The Gluten-Free Host Controversy

[MineralMan]

I happened on a website that is selling Gluten Free altar breads. A disclaimer in the ad says that they are not approved by the Roman Catholic Church. My curiosity was piqued, so I did some more searching. Apparently this has been a controversy for some time. Here's some material - some official explanations, from the EWTN website.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur47.htm

Apparently, if there is no gluten, there is no bread, so transubstantiation cannot occur. I wonder about this, though. If bread can miraculously be transformed into flesh, wouldn't another simple miracle turn a gluten-free host into the same thing?

On another note, I also saw a double-thickness host available. I'm not sure why, though.

Doctrinal issues are so interesting...

[virgogal]

1. Many folks just pass on the wine,so the gluten intolerant folks should just skip the bread.

[Ilsa]

2. But what would they dip into the cup if they have no wafer or bread? nt

[MineralMan]

10. And what's more, how can they take the wine if hosts

containing gluten have been dipped in it? The problem is a compound one, it seems. If they cannot take the host or the wine, can there be the sacrament at all?

One wonders what Jesus would say about this serious controversy. I can find no Biblical reference to gluten or to celiac disease, sadly, so I'm clueless in this matter.

I will not even discuss the prohibition against eating meat and blood together. Down that road lies madness, I'm sure.

Leviticus 19:26 - Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

[pnwmom]

28. And why should the definition of bread require gluten? Who made up that definition?

It's not anywhere in the bible.

Celiacs eat bread all the time, with guar gum or xanthum gum instead of gluten. Just not rye or wheat bread.

[trotsky]

30. Your church did. n/t

[pnwmom]

31. Some men in my Church did. Strange things happen

when you put men in charge.

[trotsky]

34. Those men ARE your church.

Sorry to have to break that to you.

[pnwmom]

40. They comprise less than half the Church.

But men comprise the great majority of the power-trippers.

[trotsky]

48. But they dictate the rules.

Keep defending your church if you want, it's readily apparent who's really in charge.

[pnwmom]

54. The rules that no one follows

unless they agree with them.

Like the ban against artificial contraception, which is ignored by an overwhelming number of Catholics.

[trotsky]

56. Amazing gymnastics!

Quite impressive. Good job!

[Scootaloo]

79. Then are they really Catholics?

Disclosure; I'm an admitted atheist. But if I decided to believe in god on Tuesdays, starting around four and going on until bed, would I still be an atheist? Nope, I'd be... well, I'm not sure what you'd call that, but it wouldn't be atheism.

If you ignore the doctrines of Catholicism, then are you a Catholic? Or just Catholic-flavored?

[virgogal]

36. Nothing,just pass their empty hand over it.

[Goblinmonger]

6. They can't.

They need to take communion at least once a year.

[pnwmom]

29. No, taking in one form only is sufficient. But even that would be a problem

for an alcoholic person with celiac or a wheat allergy.

[pnwmom]

25. What should gluten-intolerant alcoholics do? And what happens when

a gluten free person has to follow people who've dipped their hosts into the wine?


(Even a tiny exposure can cause the anaphylactoid reaction.)

[meow2u3]

35. Wine with the alcohol removed

That's what the Church allows for recovering alchoholic priests.

[virgogal]

37. I just wouldn't take communion in that case.

[backscatter712]

3. I remember hearing about a girl who was severely allergic to gluten.

She was Catholic, but unable to participate in Mass, because the clergy refused to let her do the ritual with gluten-free wafers.

Shitty way to treat a girl with a medical condition, if you ask me.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. There are so many levels of information in your post

Well done, MM, well done!

[freshwest]

5. The wheat protein is in the gluten. Rumor is that is what interacts with your DNA.

Thus, it builds your body a certain way. Genetics, huh?

[MineralMan]

7. Yes, but that is the problem, really.

If the gluten is an essential ingredient in the bread, and transubstantiation cannot occur without it, what is to be done with people who have very serious celiac disease? Is the doctrinal issue of primary importance or is the spiritual health of the individual with that disease a consideration? These are the crucial questions that try my intellect, you see.

I discovered, after doing some more research that the Anglican church is OK with gluten-free hosts, as are most Protestant denominations. Can they truly be Christians if they do not honor the doctrine? It's so puzzling, and so vexing, I think. I'm not concerned for myself, since I am neither a celiac patient or a Christian, but these things are quite worrisome. A crucial element that separates one denomination of Christianity from another. So many denominations; so many doctrinal differences.

[freshwest]

16. It's not a loving thing to do in any case to reject someone because they are different. Evangelical

Churches (some of them, anyway) can be just as unfair to those for something as simple as being ill.

They start looking for the devil in them or saying their faith isn't strong enough, or even 'Maybe you weren't really saved.'

This is so hurtful to people who are vulnerable. It's part of the reason I started seeing more sense in the irreverent Pat Condell than those local preachers.

[skepticscott]

17. Well, if transsubstantiation DID occur

there would be no more gluten, since what had been bread would now be literal flesh. Funny thing, though...people with wheat gluten allergy are still affected. Needless to say, the RCC has gone through all sorts of theological contortions to explain that away, and to get things to come out in perfect accord with their doctrine. But deep down, everyone knows that TS is bullshit...

[MineralMan]

21. Well, now, there's another knotty issue.

It just gets more complicated. I hadn't considered that. Now in most Protestant denominations, there is no actual transubstantiation, but only a symbolic transformation, although the original Lutheran doctrine has it both ways, with the host being both bread and body, although some Lutheran clergy dismiss that theory. Much has changed in the Lutheran doctrine over the years, and it has splintered anyhow into multiple sub-denominations, including Michelle Bachmann's old Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church that still considers the Papacy in Rome to be the Antichrist.

But, that's an entirely other issue, and too off-topic to discuss in this thread.

[Ilsa]

32. Can I alert on you for being logical

and reasonable?

[skepticscott]

39. Alas, no...as much as the thought is appreciated..

Though I certainly can't take credit for this argument against TS..it's an old one.

[Freddie]

38. Lutheran (ELCA) here

We offer gluten-free (rice) wafers as well as regular hosts, also choice of wine or grape juice. It happens that our pastor has celiac disease and it was his idea. I trust that he is good with the theology aspect.

[MineralMan]

58. That's typical. The Lutheran church is more flexible

than the Roman Catholic church in this matter, and in many other matters of doctrine. Depending on the particular ELCA Lutheran Church, many Catholics will find a style of liturgy that is quite similar to what they are used to, without the misogyny, homophobia, and other issues that are so disturbing to many Catholics. In Minnesota, it's a short walk from any Catholic church to an ELCA church. Many have made that walk. It's all Christianity, after all.

[Freddie]

80. I like to tell people

The Lutheran Church is just like the Catholic Church, without the Pope or the hate.

[MineralMan]

89. That's a pretty good description, I think.

[trotsky]

8. I remember reading about this some time ago.

And being highly amused.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

9. You know what amuses me?

Is the wafer still considered the host after I digest and vacate it?

[trotsky]

11. Oh dear.

[MineralMan]

12. I believe the doctrine says that it is

absorbed wholly into your spirit. There is no excrement or waste involved. It is, after all, a miraculous transformation. Once the miracles begin, anything is possible, I'd think.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

13. Well golly, that doesn't sound like it fits the laws of physics

Or maybe there's "another way of knowing" physics?

[MineralMan]

15. Clearly, miracles are beyond the bounds of those "laws."

They wouldn't be proper miracles at all if they were, innit? Proper miracles are essential. Still, if one miracle can change wheaten bread into the body of a deity, doesn't it stand to reason that a similar one could do the same with the gluten-free host? One good miracle deserves another, I'd say.

[MineralMan]

14. The problem may have been resolved, but I'm uncertain:

From: http://teaattrianon.forumotion.com/t196-gluten-free-hosts

http://vultus.stblogs.org/2011/12/appalled.html
A Grave Abuse: Invalid Matter for the Most Holy Eucharist

A local Church Goods store here in Tulsa, Oklahoma is supplying Catholic parishes with gluten free "Communion Wafers" made by Ener-G Foods Inc. Here are the ingredients:

Filtered Water, Sweet Rice Flour, Potato Flour, Organic Palm Fruit Oil, Potato Starch, Methylcellulose, Sunflower Lecithin.

One can no more confect the Body of Christ using such "wafers" than one can use cider or orange juice for the confection of the Precious Blood. It is appalling that this product has found its way into the sacristies of Catholic churches across the country. Who is responsible? Or, as my Dad would say, "Who is minding the store?"

Canon Law is explicit:
Can. 924 §1. The most holy Eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed. §2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling. §3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.

Catholics with celiac disease, receiving such "wafers" are not receiving the Body of Christ. The consecration of such wafers is invalid, and the use of them is a grave abuse, given that it concerns the matter of the Sacrament.

Hosts Made by the Benedictines of Clyde Missouri

There is another solution. Sister Jane Heschmeyer and Sister Lynn Marie D'Souza, Benedictine nuns of Clyde, Missouri have developed a Communion host that has been approved as valid material for the Most Holy Eucharist by the Holy See.

With a level of gluten content of 0.01% it is safe enough for consumption by almost all celiac suffers, according to Dr. Alessio Fasano of the University of Maryland and other medical experts.

The U.S. Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy judges the Benedictine Sisters' bread "the only true, low-gluten altar bread approved for use at Mass in the United States."

"safe enough for consumption by almost all celiac sufferers." Perhaps the issue has not been resolved. What of the others?

I have not seen this use of the word "confect" or "confection" with regard to that sacrament before either. More research into this "Grave Abuse" will be needed. Of that, I'm certain...

[rug]

18. Myers did it better

but it was just as stupid.

[MineralMan]

20. Odd that you should mention that.

It was that very image from your post that sent me searching for more information. If that wafer in the image had not been consecrated, is it actually a host, or just a cracker? I don't remember if it was a consecrated host or not. I see that you can order Altar Bread freely on line. Perhaps the image is just a work of art.

I always defer to Meyers in these matters, anyhow, but I don't believe he addressed the gluten-free host controversy, and it is, indeed, a controversy. Although the American Bishops have approved the extremely low gluten hosts, is Rome OK with that? I have not been able to determine that, so far. If not, then are the American Bishops in approval of invalid matter being used in the sacrament?

Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

[rug]

23. I will as soon as you clarify the differences between

philosophical atheists, logical atheists, scientific atheists, nihilistic atheists, humanist atheists, skeptical atheists, proud atheists, anonymous atheists, accommodating atheists, converted theists, reared atheists, implicit atheists, explicit atheists, practical atheists, rationalist atheists, intuitive atheists, and gem collectors.

It's so confusing.

[MineralMan]

44. Sorry. This thread is about something else.

Besides, I'm an individual atheist, without any connections to any groups of atheists. I simply do not and cannot believe in any supernatural entities or events.

[rug]

47. Yes, it is about something else.

[trotsky]

24. Did what?

MM was asking a doctrinal question about Roman Catholicism, something that you (being Catholic and fully supporting said doctrine, I must assume, since you remain in the church) might be able to comment upon.

Who gives a flying wafer about something PZ Myers did four years ago?

Oh, I guess you do. Aww, rug. If it makes you feel any better, you can see he defiled The God Delusion too. I hope you can get over this insult to your religion. It's been four years. Let it go, you'll feel better.

[rug]

26. Considering he marked his own four year anniversary, I'd say PZ does.

And he was not asking a doctrinal question, he was attempting a pale imitation of Swift for the benefit of the Lilliputians.

You should thank him.

[trotsky]

27. And considering you marked it by posting about it, clearly you do too.

You and Bill Donohue have yet another thing in common. How sweet!

Please proceed with your snappy last word (make it nice and back-handed, please!), since you have nothing to say about the actual topic of this thread.

[rug]

33. Of course I do. Monumental acts of stupidity should not be forgotten.

Here's another.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. that act was done out of sincerely held religious beliefs

surely destruction of ancient monuments should be allowed for religious reasons if ritual genital mutilation of infants must be permitted for the same reasons.

[rug]

49. You do not exhibit a nuanced mind.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. where "nuance" here means "I speak nonsense and never admit errors"

yes that is correct.

You do know that since 50CE or so chopping off bits ceased to be a requirement, right?

[rug]

65. I gave you too much credit. You do not know even nuance.

[MineralMan]

45. I was, indeed, asking a doctrinal question.

I even provided actual material demonstrating that it is a controversy being discussed elsewhere. Now, I think it is a foolish doctrinal issue, but that does not keep me from asking about it. I'm always interested in doctrinal questions, especially as they relate to differences between denominations of a religion. I have unusual interests, that way.

[rug]

52. As I stated below, if this is the case, I invite you to the Catholic and Orthodox Group.

It's there precisely for this type of discussion.

Unless you prefer the uninformed, juvenile snark your post has generated here.

[MineralMan]

55. No, I think I'll keep it right here in the Religion Group.

It also discusses other denominations and their doctrine in that regard. But, thanks for your suggestion.

[rug]

64. Suit yourself.

[MineralMan]

67. I will do just that, as always.

Thanks for your permission, good sir.

[rug]

71. As will I.

[MineralMan]

74. Then we are agreed!

That is progress, to be sure.

[rug]

76. Actually, no.

That path does not, as you stated, require agreement.

[Evoman]

19. Gods, people will argue about the dumbest things.

Just accept it, people with Celiacs. God wants you to have the shits.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. it is no longer bread it is god flesh with the accidental properties of bread.

perhaps gluten allergies are not triggered?

[MineralMan]

59. Apparently, they are triggered, though.

Hence the controversy. To learn more about the controversy, Google gluten-free host. There are plenty of hits and discussions on this subject. While it probably doesn't affect a huge number of people, it is still an issue about inclusionary vs. exclusionary doctrines.

[dimbear]

22. Too hard for me. Still wondering why witches float and nonwitches sink.

It is good to see religion reaching out to science, tho. Kind of heartwarming.

[jeepnstein]

46. Because.... They're made of wood?

[dimbear]

82. What a great movie. Classic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Does anyone have sufficient Greek, and know the original words in the gospels,

to know if that priest is referring to something in the bible when he specified that Jesus said it was wheat, and only wheat, bread that would do; or is he claiming some revelation to a pope that wheat was the magic ingredient (or even gluten, for which the first use as 'wheat or other grain' protein was 1803)?

In English, we know that 'bread' includes that made from other grains. It's not as if the things handed out in most churches fit the normal English meaning of 'bread' - they are pasty wafers, that don't appear to have ever been dough, whether or not any leavening has taken place, and are no closer to bread than pasta is. So it does seem truly bizarre for the Catholic hierarchy to have a stick up its arse about this. Did some pope still have an ancient yearning for a goddess of wheat, and decided that wheat had to be present? Or do the original gospels use a word that says that it's 'bread' that has to be made with wheat?

[MineralMan]

50. It's a bit complicated. The assumption is that

the bread at the Last Supper was made of matzoh, since it occurred at Passover. The altar bread used for the host is unleavened, like the Passover bread. The difficulty comes in determining the actual composition of the matzoh in ancient times. It was unleavened, certainly, but the type of grain used is unclear. The wheat we know today that is used for bread was almost certainly not available in that region in old testament times. So, nobody is quite sure what grain was used to make the matzoh meal used in those days.

When Christianity became entrenched in Roman times and began to spread through Europe, the grains available differed from those in Old Testament times in the Middle East. Catholicism is a European invention, and the doctrines developed according to European conventions. There's no real logical reason for demanding that only wheat be used in the host. The definition of what is "bread" varies and has varied, depending on location, for millenia.

So, the restriction is really an artificial one, which is typical for doctrinal details, and that's the reason for this post. It's a meaningless distinction, really.

[rug]

51. If you want a discussion on this topic, I invite you to the Catholc and Orthodox Group.

Tha's what it's there for.

Interestingly, the Orthodox differ from the Catholic by the use of intinction.

Of course, you may stay here and discuss "magic ingredients" instead.

[MineralMan]

57. There is a discussion ongoing right here,

that is not limited just to Roman Catholic doctrine. Please don't hijack my thread and tell people to go elsewhere. That's impolite, at best. That poster replied to my original post, and I provided an answer. While you're certainly able to also respond, your reply did not include any sort of answer to the question. In fact, none of your replies in the thread address this controversy at all.

I chose this group in which to post my OP, because it represents a wider spectrum of beliefs. Your attempt to get people to leave the thread and move to another group is tantamount to hijacking the thread.

[rug]

62. I can see that.

9. You know what amuses me?

Is the wafer still considered the host after I digest and vacate it?

[MineralMan]

66. And so? What of the other posts that are actually discussing

the issue I raised? I did not post what you quoted, nor am I in control of what others post. Irreverence is not prohibited in this group, as far as I can tell.

[rug]

70. This exchange grapplles wth "the issue" you raised.

19. Gods, people will argue about the dumbest things.

Just accept it, people with Celiacs. God wants you to have the shits.

42. it is no longer bread it is god flesh with the accidental properties of bread.

perhaps gluten allergies are not triggered?

[MineralMan]

73. Those are not my posts. I do not control what others write.

I only control what I write.

So, is a gluten-free altar bread invalid matter or is it not, do you think? That is the question that is at the core of the controversy I mentioned. Do you have an opinion on that?

[rug]

77. You responded to it, which is itself a response to your post.

Regardless, do you think that exchange constitutes a discussion?

[Evoman]

95. You quoted me! How fun.

And that post does grapple with the point.

1)Catholic church speaks for god.
2)God/church doesn't allow gluten free host
3)Gluten free host cause Celiac sufferers cramps and diarrhea.
4)God/church either doesn't care about the immortal soul of Celiacs sufferers, or wants them to have the shits.

Furthermore, since God created the universe and everything in it, and has absolute power, he either invented Celiacs, or has no problem with it.

Now, if you want to argue that one or more of my premise is incorrect, then go ahead. Number one is the weakest, because it's obvious to me that the church does not speak for god (which is hard to do, god not existing and all).

[rug]

96. "God wants you to have the shits."

End of discussiion.

Unless, of course, you can prove that claim. Otherwise it's just shit-stirring.

Go ahead.

[MineralMan]

97. God has little to do with the RCC's doctrine regarding the recipe

for altar breads, really. That's something people have figured out for themselves, based on who knows what things. If there were such a deity, I'm quite sure it would be laughing its ass off over silly distinctions like that - assuming that deities have asses, of course.

People define what bread is, not deities. The bread that existed at the time Jesus was supposed to have supped with his followers was probably not made of wheat at all, since that type of wheat wasn't available where they were. More likely, it was made of other ground-up seeds. But, some guys from Rome were used to eating wheaten bread, so they figured that what bread was, gluten and all. In their navel gazing and planning to create an organized religion, their definition became raised to be a doctrine. Tough to change doctrines, it is.

So the girl who is threatened with a life-threatening action if she consumes the least amount of gluten, as some people are, can't fully take part in the sacrament of communion in the Catholic Church. Fortunately for her, there are plenty of other denominations that will let her take part using something else, if she chooses.

In the meantime, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church will insist on upholding their tired old doctrines, at the expense of women and LGBT folks. It's their church. God doesn't have much to do with their doctrine, which is a product of old men from long ago. Such is tradition.

[rug]

99. I see. This is what you consider "asking a doctrinal question."

I wonder what you'd consider shit-stirring.

[MineralMan]

101. Indeed it is. The question is whether it is a valid doctrine or a false one.

You still have not even bothered to offer your opinion on that essential question. I posted the OP to ask that question.

Shit-stirring? Not my bag, really.

[rug]

104. Bullshit.

If there were such a deity, I'm quite sure it would be laughing its ass off over silly distinctions like that - assuming that deities have asses, of course.

But, some guys from Rome were used to eating wheaten bread, so they figured that what bread was, gluten and all. In their navel gazing and planning to create an organized religion, their definition became raised to be a doctrine. Tough to change doctrines, it is.

God doesn't have much to do with their doctrine, which is a product of old men from long ago.

[MineralMan]

105. Well, that's concise I suppose.

Far from enlightening, though. Oh, well...you haven't been interested in the question from the start, so I guess I was expecting too much. The Catholics with celiac disease will just have to wait for the Holy Father to decide, I guess.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Nice try

That's a safe haven group and, as such, would not be open to discussion as to whether this is a stupid rule by the RCC.

[MineralMan]

61. And to think I almost fell for it, too...

[rug]

63. Ah, but he said he was asking a doctrinal question.

45. I was, indeed, asking a doctrinal question.

Someone is being disingenuous.

But you're right, this is the better group to discuss stupidity.

[MineralMan]

68. But, rug, what is your opinion regarding

the gluten content of altar breads? You've said much about other things, but nothing about the subject of my OP. Are gluten-free hosts invalid matter or not? In your opinion, of course. I already know the opinion of the Church. I'm trying to stay on subject here, but it's difficult when people keep raising irrelevant points and not addressing the doctrinal issue.

I was not only seeking the opinion of Catholics, you see.

[rug]

75. If you wish to discuss the form of transubstantiation as defined by the RCC, you know where to go.

If you wish to discuss the beliefs of other Christian denominations, you can go to CL&POF.

Although it will be without the benefit of an insane clown posse.

If you want to know if a consecrated host remains the body of Christ after it becomes shit, why then just continue to post away here. You'll have an eager, though biased and uniformed, audience.

[Goblinmonger]

78. Hey, here's an idea...

why not just address the question. You can control your part of the discussion here. You can actually make this a discussion about transubstantiation or you can continue to just deflect and post random crap.

[rug]

81. Hey, here's another idea...

why not see if you can address the question of transubstantaiation and gluten with neither snark nor ridicule? You can do it. After all, you've posted often enough that you are a former (minor) seminarian and some of your best friends are priests.

As for me, I am addressing the issue under discussion, which is snark and ridicule.

I extend the invitation to you also. If you want to discuss the RCC view of transubstantiation and gluten, come to the Catholic and Orthodox Group. No one there is banned.

[Goblinmonger]

69. Are you saying transubstantiation is stupidity?

Or that people with glucose allergies wanting to take communion is stupidity?

[MineralMan]

72. It appears that is exactly what he is saying.

Worse, he has not even addressed the topic of the thread.

[rug]

84. Hey, I'm over here.

It appears you prefer shit-stirring to discussion.

[rug]

83. Not at all. I am saying that a discussion about transubstantiation and shit is stupid.

Clearly, we disagree.

[Goblinmonger]

85. Huh, I just reread the OP and there wasn't any mention of shit in there.

So why not respond to the point of the OP and the article linked therein?

[rug]

86. You didn't read #9.

As to your question, I'm busy deconstructing Matthew 7:6.

[Goblinmonger]

87. That's not the OP

You don't need to respond to #9 and MM isn't responsible for #9. So just respond to the OP. Of course that would be too easy and doesn't fit your agenda.

Deconstruction is going to be pretty hard when you aren't reading it in the original language. Unless you are, of course. Or unless "deconstruction" is the only fancy literature word you knew and could throw out there. Personally I might take a Freudian approach to that verse or perhaps a feminist bent. Both of those could produce interesting results.

[rug]

88. No, it's part of the "discussion" engendered by the OP.

The OP is hardly inviting discussion. The only thing it lacks is the picture of a spoon.

[MineralMan]

90. What's to deconstruct?

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

It's a fairly straightforward verse, really, and is one that is learned by Sunday School students in about the 6th grade. I certainly understand your reference to that verse quite well, in this circumstance. An ugly use of it, I think.

[rug]

91. Quite a bit, actually.

http://biblos.com/matthew/7-6.htm

It's not the use of it that's ugly, it's the OP.

[Goblinmonger]

92. So tell me, how did you deconstruct it.

Which words did you focus on? What meaning from the words did you use to construct new meaning for the original?

Or were you not really deconstructing it?

[rug]

93. I'll tell you after I get someone to translate the Aramaic.

[MineralMan]

98. How are you doing with that Aramaic translation of

that metaphorical verse, rug? Still comes out to the same concepts, I'm betting. It's been examined many times, I believe, by scholars with lots more knowledge than you or I.

Bottom line is that unbelievers and pagans are likened to dogs and swine, and should simply be ignored and not presented with valuable things like doctrine. I think I have it pretty clearly. I realize that I'm paraphrasing the commentators, but that's the general consensus. I doubt you'll find another interpretation that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we're not dogs or swine, but humans, just like everyone else, and have our measure of reason. Foolishness of doctrine is visible to us, too.

No deity has said that gluten-free altar bread is invalid matter. Men have said so. Other men of religion have disagreed. No deity is saying which one is right, assuming that any deity of any merit would bother with such trivia. No, the nature of bread as used in that sacrament is defined by men, not by any deity. Fallible, often silly men. Such is religious doctrine.

[rug]

100. Slow going.

But I will say this: your "bottom line" is woefully off. You should engage in some honest discussion outside of echo chambers.

[MineralMan]

102. To what echo chamber are you referring?

I tend not to participate much in echo chambers. They're boring.

[MineralMan]

103. I don't think so, really.

I use biblios as a reference, too. And the commentary on that verse is pretty clear, and makes excellent sense of interpreting the metaphor, I think.

[MineralMan]

94. It's going to be difficult to find a different meaning for that verse, I'm

pretty sure. It's very straightforward. The link provided by rug simply verifies the meaning, really.