Does this bread recipe produce valid matter?

[Julia_Mae]

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. .

That’s what I think, too.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

No, I have never claimed that no one has proven their point.

Yes, you have in several posts.

Their point is irrelevant to the question.

I think that is a very arrogant stance to take. Their point is as valid as yours.

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.

Perhaps then you could make clear the question you are posing. Other posters have told you what the Church teaches. They have provided the evidence you have demanded but keep denying has been shown.

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

I find it strange that you cannot know what was used but are clear on what wasn’t. Perhaps you do know with certainty what wasn’t used. You could demonstrate how you know.

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.

I don’t know what bread the Ruthenians use for the Eucahrist. From context I would infer it’s leavened bread. As I believe has been pointed out in this post before leavened bread used in the Latin Catholic Mass would be valid but it would be illicit. It would be valid matter. Therefore, the Eucharist would be confected and 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.

I, too, cannot produce something that the Latin Catholic Church has not, to the best of my knowledge, produced. Do you know that it would be wrong to put glacé cherries in to bread to be used for the Eucharist? Can you produce a Church document that says that it would be wrong to use glacé cherries? No, you cannot because the Church has not issued a document that gives a comprehensive and exhaustive list of everything that cannot be put in bread made for the Eucharist. It does tell us what we can put in such bread. That and that alone is what should go in to bread to be used for the Eucharist. If something does not appear in the list it does not mean we might be able to add it. Can you produce a document where the Church says add salt to the bread? If you cannot it follows that it should not be used.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

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.

We both know exactly what you mean. This argument is revolving around some quite technical points. For this reason I believe it is necessary for us to be precise about the terminology we are using. I think it would be clearer to say Church rather than rite. I know the Latin Catholic Church has a number of different rites. As far as I am aware all Latin Catholic rites require unleavened bread. That’s because I think it’s the law of the entire Latin Catholic Church rather than any of its rites. I think all Eastern and Oriental Churches use leavened bread. Consequently, it will be used in all the Eastern and Oriental rites. Again, I think it’s the law of the Eastern and Oriental churches rather than requirements of the rites.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae
I can’t either. But I can tell you what the bread was not: white flour and water.

I know because wheat flour wasn’t refined until the 19th century. So white flour didn’t exist in Jesus’ time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour

Matthew, I have no idea what you think I said. I don’t know why you are posting to me the way you are. What Phemie said that I am quoting below, is also what I said:

Originally Posted by Phemie
If it [leavened bread] 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.
.

 

[MarkThompson]

I know because wheat flour wasn’t refined until the 19th century. So white flour didn’t exist in Jesus’ time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour

Wheat flour has been milled for ages. Modern hexaploid bread wheat came into existence some 8,000 years ago, and it and the earlier tetraploid varieties (emmer wheat and durum wheat) have been in extremely common usage for breadmaking throughout the Mediterranean area since well before recorded history. Please read a good history of bread before you continue.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae
I know because wheat flour wasn’t refined until the 19th century. So white flour didn’t exist in Jesus’ time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour

I never said “milled.” I said wheat flour was not refined until the 19th century.

• Refined: “Refined flour” has had the germ and bran removed and is typically referred to as “white flour”.
• **milling: **1. The act or process of grinding, especially grinding grain into flour or meal.

There was no bread made from white flour and water on the table at the Last Supper.

 

[MarkThompson]

I never said “milled.” I said wheat flour was not refined until the 19th century.

• Refined: “Refined flour” has had the germ and bran removed and is typically referred to as “white flour”.
• **milling: **1. The act or process of grinding, especially grinding grain into flour or meal.

There was no bread made from white flour and water on the table at the Last Supper.

Previously you said that there was no such thing as wheat bread at all in the ancient world. Now you seem to allow that there was, but have fallen back on the reserve position that it would not have been of refined white flour. However, Harold McGee (On Food and Cooking):
We do know that the Greeks enjoyed breads and cakes flavored with honey, anise, sesame, and fruits, and that they made both whole-grain and partly refined breads. At least from the Greeks on, whiteness in bread was a mark of purity and distinction.
That was four to five centuries before Christ. They may not have been eating full-on Wonder Bread in first-century Palestine, but flour was being refined, and as a “mark of purity and distinction” it sounds like exactly the sort of thing that one might expect to have been used for the holiest of feasts, like the Passover.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Previously you said that there was no such thing as wheat bread at all in the ancient world.

Mark, from now on, if you expect me to reply to you, you’ll have to find actual quotes, because you seem to not be able to recall accurately what i said.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I know because wheat flour wasn’t refined until the 19th century. So white flour didn’t exist in Jesus’ time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour

Matthew, I have no idea what you think I said. I don’t know why you are posting to me the way you are. What Phemie said that I am quoting below, is also what I said:

Julia, it appears that you change what you’re saying. I’m not the only poster who has drawn this conclusion. Are we all wrong?

Rather than this thread become some sort of personal argument could you clearly state what it is that you take issue with.

I don’t think there’s been any general disagreement in this thread that leavened wheat bread is valid matter in the Latin Catholic Church but that it is illicit matter.

 

[sedonaman]

… Do you know that it would be wrong to put glacé cherries in to bread to be used for the Eucharist? Can you produce a Church document that says that it would be wrong to use glacé cherries? No, you cannot because the Church has not issued a document that gives a comprehensive and exhaustive list of everything that cannot be put in bread made for the Eucharist. It does tell us what we can put in such bread. That and that alone is what should go in to bread to be used for the Eucharist. If something does not appear in the list it does not mean we might be able to add it. Can you produce a document where the Church says add salt to the bread? If you cannot it follows that it should not be used.

None of that matters because we have been assured that …

I don’t believe that. Jesus wasn’t passing out pure white flour and water bread to His disciples and He gets to be Present when He wishes. I cannot imagine Him withholding Himself from the faithful because someone followed a different recipe.

Translation: Glacé cherries are OK, as would be pizza, because the Real Presence depends entirely on the disposition of the faithful.

---

Results since the (Vatican II) Council, seem to be in cruel contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. … The Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension that – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, but too often there has been boredom and discouragement instead. A new leap forward was expected, but instead we find ourselves facing a process of progressive decadence. … It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths that led to indisputably negative consequences. – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia, it appears that you change what you’re saying. I’m not the only poster who has drawn this conclusion. Are we all wrong?

Yes. And it’s not “all” it’s you and someone I have on ignore, I assume, and somehow this has become a personal issue instead of a discussion of facts. So, as they day, “put up or hush.” Post quotes from my posts that contradict one another.

Rather than this thread become some sort of personal argument could you clearly state what it is that you take issue with.

Done. More than once. Post 84.

 

[sedonaman]

Yes. And it’s not “all” it’s you and someone I have on ignore, I assume, and somehow this has become a personal issue instead of a discussion of facts. So, as they day, “put up or hush.” Post quotes from my posts that contradict one another.

Done. More than once. Post 84.

From post 84:

… What Phemie said that I am quoting below, is also what I said:

Originally Posted by Phemie

If it [leavened bread] 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.

So you said it. So what? Where is the proof that it is true? As the advocate, you have the burden to prove you are right, not the rest of us to prove you are wrong.

---

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