Since there is such nostalgia for the current regime of the Church for the 1970's and imposing what was reversed or blocked by Popes John Paul II and Benedict during their papacies as a mattter of
recovering the 1970's "spirit" of Vatican II and bringing it forward today and for the future, we are now seeing and unbelievably so, the push to have different cultures use different ingredients for their "bread and wine" as the accidents for the Real Presence of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine.
It is said that the Amazon Synod (not the retail company, but what the heck) will discuss married priests and the use of the Yuca plant to manufacture the "bread" for the Eucharist. The lie that is told is that in the humid Amazon region, the normal type hosts with valid ingredients turns to mush. That is a lie. I live in a very humid part of the world and it just ain't so.
But my point is that this ruse was experimented with in the 1970's and 80's until it was made clear by the Magisterium that for bread only wheat flower with no other ingredients and water could be used for the bread of the Latin Rite. And that the wine had to be wine from grapes and unadulterated.
There are two exceptions, kind of. For those with gluten intolerance, low gluten hosts can be used but there must be some small percentage of gluten in the host. For alcoholic priests, mustum is allowed for the wine which is wine which has had its alcohol content removed. Thus it isn't unfermented grape juice which would be invalid.
BUT THAT LEADS ME TO THE POINT OF THIS POST. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE BREAD AND WINE OF THE MASS SEEM TO ME TO BE CANONICAL OR CUSTOM AND NOT DOGMA OR DOCTRINE.
In other words, when was it proclaimed to be doctrine, let alone, dogma what the ingredients of the bread and wine should be? For example in the east, leven bread that looks like the kind of bread most of us actually eat in the west, is the norm and unleavened bread would be illicit.
In the 70's I attended Mass with what was called real bread and the priest smugly reported that he had acquired it from a restaurant in the area that was known for its delicious bread.. I think the matter was valid but certainly illicit for the 1970's.
In my 1970's seminary and for the four years (actually 3 and one half years) I was there, the ingredients for the bread consisted or unbleached whole wheat, salt, sugar, honey and maybe some other leven. I have wondered if any Mass I attended there was actually valid.
But again, even with these added ingredients, is there any doctrinal teaching, clearly defined by the Magisterium that added or different ingredients for the bread and wine makes the Mass invalid not just illicit?
Finally, as I type this I remember the fact that many priests in the late 60's and in the 1970's until they were roundly criticized for doing so, would use pizza and coke for youth Masses celebrated at the beach on a beach towel thrown on the beach. Why? Because this was the culture of the teenagers and would be so meaningful to them.
I suspect the priests doing this were also having their way with the teenagers they invited to such nonsense. But are either of these aberrations a cause for either the invalidity of the sacramental character of the priest or the elements used for Mass?
17 comments:
Average annual humidity in Georgia is 52.
Average annual humidity in Brazil is 79.
In Georgia, 87% of buildings are air conditioned.
In Brazil, 16% of buildings are air conditioned.
Air conditioning lowers interior humidity substantially. In air conditioned buildings, humidity is usually between 30% and 40%.
You haven't lived in humidity, interior or exterior, as is experienced in many parts of the tropical world.
Many Catholic churches use leavened bread while the West, usually, uses unleavened. Is this a matter of dogma?
A 8:23,
Have you nothing better to do with your time? I’m elderly retired—that’s my excuse. What’s yours?
Even if its terribly humid, the hosts are dry as can be AND desicant packages could be used to absorb some moisture. This is just more evidence that THEY hate the faith.
Bee here:
Ah, the 1960's and 1970's and the implementation of Vatican II. Those were the days!
I recently listened to the first three parts of YouTube videos put out by Sensus Fidelium, by a guy named Michael Davies, called "The Protestant Revolution in England." In it is described some of the more unknown (at least they were to me) aspects of Henry VIII's declaration of himself as head of the Church of England.
It was surprising to me to learn that most of the changes to the Catholic mass happened during the reign of Edward VI, Henry VIII son who was about 9 when he became king. Since he was so young there was a "regency council" that was in place to make decisions and rule until he was of age. It was this council along with Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, who forced the changes to the liturgy.
And what were some of those changes (besides appropriating all church properties and assets)? Changing the language from Latin to the vernacular; eliminating the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and emphasizing the meal aspect; removing the stone/marble altar and replacing it with a wooden table; outlawing kneeling and receiving the Eucharist on the tongue; insisting communion must be received under both forms.
Gee, what does THAT sound like to you?
The next step was denial of the Real Presence, and rewriting of the liturgical book of prayer. Are we there? I think lots of the clergy are.
Don't know who said it, but it is often said: He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it.
Listen to those videos. They are so very informative.
God bless.
Bee
I visited St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin. It is now a part of the Church of England, but was built as the Catholic Cathedral until it was confiscated. There was a brief period when it was restored a a Catholic Cathedral because of a Catholic Queen. But that was short lived.
But the Cathedral in its history section indicates that the only changes were which liturgical bool was used. They displayed the Tridentine Roman Missal or the Book of Common Prayer for the historical periods of the building implying this was the only change.
The elderly and retired can engage in easy Google searches too, you know. Try it, you'll be surprised at how much time it DOESN'T take to collect information.
A. Please address my comment concerning what the Jews at the time of Christ used for their unleavened "BREAD."
I did.
"On occasion, the dough was made with the flour from legumes (Ezekiel 4:9). In The Mishna (Hallah 2:2) talks about dough formed with fruit juice in place of water. The sugar from the juice worked with the flour and water to add leavening and made it taste sweeter. The Israelites at times included fennel and cumin in the dough,..."
"Bread was usually composed of the simple ingredients like flour, water and salt. Olive oil was sometimes added if it was to be used in the worship of God (Leviticus 2:4, etc.)."
If you find the recipe used in the kitchens of the Upper Room where Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples, please share.
St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, is Church of Ireland, not Church of England. The CoI was disestablished in 1869 at the start of Gladstone's first ministry. The Catholic cathedral is known as the pro-Cathedral.
Unleavened bread is customary in the West but leavened bread is still valid matter and is used in the East. Bee will no doubt be aware that the Protestant 'reformers' of Edward VI's reign had a visceral hatred of the Mass. The Host was referred to as 'Round Robin' or 'Jack-in-the- Box' and was routinely desecrated. Both these terms are still used in different contexts; however, there are early examples of the children's toy which have 'hocus pocus' on the lid, this being a corruption of 'hoc est enim corpus meum'.
Thanks to a centralized Tudor despotism, the so-called 'Reformation' was imposed from above. Those who resisted were brutally suppressed. The efficiency of the Tudor state was shown when in a few short years (1548-1553) iconoclastic Protestants licensed by the government systematically destroyed almost all of late medieval art, not to mention most of the exquisite polyphonic music (most of it existing only in manuscript). Those fragments which survive poignantly indicate the quality of what was lost.
Then in a few short years (1964-1969) the Catholic Church, under a weak and vacillating pope, appeared to want to repeat this disastrous event. However, unlike in Tudor times, the powers that be could not compel church attendance. Even bleating about 'obligation' cut little ice with those who did not, and do not, feel in any way obliged to attend a new, vernacular, Protestant-inspired, stripped-down service which bears little resemblance to authentic Catholic worship. I don't, I won't, and I never shall.
Dan,
This will cheer you up and depress priests invested in the Novus Ordo failure:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/03/photos-from-second-annual-lepanto.html#.XH1cnYhKjyQ
John Nolan,
Bravo! Your last sentence is Churchillian!!!
Bee here:
John Nolan: Thank you for the additional information. It was very clear from the lectures that the English reformers had a visceral hatred for the Mass, and it very much occurred to me how Satanic their attitudes and actions seemed. I was a bit shaken for a few days after listening to the lectures, since the similarities to Vatican II changes were so obvious. I had never before understood why people in comments sections on Catholic websites sometimes claimed that Vatican II was geared toward making us Protestants. Now I see why they say that.
I went to 12 years of Catholic schooling (grade school and high school). Not once did I ever learn this information. And I have never, ever heard it mentioned from the pulpit, or in any talk or lecture I attended on the Church.
The only thing I ever heard alluded to was the confiscation of Church lands and property, and the economic upheaval to the lower class it caused. And how the Anglican mass is so similar to the Catholic mass. Yeah. Right.
God bless.
Bee
Sure, let's alienate the East even more ;)...
I attended a Catholic primary school up to the age of 11 and we learned a lot about the Reformation (from a Catholic viewpoint). I remember thinking how anguished people must have been when the familiar Latin Mass was replaced almost overnight by a vernacular communion service emptied of most of the ritual. This was in 1962 when few people realized what was lurking round the corner.
At Grammar School and University I learned a more 'balanced' view largely influenced by the work of GR Elton and AG Dickens. However, the ground-breaking research of the Cambridge school of Reformation historians in the 1990s into late medieval Catholicism made me realize that what I had been taught at primary school was not as biased as I had previously thought. Protestant assumptions had indeed cast a long shadow.
John Nolan,
I was a history major at Notre Dame and the history we were assigned to read about the state of the Catholic Church in England on the eve of the Protestant Revolt was "interesting". The author painted the Church as corrupt, slothful, and not embraced by the majority of the English people. My instincts told me that the victor writes the history and Eamon Duffy proved that my instincts were spot on. The Stripping of the Altars demolishes that viewpoint.
TJM
Be careful about making historical judgements on this blog. There is a nasty little anonymous troll lurking in the wings who will take issue with what you say, however strong the evidence and however great his own ignorance regarding both history and liturgy.
John Nolan,
Oh yes, we know who that Anonymous Troll is. Unfortunately, he happens to be a priest.
Post a Comment