SDG here with yet more proof of the inability of mainstream media reporters ever accurately to report on a story involving religious doctrine.
“Wheat-allergic girl denied Communion”, blares the headline at CNN.com.
Actually, technically, that’s true.
An unnamed Catholic priest who attempted to celebrate Mass with a rice wafer containing no wheat did indeed deny communion to 8-year-old Haley Waldman, who suffers from celiac disease.
He did so by attempting to celebrate Mass with invalid matter. Because non-wheat grains are invalid matter for the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, what the girl received was not the Body and Blood of Christ, but an untransformed wafer.
So, yes, the girl was denied communion, by a priest who doesn’t know his sacramental theology.
That’s not what the headline means, though.
It means that the mean old bishop of Trenton has (correctly) declared the girl’s communion invalid and has (also correctly) refused to authorize the use of rice wafers for her consumption in subsequent communions.
Yet the article itself admits, a few grafs down, that the diocese has not “denied” the girl communion at all. It admits that the diocese has told Haley’s mother that her daughter may receive Christ’s body and blood under the species of wine alone, as well as offering her low-gluten hosts.
The article adds that Haley’s mother “rejected the offer” of low-gluten bread, “saying her child could be harmed by even a small amount” of gluten. Apparently she has also rejected the offer of receiving under the species of wine alone, though the article doesn’t say why.
The misleading headline (flat-out wrong headline, in the sense intended by the author) isn’t the only error in the story. CNN.com also reports that “For alcoholics, the church allows a substitute for wine under some circumstances, however the drink must still be fermented from grapes and contain some alcohol. Grape juice is not a valid substitute.”
Wrong. Unfermented grape juice (or “mustum”) is a valid substitute, and permission can be obtained from competent church authority for its use in specific circumstances (cf. the “Norms For Use Of Low-Gluten Bread And Mustum”). It’s not ordinarily a licit substitute, that is, it isn’t normally allowed by church law, and cannot be licitly used without episcopal permission.
But liceity and validity are two different things. Liceity has to do with disciplinary rules established by the Church, which the Church is at liberty to rescind or suspend. Validity has to do with absolute sacramental rules established by divine authority, which the Church has no authority or power to alter or suspend, ever, under any circumstances.
That communion hosts must be unleavened is a matter of discipline, just as that a candidate for Holy Orders must be unmarried is a matter of discipline. The Church can make exceptions to either rule, and indeed in the Catholic Churches of the East those rules don’t apply at all. However, that communion hosts must be made of wheat rather than other grains is a matter of sacramental necessity, just as that a candidate for Holy Orders must be a man and not a woman is a matter of sacramental necessity.
Obviously, Haley’s mother is as unclear on this point as the reporter. “How does it corrupt the tradition of the Last Supper? It’s just rice versus wheat,” she complains. Yes, and Jesus used wheat and not rice at the Last Supper, just as he taught his disciples to baptize in water and not milk, and as he ordained men and not women. These are precedents the church has no authority to break. The Church has no more power to change a rice wafer into the Body and Blood of Christ than to turn a Dorito into a Wookiee; by the same token, she has no more power to ordain a woman than to pronounce the Archangel Gabriel and Mother Theresa man and wife. (And there, once again, is one of those sentences that has never before been constructed in the history of the universe.)
Haley’s mother has actually gone so far as to write a letter to the Pope and to Cardinal Ratzinger requesting a change in the rules. “This is a church rule, not God’s will,” she wrote in the letter, “and it can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the people, while staying true to the traditions of our faith.” Hopefully at some point, someone will carefully and clearly explain the truth to her.
Of course, it may be that someone already has, and she’s just being stubborn. The article reports that the pastor of St. Denis Catholic Church in Manasquan correctly refused to allow a substitute when the family first approached him, at which point they went to the other pastor who, presumably out of misguided compassion, agreed to use a rice wafer. I hope the first pastor carefully and compassionately explained the reasons for his refusal and immediately offered to allow Haley to receive communion under the species of wine, and that diocesan officials she’s been dealing with have been as clear and as sympathetic as they possibly could be. Perhaps Haley’s mother is simply stubborn, but inadequate catechesis and/or pastoral insensitivity can also sometimes be a factor in such situations.
The story adds that “Haley’s Communion controversy isn’t the first. In 2001, the family of a 5-year-old Massachusetts girl with the disease left the Catholic church after being denied permission to use a rice wafer.” That anyone would leave the Church over such a thing (or over anything else for that matter) is a terrible tragedy. Pastors and other church leaders need to do all they can to be sure that if and when it does happen, it’s not because of a failure to respond sensitively and compassionately to people’s needs.
Does this seem like an attempt by the media to show another poor soul that is being denied communion by the Catholic Church? Now both John Kerry and Haley Waldman are begin treated unfairly.
I expect that we will see many more of these stories as we approach the election.
Steven:
I’ve been curious as to whether the Matter of any of the Sacraments is a question of doctrine (and thus unchangeable) or discipline.
You assert in this post that the “leaven-ness” (so to speak) of the Matter is one of discipline but the “wheat-ness” (again, so to speak) is one of doctrine.
What is the authority for this proposition? If Jesus instituted the Eucharist at a Passover meal, was not that bread, by necessity, unleavened? And if so, what authority did the Church have to dismiss that as a necessity? And if the necessity for leaven can be dismissed, why cannot the necessity of gluten?
On a larger question, does the argument that the Matter is dictated by what Jesus used hold, given that Jesus is not reported to have used chrism oil, to have Confirmed anyone, or to have administered the Sacrament of Matrimony to anyone?
Actually, Steve, the Church has only dogmatically defined the matter of the Eucharist to be bread and wine (i.e. “fuit of the vine”).
She had never definitively pronoucned only WHEATEN bread to be valid.
This is, however, the consensus of the majority of the Church’s theologians. It has been contested however, by other theologians theorughout the centuries. See Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”
Still, lacking as we do a dogmatic definition, I think it’s best to “err on the side of caution” and assume for now that rice-bread isn’t valid.
Esquire,
Whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal, and whether Jesus used leavened or unleavened bread, is the subject of a 2000-year-old controversy in the Church.
True, the Synoptic gospels unambiguously state that it was a Passover meal, in keeping with traditional Western belief. But the Eastern Churches believe that John’s gospel supports the idea that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover and that the Last Supper must have been a pre-Passover meal. I have studied this controversy in some depth, and the arguments are complicated.
In keeping with their belief, the Eastern Churches have always celebrated communion with leavened bread. That is a tradition that goes back in the East to the early centuries of the Church, and this practice has long been recognized as valid by the Christian West. In fact, even Western law permits the use of leavened bread under certain circumstances.
The necessity of using wheaten bread is attested in both traditions, and is not similarly subject to variation.
Jesus’ elevation of marriage to a sacrament, and the precept of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, can be inferred from his teaching. In connection with sacraments for which we have no specific gospel text, we look to the sacred tradition that also along with the sacred scriptures goes back to Christ and the apostles, and which together make known his will to us. And, of course, how the word of God in written and unwritten form is to be interpreted is for the magisterium to define.
Steven and Eric:
Thanks for the prompt repsonses.
I guess my question was whether there has ever been an authoritative statement to the effect that gluten is mandated for the Matter of the Eucharist to be valid?
It sounds from the responses that this falls into the “the way we’ve always done it” tradition. (I don’t mean that to be derogatory in any sense). And I’m willing to accept that there’s never been a statement because it’s always just be assumed.
However, in that context, where is the line between tradition and Tradition? And if that line is determined by the Magisterium, doesn’t that become a bit tautological? (i.e the Magisterium defining as “changeable” the things it wants to change, and “unchangeable” the things it wants to keep)
Eric,
It may be true that there is no infallible declaration regarding the absolute necessity of wheaten bread for validity. (For that matter, it may be true that there is no infallible declaration regarding the inadmissibility of women to the priesthood.)
However, the non-validity of other grains isn’t just a matter of theological consensus. It seems to be the teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
For example, from the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum: “It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament” (48).
Likewise, the Catechism teaches, in the “In Brief” section on the Eucharist, “The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine” (CCC 1412). That mustum counts as grape wine is a matter of usage, but it is not possible to finesse the term “wheat bread” to mean “bread that could conceivably be made of grains other than wheat.”
“And if that line is determined by the Magisterium, doesn’t that become a bit tautological? (i.e the Magisterium defining as “changeable” the things it wants to change, and “unchangeable” the things it wants to keep)”
A cynic would say that about the entire dogmatic content of the faith. The Church kept what books of the Bible “she felt like keeping,” she defined whatever Trinitaian doctrine “she felt like keeping.”
As Catholics, we know there’s higher forces at work; we know because of Christ’s promises.
It’s interesting to note, BTW, that leavened bread was used even by the Western Church for the first 600 or so years of its existence.
I would be interested in what the Fathers had to say about this issue.
“A cynic would say that about the entire dogmatic content of the faith. The Church kept what books of the Bible “she felt like keeping,” she defined whatever Trinitaian doctrine “she felt like keeping.”
Eric, I think I know what point you’re trying to make here. But there is a dinstiction. We can point to the particular Council and Conciliar Statements that defined the Canon. The same cannot be said for those things that we hold to out of longstanding and continuous usage.
: I guess my question was whether there has ever
: been an authoritative statement to the effect
: that gluten is mandated for the Matter of the
: Eucharist to be valid?
As indicated above, it is authoritatively (even if not infallibly) stated that wheat bread is necessary for validity.
As for the necessity of some gluten, without knowing much about the confectionary issues involved, I infer from the statement in the “Norms For Use Of Low-Gluten Bread And Mustum” that “Low-gluten hosts are valid matter, provided that they contain the amount of gluten sufficient to obtain the confection of bread” — and from the fact that, while one source in the CNN.com story talks about “some Catholic churches” using zero-gluten bread, in practice this seems to mean non-wheat bread — that it is not possible to make zero-gluten wheat bread.
On your other questions, I second Eric’s comments.
Here’s a link to Aquinas on the wheaten bread issue (hat tip to Kevin Miller of HMS Blog):
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q74_A3.html
Steven:
There are many places where the Catechism, and other documents of the Church, make statements that seem absolute when in reality they are heavily nuanced. For example, 99.9% of Catholic works on the subject say that the Words of Institution are necessary for a valid Eucahrist. And yet the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, which lacks these words (and is used by many in the Caldean Catholic and Syro-Malabar Catholic Churches), is considered a valid Eucharistic liturgy.
Ludwig Ott writes:
“According to the ancient custom of the Church, only wheaten bread is used for the consecration. . . . Most theologians see in the use of wheaten bread a condition for validity, some, for example, G. Biel and Cajetan, only a condition for liiceity.” {“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” p. 391}
Sorry, the issue is not closed.
For woemn’s ordination is different. For this, we at least have a quasi-dogmatic definition from John Paul II and a statement from Ratzinger that this is infallible, by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium. No comparable authority exists for saying that only wheaten bread makes a valid Eucharist.
Now, in light of the Church’s ancietn tradition regarding this, and the unanimity of it, I’m inclined to agree with most theologians.
However, I’m not ready to say it can’t be otherwise. Many of our ancestors thought Limbo was a theologial certainty, along with many other supposed articles of faith like the absolute necesity of the Words of Institution.
General comment of thanks for the detailed explanation. My brain is still absorbing the discussion of “liceity vs. validity” (if such a distinction exists in Lutheran tradition, I am not aware of it).
Here’s a link to what the Code of Canon Law has to say (again, thanks to K. Miller of HMS blog):
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P39.HTM
Steven:
The sole reference for the passage which you quoted from “Redemptionis Sacramentum” is Section 924 of the Code of Canon Law, which RS itself simply quotes.
I note that Canon 924 does make reference to the leaven issue being one of long-standing tradition, but it makes no such reference to wheat. It simply says the bread MUST be wheat.
I’m not sure how a Canon lawyer would interpret that as a matter of statutory construction; but I still do not think this answers the question of whether wheat (and like you I don’t know the intricacies of wheat vs. gluten, etc.) is a matter of discipline or doctrine.
I think this is more than a merely academic point, and I’m not necessarily advocating a departure from the wheat (gluten) only wafers. There are legitimate practical reasons why uniformly wheat (gluten) bread should be used. (i.e. would you have separate communion lines? having to keep the chalices strictly separate, etc.). But it is important to know whether this is something that we can or should even argue over, or whether the matter is truly closed.
Here’s a link to what the old Catholic Encyclopedia has to say:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm
i still don’t understand why she just didn’t recieve the precious blood?
A fear of giving alcohol to a small child perhaps?
Wouldn’t the smallest drop have sufficed?
Mick and Billy, undoubtedly from a “spiritual” (if that’s the right word) standpoint, a single drop of the Precious Blood would have sufficed.
Apparently the mother was offered this option but refused. No one but she can speak to her reasons for refusing.
One possibility is that the perhaps the Parish was only offering the Eucharist under the species of the Bread alone, and her daughter would have been the only Communincant receiving the Precious Blood. She may not have wanted her daughter to be any further stigmatized than she already undoubtedly is given her extremely restrictive dietary requirements.
And lest anyone jump on me for focusing too much on “feelings”, etc., I’m not defending such a position, merely offering it as a possible explanation. Again, only the mother can say.
Esq,
Not sure what you’re saying. The passage I cited from “Redemptionis Sacramentum” directly states that non-wheat bread “does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.” If Section 924 of the Code of Canon Law doesn’t say that, then “Redemptionis Sacramentum” DOESN’T “simply quote” the Code, it goes beyond it in declaring non-wheat bread invalid.
Steven:
I agree that RS accurately, indeed verbatim, quotes Canon 924. My question was whether Canon 924 is considered unchangeable doctrine as opposed to discipline, given Canon 924 itself does not appear to cite to any prior authority
Esq,
Neither canon law or an Instruction like RS is itself a solemn infallible definition. However, they authoritatively proclaim a truth that is either itself unchangeable or else plain wrong. If they are right in authoritatively declaring that non-wheat bread is invalid, then that is an unchangeable truth. If it’s changeable, then their authoritative teaching is wrong. In the absence of an infallible declaration, we may not be able to exclude that as a possibility, but the Holy Spirit does guide the ordinary magisterium and these two statements are weighty evidence in favor of the unchangeable invalidity of non-wheat bread.
Thanks Steven:
There’s probably no use belaboring the issue further, and I think it’s getting abit afield from the original issue, but this is an interesting question to me, and perhaps others.
Is the Code of Canon Law, strictly speaking, an “authoritative proclamation of truth”, or rather a binding (and thus authoritative) ecclesiastical laws of canonical discipline. The Introductin to the current Code seems to characterize the Code as the latter.
Steve:
What about what I wrote above?
There are many places where the Catechism, and other documents of the Church, make statements that seem absolute when in reality they are heavily nuanced. For example, 99.9% of Catholic works on the subject say that the Words of Institution are necessary for a valid Eucahrist. And yet the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, which lacks these words (and is used by many in the Caldean Catholic and Syro-Malabar Catholic Churches), is considered a valid Eucharistic liturgy.
Ludwig Ott writes:
“According to the ancient custom of the Church, only wheaten bread is used for the consecration. . . . Most theologians see in the use of wheaten bread a condition for validity, some, for example, G. Biel and Cajetan, only a condition for liiceity.” {“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” p. 391}
you guys are killing me here!!!! the mom didn’t want to let her child have a few drops of the precious blood because it might draw attention to her child. that’s rich!! like, uh, she hasn’t already? i think there’s something either really sinister going on here(meaning the mom and rice wafer offering priest) or something really stupid.
Pope St. Pius V said in his Bull “De Defectibus”:
“If the bread is not made of wheat flour, or if so much other grain is mixed with the wheat that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it is adulterated in some other way, there is no Sacrament.”
As noted above, Pope John Paul II declares:
“[non-wheat bread] does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.”
These are two Popes, 500 years apart, both declaring that non-wheat bread is not just illicit, but invalid.
This is a constant teaching of the ordinary Magisterium throughout every century. The Church is infallible in her Ordinary Magisterium, speaking firmly and consistently, and we owe the same faith to it as we give to dogmatic truths, as Vatican I makes clear:
“It is a duty to believe with divine and Catholic Faith all that is contained in the word of God, whether written or transmitted by Tradition, that the Church puts forward to be believed as revealed truth, either in a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium (Vatican I, “Dei Filius”).
Interesting discussion of Tradition, but what about the original premise that Media is misrepresenting the Church?
Thank you, but I so much prefer a rice-Jesus
I’m still trying to maintain my blog holiday, but I find that I cannot resist commenting on this news story. It’s hard to believe that this story has made it into the national news, especially since it’s just a retread of a similar story in M…
Eric,
Regarding the words of consecration; if you’re willing to admit that 99.9% of catholic theologians through the centuries have erred; then I’m sure you admit the possibility that the CDF was in error. In that case, your argument falls flat.
The lack of Church definition is no reason to say the matter is not closed. If that were true, then there were officially no official binding Catholic beliefs before the first ecumenical council. Sorry, but that’s a silly result. Was it ok to be an Arian in 100AD? No.
Again on that CDF document; I find its argumentation to be weak, and if you admit it truly contradicts the ordinary magisterium of ages past, then I think we have a problem that definitely needs to be addressed.
Breier
Eric,
It’s wrong to call contradiction “nuance.” And it’s an improper method of interpretation to ignore the plaining meaning of the teaching magisterium, without sufficient justification. There is no rational basis for assuming that the Church meant something other than what it obviously taught, that the words of consecration are necessary for the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Indeed, the CDF document is even at pains to say that it is not changing this teaching; even as it seemingly incoherently reaches a conclusion in opposition to it.
To use an appararently startling novelty as a basis to say that Church teaching does not really mean what it says it means, seems a very poor form of exegesis.
That you’re using the CDF document to justify ignoring the plain meaning of the teaching church, casts more doubts on the CDF document, that it strengthens your argument.
Similarly, one might argue that Church teaching is really heavily nuanced, inasmuch as the Church tolerates theologians who openly deny her teaching, and the inerrancy of Holy Scriptures. And since the church tolerates those teachers, we must find some way to reconcile these two seeming contradictions. That would be a bad argument, as I see it.
I obviously see your argument. If the CDF document is really correct, then one is presented with an apparent contradiction of Church teachings; and one has to dig about for lame arguments trying to “nuance” the clear teaching of ages past into meaning something quite different from what it was always interpreted as.
I appreciate your view, but I think it preferable to see that document as more a sign of misguided ecumenism.
Of course I’m not the Church, not the ultimate judge. But a document so obviously shocking and contradictory to common belief, namely its proposal that the explicitly spoken words of consecration are not necessary for the validity of mass of the Mass, demands more explanation than we’ve received thus far.
In the meantime, while not condemning or putting ourselves above the CDF, I think it’s bad policy to argue from that document. This strikes me as one of those situations where we should seek clarification from the higher-ups.
And regarding the wheat issue, it seems we’ve already had that clarification.
Breier
It seems every year we get a similar story like this. Last year I believe is was the same thing with a little girl in Chicago and they ended up leaving the Church. In the past week I have seen this story reported constantly in hundreds of newspapers via Google News.
If a pharmicist gave a cancer patient a sugar pill instead of the proper medicine people would immediately know this was wrong. But if a priest uses invalid matter it is somehow the fault of a stodgy old church. I don’t quite remember the passage where Jesus said he was the “Rice of Life who takes aways the sins of the world.”
In other words, the decision of the CDF should be limited to the concrete situation it envisioned, and so distinguished. Just as in the law a decision may be limited to a particular set of circumstances, and to them alone, so that no doctrinal argument might be made from it for other circumstnaces, so too does the question of the consecration-less anaphora have an answer limited to its consecrete situation, which can not be extrapolated from to interpret other church documents.
The root question here is the power of the Church to change the sacraments, and whether or not the matter and form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist were instited explicitly, or implicitly. We know that the Church can’t change the substance of the sacraments. The common teaching has been that the Eucharist was instituted specifically, as is clear from the words “This is My Body”, “This is My Blood” appearing in the Gospels. If this was the case, it’s hard to see how the Church could susbstitue some others words for them, and keep a valid Mass.
Nevertheless, what do we know about sacramental theology? In lieu of presumption, take the CDF document at face value. So in some exotic circumstance, we’ll claim the Church had the power to instute some alterate specific form of a sacrament. Would anyone have dared to say this before the CDF document came out? I think not. But had the issue every been authoritatively address before, namely the validity of that canon? I don’t think so. What prompted this document? Historical difficulties. It seems that maybe this canon has been around for a long time, and the church using it was recognized as an authentic church. Therefore it must be valid, even if we lacked an explanation why. Certainly the argument about “implicit words of consecration” must be seen as an effort to reconcile church teaching with this historical difficulty, no?
In the case of wheat bread, though, the issue has been addressed, and there is no magisterial document that says that the Church has the power to substitute something author than wheat for the matter.
It seems fair to assume that “wheat” pertains to the substance of the Eucharist, and that the Church has no power to allow rice bread, cookie, or pizza host, or anything else.
Regards,
Breier
Mick: Your assinine comments really add nothing to the discussion
Jason: Thank you for the citation to Pope Pius’ bull. I wonder, however, why that was not cited in a footnote or otherwise by Canon 924?
On the issue of the media’s misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine and theology, I think this is issue is a fairly easy one for a non-Catholic to get wrong. I’m just waiting for the argument that “if the bread really did change into the Body of Christ, there’s nothing to fear” (i.e. confusing transubstantiation and transformation). Although something tells me we’re morel likely to hear that from anti-Catholic Christians than secularists.
Esq: The current Code of Canon Law does not include footnotes. The 1917 edition did (it contained footnotes referencing the sources for the laws it was codifying), but the 1983 edition does not (presumably since it was easy to see which prior canon in the old Code corresponds to which canon in the new Code, meaning that you don’t have to look up a bunch of dispirate sources to get the proximate legal background to the canon you’re looking at).
Shweddy: Please use another nickname when commenting on this blog.
A question about mustum: Is it completely alcohol free?
On what Scriptural basis is it taken that only bread made from wheat grain (can it be bleached, or does it have to be whole-grain?) is what Jesus meant when he said “this is my Body, broken for you”?
On what basis (on the other side of the coin) can Welch’s grape juice (let alone grape kool-aid) be considered not being ‘holier than thou’ (where thou is Jesus) instead of wine, as our Lord used?
It’s been instructive and helpful reading through both the article and the comments. One question that several have asked is, Is the restriction of sacramental matter to wheaten bread a closed question?
As a non-Catholic who knows a little about Catholicism but needs to learn much more, I can’t help answering, How can it not be a closed question? It does appear that the question of sacramental matter has been raised at various points in the history of the Western church. (I imagine it has also been addressed in the Eastern church, too, but am ignorant here.) And virtually each time it’s been raised theologians, canonists, bishops, and even Popes have insisted on wheaten bread and have declared nonwheaten bread to be invalid matter. Perhaps there are a few dissenting voices, but the consensus on the necessity of wheaten bread appears to be overwhelming.
Yet people still wonder if the Catholic Church has spoken infallibly on the subject. Does this not fall under the ordinary infallibility of the Church?
The Church has not, to my knowledge, settled the matter infallibly by an act of the extraordinary magisterium. Nevertheless the matter is not open for discussion, and certainly not open for legitimate dispute in the popular press.
The strength and constancy of the tradition is so strong that one can argue that the matter has been settled by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church.
Arguments based on the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church often are not as clear as they could be, which is why recourse is sometimes needed to the acts of the extraordinary magisterium.
Pontificator,
I believe mustum would have trace amounts of alcohol, which would be necessary to call it “wine,” but that the amounts are relatively negligible, so as not to harm an alcoholic who who could be affected by the smallest amount of alochol. The Bishop’s Committee on the liturgy interpreted Ratzinger’s remarks this way:
“In the same letter, the Prefect also restates that mustum is grape juice in which fermentation has begun, but has been suspended with the result that its alcohol content does not reach the levels found in most table wines. The process used for the suspension of fermentation must not alter the nature of the juice in any way. As with gluten in bread, so also the amount of alcohol needed for validity in mustum is not determined by a minimum percentage or weight. As well, pasteurized grape juice in which all alcohol has been evaporated through high temperature preparations is invalid matter for Mass.”
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/1103.htm
In a ’99 newsletter:
“Composition of Mustum
On June 19, 1995, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, addressed a circular letter to Presidents of Episcopal Conferences containing revised procedures for permitting the use of mustum to priests affected by alcoholism (Prot. N. 89/78). In recent months the Secretariat has received inquiries from several dioceses whose Ordinaries have granted permission for the use of mustum to priests adversely affected by even a small amount of alcohol. The correspondents have sought a more precise definition of mustum.
Article II-C of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter describes mustum as “fresh grape juice from grapes, or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).” While several brands of grape juice are available commercially, not all varieties meet the requirements of mustum.
Any commercially produced grape juice whose fermentation process was arrested, even at a very early stage, may be used for mustum. However, those grape juices which have been pasteurized are not proper matter for Eucharist because such pasteurization removes even trace amount of alcohol produced in the natural fermentation process.
The insistence on the purity and integrity of the grape juice used as mustum is to assure that the matter used for the Eucharist retains, as closely as possible, the characteristics of the matter intended by Christ to become his own Precious Blood.”
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/699.htm
I trust Mr. Akin will forgive the links supporting these quotations.
BTW, I think my earlier post might have come accross combatively. I did not mean for it to do so, and the questions are honest.
Breier, that is interesting about mustum, though I am not of the opinion that the neo-Buddhist sect AA knows what it is talking about when it comes to habituated drunkeness.
: Interesting discussion of Tradition, but what
: about the original premise that Media is
: misrepresenting the Church?
Yeah, how ’bout that media. Boo media.
I have to say I’ve learned something in this discussion — I didn’t know that mustum contained any alcohol at all. I misunderstood the phrase about “the fermentation process being suspended” and thought that it hadn’t begun at all.
It seems clear at this point that the necessity of wheat bread is strongly established by magisterial authority.
And shame on CNN.com. I think Alex is onto something regarding the connection with the recent controversy over pro-choice politicians not being permitted to receive. This lying headline seems designed as much to say, “So, the same Catholic Church that won’t give communion to John Kerry, maybe, is also denying communion to an 8-year-old girl with celiac disease. Obviously a bunch of hidebound rule-obsessed out-of-touch celibate old men who need to wake up and smell the coffee.”
For shame.
Ya…boo media.
boooooooooooo.
“The strength and constancy of the tradition is so strong that one can argue that the matter has been settled by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. ”
When we’re left solely with recourse to “consistent and longstanding” practice as evidence that the ordinary and universal magisterium has settled a matter, where is the line between tradition and Tradition?
I asked this earlier, not as a challenge to whether this particular matter is closed, but as a matter of real curiousity. This may be apropos of some of your earlier posts regarding abstaining from meat on Friday and women wearing headresses in church.
Specifically, obviously there are alot of things that have “just always been done that way”, but how is the determination made which of those things are part of the deposit of Faith through Revealed Tradition?
Celiac disease, Deal Hudson, and John Kerry
I was sitting listening to a really great homily today at Mass. Father chose to address the scriptures more peripherally than centrally, but he preached on a central tenet of our faith – the Eucharist. He spoke about the recurrent…
Celiac disease, Deal Hudson, and John Kerry
I was sitting listening to a really great homily today at Mass. Father chose to address the scriptures more peripherally than centrally, but he preached on a central tenet of our faith – the Eucharist. He spoke about the recurrent…
Celiac disease, Deal Hudson, and John Kerry
I was sitting listening to a really great homily today at Mass. Father chose to address the scriptures more peripherally than centrally, but he preached on a central tenet of our faith – the Eucharist. He spoke about the recurrent…
Come to think of it, does Jewish matzah bread, the one Jews use today and was used by Christ, contain wheat? I thought it was made from potatos . . .
I think we’re failing to consider another possibility on what the Church’s insistence on wheat for Eucharistic validity might mean.
Christ establihsed the matter and form of the sacraments, and so the Church cannot change or take these away.
However she can, and does, ADD certain requirements in order to make them valid. I don’t know what the technical term is, but the most common example I can give is the Sacrament of Matrimony. The matter and form are the exchange of consent by the spouses to enter into Christian marriage. However, the Church, on her own authority, has added other requirements, not only for liceity, but even for validity (i.e. being married by an ordained minister).
I think a case can be made that wheat is necessary for a valid Eucharist, but perhaps only because the Church has made it so. And possibly at a future date she could modify this.
Or maybe not. The point is, this question is by no means beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt solved. Again, as Ludwig Ott writes:
“According to the ancient custom of the Church, only wheaten bread is used for the consecration. . . . Most theologians see in the use of wheaten bread a condition for validity, some, for example, G. Biel and Cajetan, only a condition for liiceity.” {“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” p. 391}
I would like to see what G. Biel, [Saint?] Cajetan, and other like-minded orthodox theologians have said on this subject. Maybe we should try to find out, and so broaden our perspectives on this?
Celiac disease, Deal Hudson, and John Kerry
I was sitting listening to a really great homily today at Mass. Father chose to address the scriptures more peripherally than centrally, but he preached on a central tenet of our faith – the Eucharist. He spoke about the recurrent…
My understanding is that the matzah used at Passover is usually made of wheaten flour, but that flour from oats or spelt may also be used. I have sent off an email to a knowledgeable Orthodox rabbi for confirmation. I’ll let you know if he disconfirms what I have just written.
Of Men and Rice
Maybe it’s being a convert with so much left to learn, or maybe it’s the place in the religious discussion in which I feel called to stand, but it still tends to surprise me when people feel compelled to comment…
“Come to think of it, does Jewish matzah bread, the one Jews use today and was used by Christ, contain wheat? I thought it was made from potatos…”
Potatoes originated in South America, and were not introduced to Europe until the 16th century.
Over on his Ad Limina blog, Jamie suggests that liturgical law must err on the side of conservatism in order to protect the integrity and validity of the sacrament.
Celiac disease, Deal Hudson, and John Kerry
I was sitting listening to a really great homily today at Mass. Father chose to address the scriptures more peripherally than centrally, but he preached on a central tenet of our faith – the Eucharist. He spoke about the recurrent…
“Over on his Ad Limina blog, Jamie suggests that liturgical law must err on the side of conservatism in order to protect the integrity and validity of the sacrament.”
I agree with this 100%.
Celiac disease, Deal Hudson, and John Kerry
I was sitting listening to a really great homily today at Mass. Father chose to address the scriptures more peripherally than centrally, but he preached on a central tenet of our faith – the Eucharist. He spoke about the recurrent…