Proper form for bread for Eucharist

[jturnbull]

Wheat and water!

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Barbara Rice:

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?

Barbara,

Nothing. If, in fact, the hosts contained invalid matter, and were consequently illict, those individuals have long since again received the Eucharist. First Holy Communion is an event - we participate in the sacrament (which is also not a sacrament required to be received for one’s Catholicism to be complete) each and every time that we receive the Eucharist

Many years,

Neil

 

[BaronGZ]

jturnbull:

What is the problem? The canon says unleavened bread!!! Milk?? one might as well put honey, sugar or anything else you desire!

The original concern of the other parishoner was leavening… the recipie had zero leavening, so it wasn’t a problem.

However, my question about the “little bit” of milk remains – and here’s why…

I don’t read either of the canons as iron clad as you are doing. Karl’s response also had wiggle room because it used the term “notable amount.”

I am not questioning whether or not the recipie can or should be changed – I am trying to get enough documented evidence to support me when I go to speak with my pastor about it. My concern is that the “little bit of milk” is an abuse of ignorance. When I have asked more pointed questions on other liturgical topics, I have occasionally been given a circular answer along the lines of “valid interpretation” of canon law.

So, the question is more of a preparation to stave off any loopholes in the arguement.

The link to Jimmy Akin’s web site was helpful because it contained passing references to other documents – which are what I need to have at the ready.

So, whilst I agree with your assessment that additional ingredients are bad – I have to build an arguement in a constructive manner for or against this subtle change – “little bit of milk.”

Deacon2006:

What notable means is that if you add it to the mix then it is a noticeable quantity.

Good, this is a good starting definition…may I ask as to where you found it or how you arrived at it?

In my original question, I posted the two canons that I could find concerning this subject. Neither canon excludes milk directly. (please don’t argue that it doesn’t exclude other items like honey either… I am aware of those arguements and rehashing them would be tedious.) Redemptionis Sacramentum also specifies the bread must still be considered wheat bread – “little bit” would not alter the wheat bread definition.

So, in order for me to accurately represent “what the church teaches” when I confront my pastor, I need to a) show that the milk ingredient is not allowed and b) have enough additional supporting documents to deflect the seeming ambiguities in the cannons and Redemptionis Sacramentum.

As this thread goes, I have a lot of hearsay information without the specific documents being named. Ideally, I would appreciate getting references to specific documents & sections as well as an estimation of how much weight the particular document carries.
I have been told that a specific canon law carries more weight than an instruction… which carries more weight than some other documents.

IMO, this (recipie) is something I need to get corrected at my parish… so, I need to do this constructively so that it can be corrected whether I am making noise or not. I do not posess a ready enough knowledge of the canons and other documents to hold my own in a discussion with a priest who has been in service almost as long as I have been alive – he has credibility and knowledge of internal church politics that cannot be ignored. (I don’t expect any shouting matches at all, but I don’t want to be pooh-pooh’ed either.)

Thank you for the discussion so far – it’s been educational.

BaronGZ

 

[Deacon2006]

Specifically we know that canon does not wish us to use any other ingredient other then wheat and water for bread because that is the teaching of the Church. The two documents, which the Holy Father asked for and assented too on this matter, are: **Ecclesia De Eucharista ** and Redemptionis Sacramentum.

If we examine Chapter Three in Redemptionis Sacramentum we will find this passage:

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. 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.

It seems to me that if you have bread made purely of wheat then it is impossible to add milk. Lets not forget that major components of milk are cream fat and lactose. Lactose is a sugar and sugar is specifically identified as a Grave Abuse if added to the matter of The Most Holy Eucharist.

From the above we can see that Rome did not deny the use of unsweetened chocolate chips being baked into the bread. But the only proper reading of the document is that it is explicitly denied by the third sentence even though it is not one of the listed ingredients found in the third sentence.

Your opinion of what is wheat bread might be different than mine yet there is no doubt that when you only use wheat and water you are explicitly complying with the rule of Rome. When you adulterate this pure wheat bread with baking soda, milk, a pinch of salt, etc. then you are not making pure wheat bread anymore. It is quite correct to read the third sentence as: It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.

An overlooked item in this discussion could be found in the last sentence concerning those who prepare the bread. If the bread is homemade then that it is reckless. Did the baker have the requisite skills, knowledge and integrity to make pure wheat bread? Unless you live in a convent or have a special indult from a bishop it is highly doubtful that you are even qualified to prepare this bread. It is a serious problem to have a parish baking committee prepare the bread.

What is clear when we read documents such as these we must have the heart and mind of the Rome. All the faithful are expected to adopt the posture that says, “I acknowledge that I need authority to initiate a liturgical actions”. Clearly you and I do not have the authority to decide what is the proper matter for the bread and neither does a deacon, priest, or bishop! It seems childish to conclude you can do what you want in your parish until the Pope tells you to stop.

We are not Pharisee’s and legalists, a reverential Catholic would never expect Rome to list exhaustively what is not allowed when they are so clear about what is allowed. Your priest knows this; so then why does he ask you to test the laws in such a grave way? In what other ways is this man leading you astray? Men such as these are not trustworthy pastors and need to remove themselves from the faithful so they can discern the true meaning of their calling once again. Truly charitable lay people will notify the bishop and if need be Rome instead of engaging in adulation and complaisance with such an illicit act.

God Bless

PS it is much harder to be a dissenter than to be faithful, yet it is much harder still to be faithful once you become a dissenter.

 

[Khoria_Anna]

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, milk (read: any animal product at all) is forbidden entirely during the Lenten Fasts (what those in the West would call Advent and Lent), even on Sundays. Can’t imagine that a dairy product would be permissable ever in church bread.

 

[jturnbull]

BaronGZ:

The original concern of the other parishoner was leavening… the recipie had zero leavening, so it wasn’t a problem.

However, my question about the “little bit” of milk remains – and here’s why…

I don’t read either of the canons as iron clad as you are doing. Karl’s response also had wiggle room because it used the term “notable amount.”

I am not questioning whether or not the recipie can or should be changed – I am trying to get enough documented evidence to support me when I go to speak with my pastor about it. My concern is that the “little bit of milk” is an abuse of ignorance. When I have asked more pointed questions on other liturgical topics, I have occasionally been given a circular answer along the lines of “valid interpretation” of canon law.

So, the question is more of a preparation to stave off any loopholes in the arguement.

The link to Jimmy Akin’s web site was helpful because it contained passing references to other documents – which are what I need to have at the ready.

So, whilst I agree with your assessment that additional ingredients are bad – I have to build an arguement in a constructive manner for or against this subtle change – “little bit of milk.”

Good, this is a good starting definition…may I ask as to where you found it or how you arrived at it?

In my original question, I posted the two canons that I could find concerning this subject. Neither canon excludes milk directly. (please don’t argue that it doesn’t exclude other items like honey either… I am aware of those arguements and rehashing them would be tedious.) Redemptionis Sacramentum also specifies the bread must still be considered wheat bread – “little bit” would not alter the wheat bread definition.

So, in order for me to accurately represent “what the church teaches” when I confront my pastor, I need to a) show that the milk ingredient is not allowed and b) have enough additional supporting documents to deflect the seeming ambiguities in the cannons and Redemptionis Sacramentum.

As this thread goes, I have a lot of hearsay information without the specific documents being named. Ideally, I would appreciate getting references to specific documents & sections as well as an estimation of how much weight the particular document carries.
I have been told that a specific canon law carries more weight than an instruction… which carries more weight than some other documents.

IMO, this (recipie) is something I need to get corrected at my parish… so, I need to do this constructively so that it can be corrected whether I am making noise or not. I do not posess a ready enough knowledge of the canons and other documents to hold my own in a discussion with a priest who has been in service almost as long as I have been alive – he has credibility and knowledge of internal church politics that cannot be ignored. (I don’t expect any shouting matches at all, but I don’t want to be pooh-pooh’ed either.)

Thank you for the discussion so far – it’s been educational.

BaronGZ

Wiggle room sounds like more double talk!

 

[jturnbull]

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?

Our Parish buys ready made hosts, I assume they are unlevened,why could you not get in touch with the company that supplies them and ask them if they contain milk?I dont think this would be propietary information but who knows?

 

[Thomas2]

Hello BaronGZ

This is a very serious abuse. In fact, it is my understanding that if invalid matter is used by the priest, then the result is the Consecration is also invalid! And that means either part, the bread or the wine. This means that there is no Transubstantiation and thus those who partake of invalid matter aren’t receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord. I would skip that Pastor and go directly to the Bishop. Call the diocese. I remember hearing Father Corapi talk about a parish that had a “recipe” for the bread that was baked by the nice ladies of the parish and had been for over two years - net result no one who had partaken of this bread had received the Body and Blood of the Lord for over two years! This is the worst possible type of abuse there is. It needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

As for the “documentation” you need, a copy of the Code of Canon Law should suffice. You need to go to Canons 924, section 1 and 2 and Canon 926. A copy of the latest, Redemptionis Sacramentum can be downloaded from the USCCB Website or EWTN . I’d also recommend a copy of the document Inaestimabile Donum, Paragraph 8. You can find it in the EWTN Document Library. (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINAES.HTM) You also need the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, paragraph 282. The GIRM can also be found at the USCCB Website. But if I am correct, the Pastor’s GIRM (the latest one) should be in the front of his Sacramentary!

Here is Para. 8 of ID:
8. Matter of the Eucharist. Faithful to Christ’s example, the Church has constantly used bread and wine mixed with water to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, in accordance with the tradition of the whole Church, must be made solely of wheat, and, in accordance with the tradition proper to the Latin Church, it must be unleavened. By reason of the sign, the matter of the Eucharistic celebration “should appear as actual food.” This is to be understood as linked to the consistency of the bread, and not to its form, which remains the traditional one. No other ingredients are to be added to the wheaten flour and water. The preparation of the bread requires attentive care to ensure that the product does not detract from the dignity due to the Eucharistic bread, can be broken in a dignified way, does not give rise to excessive fragments, and does not offend the sensibilities of the faithful when they eat it. The wine for the Eucharistic celebration must be of “the fruit of the vine” (Lk. 22:18) and be natural and genuine, that is to say not mixed with other substances.[19]

I’d also recommend the 4, 5 and 6th paragraphs of the Forward in ID. These paragraphs give the reader a real sense of the gravity of the offenses against the Sacrament and prepare one to understand the significance of impairment this is to the Unity of faith.

You and your parish will be in my prayers. May the Holy Spirit give you all the courage you need to put an end to this falsification.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[BaronGZ]

Deacon2006:

From the above we can see that Rome did not deny the use of unsweetened chocolate chips being baked into the bread. But the only proper reading of the document is that it is explicitly denied by the third sentence even though it is not one of the listed ingredients found in the third sentence.

I agree, Rome shouldn’t need to exhaustively list every invalid substance for the recipie.

Deacon2006:

An overlooked item in this discussion could be found in the last sentence concerning those who prepare the bread. If the bread is homemade then that it is reckless. Did the baker have the requisite skills, knowledge and integrity to make pure wheat bread? Unless you live in a convent or have a special indult from a bishop it is highly doubtful that you are even qualified to prepare this bread. It is a serious problem to have a parish baking committee prepare the bread.

That is another question altogether, but the reasoning that I have heard for including the milk was that it helped prevent excessive crumbling. (Which is why I see this as an abuse out of ignorance… they’re trying to use a recipie that doesn’t crumble out of concern for the Sacrament.)

Deacon2006:

We are not Pharisee’s and legalists, a reverential Catholic would never expect Rome to list exhaustively what is not allowed when they are so clear about what is allowed. Your priest knows this; so then why does he ask you to test the laws in such a grave way? In what other ways is this man leading you astray? Men such as these are not trustworthy pastors and need to remove themselves from the faithful so they can discern the true meaning of their calling once again. Truly charitable lay people will notify the bishop and if need be Rome instead of engaging in adulation and complaisance with such an illicit act.
\QUOTE]

Truly charitible lay people generally try to raise the issue with the offending party for correction before escalating the issue to the bishop or Rome. IMO this is clearly an error, but not out of malicious intent. I see no reason no cast doubt on his trustworthiness at this point.

FYI – this type of bread is very rarely used at our parish, usually we use the pre-ordered wafers like everyone else.

Thanks for the response.
Keep us in your prayers,

BaronGZ

 

[BaronGZ]

Thomas2:

It needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

The use of the recipie is a rare event at our parish, so it merits correction, but I don’ t think that it requires panic, yet.

Thomas2:

As for the “documentation” you need, a copy of the Code of Canon Law should suffice. You need to go to Canons 924, section 1 and 2 and Canon 926. A copy of the latest, Redemptionis Sacramentum can be downloaded from the USCCB Website or EWTN . I’d also recommend a copy of the document Inaestimabile Donum, Paragraph 8. You can find it in the EWTN Document Library. (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINAES.HTM) You also need the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, paragraph 282. The GIRM can also be found at the USCCB Website. But if I am correct, the Pastor’s GIRM (the latest one) should be in the front of his Sacramentary!

…

I’d also recommend the 4, 5 and 6th paragraphs of the Forward in ID. These paragraphs give the reader a real sense of the gravity of the offenses against the Sacrament and prepare one to understand the significance of impairment this is to the Unity of faith.

You and your parish will be in my prayers. May the Holy Spirit give you all the courage you need to put an end to this falsification.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

Thank you for the document pointers and the prayers.
I have some reading to do…

BaronGZ

 

[Deacon2006]

Truly charitible lay people generally try to raise the issue with the offending party for correction before escalating the issue to the bishop or Rome. IMO this is clearly an error, but not out of malicious intent. I see no reason no cast doubt on his trustworthiness at this point.

BaronGZ

While it is true that I am more willing to go the bishop at this time then you this is not because I of a lack of charity on my part but a result of clarity.

It is impossible to become a priest and not know that eucharistic bread is made with only wheat and water. The many courses required on the Sacraments, Church History, Liturgy and Canon Law precludes any doubt for ignorance. The eucharist is the pinnacle function of a priest, to claim not to know what constitutes the eucharist would like a lawyer claiming no knowledge of perjury.

Discussion has already been entered into with the priest and he has not researched the proper answer. If he was trully ignorant it would take about 30 seconds to call his local diocese canon lawyer. The fact that he would take the time to research various unacceptable recipes while rejecting proper matter so readily available makes him unreliable as a pastor.

Your duty is to the Sacrament first and foremost.

You should never feel the need to act as liturgical police or debate team captain. All we can do is bring our concerns to the bishop and let him investigate and draw his own conclusions.

God Bless

 

[Mike_C]

The word “host” comes from the Latin hospites, ie, a guest. Jesus is our guest. We also get the words, hospital, hospitable, and unfortunately, hostage.

In the Eastern Churches we call the little particles of bread “margaritas” ie, pearls.

 

[FaithfultoHim]

Yes, the low - gluten hosts by the sisters is the only low-gluten hosts allowed.
Hosts must have gluten - and these do, it is just low.
It is a problem in some parishes to get the priest or deacon to work with a person with celiac: ask the deacon if you got in his line, if he would give the low gluten host to you
Check in with him in the sacristy before Mass so he knows you are there and gives him time to get your low gluten host up there so it can be consecrated with the rest: whether you bring it or the parish buys a small quantity to keep in their sacristy fridge.
Some people i know with Celiac sit up front and are first: so easier for deacon to identify and be ready for with a host. They should NOT not put your host on top of the others in the ciborim though.
That is why some use a separate pyx for the low gluten host.
God is good - if your parish won’t work with you: go to another that will my dear.