Alternative to communion host?

[magdalina]

Are pastors or bishops allowed to specify the type of bread used for communion in their parishes and dioceses. I have heard of various types of bread (other than the unleavened host) used in Catholic mass.

Maggie

 

[coolduude]

I’m 99% sure that the host must be made of unleavened bread. It’s invalid otherwise (if I’m wrong someone please correct me )

Now there can be gluten free hosts for those allergic to wheat or something.

But I’m pretty sure the bread must remain unleavened.

 

[Montalo]

I’m 99% sure that the host must be made of unleavened bread. It’s invalid otherwise (if I’m wrong someone please correct me )

Now there can be gluten free hosts for those allergic to wheat or something.

But I’m pretty sure the bread must remain unleavened.

your wrong about the gluten free hosts

GIRM
320. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.
usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter6.shtml

EDIT: Please keep in mind i am only adressing the Latin Church, in the east it is premissible to use leavened bread in certain Churches

 

[MarkThompson]

In the Roman Rite, “[t]he bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling. . . . According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.” (Code of Canon Law.) Bishops don’t have authority to derogate from that. In most if not all of the Eastern rites, though, leavened bread is the norm.

 

[TheDoctor]

Are pastors or bishops allowed to specify the type of bread used for communion in their parishes and dioceses. I have heard of various types of bread (other than the unleavened host) used in Catholic mass.
Maggie

Maggie - in order to be valid, the Latin rite bread must be unleavened and made from only wheat flour and water. There are no other types available.

Low gluten (<0.1% I believe) hosts can be used for those who have celiac disease, but there is no other type.

Do you have a reference to where you heard different?

 

[Montalo]

In the Roman Rite, “[t]he bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling. . . . According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.” (Code of Canon Law.) Bishops don’t have authority to derogate from that. In most if not all of the Eastern rites, though, leavened bread is the norm.

i believe the Marionite Church uses unleavened bread, but you are correct that most Eastern Churches utilize unleavened bread

 

[MarkThompson]

Maggie - in order to be valid, the Latin rite bread must be unleavened and made from only wheat flour and water. There are no other types available.

This is not precisely true. Those are the requirements to be licit (i.e., for the priest not to be committing an abuse by breaking the rules), but to be valid matter (i.e., capable of being turned into the body of Christ) it need only be identifiable as wheat bread. So, Redemptionis Sacramentum says:
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 it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.

 

[TheDoctor]

This is not precisely true. Those are the requirements to be licit (i.e., for the priest not to be committing an abuse by breaking the rules), but to be valid matter (i.e., capable of being turned into the body of Christ) it need only be identifiable as wheat bread. So, Redemptionis Sacramentum says: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 it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.

Hey Mark. I had to read your post a couple of times, but I don’t think I have what you mean. Sorry.

 

[magdalina]

Maggie - in order to be valid, the Latin rite bread must be unleavened and made from only wheat flour and water. There are no other types available.

Low gluten (<0.1% I believe) hosts can be used for those who have celiac disease, but there is no other type.

Do you have a reference to where you heard different?

My sister attended a retreat in Ohio several years ago. She told me that some type of leavened bread loaves were used. Personally, I have only seen the regular unleavened host used.

Maggie

 

[MarkThompson]

Hey Mark. I had to read your post a couple of times, but I don’t think I have what you mean. Sorry.

I’m sure I was unclear in some way, but I’m not sure how, so:

Licit matter = what the priest is supposed to use
Illicit matter = what the priest is not supposed to use

Valid matter = bread that can be confected into the Eucharist
Invalid matter = anything else.

So, a brick is obviously both illicit and invalid, since the priest is not allowed to use it for Mass, and it cannot in fact become the Eucharist. Same goes for a Ritz cracker, a pork chop, a rice cake, or rye bread. They’re not permitted, and if a priest, going against the rules, tried to use them, there would be no sacrament and no Eucharist.

The flip side of these cases is unleavened bread made purely of wheat flour and water, including your standard Communion wafers, which are both licit (because Church rules say a priest may use them) and valid matter (because if he does, the transubstantiation actually takes place).

The third category are things that are illicit (a priest goes against the rules by using them), but nevertheless valid. For instance, unleavened bread made purely of wheat and water, except that a small amount of salt has been added. Is the priest allowed to use it? No, and in fact I think he commits a sin if he does so without just cause (for instance, it’s all that’s available on a desert island, in a concentration camp, etc.). But if he does use it, the Sacrament is validly confected and, despite, the illicit presence of the salt, the bread becomes Jesus.

So if a priest wants to break the rules (or has to, if he’s in a concentration camp) how far can he go? Using bread with honey or sugar added? Fruit or nuts? Using leavened bread? Mixing some rice flour in with the wheat flour? I’m not a canonist, but my point in quoting Redemptionis Sacramentum was to say that the standard for validity appears to be, whether the bread “would . . . commonly be considered wheat bread.” So what about a French baguette or a slice of Wonder bread? Valid, I would think.

The issue generally comes up, not because priests want to know how far they can go (except in the island/concentration camp scenario), but because thoughtless priests use illicit matter and laypeople want to know whether they actually received the Sacrament. And it’s important to note that what is licit may depend on the circumstances (if you’re in the gulag and get your hands on a French baguette, go for it), but what is valid does not. Even at Auschwitz, the Mass could not be said with rye bread or a rice wafer.

The standards for liceity (what is permitted by the Church) are, of course, stricter than the standards for validity (what can be used in a pinch), because the Church wants to play it very, very safe since a Sacrament – indeed, the highest Sacrament – is at stake.

 

[Pug]

My sister attended a retreat in Ohio several years ago. She told me that some type of leavened bread loaves were used. Personally, I have only seen the regular unleavened host used.

Maggie

Was the retreat Catholic? Some Protestants might use leavened bread.

Maybe what she saw didn’t come from leavened loaves, but from a homemade flat bread? It wouldn’t look like a regular whitish circular host, but it would be made from wheat flour and water and no leaven or other stuff, and be valid.

Or, perhaps it wasn’t Latin Rite? But then, probably other things would have stood out to her more than the bread, so it seems doubtful that was the case.

Perhaps what she saw was a violation, though.

 

[TheDoctor]

I’m sure I was unclear in some way, but I’m not sure how, so:
Licit matter = what the priest is supposed to use
Illicit matter = what the priest is not supposed to use

Valid matter = bread that can be confected into the Eucharist
Invalid matter = anything else.So, a brick is obviously both illicit and invalid, since the priest is not allowed to use it for Mass, and it cannot in fact become the Eucharist. Same goes for a Ritz cracker, a pork chop, a rice cake, or rye bread. They’re not permitted, and if a priest, going against the rules, tried to use them, there would be no sacrament and no Eucharist.

The flip side of these cases is unleavened bread made purely of wheat flour and water, including your standard Communion wafers, which are both licit (because Church rules say a priest may use them) and valid matter (because if he does, the transubstantiation actually takes place).

The third category are things that are illicit (a priest goes against the rules by using them), but nevertheless valid. For instance, unleavened bread made purely of wheat and water, except that a small amount of salt has been added. Is the priest allowed to use it? No, and in fact I think he commits a sin if he does so without just cause (for instance, it’s all that’s available on a desert island, in a concentration camp, etc.). But if he does use it, the Sacrament is validly confected and, despite, the illicit presence of the salt, the bread becomes Jesus.

So if a priest wants to break the rules (or has to, if he’s in a concentration camp) how far can he go? Using bread with honey or sugar added? Fruit or nuts? Using leavened bread? Mixing some rice flour in with the wheat flour? I’m not a canonist, but my point in quoting Redemptionis Sacramentum was to say that the standard for validity appears to be, whether the bread “would . . . commonly be considered wheat bread.” So what about a French baguette or a slice of Wonder bread? Valid, I would think.

The issue generally comes up, not because priests want to know how far they can go (except in the island/concentration camp scenario), but because thoughtless priests use illicit matter and laypeople want to know whether they actually received the Sacrament. And it’s important to note that what is licit may depend on the circumstances (if you’re in the gulag and get your hands on a French baguette, go for it), but what is valid does not. Even at Auschwitz, the Mass could not be said with rye bread or a rice wafer.

The standards for liceity (what is permitted by the Church) are, of course, stricter than the standards for validity (what can be used in a pinch), because the Church wants to play it very, very safe since a Sacrament – indeed, the highest Sacrament – is at stake.

OK, I see what you are getting at. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

 

[choy]

Was the retreat Catholic? Some Protestants might use leavened bread.

Maybe what she saw didn’t come from leavened loaves, but from a homemade flat bread? It wouldn’t look like a regular whitish circular host, but it would be made from wheat flour and water and no leaven or other stuff, and be valid.

Or, perhaps it wasn’t Latin Rite? But then, probably other things would have stood out to her more than the bread, so it seems doubtful that was the case.

Perhaps what she saw was a violation, though.

it could be that the appearance of the bread is different but the matter is the same

yesterday we had our new parish priest say his first sunday (vigil) Mass. first time i’ve seen such a huge host used. it could cover his whole face. it like those tortilla wraps you buy from the grocery, only firm. okay, maybe not that big, but its big. bigger than a DVD

 

[Phemie]

it could be that the appearance of the bread is different but the matter is the same

yesterday we had our new parish priest say his first sunday (vigil) Mass. first time i’ve seen such a huge host used. it could cover his whole face. it like those tortilla wraps you buy from the grocery, only firm. okay, maybe not that big, but its big. bigger than a DVD

That was a “concelebration host”. We use a 5 3/4" one that can be broken into 24 pieces but there is a 9" one that can be broken into 69-70 pieces.

 

[Pug]

it could be that the appearance of the bread is different but the matter is the same

yesterday we had our new parish priest say his first sunday (vigil) Mass. first time i’ve seen such a huge host used. it could cover his whole face. it like those tortilla wraps you buy from the grocery, only firm. okay, maybe not that big, but its big. bigger than a DVD

Yes, exactly like a stiff tortilla. I make flat bread at home all the time. It is just like that, only I make mine a little thicker than a traditional tortilla, and I use stone ground whole wheat mixed with a wheat from India (called atta or chapati). There is salt in mine, but that would need to be left out if I were making it for the altar. It comes out flecked and brown, not white, on account of the whole wheat and the griddle. Definitely it would look a lot different from the typical host bread.

But I’ve seen those extra large breads before. Those can be ordered, and are not homemade.

 

[magdalina]

I’m sure I was unclear in some way, but I’m not sure how, so:

Licit matter = what the priest is supposed to use
Illicit matter = what the priest is not supposed to use

Valid matter = bread that can be confected into the Eucharist
Invalid matter = anything else.

So, a brick is obviously both illicit and invalid, since the priest is not allowed to use it for Mass, and it cannot in fact become the Eucharist. Same goes for a Ritz cracker, a pork chop, a rice cake, or rye bread. They’re not permitted, and if a priest, going against the rules, tried to use them, there would be no sacrament and no Eucharist.

The flip side of these cases is unleavened bread made purely of wheat flour and water, including your standard Communion wafers, which are both licit (because Church rules say a priest may use them) and valid matter (because if he does, the transubstantiation actually takes place).

The third category are things that are illicit (a priest goes against the rules by using them), but nevertheless valid. For instance, unleavened bread made purely of wheat and water, except that a small amount of salt has been added. Is the priest allowed to use it? No, and in fact I think he commits a sin if he does so without just cause (for instance, it’s all that’s available on a desert island, in a concentration camp, etc.). But if he does use it, the Sacrament is validly confected and, despite, the illicit presence of the salt, the bread becomes Jesus.

So if a priest wants to break the rules (or has to, if he’s in a concentration camp) how far can he go? Using bread with honey or sugar added? Fruit or nuts? Using leavened bread? Mixing some rice flour in with the wheat flour? I’m not a canonist, but my point in quoting Redemptionis Sacramentum was to say that the standard for validity appears to be, whether the bread “would . . . commonly be considered wheat bread.” So what about a French baguette or a slice of Wonder bread? Valid, I would think.

The issue generally comes up, not because priests want to know how far they can go (except in the island/concentration camp scenario), but because thoughtless priests use illicit matter and laypeople want to know whether they actually received the Sacrament. And it’s important to note that what is licit may depend on the circumstances (if you’re in the gulag and get your hands on a French baguette, go for it), but what is valid does not. Even at Auschwitz, the Mass could not be said with rye bread or a rice wafer.

The standards for liceity (what is permitted by the Church) are, of course, stricter than the standards for validity (what can be used in a pinch), because the Church wants to play it very, very safe since a Sacrament – indeed, the highest Sacrament – is at stake.

Are you saying that for a layperson, validity of the sacrament should be the primary concern?. Is the licit/illicit thing properly the concern of clerical minister and his superiors? Should lay Catholics accept the sacrament in “good faith” knowing that those above our pay-grade will deal (or already have dealt) with the details?

 

[choy]

That was a “concelebration host”. We use a 5 3/4" one that can be broken into 24 pieces but there is a 9" one that can be broken into 69-70 pieces.

i see. i wonder why he opted for it. our previous priest doesn’t use the same size of host

 

[MarkThompson]

Are you saying that for a layperson, validity of the sacrament should be the primary concern?.

That’s not actually what I was saying, but, since you ask, yes, I would agree with that statement. Validity is the crucial issue, hugely more significant than liceity. Laypeople have a right, and should be concerned with, both validity and liceity, but validity is far more important. (And note, of course, that anything invalid would also be illicit.)

Is the licit/illicit thing properly the concern of clerical minister and his superiors? Should lay Catholics accept the sacrament in “good faith” knowing that those above our pay-grade will deal (or already have dealt) with the details?

I definitely think we should always assume good faith – that’s just part of being charitable. Still, Redemptionis Sacramentum makes clear that we all have the right to have the Mass celebrated in accord with liturgical norms, and we have the right to seek correction of abuses from bishops and even the Holy See.

 

[choy]

That’s not actually what I was saying, but, since you ask, yes, I would agree with that statement. Validity is the crucial issue, hugely more significant than liceity. Laypeople have a right, and should be concerned with, both validity and liceity, but validity is far more important. (And note, of course, that anything invalid would also be illicit.)

I definitely think we should always assume good faith – that’s just part of being charitable. Still, Redemptionis Sacramentum makes clear that we all have the right to have the Mass celebrated in accord with liturgical norms, and we have the right to seek correction of abuses from bishops and even the Holy See.

to add, validity is important because the difference is receiving a wafer and receiving Jesus Christ

 

[MarkThompson]

to add, validity is important because the difference is receiving a wafer and receiving Jesus Christ

Haha, well said. That’s the short story, all right.