That's the question! It would help me in a debate I'm in at the moment. I'll give you guys the details later. :)

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004

Answers

Response to Did the Catholic Church ever teach that leavened bread was invalid matter _before_ the Council of Florence?

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), August 25, 2004.

Response to Did the Catholic Church ever teach that leavened bread was invalid matter _before_ the Council of Florence?

The simple answer is NO. The Catholic Church has never taught that levened bread was invalid matter. The developed concept of "valid" versus "licit" happened in the 1100s among the canonists. By that time, the [Western] Catholic Church had been in union with Easterners who used levened bread and out of union with others. No official statement of an Ecumenical Council (e.g. the "unionist" councils of the 13th century) required use of unlevened bread. Nor, as you know, did the Council of Florence. At the time of the so-called schism of 1053 (which actually resulted in no formal denials of communion by either easterners or westerners), Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida did, in his invalid (because the pope who commissioned him was dead) excommunication of the patriarch of Constantinople call the Greeks "Prosmymite" hereitcs, i.e., those who use unlevened bread, but it would be absurd to call his invalid excommication an "official" Catholic decree. And even he never said their Eucharist was "invalid"--at term that did not exist at that time. So the Catholic Church has never officially called use of levened bread "heretical" or "schismatic" ipso facto, or even "illicit" (except in the Latin Rite). Nor do they today forbid its use, since all the Eastern Rites use levened bread.

-- An orthodox observer (notme@antispamster.org), August 27, 2004.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Observer. My debate, now over, was with someone arguing that the Church has the authority to allow non-wheat bread, because (so he said), the Church "changed" the practice of only-unleavened-bread at the Council of Florence. He accused the Church of "having its cake and eating it too"--i.e., claiming authority over the matter of the Eucharist one moment, and denying it has such authority the next.

Of course, no such change took place. As leavened bread was never declared illicit before the Decree of Unity, there is no analogy between the recognition of valid leavened bread, and the recognition of non-wheat bread (which he advocated).

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 29, 2004.

(Yes, after a long absence, I have returned. See my post on "How to speak to Catholics if you aren't one.")

On the topic of communion bread.... My sister in an Evangelical, attending a non-denominational church. She recently complained to me that her church has taken to using oyster crackers and grape koolaid for "communion" and how she thinks that's sac-religious. I asked her why (since her church only teaches that it is a symbol) would it offend her. She didn't know why it offended her but she said it seemed to cheapen the experience. We then had a nice conversation about the Eucharist, which opened her eyes to a few things. Oyster crackers....can ya believe it? :0)

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), September 08, 2004.

Welcome back Victoria.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 08, 2004.

Hurray for postmodernism. :)

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), September 08, 2004.

There is no such thing as “a non-denominational church”. If this church teaches a set of beliefs including that its “communion” is only a symbol, and makes decisions on church practices including deciding what matter it will use for its “communion”, then it has its own particular denominational beliefs and practices. Some denominations call themselves "non- denominational" merely so they can dishonestly convert people to their own denomination, while pretending not to.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 08, 2004.

I always thought the term "non-denominational" always referred to single, independent churches--like "Mom and Pop" stores as opposed to chain stores. They can be large wealthy "megachurches" or small home-sized ones, but there is no "chain of command", as there is with the major denominations. I don't know how the Evangelicals fit into that definition.

Is my understanding wrong?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 09, 2004.

Your understanding isn't wrong. Such "independent" churches use the label "non-denominational" to indicate that they are not affiliated with or under the authority of any larger body. However, the label is not really accurate. As Steve indicated, a denomination is defined by its set of professed beliefs and acceptable practices; and that is true whether the denomination is represented by thousands of individual churches nationally, or by just one.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 09, 2004.

Well, I also think of non-denominational churches, big or small, as being able to change their beliefs/practices pretty much on a whim--as in every time the pastor changes. There is not the consistency you see in the mainstream denominations.

But, I apologize for getting off topic.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 09, 2004.

Forgot to add also "non-denominational" in the sense of all-inclusive, as when they'd have local clergy from the various (usually Christian, but also from synagogues too) at high school graduation ceremonies--well, before the PC types stopped it.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 09, 2004.

GT, I have no objection to the word "non-denominational" to describe a ceremony like that (though I would prefer "ecumenical"). But I still maintain there is no such thing as "a non-denominational church". If it's not affiliated with any other congregation they should call it that - "non-affiliated" or "independent".

"change their practices on a whim"? Only within certain well- defined limits. I can imagine the reaction if a Catholic or Orthodox went in to one of these so-called "non-denominational" church buildings and tried to perform a Sacrament, or even say the Rosary. Or if a Catholic or Orthodox priest (or even an Episcopalian "priest") applied for the job of the new pastor.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 14, 2004.

Yes, "ecumenical" is a much better word, thank you, Steve! I can usually tell by the name of the church whether it is "non-denominational" or not.

Compared to the Catholic Church, yes, they can "change on a whim", lol

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 14, 2004.

Most "non-denominational" churches in our area practice along the lines of Assembly of God or Church of God or Penicostal beliefs. I went to a service as a kid with a friend and was scared half out of my wits. They began to speak in toungs and shout and the , I am supposing, deacons were going around and touching the people and the people would fall out and look as if they were having a seizure. I know what the belief is all about now as an adult, but as a kid that has never seen it before, it can be a scarry experience. I have found that most of these churches TRY to incorparate the beliefs of ALL protestant churches into one. My sister also goes to one, and I am trying to convert her.

A Catholic priest applying for the position in one of those churches? Hmmmmm.....I had to picture that for a few minutes and the picture I had in my head for a very brief moment was quite humerous. After that brief moment of humor I realize how blessed we truly are to be part of the true church. Our beliefs and our faith don't change to suit what ever way the wind blows, and THAT my friends is a happy thought !

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 14, 2004.

“I have found that most of these churches TRY to incorparate the beliefs of ALL protestant churches into one.”

Actually, the majority of protestants, even in the USA, reject these Pentecostal/AOG beliefs and practices such as “talking in tongues and shouting”, and what the Pentecostal/AOGs call “being slain in the spirit” as you describe. What these so-called “non-denominational” churches teach and practice is, far from being all-embracing, in fact a very narrow minority strand of the protestant movement. (And of course the whole protestant movement itself is only a small minority. All protestant sects combined make up only 10% of all Christians.)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.