Does this bread recipe produce valid matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Julia_Mae said:
As I said: I don’t believe that. I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s nonsensical to me. I mean, when did it change? They didn’t have white flour in Palestine. Wheat was one of the lesser grains, bread had multiple grains. So for all these centuries we have no Eucharist until a Pope somewhere along the line decided we should only use special flour and water?
Click to expand...
No; but when the Church made its declaration, it became binding (for the Latin rite). Before that time, Eucharist was Eucharist. After that time, Eucharist was still Eucharist (albeit with additional restrictions on the kinds of materials can go into the bread and wine).
There are lots of rules about things in the modern Church that I understand, including this one. But what the bread is made out of cannot possibly affect whether God acts or not.
Click to expand...
In Scripture, we find that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to “bind and loose”, right? If they bind the definition of the stuff that makes up the Eucharist, then it’s bound, isn’t it – just the same as if Jesus said it himself, no?

To make the assertion you’re making, aren’t you implicitly saying that the Church has no right to regulate her sacraments?
 
Gorgias said:
No; but when the Church made its declaration, it became binding (for the Latin rite). Before that time, Eucharist was Eucharist. After that time, Eucharist was still Eucharist (albeit with additional restrictions on the kinds of materials can go into the bread and wine).

In Scripture, we find that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to “bind and loose”, right? If they bind the definition of the stuff that makes up the Eucharist, then it’s bound, isn’t it – just the same as if Jesus said it himself, no?

To make the assertion you’re making, aren’t you implicitly saying that the Church has no right to regulate her sacraments?
Click to expand...
No, I’m not. I’m saying that setting rules for how to bake altar breads is not on par with declaring the Trinity. The first is the Church making rules about how to bake breads, the second is Eternal Truth. The Church doesn’t make Eternal Truth, on;ly protects and declares it.

There are all kinds of rules and procedures for Liturgy. If a priest leaves something out or changes something, in almost all cases, it certainly doesn’t mean Liturgy didn’t happen or prayers aren’t heard if the altar cloth is a wrong color.

Lastly, there’s not a reason in the world for us to argue about this as no one ITT is qualified to state definitely what the Church teaches about using rice flour instead of wheat. So, find a source that supports your point, a *Vatican *source, not some priest on EWTN.
 
Gorgias said:
No; but when the Church made its declaration, it became binding (for the Latin rite). Before that time, Eucharist was Eucharist. After that time, Eucharist was still Eucharist (albeit with additional restrictions on the kinds of materials can go into the bread and wine).

In Scripture, we find that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to “bind and loose”, right? If they bind the definition of the stuff that makes up the Eucharist, then it’s bound, isn’t it – just the same as if Jesus said it himself, no?

To make the assertion you’re making, aren’t you implicitly saying that the Church has no right to regulate her sacraments?
Click to expand...
The power to bind and loose doesn’t mean they have God’s power. There is a limit to what they can change. But if you think about it, the Roman Church went from leavened to unleavened bread.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The power to bind and loose doesn’t mean they have God’s power. There is a limit to what they can change. But if you think about it, the Roman Church went from leavened to unleavened bread.
Click to expand...
When did they do that? I wish someone would find a link to something about the history of altar breads. I Googled it and didn’t find what I was looking for. Maybe I’ll try again.

edit: Ah! I was supposed to say “sacramental breads.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_bread

So the Eastern churches use leavened bread? The ones in communion with Rome?
 
Julia_Mae said:
So the Eastern churches use leavened bread? The ones in communion with Rome?
Click to expand...
With the exception of the Syro-Malabar Church, the Chaldean Church, the Maronite Church, and the Armenian CC (where the Orthodox use unleavened altar bread as well), that would be a yes.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Why use carbonated water and not just regular tap water?

And according to Leviticus, you should salt all your grain offerings. 😉

I use salt when making prosphora, but of course East and West has different requirements when it comes to bread. Try using hot water to mix with the flour, the heat will kill any yeast you may catch in the air, at least gives you time to mix and form the bread prior to baking.
Click to expand...
What is used to make the communion bread?
 
TrueLight said:
What is used to make the communion bread?
Click to expand...
What do I use? Unbleached flour, water, yeast, salt. Then for tools, a KitchenAid mixer, cookie cutters, prosphora seals and a baking sheet. And of coure an oven 😉
 
Julia_Mae said:
As I said: I don’t believe that. I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s nonsensical to me. I mean, when did it change? They didn’t have white flour in Palestine. Wheat was one of the lesser grains, bread had multiple grains. So for all these centuries we have no Eucharist until a Pope somewhere along the line decided we should only use special flour and water?

There are lots of rules about things in the modern Church that I understand, including this one. But what the bread is made out of cannot possibly affect whether God acts or not.

BTW, where do we find the definition of “valid” in this context?
Click to expand...
Jesus gave Peter the power to bind an loose. What Peter says, goes.

If Peter says it must be wheat flower, then that’s what it must be. If Peter says that it must be wheat flower in Rome but that it should have salt in Constantinople, then that is what it must be. If Peter says that the addtion of salt makes it valid matter in Consantinople but that the addition of salt in Rome invalidates the matter, then it is so. If Peter says Jesus will not be present in Constantinople without salt, and that Jesus will not be present in Rome with salt, then it is so.

People forget that at the Mass, during the epiclesis, the priest calls down the Holy Spirit. This amazes me. Even though it is not visible, I can barely open my eyes to see what is happening at the altar because of how awesom it is. The priest calls down the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, upon the altar, and the Holy Spirit responds, and is present in a special way. How much power the priest has, to be able to command the Holy Spirit!

***Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. *(Matthew 16:19)

How much more power does the Vicar of Christ have; he who has been delegated authority to bind and loose by Jesus himself, and who gets to determine what the matter Jesus will become present under?

I think we sometimes forget how much power and authority God has delegated to these men.

-Tim-
 
Gorgias said:
No. This isn’t accurate, to the best of my knowledge.

(Emphasis mine)

Notice that the stipulation is not “wheat flour and water only”, but rather, simply that there aren’t additional ingredients to the extent that “it would not commonly be considered wheat bread”. Adding salt does not violate this requirement (unless the quantity of salt were sufficiently great that the resulting product would more likely be considered a “salt stick” than "wheat bread). 😉

Adding a bit of salt, and brushing on a little Crisco would not change the common consideration that what is produced is “wheat bread”.
Click to expand...
The RS quote is only concerned with validity. We have established here now that the bread is valid. However, the RS quote is not concerned with and does not define liceity. The bread is valid matter but illicit.
 
Julia_Mae said:
I believe Jesus Who said, “Where two or more are gathered in my name there will I be also.”
Click to expand...
If that’s all that is required, then where does it end? Put me in charge of making them in that event, and they would be miniature pizzas with sauce, cheese, and a slice of pepperoni.
 
sedonaman said:
If that’s all that is required, then where does it end? Put me in charge of making them in that event, and they would be miniature pizzas with sauce, cheese, and a slice of pepperoni.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Jesus’ promises end anywhere at all. I think they are Eternal. Jesus is not bound by anything at all. He will be available to us in Body and Blood as He wishes and wills.

My feeling is, and of course it’s not up to me but Him, that such a flippant attitude toward Him might not garner you the True Presence in pizza.
 
Julia_Mae said:
No, I’m not. I’m saying that setting rules for how to bake altar breads is not on par with declaring the Trinity.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I would characterize this discussion simply as “how to bake bread”. Instead, I would say that the sacraments are absolutely fundamental to the very notion of the Church. That being the case, it’s pretty important to understand what the sacraments are (and what isn’t a sacrament). If we look at it this way, one question naturally arises: who has the authority to define what is and what isn’t a sacrament? Clearly, it would seem, the Church has authority to do so! Looking at Canon Law, we see:
Can. 841 Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity; it is for the same or another competent authority according to the norm of can. 838 §§3 and 4 to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.
Click to expand...
There are two words that might need to be defined here: ‘validity’ and ‘licit’ (or ‘liceity’). Validity speaks to the legal effect of an action – it answers the question “does this action actually work? does it achieve the effect that it intends?” Liceity speaks to all the requirements of the law, and whether they’ve been followed properly. Suppose I was trying to build a garage in my backyard. At the end of the project, you might ask, “were you successful – do you now have a garage in your backyard?”, and that would be a question about validity. if i built something, but it wasn’t able to house a car, there would still be something there, but I don’t think anyone would call it a ‘garage’. On the other hand, if you asked, “did you follow all the laws for the building of garages in backyards?”, that would be a question of whether my actions were licit. Whether or not I followed the laws, the thing that I built would still exist! (Of course, I might be in real trouble with the municipality, if I didn’t get a building permit or built on an easement – but the garage would still be a ‘garage’!) So, in the realm of canon law, if something is invalid, it is also illicit. However, if it is valid, then it may be either licit or illicit. But, it can’t be invalid yet licit – if I don’t actually build a garage, there’s no way of saying that I’ve followed the laws about garage construction. Make sense?

(Too much detail already? This is what I was guessing you were asking about … but we need to get through the foundations in order to answer your questions…)

OK – so, why did I bother getting into this technical discussion about these two terms? Well, it goes right to your question. Our discussion isn’t about ‘how to bake bread’; instead, it’s about what makes ‘the Eucharist’ the Eucharist. That is, if I picked up a flower and handed it to you and said “The Body of Christ”, would that be believable? Of course not! And if we argued about whether it was really the Eucharist, there would have to be some way to resolve the dispute, right? The way to resolve it, then, would be to go to the source – that is, to go to whomever had the right to define what the Eucharist is. As the quote from canon law (above) asserts, that ‘whomever’ is the Church.

So, this is probably a good place for me to ask whether you’re ok with this presentation so far. Is this leading in the direction you were hoping to go? (Yeah, I know – lots of background info! But we’re getting there!) Is this helpful? Do you disagree with what I’m saying – that the Church has the authority to define the sacraments?
There are all kinds of rules and procedures for Liturgy. If a priest leaves something out or changes something, in almost all cases, it certainly doesn’t mean Liturgy didn’t happen or prayers aren’t heard if the altar cloth is a wrong color.
Click to expand...
Yes! Exactly! But your examples are all about liceity – whether the priest followed all the liturgical rules perfectly. You’re making the case that things can be valid but illicit! Awesome! This is the reason that I wrote all that stuff above – we need to distinguish between “following the rules” and “actually achieving what we set out to do”! Fair enough?
Lastly, there’s not a reason in the world for us to argue about this as no one ITT is qualified to state definitely what the Church teaches about using rice flour instead of wheat.
Click to expand...
“ITT”? :confused: “In This Thread”?

Anyway, we’re qualified to reference Church documents, right? We’re qualified to take statements in which the Church definitively teaches things, and present them here, right?
So, find a source that supports your point, a *Vatican *source, not some priest on EWTN.
Click to expand...
OK… now I’m really confused. Upthread, you’ve already been provided with “Vatican sources” – quotes from Redemptionis sacramentum and from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (which was issued by the Vatican, and then the USCCB prepared a translation for use in the USA).

These sources document that the Eucharist must be bread made from wheat. Is there some other assertion that you’re looking to discuss?
 
YoungTradCath said:
The RS quote is only concerned with validity. We have established here now that the bread is valid. However, the RS quote is not concerned with and does not define liceity. The bread is valid matter but illicit.
Click to expand...
I think you’re mistaken in your assertion: RS is only talking about the type of bread (that is, that it’s of wheat, not made of rice, or sesame seeds, or lentils). It’s not making any assertion about other ingredients.

However, you’ve made an appeal to liceity! Awesome! If you’re talking about what’s licit, then that means that there’s a Church law somewhere that says “wheat flour. water. nothing else.” …! After all, if it’s a question of liceity, then there must be a law that establishes this – without law, there’s no question of liceity!

OK then – please show me the law that says “no salt”.
 
Gorgias said:
I think you’re mistaken in your assertion: RS is only talking about the type of bread (that is, that it’s of wheat, not made of rice, or sesame seeds, or lentils). It’s not making any assertion about other ingredients.

However, you’ve made an appeal to liceity! Awesome! If you’re talking about what’s licit, then that means that there’s a Church law somewhere that says “wheat flour. water. nothing else.” …! After all, if it’s a question of liceity, then there must be a law that establishes this – without law, there’s no question of liceity!

OK then – please show me the law that says “no salt”.
Click to expand...
Can. 924 §2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3A.HTM
 
Gorgias said:
These sources document that the Eucharist must be bread made from wheat. Is there some other assertion that you’re looking to discuss?
Click to expand...
Yes, the original statement I objected to, which is really the only thing at issue. No one is questioning the right of the Holy See to decide what is Liturgically appropriate in terms of baking altar breads. For the Roman Church at any rate, since the sui juris churches seem to be going their own way and their bread, invalid for use in our Church, produces a true Eucharist, of which the Latin Rite faithful may partake.

Where is the source that says altar breads that have some salt in them, or some rice polish or leaven cannot, not should not, but cannot be confected? Not what you or someone else or some priest on EWTN thinks, where does the Church say this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top