L
Laura_B
Guest
Hello:
I live in Southeast Michigan and the diocese of Saginaw publishes these “Little Books”, really good booklets with a six-minute meditation on Scripture on the right-hand page and a small item about some fascinating bits of Catholic trivia and history on the left-hand page. These booklets have become quite popular throughout southeast Michigan (I actually live in the Archdiocese of Detroit, not in Saginaw and know of many parishes here that use these booklets.)
At any rate, for today’s history portion in “The Little White Book”, I was a bit troubled with the words and capitalizations used when referring to the Eucharist. I left a politely worded voice mail for the editor to express my concerns but I would like to get the opinion from readers here, who probably know much more than I do.
Here is today’s entry: italicizing capitalization is theirs. Bolding is mine, used because it is the reference that most troubled me.
‘Take and eat, take and drink’
From the beginnings of the Church, and continuing for 12 centuries, receiving Communion meant receiving both the Bread and the Cup. Not to do so (except for special reasons, such as sickness) was considered an abuse.
By the 13th century, a number of things came into play that would change this traditional practice. One factor was an emphasis on seeing and *adoring *the Eucharist at Mass, rather than receiving it. Thus, there was more emphais on the Bread. You could see the Bread, but you couldn’t see the wine because it was in the chalice. The elevation of the Bread after the consecration was introduced in the 13th century. (The elevation of the chalice wasn’t added until the 16th century.) Receiving communion became so rare that the Church eventually legislated the requirement of Communion once a year – and “Communion” meant the Bread.
By the 15th century, lay reception of the Cup had all but disappeared in the Latin Church. In 1415, the Council of Constance forbade the laity to take the Cup – thus making into law what for for the first 12 centuries had been considered an abuse.
The rest of the Church (the Eastern Rites) continued the traditional practice of both the Bread and the Cup.
This became an issue at the time of the Reformation – with many of the separated churches restoring the tradition of the Cup. In the latter part of the 16th century, the Council of Trent took up the question, but made no decision.
The restoration of the Cup in the Latin Rite would thus await the 20th century and the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy."
End of quotation.
Specifically: Rather than “Bread”, shouldn’t “Host” or some other term have been used, especially in the bolded sentence because it is no longer bread or “Bread” after the Consecration?
Also, should some other word than wine (note lower case) have been used in the sentence right before the bolded one? (I’m not bugged by the use of “Cup”.) Also, should “consecration” have been capitalized?
I guess I am troubled by all this because there seems to me to be such a lack of emphasis on the Real Presence, even among Catholics. Were any other readers of the Little Books troubled by today’s entry? Should I be? (Keep in mind I am a writer/editor/proofreader myself and nitpicking comes naturally to me.
I guess I may be ultra-sensitive to this issue after having heard or seen far too many instances of “bread” and “wine” for the Eucharistic elements, even in our archdiocesan newspaper “The Michigan Catholic”.
Thanks in advance for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I live in Southeast Michigan and the diocese of Saginaw publishes these “Little Books”, really good booklets with a six-minute meditation on Scripture on the right-hand page and a small item about some fascinating bits of Catholic trivia and history on the left-hand page. These booklets have become quite popular throughout southeast Michigan (I actually live in the Archdiocese of Detroit, not in Saginaw and know of many parishes here that use these booklets.)
At any rate, for today’s history portion in “The Little White Book”, I was a bit troubled with the words and capitalizations used when referring to the Eucharist. I left a politely worded voice mail for the editor to express my concerns but I would like to get the opinion from readers here, who probably know much more than I do.
Here is today’s entry: italicizing capitalization is theirs. Bolding is mine, used because it is the reference that most troubled me.
‘Take and eat, take and drink’
From the beginnings of the Church, and continuing for 12 centuries, receiving Communion meant receiving both the Bread and the Cup. Not to do so (except for special reasons, such as sickness) was considered an abuse.
By the 13th century, a number of things came into play that would change this traditional practice. One factor was an emphasis on seeing and *adoring *the Eucharist at Mass, rather than receiving it. Thus, there was more emphais on the Bread. You could see the Bread, but you couldn’t see the wine because it was in the chalice. The elevation of the Bread after the consecration was introduced in the 13th century. (The elevation of the chalice wasn’t added until the 16th century.) Receiving communion became so rare that the Church eventually legislated the requirement of Communion once a year – and “Communion” meant the Bread.
By the 15th century, lay reception of the Cup had all but disappeared in the Latin Church. In 1415, the Council of Constance forbade the laity to take the Cup – thus making into law what for for the first 12 centuries had been considered an abuse.
The rest of the Church (the Eastern Rites) continued the traditional practice of both the Bread and the Cup.
This became an issue at the time of the Reformation – with many of the separated churches restoring the tradition of the Cup. In the latter part of the 16th century, the Council of Trent took up the question, but made no decision.
The restoration of the Cup in the Latin Rite would thus await the 20th century and the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy."
End of quotation.
Specifically: Rather than “Bread”, shouldn’t “Host” or some other term have been used, especially in the bolded sentence because it is no longer bread or “Bread” after the Consecration?
Also, should some other word than wine (note lower case) have been used in the sentence right before the bolded one? (I’m not bugged by the use of “Cup”.) Also, should “consecration” have been capitalized?
I guess I am troubled by all this because there seems to me to be such a lack of emphasis on the Real Presence, even among Catholics. Were any other readers of the Little Books troubled by today’s entry? Should I be? (Keep in mind I am a writer/editor/proofreader myself and nitpicking comes naturally to me.
I guess I may be ultra-sensitive to this issue after having heard or seen far too many instances of “bread” and “wine” for the Eucharistic elements, even in our archdiocesan newspaper “The Michigan Catholic”.Thanks in advance for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
