Changing the Words at Distribution of Communion

[newyorkcatholic]

I can’t find it anywhere but I suppose if one were receiving the consecrated Wine under the old formula it would be SANGUIS DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ANIMAM TUAM IN VITAM AETARNAM* with the understanding that SANGUIS is the Body AND Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

*loosely translated as “May the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul into eternal life.”

I think it does happen, for example for those suffering from severe celiac but who go to the EF. That’s probably what the priests say, but I don’t know of a source to confirm.

 

[Evan]

Making these things parallel obscures the fact that Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament in a very different way than He is anywhere else. I think it is very confusing and quite possibly is a factor in the reduced numbers who believe in the Real Presence.

Yes, you may be confused. But, via education, confusion can be turned into understanding. The beauty of Scripture, and the Church is that many things are true on many levels.

It is easy to say ‘This is why so few believe today’, but I have heard the lack of belief blamed on so many things. I’m going out on a limb here, I think the reason for lack of belief may be due to poor catechesis. But I could just as easily blame it on the many distractions in today’s world (tv, radio, computers, phones) or the disrespect of authority that came from our conflict in Vietnam (flower power etc) and now pervades our modern world.

OTOH, the Church retains a cadre of young people who are sincere, faithful, earnest, and in love with God and his Church.

In **SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM **
7. To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, “the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross” [20], but especially under the Eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes [21]. He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20) .

Christ indeed always associates the Church with Himself in this great work wherein God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified. The Church is His beloved Bride who calls to her Lord, and through Him offers worship to the Eternal Father.

Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.

From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which .s the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.

 

[floresco]

Yes, you may be confused. But, via education, confusion can be turned into understanding. The beauty of Scripture, and the Church is that many things are true on many levels.

It is easy to say ‘This is why so few believe today’, but I have heard the lack of belief blamed on so many things. I’m going out on a limb here, I think the reason for lack of belief may be due to poor catechesis. But I could just as easily blame it on the many distractions in today’s world (tv, radio, computers, phones) or the disrespect of authority that came from our conflict in Vietnam (flower power etc) and now pervades our modern world.

It is interesting that you quote Sacrosanctum Concilium to support your statement. Just a bit further on from the part you quoted, it says “In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”

One of the principles that the reform was supposed to use was that the liturgy should clearly express our faith. If it is so unclear that we are dependent on catechesis (catechesis that many people apparently are not receiving) to know what is happening in the Mass, this principle was not well implemented.

Using the same sort of language to talk about Christ’s presence in the Word and in the Eucharist does not express clearly the unique way that Christ is present in the Eucharist. It is a failure to follow what the Council called for.

 

[Evan]

It is interesting that you quote Sacrosanctum Concilium to support your statement. Just a bit further on from the part you quoted, it says “In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”

One of the principles that the reform was supposed to use was that the liturgy should clearly express our faith. If it is so unclear that we are dependent on catechesis (catechesis that many people apparently are not receiving) to know what is happening in the Mass, this principle was not well implemented.

Using the same sort of language to talk about Christ’s presence in the Word and in the Eucharist does not express clearly the unique way that Christ is present in the Eucharist. It is a failure to follow what the Council called for.

I like what you bolded. It goes to what I was saying. By using similar phrases (word of God, body of Christ) it “express more clearly the holy things which they signify”.

It is clearer now that before the use of the vernacular. But I’m sure there could be clearer ways to express it. However, we want mass to not just be targeted at 5 years olds, but to contain a beauty that expresses our worship of the creator. Balancing these will always require catechesis outside of mass and vary from century to century.

One does not go to a concert to learn to write music. That is why we also have RCIA and why, since ancient times, we have had mystagogy. To teach the neophytes the truths hidden in the sacred mysteries.

 

[ProVobis]

But I’m sure there could be clearer ways to express it.

I think they did the best they could in English. But a lot of things get lost in translations, including the substance of the matter at hand. That’s why even lawyers have to stick with the Latin at times, so there is no misunderstanding going forward.

 

[floresco]

I like what you bolded. It goes to what I was saying. By using similar phrases (word of God, body of Christ) it “express more clearly the holy things which they signify”.

How does using similar words clearly signify that they are different? Similar words implies similarity. This is the opposite of the reality that is signified.

It is clearer now that before the use of the vernacular. But I’m sure there could be clearer ways to express it. However, we want mass to not just be targeted at 5 years olds, but to contain a beauty that expresses our worship of the creator. Balancing these will always require catechesis outside of mass and vary from century to century.

One does not go to a concert to learn to write music. That is why we also have RCIA and why, since ancient times, we have had mystagogy. To teach the neophytes the truths hidden in the sacred mysteries.

I am a convert to Catholicism and I went decades with an inadequate understanding of the theology of the Mass. I have always been involved in adult education, taking courses and joining discussion groups. But I figured that since the Mass was in English it was obvious what it meant, so this was not something that I needed to explore. I did not learn what really happens at the Mass until I read a Baltimore Catechism.

I do not think my experience is unusual. It leads me to think that this form of Mass is not doing a good job of expressing Catholic doctrine as called for inSacrosanctum Concilium. It also seems to indicate problems with post-conciliar catechesis that I needed pre-conciliar materials to understand basic Church teaching.

 

[Evan]

How does using similar words clearly signify that they are different? Similar words implies similarity. This is the opposite of the reality that is signified…

It should signify that they are the same: Christ coming to us in 2 forms: the Word and the Bread. There is only one Christ, in each case we experience him differently.

The word of God, truly is Christ’s teaching, we are hearing God’s voice in our heart if we have ears to hear.

The body of Christ, truly is Christ’s presence, we cannot behold him with our senses, only with our faith.

I am a convert to Catholicism and I went decades with an inadequate understanding of the theology of the Mass. I have always been involved in adult education, taking courses and joining discussion groups. But I figured that since the Mass was in English it was obvious what it meant, so this was not something that I needed to explore. I did not learn what really happens at the Mass until I read a Baltimore Catechism.

I do not think my experience is unusual. It leads me to think that this form of Mass is not doing a good job of expressing Catholic doctrine as called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It also seems to indicate problems with post-conciliar catechesis that I needed pre-conciliar materials to understand basic Church teaching.

I agree, I have been involved in RCIA and there seems to be little teaching, mostly an attemp to inculturate the catechumans into Catholic society. I have offered a class on the Catechism, but only 10 people came in a parish of 2000. … … … Disappointing.

 

[floresco]

It should signify that they are the same: Christ coming to us in 2 forms: the Word and the Bread. There is only one Christ, in each case we experience him differently.

The word of God, truly is Christ’s teaching, we are hearing God’s voice in our heart if we have ears to hear.

The body of Christ, truly is Christ’s presence, we cannot behold him with our senses, only with our faith.

The Bread and Wine really and substantially become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. This is unique and central to our faith. This is nothing like the way Christ is present in His Word. He is not substantially present in the Word. It is terribly confusing to talk about this being two forms of the same thing, especially when Transubstantiation is already so poorly understood.