Diocesan newspaper says bells were rung to signal consubstantiation!?!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reclaim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neofight said:
Are you folks really going to lose sleep over this?
Click to expand...
Indeed. It’s just a typo. Ever since the changes to the translation of the Missal, I guess people have had “consubstantial” on the brain with regards to the liturgy. 😛

No disrespect to our Church Fathers who fought so hard over the term homoousios. :o But I doubt most will recognize the significance of the heresy they would be embracing by accepting that typo as an accurate representation of Catholic doctrine. 🤷
 
Yes, just a typo as demonstrated by the author using the term “consecration” in the next sentence.

The bells were also rung so the bell ringers in the tower had a signal to ring the church bells. Then all the town would know the consecration had just taken place.

I think it’s a lovely custom, perhaps because my parish does it, I don’t know. But when I go to a parish that doesn’t ring bells it seems somehow empty of due reverence. This is just my reaction, of course. Still, I think the custom good because it brings wandering minds back to the altar (let he who claims his mind never wanders cast the first stone 😉) and because it lends a aura of reverence to the Mass. 🙂
 
Della said:
Yes, just a typo as demonstrated by the author using the term “consecration” in the next sentence.

The bells were also rung so the bell ringers in the tower had a signal to ring the church bells. Then all the town would know the consecration had just taken place.

I think it’s a lovely custom, perhaps because my parish does it, I don’t know. But when I go to a parish that doesn’t ring bells it seems somehow empty of due reverence. This is just my reaction, of course. Still, I think the custom good because it brings wandering minds back to the altar (let he who claims his mind never wanders cast the first stone 😉) and because it lends a aura of reverence to the Mass. 🙂
Click to expand...
I really hope it’s a typo. This newspaper published a reaction to Summorum Pontificum that was just plain awful, and ripped apart by Fr. Zuhlsdorf. I even once picked up a copy of a “Catholic” magazine that said the Eucharist was truly Christ AND truly bread.

Things are still much better here than they used to be. I still remember arguing with a priest on the college campus (while I was still a Protestant) when he said that we need not believe in a “personal devil” – meaning that Satan is an actual entity.
 
Reclaim said:
I really hope it’s a typo. This newspaper published a reaction to Summorum Pontificum that was just plain awful, and ripped apart by Fr. Zuhlsdorf. I even once picked up a copy of a “Catholic” magazine that said the Eucharist was truly Christ AND truly bread.

Things are still much better here than they used to be. I still remember arguing with a priest on the college campus (while I was still a Protestant) when he said that we need not believe in a “personal devil” – meaning that Satan is an actual entity.
Click to expand...
I guess I would just opt for the route of presuming no ill will unless proven otherwise. It seems a natural mistake to make, particularly as those working for diocesan newspapers can have more training in the field of communications than in the field of theology. I suppose you could always submit a “Letter to the Editor” pointing out the mistake (under the charitable assumption that it was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to promote heresy). That could serve an educational purpose for all, which wouldn’t be a bad thing.
 
It really does not matter if somebody “meant ill.” It is an error and needs to be corrected. Martin Luther taught consubstantiation as opposed to transubstantiation. It has a completely different meaning. It means that the Body and Blood of Christ are “in, within, and under” the bread and the wine, which are still present. Transubstantiation is Catholic doctrine, and it means that the bread and the wine are no longer present after the consecration; only the Body and Blood of Christ are present despite the fact that they look, taste, feel, and digest like bread and wine. Yes, I do believe we have to get that right. Every second grade Catholic should know that. Anybody writing for a Catholic paper should not be so sloppy. No, this is not “unimportant” and it is not a “natural mistake to make”.
 
Thank you, Blueberry. The whole article was insulting, but heresy should be corrected.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Indeed. It’s just a typo. Ever since the changes to the translation of the Missal, I guess people have had “consubstantial” on the brain with regards to the liturgy. 😛
Click to expand...
So much for vernacular being able to make things more understandable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top