Dont Laugh - Consecration of Goldfish crackers

[FrDavid96]

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: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.

You can’t see the forest because the trees are in your way.

If it’s not bread, it cannot be valid matter for the Eucharist.

Take a step back, and start over again.

Before we ask the question “is it valid matter?” we must first ask “is it bread?”
Only if the answer to “is it bread?” is a “yes” THEN do we move on to the second question and ask “is that bread valid matter?”

What you’re doing here is starting with the question “is it valid matter?” answering with a “yes” and then asking the question “is it bread?”

That’s why you misunderstand my point about the accidents of bread. The accidents like taste, smell, texture, etc. are NOT determining factors for valid matter. They are what determine whether or not the item in front of us is actually bread. Then, and only then, we move on to the question “is that bread valid matter?” That’s why, in the Summa, St. Thomas actually writes about “bread” rather than writing about “some product made from mostly wheat.” He knows that the topic is only about bread, and not about some substance other-than-bread. He knows that everyone else understands it. Thomas wasn’t addressing the question of “what IS bread?” but “what KIND OF bread constitutes valid matter?”

The reason why I can say that with certainty is that he already addressed the question of “does it need to be bread?” a few articles above in article #1. So, from his perspective, the fact that it has to be bread was a given at that point.

 

[FrDavid96]

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).

I thought biscuits in the UK meant cookies…

…Now I’m all confused!

So what DO they eat with their tea?

Do they even call it tea?

And by the way, what’s called “tea” is the Southern US is not what is called “tea” in the UK because down there (south) “tea” refers to a cold drink.

 

[Digitonomy]

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.

Interesting comparison of saltine-like crackers and various matzoh-style breads. So while the average person won’t find Latin hosts to be any more bread-like than saltines, your contention is that the sodium bicarb is the key in this case. On this basis, I suppose the very similar water cracker and hardtack do qualify as bread, in contrast to their cousin the saltine. I don’t find this interpretation especially persuasive, but it certainly is a defensible opinion.

 

[Digitonomy]

If it’s not bread, it cannot be valid matter for the Eucharist.

Agreed.

FrDavid96:

Before we ask the question “is it valid matter?” we must first ask “is it bread?”
…The accidents like taste, smell, texture, etc. are NOT determining factors for valid matter. They are what determine whether or not the item in front of us is actually bread.

As I noted, saltines, oyster crackers, water crackers, hardtack all have fairly similar flavor, color, texture, and odor to Latin hosts. What is your basis for excluding them as bread?

FrDavid96:

Then, and only then, we move on to the question “is that bread valid matter?” That’s why, in the Summa, St. Thomas actually writes about “bread” rather than writing about “some product made from mostly wheat.” He knows that the topic is only about bread, and not about some substance other-than-bread. He knows that everyone else understands it. Thomas wasn’t addressing the question of “what IS bread?” but “what KIND OF bread constitutes valid matter?”

That is certainly a stricter approach to Thomas’s argument than I took, and if we use this approach the key factor in what constitutes valid bread (vs invalid bread) comes from his earlier paragraph, and seems to be the quantity of contaminating ingredients. So raisin bread or garlic bread would qualify, since the contaminants are not notable in quantity compared with the wheat.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Ok here goes but hope we don’t get shut down for going off topic. Carr’s water biscuits are a type of cracker. Attached is a picture of a typical “British cracker” often referred to as a cream cracker. They are slightly thicker than water biscuits and have more taste (possibly more salt).

Tea is a hot drink.

Generally in UK a biscuit is what you would call a cookie. A Carr’s water biscuit isn’t a biscuit, it’s a cracker.

 

[Digitonomy]

And by the way, what’s called “tea” is the Southern US is not what is called “tea” in the UK because down there (south) “tea” refers to a cold drink.

I won’t comment on UK usage, but there isn’t really a difference between tea in the northern and southern US, except when adjectives are used. In the north, tea is assumed to be hot, and so cold tea is called “iced tea.” In the south, tea is usually assumed to be cold, so hot tea is called… “hot tea.” And when necessary cold tea is further categorized in the south as “sweet tea” and “unsweet tea.” I think iced tea in the north typically has about the sweetness of “half and half” (half sweet, half unsweet) tea in the south.

But context is everything, and if someone in the north asks if you want tea with your cucumber salad in late August, they are probably talking about iced tea. Likewise if a server in the south asks whether you want tea with your Chinese food, they are probably referring to hot tea.

 

[FrDavid96]

Agreed.As I noted, saltines, oyster crackers, water crackers, hardtack all have fairly similar flavor, color, texture, and odor to Latin hosts. What is your basis for excluding them as bread?

The answer is found in your own question. It is the very fact that you are not calling those things by the word “bread.”

Since they are-not-bread, then there’s no need to take things any further.

If it isn’t bread then it cannot be valid matter for the Eucharist. Therefore asking “is this type of something-other-than-bread valid matter?” doesn’t make any sense.

That is certainly a stricter approach to Thomas’s argument than I took, and if we use this approach the key factor in what constitutes valid bread (vs invalid bread) comes from his earlier paragraph, and seems to be the quantity of contaminating ingredients. So raisin bread or garlic bread would qualify, since the contaminants are not notable in quantity compared with the wheat.

What you still aren’t seeing is that in order to ask the question “is this particular type of bread valid matter?” one must FIRST ask the question “is it bread?”

Bread with raisins is still bread–therefore we can ask the question “is raisin bread valid matter?”

Bread with garlic is still bread–therefore we can ask the question “is garlic bread valid matter”"

Neither of these would be certainly-valid matter. Maybe yes, maybe no.

It is not at all accurate to say that St. Thomas limited his answer to the question as to validity to a matter of “what quantity?” It was a matter of “what portion OF THE BREAD?”

If we aren’t discussing bread in the first place, then the question of quantity/proportion is meaningless.

And no, we cannot assume that raisin bread or garlic bread would constitute valid matter.

What you aren’t seeing here is that you keep insisting that the criteria for determining validity is “is it made mostly of wheat?” And then you keep trying to give lists of things that would be (as you see it) valid matter strictly on the basis of how much wheat is used.

I truly wish you could see here that the question “is it made of at least 50% wheat?” is simply NOT the criteria that the Church uses for determining valid matter for the Eucharist.

You seem to think that it is the determining question.

 

[BellsSmells]

At best it’s doubtful.

Not at all “doubtful.”

 

[jmcrae]

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???

I don’t know about the UK, but here in Canada, we serve those kind of crackers with stuff on top at Christmas buffets and at art gallery openings. They make great finger food!

“Saltines” are a different kind of crackers, with no stuff on them, and very bland except for the salt - we normally put them in our soup.

 

[centurionguard]

The answer is found in your own question. It is the very fact that you are not calling those things by the word “bread.”

Since they are-not-bread, then there’s no need to take things any further.

If it isn’t bread then it cannot be valid matter for the Eucharist. Therefore asking “is this type of something-other-than-bread valid matter?” doesn’t make any sense.

What you still aren’t seeing is that in order to ask the question “is this particular type of bread valid matter?” one must FIRST ask the question “is it bread?”

Bread with raisins is still bread–therefore we can ask the question “is raisin bread valid matter?”

Bread with garlic is still bread–therefore we can ask the question “is garlic bread valid matter”"

Neither of these would be certainly-valid matter. Maybe yes, maybe no.

It is not at all accurate to say that St. Thomas limited his answer to the question as to validity to a matter of “what quantity?” It was a matter of “what portion OF THE BREAD?”

If we aren’t discussing bread in the first place, then the question of quantity/proportion is meaningless.

And no, we cannot assume that raisin bread or garlic bread would constitute valid matter.

What you aren’t seeing here is that you keep insisting that the criteria for determining validity is “is it made mostly of wheat?” And then you keep trying to give lists of things that would be (as you see it) valid matter strictly on the basis of how much wheat is used.

I truly wish you could see here that the question “is it made of at least 50% wheat?” is simply NOT the criteria that the Church uses for determining valid matter for the Eucharist.

You seem to think that it is the determining question.

Hello Father;

Correct me if I’m wrong but I always thought that those placed in charge of making unleavened bread (host) had to get ecclesiastical approval to make them valid for Mass use, as is the same for ecclesiastically approved Mass Wine.

In my Archdiocese the Trappist Monks have been given sole approval for making unleavened wheat hosts for all Dioceses and Parishes in my province.

 

[FrDavid96]

Not at all “doubtful.”

So, you have an interpretation from the Holy See saying that Wonder Bread is valid matter for the Eucharist?

Because that would be the only way you could make such a declaration.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello Father;

Correct me if I’m wrong but I always thought that those placed in charge of making unleavened bread (host) had to get ecclesiastical approval to make them valid for Mass use, as is the same for ecclesiastically approved Mass Wine.

In my Archdiocese the Trappist Monks have been given sole approval for making unleavened wheat hosts for all Dioceses and Parishes in my province.

Actually, they don’t necessarily need ecclesiastical approval. It’s certainly a good thing to do, no doubt about it. But it’s not absolutely necessary. It’s not the approval that “makes them valid” it’s the fact that they are objectively speaking valid. The approval tells priests that they can trust the source. And certainly, priests should only be buying hosts from approved sources.

I’m not sure about the situation you describe with regard to the Trappists. Perhaps as a matter of discipline, all the bishops of that province require their priests to obtain hosts from the Trappists.

It could be that the monastery is the only approved source “located within the province” rather than the only source that may be used.

I’m curious to know if there’s something you can point me to online that would describe this.

 

[centurionguard]

Actually, they don’t necessarily need ecclesiastical approval. It’s certainly a good thing to do, no doubt about it. But it’s not absolutely necessary. It’s not the approval that “makes them valid” it’s the fact that they are objectively speaking valid. The approval tells priests that they can trust the source. And certainly, priests should only be buying hosts from approved sources.

I’m not sure about the situation you describe with regard to the Trappists. Perhaps as a matter of discipline, all the bishops of that province require their priests to obtain hosts from the Trappists.

It could be that the monastery is the only approved source “located within the province” rather than the only source that may be used.

I’m curious to know if there’s something you can point me to online that would describe this.

Off hand I would have to do some research so I can’t give you an immediate answer.
What about Mass Wine itself that must be unfortified for Mass use. Can it come from any source without ecclesiastical approval?

 

[malphono]

I thought biscuits in the UK meant cookies…

AFAIK, it does. I though I had qualified the “cracker” thing as “water biscuits” but … ooops … I guess I muffed it …

 

[centurionguard]

Redemptionis Sacramentum
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Chapter III

THE PROPER CELEBRATION OF MASS

1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist

[48.] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.[123] It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.[124] It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.[125]

[49.] By reason of the sign, it is appropriate that at least some parts of the Eucharistic Bread coming from the fraction should be distributed to at least some of the faithful in Communion. “Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it”,[126] and indeed small hosts requiring no further fraction ought customarily to be used for the most part.

[50.] The wine that is used in the most sacred celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must be natural, from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt, not mixed with other substances.[127] During the celebration itself, a small quantity of water is to be mixed with it. Great care should be taken so that the wine intended for the celebration of the Eucharist is well conserved and has not soured.[128] It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance, for the Church requires certainty regarding the conditions necessary for the validity of the sacraments. Nor are other drinks of any kind to be admitted for any reason, as they do not constitute valid matter.

 

[FrDavid96]

Off hand I would have to do some research so I can’t give you an immediate answer.
What about Mass Wine itself that must be unfortified for Mass use. Can it come from any source without ecclesiastical approval?

It’s the same answer.

Ecclesiastical approval isn’t required for validity. Certainly, a priest should not be using wine from a source that hasn’t been approved, so please don’t misunderstand me here. The approval means that the priest knows it’s safe to us–but the absence of approval does not necessarily mean that the priest cannot use it. Many bishops have mad it particular law for their own dioceses that only approved wine be used (some have not), and in that case, the priest is bound to obey the bishop.

If a priest is absolutely certain that the wine meets the Church’s requirements, he “could” use it. But I’ll caution that this is something better left for the bishop (or “a” bishop if the wine comes from outside the priest’s own diocese) to determine.

 

[FrDavid96]

Off hand I would have to do some research so I can’t give you an immediate answer.
What about Mass Wine itself that must be unfortified for Mass use. Can it come from any source without ecclesiastical approval?

Just to follow-up. In the US, we’re accustomed to having approved wines available. I can’t say that the same applies to the whole world. I would imagine that in places where wine is more a part of everyday culture, the priest might be competent (ie have the authority) to determine for himself whether or not it meets the Church’s requirements. In other words, I don’t know (one way or the other) if countries like Italy and France, or even Russia or Japan, have wines for sale labeled “altar wine.” I don’t know how this works in other countries.

This can be a tricky topic because it’s difficult to say what I want to say, which is “a priest can approve his own altar wine” That’s technically true, but I’m still not comfortable saying it because there’s too much room for misunderstanding. Yes, I did say it, but no, I’m not quite comfortable with having said it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I wonder if I might ask a “dopey” question.

I grew up used to red wine being used for the Consecration.

But, more recently, white wine has been used from time to time. The only “concern” or “curiosity” I ever had with white wine is that it looks too much like water.

Anyway, when white wine is used, I get some kind of “disconnect” … it just doesn’t seem like the traditional sacramental / altar wine.

[Apologies for not doing a good job phrasing this.]

Any comments?

 

[Elizium23]

My pastor explained that modern scholarship shows that wine varieties in Jesus’ time and place were overwhelmingly white wines. From a practical standpoint, red wine really stains up purificators. I attend two parishes that use a white variety but it cannot be confused with water. It is a rich golden color with the distinctive smell and taste of wine.

 

[Digitonomy]

The answer is found in your own question. It is the very fact that you are not calling those things by the word “bread.”

Since they are-not-bread, then there’s no need to take things any further.

First you tell me we must assess the taste, smell, texture, and color to determine whether something is bread. Now you tell me to ignore those, and instead use my choice of words in American English as the determining factor? Leaving aside whether there was any such distinction between our modern notion of bread and non-bread flour baked goods in Apostolic days (I doubt it), I don’t see why my decision to call something pilot bread instead of hardtack should make it bread.

FrDavid96:

It is not at all accurate to say that St. Thomas limited his answer to the question as to validity to a matter of “what quantity?” It was a matter of “what portion OF THE BREAD?”

I truly wish you could see here that the question “is it made of at least 50% wheat?” is simply NOT the criteria that the Church uses for determining valid matter for the Eucharist.

Just trying to extrapolate from St Thomas as best I can. Does the Church have additional criteria to address these questions?