The Eucharist

[PC_Master]

Do note that Eastern Christians (including Eastern Catholics in union with Pope) have always used (and continue to use today) leavened bread for the Eucharist in their divine liturgy.

I find this to be disappointing, as it’s quite clear that Jesus and his followers were celebrating the Passover and, as adherent Jews, they never would have used leavened bread. That the Roman Catholic Church allows such use to be considered valid shows, at the least, an error in teaching that such is permissible.

Many Baptist churches use crackers (and vials of grape juice), as do some other protestant denominations.

Which they probably derive (like much of their traditions) from the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve been in Baptist churches that have used all different kinds of bread being discussed here.

Catholics use bread, unleavened in the Latin Church and leavened in the Eastern Rite Churches. The requirements for the Eucharistic elements are even spelled out in canon law. It’s not a secret.

Then, if it is legitimate to have a Mass with leavened bread, would it not also be legitimate for a Latin-rite church to use leavened bread as well?

Secondly, what proof is there that “pagans” use “crackers” and for what purpose? Which pagans? Where? When? Details, John.

I’ll see about providing more information on this front, but most of the data I’ve seen (not counting books that are quite over-zealous and thus have inaccuracies, such as The Two Babylons, Come Out of Her My People, and such) points to Mithraism, the popular sun-god worship of the Roman Empire prior to the instatement of Christianity.

If they are going to assert something, they need to provide proof of their allegations.

So then, you can provide proof of all claims made by the Roman Catholic Church which you support? I’m sorry, but I don’t like double-standards. If non-RCCs have to prove it, then RCCs must prove it as well.

They are probable getting their information from the ‘The Two Babylons’. This book is second only to the ‘Elders of Zion’ for dispensing paranoid conspiritoral propaganda.

I’ve not read the latter title, but the former is certainly an over-zealous book. The author makes some good points, and presents some accurate information, but does so with such zeal, and with such anti-Roman Catholic bias, not to mention some inaccurate information, that I can easily see why you would reject it. That doesn’t mean that everything claimed in the book is totally unfounded, however.

The reason the Church uses bread in the wafer form she uses has to do mostly with the issue of crumbs. Since we believe that the bread truly becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, out of simple respect we don’t want to be dropping crumbs here and there.

That’s an interesting concept, but isn’t that diverging from what Christ himself did? He took bread, and broke it. The Passover tradition was also to take bread (flat bread) and break it. Crackers (or wafers if you prefer) simply don’t accomplish this, don’t closely enough resemble the flat bread that would have been used, etc.

Also, most flat breads don’t have much in the way of crumbs.

The “crackers” as you called them, are simply wheat flour and water, no different than any other flat-bread–the difference is they are simply thinner and smaller, which is why they tend to be more brittle.

It’s the difference between a cracker, and bread.

As for legitimacy in regards to protestants, it doesn’t matter anyway since there’s no sacramental reality involved with their communion service or “Lord’s Supper” of whatever it may be called.

True, but on the other hand, Protestants don’t believe in transubstantiation, so none is needed.

Yep…but without the consecration that apostolic succession brings one still has only bread and juice (or wine).

More legitimate yes. Sacramental, no.

So it’s okay for a Roman Catholic Church (Latin-rite) to use flat bread or leavened bread? I’d be willing to bet (if I were the betting sort) that you’d have a good amount of outcry if it changed.

 

[Church_Militant]

So it’s okay for a Roman Catholic Church (Latin-rite) to use flat bread or leavened bread? I’d be willing to bet (if I were the betting sort) that you’d have a good amount of outcry if it changed.

No. I never said that it would. In fact it’s not allowed. I don’t know where you got the idea that I was saying any different.

My point was that even if someone used the right “accidents”, they would still lack the capacity for consecration due to the lack of apostolic succession in their clergy.

We don’t use leavened bread, and we don’t use juice, period.

 

[1ke]

Which they probably derive (like much of their traditions) from the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve been in Baptist churches that have used all different kinds of bread being discussed here.

No, they did not derive this from the Catholic Church. However, you missed my point. The OP’s friends disapproved of the *Catholic *Church using “crackers”. However, many *Protestant *denominations use crackers. So, my point is why is this wrong for Catholics and not wrong for others? (Of course it’s actually moot since Catholics don’t use crackers at all.)

Then, if it is legitimate to have a Mass with leavened bread, would it not also be legitimate for a Latin-rite church to use leavened bread as well?

No. As I stated before, Canon Law governs this and unleavened bread is stipulated. Therefore, the Latin Church cannot use anything else. If canon law were to change, then yes, the Latin Church could use whatever was stipulated.

I’ll see about providing more information on this front, but most of the data I’ve seen (not counting books that are quite over-zealous and thus have inaccuracies, such as The Two Babylons, Come Out of Her My People, and such) points to Mithraism, the popular sun-god worship of the Roman Empire prior to the instatement of Christianity.

I was talking about the OP’s friends and their allegations.

So then, you can provide proof of all claims made by the Roman Catholic Church which you support? I’m sorry, but I don’t like double-standards. If non-RCCs have to prove it, then RCCs must prove it as well.

It is not unreasonable when told “pagans used crackers” that the person making that assertion be able to articulate which pagans, where, and when.

I’m not sure I follow your objection to this.

 

[JustaServant]

I’ve not read the latter title, but the former is certainly an over-zealous book. The author makes some good points, and presents some accurate information, but does so with such zeal, and with such anti-Roman Catholic bias, not to mention some inaccurate information, that I can easily see why you would reject it. That doesn’t mean that everything claimed in the book is totally unfounded, however.

Even some wide-eyed fundamentalists reject the book. It has proven to be fiction by secular historians time and time again. I rejected it when I was a fundie, I see it now in an even worse light.
It is pure fiction.

 

[PC_Master]

Okay, so the Latin rite may not use leavened bread. Why? On what grounds (aside from “the church said so”) can you reject leavened bread as being totally unacceptable?

After you’ve answered that, answer this – why is it permissible (and in fact even the normal practice) for the other 20-some rites to use leavened bread?

 

[Mannyfit75]

ive had people tell me that the catholics use crackers and are supposed to use real bread, and they have actually made fun of it, and said we copied pagans… what should i tell to people like that ?

It’s unleaven bread not cracker. In the Eastern Rite, its leaven bread. Our Eucharist is based on Jewish Pascal Meal. There is nothing Pagan about it. These people know little about the Eucharist or history.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Okay, so the Latin rite may not use leavened bread. Why? On what grounds (aside from “the church said so”) can you reject leavened bread as being totally unacceptable?

After you’ve answered that, answer this – why is it permissible (and in fact even the normal practice) for the other 20-some rites to use leavened bread?

It’s has been the tradition of the Latin Rite to use leaven bread. If a Latin Rite Catholics happen to enter into a Eastern Rite Catholic which uses leaven bread, he can consume it. It’s not totally unacceptable. If it were the case, the Byzantine Rite would have to be force to use unleaven. Yet, we acknowledge the proper use for both.

 

[1ke]

Okay, so the Latin rite may not use leavened bread. Why? On what grounds (aside from “the church said so”) can you reject leavened bread as being totally unacceptable?

The Church does not reject leavened bread as being totally unacceptable.

Christ established the form and matter of the Sacraments and those cannot be changed. The form of the Eucharist is bread and wine. What the Church can do is regulate what constitutes valid form. In the West, it is unleavened bread composed of specific elements. In the East, it is leavened bread but also composed of specific elements.

So, you couldn’t use “sourdough” bread or “pumpernickel” bread-- not just any-old-bread. It must be prepared according to the Church’s guidelines.

After you’ve answered that, answer this – why is it permissible (and in fact even the normal practice) for the other 20-some rites to use leavened bread?

Because that is the discipline in their Rites.

The Church governs *all *the Rites, and respects the cultural traditions that led to each Rite’s liturgy.