D
dochawk
Guest
Not even that far–the RCC is one of I think two of the two dozen Catholic churches that used unleavened–and even that, only for about 1200 years . . .
- Status
S
steph03
Guest
while some scholars say that, other scholars seem to think that unleavend bread has been used in the west since the first century. Some of tbe catacomb paintings also seem to indicate that. In fact, St Tbomas Aquinas maintains that both the East and the West used unleavened bread at the beginning.Emeraldlady:
Not even that far–the RCC is one of I think two of the two dozen Catholic churches that used unleavened–and even that, only for about 1200 years . . .
Last edited:
J
jimXroberts
Guest
The rule in the Catholic Church is that the bread used for the Eucharist should be made with wheat. However, what we now call wheat is a grain indigenous to the Americas and was not known to the Catholic Church prior to the 15th century. It was certainly not the grain used to make the bread at the Last Supper. The grain previously known as wheat is now called spelt. I have never been able to find any reference to the history of when the Church accepted the American grain as being wheat. However, we appear to have changed the definition of the grain in the past and I can see no reason we shouldn’t do so again.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
That’s not what it says in Wikipedia.
Wheat first reached North America with Spanish missions in the 16th century,
Common wheat - Wikipedia
J
jimXroberts
Guest
Don’t treat Wikipedia as an authoritative source - I must rewrite the article. The grain introduced to North America by Spanish missions was spelt. The high-yielding variety now known as common wheat is American and possibly an accidental cross between spelt and maize.
The English word for wheat comes from the German and it means the grain that produces white bread. The Latin word triticum comes from the word for grind. So if we choose, we could redefine any grain that can be ground to produce white bread as wheat. However, that would be a decision for the whole Church and not an individual priest. A truly gluten-free form of altar bread would be welcome by those who have a severe reaction to gluten.
The English word for wheat comes from the German and it means the grain that produces white bread. The Latin word triticum comes from the word for grind. So if we choose, we could redefine any grain that can be ground to produce white bread as wheat. However, that would be a decision for the whole Church and not an individual priest. A truly gluten-free form of altar bread would be welcome by those who have a severe reaction to gluten.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
But spelt is a species within the genus triticum. Doesn’t that mean that it is, in fact, a species of wheat?
N
Neithan
Guest
Wild wheat is from Mesopotamia; all other forms, including the common wheat cultivated in North America, is domesticated, and not indigenous. This is also an apt metaphor for the church, which is “native” to the Levant, but has spread across the whole earth.
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
Why?..
N
Neithan
Guest
Tradition, basically. Wheat is what Jesus used for the Eucharist, what the Apostles used, and what the church has always used.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Got it… so not a reason that would make it impossible to use something else then?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Here’s what it says in Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued in 2004 when Cardinal Francis Arinze was the head of the CDW. I suppose theoretically the Church could change the rule, but it would need a very good reason. The hosts going “mushy” in the jungle climate doesn’t sound to me like a compelling argument. Do you have a better one?
Chapter III
THE PROPER CELEBRATION OF MASS
1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist
[48.] 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.[123] 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.[124]
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
Chapter III
THE PROPER CELEBRATION OF MASS
1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist
[48.] 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.[123] 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.[124]
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Well, there IS the whole infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium (which this would fall under).
A lot of people think that the Church exists not to transmit ‘traditional’ and God’s eternal teachings, but to ‘make up new teachings’ or ‘develop teachings’.
But there is development and development.
It was development of a kind to understand that God is a Trinity, when the word "Trinity’ is not explicit in Scripture. However, there are enough Scriptural references and oral teachings to equate Father, Son, and Spirit as ONE that this development to the statements in the Nicene Creed (itself early in the 4th century A.D., or only about 300 years after the Resurrection) flows easily. Now, some people might think, "Well God went from ‘one’ to the Jews to ‘three in One’ to the Christians, so the Church if it chose, could decide that God was a Quartet, and that is 'also development.
But it isn’t.
Just as ‘developing’ the idea that in marriage it is not the joining of a man and a woman (who are free to marry), but to 'join two people who love each other, regardless of sex/gender, because we are all ‘humans’ right, is not authentic ‘development’ but is instead a wrenching of a dogma/doctrine into something that is the very opposite of what the dogma/doctrine states.
So no, the Church isn’t free to develop the idea of bread from wheat to ‘whatever’. It has under the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined what is valid matter not just ‘for now’ or ‘for then’ but ‘for always’.
A lot of people think that the Church exists not to transmit ‘traditional’ and God’s eternal teachings, but to ‘make up new teachings’ or ‘develop teachings’.
But there is development and development.
It was development of a kind to understand that God is a Trinity, when the word "Trinity’ is not explicit in Scripture. However, there are enough Scriptural references and oral teachings to equate Father, Son, and Spirit as ONE that this development to the statements in the Nicene Creed (itself early in the 4th century A.D., or only about 300 years after the Resurrection) flows easily. Now, some people might think, "Well God went from ‘one’ to the Jews to ‘three in One’ to the Christians, so the Church if it chose, could decide that God was a Quartet, and that is 'also development.
But it isn’t.
Just as ‘developing’ the idea that in marriage it is not the joining of a man and a woman (who are free to marry), but to 'join two people who love each other, regardless of sex/gender, because we are all ‘humans’ right, is not authentic ‘development’ but is instead a wrenching of a dogma/doctrine into something that is the very opposite of what the dogma/doctrine states.
So no, the Church isn’t free to develop the idea of bread from wheat to ‘whatever’. It has under the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined what is valid matter not just ‘for now’ or ‘for then’ but ‘for always’.
C
CTBcin
Guest
It would be impossible to use anything else. Wheat bread is not yuca, for example, so yuca cannot be valid matter. Similar to why we can’t use grape juice in replacement of wine. One can’t just consecrate any substance they want and call it the Eucharist.
Emeraldlady
New member
But how can you know this in this way. If the Church has never declared something dogmatically for now or for then but for always, what precludes it from development by the magisterium in the light of its time?
D
Dovekin
Guest
Except… we do not know that Jesus used wheat. Barley was more common at that time and place, perticularly among the poor.
Wheat is what the Church believes Jesus used; development could come if we realized somehow Jesus used barley bread. In that case, we would know the Church has changed the matter (from barley to wheat) and could do it again.
This is why I tend to be a little more cautious about saying development is impossible. Development can come from some odd place we never imagined and change how we think of things.
I am not claiming Jesus used barley bread, just that it is a possibility.
N
Neithan
Guest
Right, so it’s based on Tradition. Dogma or doctrine? Where do we draw the line?
E
esieffe
Guest
Im afraid that bread is the least of the problems with the Amazon synod.
A
adgloriam
Guest
I thought it was approximately the same since king David ate those breads he wasn’t supposed to eat.Emeraldlady:
Not even that far–the RCC is one of I think two of the two dozen Catholic churches that used unleavened–and even that, only for about 1200 years . . .
J
JimG
Guest
In any case, what is valid matter for the sacraments will not be changed.
S
stpurl
Guest
Because development cannot go from X to not-X.
We can go from leavened to unleavened bread because the only difference is yeast. Yeast is not necessary to wheat bread, but it doesn’t invalidate it. Yeast wheat bread and non-yeast wheat bread are both ‘wheat bread’, moreover, they are wheat breads in the most basic and unadulterated form. You can add honey or sugar to wheat bread, you can add eggs, milk, lecithin, even nuts, seeds, fruits, veggies. . . but when you do so, you change the nature of the bread. It is no longer ‘wheat bread’ but ‘wheat bread with milk’, ‘wheat bread with honey’, ‘wheat bread with nuts’, etc.
But we can’t go from ‘wheat bread’ to ‘non-wheat bread’. If we switch from wheat flour and water to ‘rice flour and water’, we don’t have ‘wheat bread’. If we change to yuca and water, no wheat bread. Etc. The Church has defined, dogmatically, that the Eucharist is wheat bread and the wine grape wine, so there is no way to develop further. Once we get to the basic building block parts we can’t go further ‘down’. And if we define with the basic parts, we can’t ‘define’ as ‘farther up’ the ladder. We can’t go from “wheat flour and water” to "wheat flour plus yuca plus water’, or ‘wheat flour plus water plus sesame seeds’ etc.
We can go from leavened to unleavened bread because the only difference is yeast. Yeast is not necessary to wheat bread, but it doesn’t invalidate it. Yeast wheat bread and non-yeast wheat bread are both ‘wheat bread’, moreover, they are wheat breads in the most basic and unadulterated form. You can add honey or sugar to wheat bread, you can add eggs, milk, lecithin, even nuts, seeds, fruits, veggies. . . but when you do so, you change the nature of the bread. It is no longer ‘wheat bread’ but ‘wheat bread with milk’, ‘wheat bread with honey’, ‘wheat bread with nuts’, etc.
But we can’t go from ‘wheat bread’ to ‘non-wheat bread’. If we switch from wheat flour and water to ‘rice flour and water’, we don’t have ‘wheat bread’. If we change to yuca and water, no wheat bread. Etc. The Church has defined, dogmatically, that the Eucharist is wheat bread and the wine grape wine, so there is no way to develop further. Once we get to the basic building block parts we can’t go further ‘down’. And if we define with the basic parts, we can’t ‘define’ as ‘farther up’ the ladder. We can’t go from “wheat flour and water” to "wheat flour plus yuca plus water’, or ‘wheat flour plus water plus sesame seeds’ etc.
- Status