SPLIT: Leavened or unleavened bread for conssecration?


#1

[quote="triumphguy, post:2, topic:294510"]
If he uses valid form, with intent, and unleavened bread and wine, then yes.

[/quote]

(And also if he used leavened bread.)


#2

quote="MarkThompson, post:1, topic:294663"

[/quote]

Really? My copy of the GIRM says bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be unleavened. (Chapter VI, #320) :confused:


#3

[quote="UpUpAndAway, post:2, topic:294663"]
Really? My copy of the GIRM says bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be unleavened. (Chapter VI, #320) :confused:

[/quote]

IIRC, there is a difference between a licit mass and a valid mass. Unleaven bread is required in the Latin Rite, so if leavened bread is used it is then illicit, but still a valid (ie, the bread still becomes Jesus's body and blood). Still a grave sin to perform, but valid for communicants.


#4

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying. :)


#5

[quote="tafan, post:3, topic:294663"]
IIRC, there is a difference between a licit mass and a valid mass. Unleaven bread is required in the Latin Rite, so if leavened bread is used it is then illicit, but still a valid (ie, the bread still becomes Jesus's body and blood). Still a grave sin to perform, but valid for communicants.

[/quote]

Right. The characterization of it being a grave sin, if the bread is leavened seems a little misguided; and unfair to many Eastern Christian brethren who use leavened bread for their communion hosts.


#6

[quote="lssanjose, post:5, topic:294663"]
Right. The characterization of it being a grave sin, if the bread is leavened seems a little misguided; and unfair to many Eastern Christian brethren who use leavened bread for their communion hosts.

[/quote]

It would be a grave sin for a priest in the Latin Rite to use leavened bread. Conversely, if a given Eastern Rite has a litugical law specifying leavened bread and a priest in that rite uses unleavened bread, it would be a grave sin for him. And I do not think that is unfair at all.

It is simply a matter of being obedient to the Church's liturgucal laws. Blatantly disobeying them is wrong, gravely wrong. Why is that misguided?


#7

[quote="tafan, post:6, topic:294663"]
It would be a grave sin for a priest in the Latin Rite to use leavened bread. Conversely, if a given Eastern Rite has a litugical law specifying leavened bread and a priest in that rite uses unleavened bread, it would be a grave sin for him. And I do not think that is unfair at all.

It is simply a matter of being obedient to the Church's liturgucal laws. Blatantly disobeying them is wrong, gravely wrong. Why is that misguided?

[/quote]

Wait, why is it still considered a "sin?" It may have broken liturgical "laws." But, to label it sin is misguided, by virtue of Easterners using leavened bread. So, against whom is the sin, against God, or a man-made, yet God-inspired, administrative law? I don't see the sin in using the other type of bread. What I do see is a sin in the action of a priest not being properly disposed to offer communion, period. He's being dishonest about his rights and privileges to dispense the host, to God-fearing communicants.


#8

[quote="lssanjose, post:7, topic:294663"]
Wait, why is it still considered a "sin?" It may have broken liturgical "laws." But, to label it sin is misguided, by virtue of Easterners using leavened bread. So, against whom is the sin, against God, or a man-made, yet God-inspired, administrative law? I don't see the sin in using the other type of bread. What I do see is a sin in the action of a priest not being properly disposed to offer communion, period. He's being dishonest about his rights and privileges to dispense the host, to God-fearing communicants.

[/quote]

Why is it considered a sin? Because it is disobedient to the Church!!!

It has nothing to do with the Easternerd using leavened bread. As a pointed out, if one of their priest used unleavened bread and they had a litugical law which specified leavened bread, that would be a sin for that priest also.

As you yourself pointed out, Jesus gave the Church authority in these matters.

Let me ask you a question, can we disobey any Church laws we want ant it not be sinful? What about the church law to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent? Is that ok to disregard?


#9

[quote="tafan, post:8, topic:294663"]
Why is it considered a sin? Because it is disobedient to the Church!!!

It has nothing to do with the Easternerd using leavened bread. As a pointed out, if one of their priest used unleavened bread and they had a litugical law which specified leavened bread, that would be a sin for that priest also.

As you yourself pointed out, Jesus gave the Church authority in these matters.

Let me ask you a question, can we disobey any Church laws we want ant it not be sinful? What about the church law to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent? Is that ok to disregard?

[/quote]

What's more important, the law, or its spirit? I think the abstinence from meat isn't a sufficient example. If you remember readings during Ash Wednesday, you're not to make it a point you're fasting. You're not to use fasting, as a way to raise yourself. Go to your inner room, and pray to your father. Yes, we follow the laws, as best as we can. But, what's more important, your fast (dangers into idolatry), or the reasons why you fast (tying yourself to God more tightly)?


#10

[quote="lssanjose, post:9, topic:294663"]
What's more important, the law, or its spirit? I think the abstinence from meat isn't a sufficient example. If you remember readings during Ash Wednesday, you're not to make it a point you're fasting. You're not to use fasting, as a way to raise yourself. Go to your inner room, and pray to your father. Yes, we follow the laws, as best as we can. But, what's more important, your fast (dangers into idolatry), or the reasons why you fast (tying yourself to God more tightly)?

[/quote]

Ok, we follow laws as best we can. I am not for sure what that means, but I take it to mean we don't break the law unless we have a valid cause (eg there is no availablitiy of unleavened bread). Now tell me, what would be a valid cause for a priest to not use the right type of bread for mass? A latin rite priest, for no reason besides his own preference, decides to use leavened bread. Is he following the law as best he can or even following the law's spirit? That is a stretch to say yes.


#11

[quote="tafan, post:10, topic:294663"]
Ok, we follow laws as best we can. I am not for sure what that means, but I take it to mean we don't break the law unless we have a valid cause (eg there is no availablitiy of unleavened bread). Now tell me, what would be a valid cause for a priest to not use the right type of bread for mass? A latin rite priest, for no reason besides his own preference, decides to use leavened bread. Is he following the law as best he can or even following the law's spirit? That is a stretch to say yes.

[/quote]

And, with that context, I agree with you. Strive for 100%, accepting the chances of the reality being less than that. Secondly, we can't let perfection be the enemy of the good. But, as I said, given the example you cited, he's in the wrong on every count. If he had done all he could to secure unleavened bread, then he had a valid reason to use leavened. In your example, this wasn't the case.


#12

aaa


closed #13

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.