Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: cosmas on November 12, 2018, 08:36:06 AM

Title: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on November 12, 2018, 08:36:06 AM
I know of at least one SSPX chapel where there is a gluten free host given out at communion time to a person or persons. How can they do this if they believe a miracle happens.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Stanley N on November 12, 2018, 09:02:25 AM
Are you certain you're talking about gluten free and not low gluten hosts?

Since the Modern Church doesn't permit "gluten free", I rather doubt any traditional group does either.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on November 12, 2018, 09:33:58 AM
I'll double check that, thankyou !
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on November 12, 2018, 09:41:40 AM
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/07/11/explainer-what-new-vatican-rules-gluten-free-hosts-mean

My point is also why does a celiac feel any distress if the host is completely changed into the Body,Blood ,Soul and divinity of OUR LORD ? It no longer has worldly elements when received.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Pax Vobis on November 12, 2018, 09:47:15 AM
Quote
It no longer has worldly elements when received.
It still has the worldly accidents of bread and the gluten is still there.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: songbird on November 12, 2018, 10:32:03 AM
A priest can still give a crumb.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 12, 2018, 11:27:35 AM
A priest can still give a crumb.
Yes that is the way it is done. When the priest gets to the person, he breaks off a small chip and gives it to the person.

However, in the example the OP gave, the priests is giving a special communion to the person. I have seen it done, the priests after he is done with everyone, goes up to the tabernacle and brings back the special host just for that one person. It is quite a spectacle on Sundays. 

In my opinion, it is an unnecessary spectacle for the parents or the person. I think it has to do more with pride than avoiding illness. If the person was so allergic to wheat that they can't even eat a small chip, then they would be sick all the time, because there are more accidental pieces of wheat in all the food that they eat every day.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Pax Vobis on November 12, 2018, 11:42:33 AM
Quote
In my opinion, it is an unnecessary spectacle for the parents or the person. I think it has to do more with pride than avoiding illness. If the person was so allergic to wheat that they can't even eat a small chip, then they would be sick all the time, because there are more accidental pieces of wheat in all the food that they eat every day.
I think you're being too judgemental here and overly dramatic.  If the priest decides that such a thing is necessary or prudent, then accept his decision.  If you were involved with the discussions, then you are allowed an opinion, but i'm assuming you weren't.  Exceptions like this are allowed by the Church, who is Our Mother and not a liturgical dictator.  It's not a "spectacle" for a priest to make an allowance in an extraordinary case.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 12, 2018, 12:11:02 PM
I think you're being too judgemental here and overly dramatic.  If the priest decides that such a thing is necessary or prudent, then accept his decision.  If you were involved with the discussions, then you are allowed an opinion, but i'm assuming you weren't.  Exceptions like this are allowed by the Church, who is Our Mother and not a liturgical dictator.  It's not a "spectacle" for a priest to make an allowance in an extraordinary case.
I'd be more interested in what other celiac sufferers have to say, as I know two, and all their lives they've just taken the small fragment from the priests. That is the reason for my opinion. I really do not give a hoot about  a priest going through that extra effort. The question is, is it necessary? Are there any celiac sufferers who want to enlighten us?
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Ladislaus on November 12, 2018, 12:23:18 PM
Actually, a lot of people who have issues with gluten have no problems if they go back to "ancient grain" forms of wheat.  Gluten only became a problem in the 50s when they genetically mutated wheat (not GMO like today but creating mutations and picking out the desired strains).

From a Prot site:
Quote
There certainly are many references to grains in the Bible, and with good reason. The Bible was compiled during a predominately agricultural time, and this would have been a reference that was easily understood by the people during that time period.

Though the Bible references grains, the grains consumed a couple thousand years ago bear little to no resemblance to the grains we consume (or don’t consume!) today.

In Jesus’ time, there were only three major types of wheat in existence: Einkorn, Emmer, and later Triticum aestivum along with simple, non-hybrid varieties of other grains like barley, millet, and rye. These grains had (and still have) a higher protein content and lower anti-nutrient content than grains of today.

This is a stark contrast to the 25,000+ species that exist today, most of which we created in a lab to be disease resistant or produce high yields. In order to achieve these traits like disease and pest resistance, scientists had to enhance the part of the grains that naturally resists disease and predators: mainly, the glutens, lectins, and phytates- the most harmful parts of the grains to humans.

In addition, these hybridized strains are often allergen producing and usually sprayed with pesticides and chemicals. It is interesting to note that some people who are allergic to modern strains of wheat show little to no reaction to (properly prepared) Einkorn wheat in small amounts.

So, the grains of Jesus’ time weren’t genetically similar to the grains of today, and had lower concentrations of the harmful com
ponents. In addition, they were prepared much differently:
  
My wife and one of my daughters have serious gluten intolerance, and yet they had no issues at all with Emmer (when we obtained some).

Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Ladislaus on November 12, 2018, 12:24:53 PM
In the Eastern Rite, there's no problem, since people receive under both species.

But I'd really love to know what gluten free host the SSPX would be using.  For validity, wheat must be used, and I know of no gluten-free varieties of wheat.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 12, 2018, 02:25:52 PM
In the Eastern Rite, there's no problem, since people receive under both species.

But I'd really love to know what gluten free host the SSPX would be using.  For validity, wheat must be used, and I know of no gluten-free varieties of wheat.
I heard it is a type of wheat that does not bother the celiac. 
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 12, 2018, 02:27:01 PM
My wife and one of my daughters have serious gluten intolerance, and yet they had no issues at all with Emmer (when we obtained some).
Do they take the small chip at Latin Rite mass?
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Pax Vobis on November 12, 2018, 03:30:26 PM
Quote
However, in the example the OP gave, the priests is giving a special communion to the person. I have seen it done, the priests after he is done with everyone, goes up to the tabernacle and brings back the special host just for that one person. It is quite a spectacle on Sundays. 
Last Trad,
When the priest goes back up to the altar, is he getting a "special" host or is he simply taking the time to break off a small piece, which would be easier to do at the altar instead of trying to do so beforehand and then trying to locate it between all the normal sized hosts? 
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2018, 03:48:13 PM
I'd be more interested in what other celiac sufferers have to say, as I know two, and all their lives they've just taken the small fragment from the priests. That is the reason for my opinion. I really do not give a hoot about  a priest going through that extra effort. The question is, is it necessary? Are there any celiac sufferers who want to enlighten us?
I'd love to know the answer to this question as well, also, it seems only women have this concern.

At our SSPX chapel, the priest goes back to the tabernacle and gets a small ciborium containing what looks to be only small pieces of the Host. A few times in the past, it looked like he brought back a small chalice, dipped a small spoon into it and placed a drop or two on the woman's tongue.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION ?
Post by: Stanley N on November 12, 2018, 08:49:04 PM
Are there any celiac sufferers who want to enlighten us?
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/gluten-and-communion-whats-a-celiac-to-do-72220

Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Ladislaus on November 13, 2018, 09:16:37 AM
Do they take the small chip at Latin Rite mass?

No, for my wife and daughter, they would have to consume the equivalent of about half a piece of bread before experiencing problems, and Communion hosts are small enough where it doesn't cause them serious problems.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: dymphnaw on November 13, 2018, 01:50:29 PM
I know of at least one SSPX chapel where there is a gluten free host given out at communion time to a person or persons. How can they do this if they believe a miracle happens.
Why so melodramatic? How do you KNOW that they use a gluten free Host?  
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on November 13, 2018, 01:56:41 PM
Transubstantiation and the Real Presence

(https://carm.org/images/catholiceucharist.gif)by Matt Slick (https://carm.org/matt-slick)
Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.
The term "Real Presence," when used by Roman Catholics, refers to Christ's physical presence in the form of the bread and the wine that have been transubstantiated into His literal body and blood.
Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

Quote
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Because they are the presence of Christ himself, Catholics worship and adore the elements.[/font][/size]
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on November 13, 2018, 02:02:49 PM
At The Consecration The Host and Wine only have the APPEARANCE OF BREAD AND WINE . The elements have been changed INTO THE BODY ,BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD. THINK OF THE MIRACLE OF LANCIANO, That happens everyday at Mass. Has anyone tested to see after The CONSECRATION if there was gluten present ? I doubt they have.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Stanley N on November 13, 2018, 04:55:22 PM
At The Consecration The Host and Wine only have the APPEARANCE OF BREAD AND WINE . The elements have been changed INTO THE BODY ,BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD. THINK OF THE MIRACLE OF LANCIANO, That happens everyday at Mass. Has anyone tested to see after The CONSECRATION if there was gluten present ? I doubt they have.
It's correct that after transubstantiation, the substance is the body and blood of Christ, under the appearances (called "accidents") of bread and wine. However all physically measurable qualities are accidents, so according to Catholic theology, no physical test would show a difference before and after the consecration. Catholics would not expect the measured gluten content to change. So celiacs who would react to an unconsecrated wheat wafer would be expected to have the same reactions to a consecrated host, unless another miracle prevented it.

As a different issue, wheat hosts are required for validity of the sacrament, because that's what our Lord used. Even the modern church requires wheat hosts, and gluten is considered essential to what, so non-gluten hosts of any form are not valid matter. Rice cakes wouldn't work. But for the sake of celiacs, the Church permits low-gluten hosts. Celiac priests would need to take communion under the species of bread at any mass they offered. (The modern church also has communion under the species of wine, so laypersons have an extra option.)
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Stanley N on November 13, 2018, 05:36:54 PM
The Miracle happened at The Consecration, no other Miracle is needed !
You understand that after the Consecration, the appearances of bread remain. Do you realize that means they act like bread to all physical measurements and activities, including chemistry?
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Stanley N on November 13, 2018, 07:22:06 PM
Have you checked out the physical components after The Consecration ?
I haven't checked out anything, but it seems to look and taste and weigh the same as before the Consecration.

I also don't feel any particular need to. Catholic theology on this is clear - the substance is changed but the accidents appear and behave the same as before the Consecration.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 14, 2018, 12:42:46 AM
.
Apparently cosmas has not learned what substance vs. accidents means.
.
I know someone who refuses to use the word "accident" in this way because he says, "An accident is something that shouldn't happen."
Maybe we should come up with a new word for it, but for now, we have what we have.
St. Thomas Aquinas is the first one to distinguish these terms and to bring natural human thinking into the realm of Church theology in this matter.
His work rose to the papacy, and his Lauda Sion Salvatorem became the Sequence at Mass on the Feast of Corpus Christi as a result.
.
At the consecration of the host and altar wine, their substance is changed into the substance of Our Lord Jesus, and this is a matter of faith.
.
But the accidents of the host and wine remain, unchanged.
     The host still looks, smells, weighs, tests, appears, acts and reacts (chemically) the same as an unconsecrated host does.
     And the wine still has alcohol, if you drink too much consecrated wine you'll get drunk, it weighs the same, looks the same and acts the same.
.
There can never be any measurable difference in the consecrated host and wine, in the normal state of affairs.
     That's not to say that no difference ever happens, but when there is a difference, that is called a miracle because it can't be explained by science.
.
Therefore, if there were gluten in the wheat before the consecration, the same gluten would be there after the consecration, and it would act the same.
     The same gluten intolerant person would be just as intolerant toward the consecrated host as to a non-consecrated host of the same lot number.
     That is to say, under normal circumstances that's what happens.
     And the miracle of transubstantiation takes place under normal circumstances.
     When we say "Eucharistic miracle" we are not talking about a normally valid consecration and the expected effects of that normal scene.
     Eucharistic miracles are outside normal circumstances, when visible, testable changes are seen taking place in the host and/or wine.
.
If a gluten intolerant person does NOT react to a consecrated host with gluten in it, THAT would be out of the ordinary, which could happen.
     It could happen but it probably won't happen, and it would be highly presumptuous to expect it to happen, so we shouldn't do that.
     However, God can do what He wants any time He wants, and He might reward someone with simple faith who just believes he'll be okay.
     There have been recorded cases of a person living for years without taking any food except for the host in Holy Communion every day.
     That is not proof that anyone can do that any time without fear or fact of starving to death.
.
Therefore, when we hear of someone who is gluten intolerant not having any reaction to gluten-containing hosts, that is not the end of the story.
     We should not conclude that proves once and for all that the consecration removes the effects of the gluten.
     Maybe it does in one chapel or with one priest, or when one particular person receives it.
     But that might be a quiet miracle taking place because it is not something that we ought to proclaim will always be the case.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 14, 2018, 01:07:16 AM
.
A priest can still give a crumb.
.
I'd like to know what's going on here in other chapels because I know one doctor who says that no amount of gluten is okay.
.
He says to be gluten free and to lose the effects due to gluten intolerance you have to remove ALL the gluten from your life.
The pet food in the house must be gluten free, your other family members must not eat gluten even when out of the house.
You can't wash your clothes in the same machine as someone else who eats gluten, so you can't use the laundromat.
You can't consume anything that has so much as touched other food with gluten.
.
That would rule out carrying a gluten free host in the same ciborium with other hosts that contain gluten.
.
And it would absolutely rule out any benefit in the priest giving a crumb, as you say, songbird.
      Because consuming a crumb is far and away more gluten intake than touching a gluten free host to another host with gluten.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 14, 2018, 01:52:56 AM
.
At The Consecration the Host and Wine only have the APPEARANCE OF BREAD AND WINE. The elements have been changed INTO THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD. THINK OF THE MIRACLE OF LANCIANO, That happens everyday at Mass. Has anyone tested to see after The CONSECRATION if there was gluten present? I doubt they have.
.
This post is rife with confusion and misunderstanding based on presumption and lack of study or research or comprehension.
.
One thing at a time:
.
At The Consecration the Host and Wine only have the APPEARANCE OF BREAD AND WINE.   --- Not true.
While it IS true that the host and wine have the appearance of bread and wine, that is not ALL they have: it's not a matter of "only".
In this case the word "appearance" is a one-word abbreviation for the full topic of what they have.
They have everything that is LIKE appearance too, such as smell, heft, color, size, taste, feel -- that is, everything sensible to man.
But it's more than that, because accidents include everything that instruments designed by man can be used to detect.
Things such as weight, atomic structure, radioactivity, x-ray pictures, non-visible light spectrum analysis, density, hardness, brittleness, and so on.
Any possible chemical reaction is also included in the accidents of a material object.
So it is more correct to say the host and wine continue to have the same ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (instead of "appearance").
But the word "accidents" is not normally used in our culture in this sense so uninformed people (like cosmas here) would be ignorant of that.
.
The elements have been changed INTO THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD.   --- Well, not so fast.
The host and wine have been changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, yes, but they don't look that way.
Remember, they retain the appearance of bread and wine.
But appearance needs to be replaced with accidents, so THEY RETAIN THE ACCIDENTS OF BREAD AND WINE.
To say "the elements have been changed" is vague, and could lead to misunderstanding that the physical atomic structure and molecules
     of the bread and wine are suddenly altered somehow, which, if they were, an electron microscope would be able to SEE the difference.
     Remember, no device made by man will ever be able to detect the change that has happened in the consecrated host and wine.
The infallibly defined Catholic dogma that their substance has become the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is a matter of divine faith.
This faith is what we receive at Holy Baptism, and it is not something that can be attained by human effort without God's grace.
So count it a miracle of grace that you believe in trasubstantiation, because Lutherans, for example, do not.
Perhaps that means that Lutherans might not have a valid baptism, but that's another topic.
.
THINK OF THE MIRACLE OF LANCIANO, That happens everyday at Mass.  ---  Well, not really.
The miracle of Lanciano happened hundreds of years ago and while there have been similar eucharistic miracles since, it's not the norm.
Every valid consecration effects the same transubstantiation that occurred at Lanciano, but there, changes in the accidents were sensible.
Normally there are no changes in the accidents and no such changes are sensible to man, whether by his 5 senses or by some fancy machine.
Normally there are no changes in the appearances or the molecular structure or the chemical potential of the consecrated material bread and wine.
.
Has anyone tested to see after The CONSECRATION if there was gluten present? I doubt they have.  ---  Many tests have been done.
There were tiny samples taken from the Laciano eucharistic miracle and they were sent to chemical labs to test for what it appeared to be.
There have been samples taken from other such eucharistic miracles and sent to forensic labs, cutting-edge technicians and doctors have reviewed.
What they have found was the fibers of human heart muscle tissue were microscopically intertwined with the fibers of the host wheat.
Wheat host fibers are fibers BECAUSE they are being held in that shape by the gluten in their structure.
Without gluten the wheat has no such fibers.
Gluten free wheat crumbles like mush and cannot hold the shape of anything, including the shape of a host, unless something is substituted.
There might be some other material that could take the place of gluten to keep gluten free wheat in the shape of a host.
So when a priest holds the host up like at the elevation or when he's distributing Communion, the hosts have their shape because of gluten.
Wondering whether there is still gluten or not is a moot point. Of course there is still gluten.
There continues to be gluten even in the bread portions of eucharistic miracles.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 14, 2018, 02:54:02 AM
Yes that is the way it is done. When the priest gets to the person, he breaks off a small chip and gives it to the person.

However, in the example the OP gave, the priests is giving a special communion to the person. I have seen it done, the priests after he is done with everyone, goes up to the tabernacle and brings back the special host just for that one person. It is quite a spectacle on Sundays.

In my opinion, it is an unnecessary spectacle for the parents or the person. I think it has to do more with pride than avoiding illness. If the person was so allergic to wheat that they can't even eat a small chip, then they would be sick all the time, because there are more accidental pieces of wheat in all the food that they eat every day.
.
Here is an example of "accidental" used with an entirely different connotation than "accidents of bread and wine."  
"Accidental pieces of wheat" is categorically different from the accidents of wheat.
.
Furthermore, it might be inaccurate to presume that gluten intolerance is the same as "allergy" or "allergic."
There are doctors and health care professionals that say gluten intolerant people have a variety of intense conditions consequent to eating gluten.
For example, overweight or even obesity can hardly be considered an effect of allergy, but it is one of the consequent conditions of gluten intolerance.
.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Matthew on November 14, 2018, 08:07:56 AM
At the SSPX chapel in San Antonio, a couple years ago, one man received the Precious Blood during Mass on Sunday. He had some kind of allergy or intolerance. The priest would administer to him from a small chalice kept in the tabernacle. 

It really was quite a spectacle. It's a shame Trad priests don't have more time, to say more Masses for each area per week, so that individuals like this could have their special needs met at a Mass with less attendance.

That presumes that such catering to special needs is legitimate. I honestly don't know, not having studied this in a professional manner.

I do know that we had a parishioner who was gluten intolerant, but she never got to receive Communion. Not from a gluten free or low-gluten host, and not from the chalice. This was under Bp. Zendejas. 
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Matthew on November 14, 2018, 08:10:56 AM
I must also point out:

Read and pay attention to Neil Obstat's responses to Cosmas in this thread.

Cosmas might have his heart in the right place, but he is mistaken about what "Transubstantiation" means. He is not a theologian, having never attended Seminary or learned Thomistic philosophy (substance and accident), so it's understandable that he is ignorant about this particular theological point. I'm sure he's not alone here.

I hope that he, and anyone else, reads Neil's posts for a clear and thorough explanation of the matter.

A small sample of Neil's excellent, theologically sound exposition of the topic:


Quote
While it IS true that the host and wine have the appearance of bread and wine, that is not ALL they have: it's not a matter of "only".
In this case the word "appearance" is a one-word abbreviation for the full topic of what they have.
They have everything that is LIKE appearance too, such as smell, heft, color, size, taste, feel -- that is, everything sensible to man.
But it's more than that, because accidents include everything that instruments designed by man can be used to detect.
Things such as weight, atomic structure, radioactivity, x-ray pictures, non-visible light spectrum analysis, density, hardness, brittleness, and so on.
Any possible chemical reaction is also included in the accidents of a material object.
So it is more correct to say the host and wine continue to have the same ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (instead of "appearance").
But the word "accidents" is not normally used in our culture in this sense so uninformed people (like cosmas here) would be ignorant of that.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on November 14, 2018, 09:48:12 AM
I just want to say "THANKYOU " FOR ENLIGHTENING ME on this subject. There's much food for thought. i'm going to do some more research on this situation myself. Thanks again for the input !
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 14, 2018, 05:38:32 PM
I just want to say "THANKYOU " FOR ENLIGHTENING ME on this subject. There's much food for thought. i'm going to do some more research on this situation myself. Thanks again for the input !
.
What a wonderful response!
I had no idea this would happen. Now here is a man with interest, humility, and a desire to learn!
.
But you might find it a serious challenge to get reliable materials to study.
The Summa of St. Thomas is a good reference but it's not organized to be a textbook for learning about things like this.
And the language / structure is a bit challenging until you get accustomed to it.
Perhaps Matthew can recommend a reference work that is used in seminary classes for the basics in philosophy.
.
In the meantime, you can contemplate the translation of the Latin sequence Lauda Sion Salvatorem to get a better feel for this topic.
.
http://catholicism.org/lauda-sion-salvatorem.html
.
Lauda Sion Salvatorem is a sequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_(poetry)) prescribed for the Roman Catholic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) Mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(liturgy)) of Corpus Christi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi_(feast)). It was written by St. Thomas Aquinas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Aquinas) around 1264, at the request of Pope Urban IV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_IV) for the new Mass of this Feast, along with Pange lingua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pange_Lingua_Gloriosi_Corporis_Mysterium), Sacris solemniis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacris_solemniis), Adoro te devote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote), and Verbum supernum prodiens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbum_supernum_prodiens), which are used in the Divine Office. The hymn tells of the institution of the Eucharist and clearly expresses the Catholic belief in transubstantiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation). As with St. Thomas’ other three Eucharistic hymns, the last few stanzas are often used alone, in this case, the Ecce panis Angelorum.

Lauda Sion is one of only five medieval Sequences which were preserved in the Missale Romanum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass) published in 1570 following the Council of Trent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent) (1545–63). Before Trent many feasts had their own sequences.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_sion#cite_note-1) It is still sung today, though its use is optional in the post-Vatican II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_II) Ordinary form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI). The Gregorian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_chant) melody is borrowed from the 11c sequence Laetabundi iubilemus attributed to Adam de Saint-Victor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_de_Saint-Victor).
All of the above is taken from WikiPedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_sion). Now for YouTube…
The chant version (as St. Thomas wrote it), sung by the Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. Maurice & St. Maur: (...)
.
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/LaudaSion.html
.
When Pope Urban IV (1261-1264) first established the Feast of Corpus Christi, he requested St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) to compose hymns for it. This is one of the five beautiful hymns Aquinas composed in honor of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. In addition to Lauda Sion, St. Thomas wrote Adoro Te Devote, Pange Lingua, Sacris Sollemnis and Verbum Supernum. Lauda Sion is the Sequence before the Gospel on Corpus Christi. The last two verses comprise the well known Bone pastor, panis vere.

LAUDA Sion Salvatorem,
lauda ducem et pastorem,
in hymnis et canticis.
Quantum potes, tantum aude:
quia maior omni laude,
nec laudare sufficis.
ZION, to Thy Savior sing,
to Thy Shepherd and Thy King!
Let the air with praises ring!
All thou canst, proclaim with mirth,
far higher is His worth
than the glory words may wing.
Laudis thema specialis,
panis vivus et vitalis
hodie proponitur.
Quem in sacrae mensa cenae,
turbae fratrum duodenae
datum non ambigitur.
Lo! before our eyes and living
is the Sacred Bread life-giving,
theme of canticle and hymn.
We profess this Bread from heaven
to the Twelve by Christ was given,
for our faith rest firm in Him.
Sit laus plena, sit sonora,
sit iucunda, sit decora
mentis iubilatio.
Dies enim solemnis agitur,
in qua mensae prima recolitur
huius institutio.
Let us form a joyful chorus,
may our lauds ascend sonorous,
bursting from each loving breast.
For we solemnly record
how the Table of the Lord
with the Lamb's own gift was blest.
In hac mensa novi Regis,
novum Pascha novae legis,
phase vetus terminat.
Vetustatem novitas,
umbram fugat veritas,
noctem lux eliminat.
On this altar of the King
this new Paschal Offering
brings an end to ancient rite.
Shadows flee that truth may stay,
oldness to the new gives way,
and the night's darkness to the light.
Quod in coena Christus gessit,
faciendum hoc expressit
in sui memoriam.
Docti sacris institutis,
panem, vinum in salutis
consecramus hostiam.
What at Supper Christ completed
He ordained to be repeated,
in His memory Divine.
Wherefore now, with adoration,
we, the Host of our salvation,
consecrate from bread and wine.
Dogma datur christianis,
quod in carnem transit panis,
et vinum in sanguinem.
Quod non capis, quod non vides,
animosa firmat fides,
praeter rerum ordinem.
Words a nature's course derange,
that in Flesh the bread may change
and the wine in Christ's own Blood.
Does it pass thy comprehending?
Faith, the law of light transcending,
leaps to things not understood.
Sub diversis speciebus,
signis tantum, et non rebus,
latent res eximiae.
Caro cibus, sanguis potus:
manet tamen Christus totus
sub utraque specie.
Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.
A sumente non concisus,
non confractus, non divisus:
integer accipitur.
Sumit unus, sumunt mille:
quantum isti, tantum ille:
nec sumptus consumitur.
And whoe'er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.
Sumunt boni, sumunt mali:
sorte tamen inaequali,
vitae vel interitus.
Mors est malis, vita bonis:
vide paris sumptionis
quam sit dispar exitus.
Both the wicked and the good
eat of this celestial Food:
but with ends how opposite!
With this most substantial Bread,
unto life or death they're fed,
in a difference infinite.
Fracto demum sacramento,
ne vacilles, sed memento
tantum esse sub fragmento,
quantum toto tegitur.
Nulla rei fit scissura:
signi tantum fit fractura,
qua nec status, nec statura
signati minuitur.
Nor a single doubt retain,
when they break the Host in twain,
but that in each part remain
what was in the whole before;
For the outward sign alone
may some change have undergone,
while the Signified stays one,
and the same forevermore.
Ecce Panis Angelorum,
factus cibus viatorum:
vere panis filiorum,
non mittendus canibus.
In figuris praesignatur,
cum Isaac immolatur,
agnus Paschae deputatur,
datur manna patribus.
Hail! Bread of the Angels, broken,
for us pilgrims food, and token
of the promise by Christ spoken,
children's meat, to dogs denied!
Shown in Isaac's dedication,
in the Manna's preparation,
in the Paschal immolation,
in old types pre-signified.
Bone pastor, panis vere,
Iesu, nostri miserere:
Tu nos pasce, nos tuere,
Tu nos bona fac videre
in terra viventium.
Tu qui cuncta scis et vales,
qui nos pascis hic mortales:
tuos ibi commensales,
coheredes et sodales
fac sanctorum civium.
Amen. Alleluia.
Jesus, Shepherd mild and meek,
shield the poor, support the weak;
help all who Thy pardon sue,
placing all their trust in You:
fill them with Your healing grace!
Source of all we have or know,
feed and lead us here below.
grant that with Your Saints above,
sitting at the feast of love
we may see You face to face.
Amen. Alleluia.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 14, 2018, 05:45:34 PM
I must also point out:

Read and pay attention to Neil Obstat's responses to Cosmas in this thread.

Cosmas might have his heart in the right place, but he is mistaken about what "Transubstantiation" means. He is not a theologian, having never attended Seminary or learned Thomistic philosophy (substance and accident), so it's understandable that he is ignorant about this particular theological point. I'm sure he's not alone here.

I hope that he, and anyone else, reads Neil's posts for a clear and thorough explanation of the matter.

A small sample of Neil's excellent, theologically sound exposition of the topic:
.
Gosh, you makin' me blush.  :-[  Are you really sure it's THAT good?!?
I mean, I thought it was OKAY, but "excellent theologically sound exposition?"
I'm honored. But I'll take it. Thank you, Matthew.
.
Now I guess I have to try harder so as not to let things slide!!
.
Is it too much to ask that the misspelled word in the thread title be corrected? It says transubstansiation. 
.
Have to go now, have to move my car before there's a riot out there or whatever..........
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: TKGS on November 14, 2018, 06:54:52 PM
.
I'd like to know what's going on here in other chapels because I know one doctor who says that no amount of gluten is okay.
.
He says to be gluten free and to lose the effects due to gluten intolerance you have to remove ALL the gluten from your life.
The pet food in the house must be gluten free, etc., etc., etc.
This doctor is a quack.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 14, 2018, 08:35:14 PM
.
This doctor is a quack.
.
Which doctor? 
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: TKGS on November 15, 2018, 08:32:00 AM
.
Which doctor?
The one doctor you know.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Mithrandylan on November 15, 2018, 12:01:57 PM
That presumes that such catering to special needs is legitimate. I honestly don't know, not having studied this in a professional manner.
.
Well, the general principle is that Catholics (well disposed, of course) have a right to sacraments.  Sacraments are often offered as a "special need," e.g. when a priest travels a hundred miles to give last rites.  Thing is, that happens outside of mass and no one sees it, so it isn't a spectacle.  Another example, again less spectacular, are the elderly who cannot kneel for Holy Communion.  I am tempted to think that catering to "special needs" is not just legitimate, but that priests are generally bound to do so. It should be done, when it can be done, with little spectacle.  But even if it can only be done with "spectacle" it should be done.  Well disposed Catholics, even celiacs, have a right to the sacraments, a right which definitely transcends the sensitivities of those who seek scandal in Holy things.
.
I knew some people who were not celicas, but who (I think) were very close to being celiacs.  To my knowledge they did not receive any special Host, nor did they receive a "Chip", but if I recall correctly they had to drink copius amounts of water soon after receiving Holy Communion and even at that it made them quite uncomfortable.  I think.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on December 14, 2018, 06:35:07 PM
NEIL OBSTAT,
I was researching and found this can you explain it to me. Doesn't it mean what it says ? COUNCIL of TRENT, SESSION 13 CANON 4   " If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains, together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ," Let Him BE ANATHEMA ."
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Stanley N on December 14, 2018, 08:57:29 PM
NEIL OBSTAT,
I was researching and found this can you explain it to me. Doesn't it mean what it says ? COUNCIL of TRENT, SESSION 13 CANON 4   " If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains, together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ," Let Him BE ANATHEMA ."
The key word here is "substance". A substance is what a thing is, accidents are how a thing is perceived by the senses. In Catholic theology, none of the substance of the bread remains after the consecration. While it looks like bread, in no way can a Catholic say that it "is" bread.
There were other views on the Eucharist that said Christ's body and blood was present along with the bread. These views rejected transubstantiation, but not always the Real Presence. The Lollards in England (associated with Wycliffe) had a view that is sometimes called "consubstantiation" (both present). Martin Luther had a similar view (though Lutherans say consubstantiation does not reflect exactly what he thought.) There was also a view called "impanation" that viewed the Eucharist as analogous to the Incarnation. The formulation of Trent says these other views are heresy.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on December 15, 2018, 12:11:05 AM
STANLEY N ,
My point was getting back to gluten in the bread, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine after the Consecration. I still don't know why if its been changed the substance ,how can someone have an intolerance to it. Could it possibly be in their mind , Thinking about the Eucharist being made out of Bread ?
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 15, 2018, 02:04:49 AM
.

NEIL OBSTAT,
I was researching and found this can you explain it to me. Doesn't it mean what it says ? COUNCIL of TRENT, SESSION 13 CANON 4   " If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains, together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ," Let Him BE ANATHEMA ."

.
STANLEY N ,
My point was getting back to gluten in the bread, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine after the Consecration. I still don't know why if its been changed the substance ,how can someone have an intolerance to it. Could it possibly be in their mind , Thinking about the Eucharist being made out of Bread ?
.
The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches us that the substance of the host becomes the substance of Our Lord, however, it does not teach us that the look, smell, feel, magnetic field, appearance, density, taste, hardness, alkalinity, radioactivity, weight, color, texture, mass spectrometer readings or chemical potential of the host is any different that what it was before it became the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you take a consecrated host, for example, and hold it over a burning candle, you can fully expect it to catch fire. Does that mean that Jesus Christ is inflammable? If the host had gluten in it before the consecration, the host continues to have gluten after the consecration; the only difference is that the gluten has mysteriously become the Real Presence of Jesus, in every way, even though there is nothing we can do with material instruments or our 5 senses to ascertain that Real Presence -- it's a matter of faith.
.
To say that the gluten is this part over here, and Jesus is that part over there, and these two parts are together in the same host but separated somehow, is not transubstantiation, it's consubstatiation, which the Lutherans hold, which is why they're heretics (among other reasons too).
.
I have no idea whether some people have a gluten intolerance because of how they think about what they eat. Nor do I know if anyone with a gluten intolerance has no physical reaction to consuming a consecrated host with gluten in it. Maybe there is someone like that. If there is anyone who can't tolerate gluten EXCEPT when receiving Holy Communion, then that would be a situation that can't be explained by scientific examination.
.
That would be the same science that cannot measure or observe any physical change in the host after it's consecrated.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 15, 2018, 06:54:54 AM
.
At the SSPX chapel in San Antonio, a couple years ago, one man received the Precious Blood during Mass on Sunday. He had some kind of allergy or intolerance. The priest would administer to him from a small chalice kept in the tabernacle.

It really was quite a spectacle. It's a shame Trad priests don't have more time, to say more Masses for each area per week, so that individuals like this could have their special needs met at a Mass with less attendance.

That presumes that such catering to special needs is legitimate. I honestly don't know, not having studied this in a professional manner.

I do know that we had a parishioner who was gluten intolerant, but she never got to receive Communion. Not from a gluten free or low-gluten host, and not from the chalice. This was under Bp. Zendejas.
.
According to one approach aimed at eliminating the effects of gluten for those who have intolerance issues with gluten, a priest who offers them gluten-free Holy Communion would have to not only use a separate ciborium for the gluten-free host(s), he would also have to wash his hands before touching it. He would have to observe such caution before Mass during preparation, such that placing any gluten-containing hosts in one ciborium then going to the gluten-free host(s) to place them he would have to wash his hands first. Likewise, he would need to use a separate cloth for cleaning the gluten-free ciborium since particles of gluten could be transferred from the cloth if it had been used already on a gluten-containing ciborium. Etc...
.
I'm not so sure about the "spectacle" aspect. There are other irregularities that affect everyone much more than an extra trip for the priest to the tabernacle and back. What about the ceremony of abjuration of error for schismatics converting to Roman Catholicism? The candidate comes to the communion rail, generally immediately before Mass with the entire congregation in attendance, and kneels there while the priest stands before him reading aloud the text that the candidate repeats one phrase at a time for everyone to hear. That's no big deal.
.
What about the community recitation of the St. Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort's Total Consecration to Mary? The priest kneels before the altar like in the Leonine Prayers after Low Mass (which are likewise no big deal) and leads the congregation in the complete form, which takes about 2 minutes to recite. That's no big deal.
.
What about the May Crowning ceremony, where a young girl from the congregation is designated to place the crown of roses on Our Lady's head, while the people sing a hymn, usually "Mary We Crown Thee with Blossoms Today..." That's no big deal.
.
So where do you come up with the priest taking an extra 30 seconds to walk to the tabernacle for gluten-free host(s) and back, being a "spectacle?"
He has to do that every time he runs out of hosts anyway, for Masses with large numbers of recipients. Is that "really quite a spectacle" too?
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: cosmas on December 19, 2018, 11:15:37 AM
Does anyone know if celiac persons have been tested after receiving the Consecrated Host ?
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 19, 2018, 11:40:11 AM
.
Well, the general principle is that Catholics (well disposed, of course) have a right to sacraments.  Sacraments are often offered as a "special need," e.g. when a priest travels a hundred miles to give last rites.  Thing is, that happens outside of mass and no one sees it, so it isn't a spectacle.  Another example, again less spectacular, are the elderly who cannot kneel for Holy Communion.  I am tempted to think that catering to "special needs" is not just legitimate, but that priests are generally bound to do so. It should be done, when it can be done, with little spectacle.  But even if it can only be done with "spectacle" it should be done.  Well disposed Catholics, even celiacs, have a right to the sacraments, a right which definitely transcends the sensitivities of those who seek scandal in Holy things.
.
I knew some people who were not celicas, but who (I think) were very close to being celiacs.  To my knowledge they did not receive any special Host, nor did they receive a "Chip", but if I recall correctly they had to drink copius amounts of water soon after receiving Holy Communion and even at that it made them quite uncomfortable.  I think.

I agree.  There are other issues people might have that would warrant special consideration, such as a disabled person who can't make it up to the Communion rail.  For them, the priest could move out into the church to administer Holy Communion instead of having them go up the the rail.  Certainly there are some people with gluten intolerance who exaggerate the effects, but there are some (celiacs come to mind) who cannot tolerate even a tiny amount.  I would consider low-gluten or gluten-free hosts to be questionable matter, so I would think that administration of the wine species would be the preferred approach ... using a spoon similar to that used by the Eastern Rites.  This would hold the Mass up maybe one or two minutes ... less than an old lady going into the Sacristy to ask Father to grieve for her dead cat.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 19, 2018, 11:42:34 AM
My wife cannot tolerate gluten in significant amounts, but she receives Holy Communion in the normal way (that small amount doesn't bother her).  I believe that gluten intolerance came from the genetically-butchered modern wheat have today.  At one point, we made banana bread using Emmer (the ancient variety of wheat that was in use during Our Lord's time), and my wife had zero reaction after consuming a significant amount.

I personally believe that we should make hosts from one of these ancient grains rather than the modern Frankenstein wheat.
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: dymphnaw on January 11, 2019, 03:26:00 PM
 

Why was this a spectacle? There is a lady at my church who will suffer vomiting and diarrhea if she consumes wheat. Father has her come up after the rest of us finish Communion and receive from the chalice. Between praying and all the people moving back to their pews it's only rare that I even notice her. 
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: TKonkel on January 11, 2019, 04:57:54 PM
A bit on substance, accidents and transubstantiation
 
"Therefore, it seems better to say that in the consecration itself, just as the substance of the bread is miraculously converted into the body of Christ so this is miraculously conferred on the accidents: that they subsist which is proper to substance, and, as a consequence, are able to do and to suffer the things which the substance could do and suffer if the substance were present. And so, without a new miracle, they are able to inebriate and to nourish, to be burned and to rot, in the same way and order they would if the substance of the bread and wine were present."  Summa Contra Gentiles BK III ch. 66  
This is in response to a problem regarding generation and corruption:  the sacrament would, in large quantities nourish one and even make one drunk if we are speaking about the wine.  But nourishment is the process of changing some substance, meat or bread, for instance, into my own flesh and blood.  When nourishment happens, are we going to say that its the accidents of bread that are changing into my flesh and blood (since the bread is no longer there), are they nourishing through a miracle over and beyond the substantial change that that happens at the consecration?  
Accidents (quantity, quality, relation, etc..) inhere in substance.  You never see the quality "green" without it being a green something; greenness inheres in a substance - a tree perhaps.  Accidents inhere in substance in a certain order according to St. Thomas and Aristotle.  Quantity is the closest accident to substance.   Quantity inheres in substance and various other accidents inhere in substance in and through quantity.  So St. Thomas holds that in transubstantiation although the substance "what it is" changes, the various accidents remain.  Quantity is miraculously held in existence without a subject in which it inheres.  The other accidents, including all of the various qualities and characteristics of bread and wine, continue to "naturally" inhere in the quantity which is miraculously sustained without a subject.  
Title: Re: Does SSPX still believe in TRANSUBSTANSIATION ?
Post by: songbird on January 12, 2019, 04:25:46 PM
It is possible that the hosts are NOT being consecrated!  A food for thought!