Jump to content

Follow Us:  Twitter Facebook RSS Feed            




   arrowShare this page:
   

   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

 
Celiac.com Sponsor:                                    


Photo
- - - - -

What About The Eucharist?


  • Please log in to reply

124 replies to this topic

#91 Ruth52

 
Ruth52

    Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
 

Posted 29 July 2006 - 09:44 PM

I'm sure I read somewhere that Celiac Disease is so prevelent in Italy and other countries around southern Europe that children are routinely tested for celiac disease.

With a large proportion of the Italian community being Catholic coupled with the fact that Rome (Vatican City) is the headquarters of the Catholic Church, I would be surprised if there isn't some obscure Papal Ensyclicle somewhere that addresses the concerns of those who suffer from celiac disease.
  • 0

Celiac.com Sponsor:

#92 eKatherine

 
eKatherine

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts
 

Posted 29 July 2006 - 11:30 PM

That's such an interesting question....but from what I've read and heard, our intolerances have developed as a result of over-processing, chemicals, leached nutrients from the soil, things like that and one of our resident scientists can answer this much more thoroughly and accurately than I. I think gluten-intolerance is a pretty recent thing, the last couple hundred years, when wheat became much more processed and everything's been taken out of it to make flour "white." I mean - look at Ezekial 4:9 - there is even a bread that goes by this name (which I used to love!), and that verse, and the instructions on making that bread, is from approx. 4,000 years ago.....

According to dogtorj, celiac has been with us as long as humans have consumed cereal grains in any quantity, increasing during times when the gluten content of grains increased due to hybridization.
  • 0
Nothing

#93 ravenwoodglass

 
ravenwoodglass

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,793 posts
 

Posted 30 July 2006 - 05:36 AM

According to dogtorj, celiac has been with us as long as humans have consumed cereal grains in any quantity, increasing during times when the gluten content of grains increased due to hybridization.


This is off the original topic but I have read, I think in Dangerous Grains, that archeological evidence shows that when humankind began consuming wheat within a generation or so the skeletal evidence has shown a decrease in stature and the sudden appearence of arthritic damage that was not present in the skeletons of 'hunt and gather' groups. Celiac has been around as long as we have been around. But the advent of bakeries and quick access to breads and pastries has caused an explosion of celiac disease that was not present before. When we as a culture went from having to spend a whole day making bread to being able to get it at a store cheaply we of course began consuming more and our illness became more pronounced. For the folks that grew up in poverty, myself included, bread was not just something you ate with a meal it often replaced a meal or was used as a 'filler'. Breakfast was just a piece of bread with a bit of peanut butter or some cinnamon, I was given it as a snack with sugar and butter cause it was cheaper than candy and a sandwich at my house was one slice of meat inside this poison. I ramble but anyway Celiac has been around as long as we have but the manner and frequency we consume gluten has increased a great deal, thus the severity of the illness has increased also. The insidious nature and delayed reaction of the gluten toxin simply makes it hard to pinpoint.
I also would be interested to find out what the celiacs that are Catholic do to handle the Eucharist question in other countries. Perhaps we have some European members who would know. Not long after my diagnosis I saw a National Geographic article about a 'Flour Festival' that they have in Spain where they throw colored wheat flour on everyone. Some of the people in the festival were wearing what looked like hasmat (sp?)or beekeepers outfits it took a minute to realize that these folks were the celiacs in the group.
  • 0
Courage does not always roar, sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying
"I will try again tommorrow" (Mary Anne Radmacher)


celiac 49 years - Misdiagnosed for 45
Blood tested and repeatedly negative
Diagnosed by Allergist with elimination diet and diagnosis confirmed by GI in 2002
Misdiagnoses for 15 years were IBS-D, ataxia, migraines, anxiety, depression, fibromyalgia, parathesias, arthritis, livedo reticularis, hairloss, premature menopause, osteoporosis, kidney damage, diverticulosis, prediabetes and ulcers, dermatitis herpeformis
All bold resoved or went into remission with proper diagnosis of Celiac November 2002
Some residual nerve damage remains as of 2006- this has continued to resolve after eliminating soy in 2007

Mother died of celiac related cancer at 56
Twin brother died as a result of autoimmune liver destruction at age 15

Children 2 with Ulcers, GERD, Depression, , 1 with DH, 1 with severe growth stunting (male adult 5 feet)both finally diagnosed Celiac through blood testing and 1 with endo 6 months after Mom


Positive to Soy and Casien also Aug 2007

Gluten Sensitivity Gene Test Aug 2007
HLA-DQB1 Molecular analysis, Allele 1 0303

HLA-DQB1 Molecular analysis, Allele 2 0303

Serologic equivalent: HLA-DQ 3,3 (Subtype 9,9)

#94 eKatherine

 
eKatherine

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts
 

Posted 30 July 2006 - 05:52 AM

This is off the original topic but I have read, I think in Dangerous Grains, that archeological evidence shows that when humankind began consuming wheat within a generation or so the skeletal evidence has shown a decrease in stature and the sudden appearence of arthritic damage that was not present in the skeletons of 'hunt and gather' groups. Celiac has been around as long as we have been around.

Similar changes have accompanied the switch from a hunter-gatherer economy to an agricultural one in North America, where the switch was to corn. Archeologists attribute the immediate decline in health to general malnutrition resulting from a diet seriously lacking in in nutrition.
  • 0
Nothing

#95 debmidge

 
debmidge

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,566 posts
 

Posted 30 July 2006 - 06:07 AM

Many Catholics grew up in just those conditions, but many of us choose to make trials a learning experience and not use them as an excuse to hate. We don't all agree with each other but hard times are not a reason to promote prejudice they should be used to increase understanding.
Are you? We also have freedom of religion and a dislike for prejudice and hate.



I am very split on this discussion.....I would rather this thread not take this route, but I have to admit I have had the same experience as BERNICE.

It grieves me to have to explain this, but the word "Prejudice, " contrary to popular belief, does not mean fair criticism. It refers to having pre-conceived, untried opinions about something. It is the judging of something/someone before the facts are in; or, before you actually try something out.
It's been established that BERNICE had been involved in Catholicism and this is her un-prejudiced opinion. Prejudice would be the "irrational" hatred of another's religion and clearly BERNICE's opinion is based on her discernment of the matter.

But in the interest of keeping the peace, it's best not to reveal on this thread/board that you had a bad experience /or disagree with dogma in the Catholic denomination as it does not provide any edification, and actually starts bad feelings between the board members. So we ex-catholics should not reveal how we feel even though we have First Amendment right to do so. We're just better off "not going there" - that's all.

I hope Catholics find an answer to their communion issues within their church and hence my suggestion about the "Office of the Celiac Celebrant."
  • 0
Husband has Celiac Disease and
Husband misdiagnosed for 27 yrs -
The misdiagnosis was: IBS or colitis
Mis-diagnosed from 1977 to 2003 by various gastros including one of the largest,
most prestigious medical groups in northern NJ which constantly advertises themselves as
being the "best." This GI told him it was "all in his head."
Serious Depressive state ensued
Finally Diagnosed with celiac disease in 2003
Other food sensitivities: almost all fruits, vegetables, spices, eggs, nuts, yeast, fried foods, roughage, soy.
Needs to gain back at least 25 lbs. of the 40 lbs pounds he lost - lost a great amout of body fat and muscle
Developed neuropathy in 2005
Now has lymphadema 2006
It is my opinion that his subsequent disorders could have been avoided had he been diagnosed sooner by any of the dozen or so doctors he saw between 1977 to 2003

#96 CarlaB

 
CarlaB

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,049 posts
 

Posted 30 July 2006 - 09:23 AM

The Code of Canon Law in 1984 did address the celiac issue, somewhat. Since the main celebrant must consume both the bread and the wine (the con-celebrants can consume just the wine), the Code said in 1984 that celiac men cannot be ordained. Then it was adjusted to say that it should be seriously considered by the bishop whether they should be ordained since that person will always need to be a con-celebrant. Now, there are low-gluten hosts that are made from wheat starch. That is not accepted as freely in the US by celiacs, but my understanding is in Europe that they go more by ppm. So, a priest could partake of a small piece of the low-gluten host and still celebrate Mass without another priest being the main celebrant.

The issue of celiac lay people has not been addressed as far as I know since they may partake of the wine only. Since each parish has their own system for distributing communion, it would be up to the priest of the parish to decide how to handle the celiacs in his parish. The only issue I know that has been addressed is that the Church views receiving either the Host alone or the Cup alone to be receiving full communion.

My suggestion is, let's not discuss politics, the religion discussion seems to have put enough stress on the forum ;) I do think some of the problems with the Church throughout the 50's and 60's has caused a lot of people who grew up during that time to have very ill feelings toward the Church. It's really sad and I'm very glad that the Church went through the changes of Vatican II. It seems to have been much needed. I think all of us have to look at ourselves periodically and say things like, I'm going to start working out again, or I'm going to quit eating so much garbage, etc. every so often. Every so many hundred years, the Church has had to do the same thing. That time period certainly was a time of trouble for the Church and I think it's a shame that instead of building the faith of the people, that the Church herself was responsible for destroying the faith of the people.

Fortunately, the past ten years or so, actually the Pontificate of John Paul II, has been a great time of renewal once again.
  • 0
gluten-free 12/05

diagnosed with Lyme Disease 12/06

#97 NicoleAJ

 
NicoleAJ

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts
 

Posted 30 July 2006 - 12:58 PM

The post that follows relates to the actual question posed originally and is not intended as fodder for a debate.

Carla, I think that your idea of having a second chalice is a good one. Do they keep it on the side table or does it go on the altar as well? I used to receive the wine, but then we got a new priest that would break the host over the chalice and brush the crumbs from his fingers into the wine. I stopped receiving communion then and haven't received it since. Of course, in those cases I'd often feel awkward about sitting in the pew (while fit to receive the host, spiritually). Once, my friend's Irish parents were sitting next to me, and I explained to them before mass why I wouldn't be receiving the host. It was so sweet when a few months later my friend's mother sent me a newspaper clipping about the low-gluten hosts.

I don't have a strong relationship with this priest or parish (their politics sometimes get in the way of their theology, unfortunately), so this is why I'm not inclined to make special requests. But when I do move elsewhere in two years, I'll likely have more parishes around to choose from, and once I find one that I'm comfortable with, I'll likely try your second chalice method. Certainly, when I get married, I'll want to receive communion without wondering if I'll be suffering from cc at the reception.
  • 0
Diagnosed July 2004

#98 CarlaB

 
CarlaB

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,049 posts
 

Posted 30 July 2006 - 01:21 PM

The post that follows relates to the actual question posed originally and is not intended as fodder for a debate.

Carla, I think that your idea of having a second chalice is a good one. Do they keep it on the side table or does it go on the altar as well? I used to receive the wine, but then we got a new priest that would break the host over the chalice and brush the crumbs from his fingers into the wine. I stopped receiving communion then and haven't received it since. Of course, in those cases I'd often feel awkward about sitting in the pew (while fit to receive the host, spiritually). Once, my friend's Irish parents were sitting next to me, and I explained to them before mass why I wouldn't be receiving the host. It was so sweet when a few months later my friend's mother sent me a newspaper clipping about the low-gluten hosts.

I don't have a strong relationship with this priest or parish (their politics sometimes get in the way of their theology, unfortunately), so this is why I'm not inclined to make special requests. But when I do move elsewhere in two years, I'll likely have more parishes around to choose from, and once I find one that I'm comfortable with, I'll likely try your second chalice method. Certainly, when I get married, I'll want to receive communion without wondering if I'll be suffering from cc at the reception.


Most priests, no matter their politics, want everyone who is spiritually prepared to receive communion to be able to receive. I'm sure the priest in your parish would be happy to accomodate you even if you don't have a strong relationship. I've made this request when visiting parishes and the priests have been happy to accomodate me. But when visiting a parish, be sure to talk to the priest, the people who help set up for him are not always understanding and helpful.

The second chalice has to be on the altar for the wine to be consecrated. They leave it on the side table until the altar servers bring the gifts to the main altar. Even if they don't break the Host over the wine and brush the crumbs in it, which most priests seem to do, then they still put a small piece of the host in the main chalice.
  • 0
gluten-free 12/05

diagnosed with Lyme Disease 12/06

#99 Lymetoo

 
Lymetoo

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 433 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2006 - 08:11 AM

Boy, you leave for a few days and THIS happens!! :blink:

Chill out, folks!! B)
  • 0
Negative biopsy for celiac 1980
Fibromyalgia 1980
IBS 1980
Interstitial Cystitis 1992
Systemic yeast
Diagnosed w/ Chronic Lyme Disease 2000
Diagnosed w/ Chronic babesia 2000
Tachycardia 2001
Asthma 2005
Have had Lyme and babesia for
about 48 yrs.

Began gluten-free July 19 '06
Native TEXAN living in Missouri

#100 Guest_southgoingzax_*

 
Guest_southgoingzax_*
  • Guests
 

Posted 31 July 2006 - 08:42 AM

Off Topic, but...


"The first description of childhood and adult coeliac disease was written in the second half of the second century A.D. by a contemporary of the ancient Roman Physician, Galen. He is known as Aretaeus of Cappadocia and his writings which have survived to more recent times were edited and translated by Francis Adams and printed for the Sydenham Society in 1856". (This from a website The History of Coeliac Disease)

The symptoms of celiac disease have been recognized for centuries, just not the cure. This is in response to some of the posts regarding when celiac disease first came about. It is my understanding as an archaeologist that the genetic disposition for this disease has always existed in the human species (and perhaps some of those species that came before us). Following the agricultural revolution during the Neolithic (+/- 10,000 b.p.), the overall stature and health of human beings can be seen to decline. Problems such as arthritus, dental caries, and communal diseases also begin to show up in the archaeological record. Of course, as a hunter-gatherer, you would have been lucky to live to be 40, so some of these problems may be the result of more sedentary, therefore safer and longer, lifespans and higher population densities, which encourage the evolution and increase the spread-rate of contagious diseases. But certainly, malnutrition became an issue due to an over-reliance on a single protein source (such as wheat or corn).

Just some interesting info, if anyone was wondering.

zax
  • 0

#101 Camille'sBigSister

 
Camille'sBigSister

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2006 - 08:47 AM

Similar changes have accompanied the switch from a hunter-gatherer economy to an agricultural one in North America, where the switch was to corn. Archeologists attribute the immediate decline in health to general malnutrition resulting from a diet seriously lacking in in nutrition.


I'm a little confused here. Were the archeologists talking about Native Americans? They were the only hunter-gatherers in North America, because the settlers were already an agricultural society before they ever arrived on this continent. But not only were the Native Americans hunter-gatherers, they also cultivated corn, beans, and squash - the Three Sisters - and had done so for centuries.

If the archeologists "attribute the immediate decline in health to general malnutrition resulting from a diet seriously lacking in nutrition," then I suggest that they omitted to take into account a historical fact: The Europeans methodically set out to obliterate the entire population of natives by starving them to death. They consistently burned the crops, storehouses, and villages of Native Americans, forcing them to flee ever westward in search of a place where they could hunt, gather, and plant their crops in peace. How could these starving people possibly have escaped malnutrition?

When Native Americans finally did become, for the most part, an agricultural society, where did they farm? On the worst land on this continent! I propose that it was not the farming that led to the decline in their health; it was, rather, the lack of nutrients in the poorest of soils.

If I'm way off base here, then I'll stand corrected. :D

Cissie
  • 0

#102 Guest_southgoingzax_*

 
Guest_southgoingzax_*
  • Guests
 

Posted 31 July 2006 - 09:36 AM

Cissie,

When I am talking about the archaeological record, I am talking about +/- 10,000 years ago. Although the actual dates are up in the air, it is estimated that people first made it to North and South America between 20,000 and 15,000 years ago. So the first Native Americans were hunter-gatherers. The archaeological record in Europe, Asia, and Africa is of course, much older. Hunter-gatherer populations of anatomically modern humans were present in Northern Europe at least 40,000 b.p. and in southern Europe by about 90,000 b.p.

Back to the Native American issue, all of the original populace of N and S America were hunter-gatherer, until a little later than their contemporaries in Europe - with lower population densities, they had no reason to turn to a predominantly agricultural society. That doesn't mean they didn't eat grains or conduct some sort of agricultural practice, just that these efforts tended to be sporadic and did not include a shift to a sedentary society. We can see smaller stature, dental cavities, disease, and malnutrition show up in the archaeological record around 2000 years ago - long before European settlers ever began systematic distruction of the Native populations. This archaeological evidence of malnutrition is syncopated with the development of agriculture in some areas of the South and North American continents and the development of maze as a domestic crop.

Not all Native American populations became agriculturalists - many continued hunting and gathering until the arrival of Europeans.

Everything that happened after Columbus...I'm not disputing that. There was a systematic attempt to wipe the indigenous populations out, and the settlers were pretty successful. Certainly malnutrition and disease ocurred as a result of the ways they were treated and forced into non-sustainable lands. But the shift to agriculture and the subsequent malnutrition issues ocurred before white people ever came here.

zax
  • 0

#103 Camille'sBigSister

 
Camille'sBigSister

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2006 - 12:33 PM

Zax, thanks for the information! We're way off-topic, but your subject matter is fascinating. I wasn't thinking that far back, but even if I had been, I didn't know about the decline in health of native populations so long ago. Glad you explained.

My favorite paleos are the Neanderthals. I like to think that they survived by mating with our ancestors, ridiculous as that might seem to you.

Have you read The Little Ice Age, and Floods, Famines and Emporers? Interesting books.

Since I'm a protestant, not a catholic, I'll butt out of this string. Bye!

Cissie
  • 0

#104 jayhawkmom

 
jayhawkmom

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 727 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2006 - 01:12 PM

S To "receive" the Pukearist, you were supposed to



Wow, was that really necessary?

I'm trying to read these posts, and do it with an open mind - but that really was uncalled for. I am sorry that you had such a terrible religious upbringing. Not all of us did. My faith is a beautiful thing to me, and I don't criticize or condemn anyone else's beliefs. It makes me feel very sad when others can't be respectful of mine.

ETA: We always have more than one chalice. In fact, we usually have 3. 3 Eucharist ministers in addition to the priest, to distribute the win - and 2 additional to distribute the host.
  • 0
Jayhawkmom -
Mom of three....
Jay - 11
Bean - 8
Ian - 3

#105 Guest_southgoingzax_*

 
Guest_southgoingzax_*
  • Guests
 

Posted 31 July 2006 - 01:52 PM

Zax, thanks for the information! We're way off-topic, but your subject matter is fascinating. I wasn't thinking that far back, but even if I had been, I didn't know about the decline in health of native populations so long ago. Glad you explained.

My favorite paleos are the Neanderthals. I like to think that they survived by mating with our ancestors, ridiculous as that might seem to you.

Have you read The Little Ice Age, and Floods, Famines and Emporers? Interesting books.

Since I'm a protestant, not a catholic, I'll butt out of this string. Bye!

Cissie


I know, we're WAY off topic. But I like neanderthals too. And, I don't think your idea is ridiculous at all - in fact, a lot of paleoanthropologists see neanderthals as homosapiens with traits that arose from geographic and genetic isolation in the ice-age environment of Europe. They were much stronger physically (larger muscle attachments) and seem to have a lot of cold-weather adaptations. They had bigger brains than modern humans, too!

I haven't checked out those particular books, thanks for the info, and I'll stop posting information irrelevant to this thread!

zax
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Celiac.com Sponsors: