No, it's not incorrect.  As I said, I don't rule out that it CAN behave that way, but my opinion is that the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament will prevent even the accidents of the bread from "doing harm" to those who receive it.  There's nothing "incorrect" about that opinion.  We see more and more Trads infected with Modernist naturalist mentalities ... where even supernatural or miraculous types of phenomena are reduced to natural/scientific causes.

👍👍👍

In July of 2019, my husband and I went to Edinburgh Scotland, St. Leonard SSPX.  Priest,gave a sermon on host and wine both having Christ. After distribution, a man and woman came to the communion rail wearing white gloves and drank from the main chalice.  We were shocked.  We know that what the priest did not say, that even the smallest crumb is Christ.  A crumb is not going to hurt anyone IMO.  In our opinion it was infiltration, that went along with their 6 women in jeans and no veils who we were told to ignore, by my niece, who was told that by their priest.

Then when we returned to the states, we ran into a nun with her father, from Malaysia  and we discussed this matter and he too said they experienced like wise and left SSPX and he called it infiltration.  

In July of 2019, my husband and I went to Edinburgh Scotland, St. Leonard SSPX.  Priest,gave a sermon on host and wine both having Christ. After distribution, a man and woman came to the communion rail wearing white gloves and drank from the main chalice.  We were shocked.  We know that what the priest did not say, that even the smallest crumb is Christ.  A crumb is not going to hurt anyone IMO.  In our opinion it was infiltration, that went along with their 6 women in jeans and no veils who we were told to ignore, by my niece, who was told that by their priest.

Then when we returned to the states, we ran into a nun with her father, from Malaysia  and we discussed this matter and he too said they experienced like wise and left SSPX and he called it infiltration. 

Indeed, a relatively small crumb of the Blessed Sacrament would have the same effect, and, while I know many people with gluten sensitivity, I know of none who would experience any significant complications from a small piece.  And, indeed, for them to come up and drink out of the main chalice is completely unacceptable.  Generally a spoon (such as the Eastern Rites used) would be used if absolutely necessary.  So I agree that this is a way to introduce modernization.

I haven't posted anonymously until now. I didn't realize I needed to press that little checkbox! I have recopied it here so that it is under my account.

-----

Laudislaus has already more than sufficiently addressed the commonly accepted practice. One should prefer to use the gilded spoon, as the Easterners do, instead of allowing a layperson to handle a chalice, even with gloves, due to admiratio populi and the irreverence it may occasion. I believe I recall Prof Kwasniewski suggesting another way one could do this in a "traditional manner", although somewhat adapted, by using the fistula. Or even a third way, before considering allowing a layman to hold the chalice, is to have the priest gently tilt the chalice for the communicant, while the latter holds a purificator; this would also be preferable before allowing laity to handle the chalice.

And I believe Laudislaus or someone else also noted the important link between gluten intolerance and modern "Big Ag" practices (GMO, glyphosate, etc.).

But for those who were wondering about some of the pre-VII sources that address this, here are just a few I have on hand.

Someone cited Dom Bachofen's commentary on the 1917 Code regarding canon 852, but there was an exception made in 1959, published in the Canon Law Digest, volume V, 434:

The Holy Office has received the petition of Anne T., who desires to receive Holy Communion, but finds it difficult to do so because she suffers from a severe allergy to wheat in all its forms. After careful consideration of all the circuмstances of the case, this Supreme Sacred Congregation has decreed: “Favor granted whereby the petitioner may receive Holy Communion in the Oriental rite under the species of wine only; opportune safeguards are to be used to avoid wonderment on the part of the faithful.” (12 Dec 1959)

Homiletic and Pastoral Review, volume 62, cites this decree in its article "Allergy and Communion under One Form" (April 1962).

Theological Studies also summarized the common pre-VII practice/commentary in volume 24 (1963):

1. Communion under wine may be administered in extreme cases as viaticuм for someone who cannot swallow solids.

2. The above decree of the Holy Office. But note it mentions several points that one does not see in today's application:

a. It must be in an Oriental rite. This is practically impossible given the geographical distribution of traditional Latin Masses vis-a-vis Eastern rites; hence it may prudentially be disregarded. In saner circuмstances, things would be different.

b. Safeguards must be kept to avoid admiratio populi ("amazement of the people" or in otherwords, the shock that naturally would come over the faithful upon seeing something divergent from what is normal or expected). Other commentators also mention avoiding as far as possible any scandal or irreverence. This is also something one does not often see in traditional chapels that distribute under the species of wine. A good way to avoid this admiratio would be to distribute the Precious Blood outside of Mass, say afterwards when most people have left, but I suspect this isn't done because many would say it is too practically inconvenient for the priest and/or faithful. Most of the reactions here evince what the tradition was warning against by distributing in front of everyone.

... MODERN bread has been butchered by big agra since the 1950s, basically by a kind of genetic engineering where they were tying to improve wheat yields.  So modern bread is unlike ancient bread, such as what Our Lord used, and it has a much higher gluten concentration.  AND gluten issues have been linked to the GLYPHOSATE that's used on wheat crops.

...After I realized this about modern bread, I really came to believe that the ancient breads like Emmer/Farro should be used for the hosts used by the Church.

There's a flour called Einkorn, which is supposed to be more like ancient flours, and some people with gluten issues can consume it with no problem. 


https://dontwastethecrumbs.com/einkorn-a-wheat-for-the-gluten-free/

No, it's not incorrect.  As I said, I don't rule out that it CAN behave that way, but my opinion is that the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament will prevent even the accidents of the bread from "doing harm" to those who receive it.  There's nothing "incorrect" about that opinion.  We see more and more Trads infected with Modernist naturalist mentalities ... where even supernatural or miraculous types of phenomena are reduced to natural/scientific causes.

I want to agree with you, but what of priests who have alcohol sensitivity, perhaps not fully discovered until well after their ordination?

Even though it would surely fall within Our Blessed Lord's omniscience, are we to think that He chose matter for His Body and Blood --- pure wheaten bread, made of unadulterated and unhybridized grain, and pure juice of the grape allowed to ferment even if for the shortest time (as with mustum) --- that could never, ever harm even a single communicant?  Different people are allergic to everything you could possibly imagine, some of these allergies being very rare.

Or are you saying that even if, in isolated cases, one or the other of the species would otherwise be injurious to a communicant, the Real Presence would somehow overcome the allergen, and render the species safe to consume?  That all accidents of the species remain except for that accident which also happens to be an allergen for that communicant?

Do mean as in an alcoholic?  Apart from that, I have not heard of alcohol sensitivity.  That would not be the Sacrament causing harm but more of a dependency issue on the part of the priest.  If you mean something else (that I haven't heard of), then I would hold the same thing, that the Blessed Sacrament would not cause harm.  I knew a Traditional priest who had been an alcoholic, so he used "mustum" for Mass instead of regular wine.  Unfortunately, however, I believe that is held to be doubtful matter.  If he can't function with normal wine, then he should be laicized or at least refrain from offering Mass (perhaps hearing Confessions though).  I don't hold that alcohol would not have its effect, say, that if a priest for some reason consecrated and consumed a liter of wine, he would not get drunk.  But that's in the normal nature of wine vs. something like gluten which does not and should not normally cause an allergic reaction.  In any case, this is merely a "pious belief" opinion for which I have no actual evidence.  So, for instance, I agree with the priest who asserted that the Blessed Sacrament could not convey disease (such as COVID).  I do not agree with him, though, in making it a dogmatic issue where he basically denounced his bishop for heresy.  It's the same distinction I make with other issues.  While I might agree with the conclusion (e.g. that there's no such thing as a BoD that suffices for salvation), I do not agree with the theological note of that opinion, i.e. that someone who believes in BoD is a heretic.

I was referring both to alcoholism and to any other sensitivity or allergy issue that could make a person unable to consume wine.  I suppose, in a rare instance, that someone could be allergic to the grape itself.

I would say that priestly formation programs should screen for someone who, for whatever reason, cannot tolerate wheaten bread or wine (or any grape product).  You would, in effect, have a priest who could not complete the sacrifice by consuming It.  (And the priest must consume both species.)  That would be as much of an impediment as, for instance, a priest who could not speak.

I find it difficult to maintain that the Real Presence would suppress whatever allergic reactions one might have, in that this would be suppressing one of the accidents that could cause harm to a person unable to consume one species or the other.  Why would this one accident be suppressed when the others --- taste, smell, natural corruptibility (bread going stale or wine going bad), texture, etc. --- would not be?

Do mean as in an alcoholic?  Apart from that, I have not heard of alcohol sensitivity.  That would not be the Sacrament causing harm but more of a dependency issue on the part of the priest.  If you mean something else (that I haven't heard of), then I would hold the same thing, that the Blessed Sacrament would not cause harm.  I knew a Traditional priest who had been an alcoholic, so he used "mustum" for Mass instead of regular wine.  Unfortunately, however, I believe that is held to be doubtful matter.  If he can't function with normal wine, then he should be laicized or at least refrain from offering Mass (perhaps hearing Confessions though).  I don't hold that alcohol would not have its effect, say, that if a priest for some reason consecrated and consumed a liter of wine, he would not get drunk.  But that's in the normal nature of wine vs. something like gluten which does not and should not normally cause an allergic reaction.  In any case, this is merely a "pious belief" opinion for which I have no actual evidence.  So, for instance, I agree with the priest who asserted that the Blessed Sacrament could not convey disease (such as COVID).  I do not agree with him, though, in making it a dogmatic issue where he basically denounced his bishop for heresy.  It's the same distinction I make with other issues.  While I might agree with the conclusion (e.g. that there's no such thing as a BoD that suffices for salvation), I do not agree with the theological note of that opinion, i.e. that someone who believes in BoD is a heretic.

Mustum is not “doubtful matter”…. While it is illicit to use the freshly pressed juice of grapes for Mass, it is not doubtful.