Ask a Question - or - Return to the Faith and Spirituality Forum Index

Question Title	Posted By	Question Date
Bread and Wine for Mass	Antonio	Friday, August 27, 2004
Question: Dear Brother, I´m writing regarding the question posted by Rosa about the girl who could not eat any wheat (this issue has been also covered in the International pages of Brazilian newspapers - and the reports also failed to reflect the reasons for the Church´s stand on this matter). As you said, this problem has a simple solution: the girl should receive Communion under the species of the Precious Blood. She will, of course, be receiving the whole Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Just as we laymen ordinarily receive only the Host, she will receive only the Chalice. But I´m writing because of Rosa´s understanding that, if the Church wanted, She could authorize the celebration of Mass with pizza and pepsi, and that She uses bread and wine because of a need to immitate Christ. Surely, and no one denies, we and the Church must immitate Christ. But, as I understand, the reason why we use Bread and Wine as matter for the Eucharist is of a different nature: according to what I was always taught, the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ, so that it pertains to the Divinely established essence of the Sacrament, and can´t be changed even by the Church. I was taught that, just as the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer prieslty ordination upon women, She also has no authority whatsoever to change the matter of the Eucharist (bread and wine). And not even the Church´s power of the Keyes can change that, because the said power was not handed to the Church to be used against the fundamental decisions made by Christ Himself. So, the deeper reason why the Church cannot allow this girl to receive the Eucharist from a "Host made of rice" is that, unless bread (made from wheat) and wine (made from grapes), are used in the Celebration of the Mass, then no valid Eucharist takes place. In other words, Transubstantiation only takes place when bread and wine, the matter chosen by the Lord Himself, are used Am I wrong?
Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM+ Dear Antonio: Your understanding absolutely right. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: 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. The issue of leaven or unleaven wheaten bread, however, is different. In the controversy between the Latin Church and the East a unanimous dogmatic decision was made at the Decree of Union at Florence, in 1439, 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). In any event, however, wheaten bread is required for validity of the Eucharist. God Bless, Bro. Ignatius Mary Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below: Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum. Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum

Question Title

Posted By

Question Date

Bread and Wine for Mass

Antonio

Friday, August 27, 2004

Question:

Dear Brother,

I´m writing regarding the question posted by Rosa about the girl who could not eat any wheat (this issue has been also covered in the International pages of Brazilian newspapers - and the reports also failed to reflect the reasons for the Church´s stand on this matter).

As you said, this problem has a simple solution: the girl should receive Communion under the species of the Precious Blood. She will, of course, be receiving the whole Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Just as we laymen ordinarily receive only the Host, she will receive only the Chalice.

But I´m writing because of Rosa´s understanding that, if the Church wanted, She could authorize the celebration of Mass with pizza and pepsi, and that She uses bread and wine because of a need to immitate Christ. Surely, and no one denies, we and the Church must immitate Christ.

But, as I understand, the reason why we use Bread and Wine as matter for the Eucharist is of a different nature: according to what I was always taught, the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ, so that it pertains to the Divinely established essence of the Sacrament, and can´t be changed even by the Church.

I was taught that, just as the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer prieslty ordination upon women, She also has no authority whatsoever to change the matter of the Eucharist (bread and wine). And not even the Church´s power of the Keyes can change that, because the said power was not handed to the Church to be used against the fundamental decisions made by Christ Himself.

So, the deeper reason why the Church cannot allow this girl to receive the Eucharist from a "Host made of rice" is that, unless bread (made from wheat) and wine (made from grapes), are used in the Celebration of the Mass, then no valid Eucharist takes place.

In other words, Transubstantiation only takes place when bread and wine, the matter chosen by the Lord Himself, are used

Am I wrong?

Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM+

Dear Antonio:

Your understanding absolutely right. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

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.

The issue of leaven or unleaven wheaten bread, however, is different. In the controversy between the Latin Church and the East a unanimous dogmatic decision was made at the Decree of Union at Florence, in 1439, 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).

In any event, however, wheaten bread is required for validity of the Eucharist.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below:
Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum.
Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum
Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum
Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum
Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum