Valid mass and illicit types of bread

[ajac]

If a priest uses leavened bread in the Roman rite, is the mass invalid?

 

[Hereiam]

Use of the bread maybe illicit, but an illicit act does not necessarily make the Mass invalid…there is a big difference between licit and valid.

 

[Angannas]

Some Eastern Catholic Churches use leavened bread, so the Catholic Church recognises the validity of the consecration of leavened bread. So a Latin Rite mass using leavened bread would probably be valid but illicit

 

[dochawk]

Some Eastern Catholic Churches use leavened bread,

All but two, if memory serves. I think it’s Romanian and Maronite, but . . .

so the Catholic Church recognises the validity of the consecration of leavened bread. So a Latin Rite mass using leavened bread would probably be valid but illicit

That, and that the RCC used leavened bread until something like the early tenth century (again, memory fuzzy–and Fr. gave us the exact year a few weeks ago!)

hawk

 

[YoungApologist3]

Such a Mass would be valid. In fact, if memory serves, there are certain scenarios when the use of leavened bread is even licit in the Roman Rite: specifically, when there is no way to obtain unleavened bread.

 

[stpurl]

But what does ‘leavened’ bread consist of? If it’s yeast, flour, and water, that’s one thing, but I can remember Masses where people brought bread made with yeast, honey, milk, and butter. Once you’re at the point where you have bread in which at least half of the contents/volume are NOT simply ‘wheat’ and water, wouldn’t the bread itself be in the category of invalid matter for the Eucharist?