what is bread - ΑΡΤΟΣ in the nt

7/31/2019 What is Bread - in the NT

1/12


2/12

Curtis- 2

several chalices and a flagon are used is immaterial to the validity of the Supper (i.e. to stayingwithin the Lord's Institution). Our Lord's Institution is not done violence by these things becausehis Institution is focused on the ipsissima verba: "This (bread) is my body. . .this (cup of wine) ismy blood." Thus the bread and the wine in the cup3 are the elements required to be within theLord's Institution. It is his Supper, his Institution, so he names the elements.

This highlights the distinction between the concern for having valid elements and fallinginto a Zwinglian replicationism. Duplicating every detail of the Supper was important forZwingli precisely because he did not believe in the Real Presence. For him the Supper wasexclusively about remembrance and therefore every detail was important. For the churches of theAugsburg Confession, however, the focus is on the Institution of the Lord's presence under breadand wine. For us the details of wooden dishes, nighttime celebration, etc. are unimportant thatis, they fall outside the Institution, the command to Do This. But at the same time, because wevalue the Real Presence, adhering to the Lord's Institution, his Promise, is vital to us.

II. BREAD AND WINE

A. LUTHER'S LEXICAL LAPSE

1. THE LUTHER QUOTE THAT STARTED THE SPECULATION

The point at issue, therefore, is staying within the Lord's Institution. Faith is adhering tothe Lord's Promise, not trying to force new promises upon him that he has not made. He has notpromised his bodily and bloodily presence under any other form than that of bread and wine thus the line separating valid from invalid sacramental matter must be drawn somewhere:preferably where Christ has drawn it.

Concerning those suffering from CD, the question becomes the definition ofa[rtoV. Wemight first answer by asking what the Church has always used for thea[rtoV in the Lord's Supper.The earliest and only evidence we have is wheat bread leavened in the East and unleavened in

the West. This continues to be the case in all of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxytoday.4 Thus, the burden of proof falls on those who claim that something other than wheat breadqualifies asa[rtoV.

One such person is F. Pieper, who argues that this element in the Supper can be fulfilledby "rye, wheat, barley, or oatbread. . .as long as it is baked from water and the flour of somegrrain."5 In this Pieper is following Walther6, who was following Baier7, who does not quote anyLutheran dogmatician in his favor but undoubtedly had in mind this statement from Luther.

3As Luther pointed out, that Christ says the cup is his blood is an obvious synecdoche for the winein the cup.See Luther's Confession Concerning Christ's Supper(1528) LW 37.330.

4 The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat,and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.It follows therefore that bread made from another

substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that itwould not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter[.] Vatican, Congregation forDivine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament,Redemptionis Sacramentumpara. 48. This is merely the mostrecent restatement of the Church's understanding ofa[rtoV, which predates the Reformation and is common to thewhole church, East and West (see below for quotations from the Council of Florence of 1439). This has beenconsistently and clearly upheld since the time of Florence through Paul V'sDe Defectibus of 1572, the 1917 Codex

Iuris Canonici can. 815, and finally the 1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 924 2.

5F. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. III. (St. Louis: CPH, 1953) 353-354.

2


3/12

Curtis- 3

If the rule is to be that one is so strictly to follow the example of Christ and not theWord alone, then it will follow that we should observe the Last Supper nowhere but inJerusalem, in the upper room. For if incidental circumstances are to be strictly binding,the external places and persons must also strictly be adhered to. And it will come tothis, that this Last Supper was only to be observed by the disciples, who were the onlyones who were addressed at that time and commanded to observe it. And what St. Paulsays (I Cor. 11[:17ff.]) will become utter foolishness. Also since we do not know andthe text does not state whether red or white wine was used, whether wheat rolls orbarley bread were used, we must by reason of doubt at this point refrain fromobserving the Last Supper, until we become certain about it, so that we do not makeany external detail differ a hairsbreadth from what Christs example sets forth. Yes, wemust also previously in a Jewish manner have eaten the paschal lamb [emphasisadded].8

I argue that Luther has allowed his polemic, as happens often enough, to overrun his exegesis.Insisting on wheat bread is following "the Word alone" and not merely following "the example

of Christ" in a replicationist manner.

2. THE CONFESSIONS AVOID LUTHER'S SPECULATION

I believe, with all due respect, that Pieper, Walther, Baier, and Luther have made a graveerror in allowing for non-wheaten bread in the Supper. Before proceeding with this narration,however, it is important to note that the Confessions do not follow in their line. The Formula ofConcord, Solid Declaration, VII.48 states that in the Sacrament Christ used and spoke of onlyrechtem natrlichen Brot und von natrlichem Wein (Latin: de vero naturali pane et de veronaturali vino. true, natural bread and natural wine.). Here there is no comment on Luther'sextra-confessional speculations about the sort of grain that may be used for thispanis. This is allthe more significant since Chemnitz knows of arguments about wheat bread in the Eucharist andmentions them in theExamen:

For it is certain that bread is of the essence of the Lords Supper. Whether it should beof wheat, whether leavened or unleavened, was at one time debated with great heat, andarguments were gathered from Scripture about the grain of wheat and about the day ofthe Lords Supper. But the church judged correctly that these things are free and not ofnecessity for the sacrament (Examination of the Council of Trent vol. II, trans. F.Kramer [St. Louis: CPH, 1978] 540).

Here Chemnitz would seem to second Luther's comments but only in the most anemic

6C.F.W. Walther,Pastoral Theology, trans. and abridg. by J.M. Drickamer. (New Haven: Lutheran News Inc.,1995) 130-131.

7J.W. Baier, Compendium theologiae postivae, ed. C.F.W. Walther (St. Louis: Luth-Concordia Verlag, 1879)

Part. III. Cap. XI.6 "triticeus non solum, verum etiam frumentarius alius. . . .Quamvis enim quoad species frumentidifferent, tamen in esse panis convenient." 'Not only wheat, but even any other grain. . . .for even should the speciesof grain differ, nonetheless they agree in being bread.'

8Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525), LW 40:133.

3


4/12

Curtis- 4

of fashions. He offers no citations for the church's supposed judgment that wheaten bread is afree matter and neither has Kramer been able to offer any such citation in footnotes.Undoubtedly this is because no such church-wide judgment calling wheaten bread anadiaphoron exists indeed, the exact opposite is true. While a few theologians had speculated ongrains other than wheat, already Thomas Aquinas affirms wheaten bread as the only acceptablematter for the Sacrament in Summa Theologica 3.74. And the decision of the Council of Florencein 1439 the most ecumenical of councils since the 7th century flatly contradicts Chemnitz'unsupported assertion: [i]tem, in azimo sive fermentato pane triticeo, corpus Christi veraciterconfici (indeed, in either unleavened or leavened wheatbread, the body of Christ is trulyconfected);eucharistie sacramentum, cuius materia est panis triticeus (the eucharisticsacrament, whose material is wheat bread).9

One suspects that Chemnitz is trying to smooth the matter over with this light treatment,which neither contradicts Luther nor offers a robust defense. InDe Coena Domini he calls thebread of the Supper panis. . .cibarius communis and panis communis.10Lewis & Short11 sayspanis cibarius is 'coarse bread' which is from the 'coarser meal which remains after the fine wheatflour.' Whatever Chemnitz' exact thoughts on the matter were, he and the other fathers of theFormula studiously avoided Luther's speculation in 1577.

3. EXPLAINING LUTHER'S LAPSE

While Luther (followed by Baier, Walther, and Pieper) claims that thea[rtoV of theInstitution may be fulfilled by grains other than wheat, the standard Greek lexicon reads theevidence of the Greek corpus very differently.Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie12points out that inGreek,a[rtoV is a specific term with a specific referent:

a[rtoV, oJ, cake orloaf of wheat-bread, mostly in pl., Od.18.120, al.; awhole loaf, 17.343; collectively, bread,Archil.Supp.2.6 ;

Batr.35 ; opp. (porridge), Hp.Acut.37.--Freq. in all writers.

Luther, Baier, Walther, and Pieper may have missed this fact because they were trained primarilyin Latin at the expense of a deeper understanding of Greek (even Luther's translation of theGreek NT was done with one eye firmly planted on the Vulgate). As Pieper and Waltherprepared their books they worked in the two theological languages of Lutheran orthodoxy:German and Latin. The Greek of the New Testament and patristic era was filtered through andread in the context of the exegesis and dogmatics written in these two languages a situationparallel to (and as perilous as) the use of English among us today. This accident of history hashad deep ramifications for their thinking in regard to valid earthly matter for the Sacrament. 13

9 Session VI, 6 July 1439 Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta ed. J. Alberigo, P.-P. Joannou, et al. (Basil:Herder, 1962) 503, 521; emphasis added.

10Editio novissima, prioribus emendatior, & Indice (Frankfurt & Wittenberg, 1653) 26.

11A Latin Dictionary. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, eds. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1879) loc cit.

12Greek-English Lexion, 9th ed. with Revised Supplement(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Abbreviated LSJM.

13 Such an excuse is not so readily at hand for the CTCR of 1983 which produced Theology and Practice of theLord's Supper. This document claims that "[t]he Greek word for bread in the New Testament texts, artos, isgeneric." The document says this in the context of leavened vs. unleavened bread, quoting BAGD 2 in support. This

4


5/12

Curtis- 5

The basic error these theologians have made is the transference of the semantic domain ofa term in the target language (the language into which the Scriptures are being translated) intothe semantic domain of a corresponding term in the source language. The German used totranslatea[rtoV isBrot, obviously cognate with the English breadand sharing much the same(expansive) semantic domain. This wide semantic domain is what is causing the confusion,especially since this large range of meaning is shared by the Latin termpanis.Lewis & Short(loccit.) tells us thatpanis is a very generic word again largely sharing the semantic domain ofEnglish bread. The meaning is better shown by translating it "loaf." So cibarius panis is "coarsebread,secundus panis is "black bread,panis siccus is dry bread andpanis plebeius orpanissiligine factus is "wheat bread.

All that is to say that in Latinpanis, usually translated by GermanBrotand Englishbread, carries no indication of the cereal or grain used in its production. However, transferringthe Latin, German, or English semantic domain forpanis/Brot/breadto the Greeka[rtoV ismethodologically unsound and is bound to lead to misinterpretation. Pieper, Walther, and Lutherhimself are simply mistaken in their assumption thata[rtoV, when unadorned with othersignifiers, can indicate a loaf of a grain other than wheat. The Greek is more specific interminology than Latin, German, or English. The Greeka[rtoV can be used by analogy to refer to

a loaf-like shape, but to do so it must occur with an adjective to indicate a loaf baked of a grainother than wheat. This is because Greek has a wide-ranging and precise vocabulary when itcomes to various sorts of what we call "bread products." So for example, krivqinoV orma'za is abarley-loaf. LSJM rightly notes that the Greek literature clearly uses the latter word in such away that it is "distd. froma[rtoV (wheaten bread)" (loc. cit.). And foi'nix is rye-grass (from itsreddish hue).

In this, Greeka[rtoV shares similar semantic features with English wine. When one ordersa glass ofwine at a restaurant, one assumes that grape wine will be brought to the table.However, one can also drink dandelion wine, blackberry wine, and plum wine. But to indicatethis wider semantic range a signifier must be added to wine, since the word by itself withoutother context always means grape wine. Likewise,a[rtoV without other signifiers or specific

context means wheat bread.To summarize, the Greek vocabulary in this area is more precise than German, Latin, orEnglish: it contains a word which, when unadorned by adjectives or other signifiers, means a loafof specifically wheaten bread. Nor will it do to speculate about a supposed Hebrew or AramaicVorlagtoa[rtoV that would perhaps be more generic and allow for grains other than wheat. Thismethod of bypassing the Greek text was, of course, Zwingli's idea for how to get rid of the Greek

e[stin in the Institution. But our Lord's Institution in the Evangelists' accounts includesa[rtoV, notmerely anything that might go under the namepanis, Brot, bread, or~xl.14

is certainly true: artos is generic with reference to leavening. But the CTCR continues, "[s]ince the Scriptures aresilent on the source of the bread, it may be baked from the flour of wheat, rye, barley, or other grains." Here they areclearly relying on the Luther-Baier-Walther-Pieper tradition. Two years earlier, in 1981, the Systematics Department

of Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne had also repeated Luther's declaration of valid matter fora[rtoV ina printed opinion mainly dealing with valid matter for 'fruit of the vine' (CTQ XLV [1981].77-80, esp. 78).

14 This paragraph is meant as a rebuke-in-advance for any modern apologist of Luther's definition of validmatter who might wish to point to the Talmud's (see Book 3, chapter II of Rodkinson's translation of portions of theBabylonian Talmud,New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud[Boston: Talmud Society, 1918]) five grains whichcan be used for matzah at Passover (wheat, spelt [which is actually emmer wheat], rye, oat, barley). Besides the fatalflaw of relying on a supposed Vorlagto the NT text rather than reading the Greek text itself, there is also thenotoriously tricky problem of making the declarations of the Talmud apply to the time and place of Jesus' earthlyministry. Likewise, the LXX's use ofa[rtoV to translate ~xl is of no help. As J. Wevers shows inNotes on the

5


6/12

Curtis- 6

And it is not as if the Holy Spirit suffered under the handicap of a paucity of words tochoose from to indicate a wider range of meaning. For example, the common word si'toV (whichaccording to LSJM "comprehend[s] both wheat and barley") could have been used in the genitivewitha[rtoV or by itself. But to usea[rtoV in the singular and unadorned is to be crystal clear aboutthe meaning: our Lord's Institution applies to wheat-bread. Perhaps the most straightforwardproof of this is the historical fact that the portion of the Church that has always spoken Greek hasalso always insisted on the use of only wheat bread. They do so because they know their Greekand so have never had to doubt whata[rtoV means.

B. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF LUTHER'S VIEW REFUTED

In the foregoing section I have largely leaned upon the traditional ecclesiasticalunderstanding ofa[rtoV and the view of Greek corpus given by the standard lexicon, the ninthedition of Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie with revised supplement. Both of these sources providean unequivocal definition fora[rtoV as wheat bread. This understanding is also supported byBehm15 (who notes that the distinction betweena[rtoV and ma'za remains in force in Koine Greek)and is not spoken against by either Lampe'sPatristic Greek Lexicon16or BAGD17. While this

case is certainly strong, two arguments remain for a wider semantic range fora[rtoV: anargument from the parallel Gospel accounts of the feeding of the five thousand and an appeal tolatest revision of Bauer's lexicon by Danker (BDAG).

1. THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND

The Synoptic accounts of the feeding of the five thousand (Mt. 14.13-21; Mk. 6.32-44;Lk. 9:10b-17) tell us that Jesus multiplied pevnte a[rtouV while John (Jn. 6.1-15) has pevnte

a[rtouV kriqivnouV. The argument in support of a wider semantic domain fora[rtoV from thesepassages runs thusly: what the Synoptics calla[rtoV, John can calla[rtoV krivqinoV, so obviouslya[rtoV, unadorned with adjectives, can refer to loaves of barley too: and if it can refer to barley

then why not to all sorts of grains?That second step in that argument from barley grains to any grain at all is especially

tenuous, but is required by those who want to use this argument in an effort to help CD suffererssince barley also has gluten. But I will argue that even the first step is out place.

This argument for a wider semantic range fora[rtoV rests on an exegetically irresponsibleharmonization of the Synoptic and Johannine texts. As we have seen, the testimony of the lexicalexperts and the history of interpretation in the church strongly support reading a[rtoV, whenunadorned with other signifiers, as a term that refers to wheat bread. Thus we are confronted

Greek Text of Exodos (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990: 466-67)a[rtoV is chosen to translate ~xl in those instanceswhere wheat bread is specifically indicated by the text itself, e.g. Ex 29:2. Indeed, this passage from Exodus (as wellas Ezra 6:9) is further proof that in the sacred ceremonies of Israel, the 'bread' used was of wheat flour, that is,

a[rtoV. Furthermore, M. Harl notes that no matter what translation choices are made in the LXX it is still true that indealing with terminology about bread products, le grec est plus prcis que l'hbreu (the Greek is more precisethan the Hebrew) (La Bible d'Alexandrie, v. I, Gense. Paris: Les 'Editions du Cerf [1986], 68).

15 J. Behm,a[rtoV, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. I(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964): 477-78.

16G.W.H. Lampe,A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961-1968)

17Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker,A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early ChristianLiterature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1979)

6


7/12

Curtis- 7

with a seeming contradiction between the Synoptics (where Jesus multipliesa[rtoV, that is,wheaten bread) and John (where Jesus multiplies barley loaves). To make the difficulty goaway, those who make the above argument for a wider semantic range fora[rtoV rewrite thelexicon. This is just as irresponsible as resolving Mt. 8.5-13 (which says that the centurion felldown before Jesus) and Lk 7.1-10 (which says that it was not the centurion but the centurion'sservant who came to Jesus) by positing two such visits and healings; or by saying that there weretwo cleansings of the temple to alleviate the seeming discrepancy between the Synoptics andJohn in the timing of that event (thedoubling method of harmonization); or, even more directlyanalogous, by saying that in Greek sometimes su; ei\can mean ou|tovV ejstin in order to harmonizethe Matthean and Markan accounts of the words from heaven at the Son's baptism.

This will not do. Instead, we must have a nuanced and responsible approach to readingthe Gospels which recognizes that different Evangelists have different intents in relating a givennarrative specifically, sometimes one Evangelist is more focused than another in what W.Arndt calls literal exactness18 while another Gospel writer will vary the ordering of events, orwords of a quotation, or perspective on a happening to emphasize a theological point.19

This is what has happened in the Synoptic and Johannine accounts of the feeding of thefive thousand: the Synoptics seem to be more focused on a literally precise account while John

seems to have changed the materials that are multiplied in the miracle to make a theologicalpoint. Specifically, John would draw our attention to the LXX version of 2 Kings 4:42-44:20

42 kai. avnh.r dih/lqen evk Baiqsarisa kai. h;negken pro.j to.n a;nqrwpon tou/ qeou/prwtogenhma,twn ei;kosi kai. ei=pen do,te tw/| law/| kai.evsqie,twsan 43 kai. ei=pen o` leitourgo.j auvtou/ ti, dw/ tou/to evnw,pion ekato.n avndrw/n kai.ei=pen do.j tw/| law/| kai. evsqie,twsan o[ti ta,de le,gei ku,rioj fa,gontai kai. katalei,yousin 44

kai. e;fagon kai. kate,lipon kata. to. r`h/ma kuri,ou (Ralfs' text)

42 And there came a man over from Baetharisa, and brought to the man of God twentybarley loavesand cakes of figs, of the first-fruits. And he said, Give to the people, and let

them eat.43

And his servant said, Why should I set this before a hundred men? and he said,Give to the people, and let them eat; for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat and leave. 44

And they ate and left, according to the word of the Lord. (Brenton's translation)

Here we see a striking parallel to the feeding of the five thousand: a miracle in which a man ofGod multiplies food to feed a large number of people even though his servant is incredulousabout the possibility. John's account of the feeding of the five thousand more strongly parallelsthis account not only by havinga[rtouV kriqivnouV instead of the Synoptica[rtouVbut also byreplacing the Synoptic ijcquvaV with ojyavria. The latter word, which LSJM defines as "a cooked

18W. Arndt,Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (St. Louis: CPH, 1926) 57.

19This seeming lack of concern about "literal exactness" or precision is sometimes troubling to contemporaryChristians who, as we conservative Lutherans, support an inerrant Bible. However, it is best to agree with J. Voelzthat inerrancy does not include things like exactness of quotation, sequence of narrated events, and any set degree of

precision that would apply to all authors: "Positively expressed, then, to say that the sacred Scriptures are inerrant isto say that their authors are absolutely truthful according to their intended purposes" (What Does This Mean? 2nd ed.[St. Louis: CPH, 1997] 239).

20I was alerted to this parallel by R. E. Brown, The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John (Garden City:Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) 234-235.

7


8/12


9/12

Curtis- 9

At any rate, no matter how highly esteemed Danker is in the world of Greek lexicography(and rightly so), his lone testimony27 would be a weak foundation on which to build an edificedefying the unified voice of all Christendom (save Luther in one polemic work) and scholarlyclassical studies. It is too often the case that students of the NT ignore the larger world ofclassical studies in favor of specialty works by theological authors. J.L. North's admonition fromhis review of BDAG is relevant here, When professional classicists cross swords withtheologians (and when they do not!), their contributions must be heeded.28

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

As a careful study of the text shows, simply insisting on one's commonsense definitionis no help because commonsense is just another way to say assumption and culturalprejudice. We must investigate a responsible definition ofa[rtoV for everyone must strive tobe faithful to the meaning of the words of the text. Our investigation of the text, the testimony ofGreek lexicographers, and the church's history has found thata[rtoV clearly means wheat bread.This leaves proponents of the use of grains other than wheat in the Supper to argue that althoughthe Lord used wheat bread at the first celebration of the Supper, and although the very words of

the Holy Spirit's transmission of the Institution call fora[rtoV, that is, wheat bread, we can stillsubstitute another grain: for how could another grain make that much of a difference? This istendentious at best. The Lord has attached his presence toa[rtoV, wheat bread. He has not madeany other promise besides this. To leave his Institution in such a fundamental way is, at best, toenter the realm of uncertainty.

IV. PASTORAL CONCERNS CONFRONTED WITH CELIAC DISEASE

The text of the Institution, the history of the Church, and ecumenical considerations allargue for the use of wheat bread only in the Lord's Supper. But this raises the serious pastoralconcern about what to do in the case of people who are afflicted with Celiac (Coeliac) Disease

African Ecclesial Review 34(1992):258-271; J. Quevedo-Bosch, The Eucharistic Species and Inculturation inRevising the Eucharist: Groundwork for the Anglican Communion, ed. D.R. Holeton. Nottingham: Grove BooksLimited, 1994: 48-49. On the eve of the Second Vatican Council a more scholarly attempt to provide a foundationfor this was provided by John McHugh, Num solus panis triticeus sit materia valida SS. Eucharistiae? (Is WheatBread the Only Valid Material for the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist?) Verbum Domini 39(1961):229-239. McHugh's argument for bread baked from non-wheaten grains rests on three shaky foundations: reading theMishnah back into the NT, ignoring altogether the definition of the Greek terma[rtoV, and sidestepping the Councilof Florence's statements. Deservedly, his arguments found no traction at the time of Vatican II, nor have they since.

27 Some would perhaps add to Danker's voice that ofThe New International Dictionary of New TestamentTheology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), edited by Colin Brown: The etymology of the word is uncertain. Even

before Homerartos was used for bread baked from various kinds of flour. However, a comparison of this passagewith the new edition ofTheologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, of which Brown's work is a translation,will show that the seeming support for Danker's line is simply an accident of bad translation. Das Subst.

bezeichnet schon vor Homer aus Mehl verschiedener Getreidearten bes. aus Weizen gebackenesBrot. (The noundesignated, even before Homer, bread baked from the flour of various grains especially from wheat.) [H.Lichtenberger, Brot, Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, neubearbeitete Ausgabe, Band I, ed.Lothar Coenen, Klaus Haacker, et al. (Wuppertal: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997) 202-203, 203.] This agrees withLSJM, though it is less precise in that it does not specifically note that other signifiers are required for the widersemantic range.

28J.L. North, Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature,Third Edition.JTS54.1:271-280, 276.

9


10/12

Curtis- 10

(CD). First, some background on the disorder is called for.

A. CELIAC DISEASE

Celiac Sprue is an immune disease (first diagnosed and discussed by Aretaeus ofCappadocia in the second century AD)29 which causes the body to react against wheat gluten andin the process destroy the tissues of the small intestine. Celiac patients experience diarrhea anddehydration in the short term, and may experience malnutrition, anemia, and osteoporosis. Manyother health problems stem from CD, including an increased risk of intestinal cancer.30 There isno medical cure for CD, so the only treatment is a gluten-free diet excluding wheat, rye, oats,and barley.31 Over time, adherence to this diet can allow the small intestine to heal. The amountof intestine damaged and the amount of gluten needed to cause significant damage differs fromperson to person. Some patients can tolerate very low amounts of gluten. No definitive maximumtolerable level has been identified by medical studies. Celiac disease is most common amongpeople of European descent. Different studies have found different incidence rates for CD,ranging from 1 in 500 to perhaps 1 in 133 Americans,32 with those of Irish and Italian descenthaving particularly high incidence of the disease.33 Wheat flour contains approximately 12%

gluten while wines are gluten-free.

B. OPTIONS FOR CELIAC SUFFERERS IN REGARD TO THE LORD'S SUPPER1. INTRODUCTION

What are Christians to do when the effects of our fallen world intrude in the Church?How shall we serve those afflicted with physical and mental ailments? When faced with thesedifficulties we accommodate in ways that stay within the Lord's Institution as much as possible,while trusting in his grace. For example, with the severely mentally handicapped, we baptizeeven if the condition is so severe that no teaching may take place afterwards. Here we explicitlydepart from some of the Lord's Institution because sin has intervened: the Lord institutedbaptizing and teaching all that I commanded you to go together (Matt. 28), but a mentallyhandicapped person cannot learn all, or in extreme cases any, that the Lord commanded. Sin hasshort-circuited the normal process so we use whatever gift the Lord gave us as much as we canand trust in his grace when we cannot fulfill teaching in this or that case.

29R.H. MajorClassic Descriptions of Disease: With Biographical Sketches of the Authors, 3rd ed. (Springfield,IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishing, Ltd., 1978) 600-601.

30 Various data about the disease including references to many medical journal articles may be found atwww.celiac.com.

31 Gluten-free is defined by the UN and WHO for purposes of international trade as food containingless than

.03% of its total protein derived from wheat, barley, rye and oats (see:http://www.csaceliacs.org/DefofGlutenFree.php). Research is underway for an official FDA definition of gluten-free to be adopted in the US in 2008 (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/glutran.html).

32Alessio Fasano, MD, et. al.,Archives of Internal Medicine 163(2003):286-292.

33Fergus Shanahan, How CD Came to be Known as the Irish Disease. Paper presented at The 11thInternational Symposium on Celiac Disease, Belfast, Ireland, April 28th, 2004. Summary available athttp://www.csaceliacs.org/Ireland/WedApr28.php

1
http://www.celiac.com/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/glutran.htmlhttp://www.csaceliacs.org/Ireland/WedApr28.phphttp://www.celiac.com/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/glutran.htmlhttp://www.csaceliacs.org/Ireland/WedApr28.php


11/12


12/12

Curtis- 12

Celiac patients wanting to commune with rice wafers or other gluten-free substitutes rather thanwith hosts made of wheat. In 1994, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under thedirection of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) released norms for RomanCatholics permitting low-gluten hosts made of wheat as the only acceptable substitute forstandard hosts. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accordance with the 1994CDF norms, approved the use of low-gluten hosts (containing no other grain than wheat) forCeliac patients. An article in Gluten-Free Livingmagazine endorsed the use of these hosts asbeing "perfectly safe" for consumption by Celiac patients.36 These hosts are produced by theBenedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration in Clyde, Missouri, and are available from the Sistersat reasonable cost at www.benedictinesisters.org (more evidence of the necessity of gluten forbread: the development of this low-gluten host required 10 years of experimentation!).

3. As some alcohol-intolerant people receive under one kind only, so this could be anoption for sufferers of CD. For Lutherans this would be the most extreme and least desirableoption. But this practice is used in the Roman Churches (where a separate chalice is sometimesutilized for those with very high intolerance as the Roman canon calls for some of the host to bemingled in the chalice) and occasionally even in the Eastern Churches, where mingling istypically the form of communing.

CONCLUSION

Remaining faithful to the Lord's Institution is not optional for us, but it is often difficult. Ihope that the above discussion can lend guidance to those faithful pastors struggling both to carefor parishioners with CD and follow the Lord's Institution.

36Sr. Jeanne Crowe, Low Gluten Host is Safe for Catholics. Gluten-Free Living9.1(2004):3, 6, 8. Aftercalculating the amount of gluten in each host the magazine's contributing editor, Tom Sciacca, writes that he isconvinced that using the new low-gluten hosts is perfectly safe (p. 4).

1

what is bread - ΑΡΤΟΣ in the nt

Documents