I'm in the weird third category. Not celiac, not wheat-allergic. But when my hands had eczema that persisted for over a year, my doctor suggested that sometimes cutting out gluten seemed to help. And it did. I still receive communion, I can feel it in my gut that my body is reacting to the host, but so far I can tolerate the reaction. I still fear the day is coming when like my sister I will decide I need to stop receiving altogether. She receives from a separate chalice when she can-- she can't always. She's also homebound though, and seldom gets to Mass. And eucharistic ministers can't bring the precious blood. Once she did have a priest friend who brought newly-consecrated wine to her at home. My youngest daughter had a wheat allergy that she fortunately outgrew right before her first communion. But I was thinking a lot about what we would do.... Parishes need to do better.
The weird third category is a huge category, and really runs the gamut in terms of what might or might not be going on, some of it quite serious. TBH it's a whole area of medicine still very poorly understood.
I will say that it is extremely frustrating to listen to a homily on the importance of receiving the Eucharist, but then see parishes, dioceses, and my goodness the national shrine take so little interest in making the sacrament available to all.
I think this undermines belief in the necessity of the sacraments generally, when the Church says one thing and does another.
If the accidents of the Host still remain after consecration, even though it is now truly the Body of Christ, then the gluten effects are real.
Along the same lines, as a recovering alcoholic, I have been criticized for never taking the Precious Blood; that I lack faith, because, after all, it is "no longer wine." But the accidents remain, right? I do believe the wine has truly become the Precious Blood of Christ, but the smell and taste of wine disturb me. And now, from these readings, it seems there's actually alcohol in the Precious Blood. Is that correct?
Yes that's correct. (Just seeing this now, not sure why). That's why the Church allows for the use of "mustum" which is grape juice that has just barely begun fermentation and then is immediately frozen at that point. Technically wine, but with the goal of having so little alcohol it won't trigger a relapse for a recovering alcoholic.
To my knowledge it's not usually offered to laypeople, though it is in theory an option.
You are absolutely doing the right thing. Custody of the senses in the presence of a near occasion of sin. 100% on target.
(The mustum has to be frozen, btw, because otherwise it would continue fermenting. So in fairness, it's a more complicated option. But such a valuable one!)
Congratulations on getting a diagnosis for an illness that is sometimes very difficult to nail down. Sympathies for it being such an annoying one to have.
I have encountered a few Catholics with celiacs who choose to receive once a year during the Easter season. This has always struck me as a wise way to balance the risk to one’s health with the benefits the Eucharist provides us, if one experiences symptoms with the tiny exposures associated with cross-contamination and low-gluten hosts, or is concerned about long-term cumulative damage from small undetected exposures. Obviously health reasons excuse us from even that minimal precept, but if one was looking for a logical line to draw between “never receive the Eucharist” and “regularly receive at risk to my health,” that strikes me as a reasonable one.
I think that solution depends on a lot of intersecting factors (severity of the reaction, overall health status going into Easter, and if interested in low-gluten hosts are they on offer).
For someone who can only receive the host, it's an option to consider. If the person's okay to receive from an uncontaminated chalice, there's really no good reason not to be receiving at every Mass. Many bad reasons, but no good ones.
I'm in the weird third category. Not celiac, not wheat-allergic. But when my hands had eczema that persisted for over a year, my doctor suggested that sometimes cutting out gluten seemed to help. And it did. I still receive communion, I can feel it in my gut that my body is reacting to the host, but so far I can tolerate the reaction. I still fear the day is coming when like my sister I will decide I need to stop receiving altogether. She receives from a separate chalice when she can-- she can't always. She's also homebound though, and seldom gets to Mass. And eucharistic ministers can't bring the precious blood. Once she did have a priest friend who brought newly-consecrated wine to her at home. My youngest daughter had a wheat allergy that she fortunately outgrew right before her first communion. But I was thinking a lot about what we would do.... Parishes need to do better.
The weird third category is a huge category, and really runs the gamut in terms of what might or might not be going on, some of it quite serious. TBH it's a whole area of medicine still very poorly understood.
I will say that it is extremely frustrating to listen to a homily on the importance of receiving the Eucharist, but then see parishes, dioceses, and my goodness the national shrine take so little interest in making the sacrament available to all.
I think this undermines belief in the necessity of the sacraments generally, when the Church says one thing and does another.
"I think this undermines belief in the necessity of the sacraments generally, when the Church says one thing and does another."
Yup.
If the accidents of the Host still remain after consecration, even though it is now truly the Body of Christ, then the gluten effects are real.
Along the same lines, as a recovering alcoholic, I have been criticized for never taking the Precious Blood; that I lack faith, because, after all, it is "no longer wine." But the accidents remain, right? I do believe the wine has truly become the Precious Blood of Christ, but the smell and taste of wine disturb me. And now, from these readings, it seems there's actually alcohol in the Precious Blood. Is that correct?
Thank you.
Yes that's correct. (Just seeing this now, not sure why). That's why the Church allows for the use of "mustum" which is grape juice that has just barely begun fermentation and then is immediately frozen at that point. Technically wine, but with the goal of having so little alcohol it won't trigger a relapse for a recovering alcoholic.
To my knowledge it's not usually offered to laypeople, though it is in theory an option.
You are absolutely doing the right thing. Custody of the senses in the presence of a near occasion of sin. 100% on target.
(The mustum has to be frozen, btw, because otherwise it would continue fermenting. So in fairness, it's a more complicated option. But such a valuable one!)
Congratulations on getting a diagnosis for an illness that is sometimes very difficult to nail down. Sympathies for it being such an annoying one to have.
I have encountered a few Catholics with celiacs who choose to receive once a year during the Easter season. This has always struck me as a wise way to balance the risk to one’s health with the benefits the Eucharist provides us, if one experiences symptoms with the tiny exposures associated with cross-contamination and low-gluten hosts, or is concerned about long-term cumulative damage from small undetected exposures. Obviously health reasons excuse us from even that minimal precept, but if one was looking for a logical line to draw between “never receive the Eucharist” and “regularly receive at risk to my health,” that strikes me as a reasonable one.
I think that solution depends on a lot of intersecting factors (severity of the reaction, overall health status going into Easter, and if interested in low-gluten hosts are they on offer).
For someone who can only receive the host, it's an option to consider. If the person's okay to receive from an uncontaminated chalice, there's really no good reason not to be receiving at every Mass. Many bad reasons, but no good ones.