Proper form for bread for Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter BaronGZ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Regenhund:
I’m glad someone asked about this:

My daughter was just diagnosed with Celliac Disease, which basically amounts to an allergy to wheat gluten. Is there any allowed exceptions to the wheat host when it comes time for her first communion? Or will she forever be limited to taking the Blood but not the Body of Christ?
Click to expand...
A friend of mine has this problem, too…and apparently hosts also come in non-gluten ones, too.
 
40.png
thann:
Karl, I trust your reply – but reading Canon Law as BaronGZ cites there is no mention of what exactly should be in the host – certainly wheat flour, but something else (obviously water) must be added to make it substantial. Can you please provide an official source for this information?

Our parish makes its own bread using more than plain wheat flour and water and I’d like to have some information to provide if I decide to bring this up at a worship commission meeting.

Thanks for any info!

'thann
Click to expand...
You might try this link www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q101.htm It also gives a resource.
 
In the Eastern Catholic Church the formula for the bread is wheat flour,water,and yeast. Eastern catholics use leaven bread to symbolize the risen Lord.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
 
:nope: Here we go, another novelty again. Everyone wants to continue change, change , change.
Code: 
The change issue reminds me of priest who were (1970's but MAY still be happening) consecrating english muffens,  and at times, Pizza.   At one "mass" instead of the precious blood being from wine, in one youth mass soda pop was consecrated.
Also, I had a prof. in college who says he remembers when (during the Vietnam war era) a group of on campus priests (i leave the order unmentioned) burned selective service cards on an ash Wed. then used the ashes FOR the actual University Ash Wed. Ash service.:banghead:     How dare they.  But, yes, it was true.   Point is:  we must all be carefull with tampering with what has always worked: the Normal circular white little host,  to then be consecrated by the priest in Mass.  Not consecrated by the priest TOGETHER with lay people behind the altar at the moment of consecration as if THEY too were concelebrating(actually indirectly this is the point these liberal priest want to make, it's not like they don't know better):nerd:
 
Host may be made only from wheat flour and water. Absolutely no other ingredient is permissible, including milk, sugar, baking soda, salt, and honey, and no other grain may be substituted for the wheat.

If any other ingredient is present in a “notable” amount (that is, an amount that can be noticed), the bread is invalid matter, and a Mass that uses the bread would be an invalid Mass.

The use of leaven in the Western rite is illicit, but it does not make the hosts invalid matter. (If it did, then the hosts used in the Eastern rites would be invalid matter, since those rites use leavened hosts.)

Karl, these are issues that really concern me as I am a “black & white” type of person. In the late 1970s I was a CCD teacher for my church. Class was held in the home. My class made their Communion together. We baked our bread from whole wheat, unleavened and I think may have added a bit of honey and I don’t remember what the liquid was. Our parish associate heard my class’s reconciliation in my home individually. We froze the bread so it would be fresh on their Communion day. This process was known by the associate. Their Communion was made in the Church. If this was totally unacceptable, would this invalidate this class’s first Holy Communion? If the answer is yes, what would I have to do to rectify this?
 
Karl Keating:
If any other ingredient is present in a “notable” amount (that is, an amount that can be noticed), the bread is invalid matter, and a Mass that uses the bread would be an invalid Mass.
Click to expand...
This part does not make sense to me. If you are talking about validity, that is, what is an objectively valid matter for the sacrament, how do “notability” or “noticeability” possibly come into play? Those are humanly referent concepts, having to do with our perceptions. Objectively speaking, under the Tridentine framework you are using, either the matter is valid as a matter of objective reality, or it isn’t. The smallest admixture of, e.g. honey, or dust, or whatever, no matter how small, would be enough to render the matter, and therefore the sacrament, invalid. Of course, this is unworkable, since, in earthly reality, no substance is entirely pure. Joe
 
The reason unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper is that it was Passover and only unleavened bread could be used. We are not Jews and do not celebrate Passover, as that is under the Old Covenant. Therefore it seems that as long as it is bread, it should not matter if it is leavened or unleavened or has more than just whest flour and water. The same for the wine - it should be able to be grape juice (that’s what wine starts our as) or wine.

PTL

Bonnie
 
Wine is the fermented juice of the grape!Anything else is illicit! If anything else is used one might as well use pop soda!!! Get it straight the Church teaches WINE.! The host is unlevened made from wheat flour only and water! I really dont see what problem some Catholics have with this!
 
The bread of the Eucharist in the western church is unleavened. The term ‘host’ is not part of the official definition of that bread in the latin church, as I understand it.
 
Can someone please explain to me why a parish would forgoe the wafers in exchange for home baked bread and open itself up to the possibility of illicit hosts?
 
What notable means is that if you add it to the mix then it is a noticeable quantity. A dash of salt is notable amount because it has an identifable and deliberate quantity. A microscopic bit of dust contained in a wheat sack would be not be considered notable because no deliberate act was made to include such a substance and reasonable care through sifting etc is used.

The church teaches only wheat and water are the matter of a communion hosts. If you add anything else then you are doing so deliberately with a quantity in mind as such you are making a notable change to the recipe and rendering the mass invalid for at least the latin rite.

To deliberately reject a solemen teaching of the Church such as this one can be very problematic for ones soul.

God Bless
 
40.png
BaronGZ:
I have recently been in a discussion at my parish where for a particular Mass, the plan is to use a home made bread for Communion.

To my knowledge (from the Pastor), the recipie contains “wheat, water and a little bit of milk”. (The recipie had been chosen because it did not crumble as much as many others had.)

Another parishoner who was concerned initially over the potential use of leavened bread was relieved to hear about the lack of leaven, but still considered the bread in use to be illicit to a degree, but valid.

The canons that I can find referring to the making of bread read like this:
Can. 924 §2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

Can. 926 According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.

I don’t see how the recipie as described above is “illicit” because of a little bit of milk. The Canons are explicit about wheat and no leaven… but are there other rules about other ingredients?

The recipie seems valid… should there be more concern?
Click to expand...
What is the problem? The canon says unleavened bread!!! Milk?? one might as well put honey, sugar or anything else you desire!
 
jturnbull,

Respectfully, but your posts in this thread seem to me at least to be lacking in courtesy. What is more they seem to be on full attack mode. This is a discussion about a question that someone thought serious enough to ask. I think we should assume the best of people not the worst, especially when first responding to their posts.

I have been quilty myself of somewhat rash comments and know it doesn’t help the tenor of the discussion.
 
40.png
BaronGZ:
I have recently been in a discussion at my parish where for a particular Mass, the plan is to use a home made bread for Communion.

To my knowledge (from the Pastor), the recipie contains “wheat, water and a little bit of milk”. (The recipie had been chosen because it did not crumble as much as many others had.)

Another parishoner who was concerned initially over the potential use of leavened bread was relieved to hear about the lack of leaven, but still considered the bread in use to be illicit to a degree, but valid.

The canons that I can find referring to the making of bread read like this:
Can. 924 §2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

Can. 926 According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.

I don’t see how the recipie as described above is “illicit” because of a little bit of milk. The Canons are explicit about wheat and no leaven… but are there other rules about other ingredients?

The recipie seems valid… should there be more concern?
Click to expand...
What is the problem? The canon says unleavened bread!!! Milk?? one might as well put honey, sugar or anything else you desire!
 
How can something be a little illicit ??It either is or its not, lets stop the double talk!
 
My comments to you had nothing to do with licit or illicit. I do hope you have a good night sleep and get out of bed on the right side tomorrow 😃
 
The bread is supposed to be unlevened ,wheat flour ,water and nothing else. And I will have a good nights sleep!
 
40.png
jturnbull:
The bread is supposed to be unlevened ,wheat flour ,water and nothing else. And I will have a good nights sleep!
Click to expand...
Am glad you will sleep well 🙂 I didn’t mention anything in my posts about unleavened bread being anything other than wheat flour & water. The only point in one of my posts was in reference to one of yours: you were emphatic about wine not being grape juice and also, in my mind, seemed to equate ‘hosts’ with unleavened bread. My point was only that the words ‘host’ and ‘unleavened’ are not necessarily synonyms. The traditional hosts in the latin rite are unleavened, but not all unleavened bread are hosts. Now whether it is prudent to try to make and use homebaked unleavened bread for the Eucharist in the latin rite is another question.
 
Only in your definition. Confirm the opposite please-----what is the official term used in the latin rite for the valid matter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top