22

I was reading about the Eucharist the other day and read that sometimes in Catholic mass, there is low-gluten bread available for those who are gluten free. The same text said that the bread, once consecrated, ceases to be bread and becomes the body of Christ.

If the bread is no longer bread and indeed the body of Christ, wouldn't it no longer be dangerous to gluten-free people, and if it's no longer dangerous/bread, why cater to the faithful gluten-free? Shouldn't they understand it is no longer bread and instead the body of Christ?

Do I have some sort of misunderstanding of what Catholicism teaches of the Eucharist? I brought this up to my girlfriend who is Catholic, and she said (my interpretation of what she said) that the bread still has its materialistic properties although it has turned into the body of Christ. This didn't really make sense to me at all and I didn't press the issue any further as I felt kind of silly for bringing it up and my lack of knowledge on the subject. Do I have some sort of misunderstanding here or am I looking too deeply into something so "minor"?

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
Pigfaricus
  • 323
  • 2
  • 6

1 Answers1

27

Your girlfriend sounds correct. It may sound silly at first, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation is a well developed, detailed explanation of what happens during the consecration of the bread and wine. It is not a minor thing.

The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation teaches that the substance of the bread, what the bread really is, becomes the Body of Christ. The accidents of the bread, the characteristics like color, taste, etc, are not changed. These are properties that are not essential to what bread is. Red bread would still be bread. The accidents include everything that you could determine using chemistry.

The human body will still react to the host because the chemical accident/characteristic of containing gluten remains true.

Gluten-free hosts

Several people have commented/suggested edits about gluten-free hosts. It is my understanding that these are not valid for the Eucharist. See this letter of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)

To answer a comment:

Note that the words essence , substance , and accidents have a specific philosophical meaning with a history and development that stretches back thousands of years. They don't necessarily agree with how we use the words today, especially if one is coming from a modern, rationalist-materialist worldview.

It is tempting to say that the chemistry of the bread or its components is the essence of the bread, but that does not coincide with how the Catholic Church uses the term essence. An overview of that would be a good question to post (if it has not already been asked).

Community
  • 1
bradimus
  • 3,670
  • 2
  • 21
  • 41
  • This is interesting. So are you saying that the gluten in the bread is an accident of the bread?

    If so, I would consider the chemistry of the bread essential to what the bread is. If the chemistry of the bread isn't essential, why is there supposedly* a problem in not using wheat based bread?

      • my understanding, may be wrong in what Catholocism actually says.
     – Pigfaricus Aug 17 '17 at 17:25
  • 4
    @Pigfaricus I think it is more accurate to say the chemical properties of gluten are accidents of the bread, rather than the gluten itself. They gluten may be essential to bread. I'm not sure, but the augment the CC makes for not having gluten-free bread suggests that maybe it is essential. I've edited my answer to address some of your comment. – bradimus Aug 17 '17 at 17:40
  • 1
    It is strange in my mind to make a division between the chemical properties of gluten and gluten itself. The chemical properties of gluten seem, to me, to be a substance of gluten, and if gluten is a substance of bread, then the chemical properties of gluten would be a substance of the bread. Perhaps this is devolving into a matter of opinion based on whether or not chemical properties of something = something... – Pigfaricus Aug 17 '17 at 17:54
  • 10
    @Pigfaricus This is exactly the point. The idea that something is the sum of its properties, which is the approach science takes, is called nominalism and dates back to the late 12th or early 13th century. The approach the Church uses to understand what goes on here is a much older philosophical idea, dating back to Aristotle if not before, and says that (to paraphrase a CS Lewis character) what something is, and what it is made of, are different. – Matt Gutting Aug 17 '17 at 18:06
  • I understand this, but it seems that when comparing gluten with the bread, bradimus is making the former judgement (nominalism) of what something is and isn't, but in the case of comparing the chemical properties of gluten and gluten itself, (s)he is making the latter judgement of what something is and isn't. What I'm arguing is that both comparisons are similar enough that we should be following the same judgement paradigm for both - either nominalism or philosophical idea. – Pigfaricus Aug 17 '17 at 18:27
  • 1
    @Pigfaricus I am not an expert in Realism, so I'm not sure of the relation of the bread to the gluten. My understanding, and I welcome correction, is that the essence of bread subsumes (?) the essence of the gluten as part of the process of making the bread. Some of the properties of gluten become properties of the bread. This should probably be continued in chat rather than comments, but I'm not sure you have enough reputation to join chat. Let me look at that. – bradimus Aug 17 '17 at 19:00
  • 4
    @MattGutting and bradimus, I'll go ahead and accept this as the most helpful answer. Thanks for all of your comments! – Pigfaricus Aug 17 '17 at 22:05
  • 3
    It may add clarity to contrast substance and form (which is why it's transubstatiate not transform). – OrangeDog Aug 18 '17 at 11:23
  • There are actually two options for people with Celiac Disorder to receive Catholic communion. One is extra-low gluten bread as mentioned earlier, and the other is to take communion via the wine instead. – Robert Columbia Aug 18 '17 at 13:48
  • Host that have zero gluten are not valid matter for communion, per the letter you linked. However, food is termed gluten-free when it has less than 20 mg/kg of gluten (cf. Codex Alimentarius). Thus, you can have gluten-free hosts with gluten enough to be transubstantiated. – Ángel Aug 18 '17 at 20:41
  • 1
    In Southern India where I hail from, rice is the staple food, and wheat is a comparatively new base for baking bread . I wonder whether wheat-flour was originally used here for baking the host, as is the practice now. Assuming that rice-flour was used by Catholics for baking the host in the early centuries in places like India , the question loses most of its relevance. If the consecrated host continues to taste, look and smell like wheat, rather than flesh , there is no point it debating over its anatomical properties. " Senses cannot grasp this marvel...." as the hymn goes ! – Kadalikatt Joseph Sibichan Aug 25 '17 at 10:00