Bread and Wine vs. Wafer

[Fr_Ambrose]

A Mass is licit or illicit. A consecration is valid or invalid. My guess is that the Eucharist would be valid and the Mass illicit under the RC canons. A better question for Liturgy and Sacraments where people could answer in a heartbeat.

My approved territory is Eastern Christianity and Apologetics. Could you please place the question?

“If a Mass is invalidated when the priest fails to consume under both forms how is the Consecration which took place a few minutes earlier rendered null and void? How are the Elements deconsecrated?”

Woodstock, I am being precise with my terminology here and phrasing the question just as puzzleannie presented her statement. She made it a matter of validity and not liceity. Liceity means if it is in accordance with liturgical law. Validity means whether or not any consecration took place at all.

Puzzleannie: “It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

A Mass is licit or illicit. A consecration is valid or invalid. My guess is that the Eucharist would be valid and the Mass illicit under the RC canons. A better question for Liturgy and Sacraments where people could answer in a heartbeat.

My approved territory is Eastern Christianity and Apologetics. Could you please place the question?

“If a Mass is invalidated when the priest fails to consume under both forms how is the Consecration which took place a few minutes earlier rendered null and void? How are the Elements deconsecrated?”

Woodstock, I am being precise with my terminology here and phrasing the question just as puzzleannie presented her statement. She made it a matter of validity and not liceity. Liceity means if it is in accordance with liturgical law. Validity means whether or not any consecration took place at all.

Puzzleannie: “It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.”

 

[Woodstock]

Could you please place the question?

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=190894

 

[DebChris]

The wafer is the form by which most Catholics are familiar. It is often baked in convents in forms that are easily punched out. Think in terms of a factory where a great number of wafers can be produced and packed into a small space. They are then shipped to many different parishes and consumed by a lot of people.
The host we receive, however, need not be in the form of a wafer. When receiving in a monastery, for instance, the unleaven bread is baked on site and this is the bread that is consecrated. The first time I experienced Eucharist in this form was at a small Catholic college run by Benedictines. The difference is small town bakery versus big company.
When I lived in Wisconsin, one of the priests baked bread for the parish. This was part of his devotional preparation for Mass. In all instances, the bread is unleaven as at Passover.

 

[mardukm]

But there is no doubt that the Church of Rome used leavened bread, and not unleavened bread, for the first 1000 years while she was in communion with the Churches of the East. The change to the present use of unleavened bread was taking place at the same time as the Great Schism between us.

That can’t be right. Didn’t Photius make a fuss about the Latins using unleavened bread? It had to be around for a while for that to happen right?

And the majority of scholars understand Canon XI of the Quinisext (in the 7th century) as a veiled reference to the Latin use of unleavened bread.

And it should be noted that the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano occurs with unleavened bread.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

Don’t the Orientals use unleavened bread? What’s the history there?

 

[mardukm]

Don’t the Orientals use unleavened bread? What’s the history there?

The Armenian Orthodox Church (Oriental) use unleavened bread.

Have you heard St. Thomas Aquinas’ theory on the matter. He opined that ALL Churches used unleavened bread. It was discontinued during the heyday of the Ebionite heresy (2nd and 3rd centuries). When that heresy died away, most Eastern Churches retained the new custom, while the West (and Armenians) returned to the old custom.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

That can’t be right. Didn’t Photius make a fuss about the Latins using unleavened bread? It had to be around for a while for that to happen right?

It began to make its appearance with the advent of the Normans in southern Europe. It was a novelty.

And it should be noted that the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano occurs with unleavened bread.

It should be noted that this is impossible.

Lanciano occured in a Byzantine monastery at a Byzantine Liturgy with a Byzantine priest in one of the Italian Dioceses under the control of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Armenian Orthodox Church (Oriental) use unleavened bread.

“The two mosty striking peculiarities in the true Armenian rite - the use of unleavened bread and wine without water - are shown by Le Brun (tom.IV. diss.X a.10) to have been introduced by an Armenian Council about 640, in order to symbolise the Monophysite doctrine that Christ had only one nature”

books.google.com/books?id=f8dhdXb5vAgC&pg=PA530&lpg=PA530&dq=%22unleavened+bread%22+armenian&source=web&ots=02DXlzGRUM&sig=Idzt97Jkygf6QpeWNwWzSYVjplA

 

[mardukm]

It began to make its appearance with the advent of the Normans in southern Europe. It was a novelty.

What would cause the Normans to introduce the novelty. From my understanding, they were previously pagan. When did they convert to Catholicism?

It should be noted that this is impossible.

Lanciano occured in a Byzantine monastery at a Byzantine Liturgy with a Byzantine priest in one of the Italian Dioceses under the control of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

According to all reports, the miracle of Lanciano occurs with unleavened bread. Obviously, God finds nothing wrong with this, and EO who make this a point of schism would be offending God, don’t you think?

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Have you heard St. Thomas Aquinas’ theory on the matter. He opined that ALL Churches used unleavened bread. It was discontinued during the heyday of the Ebionite heresy (2nd and 3rd centuries). When that heresy died away, most Eastern Churches retained the new custom, while the West (and Armenians) returned to the old custom.

The evidence I have posted in Message 19 from Roman Catholic scholars, Jungman, O’Shea and Emminghaus, would discount Aquinas’ opinion.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2840335&postcount=19

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

According to all reports, the miracle of Lanciano occurs with unleavened bread.

If you have seen such reports they are wrong.

Firstly, the miracle of Lanciano is not a re-occuring event. It happened only once in the 8th century.

Secondly, it happened with leavened bread at a Byzantine Eucharist celebrated by a monks of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

 

[Ghosty]

The synoptics lead one to believe the Last Supper was on the day of Passover, which would have meant no leavening. The Gospel of John leads us to believe it was the day before Passover, which means there could have been leavening. Some then argue Jesus being a first born wouldn’t have been allowed leavening on the day before, either.

Just want to point out that even without the first born issue there wouldn’t have been leaven the night before Passover; all leaven is cleared out of the house before sundown on the night before. If the Last Supper truly was the night before Passover, then the “preparations” done by the Apostles who were sent ahead would have been to sweep the house clean of all possible leaven.

This doesn’t at all invalidate the use of leavened bread, but there is simply no way in which the Last Supper would have been done with leaven. To do so, whether the night of or the night before Passover, would have been a GRAVE violation of the most sacred of Jewish holidays. In either case unleavened bread would have been used, hands down.

The Torah forbids us to have in our possession any bread, leaven, leavening agent, or any food that contains any of those, from the day before Passover until the end of the eighth day of Passover.

beingjewish.com/yomtov/passover/search.html

I find it amusing that in most “debates” on this subject, few actually consult Jewish practice on the matter. It is simply assumed that if the Last Supper occurred before Passover that it could have used leavened bread, despite the plain facts of Judaism standing against such a notion.

The ONLY argument for the Last Supper using leavened bread is that the word “artos” is used, but that word is used in the Greek Old Testament to describe unleavened bread as well. This fact combined with the clear Jewish practice on the matter leaves no other possible conclusion than that Christ used unleavened bread at the Last Supper. Later Christian practice of using leavened bread is completely uncompromised by this fact.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

To do so, whether the night of or the night before Passover, would have been a GRAVE violation of the most sacred of Jewish holidays.

And any High Priest or priest who participated in a trial on the night of or the night before Passover would have been ritually defiled and unable to participate in the Passover. Do you think that is likely? :nope:

 

[Ghosty]

And any High Priest or priest who participated in a trial on the night of or the night before Passover would have been ritually defiled and unable to participate in the Passover. Do you think that is likely? :nope:

Given the fact that the Sanhedrin regularly defiled itself in such a way, such as by allowing money-changers into the Temple, I don’t find such behavior unlikely at all. They were a brood of vipers, Christ and the Apostles were not. They Crucified a man (God) they knew to be innocent, having a staged trial on a Holy-day is hardly much of a stretch with that in mind.

Besides, that they violated that tenet of their Faith is recorded fact, so there is no need to ask if it is likely or not. Likewise, there is absolutely no reason to presume a violation of Sacred Law by God Himself when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that He did so.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Given the fact that the Sanhedrin regularly defiled itself in such a way, such as by allowing money-changers into the Temple, I don’t find such behavior unlikely at all. They were a brood of vipers, Christ and the Apostles were not. They Crucified a man (God) they knew to be innocent, having a staged trial on a Holy-day is hardly much of a stretch with that in mind.

That all sounds a bit emotional.

They would have been unable to participate in the Passover services if they had defiled the holy days by taking part in a trial. Ask any rabbin.

 

[Ghosty]

That all sounds a bit emotional.

They would have been unable to participate in the Passover services if they had defiled the holy days by taking part in a trial. Ask any rabbin.

It’s not at all emotional.

Yes, they violated the Law; they also Crucified God Himself. There’s no question of whether or not the Sanhedrin defiled themselves, but you are suggesting that Christ and the Apostles also defiled themselves. That seems to be an odd position to be taking, don’t you think?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Just want to point out that even without the first born issue there wouldn’t have been leaven the night before Passover; all leaven is cleared out of the house before sundown on the night before. If the Last Supper truly was the night before Passover, then the “preparations” done by the Apostles who were sent ahead would have been to sweep the house clean of all possible leaven.

This doesn’t at all invalidate the use of leavened bread, but there is simply no way in which the Last Supper would have been done with leaven. To do so, whether the night of or the night before Passover, would have been a GRAVE violation of the most sacred of Jewish holidays. In either case unleavened bread would have been used, hands down.

beingjewish.com/yomtov/passover/search.html

I find it amusing that in most “debates” on this subject, few actually consult Jewish practice on the matter. It is simply assumed that if the Last Supper occurred before Passover that it could have used leavened bread, despite the plain facts of Judaism standing against such a notion.

The ONLY argument for the Last Supper using leavened bread is that the word “artos” is used, but that word is used in the Greek Old Testament to describe unleavened bread as well. This fact combined with the clear Jewish practice on the matter leaves no other possible conclusion than that Christ used unleavened bread at the Last Supper. Later Christian practice of using leavened bread is completely uncompromised by this fact.

Despite your certainty on the matter scholars are agreed that in fact we cannot determine what bread was used on the night of the Last Supper.

Given their agreement on this it seems quite logical then to look at the practice of the Churches and assume that they were following the most ancient and apostolic traditons - and in this instance leavened bread wins hands down.

(Even the much vaunted Armenian use of unleavened bread only dates from a change in the 6th century, to uphold the monophysite teaching on the one nature of Christ.)

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

It’s not at all emotional.

Yes, they violated the Law; they also Crucified God Himself. There’s no question of whether or not the Sanhedrin defiled themselves, but you are suggesting that Christ and the Apostles also defiled themselves. That seems to be an odd position to be taking, don’t you think?

Huh? I am not taking that position.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

. . . the miracle of Lanciano . . .happened with leavened bread at a Byzantine Eucharist celebrated by a monks of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

This Zenit article indicates that the consecration was during a Latin-Rite mass. Admittedly not the strongest historical evidence, but at least its a reputable outside source for the contrary position.Can you point us to some sources for your position? It is very interesting.

Thank you!
VC