Upcoming Amazon Synod and discussion of the matter (wheat) for the Eucharist

I saw something interesting at Crux about the upcoming, 6-27 October, Amazon Synod.

“Amazon” Synod… who will be the first to quip that they will try to sell out the Church?

Apparently on the agenda for the Amazon Synod will be the question of ordaining married men to the priesthood because of priest shortages.

Another point may be rethinking – get this – the matter use for the Eucharist.   There was a 25-27 February seminary on the upcoming Synod with some of the primary riggers.  Crux says (my emphases):

Another issue Taborda said is likely to come up during the synod is the possibility of replacing bread used in the consecration of the Eucharist with yuca – a shrub native to South America which is commonly cultivated as an annual crop in tropical regions, where it is popular to eat the root of the plant.

The reason for proposing the change, Taborda said, is because the bread normally used in Latin rite Masses turns into a pasty mush during the Amazonian rainy season due to the intense humidity, meaning “it’s not bread, and if it’s not bread, it’s not the Eucharist.”

In the Amazon, bread is made out of yuca,” he said. And while changing material used in the Eucharist is “a very complex question,” he believes it should be decided by the local bishops and will likely be mentioned during the October discussion.

For the Eucharist to be confected validly, only bread of wheat may be used.  In the Latin Church we use only unleavened bread, as Christ used at the Last Supper (cf. Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7).

If memory serves, and perhaps one of you can hunt this up, early missionaries to Asia attempted, through “inculturation”, to adapt the matter for the Eucharistic species to local products, such as rice.  I think this was done by Jesuit missionaries and that they had to be corrected either by the Superior General or by the Roman Pontiff.   Surely one of you out there will have the reference.

Anyway, no wheat… no Eucharist.  Use of yuca would result in idolatry.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Synod and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Thomas S says:

    We speak of valid matter for the Eucharist, but the Modernists behind the havoc in the Church don’t even believe in the Real Presence. To them, bread is bread and yuca is yuca and neither actually becomes the Body of Christ. So what difference does it make? You can build community sharing whatever food you want.

    Hasn’t Satan’s century ended yet?

  2. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    Another Synod, another round of heresies resurface….surprise…will there be no end?

    Come, Lord Jesus, come…

  3. SimonK says:

    I doubt Pope Francis will allow any change to the species of the Eucharist. I think, if he was seriously considering doing that, he’d have to commission some sort of study by the CDF or the International Theological Commission on whether it was even possible, and I’m sure their report would reach the conclusion “No”. (In the case of “deaconesses”, the Pope set up a study commission and awaited their report before doing anything–and he still might not do anything–so I can’t see why he’d treat the Eucharistic species any differently.) As well as the grave theological problems, changing the species of the Eucharist would harm ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox, whom I’m sure wouldn’t look fondly on the idea. I think this is just a “thought bubble” that might be discussed a bit but isn’t going anywhere.

    The idea of ordaining married men is more plausible. It is already allowed as a rare exception in the Latin Church. Pope Francis could decide on a modest widening of the scope of that exception. That may well be an imprudent decision, but I struggle to see how it could be contrary to Catholic theology.

    A question: What is the theological note associated with the proposition “The sacrament of the Eucharist is invalid if the bread is not of wheat”? And what is the evidence used to justify assigning the proposition that particular theological note, rather than some other?

  4. msc says:

    I understand and accept (of course) the Church’s teaching that only wheat may be used, but I do wonder on what this is based. A friend who is an academic specializing in agriculture and diet in the classical world thinks it very possible that barley was used. I do not know the evidence myself, so I am curious about the matter.

  5. Fr. Kelly says:

    simonk and msc
    Here is the Statement of the CDF from July 24 2003 entitled
    Circular Letter to all Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences concerning the use of low-gluten altar breads and mustum as matter for the celebration of the Eucharist


    At the beginning of the document, they give references to previous statements.

  6. Suburbanbanshee says:

    It is based on the Old Testament. Fine wheat flour.

    Of course, if youuuu want to tell Jesus that He has nothing to do with the Old Testament, I will just be standing away over here, avoiding the lightning bolts.

    And if the priests are so worried about moisture (valid problem), get a wafer iron baker and make a tiny fresh batch right before Mass, and/or give the congregation the Previous Blood in tiny sips.

  7. capchoirgirl says:

    Can we please have a moratorium on synods?!

  8. Hidden One says:

    Some ideas are at times worth raising precisely so that they can be shot down.

  9. Gab says:

    Synods are the in-thing, the latest fad and just like fads, they’re meaningless and achieve nothing.

  10. MrsAnchor says:

    @Thomas S
    Not until the Anti Christ shows up! J.k

    As for these issues. Matthew 18 “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven“
    If the Church organically grew to understand married Priests wasn’t the best way to serve Mother Church. Why are we even in this place? We’re the hold out! This should be why we stand firm on the matter. We hadn’t bent to the moods and customs as to go over backwards… any changes were the exception not the rule. This will only lead us into a mirror image of our fellow brothers. So….

    There are the Orthodox, Maronite & Byzantine etc Churches that allow for it (married Priests) Why aren’t they ministering to this if indeed it is necessary for them?
    Keep this simple no need to reinvent wheels.

    As for the Eucharist. Tough. It’s difficult enough that some “katholics” don’t believe in the Body Blood Soul and Divinity… Why are we tampering with something that is what sets us apart? The Fundamental.Foundation of our Church being set apart?
    What happened to the novel idea of full conversion? Isn’t that what converts did back then? Change?
    When Gentiles came over it’s not like every Tradition changed. The mere fact the early Church snuffed out Heresy is for what reason? They weren’t in favor for a total erosion of the Faith…
    I hate to sound like a TinFoil wearing kook, but given all the atmospheric pressure inside & outside the Church…. the destruction of our deeply seeded beliefs are at stake. What would cause the Second Coming? Why aren’t we asking that?! Just what kind of environment would make the Anti Christ show up? NY Bill in every state/ throughout the world in 8 years?Why do we want to head deeper into the pit we’ve shoveled ourselves in after Vat II?
    When are people going to become “woke” at the grave situations we find ourselves in. This is not going in a direction of prosperity it’s only deluding the general population!
    This Pontificate has to put its fingers into every crevice the progressives had tried to subvert… just looks to me we’ve let the Money Changers into the Temple and every foul thing Our Lord Jesus Christ did not approve of.
    What ever happened to our Faith, our Love and THE struggle?! It was never supposed to be “fixed” in this world, we were supposed to soberly follow Commandments, Suffer by purging ourselves of desire and how we treated our neighbor, not bending truths to justify the “Harods”, Caiaphas”, Sodom & Gomorrah’s” of our time.
    St Peter & St Paul. Pray for us
    Sts Timothy & Titus Pray for us
    Sts John the Baptist & Elijah Pray for us
    St John Vianney Pray for Us

  11. Suburbanbanshee says:

    MSC — Barley was the food of poor people and animals in ancient Israel and most of the Mediterranean. Its only sacred use by Jews was the grain offering for jealousy and wrongdoing listed in Numbers 5:15, which is used as part of the adultery “test,” and the normal offering of first fruits.

    Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread was associated with the barley harvest, but the first fruits of the new barley were not offered until the day after Passover. So there was no special association of barley with Passover unleavened bread, although the old barley flour could be used to make Passover unleavened bread. However, fine wheat flour bakes a little faster than barley, spelt, etc. and is less chewy, so it is preferred.

    Wheat was what God commanded to be offered to Him. wheat was used for the todah offering of thanksgiving (eucharistia) and for the Bread of the Presence. So if you have Jesus preparing an offering to His Father, and arranging for a lot of Eucharistic symbolism, I am pretty sure He would have arranged for wheat to be used at the Last Supper.

  12. The Egyptian says:

    May I humbly suggest this post from a lately silent blogger A very well written and researched article
    it is a little long but offers a good argument both ways and points out there have been simplex priest in the past including one who’s cause for sainthood is ongoing, The Ven. Solanus Casey.
    His ideas have merit if viewed with an open mind (not one with holes in it, just open) including how to do it with little cost to the parish or diocese.

  13. The Egyptian says:

    I post part of the article here as most will not bother to look it up
    please note this “With simplex priests helping out much the same way auxiliary bishops assist the diocesan bishop,”
    A sacerdos simplex is a priest who is ordained for celebrating Mass, and little else (beyond the usual obligation of praying the Divine Office). No confessions, no preaching, no pastorships of parishes. To be “simplex” is to exercise only the core of the presbyteral ministry, which is offering the holy sacrifice of the Mass. The rest, while certainly integral to the priest’s mission on earth, is not essential to it. Imagine if, in large parishes that stretch their priests thin, the bishop says to the pastor:

    “I want you to approach your deacons and your three most devout, older laymen (no younger than 45) and ask them if they’d be willing to apprentice under you for three years and then be ordained priests. Their sole duties, other than praying the Office, would be celebrating Masses that you can’t cover yourself, helping distribute Communion, and bringing Communion to the sick. Other things such as teaching catechism are up to them, but they can’t hear confessions except in danger of death, and they won’t perform baptisms or weddings unless you specifically delegate them. They can only preach if they were already formed as deacons beforehand. Finally, they do this service only for love of God, with no expectation of income.”

    In a stroke, these simplex priests, some of whom are perhaps married, will have already resolved all the pragmatists’ objections:

    They’re mature in both age and faith, and if they’re married, their children are older or out of the house
    They serve at no expense to the faithful; no salary, no housing, no retirement pension or other benefits needed because, like deacons, they’re expected to maintain their own income and (if necessary) secular employment
    They have a shorter course of study under their pastor, as most priests did before the arrival of the seminary system after Trent–again, at no cost to the faithful

    In exchange, we could reap the following benefits:

    Many more priests to celebrate Mass in “non-priority areas”, especially in remote rural parishes or near-abandoned urban parishes, or in chaplaincies for the neglected like prisons and hospitals
    More priests to offer Sunday Mass at the parishes (especially early and late Masses) so that pastors only have to celebrate the principal Sunday Mass; thus keeping to the traditional rule whereby priests are only supposed to celebrate Mass once per day (there used to be an indult required for “binating” or “trinating”, meaning offering Mass twice or three times a day)
    More priests around to distribute holy Communion, thereby reducing the need for lay extraordinary ministers
    More priests to deliver holy Communion to the sick, in place of lay ministers
    More priests to lead hours of the Divine Office
    More priests to offer personal instruction to catechumens, as was common prior to Vatican II
    On an as-needed basis, pastors can delegate baptisms and weddings to simplex priests to free time for themselves

    With simplex priests helping out much the same way auxiliary bishops assist the diocesan bishop, the celibate, beneficed (“full time”) pastors and curates would then have a lot more free time to hear confessions, make visits to parishioners’ homes, get to know more of their flock one-on-one, and perhaps most importantly, devote themselves more fully to the Divine Office and regular prayer. Everyone wins.

  14. Imrahil says:

    Dear Egyptian,

    I grant that the ideas have married, as you say; but in my view the idea still doesn’t hold water.

    Some objections, off the top of my head:

    1. “There have been simplex priests in the Church”, but never married simplex priests. That is, to be more precise: there have been simplex priests, and there have been married priests, but the idea that a married man can become priest in exchange, as it were, for only becoming a simplex priest has not ever occurred yet. Also, there have never been (practicingly) married priests in the West on a non-exceptional basis (where the exception usually means that the sacrifice of celibacy is made up for by the sacrifice of leaving one’s denominational home to come into the fold).

    I know this used to be the case for deacons, and it has been changed (pace Dr Peters); the Church chose to do so because she thought: “if I don’t, I won’t get any deacons other than seminarists, with the one or the other statistically negligible exception; but the deaconate is something worth having, and not only having in theory, but in practice”. I think this was the right choice w.r.t. deacons, though, let’s be clear, not at all one where the opponents wouldn’t have had arguments well worth pondering; and I should say there is a specific sanctity to the priesthood because of which this step should not here be taken.

    2. It would be both unjust and, in fact, unscriptural (see Mt 10,10) to give such a large and time-consuming office as you or the source you cite from seem to consider it to people on the express condition that they never receive a penny for it.

    (As you quoted: “celebrating Masses that you can’t cover yourself, helping distribute Communion, and bringing Communion to the sick. Other things such as teaching catechism are up to them […] more priests around to distribute holy Communion […] more priests to deliver holy Communion to the sick […] more priests to lead hours of the Divine Office […] more priests to offer personal instruction to catechumens”, and then perhaps a delegation for a wedding here and there, and of course all the in extremis calls where they would be able to hear the Confession.)

    A deacon can deacon the Mass he is going to anyway, and perhaps on the occasion write and speak a sermon for it; that is within the normal area of meritful commitment (or, if the phrase be not understood as criticism, a “hobby”). But what you or your source describe is a half-time job, even if the priest only says Mass on days of precept. (And should he?). Also, there is only so much and so much a man is able to do; he would have to cut his secular job down, if it was full-time before.

    (Yes, there are those with the gift of “hard work” as it is usually called, who work longer hours than others, and these efficiently. Yes – but while I don’t say they are worse people than others, I do observe they tend to be focused on doing one thing and apply all the hard work to that. You may find a man who works 80 hours a week in one job – but can you find one who works 40 hours in one job and other 40 hours in a second one while still being productive?)

    3. In the same vein: let’s not forget that Mass is “work to do”, even for the layman actuose participans, how much more for the celebrant. – In the same vein: you and your source speak of “of course apart from the Divine Office” in an aside, as if that were an aside. It is not. In fact, it would probably have to be lifted by dispensation (at least Matins and small hours).

    4. Would we want to give up the tradition that priests say Mass, if not on every day (which is the goal for the pious), then still on almost every day?

    5. As for distributing Holy Communion, the simplex priests would be no less departure from pre-Vatican II practice than the established (best-case) practice of using deacons and acolytes, or even EMHCs. If we want less EMHCs (which is a good goal), the thing to do is ordain acolytes. (If we expressly want “less lay distributors of Holy Communion”, then the thing to do is to make the acolytes clergy again, as they were unil 1970 or so.)

  15. Imrahil says:

    No, they have not “married”, the ideas, they have merit. Excuse the typo.

  16. Hidden One says:

    My principal qualm about the idea of simplex priests as described in the referenced blog post is this:

    In the old days, as I understand it, men like Bl. Solanus were made simplex priests because they weren’t able to be ‘non-simplex’ priests. They weren’t simplex because the Church needed priests; they were simplex because they themselves needed to not be non-simplex.

    If the plan you refer to was employed, a real percentage of the men who would potentially become simplex priests would in fact have the intellectual abilities and education (or potential for it) to have the standard set of faculties. Think of permanent deacons and married laymen who are presently theology professors, for example.

    Furthermore, how and why would the simplex phenomenon be limited to married men? What about celibates, widowers or not, for whom an apprenticeship seems preferable to leaving their well-paying or otherwise desirable careers in order to go to seminary? Will we lose–again–the religious brothers to the notion that all male religious should be priests, even if simplex ones? What happens to young men discerning who are confronted on one hand with the desire for marriage and the other the belief that they are called to the priesthood? Will we end up with a bunch of married simplex priests who should have been celibates with full faculties? We already (seem to me to) have married permanent deacons who didn’t answer their call to the celibate priesthood.

  17. The reason for proposing the change, Taborda said, is because the bread normally used in Latin rite Masses turns into a pasty mush during the Amazonian rainy season due to the intense humidity, meaning “it’s not bread, and if it’s not bread, it’s not the Eucharist.”

    What hooey! You’d think that refrigeration had never reached South America. I live in Washington, D.C., where you can nearly swim your way from the White House to the Capitol during July, and we don’t seem to have a problem with Communion wafers turning to mush.

    Besides, although breads made with yuca and tapioca flour are extremely popular in in a lot of those Amazonian countries (and they sound delicious), people there actually bake everyday breads with wheat flour as well; sopaisillas, little leavened wheat flatbreads, are quite popular in many South American countries. Somehow, they don’t turn into mush before people wolf them down. Furthermore, why are Communion hosts made with wheat suddenly a problem now? Catholicism arrived in Latin America 600 years ago, and Catholics there somehow did fine with wheat hosts for all those centuries.

  18. The Egyptian says:

    we have many deacons around here that serve for little or no pay, all are retired gentlemen with kids gone and income secured OTOH our cluster is blessed with one that demanded a mid 5 figure RAISE on top of the liberal 5 figure salary already paid, he is retired from a lucrative marketing job and demanded to be payed according to what he was worth in the private sector. Parish counsel informed Fr that if he paid that the parish would revolt, now Deacon is having a hissy fit and doing as little as possible till his obligation is done, what is more just. Money it’s a funny thing
    “helping distribute Communion, and bringing Communion to the sick. Other things such as teaching catechism ”
    all done for no pay now by lay people so different?

    as far as masses we have 2 priests, one retired getting close to 80 covering 5 parishes. They trade off weekday masses 1 per day rotating parishes so each parish gets one weekday mass and cover 2 vigil and 3 Sunday masses, so yes they could use help, although why only one mass per day on weekdays I don’t understand.
    “the thing to do is to make the acolytes clergy again, as they were until 1970 or so.)”
    as for #5 AMEN
    also the facts are there should never be communion conga lines
    would solve many problems with communion lines

    seems there are many facts both ways and yes at one time priests were married, but the change happened many centuries ago, does not make it wrong or right, after all someone decided that since some where some time or other, although not documented well Mass was said facing a congregation it was deemed wise to upset centuries of custom and force the turning of altars and the installation of Cranmer tables plus the insistence of Meal not Sacrifice, didn’t make it right, but it was done.
    BTW I didn’t write the piece only posted it our of interest and discussion, some of the priests I have encountered in my life would be considered simplex

  19. Moro says:

    With all the insanity under Francis, it wouldn’t surprise me if they decide to have “mass” with funfetti cupcakes and grape flavored artificial “juice” said to a tranny married to “his” husband.

  20. Mightnotbeachristiantou says:

    The Egyptian
    That seems quite reasonable to me except not allowing for baptisms. Anyone baptized, under the corrcet form, can baptise another as long as thy use the correct form.

  21. JustaSinner says:

    I get the humidity issue, but the white Communion Wafers that are pressed in a 100,000 ton machine press are so solid, they barely dissolve in a glass of water. Some ‘uppidy-ness’ detected?

  22. cajunpower says:

    The yucca-rist is an absurd proposal. It almost seems like something you’d propose as a term that can be “negotiated” out, so as to allow your other demands to be met…

    Although I believe that it is theoretically possible, and not necessarily objectionable, to ordain married men to the priesthood, given the times we live in that would clearly be unwise. As we know from experience, the “exception” for married priests would quickly become the rule.

    Further, every aspect of our faith that does not conform to modern sensibilities is under attack on all fronts. Giving in would be a surrender, whether intentional or not. Now is not the time for capitulation in any form.

    Finally, it does not appear to me that there’s been a robust effort to generate more vocations. If we need priests in the Amazon region that we’re willing to discard a doctrine that the Pope himself has declared he wouldn’t abrogate out of fear for having to answer to the Lord for having done so (although this was perhaps a Peronist lament), shouldn’t we make an effort to raise enough vocations under the current discipline before we abrogate it? Seems lazy, at best.

  23. hwriggles4 says:

    There was some short discussion about two years ago (i.e. rumors from Rome) about allowing some deacons becoming priests for remote areas. Some conditions included these deacons being empty nesters, wives would have to agree, and this would be a case by case basis. I could see this in a place like Wyoming or west Texas, which are remote areas. One positive is men are living longer, so I could see for some deacons a second career vocation. Other things to consider are health, education (some deacons would have to have additional coursework – some deacons have a Theology degree and some have an M.Div.) , children are grown and on their own, wife is supportive, wife’s health, location, employment (several deacons I know, even those between 55 and 66, were able to take an early retirement from a 9 to 5 job, which gives them more time to devote to the diaconate), to name a few. If a deacon is a widower, the deacon may be able to become a priest (that’s up to his bishop). Either way, this is something that won’t be approved overnight.

  24. The Masked Chicken says:

    Okay, this makes me mad. Instead of the stupidity of trying to replace wheat with Yuca, have they even tried to find a solution? Refrigeration may or may not work because of water condensation issues on the hosts with regular refrigerator temperatures and the possibility of corruption of consecrated host by ice crystals if frozen, but there is a perfectly easy solution used in labs, every day – a desiccator. It is a clear thick-walled glass or polycarbonate container. One puts a desiccant, such as anhydrous CaCl2 in the bottom and puts the hosts in a plastic bag on the rack above. It keeps the humidity very low.
    No, these prelates aren’t even trying to find an answer that doesn’t compromise the matter of the Eucharist. This is contemptable behavior and I am appalled. Everyone should show them that a perfectly good solution exists.


    The Chicken

  25. JonPatrick says:

    Amazon summit? Why are we having a summit on an Internet mail order company? Or is it female warriors? (I thought at first it was about women who wanted to become priests, perhaps they are becoming more aggressive). Oh it’s that Amazon.

  26. The Masked Chicken says:

    My comment, above, was a little too vitriolic. Sorry.

    The Chicken

  27. Amerikaner says:

    Unleaved bread is used in the Latin Rite. However leavened bread is used in the Catholic Eastern Rites as well as with the Orthodox and is considered valid for consecration.

    As the requirement that the host be comprised of wheat in the Latin Rite is defined in Canon Law, is this only a canonical requirement? Or is this somehow dogmatically stated that it must be this way for validity? If it is tradition (small T) for it to be so, can it be changed as part of practice?

    An option might be to have Yucca flour with a small amount of wheat flour. Similar to how very low gluten is allowed for valid matter currently. ??

    I would like to know how much of this is really an issue so I know how to approach the concept and how I feel about it all.

  28. Amerikaner says:

    And the link someone provided here in the comments on the idea of simplex priests is very, very interesting. I would like to see Fr. Z add a post on the idea with his thoughts. It seems like a plausible solution.

  29. Fr. Kelly says:

    The requirement to use bread made of wheat and water only and to use wine of grape only is a matter for validity of the Sacrament and goes all the way back to the beginning. If you had read Fr. Z.s post and the comments above, you would not have fallen into this error of considering it a matter to be ” defined in Canon Law” (Canon law doesn’t define it — that was done by Our Lord on Holy Thursday) or a matter of ” tradition (small T)”

    Re: your request to our host to treat of a proposal for simplex priests.
    That is, of course, up to him, but it is somewhat presumptuous to ask him to put together a post on what tickled your ears when you didn’t read carefully the post he did make and that you are ostensibly commenting on.
    The last line of this post is:
    “Anyway, no wheat… no Eucharist. Use of yuca would result in idolatry.”
    The matter of the Eucharist is not something that is open for rethinking.

  30. MrsAnchor says:

    Voting for Masked Chickens Idea…

    We already have everything in this world to facilitate changes Without altering our near 2,000 of teaching. We really don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
    Another Rite can administer to the Amazonians and hosts can be protected from humidity. Issue solved.

  31. Georgemartyrfan says:

    Question: In these remote areas, is there a shortage of men in general? It seems that if any discussion is to be had regarding a shortage of priests, the first thing to consider might be why these “remote areas” are unable to put forth candidates for the priesthood.

  32. comedyeye says:

    Maybe we can just send some humidors to South America?

  33. Ranger01 says:

    Synod this, synod that. Local bishop this, local bishop that.
    A little change here, a little change there.
    Wheat? Yuca? No problemo, santo padre. No es importante.
    Dear Jesus please come quickly.

  34. KateD says:

    Isn’t the Eucharist supposed to melt quickly with moisture, i.e. when we recieve It?

    We went to an OF Mass for Ash Wednesday while traveling. Oh Boy! They literally played a cowbell….the choir….not as a clapper substituted for bells…..A cowbell!

    I looked, it wasn’t Will Ferrall, either.

    My son said he saw a woman *take* the Eucharist in her hand and as as she turned he said she shut her hand around It and had a sinister smile which sent a chill down his spine. As he started to get up, the priest stoped distribution, turned to the woman and said, “Consume It now!” She glared and then did consume It. The priest then re-started distribution.

    Yep. I think the Eucharist made of wheat flour that deteriorates quickly is just fine. Mana didn’t last 24 hours.

    Chicken~No apology necessary. It’s a rooster’s job to crow when something is amiss.

    Mightnotbeachristiantou-Anyone can baptize, they need not even believe it themselves, as long as the one being baptized is sincere in desiring baptism and the proper matter (water) and form (“I baptise you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, etc.) are used. Easy breezy. My aunt (my stepfather’s sister) said that when she learned this as a child, she went around dunking all the kids at the public pool baptizing them, “I baptise you and I baptise you and I baptize you…” Lol…and then when her paternal grandmother was visiting, she threw a bucket of water on her while she was bathing and screamed “I baptise you…” As she ran away terrified of retribution, which only materialized as a half-hearted scold of, “don’t do that again, love” from her Irish-American mother choked with laughter. Obviously, despite her childhood zeal those “baptisms” we’re not valid, but had the desire been present~

    She still is as ardent in her faith, but now invites people to attend Mass or pray the rosary with her instead.

    Simplex priests: no.
    Smaller more faithful Church:yes!

    It means less frequent confession and reception of the Eucharist, and therefore will require us to grow more perfect in the practice of virtue…and isn’t it said that those Christians who will live in the end times will be among the most holy to ever have been? The remenant will have to be. I see evidence of the beginnings of that striking holiness and deep relationship with God now among some of the young people we come across. The enemy of Our Lord Jesus Christ sees it too, no doubt…hence the deepening of the attacks on family and the faith.

Comments are closed.