Leavened vs unleavened

[choy]

just saw this question posted in the Apologist section, but i have more questions

if a priest concecrates leavened bread in the Latin Rite, its still valid right? of course it will be illicit, but the Church does recognize that leavened bread is valid matter, since some Eastern Churches uses leavened bread, right?

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes, that’s right. Canon 926, says, “According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.” Notice that it’s discussing the Latin Church, as it’s recognized that Eastern churches have different traditions. There are also instances such as being in a concentration camp when unleavened bread will not be available, but in any case the Sacrament would be valid.

 

[corsair]

To me thats like splitting hairs. Over-working the symantics. If you are a Roman Catholic it would be wrong to partake of communion with leavened bread. Follow the rubrics. This does not apply to eastern catholics who have their own rubrics.

At least in my humble opinion.

 

[MarkThompson]

To me thats like splitting hairs. Over-working the symantics. If you are a Roman Catholic it would be wrong to partake of communion with leavened bread. Follow the rubrics. This does not apply to eastern catholics who have their own rubrics.

At least in my humble opinion.

Nothing could be less of a hair-splitting than determining what it takes for the sacrament to be valid. It’s a perfectly legitimate thing to discuss. Save the criticism for when someone comes on here saying, “I’m a priest trying to see what the absolute limit of what I can get away with is, so can you tell me …”

 

[diggerdomer]

just saw this question posted in the Apologist section, but i have more questions

if a priest concecrates leavened bread in the Latin Rite, its still valid right? of course it will be illicit, but the Church does recognize that leavened bread is valid matter, since some Eastern Churches uses leavened bread, right?

Valid, yes. Licit, no.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. … If you are a Roman Catholic it would be wrong to partake of communion with leavened bread. . . …

As a Latin Catholic I am perfectly free to, and have, receive communion with leavened bread in an Eastern Catholic Church. While it would be illicit for a priest to consecrate leavened bread in the Latin Church, I know of no rule that says I could not licitly receive it.

 

[otjm]

As a Latin Catholic I am perfectly free to, and have, receive communion with leavened bread in an Eastern Catholic Church. While it would be illicit for a priest to consecrate leavened bread in the Latin Church, I know of no rule that says I could not licitly receive it.

No, I know of no rule either, but would there not be at least an implication that one could not licitly receive, since one is not required to receive?

 

[benedictgal]

This is what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

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

Thus, leavened bread is not valid matter in the Latin rite. Remember, what makes for a valid Eucharist is:

1. Matter (unleavened bread)
2. Form (using only the approved EP)
3. Intent (the celebrant intends to do what the Church commands)
4. Validly ordained minister (bishop and/or priest)

There, this answers the OP’s question.

 

[MarkThompson]

This is what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

Thus, leavened bread is not valid matter in the Latin rite. Remember, what makes for a valid Eucharist is:

1. Matter (unleavened bread)
2. Form (using only the approved EP)
3. Intent (the celebrant intends to do what the Church commands)
4. Validly ordained minister (bishop and/or priest)

There, this answers the OP’s question.

Are you joking, BG? Leavened bread is definitely valid, as long as it is made such that it would “commonly be considered wheat bread.” It’s not permitted, but it’s absolutely valid.

Edited to add: here’s a couple of sources that were just the first two Google hits for “leavened bread valid matter”: [1], [2].

 

[Brendan]

This is what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

Thus, leavened bread is not valid matter in the Latin rite. Remember, what makes for a valid Eucharist is:

1. Matter (unleavened bread)
2. Form (using only the approved EP)
3. Intent (the celebrant intends to do what the Church commands)
4. Validly ordained minister (bishop and/or priest)

There, this answers the OP’s question.

BG,

What you are quoting in no way defines the VALIDITY of the matter, rather it LICITITY of the matter.

We, as Catholics, know that leaven bread is valid matter because it is used in the Eastern Churches. Matter is an element of faith, not of discipline. Faith is universal to the Church. What is valid matter in one Church is valid matter in all.

What RS states to be invalid matter is bread from another grain, or bread with significant additives.

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 **

The substance of leaven wheat bread is the same as that of unleaven wheat bread…namely… wheat bread Leaven or unleaven is an accidental property, not substantial. In much that same way as a person being tall or short, fat or thin, does not mean they are not persons. The substance of ‘human person’ is the same.

It would certainly be an abuse to use leaven matter in the Latin Rite, just as R.S. says that pouring the species of wine from a pitcher is an abuse. But that does not affect the validity of the Sacrament either.

( and actually technially, an approved E.P. is not required either, there are certain elements that we know are required for Consecration. Implied or explicit Epicelesis and Implied or Explicit Eucharistic Narrative.

If a priest came up with his own E.P. that had those elements, I would have no difficulting Adoring the Sacrament the resulted, ( of course,

 

[puzzleannie]

No, I know of no rule either, but would there not be at least an implication that one could not licitly receive, since one is not required to receive?

yes Catholics of any rite may licitly receive communion at Mass celebrated in any rite in union with Rome, for any reason, at any time. but OP’s question is about the celebrant

 

[benedictgal]

BG,

What you are quoting in no way defines the VALIDITY of the matter, rather it LICITITY of the matter.

We, as Catholics, know that leaven bread is valid matter because it is used in the Eastern Churches. Matter is an element of faith, not of discipline. Faith is universal to the Church. What is valid matter in one Church is valid matter in all.

What RS states to be invalid matter is bread from another grain, or bread with significant additives.

The substance of leaven wheat bread is the same as that of unleaven wheat bread…namely… wheat bread Leaven or unleaven is an accidental property, not substantial. In much that same way as a person being tall or short, fat or thin, does not mean they are not persons. The substance of ‘human person’ is the same.

It would certainly be an abuse to use leaven matter in the Latin Rite, just as R.S. says that pouring the species of wine from a pitcher is an abuse. But that does not affect the validity of the Sacrament either.

( and actually technially, an approved E.P. is not required either, there are certain elements that we know are required for Consecration. Implied or explicit Epicelesis and Implied or Explicit Eucharistic Narrative.

If a priest came up with his own E.P. that had those elements, I would have no difficulting Adoring the Sacrament the resulted, ( of course,

Brendan, thanks for the correction. I had taken it to mean that leavened bread was not valid material for the Latin rite. We had a bad experience many years ago at my old parish in Austin when someone baked the bread to be used for Mass after a contentious debate in the parish liturgy committee (I was a greenhorn at the time and was the one fighting against it). It tasted somewhat sweet and it was crumbly. I had the fear of crumbs going all over the place. It was an experience that died a quick and painless death after one weekend. Ever since that one, sad and bad experience, I have been leery and suspect about this subject.

By the way, I don’t mind having egg on my face for my faux pas post. It does not hurt to be taken down a few notches now and then.

 

[FrDavid96]

I recall something somewhere (I thought it was in canon law, but can’t find it) stating that if a Latin priest celebrated Mass in an Eastern parish in some kind of unusual circumstances, that he could use leavened bread–and the same in reverse. Does anyone have any reference for that? I’ve searched the canons, and searched the Catechism, but came up empty.

What I’m talking about is something like this example:
Two nearby parishes, one Latin, one Eastern. The Eastern priest has some emergency; let’s say he has to be admitted to the hospital on Saturday night–no time to find another Eastern priest. Someone calls the nearby Latin priest and asks him to say Mass in the Eastern parish the next day. He can say the Latin (ie Ordinary form) Mass but use the traditional Eastern leavened bread.

I’m almost certain it’s in some authoritative document of the Church. I just can’t seem to find it. Can anyone help?

There is something like this in canon 707 of the Eastern Code. Here’s a link to an unofficial translation
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PJN.HTM#25

 

[Brendan]

I recall something somewhere (I thought it was in canon law, but can’t find it) stating that if a Latin priest celebrated Mass in an Eastern parish in some kind of unusual circumstances, that he could use leavened bread–and the same in reverse. Does anyone have any reference for that? I’ve searched the canons, and searched the Catechism, but came up empty.

What I’m talking about is something like this example:
Two nearby parishes, one Latin, one Eastern. The Eastern priest has some emergency; let’s say he has to be admitted to the hospital on Saturday night–no time to find another Eastern priest. Someone calls the nearby Latin priest and asks him to say Mass in the Eastern parish the next day. He can say the Latin (ie Ordinary form) Mass but use the traditional Eastern leavened bread.

I’m almost certain it’s in some authoritative document of the Church. I just can’t seem to find it. Can anyone help?

There is something like this in canon 707 of the Eastern Code. Here’s a link to an unofficial translation
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PJN.HTM#25

My thoughts would be that it would be more of a question of Canon Law. When the priest is officiating in an Eastern Church, that would be governed by Eastern Canon Law, which specifies leaven bread.

But the liturgical law would be subject to the eastern bishop. He could authorize the celebration of an approved liturgical rite, (Roman), but could not authorize the violation of the relevant Eastern Canons ( leaven bread)

I may be way off base here ( I only had a single semester of Canon Law) but that is my initial though.

 

[otjm]

yes Catholics of any rite may licitly receive communion at Mass celebrated in any rite in union with Rome, for any reason, at any time. but OP’s question is about the celebrant

Yes, I know that. That was not really my question. If the matter is illicit (here, leavened wheat bread, no other substances added except yeast) and the communicant knows that, would the communican’t’s reception be considered also illicit?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Yes, I know that. That was not really my question. If the matter is illicit (here, leavened wheat bread, no other substances added except yeast) and the communicant knows that, would the communican’t’s reception be considered also illicit?

No, it is not illicit (nor invalid).

 

[choy]

I recall something somewhere (I thought it was in canon law, but can’t find it) stating that if a Latin priest celebrated Mass in an Eastern parish in some kind of unusual circumstances, that he could use leavened bread–and the same in reverse. Does anyone have any reference for that? I’ve searched the canons, and searched the Catechism, but came up empty.

What I’m talking about is something like this example:
Two nearby parishes, one Latin, one Eastern. The Eastern priest has some emergency; let’s say he has to be admitted to the hospital on Saturday night–no time to find another Eastern priest. Someone calls the nearby Latin priest and asks him to say Mass in the Eastern parish the next day. He can say the Latin (ie Ordinary form) Mass but use the traditional Eastern leavened bread.

I’m almost certain it’s in some authoritative document of the Church. I just can’t seem to find it. Can anyone help?

There is something like this in canon 707 of the Eastern Code. Here’s a link to an unofficial translation
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PJN.HTM#25

i’m not sure if the Chaldean Rite uses leavened bread, but we have a Chaldean priest who substitutes for our parish priest when he’s away. and we still have a Latin Rite mass

 

[choy]

by the way, my question of course is asking if the priest uses leavened bread that is valid matter in an Eastern Rite

my guess of course is that its valid, whilst illicit in the Latin Rite. but i want “expert” opinion

 

[FrDavid96]

by the way, my question of course is asking if the priest uses leavened bread that is valid matter in an Eastern Rite

my guess of course is that its valid, whilst illicit in the Latin Rite. but i want “expert” opinion

Yes. It’s certainly valid. No question about it; provided that the bread itself is “valid & licit matter” according to the Eastern tradition–in other words, not just a loaf of bread from the grocer–it still has to meet the other requirements.

It would also be illicit for a Latin Rite priest to do this, under normal circumstances–there’s no doubt on that point either.

Under some circumstances, it might be licit as well. And I think that’s the direction we’re headed in now; simply discussing whether or not, and under what circumstances it would be licit. Certainly, in the “concentration camp” or the “Gilligans Island” scenarios (to use official seminary vocabulary) it would be licit (or at least “not illicit”).

 

[Brendan]

i’m not sure if the Chaldean Rite uses leavened bread, but we have a Chaldean priest who substitutes for our parish priest when he’s away. and we still have a Latin Rite mass

They use unleaven bread. There are several Chaldean parishes in my area and I like bringing the kids there every once and awhile.