Why is gluten-free not valid?

[Greenham]

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

If that’s the case, then John is either describing a different event from the synoptics (both commonly referred to as the “feeding of the 5000”), or one of the two is not telling the truth about the event. Which of these two possibilities is your argument? That’s what I’ve been wanting to find out, and you haven’t addressed that issue, but instead choose to repeat yourself and then complain that you’re repeating yourself. How about answering my question, and then we’ll both be happy?

To be barley, it would have to very specifically be called “barley loaves.”

This is just a side note, but as I pointed out in my prior posts, the Greek word John uses in the narrative is the one for “bread.” He says “barley bread.” I know you’re aware of that, but I think other readers should be aware.

 

[FrDavid96]

If that’s the case, then John is either describing a different event from the synoptics (both commonly referred to as the “feeding of the 5000”), or one of the two is not telling the truth about the event. Which of these two possibilities is your argument? That’s what I’ve been wanting to find out, and you haven’t addressed that issue, but instead choose to repeat yourself and then complain that you’re repeating yourself. How about answering my question, and then we’ll both be happy?

I cannot possibly go into every detail distinguishing John’s Gospel from the Synoptic Gospels.

There are numerous examples of differences between them. That’s why the Gospels have always (from the very beginning) been divided into 2 categories. John’s Gospel is unique.

None of them are lying. None are untruthful. They are simply different.

This is just a side note, but as I pointed out in my prior posts, the Greek word John uses in the narrative is the one for “bread.” He says “barley bread.” I know you’re aware of that, but I think other readers should be aware.

Again, you don’t understand it. You’re just using online dictionaries to lookup words but you don’t understand what those words mean.

In John 6, he uses the word “artimos” which is similar (but not identical) to the Hebrew “lahem” or the Aramaic “lahmo.” Christ would have been speaking in Aramaic.

The word “lahmo” means a loaf. It does NOT mean bread, even though it’s often translated that way in brief translations. It means a “loaf.” A specific type of (what we now call) bread. Flat bread was not “lahmo.” Unleavened bread was not “lahmo.” Only if it was a loaf-style of leavened grain was the word “lahmo” used.

Lahmo means a loaf of wheat bread. Unless some other description is added to that word to mean something else, the word always means wheaten. Yes, always.

In extra-biblical usage, lahmo can have other meanings. It even became the modern Arabic word for “meat” (as in lamb meat). But that’s not relevant to the Gospels.

One can have a “barley lahmo” (a barley loaf) but never “barley bread” because that’s a contradiction in terms. It might work in English, but it does not work in the ancient languages.

The fact that John 6 speaks specifically of barley loaves has its own meaning. The fact that the word for barley is not used later for the Last Supper is a clear indication that it had to be wheaten bread. No word “barley” means that it was certainly not barley. Same holds for rye, oat, or spelt.

 

[jmcrae]

This is just a side note, but as I pointed out in my prior posts, the Greek word John uses in the narrative is the one for “bread.” He says “barley bread.” I know you’re aware of that, but I think other readers should be aware.

I don’t speak or read any of the original Biblical languages; however, the Bible is only part of the story. If the Apostles were using wheat bread for the Eucharist, and the Bishops of the first and second centuries were using wheat bread for the Eucharist, and this was the universal practice all over the world, then we can be sure that it is the Tradition that we are to use wheat bread for the Eucharist.

We already know that they were, because this is what they handed down to us today, and we find it in the canon law, and in the Liturgical books, that this is how it is to be done.

Speculating about things that didn’t happen doesn’t change that fact.

You can speculate all day long about, what if little green men came down from outer space and confected the Eucharist using something that only grows on Mars? Nobody who is in charge of the liturgy in the Catholic Church cares at all about that, because they didn’t. And we know they didn’t, because Church law tells us to use wheat bread only - if there were other alternatives, the Church would know about them and would allow them, because the Church was there, and remembers these things.

 

[otjm]

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.

Yes - it followed the Passover Supper requirements - and the Jewish people were fairly good about laws.

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t speak or read any of the original Biblical languages; however, the Bible is only part of the story. If the Apostles were using wheat bread for the Eucharist, and the Bishops of the first and second centuries were using wheat bread for the Eucharist, and this was the universal practice all over the world, then we can be sure that it is the Tradition that we are to use wheat bread for the Eucharist.

Wheat bread might have been used at the Last Supper and by early Christians because that was the main type of bread people ate in first century Palestine and other areas where Christianity first spread. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that that Jesus and the Apostles could not have eaten another kind of bread instead at the Last Supper if another grain was the main staple for making bread.

What if Christians were living in an area where wheat doesn’t grow very well? Would that mean that the Eucharist could not be performed there? Do we actually know for a fact that transubstatiation can only happen with wheat bread but not with corn bread? Aside from Tradition, is there something special about wheat that makes it better than all other grains?

 

[jmcrae]

Wheat bread might have been used at the Last Supper and by early Christians because that was the main type of bread people ate in first century Palestine and other areas where Christianity first spread. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that that Jesus and the Apostles could not have eaten another kind of bread instead at the Last Supper if another grain was the main staple for making bread.

Uh - they weren’t doing a work lunch at Mickey D’s here - although even if they were, we’d still have access to the recipe for the buns.

This was the Passover. You’ve read the Book of Exodus, I assume, and you’re at least aware of the existence of the Book of Leviticus. You know how strict they were about their ritual meals and sacrifices, right? Everything had to be exactly perfect.

Jesus would not have used anything other than unleavened matza wafers, as prescribed in the Book of Leviticus. He would not have made any substitutions.

What if Christians were living in an area where wheat doesn’t grow very well? Would that mean that the Eucharist could not be performed there? Do we actually know for a fact that transubstatiation can only happen with wheat bread but not with corn bread? Aside from Tradition, is there something special about wheat that makes it better than all other grains?

First, the Catholic Church has parishes within traveling distance of every living human being on earth and so far, any situations like that have been dealt with successfully.

And in the future when we colonize other planets, we will figure out how to grow wheat in even more interesting climates.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Wheat bread might have been used at the Last Supper and by early Christians because that was the main type of bread people ate in first century Palestine and other areas where Christianity first spread. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that that Jesus and the Apostles could not have eaten another kind of bread instead at the Last Supper if another grain was the main staple for making bread.

What if Christians were living in an area where wheat doesn’t grow very well? Would that mean that the Eucharist could not be performed there? Do we actually know for a fact that transubstatiation can only happen with wheat bread but not with corn bread? Aside from Tradition, is there something special about wheat that makes it better than all other grains?

First, the Eucharist is not “performed”.

Second, theology does know what constitutes valid matter for the Eucharist – and for the other sacraments – and it also knows therefore that cornbread would be not simply be unlawful or not the most appropriate…it would be invalid. One may fruitfully consult the classic manuals of dogmatic theology and find the definitive statements, guided by what the Church has authoritatively taught, the gradations of certitude, and all the footnotes that cite the basis.

Third, the question properly composed is not “what if” but “when” those who confect a valid Eucharist are in areas where wheat does not grow well, what is to be done…for this is a matter of history; it has already happened. The answer, too, is already known: such persons must import wheat to make valid hosts (or, at least, have hosts already made from matter that is valid conveyed to them). The same is true for wine. Should grape wine not be available, it must be imported.

My confrere in the priesthood, Fr. David, has quite capably and correctly – and quite exhaustively – expounded this topic.

Paul himself has presented us with the paradigm of the apostolic church and the sub-apostolic church, which has continued from thence through the ages: “I handed on to you what I myself received.”

The matrix of the Eucharist was the Passover meal, the unfolding of which, by its very nature, was strictly observed in all its parts and in all its elements. To suppose otherwise is to suppose with no basis against what was orthopraxy strictly held and strictly observed. The idea that Jesus would act against such is to propose a concept at variance to all we profess about Him.

The nature of the Eucharist itself insists that orthopraxy applies to the Last Supper – and the elements Jesus used at the Last Supper both to fulfill the law’s command as regards the Passover rite as well as those self-same elements by which he established the Eucharist. An argument against orthopraxy there, of all places, fails on its face since the Passover is the preeminent type for the Eucharist that it foreshadows, points to, and ultimately occasions.

To extrapolate from modern experiences and apply them to the era of Christ is, frankly, bizarre to those of us who studied, know, and have taught that era. To suppose that they would have seen a liberty to disregard elements that they knew to be essential to the Passover, for some novelty, is actually unimaginable to the mind that you are casting it into.

The very formulations by which disciples were taught indicate the role of authority and formula in that era. When Jesus said, “You have heard it said…” this was not rhetorical flourish on His part. There was strict care for the transmission of what was ordained by God including, certainly, the rites of the observances of the Passover of the Lord.

The ritual of the Passover meal was, and had been, tradition of an entirely different type from what contemporary people think of as “traditions” observed, for example, by modern family holiday dinners. The nature of the memorial that they observed in this rite is not what the contemporary mind thinks of as “memorial” and their concept is what governs their actions.

Apart from the inability to impose upon Biblical events alternate realities that come from modern minds rather than what actually occurred then, there is the critical issue of the Church’s safeguarding of the sacraments entrusted to her by her Divine Founder and the authority she has regarding the sacraments. She is the one who determines validity as well as liceity and the issues of matter and form. It is the Church that defines what is valid and what has transgressed to being invalid, drawing from what she knows of what she received from the one who entrusted the sacraments to her and articulates this via the Magisterium.

The question of potential use of parallel substances deemed equivalent in a receiving culture regarding the matter for the Eucharist was quite well - and definitively - addressed by the Church, among many other places, in the issue of Matteo Ricci and the question of whether rice cakes and rice wine could be used for the Eucharist since these are the staple equivalents in the culture being evangelized. The answer was no based on the matter of the Eucharist being absolute and not culturally conditioned.

One can posit any thought one is capable of conceiving in the brain…but that does not mean the thought so conceived actually reflects or relates to objective reality. The objective reality here being discussed is the Church’s definitive teaching on what constitutes valid matter for the Eucharist…which does not admit of theories and fantastic suppositions. The matters touching upon the sacraments are at the heart of the field of dogmatic theology. Dogma results when the Church enunciates truth in the face of a question about what is to be definitive accepted as true…and what is to be rejected as error. Teachings of that nature, authoritatively made, can only legitimately be given the assent of faith.

 

[Thorolfr]

Jesus would not have used anything other than unleavened matza wafers, as prescribed in the Book of Leviticus. He would not have made any substitutions.

But I thought that Old Testament rules, especially ones about things having to do with sacrifice, not wearing garments made of two different kinds of material, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field, not eating pork, eating certain kinds of bread, etc. do not apply to Christians. So why should Jewish bread apply to Christians? Jesus was a Jew and followed Jewish law and Jewish traditions, but that doesn’t mean that we must do the same in using a kind of bread prescribed by Jewish Tradition. Jesus would not have eaten pork, either, but that does not mean that we cannot eat pork.

 

[JerryZ]

But I thought that Old Testament rules, especially ones about things having to do with sacrifice, not wearing garments made of two different kinds of material, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field, not eating pork, eating certain kinds of bread, etc. do not apply to Christians. So why should Jewish bread apply to Christians? Jesus was a Jew and followed Jewish law and Jewish traditions, but that doesn’t mean that we must do the same in using a kind of bread prescribed by Jewish Tradition. Jesus would not have eaten pork, either, but that does not mean that we cannot eat pork.

Really?

So you put dietary laws in the same rank as a Tradition that has been handed down by Jesus through HIS Apostles. And by the way those dietary laws were abolished BY JESUS Himself.
Jesus has the power to change “the traditions of men” YES OBLITERATE, remove those and IMPOSE Tradition from GOD.

Are you equating the two?

Mark 7:15
There is nothing from outside a man which, by entering into him, is able to defile him. But the things which procede from a man, these are what pollute a man.

Or should we go back to the Phariseic ways?

Perhaps you should ponder this passage:

Matthew Chapter 15
15:12Then his disciples drew near and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees, upon hearing this word, were offended?” 15:13 But in response he said: “Every plant which has not been planted by my heavenly Father shall be uprooted. 15:14 Leave them alone. They are blind, and they lead the blind. But if the blind are in charge of the blind, both will fall into the pit.”

…

 

[FrDavid96]

But I thought that Old Testament rules, especially ones about things having to do with sacrifice, not wearing garments made of two different kinds of material, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field, not eating pork, eating certain kinds of bread, etc. do not apply to Christians. So why should Jewish bread apply to Christians? Jesus was a Jew and followed Jewish law and Jewish traditions, but that doesn’t mean that we must do the same in using a kind of bread prescribed by Jewish Tradition. Jesus would not have eaten pork, either, but that does not mean that we cannot eat pork.

The two issues have nothing to do with each other. But then again, they really do…

The Eucharist is not about “what Jesus might have done if things were different” it is about what He actually did do.

It’s not about “using a kind of bread prescribed by Jewish Tradition” instead it’s about “using the kind of bread prescribed by Christian Tradition.” That means wheaten bread, to the exclusion of anything else we (using an entirely different language with words that can only approximate the meaning of ancient words) might label “bread” either in the present or the future.

Knowing the Jewish Tradition is how we come to know what Christ did—and yes, we do know what He did, not merely what He* likely* did. It is not only that we can look to Jewish sources to learn what He did, we have the constant Tradition of the Church which has always understood that only wheat bread may be used for the Eucharist. We do not need to restore that which was never lost in the first place.

You rightly say that Jesus would not have eaten pork. We can take that even further and say that we can be certain He never ate pork. By the same reasoning, we can and do know that the bread He used at the Last Supper was wheaten bread, to the exclusion of other types of loaves made with other grains.

He would no more have used a barley loaf at the Last Supper than He would have substituted pork for lamb at any other Passover meal.

 

[jmcrae]

But I thought that Old Testament rules, especially ones about things having to do with sacrifice, not wearing garments made of two different kinds of material, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field, not eating pork, eating certain kinds of bread, etc. do not apply to Christians. So why should Jewish bread apply to Christians? Jesus was a Jew and followed Jewish law and Jewish traditions, but that doesn’t mean that we must do the same in using a kind of bread prescribed by Jewish Tradition. Jesus would not have eaten pork, either, but that does not mean that we cannot eat pork.

Jesus fulfilled the Law; He did not abolish it. He established a New Covenant; He didn’t get rid of all Covenant responsibilities. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can read the New Testament and not realize that the New Covenant is actually more demanding than the Old Covenant - not less. “Moses said do not murder, but I tell you, do not be angry.”

Moses permitted divorce and multiple wives; Jesus requires loving faithfulness to one woman, until death ye do part.

Yes, certain elements of the kosher law no longer apply, and actually have never applied to Gentiles. But the moral law and the Sacraments of the New Covenant are specific to all Christians, and if anything, more so rather than less so.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

But I thought that Old Testament rules, especially ones about things having to do with sacrifice, not wearing garments made of two different kinds of material, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field, not eating pork, eating certain kinds of bread, etc. do not apply to Christians. So why should Jewish bread apply to Christians? Jesus was a Jew and followed Jewish law and Jewish traditions, but that doesn’t mean that we must do the same in using a kind of bread prescribed by Jewish Tradition. Jesus would not have eaten pork, either, but that does not mean that we cannot eat pork.

You are confusing the categories of the law as though all were equivalent and as if nothing from the Hebrew Scripture is of enduring value. This assertion is wrong.

Jesus, through His teaching as well as through the Apostles, made explicit that there are elements of the law transmitted through the first covenant that are not mutable, that there are elements of the law transmitted through the first covenant which find their fulfillment and perfection in Him, there is that which He Himself enunciates as the new Moses and, indeed, the Divine Law-giver, and there are elements of the law transmitted through the Hebrew Scriptures which do not apply in the new dispensation, as they were particular to preparing for the Christ’s coming.

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commands hang all the law and the prophets.” This statement is immutable. The ten commandments are immutable – they are part of divine positive law, which endures, as well as part of natural law.

Jesus manifests, by revelation to Peter after the resurrection, that the Mosaic dietary laws do not apply in the new dispensation. This event endures in the minds of the apostles and it is part of what they teach orally, as part of apostolic tradition. It is also recorded in what we know as The Acts of the Apostles and therefore appears in Sacred Scripture.

It is not the disciple though who makes the determination of what is unchangeable. As the revelation to Peter demonstrates, that is proper to the Magisterium of the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit Who was promised to the apostles and, by extension, their successors.

So one must examine such questions about the law, its relevance, and its application through the mind of the Church, drawing upon the deposit of the faith, and as enunciated by the Magisterium.

That is a different matter from the nature of the sacraments of the new covenant and their relationship to Christ and how they are received and transmitted by the Church to whom they also have a relationship. This is true above all concerning the Eucharist.

The matter of the sacraments is stipulated by the Divine Founder. The matter of baptism is water. The Church cannot change that. She teaches that if another substance is used, it would be invalid in so far as it is not water.

The form for this sacrament is also prescribed by Jesus and, to the extent it is, the Church is circumscribed from altering it…although there is actually a latitude in this. Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Thus is derived the form of the sacrament.

However, the Western Church articulates this in the active voice: “, I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The Eastern Churches articulate this in the passive voice: “The servant of God is baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Both are valid since they comply with the divine commission.

So…to what I think is your point: We are told through the law and the observances of the rite of the Passover supper what Jesus used at the Last Supper. It is from the elements of the Passover supper that, at a specific moment and with given substances, he established the Eucharist. The nature, the essence and the purpose of the sacrament as He instituted it, and not the preceding law, governs what the Church must use and must do going forward in the celebration of the sacrament that He entrusted to His Church.

Nevertheless the preceding law and the observances of the rite of Passover enrich and inform aspects of our understanding of the Eucharist. Indeed, the Eucharist could not be fully understood or appreciated apart from considering it in the matrix out of which Christ brings it forth.

The Eucharist is the perfect fulfillment of what is glimpsed by way of type and foreshadowing in that first Passover meal some thirteen centuries before the coming of Christ

The praxis, properly understood, reflects the beautiful reality that directly links the Eucharist as we celebrate it today to the first celebration of the Passover supper as it was prescribed to Moses by God, in that moment in salvation history when the Lord passed over Egypt, and then led His people from slavery in Egypt, passing through the waters of the Red Sea to the Land which He had promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants.

Those saving events were part of the history of the People of God of the first covenant and they endure perennially in the covenant established in the Blood of Christ precisely because the events of centuries before show forth, again through type and foreshadowing, the accomplishment of Redemption in the Person of Christ the Saviour.

The proper understanding of the theology of sign and of sacrament are thus indispensable to the very understanding of salvation history, and our experience of it and our living of it in our lives, in and through the sacraments. And, this appreciation of the theology of sign and sacrament should be precisely as it is understood, cherished and enunciated by the Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

Wheat bread might have been used at the Last Supper and by early Christians because that was the main type of bread people ate in first century Palestine and other areas where Christianity first spread. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that that Jesus and the Apostles could not have eaten another kind of bread instead at the Last Supper if another grain was the main staple for making bread.

Wheaten bread was not merely the “main type” of bread in the culture. It was the only type of bread. If it was made from anything else, they did not consider it to be bread. Instead, they made a point of using descriptive words to indicate that it was something other than bread.

No other grain was the main staple.

Barley and oats were animal fodder, not for human consumption, except to stave off starvation. I don’t know what they did with rye and spelt, but I do know that they didn’t use it to make bread unless (yes, again I’m typing it out) they were starving. Rye doesn’t last very long after harvest and without modern-day techniques to preserve it, a person who ate a loaf made from rye was likely to become ill (aside from the fact that by itself it tastes horrible*, which is why today most rye breads are really wheat bread with rye added)

I know I said this sometime earlier, but it bears repeating:

Christ would no more have used a barley loaf at the Last Supper than someone today would serve a can of dog food at Thanksgiving dinner (even if it is “turkey” dog food).

The Apostles would have reacted to barley loaves in just the same way that a person today would react to being served a can of dog food.

And barley was actually at the top of the list.

What if Christians were living in an area where wheat doesn’t grow very well?

They weren’t. They were living in an area where wheat bread was the most important food by far.

Would that mean that the Eucharist could not be performed there?

It means that wheat or wheat bread would have to be brought in from elsewhere.

Do we actually know for a fact that transubstatiation can only happen with wheat bread but not with corn bread?

Yes.

Aside from Tradition, is there something special about wheat that makes it better than all other grains?

Yes. It has been the chief grain for most of human history.
We cannot separate-out the Tradition. It’s impossible. The use of wheaten bread pervades the whole of Salvation History beginning with Abraham himself. Christ did not use wheat bread at the Last Supper by accident. He used it very specifically because it was the single most important food in both the religious and the secular sense.

---

By the way, no offense to rye bread. I am a HUGE fan of a good hearty Jewish rye bread. But the fact is, it’s really wheat bread with some rye flour added to it.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Among the critical points is the reality of Catholic ecclesiology: the Church was established by Christ. When He returned to the right hand of the Eternal Father after the resurrection, He left her upon the earth with a divine commission. When He returns in glory at the end of the age, He will find her watching, awaiting in vigil His return. And in all the ages book-ended by those two events, she is present and active in the world.

As the bride of Christ, she preserves the memory of her Founder…who He is, what He said, what He did, and the works He performed – and all of these are properly hers. She proclaims who He is. She articulates what He said. She performs the works He did: caring for and healing the sick, teaching the uneducated, providing for the needy, calling to conversion, forgiving sins, imparting grace, and in every other way continuing Christ’s presence in the world. Bearing witness to Him, she proclaims faithfully the gospel that He entrusted to her. And she safeguards what was entrusted to her.

Thus, as Father David says, the Church’s memory preserves – has always preserved and will always preserve – the things that are from and of her Divine Founder. Generations are born upon the earth and live and die…but the Church endures down through the ages.

Human beings may approach problems and questions as individuals and as though the matter has never been considered or is unknowable – but the Church’s memory is neither of that order nor does it operate in that way.

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes. It has been the chief grain for most of human history.
We cannot separate-out the Tradition. It’s impossible. The use of wheaten bread pervades the whole of Salvation History beginning with Abraham himself. Christ did not use wheat bread at the Last Supper by accident. He used it very specifically because it was the single most important food in both the religious and the secular sense.

Wheat was first domesticated in what is now Turkey and was the main staple in that part of the world. But rice was domesticated just as early and was the main staple in many parts of Asia long before there was any wheat there. Native Americans in the New World had no wheat until the Spaniards arrived about 500 years ago and according to some of their folklore, the Creator first fashioned human beings from maize dough. And Native Americans arrived in the New World thousands of years before Abraham walked the earth. So wheat has not been the chief or most important grain for all human beings for most of human history, but only the chief grain for some humans who lived in certain parts of the world.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Wheat was first domesticated in what is now Turkey and was the main staple in that part of the world. But rice was domesticated just as early and was the main staple in many parts of Asia long before there was any wheat there. Native Americans in the New World had no wheat until the Spaniards arrived about 500 years ago and according to some of their folklore, the Creator first fashioned human beings from maize dough. And Native Americans arrived in the New World thousands of years before Abraham walked the earth. So wheat has not been the chief or most important grain for all human beings for most of human history, but only the chief grain for some humans who lived in certain parts of the world.

What does that have to do with anything? Wheat was not the main crop in China or Japan. Wheat was not a staple in North America. But it was the only acceptable bread ingredient in the time and location in which Jesus lived. It is the only acceptable grain to be used in the bread for the Eucharist. If St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo cannot grow its own wheat to provide for the church, they must import either wheat flour or hosts from a location able to grow wheat. End of story. This has already been addressed.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

What happens if a person is both allergic to wheat/gluten, but as your child can’t drink from a shared cup either? Or even if a person who struggles with alcoholism is allergic to the bread and a taste of alcohol might trigger them to go out after Mass for an alcoholic drink? Can such persons never receive?

 

[Thorolfr]

What happens if a person is both allergic to wheat/gluten, but as your child can’t drink from a shared cup either? Or even if a person who struggles with alcoholism is allergic to the bread and a taste of alcohol might trigger them to go out after Mass for an alcoholic drink? Can such persons never receive?

That’s what I was wondering. It appears that an alcoholic with celiac disease might never be able to receive in the Eucharist.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s what I was wondering. It appears that an alcoholic with celiac disease might never be able to receive in the Eucharist.

How would someone with severe celiac disease become an alcoholic?

Hard liquor and beer are both grain-based, and definitely not gluten-free - if someone with celiac disease were drinking to the point of alcoholism, they’d be dead.

 

[jmcrae]

Wheat was first domesticated in what is now Turkey and was the main staple in that part of the world. But rice was domesticated just as early and was the main staple in many parts of Asia long before there was any wheat there. Native Americans in the New World had no wheat until the Spaniards arrived about 500 years ago and according to some of their folklore, the Creator first fashioned human beings from maize dough. And Native Americans arrived in the New World thousands of years before Abraham walked the earth. So wheat has not been the chief or most important grain for all human beings for most of human history, but only the chief grain for some humans who lived in certain parts of the world.

What in the world is your point? It has already been proven that Jesus used wheat bread at the Last Supper, because He was celebrating the Passover. The Last Supper (the Passover meal) is the prototype of the Mass.

We have no authority to change that. The history of grain isn’t pertinent to anything - the history of the Passover and the history of Christianity are all that matter.