www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Church bans gluten-free host.

Gluten-Free [dispatch.com]

Good work for the Diocese. Not so good work by the priest, who should have known better.

What the article doesn't make clear, of course, is that the girl wasn't receving the Eucharist at all when she consumed the wheat free "hosts".

“She was pretty upset about it,” Beth Sisson said. “I think she was afraid people would think she wasn’t Catholic if she didn’t take the host.”

Time for some catechesis for the congregation on the doctrine of concomittance.

Either take the host, or blessing. But, it's really important to address the issue pertaining to those with celiac disease. But, I think gluten free hosts should be made available. There are varying degrees of after effects, when celiacs consume gluten. I do n't agree with this decree. It just cheapens first Communion for celiacs

There are gluten-free products made from wheat.

Lester, the article says that the diocese banned (really reiterated the ban on) gluten-free hosts not made of wheat.

When properly informed, the parish made available the low gluten(contains teeny tiny amount) hosts that are made of wheat (e.g. those sold by the Benedictines in [altarbreadsbspa.com] Clyde, MO.), but the girl said they tasted "disgusting".

Is the issue not resolved by permitting communicants with celiac disease to receive the Precious Blood, alone? The doctrine is that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ are present under either species. Since communicants with celiac disease are permitted to receive the Precious Blood, alone, I don't understand the controversy. Am I missing something?

Don't let the facts stop you from writing the same old "Church is bad", "poor [fill-in-the-blank]" byline.

This is exactly what the girl mentioned in the article has chosen to do. Why is this an issue worthy of a newspaper article? That she's not happy about it seems a non-issue. She can and does receive Holy Communion.

Actually, there does seem to be something newsworthy in the article! Just not what the reporter has chosen to focus on. The newsworthy thing is that the Church was for a time using non-wheat hosts which are invalid matter for the Eucharist!

Bishop Peter Elliott in his book Liturgical Question Box has bit where he emphasizes the pastor's duty to make sure that the elements used for the Eucharist:

Very true, RI. I lost sight of that very fact.

Forgive me, but in the Orthodox church, the Eucharist is considered such a miracle that it will not make any one ill; that is why we do not fear sharing the spoon of the chalice with strangers..

It should be the same in the RC church since the theology of the miracle of transubstantiation is the same. However, I have noticed that in the RC church, even the chalice is wiped after each communicant sips...

Dear Alice,

The Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation does not imply that the chemical structure of the elements are changed. The chemical structure is part of the accidents, not the substance. That is why those with celiac disease will generally not receive the host, but only the precious blood, or why alcoholics may elect not to receive the precious blood, but only the host. Also, a bishop can grant an alcoholic priest permission to consecrate mustum. Also, I have heard of instances in which Eastern priests who are diabetic will have have the deacon consume the consecrated elements that remain after everyone has communed. Personally, I would not characterize any of these choices as being impious or showing a lack of faith. Nor do I think they suggest a denial of the miracle of the changing of mere bread and wine (or mustum) into the body and blood of our Lord.

The substance of the body and blood of our Lord will certainly not harm us. However, someone with celiac disease can be harmed by the accidents of the gluten. A diabetic can be harmed by the accidents of sugars. An alcoholic can by harmed by the accidents of alcohol, etc.

Please forgive my seeming insensitivity--it is easy to talk when you don't suffer from any ailment which is in question.

However, as far as alcholics, there is varying advice and thought from an Eastern perspective, and I offer this Orthodox thread from another forum for consideration:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1401-Alcoholism-and-the-Eucharist

Again, none of this concerns me, so again I sincerely ask for forgiveness if I have offended anyone. In all things, seek out the advice of a priest and/or spiritual father.

Alice

Dear Alice,

I'm not offended. I just wanted to clarify a few things from my understanding of the Roman Catholic perspective.

Sincerely,

Ryan

It always seemed to me that worries about the alcohol in the Eucharist are misplaced, because the wine itself (no more than perhaps 6% alcohol) is first diluted with water (assume roughly by half), and then further diluted by the Zeon, which, being warm, also causes more alcohol to evaporate. So, by the time the Chalice is presented to the faithful, its alcohol content has been reduced to less than 2%. The spoon is only a fraction of a teaspoon in volume, so that the volume of liquid consumed is much less than an ounce, which means the alcohol involved is vestigial at best. If there is an effect on an alcoholic, it is more likely to be psychosomatic than anything else--he thinks he's drinking a substantial amount of alcohol and reacts appropriately (we once got my sister drunk on ginger ale one New Years Eve, when she was five, by telling her it was champaign). The problem for priests and deacons is a bit different, as they are actually called upon to consume the remaining contents of the Chalice after the Liturgy.

On the other hand, the body's immune system can react violently to even trace amounts of certain proteins if one is allergic to them. Hence there may be no "acceptable minimum amount" of gluten in a wheat product. And regardless of how pious a person is, consuming the consecrated Bread from the Chalice will invoke a physiological response. But there already are acceptable gluten-free wheat products which ought to be acceptable to the Church.

This has already been an issue with perhaps historically significant ramifications. When the Jesuits arrived in China in the 16th century, they quickly discovered that large parts of the Chinese population had wheat allergies (which is why they eat rice), and asked Rome for permission to make hosts from rice flour. Permission was refused, and this probably had at least some impact on the failure of their mission (the Church of the East, entering China from the northwest, only evangelized in wheat-growing regions).

It seems to me our use of wheat is to some extent an accident of history: Christ lived in Judaea and Galilee, where people ate bread made from wheat. Had he lived in Southeast Asia, we would be using rice cakes in the Eucharist. It really isn't the flour that is important, so much as the mystagogical symbolism of bread (and wine): we have been given all of creation by God, and in the Eucharist we offer it back to God in thanksgiving--but not in its raw form of wheat and grapes, but rather transformed by the hand of man into bread and wine, that we might share in God's divine nature as co-creators. God accepts the gift from our hands, and by the action of his Holy Spirit, transforms them into the Body and Blood of Christ, that we by consuming them might also be transformed and united to Him.