Dont Laugh - Consecration of Goldfish crackers

[Matthew_Holford]

If what you guys in the States call crackers are the same thing as what we call crackers in the UK (and the above descriptions sound like they are) I do not see how they can be considered as ‘bread’. The other issue is that we can discuss this as much as we like but as Fr David has said the bottom line is only the Holy See can definitively make a decision in this matter.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Here’s the bottom line.

If you have to go through so much trouble to try to convince people that goldfish crackers would actually be considered “bread” then it’s quite obvious that in fact, they aren’t bread.

You’re grasping at straws here.

If it’s not bread, it’s not bread. Not valid matter.

If it’s still bread, it might be doubtful. But there’s no reasonable way to claim that goldfish crackers could possibly be valid matter.

Frankly, you’re just typing nonsense.

Greetings David96,

I am addressing you without the Fr as I am not comfortable in addressing anyone with that title that I am still unsure as of whether they are a priest or not. If you are a priest, I pray that you will understand where I am coming from. *

Okay with that in mind, now let’s get to the other point why I am responding back to your post.

crack·er (kr k r) n. 1. A thin crisp wafer or biscuit, usually made of unsweetened dough

Are crackers not bread? They’re just flattened in my opinion. Technically speaking are not the Hosts that we use in Mass wafers? [even though they are bread?]

God Bless.
Anathama Sit*

 

[FrDavid96]

If what you guys in the States call crackers are the same thing as what we call crackers in the UK (and the above descriptions sound like they are) I do not see how they can be considered as ‘bread’. The other issue is that we can discuss this as much as we like but as Fr David has said the bottom line is only the Holy See can definitively make a decision in this matter.

Well Matthew, not quite. What I said is that only the Holy See can definitively say that doubtful matter IS valid matter.

It’s much easier for us to say what IS NOT valid matter.

It’s like the exaggerated example I gave. I don’t need to write to the Holy See to inquire as to whether or not peanut butter is valid matter. I know it isn’t valid matter. There’s no question. I can also say without consulting the Holy See that green beans, salami, and my grandfather’s old necktie can’t be consecrated as valid matter. No point bothering the Holy See on those either.

Likewise, I’m certain that goldfish crackers are not valid matter. The very idea that they would be is very nearly as absurd as peanut butter.

I’m not sure how you use the word cracker in the UK, or if goldfish are sold there.

Here’s a link to the product information
pepperidgefarm.com/productlanding.aspx?catid=722

 

[Digitonomy]

If you have to go through so much trouble to try to convince people…
You’re grasping at straws here.

I suppose one could similarly dismiss the long-winded arguments of St Thomas or any other theologian, but the Church has not historically adopted such a snappy-is-better approach to theological discourse.

FrDavid96:

Frankly, you’re just typing nonsense.

If you say so. Perhaps it would be more productive to explain why my nonsensical logic is inferior to your logic in reaching the same conclusion.

 

[FrDavid96]

I suppose one could similarly dismiss the long-winded arguments of St Thomas or any other theologian, but the Church has not historically adopted such a snappy-is-better approach to theological discourse.If you say so. Perhaps it would be more productive to explain why my nonsensical logic is inferior to your logic in reaching the same conclusion.

Because of your own post.

This is what St. Thomas said

“Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed”

You can’t just ignore the idea that in order to be the species of bread, the material in question must have the accidents of bread.

If it’s not bread, it’s not bread.

They don’t taste like bread

They don’t have the texture of bread

They don’t have the color of bread

They don’t have the smell of bread

The only think they have in common with bread is that they just happen to be made with wheat flour as the main ingredient and they’re baked. That doesn’t make them bread.

“Just because the cat has kittens in the oven, we don’t call them biscuits”–I read that somewhere.

 

[Digitonomy]

If what you guys in the States call crackers are the same thing as what we call crackers in the UK (and the above descriptions sound like they are) I do not see how they can be considered as ‘bread’.

It appears that what you call “cream crackers” are equivalent to our “saltines,” one of the more common and plain types of crackers on this side of the pond. I agree that these would not be called bread in everyday conversation. But in this case we have to consider the Church’s definition, which seems to be a bit broader. The Church considers a somewhat dense, flat, crisp bit of cooked flour to be bread. I think if you showed a host to anyone on the street and asked whether it was bread or a cracker, the answer would be a cracker. So it seems pretty clear to me that by the Church’s rather liberal definition of what bread includes, at least some crackers qualify.

 

[Timothysis]

What I find most troubling is that so many think of the Eucharistic prayers as being nothing more than a “magic spell,” that can be used whenever and with whatever one wishes to consecrate.

There is a very distinct and dedicated purpose for the Eucharistic prayer and that is to consecrate simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the sanctification of our souls. The intention of the priest is to do what the Church intends him to do; celebrate the liturgy, not consecrate any little cracker, goldfish or piece of bread that someone has in their lunchbox before going to work.

This is akin to the proposition that a priest could, during a rainstorm, declare everyone who has gotten wet to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It doesn’t work that way. If a priest celebrated Mass in a bread factory, it would still only be the communion wafers that would be consecrated. The Holy Spirit is not held to a legalistic mumbo jumbo that requires Him to consecrate something anytime a priest mutters the proper words.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I suppose one could similarly dismiss the long-winded arguments of St Thomas or any other theologian, but the Church has not historically adopted such a snappy-is-better approach to theological discourse.If you say so. Perhaps it would be more productive to explain why my nonsensical logic is inferior to your logic in reaching the same conclusion.

Greetings Digitonomy,

I noticed that David96 did not answer my post. So I guess by David96’s logic on the last post, we should not use wafers as valid matter.

Because last time I checked a Eucharistic wafer I surely did not see them as having

1. The texture of bread

Bread is not flat like wafers.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[malphono]

If it’s not bread, it’s not bread. …

“Just because the cat has kittens in the oven, we don’t call them biscuits”–I read that somewhere.

I’m not getting into this argument but have to pipe up with this: the patience you’ve shown in dealing with the absurd bashing you’ve been getting in this thread is commendable. Kuddos, Fr David.

 

[dixieagle]

Pardon me for saying so, but this strikes me as a profoundly ridiculous conversation, and a strong indictment of at least some catechesis.

From the GIRM:

1. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.

 

[malphono]

It doesn’t work that way. If a priest celebrated Mass in a bread factory, it would still only be the communion wafers that would be consecrated.

Well … maybe no, maybe yes.

I’m reminded of an episode from 19th century France, where a curé (parish priest) went a little bonkers. He was passing a bakery, went inside, and spoke the words of Institution with hands raised over the bread. The poor baker freaked and once the priest left, he shooed-out his customers and locked the doors. He then went, accompanied by a couple of witnesses, to the bishop and explained what had happened. The bishop promptly compensated the baker for his entire wares, and sent some of his staff to remove and consume the bread.

It is true that the Sacrifice was not complete, since there was only bread in the bakery. The point is, though, that the bishop understood (a) that the priest, albeit a little off-the-deep-end, may have had the proper intention and (b) that even if the intent was lacking, the incident could be harmful to the faithful. The key there is (a): the priest was validly ordained, he may have had the proper intention, the matter was valid, and he certainly used the proper form.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It appears that what you call cream crackers are equivalent to our “saltines,” one of the more common and plain types of crackers on this side of the pond.

I had wondered for a long time what saltines were.

I agree that these would not be called bread in everyday conversation. But in this case we have to consider the Church’s definition, which seems to be a bit broader. The Church considers a somewhat dense, flat, crisp bit of cooked flour to be bread. I think if you showed a host to anyone on the street and asked whether it was bread or a cracker, the answer would be a cracker. So it seems pretty clear to me that by the Church’s rather liberal definition of what bread includes, at least some crackers qualify.

I would agree that a host used for Mass has a more similar appearance to a cracker than to what most of us would regard as bread. However, it is my understanding that it is the ingredients used that is important for valid matter. I would suggest that the various ingredients in crackers are what prevent them being valid matter.

 

[Digitonomy]

This is a little better. As I noted above, we agree about whether Goldfish are likely to be valid matter. Our main disagreement seems to be whether any cracker can be bread, so I’ll focus on that here:

“Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed”

You can’t just ignore the idea that in order to be the species of bread, the material in question must have the accidents of bread…

They don’t taste like bread
They don’t have the texture of bread
They don’t have the color of bread
They don’t have the smell of bread

The only think they have in common with bread is that they just happen to be made with wheat flour as the main ingredient and they’re baked. That doesn’t make them bread.

First point, Thomas didn’t explicitly include taste or smell as accidents of bread, but I agree with you that these are equally important indicators as the texture and color. Obviously there are a variety of tastes, textures, colors, and smells associated with many different breads, even within those breads that are valid matter. However, to keep things simple, let’s limit ourselves to mass-manufactured hosts. If we compare them to unsalted, fat-free saltines or oyster crackers, I don’t think the taste, texture, color, or smell is significantly different. I don’t know on what basis you are differentiating them, other than “The Church has said that these crackers are bread, but has never said the same for those others (saltines and oyster crackers).”

Another thing that is beside the point in our argument but may be worth mentioning is I don’t think the characteristics you listed above are hard and fast rules as to whether something is valid matter. If hosts had to be smuggled in a bag in someone’s armpit, it might make the smell and taste unsavory, the moist hosts might not be especially breadlike in texture, and dye from the fabric may have stained them a different color, but I think it would still be valid matter.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Well Matthew, not quite.

OK, I was trying to post in support of your arguments.

What I said is that only the Holy See can definitively say that doubtful matter IS valid matter.

That was the mens rea of my post.

 

[Digitonomy]

However, it is my understanding that it is the ingredients used that is important for valid matter. I would suggest that the various ingredients in crackers are what prevent them being valid matter.

I think that’s true to a point, but by St Thomas’s discussion of the different grains that may be in a mixture with wheat, it sounds like various impurities are not really relevant so long as their quantity is not “notable,” which if I recall he defines as being half or nearly half of the total amount. I think the key is whether the ingredients are notable in other ways, in terms of affecting the flavor, etc.

 

[Digitonomy]

Pardon me for saying so, but this strikes me as a profoundly ridiculous conversation, and a strong indictment of at least some catechesis.
From the GIRM:
320. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.

This rule determines the licity of the bread. If the Church chose, it could limit the bread to that made from wheat harvested in the Po river valley. But none of that would affect the issue of what qualifies as valid matter.

 

[malphono]

However, to keep things simple, let’s limit ourselves to mass-manufactured hosts. If we compare them to unsalted, fat-free saltines or oyster crackers, I don’t think the taste, texture, color, or smell is significantly different. I don’t know on what basis you are differentiating them, other than “The Church has said that these crackers are bread, but has never said the same for those others (saltines and oyster crackers).”

Another thing that is beside the point in our argument but may be worth mentioning is I don’t think the characteristics you listed above are hard and fast rules as to whether something is valid matter. If hosts had to be smuggled in a bag in someone’s armpit, it might make the smell and taste unsavory, the moist hosts might not be especially breadlike in texture, and dye from the fabric may have stained them a different color, but I think it would still be valid matter.

Saltines and oyster crackers both contain sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), which certainly affects their texture. It’s the reason they (particularly oyster crackers) “puff up” when baked. Neither saltines nor oyster crackers are used as bread, and despite the fact that both are wheat based, neither is equivalent to unleavened altar bread.

Perhaps a look at the Armenian Church (which traditionally uses unleavened altar bread) would help. The recipe for Nuskhar (altar bread) is very simple (wheat flour and water), but it is not made into a “wafer” in the Latin-style. The Nuskhar is about 1/8 inch thick and (when fresh) still pliable, and is actually similar in texture to mizrahi (Oriental) style massa (matzoh) which is baked the same way (i.e. either in a pan or in an oven). The latin-style, OTOH, is rather similar to ashkenazi (European) style matzoh, (the one commonly seen), being crisp and baked in an special type of iron.

 

[FrDavid96]

OK, I was trying to post in support of your arguments.

That was the mens rea of my post.

I did know what you meant, but for the sake of the thread, I thought it worthwhile to expand upon it. The point however, is an important one. It can often be very easy for one to determine that “this IS NOT valid matter” but not always easy to say “this IS valid matter”

As far as what we in the US call “crackers” check out this link. It’s a brand of cracker I sometimes have in the house and they come from the UK, so it should be a good point of reference

carrscrackers.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/product.pl?product=735&company=140

This is what we would call “saltines” or “crackers” or “saltine crackers.” Oddly enough, some companies even package a variety of “no-salt saltines” Go figure.

Anyway, that product above is a saltine in the US, although most of the time, they come square rather than round.

I’m also curious if you folks actually eat those over there, or is it just a marketing thing to make us think they’re popular with you???

 

[malphono]

As far as what we in the US call “crackers” check out this link. It’s a brand of cracker I sometimes have in the house and they come from the UK, so it should be a good point of reference

carrscrackers.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/product.pl?product=735&company=140

This is what we would call “saltines” or “crackers” or “saltine crackers.” Oddly enough, some companies even package a variety of “no-salt saltines” Go figure.

Anyway, that product above is a saltine in the US, although most of the time, they come square rather than round.

I’m also curious if you folks actually eat those over there, or is it just a marketing thing to make us think they’re popular with you???

Not to make this into a food thread, but Carr’s are, I believe, considered “water biscuits” (“biscuit” being the UK equivalent to “cracker”) and seem to me to be somewhat more substantial than the usual American-style saltine (with or without the salt). In the US, what I find to be most similar are Uneeda Biscuits (which have become rather hard to find, probably because they’re not overpriced, but I digress).

 

[Digitonomy]

If a priest celebrated Mass in a bread factory, it would still only be the communion wafers that would be consecrated. The Holy Spirit is not held to a legalistic mumbo jumbo that requires Him to consecrate something anytime a priest mutters the proper words.

Interestingly, St Thomas contrived a similar objection to answer, although he was focusing on the quantity rather than the substance. Nonetheless, his answer seems to be at odds with your interpretation. Obviously Thomas is not infallible, but his opinion is worth serious consideration:

TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 1

OBJ 1: It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of grace are no less set in order than those of nature. But, “there is a limit set by nature upon all existing things, and a reckoning of size and development” (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is called “Eucharist,” that is, “a good grace,” a determinate quantity of the bread and wine is required.

TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 2

OBJ 2: Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the Church regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of His sacraments, according to 2 Cor. 10:8: “Of our power which the Lord hath given us unto edification, and not for your destruction.” But it would lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine in the cellar. Therefore he cannot do this…

TP Q[74] A[2] OTC

On the contrary, Much is opposed to little, and great to small. But there is no quantity, however small, of the bread and wine which cannot be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there any quantity, however great, which cannot be consecrated.

TP Q[74] A[2] Body

I answer that, Some have maintained that the priest could not consecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all the bread in the market or all the wine in a cask. But this does not appear to be true, because in all things containing matter, the reason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end, just as the matter of a saw is iron, so as to adapt it for cutting. But the end of this sacrament is the use of the faithful. Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful. But this cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful who are actually present; otherwise the parish priest having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for the matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to the number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is not a determinate one. Hence it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is restricted.

TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 1

Reply OBJ 1: The matter of every natural object has its determinate quantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the number of the faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is not a determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison.

TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 2

Reply OBJ 2: The power of the Church’s ministers is ordained for two purposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end of the effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an evil purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison through it, he commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on account of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the sacrament.