Visiting priests preaches on "bread-only" Mass

[Tis_Bearself]

I actually do have a question about this bread thing though. Has the rule always been the same, because I could swear that a few times in high schoil (late 70s or early 80s) the priests who would do our school Masses and communion services used some leavened bread and cut it up into little pieces. They also used standard hosts, and the bread was like a piece of a larger round bread that they held up at Consecration. I vaguely remember this because it was sort of a curiosity whether you would get a host or a little scrap of what seemed to be brown bread when you went for Communion. Never saw it done anywhere else after that.

 

[Kaliaa]

Larger, round and brown can still be made with only wheat and without leavening.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve seen the big round brown crispy kind of Host. This was more of a wheat pita bread texture…not crispy. Is that still unleavened?

 

[Gorgias]

Conversely if someone tried to use BBQed spareribs in place of approved wheat hosts, it would indeed invalidate the Mass.

Not the Mass, but rather, the Eucharist he was trying to confect.

 

[TheLittleLady]

It could have been homemade flour and water bread, which can have a pita consistency. The problem with using homemade breads like that is they crumble and can make a nightmare of a mess - because crumbs are not just crumbs.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You are right, it had more crumbs than the hosts.

 

[FrDavid96]

Is there in fact a canon that says a priest may not consecrate bread outside of Mass? I don’t mean celebrate a Mass, I mean consecrate bread.

Yes. It is listed as one of the most serious crimes possible and invokes the strictest penalty: a latae sententiae excommunication which can be judged only by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Serious indeed.

EDIT: It is a violation of canon 927. I cannot say (and should not have said) that it specifically triggers the penalty. See here http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_norme_en.html
article 3

It does NOT incur excommunication, although it is still one of the most serious offenses. I apologize for my error in posting the above.

 

[FrDavid96]

I actually do have a question about this bread thing though. Has the rule always been the same, because I could swear that a few times in high schoil (late 70s or early 80s) the priests who would do our school Masses and communion services used some leavened bread and cut it up into little pieces. They also used standard hosts, and the bread was like a piece of a larger round bread that they held up at Consecration. I vaguely remember this because it was sort of a curiosity whether you would get a host or a little scrap of what seemed to be brown bread when you went for Communion. Never saw it done anywhere else after that.

The bread can be home-made. That is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is decent (not burnt or raw etc.)

As for leavened bread, that’s valid but illicit. It can only be used in an emergency (in the West).

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve seen the big round brown crispy kind of Host. This was more of a wheat pita bread texture…not crispy. Is that still unleavened?

No way to tell.

Pita bread is leavened.

Still, unleavened bread might match the description you gave here.

There are also soft versions of the Jewish Matzo bread, which are absolutely unleavened. That bread can often resemble pita bread.

 

[Duesenberg]

unless he had just accidentally lost it dodging from enemy fire or it got blown up in a bombardment or something.

Preaching about it like he deserves a cookie for it is going a bit far though.

He was ministering to soldiers at a secured based before they went out on an operation.

 

[Duesenberg]

Not the Mass, but rather, the Eucharist he was trying to confect.

No. The Mass itself would be invalidated. Neither species of the Blessed Sacrament would be confected.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Not the Mass, but rather, the Eucharist he was trying to confect.

No. The Mass itself would be invalidated. Neither species of the Blessed Sacrament would be confected.

Those are two separate assertions. The first is incorrect; the second is accurate:

The problem of grave liturgical abuses is so widespread that I regularly receive inquiries about what makes a Mass “invalid.”. The technical answer is that nothing makes a Mass invalid. Validity is not per se a category that applies to the Mass as a whole. It is necessary to rephrase the question in order to give an accurate, meaningful answer. Typically, when people ask about the “validity” of a Mass, they wish to know one of two things: Did the Mass contain a valid consecration of the Eucharist?

(From this article on catholic.com )

 

[FrDavid96]

He was ministering to soldiers at a secured based before they went out on an operation.

Which is a noble and selfless act of courage and an admirable exercise of his sacred office.

It is not, however, an excuse to consecrate one species without the other, which is always forbidden, no matter the circumstances. Canon 927.

 

[FrDavid96]

Those are two separate assertions. The first is incorrect; the second is accurate:

While it is true to say that a Mass cannot be either valid or invalid, instead an individual act is valid or invalid…

The practical consequences are that if there is no valid consecration of the Eucharist, then there is no Mass. It would be an invalid attempt at Mass.

We speak the same way about marriages. The accurate phrasing is “invalid attempt at marriage” rather than “invalid marriage.” Nevertheless, as a sort of shorthand way of speaking, we sometimes just say “invalid marriage.”

An invalid attempt at Mass is not an “invalid Mass” because that phrase makes no sense—an invalid act cannot be a Mass, and conversely, if there is a true Mass it is always valid.

In casual speaking, if one says “an invalid Mass” as a substitute for “an invalid attempt at Mass” such a grammatical error is minimal and is typically overlooked.

 

[TK421]

@FrDavid96

So has this priest been performing illicit sacraments his entire life? Priests can’t celebrate the sacraments if they are under excommunication IRRC.

How does one go about getting that kind of excommunication lifted?

 

[FrDavid96]

@FrDavid96

So has this priest been performing illicit sacraments his entire life? Priests can’t celebrate the sacraments if they are under excommunication IRRC.

How does one go about getting that kind of excommunication lifted?

I just finished editing my earlier post.

I am not quite sure if it does trigger the penalty because of the subtle way the law is phrased.

Even a latae sententiae excommunication has so many conditions attached to it, that it is nearly impossible to actually come into effect unless the bishop takes action.

To answer your question though, this particular penalty (if it applies) can only be judged by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is beyond the local bishop to judge the matter. He can determine that the act occurred, but he cannot judge the case nor lift the penalty without recourse to Rome.

 

[FrDavid96]

@FrDavid96

So has this priest been performing illicit sacraments his entire life? Priests can’t celebrate the sacraments if they are under excommunication IRRC.

How does one go about getting that kind of excommunication lifted?

Again, to be clear, it does not trigger the penalty of excommunication.

 

[TK421]

Briefly off topic: another clergyman here mentioned that throwing away the Precious Blood would incur the same kind of excommunication you mentioned. Would this apply to laity (such as an Extraordinary Minister) and what does that involve? Would the diocesan bishop be phoning Rome to get the excommunication lifted? The person is otherwise barred from the sacraments.

 

[Duesenberg]

What is the point of this thread?

What is the point of your posting? Did you not read the opening posting? I clearly stated why I posted what I did:

So what gives? Did the priest do the right thing, or was he wrong to do what he did under wartime circumstances? It seems like he did was gravely wrong. What’s done is done though. To preach about it today as if it was something to be proud of, left me cold.

Very few people are going to agree that what the priest did was right.

I don’t care who agrees and who does not. I’m trying to under when rules (in this case, canon law) can be legitimately set aside under exigent circumstances?

I mean, we all know liturgical abuses happen. But is there any need to post about them ad nauseam?

Now I understand where you are coming from. In the future, please don’t try to stir the pot. My question was legitimate. Just skip over it next time if my thread somehow bothers you.

 

[Duesenberg]

Those are two separate assertions. The first is incorrect; the second is accurate:

You’re confused. Please re-read what I actually wrote.