I didn’t even now low gluten or gluten free hosts were a thing. Sign of our times perhaps. My first thought in reading this was that I had no idea that celiac disease was such an extreme condition that ingesting even tiny particles of gluten would cause serious issues akin to a deadly food allergy. I looked up some studies and it seems my instincts were correct - it’s really not that dire to ingest a little gluten now and then even if you’re celiac.
So the whole notion of having special procedures regarding the host for celiacs seems overboard to me, and your point about the contrasting general lack of Eucharistic respect in the N.O. Is well taken.
That letter you shared is not a reflection of Catholic beliefs and, in a word, heresy. It sounds like it was written by a generic evangelical Protestant worship leader, not a Catholic priest.
It probably depends on the person and how sick they are. For my daughter, when she was we realized gluten was causing intestinal damage (manifesting as severe pain, loss of appetite, difficulty digesting many foods and extreme weight loss), she didn't start to recover until she stopped receiving even the low-gluten host! We were shocked at what a difference it made, since the low-gluten host has so very little gluten.
Our FSSP parish offers the low-gluten host at every mass, and one priest offers the Precious Blood at his public masses.
I am not as sensitive as my daughter but I experience inflammation (aching joints) when receiving the low-gluten host. Therefore I usually receive the Precious Blood if offered or otherwise make an act of spiritual communion because it is quite painful.
So it may not be "dire" to ingest a little gluten now and then, it can be harmful enough and worth avoiding! I'm very grateful for the options we have now, and that we are in a parish that doesn't have any Eucharistic abuses!
For what it's worth, my Celiac disease used to be so severe and sensitive that I couldn't tolerate even low-gluten host or receive from the chalice after someone else received after having just consumed the host. Literally it could take up to a week to recover and the suffering in the first few days after an exposure was debilitating, and it was honestly terrifying eating anything outside my own kitchen because I had so many disasters from what seemed like the slightest risks. So, yes, it really can be dire. For years, I had to arrange for a separate chalice that I had to receive from before anyone else. It was constantly mortifying and it wasn't unusual for something to go amiss and prevent me from being able to receive. After undergoing an experimental treatment for my Celiac disease over the course of several years (story for another time), I now can receive the ordinary host with no special treatment, which is such a joy. I still react to large amounts of gluten, but even when that happens, the symptoms are minor, not at all like when my disease was severe.
The linked study observes that a small minority of Celiacs voluntarily eat some gluten, and of that group, not all (but still some) showed signs of it causing harm. Naturally this is a non-representative sample because the few Celiacs who eat gluten on purpose are not likely to be those with horrible symptoms upon exposure, so we can't conclude that all Celiacs would have a similar amount of damage. Note that the study doesn't make any claim that all Celiacs can tolerate small amounts. The severity of the disease is known to vary widely from patient to patient. I think it's good to be careful not to invalidate the medical needs that I had and some others have, particularly because we typically have a history of being gaslit by doctors and others for years before the cause is diagnosed, and cross-contamination of something that is normally edible is (quite naturally) very difficult for most people to understand. At the same time, it's perfectly correct to acknowledge that just because someone has Celiac disease doesn't necessarily mean fastidiousness about particles is called for. I have seen how some well-intentioned people seem to go overboard in that way and I don't like it either. The only good answer I have is for everyone to be able to get their disease treated like I was so it's no longer insanely severe. 🤷♀️
Oh my goodness, yes, it can be an enormous issue to ingest a little gluten if you have celiac or a wheat allergy! Weeks of pain, neurological and GI issues, anaphylactic reactions, etc, etc…the list is extensive and affects both long term and short term health. There is no need to scoff at and downplay others’ medical needs to agree with Leila’s point about reverence for Our Lord in the Eucharist!
Claire above me already said this, but it is absolutely dire for celiacs to receive even the smallest amount of gluten. As an autoimmune disease, ingesting more than 20 parts per million of gluten can set off an autoimmune response that leaves the person sick for weeks. Even if they don’t experience any physical symptoms, ingesting gluten still triggers the immune system to release antibodies that are harmful.
Those who choose gluten free for the supposed (yet nonexistent) health benefits have earned a bad reputation for those of us who are forced into the lifestyle out of legitimate health reasons. Mrs. Lawler’s post is lamenting the lack of reverence toward Christ in the Eucharist, which should be equal or indeed even greater than the caution we must use for those (like myself) who are medically gluten intolerant or who have celiac disease.
Your comments on the practical cognitive dissonance around receiving the Eucharist make perfect sense to me.
My wife has Hashimoto's Thyroiditis and must avoid gluten (I believe the situation is even more dire for Celiac's sufferers). She was receiving the 'low gluten' hosts. However, I looked this up in the GIRM; here's what I found:
"320. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently made, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened."
Apparently, the 'low gluten' hosts are 'approved' by the Holy See; however, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal is pretty cut and dried on what is valid. It makes me wonder if the Vatican can 'approve' Doritos or Pop Corners perhaps.
Allowing the gluten intolerant communicants to receive the precious blood makes more sense to me.
I know some with celiac and they can receive the low-gluten hosts. The host can contain *only a particle* because -- and this is the real point -- Our Lord is present even in a particle.
However, if the priest has given out many hosts, the particles from THOSE hosts get on the low-gluten one, and it can be too much for that person. I understand that. I understand that some only receive from the chalice (but again, it can't have been tainted with gluten particles). I understand that they may need all the care demonstrated in the USCCB guideline. I support it.
My only issue is -- why are we not at least that sensitive to the particles scattered all over, in exactly the same way, and not consumed but rather trampled on? Why do we not have the same delicacy and care for Him?
The Vatican has approved a special low gluten host that’s made from wheat germ; it has an undetectable amount of gluten in it for gluten intolerant like myself, but it’s made with enough wheat to count as valid matter.
I totally understand the issue with Celiac and Hashimoto's sufferers. What I question is the Vatican's 'approval' of something different than as defined in the GIRM.
Also, I believe the hosts you refer to are made with rice and less than 20 ppm of wheat.
As far as wheat germ goes, it does contain gluten...a considerable amount.
The GIRM merely says that it must be wheaten bread. Low gluten hosts contain wheat, which is how they’re valid matter. The GIRM doesn’t specify, to my knowledge, how much wheat must be in the hosts.
Directly from the GIRM as published on the USCCB site:
"320. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently made, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened."
The whole document is here for reference. This is why I have questions.
If I may comment on the priest's letter in the local Church bulletin. I'll go point by point.
1. He may see the Mass as a 'community celebration', however, it is NOT. It is the supreme and only efficacious propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sin re-presented; it is literally both the Last Supper and Calvary made manifest temporally for the faithful. Further, we are not as important as the Priest in the Mass. It is vitally important to us, though it does NOT require us in order to be necessary and relevant.
2. This point is pretty much an expression of the sin of presumption and could be material heresy. Taken on its face, it puts parishioners in great danger. If they were to infer that they can receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin they will find that they will not lose God's love, but that it includes his justice and that eternal damnation is a real possibility.
3. Simply, this is material heresy. The Church has declared dogmatically that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY Church and Bride of Christ. Any merits from any other Christian denomination come from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If she were to cease to exist (which isn't actually possible, but IF) then there would be no 'churches' at all.
4. The Bible is not the sole authority on God's word (unless he is a closet Sola Scriptura 'believer'). The dogmas of the Church (whether based on scripture, the Magisterium or Tradition) are to be taken literally. There is no cafeteria now or ever.
5. Heresy. Holy Orders and Baptism do NOT confer the same rights, privileges or authority; period.
6. Also heresy. The Church is NOT a human institution. It is Christ's institution. We are its members and the Magisterium its caretakers.
7. Disingenuous at best. Baptism and Consecration of the Eucharist are unchangeable sacraments in form, matter and intention. The other five have varied slightly in form. The 'pastoral' interpretation of Quo Primum is - more than likely - incorrect, based on its dogmatic treatment by the Magisterium from 1570 until 1970. Consequently, the entire liturgy may, in fact, be unchangeable in toto.
8. Regardless of conscience, we may NOT disagree with the dogmatic teachings of the Church "and still be good Catholics." I wonder if he would agree that we can disagree with his sacrilegious musings for departing from Church tradition and "still be good Catholics" - probably not because traditionally minded Catholics have a mental disorder according to the Holy Father (please pray for him to hold fast to that with which he has been entrusted).
9. We cannot take responsibility for the marginalized. We are called to live out and express to them the virtue of Charity.
10. The member of the Episcopacy who have been (and still are) complicit in sexual sins of various types must be held accountable, not "the Church" as a whole.
Great article. It clearly motivated me. God bless.
He is indeed a heretic, but a really lazy one, can we agree. My issue with 1. is the idea that the preconciliar Church held that Mass is a private devotion LOL. I guess he means when Pius XII clarified that a priest may say Mass alone, without a server? Then we are back to laziness, IMO -- he doesn't want the responsibility of saying it without a, not server, because that is not an NO thing, but let's say a congregation (I'm resisting the urge to throw in an "audience")
I love it when you post these kinds of little rants, Mrs. Lawler. I couldn't read the entire letter, since I'm on my phone, but from reading the excerpts you quoted I can tell this is one of those little bulletin sections of "wisdom" that are really full of hogwash. I think we're in more trouble than we realize.
I didn’t even now low gluten or gluten free hosts were a thing. Sign of our times perhaps. My first thought in reading this was that I had no idea that celiac disease was such an extreme condition that ingesting even tiny particles of gluten would cause serious issues akin to a deadly food allergy. I looked up some studies and it seems my instincts were correct - it’s really not that dire to ingest a little gluten now and then even if you’re celiac.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7075003/
So the whole notion of having special procedures regarding the host for celiacs seems overboard to me, and your point about the contrasting general lack of Eucharistic respect in the N.O. Is well taken.
That letter you shared is not a reflection of Catholic beliefs and, in a word, heresy. It sounds like it was written by a generic evangelical Protestant worship leader, not a Catholic priest.
It probably depends on the person and how sick they are. For my daughter, when she was we realized gluten was causing intestinal damage (manifesting as severe pain, loss of appetite, difficulty digesting many foods and extreme weight loss), she didn't start to recover until she stopped receiving even the low-gluten host! We were shocked at what a difference it made, since the low-gluten host has so very little gluten.
Our FSSP parish offers the low-gluten host at every mass, and one priest offers the Precious Blood at his public masses.
I am not as sensitive as my daughter but I experience inflammation (aching joints) when receiving the low-gluten host. Therefore I usually receive the Precious Blood if offered or otherwise make an act of spiritual communion because it is quite painful.
So it may not be "dire" to ingest a little gluten now and then, it can be harmful enough and worth avoiding! I'm very grateful for the options we have now, and that we are in a parish that doesn't have any Eucharistic abuses!
I am all in favor of the accommodation!
For what it's worth, my Celiac disease used to be so severe and sensitive that I couldn't tolerate even low-gluten host or receive from the chalice after someone else received after having just consumed the host. Literally it could take up to a week to recover and the suffering in the first few days after an exposure was debilitating, and it was honestly terrifying eating anything outside my own kitchen because I had so many disasters from what seemed like the slightest risks. So, yes, it really can be dire. For years, I had to arrange for a separate chalice that I had to receive from before anyone else. It was constantly mortifying and it wasn't unusual for something to go amiss and prevent me from being able to receive. After undergoing an experimental treatment for my Celiac disease over the course of several years (story for another time), I now can receive the ordinary host with no special treatment, which is such a joy. I still react to large amounts of gluten, but even when that happens, the symptoms are minor, not at all like when my disease was severe.
The linked study observes that a small minority of Celiacs voluntarily eat some gluten, and of that group, not all (but still some) showed signs of it causing harm. Naturally this is a non-representative sample because the few Celiacs who eat gluten on purpose are not likely to be those with horrible symptoms upon exposure, so we can't conclude that all Celiacs would have a similar amount of damage. Note that the study doesn't make any claim that all Celiacs can tolerate small amounts. The severity of the disease is known to vary widely from patient to patient. I think it's good to be careful not to invalidate the medical needs that I had and some others have, particularly because we typically have a history of being gaslit by doctors and others for years before the cause is diagnosed, and cross-contamination of something that is normally edible is (quite naturally) very difficult for most people to understand. At the same time, it's perfectly correct to acknowledge that just because someone has Celiac disease doesn't necessarily mean fastidiousness about particles is called for. I have seen how some well-intentioned people seem to go overboard in that way and I don't like it either. The only good answer I have is for everyone to be able to get their disease treated like I was so it's no longer insanely severe. 🤷♀️
As I said in the post, I am totally for taking care of someone with this disease.
Imagine if we were this delicate about Our Lord in the particles...
Oh my goodness, yes, it can be an enormous issue to ingest a little gluten if you have celiac or a wheat allergy! Weeks of pain, neurological and GI issues, anaphylactic reactions, etc, etc…the list is extensive and affects both long term and short term health. There is no need to scoff at and downplay others’ medical needs to agree with Leila’s point about reverence for Our Lord in the Eucharist!
Claire above me already said this, but it is absolutely dire for celiacs to receive even the smallest amount of gluten. As an autoimmune disease, ingesting more than 20 parts per million of gluten can set off an autoimmune response that leaves the person sick for weeks. Even if they don’t experience any physical symptoms, ingesting gluten still triggers the immune system to release antibodies that are harmful.
Those who choose gluten free for the supposed (yet nonexistent) health benefits have earned a bad reputation for those of us who are forced into the lifestyle out of legitimate health reasons. Mrs. Lawler’s post is lamenting the lack of reverence toward Christ in the Eucharist, which should be equal or indeed even greater than the caution we must use for those (like myself) who are medically gluten intolerant or who have celiac disease.
On low-gluten hosts:
Your comments on the practical cognitive dissonance around receiving the Eucharist make perfect sense to me.
My wife has Hashimoto's Thyroiditis and must avoid gluten (I believe the situation is even more dire for Celiac's sufferers). She was receiving the 'low gluten' hosts. However, I looked this up in the GIRM; here's what I found:
"320. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently made, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened."
Apparently, the 'low gluten' hosts are 'approved' by the Holy See; however, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal is pretty cut and dried on what is valid. It makes me wonder if the Vatican can 'approve' Doritos or Pop Corners perhaps.
Allowing the gluten intolerant communicants to receive the precious blood makes more sense to me.
I know some with celiac and they can receive the low-gluten hosts. The host can contain *only a particle* because -- and this is the real point -- Our Lord is present even in a particle.
However, if the priest has given out many hosts, the particles from THOSE hosts get on the low-gluten one, and it can be too much for that person. I understand that. I understand that some only receive from the chalice (but again, it can't have been tainted with gluten particles). I understand that they may need all the care demonstrated in the USCCB guideline. I support it.
My only issue is -- why are we not at least that sensitive to the particles scattered all over, in exactly the same way, and not consumed but rather trampled on? Why do we not have the same delicacy and care for Him?
Absolutely true. I'm with you on this. Why do we not have the reverence as such?
The Vatican has approved a special low gluten host that’s made from wheat germ; it has an undetectable amount of gluten in it for gluten intolerant like myself, but it’s made with enough wheat to count as valid matter.
I totally understand the issue with Celiac and Hashimoto's sufferers. What I question is the Vatican's 'approval' of something different than as defined in the GIRM.
Also, I believe the hosts you refer to are made with rice and less than 20 ppm of wheat.
As far as wheat germ goes, it does contain gluten...a considerable amount.
The GIRM merely says that it must be wheaten bread. Low gluten hosts contain wheat, which is how they’re valid matter. The GIRM doesn’t specify, to my knowledge, how much wheat must be in the hosts.
Directly from the GIRM as published on the USCCB site:
"320. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently made, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened."
The whole document is here for reference. This is why I have questions.
https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal
Here’s a good article explaining it: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/261839/cna-explainer-how-are-low-gluten-communion-hosts-made-for-mass. The low gluten hosts are made only of wheat starch and water, which is why they’re valid matter per Canon Law.
Wow, that is one depressing exposé of the Modernist post conciliar Church. Hermeneutic of rupture, much?
If I may comment on the priest's letter in the local Church bulletin. I'll go point by point.
1. He may see the Mass as a 'community celebration', however, it is NOT. It is the supreme and only efficacious propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sin re-presented; it is literally both the Last Supper and Calvary made manifest temporally for the faithful. Further, we are not as important as the Priest in the Mass. It is vitally important to us, though it does NOT require us in order to be necessary and relevant.
2. This point is pretty much an expression of the sin of presumption and could be material heresy. Taken on its face, it puts parishioners in great danger. If they were to infer that they can receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin they will find that they will not lose God's love, but that it includes his justice and that eternal damnation is a real possibility.
3. Simply, this is material heresy. The Church has declared dogmatically that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY Church and Bride of Christ. Any merits from any other Christian denomination come from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If she were to cease to exist (which isn't actually possible, but IF) then there would be no 'churches' at all.
4. The Bible is not the sole authority on God's word (unless he is a closet Sola Scriptura 'believer'). The dogmas of the Church (whether based on scripture, the Magisterium or Tradition) are to be taken literally. There is no cafeteria now or ever.
5. Heresy. Holy Orders and Baptism do NOT confer the same rights, privileges or authority; period.
6. Also heresy. The Church is NOT a human institution. It is Christ's institution. We are its members and the Magisterium its caretakers.
7. Disingenuous at best. Baptism and Consecration of the Eucharist are unchangeable sacraments in form, matter and intention. The other five have varied slightly in form. The 'pastoral' interpretation of Quo Primum is - more than likely - incorrect, based on its dogmatic treatment by the Magisterium from 1570 until 1970. Consequently, the entire liturgy may, in fact, be unchangeable in toto.
8. Regardless of conscience, we may NOT disagree with the dogmatic teachings of the Church "and still be good Catholics." I wonder if he would agree that we can disagree with his sacrilegious musings for departing from Church tradition and "still be good Catholics" - probably not because traditionally minded Catholics have a mental disorder according to the Holy Father (please pray for him to hold fast to that with which he has been entrusted).
9. We cannot take responsibility for the marginalized. We are called to live out and express to them the virtue of Charity.
10. The member of the Episcopacy who have been (and still are) complicit in sexual sins of various types must be held accountable, not "the Church" as a whole.
Great article. It clearly motivated me. God bless.
He is indeed a heretic, but a really lazy one, can we agree. My issue with 1. is the idea that the preconciliar Church held that Mass is a private devotion LOL. I guess he means when Pius XII clarified that a priest may say Mass alone, without a server? Then we are back to laziness, IMO -- he doesn't want the responsibility of saying it without a, not server, because that is not an NO thing, but let's say a congregation (I'm resisting the urge to throw in an "audience")
I love it when you post these kinds of little rants, Mrs. Lawler. I couldn't read the entire letter, since I'm on my phone, but from reading the excerpts you quoted I can tell this is one of those little bulletin sections of "wisdom" that are really full of hogwash. I think we're in more trouble than we realize.
I shared this on my Facebook group Catholic Hoosier (about 1870 members). Nicely done! Feel welcome to join our group.