rye bread is the kind of bread that you use for reuben.
what kind of bread do you use for reuben?
rye bread
bullet::::- a reuben sandwich is a hot sandwich of layered meat, sauerkraut and swiss cheese, with a dressing, usually russian or thousand island dressing, that is grilled between slices of rye bread. the origins of the reuben sandwich is disputed. the earliest claim of inventing the reuben sandwich comes from omaha, nebraska, in 1925 when ukrainian-american grocer reuben kulakofsky fed players in a late-night poker game at the blackstone hotel in downtown omaha. the owner of the hotel was so taken with reuben's sandwich that he put it on the hotel restaurant menu, designated by its inventor's name. it wasn't until 1956 when a waitress at the blackstone named fern snider entered reuben's sandwich in a national sandwich competition, one of the earliest documentations given to the name of the sandwich. another story is that the reuben sandwich hails from new york city. arnold reuben, who opened his deli counter in manhattan in 1928, has been claimed to have invented the reuben "eleven years earlier as a sandwich stand in atlantic city."
timeline of united states inventions (1890–1945)
life needs material nourishment to increase in quantity and to maintain the body. spiritual effects are given under the likeness of things that are visible, hence are given the appearance of things men commonly use for bodily nourishment. these are bread and wine. he who begets is joined to the begotten in a way. the nourished and the nourishment are joined. it is the spiritual mystery that unites the eucharist to us. john 6, 56: "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." john 6, 61: "this saying is hard, and who can bear it?" so it is with the heretics who put themselves at odds with the teaching of the church. matthew 26, 26 "this is my body." it should be noted that he did not say, "this is a sign or representation of my body." yet some heretics disclaim the truth of the presence of christ in the eucharist. to some, it appears scandalous to eat the flesh and drink the blood of christ. john 6, 64: "the words i have spoken to you are spirit and life." a thing begins to be where it was not before in two ways: 1.) by local motion; 2.) conversion of something into itself. manifestly, the body of christ ascended into heaven, hence cannot be always on the altar. it does not seem possible to some there is a new conversion of another into itself on the altar. in a similar manner, a thing cannot be moved from one place to another without ceasing to be in the original place. therefore, it seems to some that christ must cease to be in heaven when he is on the altar. it seems impossible to some that the large body of a man could be contained in the host used in the eucharist. it is also hard to understand how the body of christ can be present simultaneously, on many altars at once. another stumbling block is the appearance of the bread and wine. the accidents of color, taste, figure, etc. remain. aristotle "the being of an accident is by inheritance." another problem occurs from the fact that the action and passion of the bread and wine are unchanged after the consecration. another problem occurs in the breaking of the bread, for it seems to some that the fragment of the bread cannot contain the whole body. this would be as if a man lost an arm or leg, his whole being would be contained in the portion. it is true that the teachings of the church about the eucharist are difficult. divine power operates in this sacrament with great secrecy and sublimity. it is beyond the ability of man to search it out. the conversion occurs by a divine mode, and is not natural (in the way we understand it) in any way. air can be converted to fire. this is called a formal conversion. but in the conversion of the eucharist, a subject passes over into a subject without a change in the accidents. this is called "substantial". it was wise of christ to assume the form of bread and wine, since it would be horrible for the believers to consume a real human body and blood. furthermore, it would be an abomination for those watching to observe such a thing. there is a real conversion which takes place: "this is my body...this is my blood." his body is contained in the bread by the force of conversion, while the blood is a natural accompaniment. under the appearance of wine, the converse is true. the body of christ is not related to place, with its own dimensions as a medium. in the body of christ, his own dimensions exist in one place only, but through the mediation of the dimensions of the bread passing into its places are as many as there are places in which this sort of conversion is celebrated. it is not divided into parts, but is entire in every single one. every consecrated bread is converted into the entire body of christ. the body and blood of christ is not affected by the accidents of the bread and wine. it is not impossible that divine power can affect the subject without changing the nature of the accidents. in this sacrament he conserves the accident while changing the substance. according to aristotle, the platonists held that this was not possible. but it is clear that god can do more in operation that the intellect of man can comprehend. the body and blood are contained under the appearance. aristotle: "position is the order of parts of the whole... quantity is that which has position... with the quantity gone, all substance is indivisible." since we hold that in this sacrament the measurements subsist of themselves and that the other accidents are founded on these as on a subject, we need not say that accidents of this kind are not individuated; for there persists in the measurements themselves the root of individuation. in this sacrament, the accidents of the bread and wine persists. concerning passions (such as those which take place in the alterations of accidents of this kind), the difficulty is not hard to understand if the premises are granted. the difficulty occurs regarding the generation and corruption which seems to take place in this sacrament. if enough quantity of this sacrament were to be consumed, one could be nourished, and even made drunk. i corinthians 11, 21: "one indeed is hungry and another is drunk." it is amazing that some would claim that the bread and wine could not be converted into the body and blood of christ, when we know that by putrefaction and combustion, this same bread is converted to dust and ashes. however, the substance of a thing should not be confused with the accidents. combustion and putrefaction are not miracles, but the normal order of nature. the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ is miraculous. the final difficulty is that whereby every portion of the bread contains the whole christ. we should not seek the solutions in terms of mediating dimensions. for every drop of water contains the nature and species of water. the whole soul is in every part of the body. therefore, the breaking of the bread does not affect the dimensions of the whole body of christ. ultimately, the eucharist should be viewed from this standpoint: nothing is impossible for god who can do all things. john 6, 64: "the words that i have spoken to you are spirit and life." we are to take this that there are certain spiritual foods given to us that are quite apart from earthly carnal foods. one properly calls wine the liquid expressed from grapes. we call bread that which is made from grain wheat. if an admixture is introduced, the nature of the bread or wine can be lost. it is not essential whether the bread be leavened or unleavened. st. gregory "the roman church offers unleavened bread because our lord took on flesh without any admixture. but the rest of the churches offer leavened bread, since the word of god was clothed with flesh, and is true god and true man, just as the leavened bread is mixed with paste." still, it is in greater harmony with the truth to use unleavened bread. i corinthians 5, 7-8: "christ our pasch is sacrificed. therefore, let us feast... with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." there are certain greek heretics who say that the sacrament cannot be offered with unleavened bread. however, in matthew 26,17; mark 14,12; luke 22,7, it is indicated that christ performed the first eucharist with unleavened bread. furthermore, it is clear that the use of unleavened bread is required by the old law (exodus 12,15). the greek arguments against the latin church for using unleavened bread are not based on scriptural interpretation. some use i corinthians 11,23 and john 18,28 to indicate that leavened bread was used in the first pasch. however, the old law was observed, and it is clear that unleavened bread would have been used at the last supper. all the gospels (matthew, mark, luke) indicate that the pasch was celebrated in accordance with the old law. it is clear that the latin church is reasonable in the use of unleavened bread.
thomistic sacramental theology