Why is gluten-free not valid?

[FrDavid96]

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.

You posted the original question.

You don’t understand something, yet you call it “silly.”

What more can someone say?

 

[b_ulmen]

You posted the original question.

You don’t understand something, yet you call it “silly.”

What more can someone say?

I did make the original post. The replies were “we’re using tradition to stick to the original form of bread Christ used, but at the same time modifications to this original form are ok” - so yes, I consider that silly. What is confusing is the relativistic logic used to justify “no gluten = no Christ”. You don’t need to spend any more time on this, I’ll just put it back into the “this dont make sense” folder and move to the next complexity of Catholicism.

 

[JerryZ]

I did make the original post. The replies were “we’re using tradition to stick to the original form of bread Christ used, but at the same time modifications to this original form are ok” - so yes, I consider that silly. What is confusing is the relativistic logic used to justify “no gluten = no Christ”. You don’t need to spend any more time on this, I’ll just put it back into the “this dont make sense” folder and move to the next complexity of Catholicism.

Perhaps some clarification on the terms, will help you more toward understanding the Church’s position.

We do have in the Catholic Church something called “Sacred Tradition”. These are articles of our faith that have been handed down from the founders of the Church: Jesus and HIS Apostles.

Back in Jesus’s time when the last supper took place, the Tradition as well as the written accounts state that Jesus took “bread”. The Israelites baked “bread” from wheat grains. In fact we know that wheat is mentioned in the Bible many times.

They did not know nor did they need to know that “bread” contains “gluten”.
The Church has an unbroken 2000 years old Tradition of making the “bread” which is used in the Eucharist.

The “gluten” issue is a modern one less that 20 years old in fact. The Church has studied the issue and has reached a conclusion. Namely that the “bread” used within the Eucharist cannot be “gluten-free”, it needs to contain a minimum amount of gluten.

Period end of story.

…

 

[Greenham]

they are preserving the Sacrament as handed to us by Our Lord Himself and the Church has no authority to monkey around with that.

As far as “monkeying around with what was handed to us by Our Lord,” what is the substantive difference between using wheat (which the Roman church considers invalid), and using leaven (which is illicit in the Latin Rite but licit in the eastern rites)?

 

[JerryZ]

As far as “monkeying around with what was handed to us by Our Lord,” what is the substantive difference between using wheat (which the Roman church considers invalid), and using leaven (which is illicit in the Latin Rite but licit in the eastern rites)?

Do not know where did you read this. But it is incorrect.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia

The valid material of the Eucharistic host is unadulterated wheat reduced to flour, diluted with natural water, and baked with fire.

Perhaps you are confusing the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches:

The Catholic uses unleavened wheat bread, the Orthodox uses leavened wheat bread.
Again quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia:

All the Oriental communions, with the exception of the Armenians and Maronites, use leavened bread. We know how seriously the Greeks have considered the question of unleavened bread (see AZYMES). But whether leavened or unleavened, bread is the element, and a large number of Greeks admit that both kinds constitute valid material for the sacrament. In the Western Church it is the uniform practice to use unleavened bread.

…

 

[Greenham]

Do not know where did you read this. But it is incorrect.

It was merely a typo. It should read, “… what is the substantive difference between NOT using wheat …”

Now that you know what I meant, can you address the question?

 

[JerryZ]

It was merely a typo. It should read, “… what is the substantive difference between NOT using wheat …”

Now that you know what I meant, can you address the question?

Leaven and unleavened bread were both used by the Israel people and are both made with wheat.
The problem to the Catholic Church is that if you completely remove gluten which is an integral part of the flour made from wheat, ceases to be “bread”.
The issue possibly has more to do with our modern understanding of the meaning of the word “bread”. We go to the supermarket and there dozens of variates of “bread” made with a myriad ingredients. Meanwhile the Church has only 1 definition of “bread”.

…

 

[Greenham]

Leaven and unleavened bread were both used by the Israel people and are both made with wheat.

So if rye bread had been eaten in Israel at the time, would the church condone using rye as a substitute for wheat?

 

[InThePew]

The problem to the Catholic Church is that if you completely remove gluten which is an integral part of the flour made from wheat, ceases to be “bread”.
The issue possibly has more to do with our modern understanding of the meaning of the word “bread”. We go to the supermarket and there dozens of varieties of “bread” made with a myriad ingredients. Meanwhile the Church has only 1 definition of “bread”.
…

IMHO this is the key point - without clear guidelines there is a risk that variations in what is used will drift so far as to cease to be bread! Granted, as JerryZ says, there a dozens of varieties of “bread” in the supermarket but there’s a need for certainty in what’s used for the Eucharist in order to preserve the integrity of the sacrament - consider, for example, the difference between grape juice and wine.

 

[FrDavid96]

I did make the original post. The replies were “we’re using tradition to stick to the original form of bread Christ used, but at the same time modifications to this original form are ok” - so yes, I consider that silly. What is confusing is the relativistic logic used to justify “no gluten = no Christ”. You don’t need to spend any more time on this, I’ll just put it back into the “this dont make sense” folder and move to the next complexity of Catholicism.

Still, the real problem is that you are operating under the assumption that because you don’t understand something, then the Church is using “relativistic logic.”

The world doesn’t work that way. Logic and truth do not function that way.

I don’t understand Einstein’s theory of relativity. That doesn’t meant that Einstein was wrong or that his logic was faulty, or that it doesn’t make sense. It means that I don’t understand it.

You’ve gone one step further and made it clear that you also have no intention of understanding it. You’ve decided that you don’t want to understand it (indeed, you want not-to-understand it), even if someone should try to explain it. For that reason, there’s nothing more I can do.

 

[b_ulmen]

Still, the real problem is that you are operating under the assumption that because you don’t understand something, then the Church is using “relativistic logic.” The world doesn’t work that way. Logic and truth do not function that way. I don’t understand Einstein’s theory of relativity. That doesn’t meant that Einstein was wrong or that his logic was faulty, or that it doesn’t make sense. It means that I don’t understand it.You’ve gone one step further and made it clear that you also have no intention of understanding it. You’ve decided that you don’t want to understand it (indeed, you want not-to-understand it), even if someone should try to explain it. For that reason, there’s nothing more I can do.

it’s relativistic because you are simultaneously saying we cannot alter a thing and that we have altered it. You said It must be “bread” (in English, of course) as it was understood at the time, and as it was made at the time. And then said Other things about the bread can change, flawed logic regarding the thing - the thing is either unalterable or it is not, it cannot be both particularly given the thing in question. And if certain aspects can be changed why not others? Perhaps if you had taken that line instead of making unwarranted personal remarks. And how do we know it was wheat? Was it not barley loaves that fed the multitude? I think a good case could be made for barely. (still have the gluten issue though.)

My “further step” is not refusing to understand, it’s accepting that I won’t find a clear answer to the question. Thus, it goes back into the unsolved mysteries folder. I don’t like circular arguments, so the last word is yours.

 

[FrDavid96]

it’s relativistic because you are simultaneously saying we cannot alter a thing and that we have altered it. You said It must be “bread” (in English, of course) as it was understood at the time, and as it was made at the time. And then said Other things about the bread can change, flawed logic regarding the thing - the thing is either unalterable or it is not, it cannot be both particularly given the thing in question.

That’s simply not true.

Some things can change. What Christ used at the Last Supper might have been a loaf 6 inches across or it might have been 8 inches across. There is a difference between the two–a difference that does not matter. That is just one of countless examples of something that might change without being significant enough to affect the validity of Mass.

Other changes are indeed significant enough. When the gluten is completely removed, that change is significant enough that it affects validity.

And if certain aspects can be changed why not others?

This is precisely what I keep trying to explain to you, and which you simply choose to dismiss without understanding it.
The answer to your question is that if the change affects the very substance of the bread, so that it is no longer bread as the Church understands that to mean, then that substance cannot be used for the Eucharist.

Perhaps if you had taken that line instead of making unwarranted personal remarks. And how do we know it was wheat?

You keep coming back to the same problem. You assume that because you personally do not know that it was wheat, then neither does the Church know. That’s not the reality at all.
There are several reasons why the Church knows it was wheat bread.
Some of those reasons are:
The ancient vocabulary that was used is that which refers specifically to wheat bread. If it were something else (like barley bread) then other words would have been used.

We know that wheaten bread was used at the Passover meal (and the Feast of Unleavened Bread), again for several reasons. Barley was considered an animal fodder, and was only eaten by humans as a last resort if there was no wheat available. In fact, the ancient Jewish people would specifically reserve a portion of the summer wheat harvest for use in the spring (for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and for Passover). We can be absolutely certain that at the Last Supper, the bread was indeed wheat bread because we know enough about the culture and the ritual laws (both of which are well documented) to know without any hesitation.

It would have been insulting for Christ to use anything other than wheat bread. Barley was for animals.

Was it not barley loaves that fed the multitude? I think a good case could be made for barely. (still have the gluten issue though.)

You might “think” that a good case can be made for barley, but that’s not the reality. Barley bread was only eaten when the wheat was all gone.

The fact that we know that it was barley bread that fed the multitudes is just one more example of the fact that we know the ancient people made distinctions that we don’t necessarily make today. It was indeed “barley bread” because the Gospel writer makes a point of recording that. Different words for different kinds of bread. The use of barley bread at that time has a whole different meaning behind it, as well as giving us an indication of the time-of-year that it happened (when the wheat was all gone, but before the next wheat harvest).

My “further step” is not refusing to understand, it’s accepting that I won’t find a clear answer to the question. Thus, it goes back into the unsolved mysteries folder. I don’t like circular arguments, so the last word is yours.

It’s not at all an “unsolved mystery.” The Church understands all this. You keep coming back to the same fallacy “if I don’t understand it, then neither does anyone else.”

 

[Elizium23]

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.

You seem to misunderstand the role of the authority of the Church. Christ entrusted her with the power to bind and loose. Therefore when the Church makes a doctrinal determination on such things as valid matter for sacraments, she speaks with the authority of Christ. If the Church says that she has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, then this is not a “tradition of men” but the exercise of the Keys. Likewise if the Church says that she has no authority to confect the Eucharist with rice crackers, we take it as synonymous with Christ’s words to us.

The Church IS the Body of Christ. The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ. Christ’s full authority rests in His Church until the time of His Second Coming. This is not merely something that capricious men are making up to be mean to you.

 

[Greenham]

Therefore when the Church makes a doctrinal determination on such things as valid matter for sacraments, she speaks with the authority of Christ. If the Church says that she has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, then this is not a “tradition of men” but the exercise of the Keys.

So the Church has the authority to determine whether or not it has the authority to do something?

 

[JerryZ]

So the Church has the authority to determine whether or not it has the authority to do something?

I am not a policeman. I see a guy running a red light. Do I have the authority to pursue the guy with my car to give him a ticket? I would say NO!
I do not have such authority.
What would your answer be?

Of course The Church HAS to determine whether SHE can or cannot change something.
Who else can? The laity? popular vote? Congress?

Was it handed down from Jesus? If the answer = Yes then NO, She cannot change it.

Can She make prudential judgements on the WAY something is done that does NOT affect the substance of the act?
Yes She can!
Jesus GAVE the power of the Keys to Peter and by extension to Her.
Worth noting that always such decisions are taken invoking the protection of the Holy Spirit. She alone has the personal guarantee from Jesus of Divine assistance.

That does not mean that the Church will one day decide that the Sky will no longer be blue and instead will be yellow!
She ponders CAN She change this doctrine? Yes or No.
Again Who else has the Authority?

…

 

[Greenham]

The fact that we know that it was barley bread that fed the multitudes is just one more example of the fact that we know the ancient people made distinctions that we don’t necessarily make today. It was indeed “barley bread” because the Gospel writer makes a point of recording that. Different words for different kinds of bread. The use of barley bread at that time has a whole different meaning behind it, as well as giving us an indication of the time-of-year that it happened (when the wheat was all gone, but before the next wheat harvest).

John 6 says “barley bread.” The Greek text uses two words, one for barley and one for bread. Matthew, Mark, and Luke each omit “barley” and only say “bread.” Same word for “bread” used in the Last Supper narrative.

So it seems they did exactly as we do today. They had one generic word for bread, which usually but not always referred to wheat bread, as is the case for us, and the option of appending the word for a grain to indicate what kind of bread it was.

 

[FrDavid96]

John 6 says “barley bread.” The Greek text uses two words, one for barley and one for bread. Matthew, Mark, and Luke each omit “barley” and only say “bread.” Same word for “bread” used in the Last Supper narrative.

So it seems they did exactly as we do today. They had one generic word for bread, which usually but not always referred to wheat bread, as is the case for us, and the option of appending the word for a grain to indicate what kind of bread it was.

Same thing.

“So it seems” does not make something true.

The Church does not determine matters of validity according to the standard of “so it seems.” The Church deals in known facts and carefully researches Sacred Scripture. The questions of what constitutes a valid Eucharist are not answered by guesswork.

The distinction between barley loaves and true bread is very important in the context of the bible.

Barley was animal fodder. It was not considered fit for human consumption; with some notable exceptions.

Barley loaves were only eaten by humans in times of extreme poverty or famine. It might be eaten in the spring, but only if the previous year’s wheat harvest was insufficient or something went wrong with the stored wheat.

The idea that Christ would have used barley loaves at the Last Supper is absolutely ludicrous. It is an absurdity. He would have been telling the Apostles “here’s your fodder, I’m returning you to Egypt to be slaves again.”

Christ would no more have used barley loaves at the Last Supper than would someone today invite friends over for Thanksgiving and instead of serving a turkey, open a can of dog food and plop that onto a plate.

People keep posting here but have no idea whatsoever what they’re posting about.

Just because one might be able to find barley bread in a supermarket bread aisle today, has no bearing on whether or not it would have been used at the Last Supper. Just because someone today might think of barley loaves as “just another kind of bread” does not mean that the people in the time & place & religious context of the New Testament would have done the same thing.

 

[Greenham]

It’s “guesswork” to point out that the same word was used for barley and wheat bread? It’s “guesswork” to point out that barley wasn’t even mentioned in the other three accounts of the same event? [edited] Those are simple facts.

By the way, I wasn’t and am not making the argument that barley was used in the Last Supper. I am only making the argument that barley bread is bread. It is in English, and it was in Greek. I’m referring to the debate about “some things change the substance of the bread and other things don’t.”

Which part of my post was guesswork?

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s “guesswork” to point out that the same word was used for barley and wheat bread? It’s “guesswork” to point out that barley wasn’t even mentioned in the other three accounts of the same event? [edited] Those are simple facts.

I can go back and count the number of times that I’ve explained that in the time & place we’re discussing, they used a vocabulary that specifically distinguished what kind of, what we now call simply, “bread” they meant.

I’ll put it in English (yet again): if it was “bread” it was wheat bread.

If it was any other type of loaf, then they would distinguish the type of grain.

If it was a loaf made of anything other than pure wheat bread, they stated so explicitly.

In order to have been “barley bread” then the word for barley must appear. Absent any word for barley, it was de facto, pure wheat bread.

Yes, it’s guesswork because you’re not bothering to actually read the explanations I’ve given which already show that what you’re claiming is not possible.

John’s Gospel mentions barley loaves (for the multiplication of the loaves and fish). The Synoptics do not. As in many other things in John’s Gospel, he is making points not found (or not stressed) in the Synoptics.

In John’s Gospel, the mention of barley loaves has its own meaning.

1. It was springtime. The summer wheat harvest was gone. That year’s wheat harvest was not ready. It was before Passover. They were reduced to eating the very last of the leftovers of the previous year’s harvest. The time of year is very relevant here.
2. The fact that they were eating barley loaves in the first place tells us that the people were very hungry at the moment. They only ate barley loaves when they were desperate (because of poverty or famine or some disaster, or because last year’s harvest was insufficient). Barley was animal fodder which they only ate when they had no alternative, or at certain ritual meals.

These are important points in John’s telling of the event. Last year’s harvest was insufficient (“your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died”.) In contrast to that, a few lines later, John begins the “Bread of Life Discourse”
John is making the point “at this moment, you’re eating barley loaves” (you’re starving), but Christ is the Bread from Heaven.

I could go on and on with this, but suffice to say that John’s use of “barley loaves” is to make specific points. Points that the Synoptics are not necessarily making in their telling of the Multiplication miracles.

By the way, I wasn’t and am not making the argument that barley was used in the Last Supper. I am only making the argument that barley bread is bread. It is in English, and it was in Greek. I’m referring to the debate about “some things change the substance of the bread and other things don’t.”

Which part of my post was guesswork?

You might not be “making the argument” but if you had bothered to actually read what I’ve already posted many times now, you would see that the statement “barley bread is bread” does not apply to that time & place.

Barley bread is not bread. Wheat bread is bread. To be barley, it would have to very specifically be called “barley loaves.” In the absence of anything specific to tell us that the bread was either not-wheat or wheat-and-some-other-grain, the word “bread” by itself (Hebrew=lahem, Greek=artimos, Aramaic=lahmo) does mean exclusively wheat bread.

That holds whether we’re talking about the Last Supper, or about any other time the words for bread appear in the Scriptures.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The only thing I need to say here is to compliment Father David on his thorough and correct explanation. He has expounded each of the topics considered in this thread exceedingly well.