F
fix
Guest
I do not, but that does not mean one can’t discern and draw logical conclusions.
One who pratices liberalism is a liberal.
- Status
I
Illini
Guest
**
-Illini**
Code:
It's always amusing to hear the "progressive" liturgists use this instruction to justify abandoning the round, flat hosts because they do not have "the appearance of food." Haven't these people ever seen a tortilla, regularly consumed by tens of millions of Mexicans and many Americans every day? How culturally insensitive to say this is not real food. :rolleyes:
C
chicago
Guest
Don’t give them ideas! I don’t want to be attending a “tortilla Mass” in the near future.
V
viktor_aleksndr
Guest
it must be made from PURE WHEAT and water. Jesus used Unleavened bread
breads with added ingredients are invalid. and it is against the direction of the church
breads with added ingredients are invalid. and it is against the direction of the church
P
PiusXIII
Guest
Ha! Ain’t THAT the truth!!
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
PiusXIII said:
Actually this is exactly the problem that arises when you make a homemade bread from only wheat flour and water with no additives, that is not pressed into the thin, crispy, wafer-like format that we’re used to. It really does turn rock-hard (but not “crusty”) overnight in the tabernacle.
The question in the original post is what I consider the main problem with this type of homemade “substantial” bread, which I know from personal experience because my church uses it. It is possible to make it with no additives, but unless they guess very well how much to consecrate, you are left with something that can not stay more than a few hours in the tabernacle. And so sometimes people do have to gather around and consume it, and it’s usually not done in a reverent way.
P
PiusXIII
Guest
The discussion over Sr. Mary Garascia’s column continues in Catholic Weekly.
A few weeks ago, a reader wrote a letter to the editor taking issue with Sr. Mary Garascia’s take on the Eucharist. The reader wrote:
Once again, Sr. Mary Garascia has me twitching, this time about “Bread and The Body of Crhist.” Her overriding concerns are the “practical and pastoral needs of our congregations.” But, nowhere in the article do I see the justification for the addition of milk, honey, sugar, salt or “whatever is on hand” as satisfying any practical or pastoral need. I’m sure that the altar breads have a limited storage life, but I’ve never heard of any insurmountable problems resulting from that, that she alludes to.
According to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the meal at which the Eucharist was institued was the feast of unleavened bread, which is also referred to as the Passover. It seems farfetched to argue that the Lord’s Passover meal used anything but unleavened bread. At other instances of “breaking bread” after Christ’s resurrection, I certainly believe that the question is open, but unresolved as to what type of bread was used.
The Jews fleeing from Egypt and slavery made unleavened bread, because they were in a hurry and didn’t have time for the bread to rise, during their flight. And, for us, that unleavened bread is the Eucharist essentially, but in form reminds us of the brevity of our life on earth and the liberation of our bondage to sin.
**It’s counter logical to me, to want to make the altar bread like ordinary breads, instead of preserving a tangible reminder of the Lord’s passover meal, which was no ordinary “supper.” **
**A Jewish couple attended the wedding of a mutual friend a few years ago. They watched and listened to the Mass intently and they knew exactly what the bread and wine meant, in its lineage to their tradition and beliefs. **
Isn’t that worth preserving?
Sr. Mary Garascia responded to the letter in this week’s Catholic Weekly:
The trouble with writing letters to the editor based on previous columns is that most readers do not have the original column in front of them. So the letter-writer is able to represent the original article’s ideas without fear of contradiction. Rick Luczak does that with his response to my article on the Eucharistic bread we use.
First, he faults me with having an overriding concern about the pastoral and practical needs of our congregations. That is the only thing he is right about; “Pastoral Perspective” is the title of the column.
Many biblical scholars say the Last Supper was a special meal, but probably not a Passover meal. If you take these scholars seriously, then we don’t know if the bread of the Last Supper was unleavened or not. Mr. Luczak brushes them off, asserting that of course the Last Supper was a Passover meal. If he wants to do that, he should take on the complex arguments made in the commentaries. His dismissal makes me wonder whether he has ever worked through Sacra Pagina or the New Jerome Biblical Commentary or other scholarly works on this topic? And, even if the Last Supper was a Passover meal, we have no recipe for the bread that was used. We simply don’t know what was in it. The tradition we have of strictly limited ingredients for our Eucharistic bread is relatively recent in our 2,000 year history. What does that mean for all those people who used other kinds of bread over the centuries, Mr. Luczak? Were their Communions invalid? Were they not following our tradition?
Finally, nowhere do I ever argue to make the altar bread like ordinary bread. I guess Mr. Luczak missed this sentence of mine: “Certainly some rules about recipes are needed.” But people who get so upset over abuses that are not abuses seem to think the tradition worth preserving is a bread recipe!
Sr. Mary Garascia, St. Mary, Hemlock
A few weeks ago, a reader wrote a letter to the editor taking issue with Sr. Mary Garascia’s take on the Eucharist. The reader wrote:
Once again, Sr. Mary Garascia has me twitching, this time about “Bread and The Body of Crhist.” Her overriding concerns are the “practical and pastoral needs of our congregations.” But, nowhere in the article do I see the justification for the addition of milk, honey, sugar, salt or “whatever is on hand” as satisfying any practical or pastoral need. I’m sure that the altar breads have a limited storage life, but I’ve never heard of any insurmountable problems resulting from that, that she alludes to.
According to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the meal at which the Eucharist was institued was the feast of unleavened bread, which is also referred to as the Passover. It seems farfetched to argue that the Lord’s Passover meal used anything but unleavened bread. At other instances of “breaking bread” after Christ’s resurrection, I certainly believe that the question is open, but unresolved as to what type of bread was used.
The Jews fleeing from Egypt and slavery made unleavened bread, because they were in a hurry and didn’t have time for the bread to rise, during their flight. And, for us, that unleavened bread is the Eucharist essentially, but in form reminds us of the brevity of our life on earth and the liberation of our bondage to sin.
**It’s counter logical to me, to want to make the altar bread like ordinary breads, instead of preserving a tangible reminder of the Lord’s passover meal, which was no ordinary “supper.” **
**A Jewish couple attended the wedding of a mutual friend a few years ago. They watched and listened to the Mass intently and they knew exactly what the bread and wine meant, in its lineage to their tradition and beliefs. **
Isn’t that worth preserving?
Sr. Mary Garascia responded to the letter in this week’s Catholic Weekly:
The trouble with writing letters to the editor based on previous columns is that most readers do not have the original column in front of them. So the letter-writer is able to represent the original article’s ideas without fear of contradiction. Rick Luczak does that with his response to my article on the Eucharistic bread we use.
First, he faults me with having an overriding concern about the pastoral and practical needs of our congregations. That is the only thing he is right about; “Pastoral Perspective” is the title of the column.
Many biblical scholars say the Last Supper was a special meal, but probably not a Passover meal. If you take these scholars seriously, then we don’t know if the bread of the Last Supper was unleavened or not. Mr. Luczak brushes them off, asserting that of course the Last Supper was a Passover meal. If he wants to do that, he should take on the complex arguments made in the commentaries. His dismissal makes me wonder whether he has ever worked through Sacra Pagina or the New Jerome Biblical Commentary or other scholarly works on this topic? And, even if the Last Supper was a Passover meal, we have no recipe for the bread that was used. We simply don’t know what was in it. The tradition we have of strictly limited ingredients for our Eucharistic bread is relatively recent in our 2,000 year history. What does that mean for all those people who used other kinds of bread over the centuries, Mr. Luczak? Were their Communions invalid? Were they not following our tradition?
Finally, nowhere do I ever argue to make the altar bread like ordinary bread. I guess Mr. Luczak missed this sentence of mine: “Certainly some rules about recipes are needed.” But people who get so upset over abuses that are not abuses seem to think the tradition worth preserving is a bread recipe!
Sr. Mary Garascia, St. Mary, Hemlock
G
grotto
Guest
Thats the way it is on Lake Wobegone at the “should be” Catholic Church! All that making it better with Betty Crocker! And, while you are waiting for your bread to bake you can read an article that goes something like a country song - “I wanna talk about me, I want to talk about I, I wanna talk about number one, oh my me my!” written by a priest that doesn’t like to look like a priest All courtesy of the
“lets change the church” into what we want.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_2_8v.gif I hope this mess gets cleaned up fast!
“lets change the church” into what we want.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_2_8v.gif I hope this mess gets cleaned up fast!
F
frommi
Guest
“Lets change the church into what we want”…kind of sounds like what you’re advocating for…
O
otm
Guest
Scotty PGH:
What, you think the theology ws full blown the day after Christ ascended into heaven?
P
PiusXIII
Guest
No–but even though we might not have had the word transubstantiation at the last supper, it was understood what was truly happening and the gift that Jesus was giving us. It didn’t just somehow “develop” in the 13th century.
C
carlycatholic
Guest
By all means get in touch with Bishop Carlson. Send along a copy of the bulletins this, the letter, and her reply to the letter appeared in, together with a concise but informative and respectful letter. The Saginaw Diocese was a chaotic mess when Bishop Untener died. Bishop Carlson was sent there to clean it up, so he needs to find out about this kind of dissension–as well as the priest’s column, which is heretical. The new bishop is solid; I wrote him about inappropriate music (rock and r&b stuff that made a Mass in a small town into a concert having little or nothing to do with God–but a lot to do with sentimental teens with dreams of getting on American Idol) and for awhile a three-way letter-writing marathon went on between bishop, pastor, and little me. It all came out beautifully, with orthodox music–and Our Lord–winning the day! Don’t envy the Bishop, though. THat sister sounds formidable as does the priest.
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Deacon Ed:
When Sister said that the “last supper” (not a biblical term) was NOT a Passover, she contradicted the doctrine of the Church, see Catechism paragraph 1340 (original version).
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Sister Garascia is one of several leaders of the diocese who are contradicting the Cathechism.
Read Fidei Depositum of John Paul II which was published preceding the text of the first edition of the new catechism. The Catechism is the Doctrine of the Church. Certainly in Saginaw the Catechism has been minimalized as far as I can tell.
But, the issue is larger. Get your hands on a copy of Jaroslav Pelikan’s “Whose Bible is it? A history of the scripture throughout the ages” and fast-forward to pp. 198-199.
It describes the people in Judaism as well as Christianity who have used historical criticism to cast grave skepticism over the bible.
The bread recipe issue here is but one skirmish in this battle.
The agenda is to destabilize doctrine in the Church and force through the liberal’s agenda. Pelikan points out the fact that most people don’t know what’s going on, they just are not “invested” in the intellectual issues that are presented here.
I am the “Rick” that Sr. Grascia was mentioning in her rebuttal, a few posts above. I’ve written a response to her rebuttal, and maybe it will make it into print, perhaps in the July 8 05 issue of the Catholic Weekly.
The strategy of individuals who are like minded to Sr. G. is to just act normal, as if their heresies were the actual doctrines of the Church.
I’ve put it in Bishop’s Carlson’s hands, as far as I am concerned.
I agree totally with the previous poster who talks about the “mess” that the previous bishop left behind.
I am astonished but no longer surprised that people stand up and confront the Bishop directly. I’m praying that one of these days he gets organized and starts to deal with this mess. He will probably start working with the clergy and parish administrators, and their confrontations will probably be out of sight, but for a time.
Read Fidei Depositum of John Paul II which was published preceding the text of the first edition of the new catechism. The Catechism is the Doctrine of the Church. Certainly in Saginaw the Catechism has been minimalized as far as I can tell.
But, the issue is larger. Get your hands on a copy of Jaroslav Pelikan’s “Whose Bible is it? A history of the scripture throughout the ages” and fast-forward to pp. 198-199.
It describes the people in Judaism as well as Christianity who have used historical criticism to cast grave skepticism over the bible.
The bread recipe issue here is but one skirmish in this battle.
The agenda is to destabilize doctrine in the Church and force through the liberal’s agenda. Pelikan points out the fact that most people don’t know what’s going on, they just are not “invested” in the intellectual issues that are presented here.
I am the “Rick” that Sr. Grascia was mentioning in her rebuttal, a few posts above. I’ve written a response to her rebuttal, and maybe it will make it into print, perhaps in the July 8 05 issue of the Catholic Weekly.
The strategy of individuals who are like minded to Sr. G. is to just act normal, as if their heresies were the actual doctrines of the Church.
I’ve put it in Bishop’s Carlson’s hands, as far as I am concerned.
I agree totally with the previous poster who talks about the “mess” that the previous bishop left behind.
I am astonished but no longer surprised that people stand up and confront the Bishop directly. I’m praying that one of these days he gets organized and starts to deal with this mess. He will probably start working with the clergy and parish administrators, and their confrontations will probably be out of sight, but for a time.
M
MICATH
Guest
BayCityRick… just curious, has anything more come from this? any reaction from Sr. G. or the diocese on the bread issue?
M
midlandchemic
Guest
The bishop sent around a memo recently to every pastor. The “recipe” is supposed to be reserved for festive get togethers (ie potluck dinners), and not for mass. Hasn’t stopped his own cathedral from ignoring the missive.
BTW, in tracing the history of this recipe, it’s not even a Catholic recipe. It was developed by Seabury-Western Episcopal Seminary. The Vatican never approved it, but that was the story when it was distributed. The actual recipe approved by the Vatican only has 3 ingredients: white flour, wheat flour and water (they do allow for mineral water, like Perrier).
BTW, in tracing the history of this recipe, it’s not even a Catholic recipe. It was developed by Seabury-Western Episcopal Seminary. The Vatican never approved it, but that was the story when it was distributed. The actual recipe approved by the Vatican only has 3 ingredients: white flour, wheat flour and water (they do allow for mineral water, like Perrier).
M
midlandchemic
Guest
Sadly, the late bishop had great regard for the Grand Rapids Dominicans and installed many of them with the actual title of “pastor” in parishes that didn’t have a priest. They routinely baptize, say mass with Communion by viaticum, and perform funeral services…all without priests or deacons…and they were under very little oversight.
M
MICATH
Guest
His Cathedral is ignoring his missive? What happens at the Cathedral or at other parishes when the bishop celebrates Mass? Do they expect him to consecrate the invalid hosts?
I am impressed that he has addressed the issue, and pray for the bishop that his priests will obey. I am not sure I understand how/why the priests/pastors feel they can ignore this man?
I am impressed that he has addressed the issue, and pray for the bishop that his priests will obey. I am not sure I understand how/why the priests/pastors feel they can ignore this man?
M
mjtaryan
Guest
There are two things with what the reader says that need correction. First, although the logic is reasonable, at the time the Israelites fled from Egypt (and after), it is very likely that bread was baked daily. It was not as though they only had an hour’s warning, according to Exodus. The reason they used unleavened bread on the night of the Passover was because, through Moses, the LORD told them to do so. The Most High gave very specific instructions as to what the Passover meal was to contain. However, in truth, I don’t recall that the LORD required the bread to be wheat – just that it be unleavened. However, the Church is the one who, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determines what is proper for the Transubstantiation.
The second thing the reader says in response to Sr. Mary G. is that the synoptic Gospels say the meal of the Last Supper was the feast of Unleavened Bread which is correct. However, she says it may have been a different story on other occasions when the Eucharist was celebrated after the Resurrection. Actually, this would not be the case. From the Last Supper onward, unleavened bread has been the rule because it was what the Lord used and it was then and still is recognized today that the Eucharistic Celebration is a Passover Meal (par Excellance); it is the Lord’s Passover in which we partake for He is the true Paschal Lamb.
As for Sr. Mary G. Her response to the reader reveals a level of pique (irritation or even anger). Rather than explaining her perspecitive in good and gentle Christian Charity, she instults the reader. She defends her position by referring to scholars when the source is easily at hand. She places more trust and credibility in the words of creatures than in the word of the Creator. Commentaries and Biblical scholars are of necessity for Holy Scripture is laced with passages that are difficult to understand, even in translation into English. However, when the words and their meaning are clear and unambiguous, these sources are unneeded for the Word is self-evident. Sr. Mary G. needs to reread the Gospel accounts (Matt. 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; and Luke 22:7-13). The Word of God is far more authoritative than the word of any human.
The second thing the reader says in response to Sr. Mary G. is that the synoptic Gospels say the meal of the Last Supper was the feast of Unleavened Bread which is correct. However, she says it may have been a different story on other occasions when the Eucharist was celebrated after the Resurrection. Actually, this would not be the case. From the Last Supper onward, unleavened bread has been the rule because it was what the Lord used and it was then and still is recognized today that the Eucharistic Celebration is a Passover Meal (par Excellance); it is the Lord’s Passover in which we partake for He is the true Paschal Lamb.
As for Sr. Mary G. Her response to the reader reveals a level of pique (irritation or even anger). Rather than explaining her perspecitive in good and gentle Christian Charity, she instults the reader. She defends her position by referring to scholars when the source is easily at hand. She places more trust and credibility in the words of creatures than in the word of the Creator. Commentaries and Biblical scholars are of necessity for Holy Scripture is laced with passages that are difficult to understand, even in translation into English. However, when the words and their meaning are clear and unambiguous, these sources are unneeded for the Word is self-evident. Sr. Mary G. needs to reread the Gospel accounts (Matt. 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; and Luke 22:7-13). The Word of God is far more authoritative than the word of any human.
M
msproule
Guest
UPDATE
Previously I had provided a link to a parish whose website claimed that their recipe was approved by the CDW. Just for curiosity I went back to their website today, knowing that the priest had recently been reassigned.
Not surprisingly, the statement has been revised to clarify that the recipe was in fact appoved by their former bishop. There is no longer any mention of the Congregation’s alleged approval. They go on to mention that the new bishop has submitted three recipes to the Vatican for approval. Furthermore, the parish pledges to follow any future instructions from the bishop.
I presume the current bishop’s requests for formal approval on the three alternative recipes was done out of charity to this parish its the former priest and bishop. One thing of which to be certain: honey is absent from all of the three recipes that were submitted! Regardless, a response in the negative from the Vatican should finally put an end to this silliness.
Previously I had provided a link to a parish whose website claimed that their recipe was approved by the CDW. Just for curiosity I went back to their website today, knowing that the priest had recently been reassigned.
Not surprisingly, the statement has been revised to clarify that the recipe was in fact appoved by their former bishop. There is no longer any mention of the Congregation’s alleged approval. They go on to mention that the new bishop has submitted three recipes to the Vatican for approval. Furthermore, the parish pledges to follow any future instructions from the bishop.
I presume the current bishop’s requests for formal approval on the three alternative recipes was done out of charity to this parish its the former priest and bishop. One thing of which to be certain: honey is absent from all of the three recipes that were submitted! Regardless, a response in the negative from the Vatican should finally put an end to this silliness.
- Status