Date: 2017-07-09 05:57 pm (UTC)
mlknchz: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mlknchz
But the bread in communion isn't bread, it's the transubstantiated Body of Christ. Duh.

I neither know, nor care, how vegans or vegetarians get around that.

Date: 2017-07-10 01:51 am (UTC)
armiphlage: (Default)
From: [personal profile] armiphlage
Sooo ... it's possible to turn gluten bread into human flesh, but not gluten-free bread?

Date: 2017-07-10 10:36 am (UTC)
doug: (Default)
From: [personal profile] doug
Yes, surely the concern is that invalid bread would not be transubstantiated and thus render the sacrament null or worse, and that would be Bad. Obviously a McNugget and some Coke would be so far from wine and bread as to be invalid (even for evangelical protestants, I expect), so you need stuff that's closer to actual bread and wine. The difficult decision is precisely where the dividing line should lie.

The text of the ruling is: "Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist. Low-gluten hosts (partially gluten-free) are valid matter, provided they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of procedures that would alter the nature of bread".

From what I can make out, it's the extra additives that are the problem with completely gluten-free hosts - the various starches, xanthan gum and so on that you need to add to make gluten-free flour into bread. My guess is that if you could find a way to make gluten-free bread without the additives it might be acceptable, but you'd have to make sure that the process did not "alter the nature of bread".

It's a bit disappointing: low-gluten hosts are probably not a showstopper big problem for people who are gluten-free by lifestyle choice, but for many Catholic coeliacs it'll be no joke. You can get alcohol-free wine for people who can't take alcohol, but not, apparently, gluten-free hosts.

Date: 2017-07-10 07:27 pm (UTC)
simont: (Default)
From: [personal profile] simont
I was talking (well, typing) about this to a friend this morning and it struck me strongly that 'Catholic coeliac', with its two very similar and yet distinct words, is the typist's analogue of a tongue-twister.

Anyway, what I thought was conspicuously missing from that article was not the theology of how or why this or that is not valid Eucharistic matter, but what you should do about it instead. If the Church is of the opinion that the coeliacs in their pews have no way to take Holy Communion without being poisoned, what is their consequent opinion about the correct response? Will God understand if they don't take communion? Or should they, as it were, suck it up? Should they do constant penance to repent their inability to eat the wafer? If they can't take some alternate form of communion, can they do some completely different ceremony that's as good as communion? What are the theological consequences for them, in all cases?

(... and for good measure, did God set this bad situation up for them on purpose? Though that one's probably a non-starter – it's no different from 5 zillion other situations that apologists have got pat answers for, and will quickly lead into well-trodden and thoroughly muddy Problem of Evil territory.)

Date: 2017-07-10 01:15 pm (UTC)
naath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] naath
It's body of Christ, and Christ consented to the ritual..?

Date: 2017-07-10 03:43 pm (UTC)
mlknchz: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mlknchz
Since He was the first on to do it? I'd say yes

September 2017

      1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 1920212223

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 03:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios