There is almost no comment that can be made on THIS ARTICLE (from Catholic Exchange, originally from Catholic World News) that could adequately express the contemptible and farcical absurdity of the "demands" made by the folks at We Are Church to the current Synod in Rome. I literally laughed out loud.
Consider this paragraph from the article:
"At an October 4 press conference in Rome, the dissident group called
for reconsideration of the key Catholic doctrine on the
transubstantiation, an end to the "hierarchical monopoly" on the
sacraments, and approval of shared communion with other Christian
denominations."
Never mind that the dissidents seem to be demanding that the Catholic Church simply cease to exist.
What struck me is how much really hangs on the Real Presence. Look at their three main complaints and how they hang together. If Jesus is not really present in the Eucharist, then it doesn’t much matter who administers the Sacrament, and so there is no need for a "hierarchical monopoly" (the priesthood).
It follows also that, if the Eucharist is just a symbolic remembrance, it doesn’t much matter who is allowed to receive it. Sure, open it up to everyone, even non-Christians. After all, wouldn’t it be petty and mean to exclude anyone?
What, are these people just too fond of drink to become Baptists?
Oh, I forgot, that would involve believing in an inerrant and inspired scripture, and you know these folks’ brains are too highly evolved for that.
What they are asking, in a nutshell, is that we give up every distinguishing feature of the Catholic faith. I have no doubt that they, or those of their ilk, will eventually demand this of all religions. We will be allowed to keep everything except our most deeply held beliefs; after all, those are "divisive".
Well, this makes me especially happy that my last painting (above) honors the Eucharist. Anybody know how to say "This is my body" in Latin? That is how I would like to name the piece.
Tim,
This is my body is “Hoc est enim corpus meum” (at least, that’s the way it’s rendered in Latin in the consecration).
Beautiful painting!
pax,
scott
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM
I wonder why they just don’t leave the Catholic Church. Since they don’t believe in Catholisim why not move to a different faith?
Beautiful painting, Tim!
OK, I’ll ask again…Tim, WHEN are you going to sell your wonderful paintings, or at least have some sort of on-line gallery (with the possibility of purchase)?
Inquiring minds want to know…
‘thann
How big is the painting? Seriously, we could start a bidding war now…
What, are these people just too fond of drink to become Baptists?
Yeah, Baptists are too orthodox (more or less), but also too culturally foreign. Nevertheless this:
I wonder why they just don’t leave the Catholic Church. Since they don’t believe in Catholicism why not move to a different faith?
is a question that doesn’t seem to have an answer. It seems to me that the ECUSA would have room in their theology (or lack thereof), would welcome them with open arms, and would, from a purely liturgical perspective be great cultural fit. Go figger…
I’ll start the bidding at $100
Ah, this is MY favorite part of the article: “The group called for ‘full freedom of philosophical and theological interpretation of that mystery.'”
We all have full freedom of interpretation. We are free to reject Christ present in the Eucharist. We are free to leave the Church. We are free to go to Hell.
And that’s the rub, really. These WAC-jobs want to taint everything around them with their evil. They don’t want to leave Catholics free to practice their philosophical and theological Truth. And PLEASE tell me why these representatives always seem to be women? I’m a pretty brainy chick myself, but I don’t go around telling other people what to think.
WAC-jobs! I love it, Jean!
RE: “Hoc est enim corpus meum”
I’ve heard that this phrase, ‘mushed together,’ became ‘hocus-pocus;’ which was originally used by Protestants to mock the Catholic belief in transubstantiation (when the priest says the ‘magic words’ during Mass.) Anyone have any background on this?
(Apologies if this is too far off-topic.)
Jean: I think you’re right. They want to bring everyone down with them. They can’t stand the thought of having others not believing as they do.
re: hocus-pocus
I don’t think you are too far off of the mark:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hoc1.htm
“Hoc est enim corpus meum” is the translation used in the mass, but the Latin Vulgate recorded it as “Hoc est corpus meum”. Now you know.
Hey, these folks, the WACjobs mentioned above are bad enough but you ought to see what our own Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals are making speeches about at the Synod in their own rights. They will make you happy and they will leave you wondering if some of them even understand their own faith. And also just wonder where they come up with some of these ideas.
If you aren’t receiving reports in as subscriptions from VIS you can go to Vatican Information Services at the Vatican, check English and look at Past Week’s Services. As an example open 10/05/05 and see what they are saying. The good one is at the top w. a recommendation for returning to Bread on the tongue. The two wierd ones are:
1) (Bishop Lorenzo Voltolini Esti, Ecuador) Removing the Eucharist from being celebrated on Fridays in Lent or whenever requested, to make us more hungry for the Sacrament, supposedly. It is also possiblly, supposed to make us more interested in the Sacrament of Reconciliation by having the Eucharist unavailable. I hope he did not spend a whole lot of time burning his brain cells up dreaming this one up. It makes almost as much sense as the order of Reconciliation to Eucharist at a recent Miraculous Medal novena at a local parish. For some reason the priest celebrating Mass during the 9 days of the novena scheduled Reconciliation right after Mass, not before. Whatever.
And 2)(Archbishop JA Dew, NZ) to figure out how to allow more people who are “hungry for the Eucharist” to be able to receive it, thereby ignoring sinful situations they are in now and possibly allowing nonCatholics married to CAtholics to receive. Of course it is in the need to be pastoral don’t you know. Forget doctrine, sinfulness, lack of even being Catholic, all the legitimate reasons they are not allowed to receive now. We must be pastoral because they are “hungry for the Eucharist.” And no, I am not reading it wrong. But I really can’t believe what I am reading either, from Catholic hierarchy, our own Shepherds, who should know better.
Now I want it to be understood that I dearly love the Church and we have so many great teachers and shepherds in it. But I think we need to get St. Paul back on earth to run roughshod on some of ’em to get them straghtened out. They won’t listen to me. :=)
Someone asked:
“I wonder why they just don’t leave the Catholic Church. Since they don’t believe in Catholicism why not move to a different faith?”
The answer is because it IS the Catholic Church. If it was any other Church no one would pay any attention to them.
If you remember, the theologians you see on national TV are normally dissident Catholic theologians explaining what the Church is doing at any point in time. You rarely see any theologian of any Protestant denomination talking about it’s Church’s goings’ on.
In this case they are trying to bring down THE TRUE CHURCH that won’t bend to the secular humaninist manifesto . Because of this they get a certain amount of TV and radio time and plenty of ink. They wouldn’t get the exposure if they were “We Are Church” trying to change the doctrine of “The Community Church of Lee Street” in Hackensack, NJ.
However on the other side of this coin, the ECUSA does get some electronic and ink exposure when they, the hierarchy of the ECUSA installs another woman or ssa “Bishop or priest. It shows they are evolving and modern. That those who disagree are “outside the mainstream” and “intolerant.” And not loving, like they know Jesus intended them to be.
God bless.
1) (Bishop Lorenzo Voltolini Esti, Ecuador) Removing the Eucharist from being celebrated on Fridays in Lent or whenever requested, to make us more hungry for the Sacrament, supposedly. It is also possiblly, supposed to make us more interested in the Sacrament of Reconciliation by having the Eucharist unavailable. I hope he did not spend a whole lot of time burning his brain cells up dreaming this one up.
This doesn’t sound so incredibly wild to me. It reminds me of pre-Vatican II practice, when (in the West) the congregation did not receive the presanctified Gifts on Good Friday.
The Liturgy of the Eucharist is not traditionally celebrated among Christians on Good Friday, nor among Eastern Christians on any day other than Sunday during Lent (and especially not Wednesdays and Fridays). There is, instead, a “liturgy of presanctified gifts,” Communion from a previous day’s consecration.
Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia had to say about the Western Good Friday liturgy of presanctified Gifts in 1909:
Note the parts I italicized.
So basically, the bishop is proposing something somewhat similar to these past practices. He would not have a Liturgy of the Eucharist on any Friday during Lent, which is an old tradition of the Church, and the congregation would not receive the presanctified Gifts, which is a recent tradition of the Latin Church.
I’m not saying that I’d like to go back to that, but it’s not without some precedent in the Roman Rite of the Latin Catholic Church.
pha,
Thanks for the response. Glad to jabber with you.
I’m afraid you went to a lot of trouble pulling info from the Encyclopedia for nothing. What the Bishop is talking about is NO EUCHARIST AT ALL ON FRIDAYS DURING LENT OR ON OTHER FRIDAYS DURING THE YEAR AS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL BISHOP’S COUNCIL. That means NO Eucharist, No Mass, No Liturgy of the Word. Nothing.
What you are saying is that it we don’t have a Mass on Good Friday, only the one Friday of Lent there is no Mass and therefore no Eucharist.
(I have to go with your rememberence on the above because I just don’t remember the current normal Easter week observances. I know they are totally different from any other time of the year. I could look it up but am too lazy right now. :=) )
That when we were in the past using the pre-consecrated Eucharist, other times there wouid be a Mass of a kind with the Liturgy of the Word, no consecration, but a distribution of Pre-Consecrated Eucharist. That is effectiveley still a Mass of sorts and there is A EUCHARIST.
Now the reason this Bishop is saying that he wants to withhold the Eucharist on Fridays of Lent and/or other Fridays is to make the people hungry for the Eucharist. He is talking about increasing interest and desire for the Eucharist.
But there is a problem. They aren’t going to Mass on Fridays anyway so would not even notice that it is not there. The only people he will be making hungry for the Eucharist are the few faithful daily communicants that already really believe in the Church and the Real Presence and are interested in not only their souls but others too.
Just think about it. You enjoy McBurgers but only get to go the McBurger store once a week. After Mass on Sunday. Well, the manager of the McBurger store notices that people are not eating enough of his McBurgers and says to his people you don’t need to come in to work on Fridays any more. We aren’t selling enough McBurgers so I’m going to try to make people more hungry for McBurgers by not selling them on Fridays. Tell me. How is that going to affect you? On Fridays when you normally don’t go to McBurger’s store, are you all of a sudden going to get a gigantic hunger pang and tell your boss you are going to quit your job if you don’t get to go get your McBurger? I don’t think so!
That is what I was getting to. If the Bishop wants to increase interest and hunger in the Eucharist, he has to instill into the flock that it is something they MUST have. He must instill in the Eucharist the mystery that it really is. He Must instill in them that it really is the REAL PRESENCE. And that after they have recieved it that they are now basically the monstrance that sits on the altar during Eucharistic Adoration that those who come to Adoration, get down not on one knee to genuflect but both knees because Christ is really there.
It’s funny. After some people receive the Eucharist in the hand and put it in their mouth, they will stop a step or two from where they received it, turn toward the altar and make the sign of the Cross, I guess, in reverence to Christ which was on the altar during consecration. It surely can’t be the altar could it? Anyway, by their doing that it makes you think that they don’t even realize that they have Christ in their own bodies. They don’t need to do anything toward anything else becasue He is with them already.
Just a thought.
God bless.
I know it is late in the day to put my two cents in but, the Benedictine Monks at the Priory of Weston in Vermont totally scandalized me with their talk of declericalizing the Church. This WACjob stuff sounds like the same thing.
What motivates them is a desire to make everyone special (as if they are not already). I quote the Incredibles:
“Saying everyone is special is just another way of saying no one is.”
Whit, I think your burger analogy was perfect.
The solution is not to take away the Eucharist from people who wouldn’t miss it anyway. The solution is to enflame their hearts with love so that they desire to receive more often. That will probably have to start with some homiletics that are both stirring and doctrine-filled. A tall order, I know, but we’re really talking about re-catechizing the last two generations of Catholics, and the priest’s ONLY chance to do that is at Sunday Mass.
(Side note: one priest I knew made a brilliant point at daily Mass many years ago: If we knew the priest was going to hand us a $100 bill every time we went to Mass, we’d be there every day. What we actually get is so much better than a $100 bill, so why aren’t we there very faithfully?)
But back to re-catechizing two generations– the priest only gets Sundays. We, on the other hand, have 24/7 to rub elbows with the common man and the Catholic in the pew. I think we the laity, in the TRUE spirit of Vatican II, need to get off our collective behinds and start getting the word out among family and friends. We need prayer, mortification, and then talking the talk and walking the walk.
Sorry to rant, I’m just in a mood. 🙂
Margret,
you are right on! I think that especially here with the church as it is in the US we need to reeducate people about the basics of this faith they claim to believe in. I’m sick and tired of Homilies which do nothing but give us fluffy talk about how much Christ loves everyone of us and that we should just be sweet and nice to each other. Let’s talk about Confession, about Marriage let’s talk about what the readings really really talk about. I’m not saying that there aren’t great priests and bishops over here, I know quit a few I just think rock, but the more and more I see of the way things are nation wide and world wide, the more frustrated I get. You’re right Margret, we need prayer, plenty of rosaries and we need to start speaking up.
I’m afraid you went to a lot of trouble pulling info from the Encyclopedia for nothing. What the Bishop is talking about is NO EUCHARIST AT ALL ON FRIDAYS DURING LENT OR ON OTHER FRIDAYS DURING THE YEAR AS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL BISHOP’S COUNCIL. That means NO Eucharist, No Mass, No Liturgy of the Word. Nothing.
I understand what he said. Here’s the actual wording, to eliminate any possible confusion:
I was pointing out the similarity of his suggestion to some past practices. I know there are differences. I never said otherwise.
What you are saying is that it we don’t have a Mass on Good Friday
No, let me clarify:
Eastern Christians, traditionally, have no liturgy with consecration on any day except Sundays during Lent, and especially not on Wednesdays and Fridays. They have instead a liturgy of presanctified Gifts, which is like Vespers combined with a Communion service.
In the West, the liturgy of presanctified Gifts was limited to Good Friday. In recent history, the presanctified Gifts were limited to the priest and the congregation received nothing.
So traditionally, in both East and West, there is no Liturgy of the Eucharist on Good Friday. In the East, there’s no Liturgy of the Eucharist on any Friday during Lent. In the West, in very recent history, the congregation did not receive the Eucharist on Good Friday.
So when you say “no Eucharist at all on Fridays during Lent… That means NO Eucharist” that’s exactly what Latin Church parishioners got on Good Friday every year in the early 20th century: No Eucharist.
And when you say “No Mass,” this has precedent, because there have always been days in both East and West without it. A liturgy without a Liturgy of the Eucharist, like the liturgies of presanctified Gifts, is not (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) really a Mass: “This is not a Mass in the strict sense of the word, as there is no consecration of the sacred species.”
And when you say “No Liturgy of the Word. Nothing,” you’re going beyond what the bishop actually said.
And when you say “when we were in the past using the pre-consecrated Eucharist, other times there wouid be a Mass of a kind with the Liturgy of the Word, no consecration, but a distribution of Pre-Consecrated Eucharist,” your words seem to suggest that the congregation received the Eucharist on Good Friday in the recent past. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, they did not. Only the celebrant received. The congregation did not receive the Eucharist on Good Friday at all.
Do I want the bishop’s suggestion to be implemented? Not personally. But it’s futile to pretend that it’s entirely without precedent.
It’s funny. After some people receive the Eucharist in the hand and put it in their mouth, they will stop a step or two from where they received it, turn toward the altar and make the sign of the Cross…. It surely can’t be the altar could it?
Yes, it is! Traditionally, all Christians are supposed to bow or make some sign of reverence to the altar, even when there is no tabernacle, monstrance, or Eucharist anywhere nearby. A bow should be made to the altar whenever passing in front of it, except when in a procession. (During the liturgy there are times when the rubrics actually require priests to venerate the altar.) The altar is consecrated to the Lord and, traditionally, contains relics of saints.
pha,
You are driving me nuts. You are arguing to be arguing. I’m glad you went to the article/speech and pasted it so everyone could see it but you are totally ignoring my point as to the Bishop’s speech and his intention for presenting his idea in the first place.
I’m not going through it all again trying to make you understand. Go back up and read it again. Maybe you’ll get it the second time.
As to your comment about it being normal to make the sign of the Cross when passing the altar at Communion. You are ignoring what I am talking about there too. Sure the altar is important but you have GOD in your mouth, your body. Your attention should be there, not the altar. This is the apex of the whole celebration. And in many cases after receiving the Precious Body and it is in your mouth you are heading to an extraordinary minister to receive the Precious Blood. And I think it ridiculous that you feel it important to stop and pay any attention to the altar.
Also, here in the US, many parishes put out rules that state that you are not supposed to genuflect or receive the Precious Body and/or Blood from a kneeling position. They say you are supposed to bow prior to receiving but in order ot hurry things along, they ask you to do your bowing behind the person who is actually receiving either the Precious Body or Blood. We must keep things moving, you know.
Remember I said that in effect after receiving the Precious Body, we are like the Monstrance at Adoration. Well, when we go to Adoration, we go in and are supposed to genuflect before the monstrance on both knees in reverence to the Real Presence. They don’t say a darn thing about paying any attention to the altar at all. That’s the way it should be when receiving Communion. The altar is an artifact, a tool. The Real Presence is what you are supposed to have your attention on and it is in your body.
I hope you understand my points. God bless you.
Whit
Parishes don’t “put out rules” at all. Rules come from the diocesan bishop. It is normative to venerate the altar, which symbolically represents Christ.
BD,
If the parishes did not make their own rules we would not be having so many liturgical abuses to contend with. And FYI, that is part of what the Synod in Cologne is discussing. While some of the problem IS with some dioceses’, often times the diocese does not even know about it until one or more of the laiety advise them of it. But you knew that anyway didn’t you?
As to your next point. Please provide the relevant cite stating that the Altar “symbolically represents” Christ. I could be wrong but I sure don’t remember anything about an altar “symbolically representing” Christ in any way. It does deserve a certain amount of reverence at the appropriate times, yes. but in the situation to which I am referring, NO. And even IF the Altar “symbolically represented” Christ why would anyone be expected to even be cognizant of the altar when they have the real thing, God Himself, in their bodies and more probably their mouth since they just received it? GIRM reference please.
God bless.