Church bans gluten-free host

[maryjk]

Originally Posted by adopted heir

I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned yet the practice of Spiritual Communion for when (for whatever reason) you can't receive either Species. There's a lovely Act of Spiritual Communion right in my 1962 missal that I use frequently.

I'm not celiac, but when I was pregnant with my first child I could not swallow any bread--I mean anything. It would immediately come back up, and obviously I didn't want that to occur at Mass with the Body of Christ.

I made a Spiritual Communion every week for a year.

I have to say it was awful. I hated being properly disposed to receive yet staying in my seat. It happens now if I am visiting a parish that doesn't offer the Cup. I still hate it.

[Bob Crowley]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

It blows my mind that this made it into the newspaper.

She is deprived of nothing. Furthermore, she can receive the host if she wants, but doesn't like the taste. How... monstrously silly.

What a waste of bandwidth on their part.

Oh, I don't know. It sounds like nitpicking on the Church's part as far as I'm concerned.

The wafer doesn't become the Lord's body until the Holy Spirit is requested by the priest to "change" it into Christ's body. Until then it's just one more chip in a bag of wafers. When I was doing my RCIA, I remember the priest joking that if an altar boy broke into the sacristy cupboard and drank the wine, he'd be making a big mistake, as it would give him a terrible headache. The inference was that it was not even particularly good wine, let alone the blood of Christ in its unconsecrated form.

Do you think the Holy Spirit is going to quibble because it's not literally wheat, particulary if He knows that a girl with caeliac disease seriously wants to receive commune?

And in many countries, the staple carbohydrate grain is rice, not wheat. But there's not much rice grown in the Middle East.

This sort of nit picking doesn't help the Church's image much in the eyes of unbelievers. Every day thousands of unbelievers are probably disappearing into the jaws of hell, but the big issue of the day in that parish is the wafer components.

[maryjk]

Originally Posted by Bob Crowley

Do you think the Holy Spirit is going to quibble because it's not literally wheat, particulary if He knows that a girl with caeliac disease seriously wants to receive commune?

If the girl seriously wants to receive Communion all she has to do is to receive. No one is stopping her.

But she doesn't like the flavor. As though the Church should have multiple options so she can pick and choose. Maybe they should offer a chocolate Communion.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by Bob Crowley

Oh, I don't know. It sounds like nitpicking on the Church's part as far as I'm concerned.

The wafer doesn't become the Lord's body until the Holy Spirit is requested by the priest to "change" it into Christ's body. Until then it's just one more chip in a bag of wafers. When I was doing my RCIA, I remember the priest joking that if an altar boy broke into the sacristy cupboard and drank the wine, he'd be making a big mistake, as it would give him a terrible headache. The inference was that it was not even particularly good wine, let alone the blood of Christ in its unconsecrated form.

Do you think the Holy Spirit is going to quibble because it's not literally wheat, particulary if He knows that a girl with caeliac disease seriously wants to receive commune?

And in many countries, the staple carbohydrate grain is rice, not wheat. But there's not much rice grown in the Middle East.

This sort of nit picking doesn't help the Church's image much in the eyes of unbelievers. Every day thousands of unbelievers are probably disappearing into the jaws of hell, but the big issue of the day in that parish is the wafer components.

Good thing your individual opinion is rather insignificant. We've stated again and again on this thread that there is NO PROBLEM here. It is a created controversy. The girl can receive safely in at least 2 different ways. In case you didn't realize it, our Church doesn't bend to our individual desires. We are to be obedient to the Church, not the other way around.

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

A quote which had slain argumentum ad populum like a boss.

Well, when you really think about it, what's the point of a religion (or any moral or ethical code for that matter) that doesn't require you to strive for something better? Even Mill's utilitarianism (which is, subjectively speaking, probably one of the "easier" ethical theories) wants people to strive for the greatest aggregate happiness.

Catholicism (and Christianity in general) is not a Jesus Fan Club. It's not like a Dr. Who fan club where we get together and talk about what a great show Dr. Who is (because, obviously, it is ). A religion is something that demands you live your life in a certain way and in accord with certain teachings. If all you're paying is lip service, then functionally you're agnostic (or even an atheist if it's nothing more then a cultural thing).

Any ethical theory is going to tell you what you should do in certain situations, which by definition means there is a right way and a wrong way of doing something. Calling "right" and "wrong" based on whether or not you like it or how you feel is called emotivism, something that even atheist ethical philosophers would call a junk theory (most of them would probably be Kantian or Utilitarian in nature, and both of those have an objective right and wrong). Unfortunately, most of the population seems to generally follow emotivism or some sort of personal-short-term-utilitarianism (greatest happiness for me and me alone right now (short term). Basically any "looking out for #1" people, which is something even Mill would probably denounce).

[EvelynEVF]

One thing about the complicated arrangements is that in a parish with small daily Masses, it's easier to figure things out. We've had screw-ups on the weekend, but daily Mass has fewer variables to manage, so that's an option to make it more likely that things work out to receive.

[epan]

Originally Posted by Bob Crowley

Oh, I don't know. It sounds like nitpicking on the Church's part as far as I'm concerned.

The wafer doesn't become the Lord's body until the Holy Spirit is requested by the priest to "change" it into Christ's body. Until then it's just one more chip in a bag of wafers. When I was doing my RCIA, I remember the priest joking that if an altar boy broke into the sacristy cupboard and drank the wine, he'd be making a big mistake, as it would give him a terrible headache. The inference was that it was not even particularly good wine, let alone the blood of Christ in its unconsecrated form.

Do you think the Holy Spirit is going to quibble because it's not literally wheat, particulary if He knows that a girl with caeliac disease seriously wants to receive commune?

And in many countries, the staple carbohydrate grain is rice, not wheat. But there's not much rice grown in the Middle East.

This sort of nit picking doesn't help the Church's image much in the eyes of unbelievers. Every day thousands of unbelievers are probably disappearing into the jaws of hell, but the big issue of the day in that parish is the wafer components.

You bring up some good points. Can someone give me a scriptural reference to the requirement for wheat?

[zenith15]

To me, it honestly just seems Pharisee-like. Jesus did not specify the exact ingredients of the bread or wine, and I can just see Him shaking his head at all this arguing over whether gluten MUST or may not be a part of the Host if it might make someone ill. Even if all parishes DID offer the cup at all masses, perhaps those with celiac disease would also like to partake of the Lord's body--would He truly forbid them to do so? Would He say "Let the little children come unto me, and forbid them not.....unless they are wheat intolerant"?


Just from curiosity as a new Catholic I am wondering where the tradition came from that either the Precious Blood or the Body of the lord is sufficient--that both do not need to be received, except by the priest--and why only by him?

[Elizium23]

I think what this boils down to is doubt. Hosts made from 100% rice or 100% barley might be consecrable, but we don't know for sure, because God has not revealed to us a Eucharist of anything but wheat.

It's very, very simple. It's not nitpicking, it is obedience. Jesus took wheat bread. Jesus took grape wine. The Jews always used wheat bread and they always used grape wine for their Passover. God never told them "If you're out of wheat, you can use rice. If booze makes you crazy, you can use OJ. No problem, dudes." God has not revealed anything to us but wheat bread and grape wine. Obedient to God, His Church uses wheat bread and grape wine in fidelity to Jesus's actions.

If the Apostles had determined that rice cakes could be used (did they even have such a thing at that time?) then today we would have an option for validity. If it was revealed to the Church, an ecumenical council could have allowed rice as an option. But somewhere in Church history (too lazy to look it up) an ecumenical council infallibly declared that wheat was the only material for certain validity. End of story. The doctrine of the Eucharist is defined and set in stone, there can be no wiggle room anymore.

Ecumenical councils are held to refute heresies and settle doubts. There should be no doubt or uncertainty when it comes to Church doctrine. Sure, sometimes in her wisdom, the Church allows for uncertainty, preferring to leave things undefined: at her Assumption, did Our Lady die first, or was she assumed into heaven alive? The West made no determination on that. It's up for debate by the faithful, whatever we want to believe is fine. Are we free to doubt that rice is valid matter? Yes, but we're not free to believe that it is! We are following in Jesus's footsteps. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Without Him there is no redemption, no eternal life. Would you rather follow him, or follow yourself?

P.S. I just spent some minutes trying to find an ecumenical council that defined valid matter for the Eucharist, but I was not successful. Am I right that it happened this way?

[martininthefiel]

I was an Episcopalian for a long time, and served as a sacristan off-and-on for 25 years or so, including, for a time, in a diocesan cathedral. I was also the vestry member who ordered the communion hosts and the wine in an Anglo-Catholic parish. The rules in TEC are pretty much the same as in the Catholic Church (except that risen bread and pita bread are occasionally used, but it must be exclusively wheat). We ordered the wafers from exactly the same sources as Catholic parishes do.

In all that time, the issue of low-gluten wafers never once came-up. In fact, I was only vaguely aware of their existence until I became a Catholic. I am now an EFM in a large Catholic parish that goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid cross-contamination--including requiring that the EFM who distributes the low-gluten hosts receive on the tongue, so that he does not touch any of the regular hosts while receiving.

I do not doubt what some here have said about their sensitivity to gluten. I just wonder why this never was a problem in TEC.

[epan]

Originally Posted by Elizium23

I think what this boils down to is doubt. Hosts made from 100% rice or 100% barley might be consecrable, but we don't know for sure, because God has not revealed to us a Eucharist of anything but wheat.

It's very, very simple. It's not nitpicking, it is obedience. Jesus took wheat bread. Jesus took grape wine. The Jews always used wheat bread and they always used grape wine for their Passover. God never told them "If you're out of wheat, you can use rice. If booze makes you crazy, you can use OJ. No problem, dudes." God has not revealed anything to us but wheat bread and grape wine. Obedient to God, His Church uses wheat bread and grape wine in fidelity to Jesus's actions.

If the Apostles had determined that rice cakes could be used (did they even have such a thing at that time?) then today we would have an option for validity. If it was revealed to the Church, an ecumenical council could have allowed rice as an option. But somewhere in Church history (too lazy to look it up) an ecumenical council infallibly declared that wheat was the only material for certain validity. End of story. The doctrine of the Eucharist is defined and set in stone, there can be no wiggle room anymore.

Ecumenical councils are held to refute heresies and settle doubts. There should be no doubt or uncertainty when it comes to Church doctrine. Sure, sometimes in her wisdom, the Church allows for uncertainty, preferring to leave things undefined: at her Assumption, did Our Lady die first, or was she assumed into heaven alive? The West made no determination on that. It's up for debate by the faithful, whatever we want to believe is fine. Are we free to doubt that rice is valid matter? Yes, but we're not free to believe that it is! We are following in Jesus's footsteps. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Without Him there is no redemption, no eternal life. Would you rather follow him, or follow yourself?

P.S. I just spent some minutes trying to find an ecumenical council that defined valid matter for the Eucharist, but I was not successful. Am I right that it happened this way?

Barley contains gluten, btw. So does rye.

[englishredrose]

Actually after I had been ill with septicemia, yeh the priest came every week and gave me home communion until I started back at church,But I hadn't the strength to walk down the isle and receive. Or I had but just took too much for me. Having discussed it with the priest he was happy for me to wait until after the service and gave me communion then since I had been in the whole service. But I found that a little bit of a 'public' ordeal in a way.

So in the end he did convince me, which didn't take a lot of doing at all , but basically said it was okay to be present and that in itself is receiving - he didn't say it like that and can't remember his precise words but I think he meant that. Okay I am Anglican and not Catholic. But being present is enough and the Lord knowing the situation.... I could have got down the isle and received but. I could have waited till afterwards. I didn't make the priest come up to me in the organ loft as am in the choir. I happily accepted that being present was enough. And in time I got my strength up enough to walk down the isle. Though even now, four years on there are memory moments that I wonder but get on with it because I tell me its only panic now if I feel bit wobbly etc.

But as pointed out by other posters the girl does have a choice and it is upto the girl to learn it isn't about taste. She isn't missing out of anything at all - or she may be through choice but nothing the Church aint doing to include her as the Church is doing everything to include her and others like her. Its her own choice that she has refused and really as previously stated it shouldn't have got to the media because it a matter really between priest and girl who can work it out between them.

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by epan

You bring up some good points. Can someone give me a scriptural reference to the requirement for wheat?

It's part of Sacred Tradition. It's always been understood that you need to have wheaten bread.

The Catholic Church does not believe in sola scriptura.

[Jimmygill88]

Originally Posted by zenith15

To me, it honestly just seems Pharisee-like. Jesus did not specify the exact ingredients of the bread or wine, and I can just see Him shaking his head at all this arguing over whether gluten MUST or may not be a part of the Host if it might make someone ill. Even if all parishes DID offer the cup at all masses, perhaps those with celiac disease would also like to partake of the Lord's body--would He truly forbid them to do so? Would He say "Let the little children come unto me, and forbid them not.....unless they are wheat intolerant"?


Just from curiosity as a new Catholic I am wondering where the tradition came from that either the Precious Blood or the Body of the lord is sufficient--that both do not need to be received, except by the priest--and why only by him?

The Host and Wine when consecrated both become fully Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity of Christ. So by partaking of either you recieve both. I am not sure where the sense of entitlement that people seem to have nowadays comes from. If you have an allergy to communion wafers then you can't recieve communion in that way. There are no special dispensations. This is either accepted or not but it is the teaching of the church based on Jewish Passover tradition, scriptural sources and evolution of church tradition.

[englishredrose]

aren't we hammering home this thread and isn't it time someone came along and close it please because the original post has more than been answered and yeh could a forum mod close it please before it gets too silly:amen :