3 ms·

Canon law itself is rather laconic on the ingredients to be transsubstantiated: > Can. 924 > §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with brea

Canon law itself is rather laconic on the ingredients to be transsubstantiated: > Can. 924 > §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed. > §2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling. > §3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled. https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann879-958_en.html#Art._3 https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docume....

tenpies 3y ago
An interesting point regarding Catholic Canon Law is that there is a distinction between validity and liceity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_and_liceity_(Catholic_Church) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_and_liceity_(Catholic... To a casual reader, it may seem the "valid" and "licit" are nearly interchangeably in this article, but they are two different things and there are cases where an action is valid and illicit, or invalid, but licit. Canon 126 is also relevant for this particular case: > Can. 126 An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non[1] is invalid. Otherwise it is valid unless the law makes other provision. An act entered into out of ignorance or error, however, can give rise to a rescissory action according to the norm of law. This is part of why Catholicism does not view itself as legalistic despite having a well-developed code of law. In minor things, it is assumed that God gives the benefit of the doubt so mistakes made out of ignorance/error do not affect the validity of the action. This also helps with scrupulosity and splintering over minor things. --- [1] Latin for "an essential condition" or "something absolutely indispensable"

tenpies 3y ago

An interesting point regarding Catholic Canon Law is that there is a distinction between validity and liceity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_and_liceity_(Catholic_Church) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_and_liceity_(Catholic... To a casual reader, it may seem the "valid" and "licit" are nearly interchangeably in this article, but they are two different things and there are cases where an action is valid and illicit, or invalid, but licit. Canon 126 is also relevant for this particular case: > Can. 126 An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non[1] is invalid. Otherwise it is valid unless the law makes other provision. An act entered into out of ignorance or error, however, can give rise to a rescissory action according to the norm of law. This is part of why Catholicism does not view itself as legalistic despite having a well-developed code of law. In minor things, it is assumed that God gives the benefit of the doubt so mistakes made out of ignorance/error do not affect the validity of the action. This also helps with scrupulosity and splintering over minor things. --- [1] Latin for "an essential condition" or "something absolutely indispensable"