MERGED: For transubstatiation to happen, should bread not look like bread?/Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hokomai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hokomai

Guest
I understand that for validity, bread to be consecrated must actually be bread made from wheat, and I realise that is what communion breads are. But although I was raised to think of the communion wafers as ‘bread’, they actually don’t look, taste or feel anything like bread. Bread looks like this: tiny.cc/4lv0j, and unleavened bread also looks nothing like a communion wafer. So, how can it be valid to use a form of bread that has not the appearance of bread? Isn’t the ‘accident’ meant to conform to the human idea of bread?
 
Hokomai said:
I understand that for validity, bread to be consecrated must actually be bread made from wheat, and I realise that is what communion breads are. But although I was raised to think of the communion wafers as ‘bread’, they actually don’t look, taste or feel anything like bread. Bread looks like this: tiny.cc/4lv0j, and unleavened bread also looks nothing like a communion wafer. So, how can it be valid to use a form of bread that has not the appearance of bread? Isn’t the ‘accident’ meant to conform to the human idea of bread?
Click to expand...
No. Bread has to conform with the chiemical formula of bread not the appearance. I know black, white, brown, yellow and so on bread.
 
Transubstantiation does not depend on the accidents, unless the matter is so corrupted that it is no longer suitable for valid consecration. However, “communion wafers” (Catholics usually call them hosts) are not mandated, and it is perfectly licit to use other forms of unleavened bread. This is not unusual in small groups, on retreats, for example. For larger congregations, individual hosts are convenient and present far less of a potential for there to be crumbs to be gathered up.
 
Hokomai said:
I understand that for validity, bread to be consecrated must actually be bread made from wheat, and I realise that is what communion breads are. But although I was raised to think of the communion wafers as ‘bread’, they actually don’t look, taste or feel anything like bread. Bread looks like this: tiny.cc/4lv0j, and unleavened bread also looks nothing like a communion wafer. So, how can it be valid to use a form of bread that has not the appearance of bread? Isn’t the ‘accident’ meant to conform to the human idea of bread?
Click to expand...
The Holy See has said that communion wafers (hosts) are indeed bread (pers. comm.).
 
Someone asked me about the Real Presence of the Eucharist, which caused me to question it myself.

We say that the bread and the wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. If such is the case, then why are some people still allergic to the concecrated host? If it truly ‘becomes’ the body and blood, shouldn’t it lose the characteristics of bread and wine? Otherwise, it does seem more symbolic than real…

Help’s appreciated!
 
Actually, the bread must look like bread. Because as per instructions of “disposing” of Hosts is that it be put in water until it no longer resembles bread. The belief is the Real Presence ends when the Host no longer has the appearance of bread. And no, bread does not chemically mix with water, so you can’t argue that the chemical composition has change.

The wafers are bread. Bread doesn’t always have to look like your typical grocery bread.
 
ThatOneDudeAlex said:
Someone asked me about the Real Presence of the Eucharist, which caused me to question it myself.

We say that the bread and the wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. If such is the case, then why are some people still allergic to the concecrated host? If it truly ‘becomes’ the body and blood, shouldn’t it lose the characteristics of bread and wine? Otherwise, it does seem more symbolic than real…

Help’s appreciated!
Click to expand...
TransSUBSTANCE, not transaccident, my friend!

Accident is the physical characteristic of an item, it involves the molecular structure, the physical traits, etc (including the molecular combinations which would elicit an allergenic response).

Substance is the essense of a thing: what it actually is.

A simple riposte to this person would be to ask if they believe life begins at conception (if they don’t, they have bigger problems than just non-catholicism!). If they do, then ask them if they are the same person as they were right after they conceived or if they are a different person. When they say they are the same person, ask them why they no longer resemble a ball of rapidly dividing homogenous stem cells. The point here is that we can illustrate that even though their ACCIDENT changed, their substance has remained the same: hence they have been themselves since the moment they were concieved.

Changing the substance, however, rather than the accident, will change what a person or thing is. Example: I own a clock. I decide that I’m no longer going to wind this clock. I begin to set it on stacks of papers on my desk. The item still has the physical form of a clock, but the substance of what it is (not telling time, but weighing down papers) is now paperweight (this would, obviously, be a limited physical metaphor for the mystery of the Eucharist that is transubstantiation).
 
ThatOneDudeAlex said:
Someone asked me about the Real Presence of the Eucharist, which caused me to question it myself.

We say that the bread and the wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. If such is the case, then why are some people still allergic to the concecrated host? If it truly ‘becomes’ the body and blood, shouldn’t it lose the characteristics of bread and wine? Otherwise, it does seem more symbolic than real…

Help’s appreciated!
Click to expand...
Because our body still interacts with the bread and wine on the physical level. If you think allergic reactions of bread and wine are bad, think of how your body would react if the physical properties are those of flesh and blood :eek:
 
ConstantineTG said:
Actually, the bread must look like bread. Because as per instructions of “disposing” of Hosts is that it be put in water until it no longer resembles bread. The belief is the Real Presence ends when the Host no longer has the appearance of bread. And no, bread does not chemically mix with water, so you can’t argue that the chemical composition has change.

The wafers are bread. Bread doesn’t always have to look like your typical grocery bread.
Click to expand...
That is correct, and anyone who has enjoined a Pascha meal (which I would recommend for all Catholics!) knows that Matzoh bread (used in the passover) and the host are actually really similar.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Because our body still interacts with the bread and wine on the physical level. If you think allergic reactions of bread and wine are bad, think of how your body would react if the physical properties are those of flesh and blood :eek:
Click to expand...
yes exactly.

just like your eyes think its still bread and wine, so does your digestive tract.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
The Holy See has said that communion wafers (hosts) are indeed bread (pers. comm.).
Click to expand...
And that very important to keep in mind. We all know that typical Communion host don’t look like the kind of bread we usually see on our dinner tables. Even comparisons to certain flat breads aren’t adequate.

For whatever reason, and by whatever logic, the Holy See has certainly “decided” that the traditional host meets all the requirements of the accidents of bread for a valid Eucharist. I cannot point to a specific document. However, as we all know, these hosts have been used for a long time (I don’t even know how long, how many centuries?) Certainly we have more modern documents (like Redemptionis Sacramentum) strongly encouraging the traditional host, but as for the “first time” the Holy See made such a decision, I’m unaware.

As individual Catholics, we have to trust the judgement (formal or not) of the Holy See that hosts are valid matter; for us to judge otherwise just doesn’t make much sense. Yes, we can certainly discuss it–lest anyone misunderstand my meaning here.
 
ThatOneDudeAlex said:
Someone asked me about the Real Presence of the Eucharist, which caused me to question it myself.

We say that the bread and the wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. If such is the case, then why are some people still allergic to the concecrated host? If it truly ‘becomes’ the body and blood, shouldn’t it lose the characteristics of bread and wine? Otherwise, it does seem more symbolic than real…

Help’s appreciated!
Click to expand...
iT TASTES LIKE BREAD, Looks like bread but it is not bread.
Like some food which is only chemicals: it llooks like food, tastes like food, smells like food but it is chemicals (I guess the comparison was bad, wasnt it?)
 
+Cooking is my hobby . . . and I’ve baked more types of breads than I can count . . . which breads can come in all kinds of shapes, forms, and sizes . . . and can range from a wide variety of small to tiny crackers, to biscuits, tortillas, scones, rolls, muffins, pancakes, waffles, a wide variety of loaves of all sizes and shapes, etc. . . . my recipe books are loaded with multitudes of recipes for breads and quick breads . . . most of which breads actually “look” . . . very . . . different from one another . . .

The below quote is from the Order of St. Benedict’s (OSB) website and should shed some further light on the subject at hand for those unfamiliar with the recipe for altar bread . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
Ecumenical Altar Bread Recipes

Benedictine Catholic Altar Breads

Roman Catholic altar breads are available from the Benedictine :nun1: Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, but some congregations prefer locally-made bread. Below are links to Web resources about altar bread in a variety of Christian assemblies.

Notes

“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.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, pars III, "On the Species of the Holy Eucharist, Art. 3:74," online in Western Communion Hosts: Some Recipes and Some Thoughts with other excellent resources on this topic from Prosphora.org, “devoted exclusively to Orthodox Christian Holy Bread.”

E. Y. writes (Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:31:37 -0600):

“The limits for valid matter are quite clearly stated in Pope St Pius V’s Bull “De Defectibus” of 1572, and it states that any material other than** wheat, water, salt **(and yeast for the Eastern Rites) will invalidate the material.”

Reflections on Eucharistic Bread and Wine:

“In a 1929 instruction, the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments taught that bread made of any substance other than wheat is invalid matter, as is bread to which has been added such a great quantity [emphasis added] of another substance that it can no longer be considered wheat bread in the common estimation. …The General Instruction of the Roman Missal #283 stipulates that the bread for the Eucharist should have the appearance of real food and be made in such a way that the priest is able to break it into parts and distribute them to at least some of the faithful. Subsequent instructions from the Apostolic See have attempted to clarify the meaning of this law by indicating that the “appearance” of bread applies to its color, taste, and thickness rather than to its shape. From The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, page 657).”

General Instruction on the Roman Missal 2000:
  1. Panis ad Eucharistiam celebrandam debet esse mere triticeus, recenter confectus, et secundum antiquam Ecclesiae latinae traditionem, azymus. (Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. Caput VI: De Iis quae Ad Missae Celebrationem Requiruntur, I. De Pane Et Vino Ad Eucharistiam Celebrandam).
  2. 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. (Chapter VI: The Requisites for the Celebration of Mass, I. The Bread and Wine for Celebating the Eucharist).
Web Resources

“Altar Breads” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907-12).

Communion Bread Recipe (very-special-recipes.com)

Laboratorio Pane di Vita, Pisa. Altar Bread Production and Distribution (in Italian with drawings).

Lift Up Your Hearts. Sites Devoted to Worship & Liturgy (a comprehensive liturgical resource).

“Pennsylvania Altar Bread.” (breadnet.net)

Prosphora (Orthodox Christian Holy Bread)

Our purpose is to help Orthodox Christians … bake prosphora, and to help everyone learn about our rich traditions.

Saint Jude’s Communion Bread. (Episcopal Church, Cupertino, CA).

:compcoff: Link: osb.org/liturgy/altarbread.html​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord our God and Saviour+​
 
Will this appearance be more to your liking?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
A word of caution on what we read in the Summa of St. Thomas.

I’ve often seen posts here on CAF which try to justify the addition of other ingredients to altar breads by citing St. Thomas. Those invariably take the quote from the Summa out of context.

The quote is one of his “reply to the objection” which is the standard format of the Summa. Understanding the objection is essential in understanding the reply to the objection. The objection was that in St Thomas’ day, “pure wheat bread” was near impossible to achieve because there would always be some small amount of other grain mixed in with the wheat. Examples: some barley from the next field might find its way into the wheat field, or some rye might re-grow from last year’s crop, or some other grain might be left on the millstone, or a number of other possibilities that would result in some small amount of other grain (or even other seeds like grass) getting into the wheat flour.

St. Thomas was not at all trying to say that it’s acceptable to knowingly mix flour from other grains into the dough for altar bread; in spite of the fact that many people claim that’s what he was doing.

A small proportion of another grain does not make the altar bread invalid matter. But there is no question that doing so intentionally is always wrong, and likewise, whenever another substance is added to the recipe, it always makes the validity of the bread questionable.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
What do you say is the chemical formula of bread?
Click to expand...
I do not know as I am not a biologic engineer. Maybe in the net you will find it.
But that it has a formula it has got one. Otherwise we would not distinguish it from an orange.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
I do not know as I am not a biologic engineer. Maybe in the net you will find it.
But that it has a formula it has got one. Otherwise we would not distinguish it from an orange.
Click to expand...
Bread does not have a chemical formula, neither do oranges. We distinguish these from each other by sight, taste, and smell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top