Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[TimothyH]

I think it’s both a blessing and a curse that some of the most active posters here are religious.

We laity have their great example of charity and we learn so much.

But it seems like most threads about the traditional Roman Rite become a discussion of Franciscan or Dominican spirituality with all the exceptions from the “rule” they entail, none of which applied to us laity.

I wouldn’t say that if this forum wasn’t intended for the express purpose of sharing our thoughts, and I mean it in the most respectfully manner possible.

I would say, rather, that they are the rule and we are the exception. There may be fewer religious in the world, but they are the backbone of the Church. The prayers of the religious who pray seven hours every day are what holds this world together.

When we go off on tangents and can’t decide how to hold our hands when we pray or if we should kneel or stand, when nations are raging and there are riots in the streets, it is the religious who have been doing the same thing day after day, week after week, praying for the world and having Mass for 800 or 1500 years.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Wasn’t Francis a Deacon?

That’s a battle between Franciscan historians and the laity. It is still unresolved.

There is nothing in the early history of the order that says that Francis was a deacon. There are references to him reading the Gospel one Palm Sunday and one Christmas. But this was not uncommon for abbots to do. Not all abbots were ordained.

It can be that he was a deacon or that he was treated as an abbot since he was the superior general. There are no documents that prove he was ordained and there are no other reported instances in which he exercises the diaconate, except for those two times.

The current hostility between lay historians and Franciscan historians is over this question. The Franciscans say that he may have been, but we have no proof. The lay historians say that the Franciscans are being anti clerical.

At the end of the day, most Franciscan superiors simply take the attitude of, “What difference does it make?” If he were ordained a deacon, it would not have happened until 1223. He died in 1226, but had founded the order in 1209. Most of his life he was not a deacon, if he was truly ever ordained a deacon. We just don’t know. There is no proof for or against.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Laity: We want our money back, literally

• PAX

At the current value of the Dollar, none of us is going to get much back.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Brooklyn]

The Church has always had deacons. In the Eastern Churches the permanent deacons were kept going.

In the Latin Church the permanent diaconate was lost and no one knows how or why. But there were always transitional deacons. You can’t be a priest or bishop unless you’re a deacon first.

 

[ringil]

That’s a battle between Franciscan historians and the laity. It is still unresolved.

There is nothing in the early history of the order that says that Francis was a deacon. There are references to him reading the Gospel one Palm Sunday and one Christmas. But this was not uncommon for abbots to do. Not all abbots were ordained.

It can be that he was a deacon or that he was treated as an abbot since he was the superior general. There are no documents that prove he was ordained and there are no other reported instances in which he exercises the diaconate, except for those two times.

The current hostility between lay historians and Franciscan historians is over this question. The Franciscans say that he may have been, but we have no proof. The lay historians say that the Franciscans are being anti clerical.

At the end of the day, most Franciscan superiors simply take the attitude of, “What difference does it make?” If he were ordained a deacon, it would not have happened until 1223. He died in 1226, but had founded the order in 1209. Most of his life he was not a deacon, if he was truly ever ordained a deacon. We just don’t know. There is no proof for or against.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thanks for that!

Well, that’s medieval history for you. Sometimes the sources are pretty scarce.

 

[JReducation]

As I said, there were no permanent deacons in the church when I was a kid. But I think you are probably going too farr when you say that Sister didn’t know about transitional deacons, but that’s the whole point, they were transitional. So in telling us that only priests are to touch a consecrated host, why would she even bring up deacons who were only transitional, especially to 7 year olds?

 

[curlycool89]

And there is some serious “not seeing the forest for the trees” going on here.

The rubrics call for reasonable measures to safeguard the Eucharist as befits the theology. ** I believe that folks are simply taking this issue of “fragments” too far**.

That’s what I meant to clarify.

If you really want to take it too far, you’d want to use a pressurized room and is pass the air coming out of the room through a filter which could later be dealt with just in case any dust, err I mean bread particles that are so small you can’t actually tell if it’s bread or dead skin, gets caught. The filter could be ashed (burnt) and the ashes disposed of properly

Although then you have the problem of airborne contaminants such as methane or radon or asbestos (in old parishes maybe) or other particulate matter (even smaller then 2.5 micrometers which can get into your alveoli) possibly getting on the hosts or in the wine during the Mass. Therefore the air coming in should also be filtered. I guess we can only hold Mass in special pressurized medical or technology (such as computer chip manufacture) laboratories then to ensure no contamination happens.

I’m being sarcastic just in case anyone’s wondering, but you could take this argument that far if you wanted to, especially when people want to argue that every little bit of bread and even the parts you can’t see are still the Eucharist (and small enough particles could become airborne, that’s not a joke). Or if people’s desire to safeguard the Eucharist got way out of hand (appropriate measure should obviously be taken. The part about airborne contaminants is not a joke, it’s a fact of life especially in the city).

I can take the example further if you’d like me to. The point is that the Eucharist (Real Presence) does not exist when you can’t identify the species (bread or wine).

We can look at why we have the Eucharist. “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. [T]he visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and **make present **the graces proper to each sacrament.” (CCC 1131). The Eucharist is Christ visible to us, if it is not visible then there’s no sign of grace. The Real Presence is made present to us to physically see, but if we can’t see it then what’s the point?

When we baptize, we use flowing water. You can’t use a little water droplet or beer or vinegar because you’ve lost the symbolism (baptism literally means to wash, sacramentally of course it means having original sin washed away).

When you have little pieces that you can’t tell are bread, you can’t tell it’s the Eucharist like you can when you see bread (that has been consecrated).

Really? I had always heard that St. Francis said it. I did a google search and got 316,000 results in which this quote is used. I got nothing when I did your quote.

Whichever, I think it is excellent advice. I still contend that people learn much more from our actions than our words. Again using a cliche (but it does get the point across), talk is cheap.

I guess it’s like “Beam me up Scotty” (which was never actually said in that exact way on Star Trek). Things that were never actually said that people are convinced was actually said and it’s become part of pop culture.

 

[ringil]

That’s what I meant to clarify.

If you really want to take it too far, you’d want to use a pressurized room and is pass the air coming out of the room through a filter which could later be dealt with just in case any dust, err I mean bread particles that are so small you can’t actually tell if it’s bread or dead skin, gets caught. The filter could be ashed (burnt) and the ashes disposed of properly

Although then you have the problem of airborne contaminants such as methane or radon or asbestos (in old parishes maybe) or other particulate matter (even smaller then 2.5 micrometers which can get into your alveoli) possibly getting on the hosts or in the wine during the Mass. Therefore the air coming in should also be filtered. I guess we can only hold Mass in special pressurized medical or technology (such as computer chip manufacture) laboratories then to ensure no contamination happens.

I’m being sarcastic just in case anyone’s wondering, but you could take this argument that far if you wanted to, especially when people want to argue that every little bit of bread and even the parts you can’t see are still the Eucharist (and small enough particles could become airborne, that’s not a joke). Or if people’s desire to safeguard the Eucharist got way out of hand (appropriate measure should obviously be taken. The part about airborne contaminants is not a joke, it’s a fact of life especially in the city).

I can take the example further if you’d like me to. The point is that the Eucharist (Real Presence) does not exist when you can’t identify the species (bread or wine).

We can look at why we have the Eucharist. “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. [T]he visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and **make present **the graces proper to each sacrament.” (CCC 1131). The Eucharist is Christ visible to us, if it is not visible then there’s no sign of grace. The Real Presence is made present to us to physically see, but if we can’t see it then what’s the point?

When we baptize, we use flowing water. You can’t use a little water droplet or beer or vinegar because you’ve lost the symbolism (baptism literally means to wash, sacramentally of course it means having original sin washed away).

When you have little pieces that you can’t tell are bread, you can’t tell it’s the Eucharist like you can when you see bread (that has been consecrated).

I guess it’s like “Beam me up Scotty” (which was never actually said in that exact way on Star Trek). Things that were never actually said that people are convinced was actually said and it’s become part of pop culture.

I totally agree with your post. It’s really a no-brainer.

And as an side note regading smells- if you can smell wine in the air- then wine is there- in the air. We don’t believe that Christ’s sacred body and Blood are dispersed into the air do we? Certainly not.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I can take the example further if you’d like me to. The point is that the Eucharist (Real Presence) does not exist when you can’t identify the species (bread or wine).

We can look at why we have the Eucharist. “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. [T]he visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and **make present **the graces proper to each sacrament.” (CCC 1131). The Eucharist is Christ visible to us, if it is not visible then there’s no sign of grace. The Real Presence is made present to us to physically see, but if we can’t see it then what’s the point?

To make the quote work as support of your argument, you have to equate “the graces” with “the Real Presence.” However, there is a difference between the graces of the Eucharist and the Real Presence. For example, if someone communicates unworthily, they are indeed receiving the Real Presence of Our Lord, but they are not receive the graces of the Sacrament (quite the contrary!). The Real Presence is not a sign of grace, it is the Real Presence. It is Real, not a sign.

When we baptize, we use flowing water. You can’t use a little water droplet or beer or vinegar because you’ve lost the symbolism (baptism literally means to wash, sacramentally of course it means having original sin washed away).

When you have little pieces that you can’t tell are bread, you can’t tell it’s the Eucharist like you can when you see bread (that has been consecrated).

You rightly point to the symbolism inherent in the baptismal rite. However, there is no symbolism with the Real Presence. The Host is not symbolic of Christ, the Host IS Christ. The more we believe this, the more we act accordingly, and the more we act accordingly, the more we believe it. It is the deep mystery of faith.

• PAX

 

[Like]

Really? I had always heard that St. Francis said it. I did a google search and got 316,000 results in which this quote is used. I got nothing when I did your quote.

Whichever, I think it is excellent advice. I still contend that people learn much more from our actions than our words. Again using a cliche (but it does get the point across), talk is cheap.

Just goes to show ya, don’t believe everything you find on the internet

That could also pertain to this forum.
316,000 to 1 (one)?

 

[curlycool89]

To make the quote work as support of your argument, you have to equate “the graces” with “the Real Presence.” However, there is a difference between the graces of the Eucharist and the Real Presence. For example, if someone communicates unworthily, they are indeed receiving the Real Presence of Our Lord, but they are not receive the graces of the Sacrament (quite the contrary!). The Real Presence is not a sign of grace, it is the Real Presence. It is Real, not a sign.

You rightly point to the symbolism inherent in the baptismal rite. However, there is no symbolism with the Real Presence. The Host is not symbolic of Christ, the Host IS Christ. The more we believe this, the more we act accordingly, and the more we act accordingly, the more we believe it. It is the deep mystery of faith.

• PAX

Actually, philosophically speaking the Eucharist is both. The Eucharist most definitely IS Christ, but the host is also a sign of Christ’s presence (a “Catholic And” answer if I do say so myself). I know that “sign” has really become a bad word when we talk about the Eucharist, but the word “sign” just means “something that points us to something else” (a one-to-one relationship in math-speak). The Eucharist points us to Christ because, even though it is Christ, it remains under the species of bread.

It’s a bit weird, but that’s because we don’t usually see people under the accidents of a worldly object like bread and wine. We have the Eucharist to remind us of the actual physical presence of Christ in the world because we’re human and seeing physical things helps us out (I can’t remember the number, but if I remember right most of our sensory information comes from seeing, something upwards of 90%). That’s one reason among many, which also makes the Eucharist a symbol (something that points to many things, or a one-to-many relationship), but of course the Eucharist is not merely symbolic (I guess we’ll call that the “Catholic And And”) The Eucharist is also a symbol of our need to be fed and our hunger and thirst for God and for the Wisdom of God. Catholic Online speaks about some of the symbolism in the Eucharist. To say that “it’s Jesus and gives graces and that’s it” actually does a great disservice to the Eucharist.

Before someone says “something can’t be a symbol and something else”, that’s just silly. When voting for the Meech Lake Accord (a proposed package of constitutional changes in 1987 in Canada) in Manitoba, MLA Elijah Harper raised an eagle feather with his “no” vote not just to indicate his vote but also as a symbol of Aboriginal opposition to the accord (it ultimately failed). It served a purpose (his vote as an MLA) but also represented other things.

 

[triumphguy]

I think it’s both a blessing and a curse that some of the most active posters here are religious.

We laity have their great example of charity and we learn so much.

But it seems like most threads about the traditional Roman Rite become a discussion of Franciscan or Dominican spirituality with all the exceptions from the “rule” they entail, none of which applied to us laity.

I wouldn’t say that if this forum wasn’t intended for the express purpose of sharing our thoughts, and I mean it in the most respectfully manner possible.

Maybe they have something important to say.

We have a Catholic Church with many important and valuable threads in the weave of the cloth.

The Church is not, nor has it ever been expressed in only one way.

Without the religious orders the Church we have today would not exist. The missionaries always precede the setting up of dioceses for example. The Franciscans were the first missionaries in the Western United States for example. Who called San Francisco San Francisco? Before there were diocesan priests in many places there were Franciscan Friars. Christopher Columbus was a Secular Franciscan!

So maybe the good Friar has something important to add.

The Church is not a porridge, it’s a rich stew.

 

[figs]

Maybe they have something important to say.

We have a Catholic Church with many important and valuable threads in the weave of the cloth.

The Church is not, nor has it ever been expressed in only one way.

Without the religious orders the Church we have today would not exist. The missionaries always precede the setting up of dioceses for example. The Franciscans were the first missionaries in the Western United States for example. Who called San Francisco San Francisco? Before there were diocesan priests in many places there were Franciscan Friars. Christopher Columbus was a Secular Franciscan!

So maybe the good Friar has something important to add.

The Church is not a porridge, it’s a rich stew.

I 2nd that

 

[rben20]

I agree Rich, although Brother J and Brother David help out a lot here. They add to the discussion from what I have seen. What would be interesting is if we got the opinions of a FSSP priest into the discussion around here. I would have my popcorn ready for someone like Fr. Kramer (video on another thread) saying what he said on video on these discussions boards.

 

[Rich_C]

I 2nd that

I got grumpy about derailing, my bad. People are responding like I attacked the value of the religious perspective, so I must have sounded grumpier than I intended; I actually tried to begin by affirming them.

Please forget I said anything about it.

 

[triumphguy]

I got grumpy about derailing, my bad. People are responding like I attacked the value of the religious perspective, so I must have sounded grumpier than I intended; I actually tried to begin by affirming them.

Please forget I said anything about it.

We all come across as Mr. Grumpy sometimes

 

[JReducation]

Did someone say “Grumpy?” I’m sorry I’m late. I had to get a drink.

Br. JR <------- raising hand to signal “Present!”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mike30]

Actually, philosophically speaking the Eucharist is both. The Eucharist most definitely IS Christ, but the host is also a sign of Christ’s presence (a “Catholic And” answer if I do say so myself). I know that “sign” has really become a bad word when we talk about the Eucharist, but the word “sign” just means “something that points us to something else” (a one-to-one relationship in math-speak). The Eucharist points us to Christ because, even though it is Christ, it remains under the species of bread. It’s a bit weird, but that’s because we don’t usually see people under the accidents of a worldly object like bread and wine. We have the Eucharist to remind us of the actual physical presence of Christ in the world because we’re human and seeing physical things helps us out (I can’t remember the number, but if I remember right most of our sensory information comes from seeing, something upwards of 90%). That’s one reason among many, which also makes the Eucharist a symbol (something that points to many things, or a one-to-many relationship), but of course the Eucharist is not merely symbolic (I guess we’ll call that the “Catholic And And”) The Eucharist is also a symbol of our need to be fed and our hunger and thirst for God and for the Wisdom of God. Catholic Online speaks about some of the symbolism in the Eucharist. To say that “it’s Jesus and gives graces and that’s it” actually does a great disservice to the Eucharist.

Before someone says “something can’t be a symbol and something else”, that’s just silly. When voting for the Meech Lake Accord (a proposed package of constitutional changes in 1987 in Canada) in Manitoba, MLA Elijah Harper raised an eagle feather with his “no” vote not just to indicate his vote but also as a symbol of Aboriginal opposition to the accord (it ultimately failed). It served a purpose (his vote as an MLA) but also represented other things.

I’m not really sure I understand exactly what you are saying, but as I understand it, transubstantiation states that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, BUT it appears to us to be bread and wine as our senses cannot perceive it in any other way. It does not remain brad and wine, it just looks that way to us. The way you described it sounds more like consubstantiation, understood by the Lutherans in which the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ BUT it is comingled with the bread and wine, existing in union in some way…

 

[curlycool89]

I’m not really sure I understand exactly what you are saying, but as I understand it, transubstantiation states that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, BUT it appears to us to be bread and wine as our senses cannot perceive it in any other way. It does not remain brad and wine, it just looks that way to us. The way you described it sounds more like consubstantiation, understood by the Lutherans in which the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ BUT it is comingled with the bread and wine, existing in union in some way…

I believe it was St. Augustine who put it this way: “The substance changes, the accidents remain the same”. The substance is the Body and Blood of Christ, the accidents are the bread and wine, which includes all the properties of bread and wine. That’s why celiacs can’t receive the host (because bread has gluten) and why it’s possibly to get drunk if you drink too much from the chalice (I can verify the latter, I’ve felt a little tipsy when asked to consume the rest of the Blood and there’s like half a chalice left. I’ve talked to others with similar stories). I’m pretty sure that if you too a consecrated host and put it under a microscope (not recommended for obvious reasons) you’d see bread, and that would not impact the Catholic understanding at all.

I’m not saying it’s not the Body and Blood of Christ (I’m saying the opposite actually), but that doesn’t mean it also can’t be a sign for us. They’re not mutually exclusive ideas, you can have both at once. It’s “both and”.

 

[Brooklyn]

Actually, philosophically speaking the Eucharist is both. The Eucharist most definitely IS Christ, but the host is also a sign of Christ’s presence (a “Catholic And” answer if I do say so myself). I know that “sign” has really become a bad word when we talk about the Eucharist, but the word “sign” just means “something that points us to something else” (a one-to-one relationship in math-speak). The Eucharist points us to Christ because, even though it is Christ, it remains under the species of bread.

I think this can be very confusing. It like saying my body is a sign of my soul. But my body and soul are completely intertwined. The bread and wine become Christ, they are not a sign of Christ. How can Christ point us to Christ? When you start saying that the Eucharist is a sign, people will tend to be much less reverent (although in some churches it doesn’t seem like it can get any less!). I think this is very shaky reasoning and could lead to wrong interpretation.