That is exactly what I have been trying to ask.
That’s what I am wondering, too.
But is it a major change in the composition? The OP indicates that it would be wheat flour and water - but dehydrated rather than baked in a traditional manner.
Well, if the only change is to dehyradate rather than bake, no, I guess it isn’t a major change.
The OP indicated slow ‘cooking’ in the dehydrator – iffy but it could make a difference.
No, my question was, assuming such host matter was licit, what compelling need is there to convince a bishop or even the Vatican allow for such a change?
I would have to agree. I think it’s a fad. What did G. K. Chesterton say…something like, the Catholic church is the only church that frees you from the slavery of being a child of your age. Meaning, as Catholics we don’t go with the fashions of the time, but eternal truths.
This is really the key question. In order to have a valid Eucharist, one must have “wheat bread.” There is no exact definition as to when matter ceases to be valid. The rule of thumb on validity is just that it be “bread.” If there has been some butter or honey, etc. added but people looking at it and eating it would still consider it “bread,” then there’s at least a chance that those additives have not invalidated the matter. If, though, the changes make it such that one would consider the product a “cracker,” “donut,” “pretzel,” “cake,” or something else, it is almost assuredly invalid.
Does this mean that valid matter could change from culture to culture, where the meaning of the word “bread” may vary by being less or more inclusive? Or are we confined to the definition in Hebrew, much like we use the definition of “meat” in Latin?
From the GIRMI didn’t intend to start a debate about this topic, the rules as I understand are that the host must be made out of wheat and water, nothing else. Does it specifically need to be baked? That’s my question.
I have to disagree with you. The sample recipe posted by Juliannie insisted that dehydration be done at less than 110°F. The point being that if you bake it, it ain’t raw food. That definition of baking, or rather the definition of not baking, seems compatible with this page of baking temperatures which lists the lowest such temperature for “very slow” cooking at 250°F.
Assuming such host matter is licit, there is no need to convince anyone to allow for it - in that case it’s already allowed, which is the definition of licit. In cases of doubt such as this, it is wise to seek a ruling before undertaking any rash action. Once the bread is ruled licit, however, a priest celebrating mass at a rawfoodist community is free to use it to confect the Eucharist.
Well, one big bulwark against the “culturally relative” conception of bread is that it must be of wheat, which is actually going to knock out your standard “breads” of fairly large chunks of the world. But at the same time, consider the big differences between a big, fluffy loaf of leavened bread (valid, although illicit for Latins), a flat but still fairly substantial pita-looking unleavend loaf, and a bunch of host “wafers” as one would commonly find them in a parish. That’s a fairly broad range - and, to be honest, without the long use of such flat wafers, many would probably not consider them bread. The thing that I think ultimately tells against the raw proposal is that bread is a baked good, and raw, blended ingredients of bread have another word for them: dough.