Effortless Catholicism

Status
Not open for further replies.

patriarch

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2002
533
4
Illinois
Visit site
✟1,052.00
Faith
Catholic
The other day I saw on a Catholic liturgical website a complaint against celebrating Ascension Thursday on the following Sunday. The author referred to this as one more instance of "effortless Catholicism."

I like this phrase very much, because it neatly sums up a phenomenon that has been going on with increasing momentum for years, especially since the mid-sixties.

One pastor I know has his congregation sit for the reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday. Are we so delicate that we can't stand through the reading about the death of Our Lord, if not in union with His suffering at least out of respect for it? At another parish the priest has the congregation sit through the singing of the Gloria. But all of the above is basically small potatoes that I am not really too concerned about.

However, the pedophilia/homosexuality crisis that is currently overwhelming us illustrates as clearly as possible that the Church in this country is out of grace. We are not thriving, but are anemic. This is not merely a question of sinful priests and misguided bishops, but of grace that is missing. And it seems to me that there are good reasons for that.

The deacon at this morning's mass thundered that the power does not come from Rome or from the pastor, but has always come from the pews. I agree with that totally. He asked, "Are you praying for your priests? If not, why not?"

I remember as a kid, and I am not really that old, that Catholic life was a much more disciplined thing. The Communion fast was stringent, perhaps too much so, but it demanded no food or water from Midnight till the reception of Holy Communion.

There was no meat eating on Friday, period.

At this point I don't remember all the terms of the Lenten fast, but it applied to every weekday of Lent. No eating between meals, and your two smaller meals could not total more than your main meal. All this produced a Church of famished but highly disciplined Catholics and grace poured over our heads in buckets.

I especially remember the Easter season as being truly glorious. It was as if the Lord were rewarding our efforts by special impartings of grace, and about two or three times a year the congregation would come out of the Church and say things to one another such as "What a Mass!"... the presence of the Lord had been so palpable.

In every parish the time for Confession was Saturday night, say between 7:30 and 9, and the lines were very long. It was a wonderful time for prayer, in the mostly darkened Church.

But I really wanted to talk about Ember days. At the beginning of each season of the year, there would be days (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday) especially dedicated to prayer and fasting. This wasn't optional. This is a practice that goes back to the early Church.

My mother (who died two years ago) always said that the vocations crisis was due to our having done away with Ember Days, for that was the reason for the Ember days.

Finally I tracked down the source for this view: "Another variation of Embertides, instituted by Pope Gelasius I in 494, is to use Ember Saturdays as a day to confer Holy Orders. Apostolic tradition prescribed that ordinations be preceded by fast and prayer (see Acts 13:3), and so it seemed quite reasonable to place ordinations at the end of this fast period. Moreover, this allows the entire community to join the men in fasting and praying for God's blessing upon their calling and to share their joy in being called." From www.holytrinitygerman.org/Ember-Days.html

Catholicism used to have a much more pronounced sacrificial aspect to it that we need to recover for the sake of our priests, especially the Ember days.

Lee
 

SSPX

Active Member
Mar 8, 2002
135
0
44
Florida
✟294.00
However, the pedophilia/homosexuality crisis that is currently overwhelming us illustrates as clearly as possible that the Church in this country is out of grace. We are not thriving, but are anemic. This is not merely a question of sinful priests and misguided bishops, but of grace that is missing. And it seems to me that there are good reasons for that.

On that subject I would note that the lack of grace is due mostly to the Novus Ordo, which is protestant in spirit, and very often invalid. There's even one person on this message board, I forgot who, who bakes honey bread hosts for his church, and insists its valid material.

Joe
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,339
431
20
CA
Visit site
✟28,828.00
Faith
Catholic
I would agree that fun and comfort are replacing traditions intended help us strengthen our relationship with God. While sometimes this lead to the misconception that one could get to Heaven by following traditions, I think that they should be reimplemented along with adequate explainations so that people understand the purpose for them.
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by SSPX

On that subject I would note that the lack of grace is due mostly to the Novus Ordo, which is protestant in spirit, and very often invalid. There's even one person on this message board, I forgot who, who bakes honey bread hosts for his church, and insists its valid material.

Joe

Convenient Joe, accuse someone of a serious offense against the Eucharist and just happen to forget the name. For the record, whoever it is, they don't post to this particular Forum cause I know no Catholic on this Forum who would do such a thing.

Now, unless you plan on actually providing evidence, take your slander elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0

SSPX

Active Member
Mar 8, 2002
135
0
44
Florida
✟294.00
nyj,

Really, I forgot. There's no need to accuse me of slander... but since it means so much to you, I looked for the post. It was Steadfast who made the remark, and Vow's reply to Steadfast was "Hey, that sounds really NICE!". And, if you go down to post #37 you will find your very own post responding to Steadfast. See, nyj, we all forget at times. Here's a link to the post: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=83274#post83274

Joe
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by SSPX
nyj,

Really, I forgot. There's no need to accuse me of slander... but since it means so much to you, I looked for the post. It was Steadfast who made the remark, and Vow's reply to Steadfast was "Hey, that sounds really NICE!". And, if you go down to post #37 you will find your very own post responding to Steadfast. See, nyj, we all forget at times. Here's a link to the post: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=83274#post83274

Joe

You are correct Joe, I apologize for my remarks to you. My hope now is that Steadfast understands his mistake and corrects that grievous error.
 
Upvote 0

pax

Veteran
Apr 3, 2002
1,718
95
Michigan
Visit site
✟2,780.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The Novus Ordo Mass is completely valid and licit. It has the approval of the Bishop if Rome. I may not like some of the changes in it and I personally would prefer an all-latin pre-vatican 2 Mass, but it's the norm for the Latin Rite. It's just as valid and licit as a Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

The problem with Vatican 2 was mainly the way it was implemented. Religious education lost some of its quality and we have a disproportianately large number of adults that do not have a working knowledge of their faith. I agree with Patriarch that the Church is not disciplined enough (as far as the required stuff goes). Another thing I don't understand is why, in America we get all these dispensations. For example, the Feast of Sts Peter and Paul is a Holy Day of Obligation in most parts of the World. In the US I think very few people know of its existence (probably because we are not required to attend mass on that day due to a dispensation). The exemption from the Friday abstinence requirement that used to effect all Friday's of the year is now replaced with a personal act of penance (which probably isn't the worst thing that could happen they could have gotten rid of the penance altogether). I'm not trying to say I know better than the people in the NCCB, but just from what I've been able to gather through my own research it seems that some things were implemented to quickly and without proper examination. I also can't wait for the new translation of the Novus Ordo Mass. I think it will be much better and (with any luck) increase some of the reverence. What sounds better:
Priest: The Lord be with you
Congregation: And also with you

Or

Priest: The Lord be with you
Congregation: And with your spirit

Pax Vobiscum
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by pax
What sounds better:

Priest: The Lord be with you
Congregation: And also with you

Or

Priest: The Lord be with you
Congregation: And with your spirit

It's not "what sounds better" but "what is the more accurate translation"? The second instance IS the correct translation.

The main problem I have with people who prop up the SSPX is the fact that they place themselves outside the Church and think that by doing so, they can force the Church to change. Instead of sticking around and working for restoration from within, they've gone against history and bucked the system to try to effect change from the outside. Point of the fact, no one on the outside can effect change within God's Church. Either you are for it, or you are against it.

People in the SSPX want "the best of both worlds", they want their cake and to eat it too. They can't get down into the trenches with those who want to effect change because it's too much of a burden to them.

What it boils down to is the fact that they're cowards.
 
Upvote 0

SSPX

Active Member
Mar 8, 2002
135
0
44
Florida
✟294.00
nyj,

I don't know where you got the idea we are choosing the easy path, because we are not. If I wanted the approval of my family and friends I would have stayed in my novus Ordo parish down the street. Instead I now drive a half hour to go to Mass, and had to put up with a lot of flack from family and friends. Now, to a certain extent one must work from within to effect change, but there comes a point when one has to draw the line and walk out.

Now, back in novus ordo land there are many abuses happening, both theological and disciplinary. For example, Steadfast and Vow apparently think its nice to bake honey flavored altar breads. If I went to that church I would leave immediately until the situation was corrected. But in the novus ordo the whole mass is one big liturgical abuse...even if you ignore the altar girls, hordes of eucharistic ministers, heretical translations, and liberal sermons. Bishop Fellay sent a book written by the SSPX on the liturgical refom which you can read online http://www.sspx.org/Superior Generals Ltrs/addresstotheholyfather.htm

People who go to SSPX masses haven't left the Catholic Church. Now, its true we have nothing to do with the protestantized liturgy and modernist spirit currently infecting the Church, but that is only because of our attatchment to the Catholic Church, not opposition to it. The reason the SSPX is in the situation it is currently in now is because the posts of authority in the church are currently occupied by modernists. I think this latest scandal is further evidence of that fact. Two years ago the Vatican removed the rectors of the Fraternity of St. Peter's two seminaries and fired its superior general, all orthodox men, because they did not want their priests to celebrate the novus ordo...YET for the past 30, or 40 years seminaries across the U.S. and Europe have been over run by sodomites, and modernists and Rome didn't lift a finger. They are more concerned with securing the future of their modernist revolution then they are with orthodoxy....check out this book http://www.goodbyegoodmen.com/

That is why to persevere in the Catholic Faith it is necessary embrace a canonically irregular situation until Tradition once again gains its rights in Rome. The only reason more don't join the SSPX is because of fear...thats why I stayed away from a long time.

anywhoo...nyj, do you think you can stay away from calling people you don't know cowards?

Joe
 
Upvote 0

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Tell me please what the problem is with honey in the Eucharist!

The Passover feast was done with unleavened bread. Is there something forbidding honey to be used? There are many references to the use of honey in the Bible; John the Baptist eating locusts and honey comes first in my mind.

I can see the necessity of using UNLEAVENED bread; that is symbolic of the Exodus. But I thought the fleeing Jews just baked the "regular" bread they would have used for their usual meal, it just didn't have a chance to rise. Isn't a bread recipe a family preference?

I might be WAAAAAAAY outta line here, but I can see where it would be applicable to use whatever you have on hand, in the case of a natural disaster or act of war, that a valid Communion consecrated by a priest could be done with rice and sake, or corn tortillas and prickly pear juice. Perhaps it would be better done with just plain water, I don't know. I see the whole focus, though, on Communion being done with the very common, very typical "staff of life," and in Japan, that would be rice rather than bread. The whole IDEA behind Communion was that Jesus took the ORDINARY and through a miracle, changed it to the EXTRAORDINARY. Food for the body became spiritual nourishment.

So what's so wrong about a dab of honey?


Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by VOW

So what's so wrong about a dab of honey?

Actually VOW, alot is wrong with a "dab of honey". Anything added to the bread, aside from water and wheaten flour makes it illicit (unlawful) matter (quite possibly invalid... see below) and it is a liturgical abuse...

"The bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, in accordance with the tradition of the whole Church, must be made solely of wheat, and, in accordance with the tradition proper to the Latin Church, it must be unleavened. By reason of the sign, the matter of the Eucharistic celebration 'should appear as actual food.' This is to be understood as linked to the consistency is mof the bread, and not to its form, which remains the traditional one. No other ingredients are to be added to the wheaten flour and water. The preparation of the bread requires attentive care to ensure that the product does not detract from the dignity due to the Eucharistic bread, can be broken in a dignified way, does not give rise to excessive fragments, and does not offend the sensibilities of the faithful when they eat it" (Inestimabile Donum 8).

According to the code of Canon Law:
"The bread must be made of wheat alone and recently made so that there is no danger of corruption" (CIC 924:2).

As to the potential for additional ingredient rendering the bread invalid and thereby prevents transubstantiation:

"The requisite material for the celebration of the Eucharist and the confection of the sacrament is only weatenbread, recently made whereby the danger of corruption is avoided... Unleavened bread alone is to be used in the Latin Rite.

"The bread must be made from wheat, mixed with natural water, baked by the application of fire heat (including electric cooking) and substantially uncorrupted. The variety of the wheat or the region of its origin does not affect its validity, but bread made from any other grain is invalid material. Bread made with milk, wine, oil, etc., either entirely or in a notable part, is invalid material. The addition of a condiment, such as salt or sugar, is unlwaful but valid, unless added in a notable quantity. Unbaked dough or dough fried in butter or cooked in water is invalid matter; likewise bread which is corrupted substantially, but not if it has merely begun to corrupt....

"The bread must be of wheat flour and only in case of necessity a white material thrashed or crushed from wheat. It must be free from mixture with any other substance besides flour and water. It is gravely unlawful to consecrate with doubtful matter. Altar breads must be fresh or recently baked and must not be allowed to get mouldy, which condition varies with regions, climates, etc." (Nicholas Halligan, The Sacraments and Their Celebration, [New York: Alba House, 1986], 65-66).

So, the addition of honey invalidates the bread and makes it unsuitable for transubstantiation! When, in the Latin Rite, honey is added to the bread, the miracle of transubstantiation DOES NOT OCCUR!

We must keep in mind that as it pertains to the Eucharist, three conditions must be met for transubstantiation to occur:

1)Proper form must be used (Consecration).
2)Proper matter must be used (unleavened bread with no additives).
3)Priest must have proper intent to do what the Church does.

If any of those three are missing, the Sacrament does not occur. Fortunately God does not deny grace to those who do all they can, but it's still not a good thing to constantly frustrate God's means of supplying sacramental grace to His people. And because this is such an important issue, the Church is quite clear on what is and is not acceptable. Adding honey is not acceptable. May God have mercy on the souls of those who think the addition of honey to Latin Rite Eucharistic bread is ok, they place a stumbling block before themselves and others, knowingly or unknowingly.
 
Upvote 0

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
To NYJ:

The addition of a condiment, such as salt or sugar, is unlwaful but valid, unless added in a notable quantity.

Honey would be considered a condiment, it is a sweetening agent, such as sugar.

I can understand the necessity of a uniform Eucharist, something that is completely the same, no matter where in the world you are. But I would like to have an honest discussion with a Church authority about the history of this particular "bread." How did it evolve to this wafer from the original unleavened bread that was used at Passover? A very blunt observation is that the wafer resembles styrofoam more than it does bread.

"Bread" means complete nutrition for some people. I remember reading in history about the European peasants, often bread with an occasional vegetable comprised their entire diet. It's called "the staff of life," and every culture has some form of bread. I think the use by Jesus in the Last Supper was very, very symbolic; He chose things which are so basic, so universal to every single person to convey His message. Water - Wine - Bread

I'm not arguing, mind you. I won't argue with the Church, that's not my intention. But I can see a CULTURAL Communion, using rice, or corn tortillas, or even poi.

And I really don't understand how a small bit of honey can "contaminate" the Eucharist, to the point it would make it void as the Body of Christ.


Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by VOW
Honey would be considered a condiment, it is a sweetening agent, such as sugar.

If it is cooked into the bread it is an ingredient and renders the eucharist invalid. If it is placed on top, like confectionary sugar, it is a condiment. Steadfast's comments make it seem as if the honey is cooked into the bread. Ergo, it is invalid matter. We're not talking about picking up pastries at a bazaar, we're talking about the Body of Christ!

I can understand the necessity of a uniform Eucharist, something that is completely the same, no matter where in the world you are. But I would like to have an honest discussion with a Church authority about the history of this particular "bread."

The Church has spoken, we as laity do not get to "discuss" Jesus' Body and Blood. I do not think that we should reverse two thousand years of history because someone thinks that the bread tastes a bit stale.

How did it evolve to this wafer from the original unleavened bread that was used at Passover? A very blunt observation is that the wafer resembles styrofoam more than it does bread.

That "wafer" is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when you consume it. It's not bread anymore, it's not styrofoam. Are we more concerned with a pleasant taste or are we overjoyed at the fact that we've just consumed Jesus Christ?

"Bread" means complete nutrition for some people.

Jesus said He was the Bread of Life, and ONLY by eating His Body would we have sustenance for eternal life. I think the last thing that matters is that Jesus tastes like honey.

I'm not arguing, mind you. I won't argue with the Church, that's not my intention. But I can see a CULTURAL Communion, using rice, or corn tortillas, or even poi.

And I really don't understand how a small bit of honey can "contaminate" the Eucharist, to the point it would make it void as the Body of Christ.

It matters not if you understand it or not. The Church has stated that it does, that should be enough. The Church is quite clear on this matter, and has been for quite sometime. Intentional use of invalid matter is cause for excommunication. The Eucharist is the MOST IMPORTANT source of grace for any Christian... that on a whim we'd screw with it is simply beyond me. If I EVER caught a parish distributing invalid matter, I'd immediately leave that parish (never to return) and inform the Bishop immediately.
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The first element is wheaten bread (panis triticeus), without which the "confection of the Sacrament does not take place" (Missale Romanum: De defectibus, sect. 3), Being true bread, the Host must be baked, since mere flour is not bread. Since, moreover, the bread required is that formed of wheaten flour, not every kind of flour is allowed for validity, such, e.g., as is ground from rye, oats, barley, Indian corn or maize, though these are all botanically classified as grain (frumentum), On the other hand, the different varieties of wheat (as spelt, amel-corn, etc.) are valid, inasmuch as they can be proved botanically to be genuine wheat. The necessity of wheaten bread is deduced immediately from the words of Institution: "The Lord took bread" (ton arton), in connection with which it may be remarked, that in Scripture bread (artos), without any qualifying addition, always signifies wheaten bread. No doubt, too, Christ adhered unconditionally to the Jewish custom of using only wheaten bread in the Passover Supper, and by the words, "Do this for a commemoration of me", commanded its use for all succeeding times. In addition to this, uninterrupted tradition, whether it be the testimony of the Fathers or the practice of the Church, shows wheaten bread to have played such an essential part, that even Protestants would be loath to regard rye bread or barley bread as a proper element for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

The Church maintains an easier position in the controversy respecting the use of fermented or unfermented bread. By leavened bread (fermentum, zymos) is meant such wheaten bread as requires leaven or yeast in its preparation and baking, while unleavened bread (azyma, azymon) is formed from a mixture of wheaten flour and water, which has been kneaded to dough and then baked. After the Greek Patriarch Michael Cærularius of Constantinople had sought in 1053 to palliate the renewed rupture with Rome by means of the controversy, concerning unleavened bread, the two Churches, in the Decree of Union at Florence, in 1439, came to the unanimous dogmatic decision, that the distinction between leavened and unleavened bread did not interfere with the confection of the sacrament, though for just reasons based upon the Church's discipline and practice, the Latins were obliged to retain unleavened bread, while the Greeks still held on to the use of leavened (cf, Denzinger, Enchirid., Freiburg, 1908, no, 692), Since the Schismatics had before the Council of Florence entertained doubts as to the validity of the Latin custom, a brief defense of the use of unleavened bread will not be out of place here. Pope Leo IX had as early as 1054 issued a protest against Michael Cærularius (cf. Migne, P. L., CXLIII, 775), in which he referred to the Scriptural fact, that according to the three Synoptics the Last Supper was celebrated "on the first day of the azymes" and so the custom of the Western Church received its solemn sanction from the example of Christ Himself. The Jews, moreover, were accustomed even the day before the fourteenth of Nisan to get rid of all the leaven which chanced to be in their dwellings, that so they might from that time on partake exclusively of the so-called mazzoth as bread. As regards tradition, it is not for us to settle the dispute of learned authorities, as to whether or not in the first six or eight centuries the Latins also celebrated Mass with leavened bread (Sirmond, Döllinger, Kraus) or have observed the present custom ever since the time of the Apostles (Mabillon, Probst). Against the Greeks it suffices to call attention to the historical fact that in the Orient the Maronites and Armenians have used unleavened bread from time immemorial, and that according to Origen (In Matt., XII, n. 6) the people of the East "sometimes", therefore not as a rule, made use of leavened bread in their Liturgy. Besides, there is considerable force in the theological argument that the fermenting process with yeast and other leaven, does not affect the substance of the bread, but merely its quality. The reasons of congruity advanced by the Greeks in behalf of leavened bread, which would have us consider it as a beautiful symbol of the hypostatic union, as well as an attractive representation of the savor of this heavenly Food, will be most willingly accepted, provided only that due consideration be given to the grounds of propriety set forth by the Latins with St. Thomas Aquinas (III:74:4) namely, the example of Christ, the aptitude of unleavened bread to be regarded as a symbol of the purity of His Sacred Body, free from all corruption of sin, and finally the instruction of St, Paul (I Cor., v,8) to keep the Pasch not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Summa Theologica III, 74:3

Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?

Objection 1. It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in John 6. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

Objection 2. Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species. But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which in some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

Objection 3. Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except in the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.

Objection 4. Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species. But some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and which no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (John 12:24): "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone." Therefore bread from corn, i.e. wheaten bread, is the matter of this sacrament.

I answer that, As stated above (1), for the use of the sacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among men. Now among other breads wheaten bread is more commonly used by men; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And consequently Christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament under this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and so it denotes more suitably the effect of this sacrament. Consequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread.

Reply to Objection 1. Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old Law; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as Augustine says (83): "The flour within the barley, wrapped up as it is within a most tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself, which was given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; or else it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled of carnal desires, which clung to their hearts like fibre." But this sacrament belongs to Christ's "sweet yoke," and to the truth already manifested, and to a spiritual people. Consequently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 2. A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species. yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of the wheat (as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize, which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3. A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper matter of this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 4. Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed; hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight change in the savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made: but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
To NYJ:

Thank you!

I understand it a little better now. I particularly liked the reasoning of the Augustinian argument against Objection 1. And I do appreciate the message of purity for using only wheat.

LOL, it must be my very hard, durable cranium, though, because I still don't see how a bit of honey would be objectionable. As long as the honey does not comprise more than half of the substance of the bread, and since sweetener is called "a condiment," what argument is left?


Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by VOW

LOL, it must be my very hard, durable cranium, though, because I still don't see how a bit of honey would be objectionable. As long as the honey does not comprise more than half of the substance of the bread, and since sweetener is called "a condiment," what argument is left?
[/B]

The fact that it is illicit. It does not render the Eucharist invalid, but it is still unlawful. Unlawful means that if it is done intentionally, the full force of the Church can be brought down to render judgement on the offender. This is no trivial matter, this is extremely serious business, definitely nothing to laugh over. Why is it unlawful? I imagine probably because if you give people an inch, they'll try to take a mile. First it'll be honey, next thing you know it'll be a full three course meal instead.

Jesus gave us bread, not bread and honey. Tradition affirms that it was plain, unleavened wheat bread, devoid of any "flavorings". Why should we start screwing with the Holy Eucharist after two thousand years?
 
Upvote 0

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
To NYJ:

I apologize for the LOL. I meant no disrespect, really. And I'm not in a very scholarly mood right now, since I have a headache and only one cup of coffee down the hatch.

I don't see the Eucharist degenerating into a seven course meal. The Early Church got soundly scolded for trying to turn the Mass into a dinner party. And I'm certainly not proposing slapping some Dijon on the Host and a slice of corned beef.

I'm just replaying what I know of the Seder meal. My son studied it when he was preparing to make his First Communion. There are different foods on the plate, and the Scripture is read to accompany the meal. You've got the bitter herbs to dip into the salt water, representing the harsh labor and their tears, applesauce and matzoh for the bricks and mortar: the kids attended a 'make-believe' Seder as part of their class, and each table had a lamb cake to represent the Paschal lamb.

The Seder meal is a celebration of triumph over adversity, and I see the Mass as being the same thing. Jesus of course is OUR Lamb, and the Bread is His Body.

In my weak way of reasoning, though, Jesus presents a gentler, more compassionate way of life than what the Jews endured in the Old Testament. And I saw the addition of a bit of honey to the Eucharist as symbolic of the sweetness He inbues into us.


Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

patriarch

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2002
533
4
Illinois
Visit site
✟1,052.00
Faith
Catholic
Vow,

If you were at a seder, then you know that emphatically it is not supposed to be a delicious meal, but a meal eaten on the run...as you might eat before going into exile. Symbolically, the Eucharist is the bread of exiles on this earth.

The bread eaten by the Jews on the passover night had no time to rise, so it definitely was not their usual fare. Pesonally, I think that our communion wafers are probably a lot closer to what the Jews ate at their passover celebrations than the matzoh crackers which are commercially available.

I am totally with nyj in his urgency and even stridency about this topic. It's awful to come away from a Mass with doubts in your mind about whether you have received our Eucharistic Lord or an invalid and illicit substitute. In fact, I once walked out on a Mass I when it became evident that the matter would be invalid. Why waste my time? Why give scandal by going along with the charade?

What the priest was conveying through his use of these improper elements was, among other things, his disrespect for the judgement of the Church. In fact, it would be possible from this one act to sketch out a very plausible outline of his dogmatic and moral theology, a theology in which neither the pope, Our Lady, obedience or penance would have very prominent parts. He would be in favor of artificial birth control, women priests, married clergy, inclusive language. And within two to three years he would no longer be an active priest.

Lee
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.