Valid Matter: Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread, Wine vs. Juice (Zenit)

  • Thread starter Thread starter stumbler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stumbler

Guest
ROME, JUNE 7, 2005 - Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

**Q: Is the use of “real bread” with yeast, and other ingredients valid matter for consecration? If it is not, why is it valid matter in Byzantine Churches in union with Rome? I’ve seen priests “consecrate” rolls, etc., and break it for distribution; while it is not licit, does it affect the validity of the consecration? Speaking of matter for validity: Is the use of pure grape juice by an alcoholic priest who is in recovery still considered valid matter? I know an indult was available for these priests in the '70s and '80s but I thought it had been withdrawn – which could endanger the sobriety of some of our priests. – J.L., Sydney, Nova Scotia
**

A: This topic is dealt with most recently in the instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” Nos. 48-50, which states:

"[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.

"[49] By reason of the sign, it is appropriate that at least some parts of the Eucharistic Bread coming from the fraction should be distributed to at least some of the faithful in Communion. ‘Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it,’ and indeed small hosts requiring no further fraction ought customarily to be used for the most part.

“[50] The wine that is used in the most sacred celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must be natural, from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt, not mixed with other substances. During the celebration itself, a small quantity of water is to be mixed with it. Great care should be taken so that the wine intended for the celebration of the Eucharist is well conserved and has not soured. It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance, for the Church requires certainty regarding the conditions necessary for the validity of the sacraments. Nor are other drinks of any kind to be admitted for any reason, as they do not constitute valid matter.”

Although this document is written primarily for the Latin Church, what it says about the requirements for the validity of Eucharistic species also serves for the Eastern Churches, but not necessarily what refers to licit matter which may vary among Churches.

The use or omission of leaven in baking bread does not affect the reality of the end product as true bread. And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist.

The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist’s licit celebration. A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act.

Most Eastern Churches traditionally use leavened bread for the Eucharist and this would be a requirement for the licit celebration of the Eucharist in those Churches.

It must be observed, however, that one or two movements or associations of faithful within the Latin Church have received permission to use leavened bread within the context of Mass celebrated exclusively for members of the group or association.

The question of the validity of the use of “mustum,” or grape juice, for priests suffering from alcoholism or for some other medical reason was finally resolved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994 in a letter signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger which also dealt with the question of low- gluten bread.

This letter stated:

"A. The preferred solution continues to be communion ‘per intinctionem,’ or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.

"B. Nevertheless, the permission to use ‘mustum’ can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.

"C. By ‘mustum’ is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).

"D. In general, those who have received permission. . .

Full article
 
Ya know, part of the ‘answer’ doesn’t make any sense.

#48 states **“must be unleavened” **yet the answer goes on to say "And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist"

#48 states “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” yet the answer goes on to say “*A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act. *”

Talk about muddying the waters!
 
40.png
Dandelion_Wine:
Talk about muddying the waters!
There is absolutely nothing confusing about the answer. Leavened bread is valid matter. The Church in the East has a very long tradition of using leavened bread. In the West, we use unleavened bread; although, we certainly recognize that leavened bread is valid matter.
 
So when it says in #48 “must be unleavened” it really means it can be leavened?

And when it say in #48 “**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” **it means it is valid matter?

Help me out here. Throw me a bone. Doesn’t seem clear to me. What am I missing?
 
In order for the matter to be lawful, the bread must be unleavened. Leavened bread is certainly valid, but using it is not lawful.
 
40.png
Dandelion_Wine:
So when it says in #48 “must be unleavened” it really means it can be leavened?
The use of leaven bread is prohibited by law, not by doctrine.

What is being said here is that the Vatican is prohibiting a Roman Catholic priest from using leaven bread during the Mass, NOT that leaven bread could not be so Consecrated.

So if a Roman Catholic priest used leaven bread, there the Eucharist would still be present, but the priest would be guilty of disobeying the Pope.

It’s sort of like the Pope declaring speed limit. If there is a law stating that cars cannot go faster than 70 mph on a freeway doesn’t mean that a car cannot physically go faster than that, only that doing so is disobedient to the Pope.
And when it say in #48 “**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” **it means it is valid matter?

Help me out here. Throw me a bone. Doesn’t seem clear to me. What am I missing?
What this means is that bread that is made from another grain, such as rice, or from bread that is a mixture of wheat and another grain cannot be used in the Eucharist. This prohibition is doctrinal in nature. If a pries attempted to use rice bread, for example, there would be no Eucharist. The bread would continue to remain bread.
 
I strongly agree that the language should be made more clear in the official Vatican documents.

It is troubling that validity of the sacrament is affected by whether or not the matter is “commonly recognized as wheat bread”. In a secular example, what is commonly sold as a wheat bagel is hardly wheat at all. According to my nutritionist, it is simply a regular white flour bagel with some small quantity of wheat mixed in so that to the consumer it appears to be whole wheat.

In certain parts of my state there are Latin Rite parishes that constantly attempt to push the limits of what constitutes valid matter for the Eucharist. They even openly add the ingredients listed in the GIRM and RS that constitute a “grave abuse” (honey, for example). Arguably, “grave abuse” does not necessarily mean “invalid”. So are they just breaking the rules or are they distributing mere (tasty) bread to the faithful?
 
40.png
msproule:
I They even openly add the ingredients listed in the GIRM and RS that constitute a “grave abuse” (honey, for example). Arguably, “grave abuse” does not necessarily mean “invalid”. So are they just breaking the rules or are they distributing mere (tasty) bread to the faithful?
It has a great potential of just being a tasty snack. The problem with getting into great specifics is that the Church has not ruled on exactly when it becomes invalid matter.

A trace amount of other matter (such as a piece of dust that might fall in the batter) clearly does not invalidate the matter, a single drop of honey most likely does not, a large amount certainly will.

But with something as important and central to our Faith as the Eucharist, is *‘probably valid’ * good enough?
 
40.png
Brendan:
But with something as important and central to our Faith as the Eucharist, is *‘probably valid’ *good enough?
Precisely! I am confounded by those people who think it is necessary to toy with something so basic and simple. What are they thinking?
 
40.png
msproule:
I strongly agree that the language should be made more clear in the official Vatican documents.
Canon law is pretty clear-cut about this. The ZENIT article isn’t an official document.
It is troubling that validity of the sacrament is affected by whether or not the matter is “commonly recognized as wheat bread”. In a secular example, what is commonly sold as a wheat bagel is hardly wheat at all. According to my nutritionist, it is simply a regular white flour bagel with some small quantity of wheat mixed in so that to the consumer it appears to be whole wheat.
White flour is wheat. White flour consists mostly of the endosperm of the wheat. Whole wheat flour also contains the bran and germ. It is very difficult to make a decent bread using only whole wheat flour since whole wheat flour doesn’t rise nearly as much as white flour.

Valid and licit matter for the Eucharist is made of wheat flour and water only. It doesn’t matter if the flour is “white” or “whole wheat”.
 
I had a similar question regarding this subject that I heard in the radio. Since I don’t find my answer, and I think could very well fall in this thread.

WHY is it valid matter regardless of weather the bread is leavened or not? I understand that we use unleavened bread because that is precisely what Jewish used in the feast of the unleavened breads and in their Passover (Exodus 12:15ff and 13:3ff), and what Jesus surely used in the Last Supper.

Now, If that bread was unleavened bread, why do Eastern churches use VALIDLY leavened bread? What is their reasoning for that?

On the other hand, I have heard (and I think it comes form some reference in the Bible, may be from Saint Paul) that the reason for the unleavened bread was that there was no time for the bread to rise when the Israelites fled from the Egyptians during the exodus. That wording makes me think that there was actually yeast in their dough, but the bread was cooked before it rose. If that was so, it may explain the validity of the leavened bread.

How did they “keep” the yeast in those times? I’ve heard it was nothing but “old” flour that had developed yeast.

Or may be the answer for this question is simply: “leavened or unleavened, it is wheat, so unleavened is simply better because it is closer to Scriptures and Tradition”.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
Canon law is pretty clear-cut about this. The ZENIT article isn’t an official document.
I am not using a ZENIT article as an official Church document. I am referring to the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum. The language is somewhat ambiguous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top