Posted on 03/10/2019 3:31:46 AM PDT by robowombat
Proposal at Vatican to change Eucharist would create a ‘new religion’
ROME, March 5, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Experts including Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider are sounding the alarm over a shocking proposal at the Vatican to consider changing the matter of the Eucharist.
Such a move, critics warn, would invalidate the Sacrament and create, in effect, a “new religion.”
Jesuit theologian Father Francisco Taborda last week raised the possibility that the upcoming Amazonian Synod scheduled for next October might consider changing the matter of the Eucharist, allowing the use of a South American vegetable called yuca rather than wheaten bread.
Fr. Taborda told Crux on Feb. 28 that climate issues and inculturation warrant the change. Intense humidity during the Amazonian rainy season turns wheaten hosts into a pasty mush, he said, adding that “in the Amazon, bread is made out of yuca,” a shrub native to South America from which tapioca is derived.
Taborda, a professor of theology at the Jesuit university in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, was a featured speaker at a study seminar held at the Vatican on Feb. 25-27, in preparation for the October synod on “Amazonia: New Paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology.”
Key figures at the two-day seminar included Italian Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, and Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes, a principal proponent of married priests in the Latin Rite. Also in attendance were presidents of Pan-Amazonian bishops conferences and other “prelates and experts” from Amazonia and other geographical regions.
While Fr. Taborda acknowledged that a change to the matter of the Eucharist is a “very complex question,” he said he believes it should be decided by local bishops.
Yucarist: A new religion
LifeSite approached a number of prominent Catholic theologians and ecclesiastics to ask them if such a change is even conceivable. They replied unanimously and vehemently in the negative.
“It would be entirely improper for the Synod on the Amazon to discuss the change of the matter of the Holy Eucharist,” Cardinal Burke told LifeSite. “To depart from the use of what has always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist has the gravest of implications,” he said.
“This is completely impossible because it is against the divine law which God has given us,” Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, responded to the proposed change. “To celebrate the Eucharist with yuca would mean introducing a kind of a new religion.”
Fr. John Saward, senior research fellow at Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford, said that replacing wheaten bread with yuca would contravene the witness of Tradition, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Code of Canon Law.
And one prominent theologian, speaking on condition of anonymity, told LifeSite:
If the Pope were to press ahead with this permission on the grounds of “development of doctrine,” thereby aiding and abetting the heterodox theologians in Rome (or Brazil or Germany or wherever) who proposed it, then he will be authorizing a change of the substance of the Sacrament as determined by the action of Christ our Lord at the Last Supper. “Masses” celebrated with “yuca” bread would not be Masses; there would be no Real Presence, no Sacrifice. Simply impossible
We asked these authorities to explain in more detail why it is simply impossible for such a change to occur.
Cardinal Burke explained that “according to the Faith of the Roman Church, the matter of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is wheat bread and natural grape wine.”
“If any other matter is used, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not validly confected,” he said.
The cardinal noted that “the ancient custom of the Church, according to which only wheaten bread may be used for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, was confirmed at the Council of Florence (Bull of Union with the Armenians Exsultate Deo, November 22, 1439).”
“The matter of the sacraments respects what is taught in the Holy Scriptures,” Cardinal Burke also explained. “The narrative of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist specifies that Christ took wheat bread, not barley bread or any other form of bread, at the Last Supper and changed its substance into the substance of His Body. The Greek word, artos, nearly always signifies wheaten bread.”
Bishop Athanasius Schneider agreed, saying: “Our Lord Jesus Christ took wheat bread and natural grape wine, and the Church has constantly and in the same sense taught for over two thousand years that only wheat bread is the matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.”
The auxiliary of Astana added that the Catechism of the Council of Trent states that the matter of the Holy Eucharist is only wheaten bread. The relevant passage reads:
There are, however, various sorts of bread, either because they consist of different materials — such as wheat, barley, pulse and other products of the earth; or because they possess different qualities — some being leavened, others altogether without leaven. It is to be observed that, with regard to the former kinds, the words of the Savior show that the bread should be wheaten; for, according to the common usage, when we simply say bread, we are sufficiently understood to mean wheaten bread. This is also declared by a figure in the Old Testament, because the Lord commanded that the loaves of proposition, which signified this Sacrament, should be made of fine flour. He therefore argued that to change the matter of the Eucharist from wheat bread to another kind of matter would be “tantamount to inventing a sacrament, alien to the one established by Our Lord, which has been preserved unchangingly by the bi-millennial tradition of the entire Church in East and West.”
“To celebrate the Eucharist with yuca would mean introducing a kind of a new religion,” Schneider contended. “Were they to introduce yuca as matter for the Eucharist, it would no longer be the sacrament of the Catholic religion. It would be a new Amazonian religion with Catholic decoration, but it would no longer be the sacrament of the Eucharist of the Catholic Apostolic Church.”
Bishop Schneider also pointed out that “the Council of Trent, Pope Pius XII and John Paul II taught that the Church has no power to change the substance of the sacraments.”
“The Church can only change what she has established,” he said. “Yet the Church did not establish the matter of the Eucharist. It was established by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who likewise established that water be the matter of Baptism.”
LifeSite also asked the highly regarded English theologian and author, Father John Saward, to explain why it is impossible to introduce a change in the matter of the Eucharist. Fr. Saward responded:
The witness of Tradition is as clear as can be: the only valid matter of the Eucharist is wheaten bread (panis triticeus). It is the teaching of the Council of Florence and is argued for by St. Thomas in his treatise on the Eucharist in the Summa: “We believe that Christ used this kind of bread when He instituted the Eucharist” (3a q. 74, a. 3). “Without wheaten bread,” St. Thomas goes on to say, “the Sacrament is not validly confected” (sine quo non perficitur sacramentum) (3a q. 74, a. 4). “The 1983 Code is likewise unambiguous: ‘The bread must be made of wheat alone’ (can. 924/2),” he added.
Saward argued that a vague notion of “development of doctrine” cannot be invoked to justify this rupture with Sacred Tradition. The limits of such development, he said, are carefully set out by the First Vatican Council: “That meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother Church has once declared, and there must never be a deviation from that meaning on the specious ground and title of a more profound understanding.” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic Faith, ch. 4).
The Oxford-based theologian noted that “Blessed John Henry Newman made the same point in this way: ‘There is nothing which the Church has defined or shall define but what an Apostle, if asked, would have been fully able to answer and would have answered.’ (Letter to Flannigan). In other words, if you had asked St. Peter, ‘What is the only valid matter of the Eucharist?’ he would have replied, ‘Wheaten bread.’”
Fr. Saward also observed that, in recent times, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has insisted that celiac priests “must consecrate and consume altar breads made of wheat, even if the gluten content is reduced.”
As recently as 2017, in fact, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued guidelines for bishops on the bread and wine to be used for the Holy Eucharist.
Serious questions raised
For all these reasons, Cardinal Burke has said “it would be entirely improper for the Synod on the Amazon to discuss the change of the matter of the Holy Eucharist.”
“It would signify some doubt about the unbroken Tradition by which the Holy Eucharist continues to be the action of Christ in our midst, in fact, the highest and most perfect manifestation of His Presence with us,” he said. “To depart from the use of what has always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist has the gravest of implications.”
The cardinal added: “One wonders why, after centuries of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the Amazon, now there is so much difficulty surrounding the use of hosts of wheaten bread.”
“There is something more involved than a problem of keeping the hosts fresh,” Cardinal Burke observed. “The use of some local food, which is like bread but is not the kind of bread which Our Lord used at the Last Supper, reflects a totally horizontal view of the Holy Eucharist, in which the Holy Eucharist is the action of the community which gathers instead of the action of Christ Who gathers the community.”
If, as these authorities suggest, the proposal to change the matter of the Eucharist from wheaten bread to yuca represents a clear and manifest break with the Catholic Faith, the question arises: Should an orthodox bishop refuse even to participate in the Amazonian Synod were such a question on its agenda?
Good grief! What difference does it make?
Wheat is a product of nature, so is yuca. It’s a miracle and a mystery. We catholics believe in Jesus, not the material in the sacred host.
A new religion? Nonsense.
As many times as corruption is mentioned in scriptures, I find it hard to believe that we do not understand the symbology behind leavened bread and unleavened bread. And that Jesus was uncorrupted, hence the bread was unleavened because it is not corrupted.
If you look in the Old Testament it talks about the amount of time it takes for bread to become leavened. In the Amazon regions this leavening or Corruption of the sacrament for the elements takes a much shorter time than it would in the climes that are experienced in the region where Jesus lived and taught.
We should probably also revisit the issue of the blood. Jesus first miracle was turning an amount of water into wine or was it juice? And I have to ask, why would the uncorrupted Jesus and the first recorded miracle be the miracle of a corrupted juice called wine which is basically leavened grape juice?
That does not make sense to me.
Should we be drinking corrupted juice and eating corrupted bread when we celebrate the Eucharist? I would say no. Was the intent to imbibe and to partake of uncorrupted elements? Uncorruption is a purifying Testament to our beloved Saviour.
The tradition man is or can be, or could be, stemmed from the facts that in certain parts of the fledgling growth of the faith you could not keep grape juice without it going bad and turning into vinegar... or they could drink a fermented beverage called wine which transported well. The bread or the wheat that is used to make the bread also traveled well and could be made relatively on corrupted if they follow the laws of bread making as detailed in Leviticus. And so what we are seeing today is a traditional Sacramento based on the necessity transport during times when transport was Rife with Goods becoming corrupted before they were consumed.
Whole grain bread, or processed white bread? If you want to get picky about it you could go to that extreme. From matzo cracker or Saltine?
I think we need to really keep in mind the corruption or the uncorruption in the elements that we use. Why? Because Jesus was not only uncorrupted, he was uncorruptible.
All these overeducated idiots debating the ingredients in a cracker. What if there was a wheat blight and none was available? Would God understand? You can bet they would find a substitute real quick in order to keep the collection plate full.
Better hope there’s never a “chestnut blight” type of disease affecting wheat or the entire RC world will crash down as suddenly, Christ can no longer save you because the grace of God is limited by mere human agricultural cabilities.
And if ever imprisoned as a POW with no access to bread, just rice or some weevily non-wheat starch, you may as well skip holding a communion service with your fellow RC prisoners, because Catholicism no longer applies...
This reminds me of the overzealous Jews who would leave their injured cow in a well on the Sabbath and let it die there, depriving their children of milk, rather than lift a finger to help it out...if one should adopt such an attitude they are missing the point of not working on the Sabbath. The law was intended for the benefit of Man- a blessing, not as a burden or obstacle to our faith or as a means of displaying how much holier we are than others.
Sorry, not buying the “heresy” label on the loaf of bread.
John From rituals!
If God wasn’t all powerful and perfect, he would need a therapist after realizing how crazy most of us humans turned out to be.
This is overreacting by the writer.
Jesus is what matters, not the ingredients in the bread.
Article II Section 1 Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
Corruption of long held Truths is one of Satan's many devious strategies to conquer souls.
7
::rolls eyes:: These men already take part in the new religion of Vatican II. Wake me up when they convert to the Catholic Faith.
Jesus used unleavened wheat at the last supper, not yuca. Proper/legal form and matter are required for a valid Consecration of the Host. If yuca is used, there is no Consecration, it is not Holy Mass, and there is no fulfillment of Sabbath obligation and becomes Idolatry.
No Mass, equals a non-Catholic religion. This is what these Satanists, Heretics, and Apostates in the Church are aiming for, the destruction of the Catholic Church, which has at it’s core the Consecration (the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass).
Is yuca gluten-free and not GMO?
Let’s really get into the weeds here. The “wheat” might have been spelt, not the cross-bred stuff we eat today.
“Flour” is a description of a physical property. Thus, you can have yucca flour.
Kosher laws seem excessive to ignorant and/or uneducated people. Same with this.
Those that argue for the content of the host have no credibility given the discussions and outcome from the recent Vatican abuse summit.
Matzo can be wheat, spelt, barley, rye, and depending on translation, oat.
I see it as hyperbolic hysteria.
“Kosher laws seem excessive to ignorant and/or uneducated people. Same with this”
I wonder why then does the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ tie in with the Passover. Passover is the feast of unleavened bread and that is when they celebrated the last supper... during Passover, so it was unlevened bread which coincides precisely with the uncorrupted Messiah. A simple coincidence? Or destiny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.