Why is gluten-free not valid?

[Thorolfr]

Where does it actually say in Scripture that the bread must be made of wheat? How do we know that the requirement that it be made of wheat was passed on from Christ throughout the generations? Is there some recorded tradition where Christ told his disciples, “The bread during the Eucharist must be made of wheat.”

 

[on_the_hill]

I was going by these replies:

We follow what the Apostles, and what they passed on to us via Sacred Tradition.

We aren’t just looking at that one instance but we are looking at how the Apostles celebrated Mass throughout their entire lives.

I would think that bread would have been made from whatever grains were locally available. Furthermore, the wheat we use today has been crossbred, hybridized, probably even genetically modified.

 

[HelenRose]

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.

Well if you are not a Catholic, I can see why that would not make a whole lot of sense. But considering that the Catholic Church teaches that wheat bread becomes the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ during the consecration it seems strange that a Catholic would choose one belief about the Body of Christ and then reject or even demand that the Church change Her teaching about what is required from Christ about the Body of Christ.

I think the term is called Cafeteria Catholicism. Choose what you want and expect the Church to change Her teaching to suit the individual whims of each person. If a person is gluten sensitive they can drink from the cup. This provides all that is necessary to receive the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ. At which time, as a Catholic, the individual can offer his or her sacrifice of not being able to eat the host up to Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

Where does it actually say in Scripture that the bread must be made of wheat?

You’ve asked the easiest question in the world for Catholics to answer; do you realize that?

The answer is: Christ never said, “you must do everything that will show up in a book that won’t be written for another 40-60 years, and canonized over the next 100-1500 years.” Rather, Christ gave that kind of authority to persons – to Peter and the apostles. So, once the proper authorities decided, “it must be unleavened wheaten bread,” then it was a proper and sufficient decision. After all, “what you bind on earth…”

 

[Gorgias]

I would think that bread would have been made from whatever grains were locally available.

You’d be thinking wrong, then.

Even for Jews, matzoh can only be made from one of five particular grains. The notion of restricting the elements from which valid matter proceeds isn’t an innovation of the Catholic Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

right, I got that, but what I’m not understanding is the “is MUST be wheat to be bread”. based on what?

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.

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?

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?

I was going by these replies:

I would think that bread would have been made from whatever grains were locally available. Furthermore, the wheat we use today has been crossbred, hybridized, probably even genetically modified.

Here’s the problem.

You keep posing rhetorical questions because you assume that since you don’t know the answer to those questions, neither does anyone else. The fault in that logic is that the Church does know.

Yes, we do know what kind of bread was used at the Last Supper. At least we know that it was one of two kinds of bread (it was either artimos [John’s Gospel] or azymos [Synoptic Gospels], both of which are very specific types of what we now call simply “bread.”). We know that it was wheat because of the vocabulary that was used to describe it. If it were other-than-wheat bread then different words would have been used.

You say “I would think that bread would have been made…” Again, you’re assuming that because you don’t know, neither does anyone else.

All the questions you’re posing have been carefully examined by the Church. The Church actually does know those answers.

Issues such as cross-bred, hybridized, and genetically modified have all been very carefully examined and the Church has come to conclusions on those issues.

Yes, it is necessary that we follow the Tradition. Without that, without valid matter as the Church has determined valid matter, the Eucharist simply does not exist.

 

[HelenRose]

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.

 

[lax16]

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?

I used to receive a gluten free host that the priest would hold in his hand until I received communion. It was really quite an inconvenience for him so now I just take the wine.

When the cup is not offered I have to decide whether to take communion and suffer the consequences or not.

 

[Murmurs]

Well if you are not a Catholic, I can see why that would not make a whole lot of sense. But considering that the Catholic Church teaches that wheat bread becomes the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ during the consecration it seems strange that a Catholic would choose one belief about the Body of Christ and then reject or even demand that the Church change Her teaching about what is required from Christ about the Body of Christ.

I think the term is called Cafeteria Catholicism. Choose what you want and expect the Church to change Her teaching to suit the individual whims of each person. If a person is gluten sensitive they can drink from the cup. This provides all that is necessary to receive the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ. At which time, as a Catholic, the individual can offer his or her sacrifice of not being able to eat the host up to Christ.

Speaking at least for myself I wasn’t suggesting I remotely think the Church should (or could) change what it teaches (about this or anything else). There are perfectly sound reasons, symbolic and traditional, for using wheat bread anyway. Fortunately I have no intolerance for gluten in any event but as you say those who do may drink from the cup. (What an alcoholic coeliac is meant to do I’m not sure, but perhaps the Venn diagram of those groups doesn’t intersect anyway!).

I’m entirely trust what the Church teaches regarding this (or anything else). I wouldn’t dream of picking-and-choosing. When I originally wrote the post you quoted the thread was not nearly so evolved and it’s an awful lot clearer now than it was then (thank you, all those you took the time to answer the OP because it’s helped me and probably others, too!). Obviously there is nothing wrong with asking why, and asking for more comprehensive explanations - that’s not taking trust away from the Church just getting clarification the better to understand!

I’m still left puzzled by my later query - what of artificially-created wheat? That which (hypothetically) contains everything which wheat contains, but never came from a plant. Does the organic (in the sense of not-artificial) origins convey validity, or is it something inherent in the structure of wheat, which means that a host seemly drawn out of the air, but which contains in the exact proportions, appearance and form, of everything a ‘normal’ host does, is fine?

I really don’t mean to sound so facetious, and I’m anticipating a problem which is at the very least pretty unlikely to arise in any of our lifetimes, but it does cut to the heart of what is it of wheat that makes its wheatiness important for the Eucharist?

 

[FrDavid96]

…
I’m still left puzzled by my later query - what of artificially-created wheat? That which (hypothetically) contains everything which wheat contains, but never came from a plant. Does the organic (in the sense of not-artificial) origins convey validity, or is it something inherent in the structure of wheat, which means that a host seemly drawn out of the air, but which contains in the exact proportions, appearance and form, of everything a ‘normal’ host does, is fine?

I really don’t mean to sound so facetious, and I’m anticipating a problem which is at the very least pretty unlikely to arise in any of our lifetimes, but it does cut to the heart of what is it of wheat that makes its wheatiness important for the Eucharist?

This one has not been addressed directly yet—not that I’m aware.

However, we do have parallel examples.

When something is required for a Sacrament to be valid, the Church always insists that it be natural. Wine must be made from grapes grown on a vine (yes, “from the vine” is actually specified, although that is somewhat due to Latin vocabulary) , even though it’s possible to make an artificial wine. The holy oils must come from a natural plant. The Oil of the Infirm can come from various plants (not necessarily olive), but it cannot be an artificial oil, it must still be a plant oil.

There are other examples of where the Church always prefers (if not insists) that substances be natural. Altar mensas are to be made from natural stone, artificial flowers are frowned upon, recorded music is not allowed, etc. etc. These later examples don’t go to the validity of a sacrament, so we can’t take that too far.

Given that precedent, I’m certain that if the subject would ever arise, the Church would be consistent and insist that wheat for the Eucharist must be wheat harvested from a plant, not artificially produced.

 

[Murmurs]

This one has not been addressed directly yet—not that I’m aware.

However, we do have parallel examples.

When something is required for a Sacrament to be valid, the Church always insists that it be natural. Wine must be made from grapes grown on a vine (yes, “from the vine” is actually specified, although that is somewhat due to Latin vocabulary) , even though it’s possible to make an artificial wine. The holy oils must come from a natural plant. The Oil of the Infirm can come from various plants (not necessarily olive), but it cannot be an artificial oil, it must still be a plant oil.

There are other examples of where the Church always prefers (if not insists) that substances be natural. Altar mensas are to be made from natural stone, artificial flowers are frowned upon, recorded music is not allowed, etc. etc. These later examples don’t go to the validity of a sacrament, so we can’t take that too far.

Given that precedent, I’m certain that if the subject would ever arise, the Church would be consistent and insist that wheat for the Eucharist must be wheat harvested from a plant, not artificially produced.

Thank you Fr David that was very helpful and insightful

We must assume then that if there is a Catholic priest aboard the USS Enterprise his quarters are overflowing with crates of hosts and bottles of communion wine…

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you Fr David that was very helpful and insightful

We must assume then that if there is a Catholic priest aboard the USS Enterprise his quarters are overflowing with crates of hosts and bottles of communion wine…

Yep.

Either that, or a small hydroponic farm growing wheat and grapes.

Seriously, though, that’s exactly what the early missionaries to America did. They planted vineyards and wheat. If mankind ever expands into space, there’s no reason to think that it would be any different. Wherever we go, we’ll be planting vines and wheat, using whatever means are available.

 

[HelenRose]

I used to receive a gluten free host that the priest would hold in his hand until I received communion. It was really quite an inconvenience for him so now I just take the wine.

When the cup is not offered I have to decide whether to take communion and suffer the consequences or not.

It is not required that you take communion as long as you are at Mass, so you do not need to risk serious problems by partaking of the host. Just being at Mass and offering your suffering up to Christ is a beautiful thing. Allow Christ to lead you. Trust the Church. We should not be tinkering around with this most holy of all holy gifts.

 

[HelenRose]

If the Eucharist was, as Protestants claim, just a symbol, then there would be no problem. We could use cake. But it isn’t just a symbol. The Church through Christ has set the standards by which Christ is made ready for us.

 

[b_ulmen]

I dunno, just seems to me that if the Church can turn the priest around and put back to Christ to bring the lay closer to the mass, they should be able to make allowances on the bread.

 

[FrDavid96]

I dunno, just seems to me that if the Church can turn the priest around and put back to Christ to bring the lay closer to the mass, they should be able to make allowances on the bread.

The Church does make allowances.

For those who need them, very-low gluten hosts are available.

That’s the best the Church is able to do because without at least a minimal amount of gluten, the substance is not bread. It might be bread in a secular sense (we can call all kinds of different things by that word in various languages), but to be consistent with what Christ actually used at the Last Supper, it must have some gluten.

We cannot use just anything for the Eucharist. We can no more use gluten-free food for the Eucharist than we can use potato chips or chocolate cookies. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way either. It must be “bread” (in English, of course) as it was understood at the time, and as it was made at the time.

For certain aspects, we can have variations (we can bake the bread using an electric oven even though it was unknown at the time), but this is just not one of them.

 

[HelenRose]

I dunno, just seems to me that if the Church can turn the priest around and put back to Christ to bring the lay closer to the mass, they should be able to make allowances on the bread.

The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is the purpose of the Mass. “The bread” is Christ. Christ is infinitely more important than the direction the priest faces. Christ defined the substance which becomes Himself. We must not tinker with that.

As far as I can make out, this belief of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is the greatest division between Catholicism and Protestantism. We worship the Eucharist as Christ Himself. To a Protestant this is worship of something man made. To a Protestant “the bread” is just that – bread - a symbol and nothing more.

For me this simple object made of wheat becomes Christ. A mystery profound for this becomes God.

 

[b_ulmen]

It must be “bread” (in English, of course) as it was understood at the time, and as it was made at the time.

Christ defined the substance which becomes Himself. We must not tinker with that.

An interesting statement considering the form in which the bread is presented likely is not the same form as it was made at the time. I’m not advocating a schism, the logic just seems flawed to me.

 

[FrDavid96]

An interesting statement considering the form in which the bread is presented likely is not the same form as it was made at the time. I’m not advocating a schism, the logic just seems flawed to me.

I addressed that very issue at the end of my post:

…
It must be “bread” (in English, of course) as it was understood at the time, and as it was made at the time.

For certain aspects, we can have variations (we can bake the bread using an electric oven even though it was unknown at the time), but this is just not one of them.

Of course, it will be an “interesting statement” if you take only one part of what I wrote, while removing the other part. The logic only seems flawed because you’ve manipulated my post to make it seem flawed. That’s hardly convincing.

As I said repeatedly already, some gluten is necessary for it to be bread (as we understand that word “bread” in the context of the Eucharist).

Other things about the bread can change, but this is not one of them.

 

[b_ulmen]

That’s hardly convincing.

Not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Christ simply said bread, man said it had to be wheat bread, then somewhere down the line we got technical and then man said it’s gotta have gluten. Christ simply said bread, man took that and over-analyzed it to the point we’re at now. I still think the logic behind it is relativistic, we absolutely gotta stick to the original but we can make modifications to make it easier to produce, package, ship and distribute. Still seems silly to me that “no chemical compound known as gluten? No Christ!”. But I don’t make the rules, just comment on them.