the only option is for them to partake in the Cup.
Bear in mind here also there are some caveats. It is NOT grape juice. Must be wine made from grapes and yes, it HAS to have some alcohol in it.
Minimal because the wine is mingled with water which lowers the alcoholic content but it is there none the less.

I believe that this is one of the reasons why priests cannot officiate more than 3 masses a day. Even the 3rd mass needs to be dispensed (approved) by the Bishop.

…
Click to expand...
The only problem with cup is that the person would always have to be the first to receive. That’s why mine don’t take the cup.
 
glad2bhome said:
This one hits a bit close to home since both of my teens, have life threatening food allergies. Mine can’t partake in a shared cup due to cross contamination.Thankfully, wheat/gluten isn’t on their list so they can take the eucharist, but I can relate. What happens to the people with this allergy? Is there no option for them to receive?
Click to expand...
I know a girl with really bad celiac disease. At her home parish this is not kept a secret. The priest lets her have the first sip from an extra cup. To make doubley sure, her mother is an EMHC and usually sees to that personally.

I don’t know what they do while they travel other than talk to the priest ahead of time and sit in the front row. Thankfully the Sunday obligation is not dependent on whether one receives.
 
Mintaka said:
First off, we use wheat bread because Our Lord used wheat bread for the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
And we know this because 2,000 years ago someone wrote down the recipe for the bread that was used at the Last Supper? Which, at the time, they wouldn’t have known was the Last Supper until afterward.
 
on_the_hill said:
And we know this because 2,000 years ago someone wrote down the recipe for the bread that was used at the Last Supper? Which, at the time, they wouldn’t have known was the Last Supper until afterward.
Click to expand...
Well the tradition of bread making is quite old, actually older than 5000 years, and believe me it is written down, in stone, papyrus and parchment. So I would not laugh about this.

It is not that complicated, really: Water, wheat flour, salt and leaven, which would not be used in unleavened bread.
Since now days we can obtain “flour” from many different cereals and grains it is important that the Hosts for the Eucharist can only be made as the Jews of Jesus time prepared it, with wheat flour.

…
 
JerryZ said:
Well the tradition of bread making is quite old, actually older than 5000 years, and believe me it is written down, in stone, papyrus and parchment. So I would not laugh about this.

It is not that complicated, really: Water, wheat flour, salt and leaven, which would not be used in unleavened bread.
Since now days we can obtain “flour” from many different cereals and grains it is important that the Hosts for the Eucharist can only be made as the Jews of Jesus time prepared it, with wheat flour.

…
Click to expand...
Not to be argumentative, but if we need to use the same recipe for the bread in order for it to become the substance, where do we draw the line with replicating the bread? Someone could say, not only must it be the same recipe, but the ingredients must come from the same area of the world as the originals. Then one could say, ‘it can’t be truly substance unless the wheat comes from the same plant.’

If the mystery we celebrate is the real and true presence of Christ in the bread and wine, there shouldn’t be a limitation on how the bread is made, should there? Wouldn’t we be placing a limitation on how God becomes present?
 
on_the_hill said:
Not to be argumentative, but if we need to use the same recipe for the bread in order for it to become the substance, where do we draw the line with replicating the bread? Someone could say, not only must it be the same recipe, but the ingredients must come from the same area of the world as the originals. Then one could say, ‘it can’t be truly substance unless the wheat comes from the same plant.’

If the mystery we celebrate is the real and true presence of Christ in the bread and wine, there shouldn’t be a limitation on how the bread is made, should there? Wouldn’t we be placing a limitation on how God becomes present?
Click to expand...
I was about to ask the same thing but in a much sillier way.

Because there was nothing good on tv or radio and I was eating on my own last night I popped in an episode of Star Trek, because it happened to be the first dvd to come to my hand. Now I had been pondering this thread all evening since I first came across it, and at one point when a ‘replicator’ is used in one scene (which essentially directly converts energy into a specific form and substance of matter - eg if you wanted a cup of tea, you’d order tea, and voilà! your tea is made), I started thinking about this again.

Would unleavened wheat bread ‘replicated’ in this way, which presumably contains every kind of molecule and in the same proportions that an ordinarily-made wafer contains, be valid matter? Or ‘replicated’ grape wine if it comes to that? If in the 24th century there are Catholic priests roaming the galaxy on starships (bear with me on this one!), would they have to take an entire supply of hosts with them for the voyage, or could they be replicated? (Religion, at least earth religions, don’t feature that heavily on Star Trek but there’s no real implication that they have all died out, just they’re not relevant to many of the stories I guess)

This might seem an incredibly facetious question, but there is a genuine issue underlying it, which is what actually makes the bread used in the hosts for consecration, valid? When does the line get crossed which implies invalidity? I may sound ridiculous but I think it’s quite pertinent to the discussion here…
 
on_the_hill said:
Not to be argumentative, but if we need to use the same recipe for the bread in order for it to become the substance, where do we draw the line with replicating the bread? Someone could say, not only must it be the same recipe, but the ingredients must come from the same area of the world as the originals. Then one could say, 'it can’t be truly substance unless the wheat comes from the same plant.?
Click to expand...
Because we, as a Church, have the practices of the Apostles to draw upon.

We follow what the Apostles, and what they passed on to us via Sacred Tradition. Part of that wealth of passed on knowledge is that local wheat bread may be used, and grape wines of local manufacture.

What we did NOT receive as part of Sacred Tradition was the ability to use any other grains, or wines made from different fruits other than grape.

As such, the Church has no authority to do otherwise, but can only pass on what the Apostles passed on to the Church.
 
on_the_hill said:
Not to be argumentative, but if we need to use the same recipe for the bread in order for it to become the substance, where do we draw the line with replicating the bread? Someone could say, not only must it be the same recipe, but the ingredients must come from the same area of the world as the originals. Then one could say, ‘it can’t be truly substance unless the wheat comes from the same plant.’

If the mystery we celebrate is the real and true presence of Christ in the bread and wine, there shouldn’t be a limitation on how the bread is made, should there? Wouldn’t we be placing a limitation on how God becomes present?
Click to expand...
We aren’t just looking at that one instance but we are looking at how the Apostles celebrated Mass throughout their entire lives. Peter lived to be more than 70 years old before he was martyred in 67 AD and he was saying Mass at least every Sunday for 33 years, and then you combine that with what the other 11 were doing throughout that time as well, and we get a pretty good idea of the requirements, and what is allowed.
 
O.k., but aside from Sacred Tradition, is there anything divinely miraculous that requires the bread to be the same bread?

I can appreciate that we follow Sacred Tradition as laid down by the Apostles. But is it *necessary *to follow Sacred Tradition in order for the bread and wine to become the body and blood of our lord Jesus Christ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top