Brown Communion Hosts

[MarkThompson]

Was that statement made by Jesus prior to the Last Supper?

John 6:50* "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. "*

Right, I’m talking about, e.g., John 6:54: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” (“ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ:”).

I think I’ll pass on the gnawing.

Yeah, that’s what a lot of the crowd who had been following Jesus said too. It was, indeed, a difficult teaching, and many people were shocked to hear it. As some guy once said, “Doth this scandalize you?”

I am grateful that the churches I’m familiar with use old-fashioned Communion hosts which melt in the mouth. Much easier for me to consume in peace: spiritual and physical.

I guess if that works for you, that’s fine. However, the tone of disapproval toward people who chew the host is unwarranted, as I hope you now see.

 

[Layman]

What I object to is changing from a perfectly functional practice, which makes for a bread easy to eat and digest, which is a both white and circular (aesthetically pleasing and significant) and exchanging it for bread like I could get in a shop.

I think it’s an archeologism. You’re swapping these for pieces of brown bread.

 

[MarkThompson]

What I object to is changing from a perfectly functional practice, which makes for a bread easy to eat and digest, which is a both white and circular (aesthetically pleasing and significant) and exchanging it for bread like I could get in a shop.

I think it’s an archeologism. You’re swapping these for pieces of brown bread.

No, what you had previously objected to was “the sight of squadrons of 7-year-olds chomping on the King of Kings at their First Holy Communion.” “Why chew if you don’t have to?,” you asked. The answer is that chewing is now, and has always been just fine. It is not disrespectful. Arguably, using “dissolvable bread” and refusing to really eat it is what’s disrespectful. It’s funny that you used the word “squadron” to be contemptuous (like how people are always griping about “platoons of EMHCs storming the sanctuary”), and you likewise scornfully used “chomping” thinking you were being derisive, not even realizing that that’s the word Jesus himself used in the Gospel. Munch, chomp, gnaw – sorry, that’s what an obedient Catholic would be doing.

 

[Layman]

Sure, I was told not to chew the Host. And lines/crowds/squadrons/groups of kids chewing the Host after Communion would have looked peculiar in my day.

The only authority you have is your interpretation of a word in that passage, which recounts what Jesus said before the Last Supper, if I’ve read it right. It’s a stretch to then say: “Let’s revert to brown, chewy bread, in the Mass, so we can then gnaw it”.

I’m tired of experimentation and re-invention in the Mass. This sort of thing presumes that our forebears got it wrong. Again. Or it’s just used to excuse an archeologism: we want brown bread. Frankly, if my local church started introducing brown hosts and telling us to gnaw on them, I’d wonder about where we were going.

 

[Lapey]

If you’ve ever made leavened and unleavened bread, you’d know that that is exactly what unleavened bread looks like, and that leavening will puff bread up way higher than half an inch. So I don’t know what you mean by “allowing the chance of this” – if you don’t put in any leavening, there’s a 0% chance of having leavened bread. (And even if you did, it would still be valid matter.) This bread looks perfectly fine.

I don’t disagree with you for the most part, but if the matter is not proper the sacrement is invalid. It the bread is in fact leavened bread, it is not valid. If you disagree with this take it up with Fr. Caropi, same as the quote I paraphrased and you responded to.

I admit I do not bake bread, I have never experienced this in the mass, so I do not know what it looks like or should look like. I’m not here to argue, just put in my two cents.:twocents:

We all know what that’s worth these days!

 

[Lapey]

Sure, I was told not to chew the Host. And lines/crowds/squadrons/groups of kids chewing the Host after Communion would have looked peculiar in my day.

The only authority you have is your interpretation of a word in that passage, which recounts what Jesus said before the Last Supper, if I’ve read it right. It’s a stretch to then say: “Let’s revert to brown, chewy bread, in the Mass, so we can then gnaw it”.

I’m tired of experimentation and re-invention in the Mass. This sort of thing presumes that our forebears got it wrong. Again. Or it’s just used to excuse an archeologism: we want brown bread. Frankly, if my local church started introducing brown hosts and telling us to gnaw on them, I’d wonder about where we were going.

I tend to agree with you on the re-invention of the mass as we like it. I must admit I am guilty at times myself, but more often than not it is out of ignorance or very poor examples.

I will say though, there is no requirement not to chew the host. There are habits that become tradition over time and then they are taught. Over time it becomes law in the eyes of the laity. I don’t believe this particular passage in the Bread of Life discourse is meant to tell me I can chew the Eucharistic bread however.

 

[MarkThompson]

I don’t disagree with you for the most part, but if the matter is not proper the sacrement is invalid. It the bread is in fact leavened bread, it is not valid. If you disagree with this take it up with Fr. Caropi, same as the quote I paraphrased and you responded to.

I admit I do not bake bread, I have never experienced this in the mass, so I do not know what it looks like or should look like. I’m not here to argue, just put in my two cents.:twocents:

We all know what that’s worth these days!

Actually, leavened bread is definitely valid matter. As De Defectibus explains, “If the bread . . . is not unleavened according to the custom of the Latin Church, the Sacrament is valid but the celebrant is guilty of grave sin.” If Fr. Corapi disagrees, he’s mistaken. In fact, I think the Council of Florence anathematized the position that the Eucharist cannot be confected with either leavened or unleavened bread.

 

[MarkThompson]

The only authority you have is your interpretation of a word in that passage, which recounts what Jesus said before the Last Supper, if I’ve read it right. It’s a stretch to then say: “Let’s revert to brown, chewy bread, in the Mass, so we can then gnaw it”.

No, it’s not just my interpretation, it’s the meaning of that Greek verb. You can look it up; this is an often-discussed fact. And I’m not sure why you care that it was before the Last Supper. If you don’t think that in John 6 Jesus was talking about the Eucharist, that’s just bizarre.

The funny thing is, I prefer the white, round hosts too over more “real” bread. They’re uniform, and they don’t leave (very many) crumbs. I’m just not going to accuse other people of disrespect or impiety for weighing things differently and having another view, nor claim bafflement over how people could think that it’s appropriate and makes sense.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If you’ve ever made leavened and unleavened bread, you’d know that that is exactly what unleavened bread looks like, and that leavening will puff bread up way higher than half an inch. So I don’t know what you mean by “allowing the chance of this” – if you don’t put in any leavening, there’s a 0% chance of having leavened bread. (And even if you did, it would still be valid matter.) This bread looks perfectly fine.

I read somewhere that yeast occurs naturally and that if you make unleavened dough and let it sit for a while, it will leaven naturally. So you need a clean environment and an oven ready to go as soon as you are done with your dough.

Phemie, can you confirm this?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I tend to agree with you on the re-invention of the mass as we like it. I must admit I am guilty at times myself, but more often than not it is out of ignorance or very poor examples.

I will say though, there is no requirement not to chew the host. There are habits that become tradition over time and then they are taught. Over time it becomes law in the eyes of the laity. I don’t believe this particular passage in the Bread of Life discourse is meant to tell me I can chew the Eucharistic bread however.

You’re right, there is no requirement to chew. However, its also rather silly to make chewing sound like a bad practice, it is not. I also don’t chew most of the time.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t disagree with you for the most part, but if the matter is not proper the sacrement is invalid. It the bread is in fact leavened bread, it is not valid. If you disagree with this take it up with Fr. Caropi, same as the quote I paraphrased and you responded to.

I admit I do not bake bread, I have never experienced this in the mass, so I do not know what it looks like or should look like. I’m not here to argue, just put in my two cents.:twocents:

We all know what that’s worth these days!

Leavening is not a matter but a property of the matter. The matter is wheat bread.