Dont Laugh - Consecration of Goldfish crackers

[Digitonomy]

By the way, I have a question about intent - could you intend to consecrate only some of the hosts, but not others in the ciborium?

If for instance you have reason to suspect that some of the hosts are of doubtful provenance, being made of rice flour, but you can only distinguish them in bright daylight, not at the altar. You could split the large host for distribution to the 4 people attending the daily mass, then separate out the shinier consecrated hosts from the more matte-finish ones that may have rice flour after mass before distributing them to hospital patients.

 

[FatHead]

By the way, I have a question about intent - could you intend to consecrate only some of the hosts, but not others in the ciborium?

If for instance you have reason to suspect that some of the hosts are of doubtful provenance, being made of rice flour, but you can only distinguish them in bright daylight, not at the altar. You could split the large host for distribution to the 4 people attending the daily mass, then separate out the shinier consecrated hosts from the more matte-finish ones that may have rice flour after mass before distributing them to hospital patients.

i think he could intend to consecrate “all of the rice flower hosts in this ciborium, AND NOT the others”, so long as the priest could clearly be able to seperate the two types of hosts.

just to be safe, he would have to make a clear effort to NOT consecrate the others.

 

[FrDavid96]

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

I’m trying to explain to you what you’re missing in St. Thomas. You have become hung up on the idea that if something is more than 50% wheat, then it’s valid matter. That’s not at all what St. Thomas said. I’ve explained to you that BEFORE St. Thomas presents the issue of “what part of the bread needs to be wheat” he FIRST explained that the only valid matter for the Eucharist is bread (and wine).

All I can do at this point is to repeat it.

First, ask the question “is it bread?” And answer that from the common understanding of what is meant by “bread” without trying to artificially expanding on it. If you don’t call it by the word “bread” then there’s no need to go any further. I’m not saying that if you decide to call it bread, then it automatically is bread. I’m saying that if an average, reasonable person would not call something by the word bread, then we can safely say that it is-not-bread and leave it at that. No need to go further.

What you’re missing here is that St. Thomas is NOT saying that “anything that is more than 50% wheat is valid matter.” You keep trying to insert that into his writings, but it’s simply not there.

Yes, the Church certainly has criteria to address this. To start with, Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[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. 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. 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.

Note that the word “bread” is used 4 times.

Bread.
Not bread like substance
Not crackers
Not biscuits
Not cookies
Not pretzels
Not pasta
Not licorice
Not chocolate cake
Not anything-else-which-is-not-bread

Why, oh why are you not seeing this?

If it isn’t bread then it isn’t valid matter for the Eucharist. Plain and simple.

Some bread might be invalid
Some bread might be of questionable validity
Some bread might be valid but illicit

But nothing that is not-bread can be validly consecrated for the Eucharist.

Here it is in Latin
Panis, qui in sacrosancti eucharistici Sacrificii celebratione adhibetur, debet esse azymus, mere triticeus et recenter confectus, ita ut nullum sit periculum corruptionis. Ideo consequitur panem ex alia substantia etiam cereali conflatum, vel illum cui tanta sit admixta quantitas materiae a tritico diversae, ut, iuxta communem aestimationem, tritici panem esse dici nequeat, materiam validam pro conficiendo Sacrificio et Sacramento eucharistico haud constituere. Gravis est abusus alias substantias, ut sunt fructus vel saccharum vel mel, in panem ad Eucharistiam conficendum introducere. Patet hostias conficiendas esseab iis, qui non solum honestate praestent, sed etiam ipsis conficiendis sint experti, idoneisque instrumentis instructi

Azymus comes from the Greek “Azymes” which specifically means “unleavened bread” as ancient Greek has 2 different words for bread. Azymes means unleavened bread, Artos means leavened bread.

 

[FrDavid96]

By the way, I have a question about intent - could you intend to consecrate only some of the hosts, but not others in the ciborium?

If for instance you have reason to suspect that some of the hosts are of doubtful provenance, being made of rice flour, but you can only distinguish them in bright daylight, not at the altar. You could split the large host for distribution to the 4 people attending the daily mass, then separate out the shinier consecrated hosts from the more matte-finish ones that may have rice flour after mass before distributing them to hospital patients.

That would be a strictly speaking valid way of doing things ONLY in the sense that the wheat hosts would be consecrated, and the rice ones would be unchanged, but at the same time, it would be absolutely forbidden. Indeed it would be sacrilege.

If the priest knows that what he’s about to consecrate isn’t wheat bread, he MUST stop (or not even begin) and only attempt to consecrate valid hosts. The priest cannot knowingly, intentionally simulate consecration of invalid matter–that would be the sacrilege.

This is from de Defectibus (on defects)

1. If the celebrant notices before the Consecration that the host is corrupt or that it is not made of wheat flour, he is to replace that host with another, make the offering at least mentally and continue from where he left off.
2. If he notices this after the Consecration, or even after having consumed the host, he is to put out another host, make the offering as above and begin from the Consecration, namely from the words Qui pridie quam pateretur. If he has not consumed the first host, he is to consume it after taking the Body and the Blood, or else reserve it somewhere with reverence. If he has already consumed the first host, he is nevertheless to consume the one that he has consecrated, because the precept of completing the Sacrament is more important than the precept of fasting before Communion.

 

[FrDavid96]

i think he could intend to consecrate “all of the rice flower hosts in this ciborium, AND NOT the others”, so long as the priest could clearly be able to seperate the two types of hosts.

just to be safe, he would have to make a clear effort to NOT consecrate the others.

In that case, he would be simulating consecration of what he knows is not valid matter. Can’t do that.

The only acceptable solution is to stop immediately (whatever point he is at) and remove the rice wafers. No matter what it takes.

 

[Digitonomy]

In that case, he would be simulating consecration of what he knows is not valid matter. Can’t do that.

The only acceptable solution is to stop immediately (whatever point he is at) and remove the rice wafers. No matter what it takes.

That makes sense. Now, let’s throw the rules out the window - suppose this happened before De Defectibus or similar earlier rules. Could the priest actually DO this (intend and thus consecrate only the hosts he knows are pure wheat, and not consecrate different-colored hosts mixed in the same ciborium that may or may not be wheat?).

 

[FrDavid96]

That makes sense. Now, let’s throw the rules out the window - suppose this happened before De Defectibus or similar earlier rules. Could the priest actually DO this (intend and thus consecrate only the hosts he knows are pure wheat, and not consecrate different-colored hosts mixed in the same ciborium that may or may not be wheat?).

Yes, a priest “can” do it—now, or any other time in history.

The fact that he “can” do it, doesn’t change the fact that it’s absolutely wrong for any priest to do this knowingly and intentionally.

That’s like asking “could someone walk into a bank and point a sawed off shotgun at the teller?” The answer is “of course, someone can do it but it’s wrong no matter what.”

If a priest finds himself in that kind of situation, he has an obligation to stop what he’s doing, and fix it. The answer won’t change no matter how many times the question is asked.

 

[Digitonomy]

I’m trying to explain to you what you’re missing in St. Thomas. You have become hung up on the idea that if something is more than 50% wheat, then it’s valid matter.

First off, you may not have noticed, but in my last two posts (#44 & #60) I have followed your division of these issues into two different parts, (1) what constitutes bread, and (2) what makes bread valid vs invalid matter. The 50% issue applies to the second part, and I don’t think you’ll find that I’ve been wielding the 50% sword in defense of my view on the first part.

So, part 1, what is bread:

FrDavid96:

Bread.
Not bread like substance
Not crackers
Not biscuits
Not cookies
Not pretzels
Not pasta
Not licorice
Not chocolate cake
Not anything-else-which-is-not-bread

Why, oh why are you not seeing this?

The reason is that if we use that guide, the packages of wheat crackers in the sacristy don’t qualify as bread. Since the Church teaches us differently, I have to doubt my modern, American English understanding of what bread is and isn’t, and compare baked wheat products to what the Church teaches us IS bread. And I think it’s worthwhile to consider whether those in the early Church had baked wheat crackers that they thought were not bread, or if any simple baked wheat substance fell within the common understanding of bread.

Moving on to part 2:

FrDavid96:

Yes, the Church certainly has criteria to address this. To start with, Redemptionis Sacramentum:

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.

That is helpful, although I think it dovetails nicely with St Thomas’s approach which I discussed earlier. Unless it’s not really bread, the percentage of wheat is a pretty good guide as to whether it qualifies as valid matter. Wheat bread with garlic or raisin flavoring seems to be within the guideposts set by Redemptionis Sacramentum. There may be doubt, but our best information leans toward validity.

 

[FrDavid96]

First off, you may not have noticed, but in my last two posts (#44 & #60) I have followed your division of these issues into two different parts, (1) what constitutes bread, and (2) what makes bread valid vs invalid matter. The 50% issue applies to the second part, and I don’t think you’ll find that I’ve been wielding the 50% sword in defense of my view on the first part.

So, part 1, what is bread:The reason is that if we use that guide, the packages of wheat crackers in the sacristy don’t qualify as bread. Since the Church teaches us differently, I have to doubt my modern, American English understanding of what bread is and isn’t, and compare baked wheat products to what the Church teaches us IS bread. And I think it’s worthwhile to consider whether those in the early Church had baked wheat crackers that they thought were not bread, or if any simple baked wheat substance fell within the common understanding of bread.

What we use at the Mass; what we usually call “hosts” is bread. It’s just a form of bread that’s made particularly for the Mass. They are not crackers because crackers are something different. There are probably plenty of other forms of bread that you’ve never encountered. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t bread–and no, neither does it mean that crackers can be counted as bread just because they don’t match someone else’s typical form of bread.
I knew it was only a matter of time before this came up. The answer is that over a very long period, the Church has had the opportunity to consider this, and has come to the conclusion that “hosts” are a form of bread. It might not match our own personal notions of bread, but the fact is that the Church has thought this through and has decided that the traditional form of the host is indeed bread.

If people in the early Church had crackers on hand, then they would not have tried to use them as bread. They knew what bread was and bread was what they used. Might there have been an exception where an ancient priest used crackers anyway? Of course, it’s possible. But it wouldn’t make that valid Eucharist. It would simply be a priest doing something the wrong way.

Ancient languages has their own words for crackers or cakes or whatever else. No matter how you try to phrase it, bread means bread today, and bread (in ancient languages) meant bread in the past.

Say it in Greek as azymes/artos
Say it in Latin as panis
Say it in Aramaic as lahmo
Say it in Hebrew as lahem
Bread meant bread.

When they wanted to describe other wheat products like crackers, cakes, pastries, etc. They had their own words for those, just as we do today.

Moving on to part 2:That is helpful, although I think it dovetails nicely with St Thomas’s approach which I discussed earlier. Unless it’s not really bread, the percentage of wheat is a pretty good guide as to whether it qualifies as valid matter. Wheat bread with garlic or raisin flavoring seems to be within the guideposts set by Redemptionis Sacramentum. There may be doubt, but our best information leans toward validity.

No. Percentage of wheat is not at all a “pretty good guide as to whether it qualifies as valid matter”

No. Wheat bread with garlic or raisins does indeed fall into the category mentioned in Redemptionis Sacramentum, but not under the category of valid matter but under the category of “do not use, don’t even consider it” because at best, it might be valid matter. You’re really twisting the words in RS because you’re saying the exact opposite of the point the Church is making.

In such cases, our “best information” does NOT lean toward valid matter, on the contrary they lean toward invalid matter.

 

[FrDavid96]

… The 50% issue applies to the second part, and I don’t think you’ll find that I’ve been wielding the 50% sword in defense of my view on the first part.
…

What’s happening here is that you’re completely missing the point of St. Thomas’s writings and attempting to make them mean something else.

Look at article 3.

Objection 3. Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except in the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3. A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper matter of this sacrament.

You are somehow under the impression that St. Thomas was trying to say that other substances may be introduced, such a fruits and vegetables, and this is justified by the Summa.

That’s not what he was talking about. You can’t just read the “reply” without reading the “objection” because after all, the objection has no meaning unless it’s taken in the context of being a refutation of the objection.

In St. Thomas day, it was difficult to obtain pure wheat flour. They didn’t have the kinds of farm equipment and techniques that we have today, and so if a farmer grew a crop of wheat, it was likely that there would be some other grain mixed in with the wheat by the time it gets turned into flour—either in the field, or in the mill, or whatever.

St. Thomas was explaining that the bread must be made of wheat flour, EVEN THOUGH during his day, wheat flour would necessarily have some small amount of other grains mixed in.

He is saying that a “small quantity” of some other grain mixed in with the wheat flour still results in valid matter.

He was NOT saying that substances like raisins or garlic or butter could be added to the recipe and that would result in valid matter as long as the final mix is “mostly wheat.”

You and St. Thomas are talking about entirely different scenarios.

In the Summa, he’s talking about using bread that is made from flour which cannot be guaranteed to be 100% pure wheat. He was writing about “another grain” being added (unintentionally) to the wheat.

You, on the other hand, are talking about using bread intentionally made of foreign substances like raisins and garlic. Raisins and garlic hardly meet St. Thomas’ standard of “another grain.”

In short, you’re taking St Thomas’s words entirely out of context, placing them into a completely different context, and trying to use this to justify your position. It doesn’t work.

 

[Digitonomy]

What we use at the Mass; what we usually call “hosts” is bread.

Agreed

FrDavid96:

They are not crackers because crackers are something different.

So you claim, although you have failed to explain what the difference is between hosts and crackers, or provide any evidence that the Church holds these as distinct.

FrDavid96:

I knew it was only a matter of time before this came up. The answer is that over a very long period, the Church has had the opportunity to consider this, and has come to the conclusion that “hosts” are a form of bread. It might not match our own personal notions of bread, but the fact is that the Church has thought this through and has decided that the traditional form of the host is indeed bread.

I would like to see any evidence that the Church has been wrestling with this issue over the centuries, before finally concluding that hosts are indeed bread. Rather, I think the Church has always held without any question that hosts of whatever form are bread, whether cracker-like or fluffy. Instead, it is the wider variety of baked goods available in recent centuries that has given us a ready supply of types of bread that we can refer to in English with names other than bread.

FrDavid96:

Ancient languages has their own words for crackers or cakes or whatever else.

I’m not so sure that “cracker” is a distinct word in all modern languages, much less ancient ones. Wikipedia claims that the first cracker was invented in the United States in 1792, and that the word was coined in 1801, although obviously other cracker-like breads existed beforehand.

FrDavid96:

No. Wheat bread with garlic or raisins does indeed fall into the category mentioned in Redemptionis Sacramentum, but not under the category of valid matter but under the category of “do not use, don’t even consider it” because at best, it might be valid matter. You’re really twisting the words in RS because you’re saying the exact opposite of the point the Church is making.

You’re reading into RS by claiming that RS is labeling the introduction of contaminants a grave abuse mainly because it could threaten the validity of the matter. There are many other reasons this could be a grave abuse, and RS doesn’t indicate which reasons apply and which don’t, it simply says don’t do it. The only thing that surely invalidates the matter is

if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread

. I would say then that wheat bread contaminated by a few raisins is likely valid matter, from what I read in RS and the Summa.

 

[BellsSmells]

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?

White wine makes the laundry easier. It also reinforces the fact that we are not merely drinking red wine that looks like God’s Blood. It IS His Blood despite the appearance.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

That would be a strictly speaking valid way of doing things ONLY in the sense that the wheat hosts would be consecrated, and the rice ones would be unchanged, but at the same time, it would be absolutely forbidden. Indeed it would be sacrilege.

If the priest knows that what he’s about to consecrate isn’t wheat bread, he MUST stop (or not even begin) and only attempt to consecrate valid hosts. The priest cannot knowingly, intentionally simulate consecration of invalid matter–that would be the sacrilege.

This is from de Defectibus (on defects)

1. If the celebrant notices before the Consecration that the host is corrupt or that it is not made of wheat flour, he is to replace that host with another, make the offering at least mentally and continue from where he left off.
2. If he notices this after the Consecration, or even after having consumed the host, he is to put out another host, make the offering as above and begin from the Consecration, namely from the words Qui pridie quam pateretur. If he has not consumed the first host, he is to consume it after taking the Body and the Blood, or else reserve it somewhere with reverence. If he has already consumed the first host, he is nevertheless to consume the one that he has consecrated, because the precept of completing the Sacrament is more important than the precept of fasting before Communion.

Greetings,

I cannot find this document anywhere in the Vatican website. I have found something akin to it online, but I doubt the translation or the accuracy to it, because of the disclaimer at the bottom of the page which it says it may not be accurate. Where can I find this document?

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Yes, a priest “can” do it—now, or any other time in history.

The fact that he “can” do it, doesn’t change the fact that it’s absolutely wrong for any priest to do this knowingly and intentionally.

That’s like asking “could someone walk into a bank and point a sawed off shotgun at the teller?” The answer is “of course, someone can do it but it’s wrong no matter what.”

If a priest finds himself in that kind of situation, he has an obligation to stop what he’s doing, and fix it. The answer won’t change no matter how many times the question is asked.

Greetings,

What if the priest did not know that he was consecrating something that was illicit or invalid matter? Does the intention of his consecration consecrate it?

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Digitonomy]

You are somehow under the impression that St. Thomas was trying to say that other substances may be introduced, such a fruits and vegetables, and this is justified by the Summa.

Not at all. If you read my first post, #16, you’ll see that I pointed out exactly what Thomas was trying to say.

The fact is we don’t know what Thomas would say about non-grain contaminants, because he didn’t actually say anything. In any case like this, we can throw up our hands and say “there is no way to tell whether this bread qualifies as valid matter.” Or we can take the rules and guidelines we do know, and try to extrapolate them to other areas.

Suppose we later find forgotten writings that are applicable. In many cases we’ll be right, as a theologian like St Thomas will often apply similar logic in approaching a different, but analagous problem. In some cases we’ll be wrong, if the theologian takes a completely different tack.

My use of the Summa to address non-grain contaminants in bread is as I admitted from the start, only my own extrapolation of what Thomas would have written, had he expanded his discussion of contaminants from grain into other substances. You are free to claim he would have said otherwise. However, it does not appear to me that the Church has contradicted this approach.

 

[centurionguard]

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?

Its not a dopey question.

There no real particular difference from using red over white wine or vice-versa.

Both are fully approved under the Church norms.
I see it more strictly as a personal preference of the priest himself.

And as someone else suggested it has nothing to do with with red wine soiling linens, purificators or the corporal.

I have heard some priests take preference to white wine for the same reasons that some get a headache from drinking red wine but I doubt this is a particular normal excuse.

 

[FrDavid96]

Greetings,

I cannot find this document anywhere in the Vatican website. I have found something akin to it online, but I doubt the translation or the accuracy to it, because of the disclaimer at the bottom of the page which it says it may not be accurate. Where can I find this document?

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

I’m not sure where to direct you. I have one source but I don’t like posting the link because the page itself is run by people who are opposed to the Ordinary From of the Mass. That’s why I don’t share it.

There are others here who have links to other sites, and they usually post them. Me, I keep losing track of the page, and I don’t use it enough to bookmark it.

Best I can say is to do an internet search for “de defectibus” and you will find it.

The document itself though, is well known. It has been printed on the opening pages of the Roman Missal for centuries, until the 1970s.

As for the translation itself, for our purposes here, we can trust it because what we’re discussing is pretty straightforward and there’s little chance of a mis-translation about this topic.

 

[FrDavid96]

Not at all. If you read my first post, #16, you’ll see that I pointed out exactly what Thomas was trying to say.

The fact is we don’t know what Thomas would say about non-grain contaminants, because he didn’t actually say anything. In any case like this, we can throw up our hands and say “there is no way to tell whether this bread qualifies as valid matter.” Or we can take the rules and guidelines we do know, and try to extrapolate them to other areas.

Suppose we later find forgotten writings that are applicable. In many cases we’ll be right, as a theologian like St Thomas will often apply similar logic in approaching a different, but analagous problem. In some cases we’ll be wrong, if the theologian takes a completely different tack.

My use of the Summa to address non-grain contaminants in bread is as I admitted from the start, only my own extrapolation of what Thomas would have written, had he expanded his discussion of contaminants from grain into other substances. You are free to claim he would have said otherwise. However, it does not appear to me that the Church has contradicted this approach.

You’re running in circles here.

You simply insist on taking something that is “not bread” and insisting that because it’s made mostly of wheat, that makes it bread. The fact that you personally don’t know the vocabulary that people used in the past for non-bread-foods (and I don’t know them either) does NOT mean that what we now call crackers can be called bread.

Your entire position is based on a non-starter because:
If we are discussing crackers, we are not discussing bread.

One more time: crackers are not bread. So the question of using crackers for the Mass is a completely pointless one.

The Church has certainly contradicted your argument by saying over and over again throughout the centuries that only bread may be used for the Sacrifice. It’s that simple.