C
Cluny
Guest
Is there an intrinsic difference between “Crucifixion” and “Sacrifice of Calvary”?
- Status
T
TheLearner
Guest
Indeed, it is really poor reasoning. To change one of the most central parts of the Eurcharist and break with 1500 years of tradition just beacuse “it isn’t absolutely necessary” and because “some people might have this or that misconception”. Then we might as well get rid of the Latin liturgy as well, right, because “some people might not understand it”? No. That is faulty reasoning, the same reasoning which led to the decline of the Tridentine mass, and in fact, to the Protestant reformation.I know that you are correct in your explanation. That is the correct textbook response.
But really, that is pretty poor reasoning.It is hard to believe the hierarchy went to that extreme, yet we know that is exactly what they did.
Exactly.
None of those are really acceptable reasons. You don’t change liturgy and especially not the Eucharist, just because there are some actions in it that are not “absolutely necessary” from a theological standpoint, and just because you find it “pratical” or “convenient” to change it. As mentioned, from that point of view, we might as well get rid of the Tridentine mass. That is a protestant mindset.But what would motivate the bishops to restrict the cup in the first place?
Perhaps behind it all was the convenience of distributing just the stack of dry Hosts, or the cost savings, or fear of spreading disease…
J
japhy
Guest
Perhaps there were people with Celiac’s disease, or people allergic to alcohol? Perhaps it was a slow year, theologically? Perhaps some people just started teaching the wrong thing?
We’d have to look at the history of it.
Cluny has said that, historically, the Chalice was avoided by the laity before it was withheld from them.
J
japhy
Guest
That’s what the thread was all about.
Mass is often called “Heaven on earth”. My argument is that, since the Mass includes not only the immolation but the offering as well, it would seem that the Mass makes present the whole reality of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary, which was not isolated to a few hours on the cross, but began at the Last Supper and ended, ultimately, with his Ascension into Heaven where he eternally offers himself to the Father.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
There was no blood (which is what the consecrated wine was) at the Last supper. The mass is the un-bloody sacrifice on Calvary. The term “represent” is to indicate that the sacrifice only happened once 200 years ago. During the mass we are present at the one and only sacrifice, it does not occur again.
I would question the term “heaven on Earth”. Yes we are in the presence of our lord, but so were the people on Calvary. Were they in heaven at the time?
J
japhy
Guest
That is incorrect, according to the Scriptures and the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, c. 1):
He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed, – that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, – declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.
It is the same sacrifice, but the manner of offering has changed: it is offered in an unbloody manner. The priest and victim remain the same.
Well, it’s not “heaven on earth” per se, but a meeting of Heaven and Earth. The earthly liturgy is a participation in the eternal liturgy of Heaven, as depicted in the book of Revelation. Consider that the Mass contains both the (unbloody) immolation – the separate consecration of bread and wine as a sign of the true separation of the Lord’s blood from his body at death – and the oblation to the Father, which takes place in eternally in Heaven (as described in the letter to the Hebrews).
Vatican II described this participation in Sacrosanctum Concilium 8:
In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord’s glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with Him in glory.
Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” (which I’m currently reading) presents this very well.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: I would say, “heaven and earth”, both now being united at mass, because the veil into the holy of holies has been removed, as Christ our Hight Priest has entered the Holy or Holies with his blood. I think in the CCC it says the kingdom is present at the Eucharist. I don’t have time to research.
T
TheLearner
Guest
But I must ask:
If the reason for breaking with 15 centuries of tradition in Tridentine, was merely that it was not “absolutely necessary” for laity to receive the chalice, even though it was tradition up until that point, and “some people” had heretical misunderstandings about it, why has the chalice been unavailable for five hundred years up until Novus Ordo, and is still so in the Tridentine liturgy? Why hasn’t it been re-introduced much earlier, maybe during the first century of the Tridentine liturgy? Because obviously, the reasoning behind the removal of the chalice was never sufficient to withhold it for a half millenium.
This is one of the things that makes me admire Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholics, for having maintained liturgical tradition up until this point, without constantly changing it just because some people may not understand it or like it. From that perspective, the liturgical fabrications and reforms of Tridentine are another side of the same coin that spawned the liturgical fabrications and reforms of Novus Ordo.
If the reason for breaking with 15 centuries of tradition in Tridentine, was merely that it was not “absolutely necessary” for laity to receive the chalice, even though it was tradition up until that point, and “some people” had heretical misunderstandings about it, why has the chalice been unavailable for five hundred years up until Novus Ordo, and is still so in the Tridentine liturgy? Why hasn’t it been re-introduced much earlier, maybe during the first century of the Tridentine liturgy? Because obviously, the reasoning behind the removal of the chalice was never sufficient to withhold it for a half millenium.
This is one of the things that makes me admire Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholics, for having maintained liturgical tradition up until this point, without constantly changing it just because some people may not understand it or like it. From that perspective, the liturgical fabrications and reforms of Tridentine are another side of the same coin that spawned the liturgical fabrications and reforms of Novus Ordo.
W
weepixie71
Guest
i was taught to protect from spillage.
why would you want to risk spilling Christ Himself all over the floor if the Host is the full Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
in the tridentine mass a Paten is still used and we place our hands under a Communion rail cloth made of 100% pure white linen to make a safe landing for the Host in case Host misses the Paten or your tongue.
i do not believe it has anything to do being unworthy. its just a saftey precaution. however, it is available in the tridentine mass if the priest knows that you have an allergy to the Host.
why would you want to risk spilling Christ Himself all over the floor if the Host is the full Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
in the tridentine mass a Paten is still used and we place our hands under a Communion rail cloth made of 100% pure white linen to make a safe landing for the Host in case Host misses the Paten or your tongue.
i do not believe it has anything to do being unworthy. its just a saftey precaution. however, it is available in the tridentine mass if the priest knows that you have an allergy to the Host.
T
TheLearner
Guest
This seems like paranoia, though. Did Christ protect from spillage when he gave the Apostles His flesh and blood? Certainly, from the earliest days of the Eucharist, and from Christ himself, there was no perception what-so-ever that it was needed to do so. The instructions were rather simple, really. God is omnipotent, if we do as He told us, and not what theoretical theologians speculate, it is down to Him and not us - that is not just right practice, it’s orthopraxis.
P
PJM
Guest
Yes, always for the Celebrants
ONLY for Laity in VERY limited and Specified cases [there about a dozen or so], including Marriage and Ordination, but then ONLY if a priest or deacon is present to distribute the cup.
All Masses must have BOTH bread and wine, so that their can be the necessary seperate Transunstanuation of BOTH the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ.
And I wish I could find a Latin Mass to attend
O
otjm
Guest
That is not entirely putting all the cards on the table. To begin with, it is not accurate to state or imply that the Church has not, since the time of Christ, offered both the Host and the Cup to the laity, since that is and has been the continual practice in the Church - in the Eastern rites, whioch are as much a part of the Church as the Western (Roman or Latin) rite. And the Church - Rome - syas that while it is not necessary to receive under both species, as you are correct that one receives Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - under either species, the Church further says that receiving under both species is a “fuller sign” - their words, not mine - of the Eucharistic Meal. and last time I read the Gospels, Christ said to do both; and the Church - Roman and Eastern rites - did so (and the Eastern rites continue to do so to this day).You are receiving the Body AND Blood of Christ when you receive the bread. The wine is consecrated to represent the separation of the Blood of Christ from His Body during the crucifixion, which is what the Mass represents. The Mass is the RE-Presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary.
The Mass is not the Last Supper or a party or get together with your neighbors. It is you being present at the murder and bloody sacrifice of our Lord. That is why we should not wear flip flops to Mass or act in a non-respectful way. People should act as they would if they were at their mother’s execution. Very different than how most people act/dress in church today.
If you truly believe in the Eucharist (bread) and what it represents then you should have no need/desire to receive the wine. Look up a book called Know Your Mass. It was a comic book written in the 1950’s that does and excellent job of explaining the Mass. Unfortunately most of this is not known anymore because the Mass has become more about the laity rather than God since Vatican II.
The desire/insistence of some laity to receive both species represents either a lack of understanding of the Eucharist and what the Mass is, or the person being so prideful that he/she wants what another (i.e. priest) has even though there is no need for it. The Church is a hierarchy and we should be happy with our station in that hierarchy. That is why the word Eucharist means “Thanksgiving” not “Thanksgetting”.
To say that it is a thing of pride or lack of understandeing is to say that Rome is wrong, and simply insert your personal opinion which is at varience with the Magisterium. Further, to say the Mass is about the laity rather than Christ - excuse me, please point out in the rubrics or prayers where it is so. You can’t. I am not saying there is no difference between the EF and the OF, but your characterization is most certainly not in line with Benedict 16, and I think if I had to bet, I would bet he was a better theologian than you.
And as to your comment about the “station” of the laity - that smacks of clericalism.
O
otjm
Guest
I think that we might back up a bit and look a bit closer at history. The Protestant Reformation hit not only at theology, but also at politics. Look at the subsequent wars between various countries and states in Europe. Like it or not, and whether or not it was correct or necessary, the Church was heavily involved in the politics of the day. It was not simply a matter of a few people, or some people, but a massive tidal change in Europe. Remember that the Church was both a religious and a political entity, which only unwound itself quite recently with the loss of the Papal States.
Looking at the issue from a purely theological standpoint is to miss the reality of the day back then. And for anyone who thinks that only theology drove Church decisions, I have some really wonderful ocean-front property for sale in Arizona…
Note: I do not seek to make the Church into the “Bad Guy”. We might wish things were different then; but we can think the same thing about massive amounts of history. I am not a historical revisionist, nor do I lean towads some of the historical deconstruction that has occured these last 100 years or so; much of that is driven by an anti-Church attitude. On the other hand, failing to acknowledge what was reality at the time does truth no favors either.
Much of the hatred of the Church, and particularly the venemous hatred that is seen at times in Europe has less to do with pure theology than it does with history, and specificlaly the Church’s involvement in that history politically. Memories over there make our Civil War memories look pale in comparison. So looking at why a change was made in rubrics is at best naive if one presumes it was in a pure, spotless theological vacuum.
O
otjm
Guest
Spillage is what is called a red herring. I was an altar boy before Vatican 2, and in spite of the paten we sued then, on a rare occasion a host would fall to the floor. In all the years that we have had the Cup, I have yet to see any spillage. That is not to say that it has no occured, but dropping a host most definitely occured. Further, The eastern rites have had continual reception under both species for 2000 years; spillage then becomes a good nun’s or good priest’s explanation when they had no real facts upon which to answer.
And while we are bringing up the cloth at the altar rail, it might be noted that while the paten was by the rules to be cleansed, there were no rules at all concering the cloth at the rail. It was simply flipped back.
S
Sancto_Spiritu
Guest
Sacred Host = by itself, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ
Precious Blood = by itself, the Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ
So, uhhhh, what’s the problem?
Precious Blood = by itself, the Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ
So, uhhhh, what’s the problem?
T
TheLearner
Guest
If you don’t understand the “problem”, which is probably an imprecise word to use to describe what is at hand, after the posts in this thread, it may be that you won’t ever.
But please, read the posts again if you think it will help. If you wish, fine with me - I can’t keep repeating what I’ve already said, and at least a few people understood my point.
S
Sancto_Spiritu
Guest
Chill out!
I’m saying that, as I’m sure someone has already said, both the Host and the Blood are the entirety of Jesus. You don’t NEED both, you can consume one or the other and it will be just the same has having both.
Therefore, the fact that the EF Mass typically only offers the faithful the Host is immaterial.
O
otjm
Guest
Not necessarily immaterial, or are you saying that what Christ said and did had no meaning?
T
TheLearner
Guest
There is a theological specifity which means that the laity needs not receive both species.
But you are wrong that both are not “needed”, as such, and that it is merely “immaterial”, and that there is no “problem” because both species have His presence. Because they don’t have it if both species are not consecrated - in that case, the eucharist is indeed not celebrated correctly. What does this say about the importance, as such, and before any theological specifity of the lack of any absolute metaphysical necessity of receiving both speicies, of both species and their roles in the fulness of the eucharist? It says that indeed, the eucharist is centered around the recognition and active practice of what Christ told us - this is my Body and this is my Blood - not, “take one bread, this is both my body and blood” - because it is only so after the fact that both are consecrated, and besides, it does not in any way mean that laity should not receive both species.
The problem then begins when you focus more on theological specifities rather than on uniform liturgical practice which goes back to Christs own words, which are more authoritative than anything else, and should resonate into the skulls of all men.
S
Sancto_Spiritu
Guest
- The bolded qualifier is huge and I would be rarely, rarely occurs.
- Who said the faithful shouldn’t receive both? I didn’t.
- If you’re not prepared to accept the Church’s teaching that both the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood are individually the fullness of Christ, then you’ve got some issues to work out with the Faith.
- Status