Does this bread recipe produce valid matter?

[Gorgias]

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

Check out the footnote to your RS quote. It references exactly this canon. You remember that quote, right? That’s the one that “is only concerned with validity”, according to you. So, you’ve got a problem: if RS is only concerned with validity, then its basis should be a statement about validity – not liceity. (Otherwise, the passage in RS would be about liceity – which is an assertion you deny.)

In other words, you can’t have it both ways.

Even so, your statement seems weak on its face. The original Latin is “Panis debet esse mere triticeus” – that is, “the bread must be of unmixed wheat” (or “purely wheaten”). A question for you: if you take this statement strictly – as you’re attempting to do – that would seem to preclude the use of water. After all, bread that is made of wheat flour and water wouldn’t be “of unmixed wheat”, would it? No, of course not. Therefore, unless your altar bread were a pure pile of flour, I guess it would be illicit, wouldn’t it?

Now, that’s pure rubbish. To make bread, one must use water. Yet, according to your interpretation, that’s impossible. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion one may reach is that your interpretation is what is impossible. What one may infer from the “mere” is that it speaks to the grain – the grain used is what must be purely wheat.

In other words, your assertion cannot hold, given your claim of a context of ‘validity’; even taken purely on its face, your assertion is unworkable. Therefore, you cannot use it to insist that the use of salt is illicit.

 

[Gorgias]

Where is the source that says altar breads that have some salt in them,

Umm… I’m not claiming that they cannot have salt in them.

or some rice polish

We’ve mentioned the quote from RS and from the canons. How would you interpret “purely wheaten” to include rice? If you’re allowing that the Church has the right to determine the composition of altar bread, and you see that the Church is saying “purely wheaten”, how might you assert that rice is valid matter?

Not what you or someone else or some priest on EWTN thinks, where does the Church say this?

You keep repeating this. I have no idea what your phrase “what some priest on EWTN thinks” means or has to do with our discussion, but this isn’t “what I or someone else thinks” – this is exactly “where the Church says this”!

 

[Julia_Mae]

You keep repeating this. I have no idea what your phrase “what some priest on EWTN thinks” means or has to do with our discussion, but this isn’t “what I or someone else thinks” – this is exactly “where the Church says this”!

I see. So, you haven’t read the thread and jumped into a discussion with me where you didn’t know what the topic was. Okay, now I see the communication issue. You can read posts 28 and 30 if you want to catch up.

 

[Gorgias]

I see. So, you haven’t read the thread and jumped into a discussion with me where you didn’t know what the topic was. Okay, now I see the communication issue. You can read posts 28 and 30 if you want to catch up.

LOL… sure I read it – it was the silliest part of the whole discussion! The real meat was where you declared that the matter of the Eucharist doesn’t, well, matter!

Anyway, an anachronistic appeal that “Jesus wouldn’t have done it that way” does not an argument make…

There are many things that are different about our contemporary time as compared to 1st century Palestine. However, if – as you suggest – the matter doesn’t matter, then why didn’t Jesus testify to this by having a Passover meal that didn’t conform to the Mosaic law? You really don’t have a leg to stand on here, other than the unsubstantiated personal assertion that you can’t imagine him withholding himself. After all, he said “do this in memory of me”, not “do anything, as long as it’s in memory of me”…

 

[sedonaman]

LOL… sure I read it – it was the silliest part of the whole discussion! The real meat was where you declared that the matter of the Eucharist doesn’t, well, matter!

Anyway, an anachronistic appeal that “Jesus wouldn’t have done it that way” does not an argument make…

There are many things that are different about our contemporary time as compared to 1st century Palestine. However, if – as you suggest – the matter doesn’t matter, then why didn’t Jesus testify to this by having a Passover meal that didn’t conform to the Mosaic law? You really don’t have a leg to stand on here, other than the unsubstantiated personal assertion that you can’t imagine him withholding himself. After all, he said “do this in memory of me”, not “do anything, as long as it’s in memory of me”…

Mega

---

“Liberals reject morality until someone does something to offend them. Then all of a sudden they are talking about morality.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

There are many things that are different about our contemporary time as compared to 1st century Palestine. However, if – as you suggest – the matter doesn’t matter, then why didn’t Jesus testify to this by having a Passover meal that didn’t conform to the Mosaic law? You really don’t have a leg to stand on here, other than the unsubstantiated personal assertion that you can’t imagine him withholding himself. After all, he said “do this in memory of me”, not “do anything, as long as it’s in memory of me”…

Your response indicates that you have no Vatican source whatsoever that would support the contention that altar breads that do not exactly follow the RCC-standard recipe cannot be confected. I really have no interest in personal opinions. The question is, to be precise:

**If the altar bread is made from wheat flour, water, salt and yeast, where has the Church officially told us that this type of bread, if used in a Mass that is correct in every other way, cannot become the Body of Christ? **

If you have a link to a Vatican document, please provide it. Otherwise, your opinion holds as much weight as mine.

 

[boldlygo]

Well, depends on what you mean by disaster. Bread is bread, you can’t really go wrong with mixing flour and water. The worst part is it doesn’t form the way you intend it to form, but it is still edible and does not go to waste. I’ve had my prosphoras for breakfast for a long time before I produced one worthy to be at the altar. But it is still bread.

These unskilled “bakers” may have forgotten to turn on their ovens.

 

[andrewstx]

Yes.

Crisco can be oil, but it is also shortening, with all the deadly trans fats.

 

[andrewstx]

When I have made proshora I mix the dough and let a bread machine knead it. When it has risen I take the dough out cut it into rounds, stamp it and bake it in the oven.

For me it just comes out better than hand kneaded.

 

[Gorgias]

Your response indicates that you have no Vatican source whatsoever that would support the contention that altar breads that do not exactly follow the RCC-standard recipe cannot be confected.

Sooooo… the Vatican sources that were provided here aren’t sufficient? Whatever…

I really have no interest in personal opinions.

…other than your own, you mean.

The question is, to be precise:

**If the altar bread is made from wheat flour, water, salt and yeast, where has the Church officially told us that this type of bread, if used in a Mass that is correct in every other way, cannot become the Body of Christ? **

In Eastern Rite Liturgies, that’s not a problem at all, to the best of my knowledge. In Latin Rite Mass, the Eucharistic species is unleavened. Is your question only asking whether yeast can be used?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae
Your response indicates that you have no Vatican source whatsoever that would support the contention that altar breads that do not exactly follow the RCC-standard recipe cannot be confected.

And I am equally confused by your seeming inability to understand a pretty straightforward question:

If the altar bread is made from wheat flour, water, salt and yeast, where has the Church officially told us that this type of bread, if used in a Mass that is correct in every other way, cannot become the Body of Christ?

 

[superamazingman]

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.

Are you seriously trying to say that if we are serious and devoted to Jesus, we can turn a pizza into the Lord? SERIOUSLY?

It IS up to Him. And he said that the Holy Father is in charge. So NO PIZZA.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

And I am equally confused by your seeming inability to understand a pretty straightforward question:

If the altar bread is made from wheat flour, water, salt and yeast, where has the Church officially told us that this type of bread, if used in a Mass that is correct in every other way, cannot become the Body of Christ?

I have been following this thread with great interest.

Your posts have been intriguing. It appears that no matter what answer you receive and whatever Church documents are referenced you repeatedly claim that no one has proven their point.

I know the Catholic Church requires the use of bread made from wheat flour for validity. For liceity in the Latin Catholic Church it must be unleavened.

As you seem so intent on posters proving their point by citing Church documents can you please advise why you don’t have to provide a corresponding level of evidence? Can you please cite any Church document that provides support to your argument?

I do not hold to the view that a priest can use any substance and through the Holy Spirit, Christ will turn the matter used by the priest into his Sacred Body. The Church has taught that we are to use bread. The priest cannot decide to use a spicy vegetarian pizza.

I could not tell you what our Lord used at the Last Supper. That is not the important point. The point is what the Church says can and cannot be used. There is a theological argument that if an accidental mistake is made during the administration of a sacrament, the sacrament may not be invalid. A priest cannot use inappropriate matter for the Mass and expect he sacrament of the Eucharist to be valid. A priest should know what valid matter and is and should be obedient to the Chirch’s laws and use valid matter.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Are you seriously trying to say that if we are serious and devoted to Jesus, we can turn a pizza into the Lord? .

nope

 

[Julia_Mae]

I have been following this thread with great interest.

Your posts have been intriguing. It appears that no matter what answer you receive and whatever Church documents are referenced you repeatedly claim that no one has proven their point.

No, I have never claimed that no one has proven their point. Their point is irrelevant to the question. I have always known the recipe for altar breads and never questioned that the Church has the right to tell us how we should do that.

I could not tell you what our Lord used at the Last Supper.

I can’t either. But I can tell you what the bread was not: white flour and water.

The point is what the Church says can and cannot be used.

But that’s not the point. I never disputed that the Church says what can be used. I disputed the point that if we use the kind of bread the Ruthenians use, somehow it can’t be confected. Not shouldn’t be used, but cannot possibly become the Body of Christ.

Where does the Church say this? I contend the Church has never said this. I can’t prove the absence of something. If you think the Church has said that God will refuse to be present in the Roman Catholic Church if there is salt in the altar breads, then please provide the reference.

If no one has such a reference, then I am pretty much done repeating myself.

 

[andrewstx]

I have a question. How are the perfect round hosts with designs made in the western church?

Are they baked in molds? They are very different from Eastern Rite prosphora.

 

[theistgal]

I have a question. How are the perfect round hosts with designs made in the western church?

Are they baked in molds? They are very different from Eastern Rite prosphora.

They are indeed baked in molds, and I’ve seen them. They used to be made primarily by nuns (to supplement their convent’s income) but sadly I don’t think that’s the case anymore, what with the shortage in vocations.

 

[superamazingman]

They are indeed baked in molds, and I’ve seen them. They used to be made primarily by nuns (to supplement their convent’s income) but sadly I don’t think that’s the case anymore, what with the shortage in vocations.

Not all of them are! The convent that makes the hosts for most of our diocese puts them in a giant room that’s very humid, then cuts stacks of large sheets with a circular drill.

the method really depends on the place.

 

[Phemie]

But that’s not the point. I never disputed that the Church says what can be used. I disputed the point that if we use the kind of bread the Ruthenians use, somehow it can’t be confected. Not shouldn’t be used, but cannot possibly become the Body of Christ.

Where does the Church say this? I contend the Church has never said this. I can’t prove the absence of something. If you think the Church has said that God will refuse to be present in the Roman Catholic Church if there is salt in the altar breads, then please provide the reference.

If no one has such a reference, then I am pretty much done repeating myself.

If it CAN be consecrated in one Rite it CAN be consecrated in the other Rite. That doesn’t mean that it MAY be consecrated. Leavened bread is illicit matter in the Latin Rite but the consecration still occurs.

Some priests actually don’t care about this and I’ve known one to have the native children make bannock to use for First Communion. Now bannock is wheat flour and water but it also contains baking powder and salt. It’s illicit matter in the Latin Rite but that didn’t seem to concern him.

 

[sedonaman]

…
If no one has such a reference, then I am pretty much done repeating myself.

The OP stated the following:

On a parish website I found a funky recipe for communion bread, as follows:

3 cups whole wheat flour
3 cups unbleached white bread flour
21 ounces or 2 and 2/3 cups carbonated non-flavored spring water (Perrier)
1/8 teaspoon salt

My feeling is that this is valid matter but illicit due to the salt. The carbonated water also seems extremely strange to me, but I do not think it invalidates it. Am I correct? This parish is known for “funky” things.

Update

I read the instructions following the recipe and I found this, which horrified me:

“Brush Crisco lightly over each loaf…”

You seem perfectly OK with that recipe:

I believe Jesus Who said, “Where two or more are gathered in my name there will I be also.”

Conclusion [without any Vatican references to back up your claim] : Jesus can be in the above bread just as easily as the one specified by Canon Law [whatever that is], but he can’t be in a pizza. Therefore, somewhere between the above recipe, that includes Crisco, there is a point where Jesus ceases to be present. You have not said where that point is, although I asked you a number of posts ago. I find it ironic that you demand authoritative sources from those of us who think the OP recipe is an unacceptable departure but provide none of your own to defend it. You are in effect asking us to disprove a change that someone else is advocating. But the burden of proof is on the advocate of change, not the defender of the status quo. :sad_yes:

So defend your change.

---

Relativists reject morality until someone does something to offend them. Then all of a sudden they are talking about morality.