Something I never Knew

[palmas85]

A good friend of mine is going through rhe RCIA process in Southern California. He showed several of the books that they wee assigned to use in the class. The Idiots Guide to Catholicism, while sounding strange actually does a pretty good job of describing the faith in very very simple terms. However the book In His Light by the Reverend William A. Anderson, Brown-Roa 1996 presnted me with several facts of which I was unaware.

I still thought we had priests in the Church and that they had received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Not so. We are all priests. Those who receive Holy Orders are now called Presbyters and Presiders. Nowhere in the book are they referred to as Priests.

I stil thought a double genuflection was required in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Not so, one knee genuflections only and always.

There is no altar anymore, the official term is the Eucharistic Table or the Lords Table.

Apparently, at least from what I can tell from reading, the Eucharist is now officially termed either the Consecrated Bread or the Sacred Bread and the Consecrated or Sacred Wine. It is not referred to as the Body and Blood of Christ any longer. There may be some reference to that but I could not find it.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is forbidden by the Church immediately following the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

In an almost apologetic passage the following is stated" In the same fashion the Scriptures presume but never proove the existence of the Devil" It goes on to say however it would be difficult to deny the existence of the Devil and concludes with the statement that in the Old Testament Satan was not an evil person, but someone who was visiting with God. He appears more as a tester or a type of prosecuting attorney?? rather than an evil spirit. But just to be fair, it also says Scriptures presume but do not proove the existance of Angels either and that nowhere are they described as spiritual beings. Church tradition also presumes but does not proove their existance…

There were other passagesand examples but I became just too depressed over the whole thing and gave the books back to my friend and wished him good luck…

 

[buffalo]

palmas85:

A good friend of mine is going through rhe RCIA process in Southern California. He showed several of the books that they wee assigned to use in the class. The Idiots Guide to Catholicism, while sounding strange actually does a pretty good job of describing the faith in very very simple terms. However the book In His Light by the Reverend William A. Anderson, Brown-Roa 1996 presnted me with several facts of which I was unaware.

I still thought we had priests in the Church and that they had received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Not so. We are all priests. Those who receive Holy Orders are now called Presbyters and Presiders. Nowhere in the book are they referred to as Priests.

I stil thought a double genuflection was required in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Not so, one knee genuflections only and always.

There is no altar anymore, the official term is the Eucharistic Table or the Lords Table.

Apparently, at least from what I can tell from reading, the Eucharist is now officially termed either the Consecrated Bread or the Sacred Bread and the Consecrated or Sacred Wine. It is not referred to as the Body and Blood of Christ any longer. There may be some reference to that but I could not find it.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is forbidden by the Church immediately following the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

In an almost apologetic passage the following is stated" In the same fashion the Scriptures presume but never proove the existence of the Devil" It goes on to say however it would be difficult to deny the existence of the Devil and concludes with the statement that in the Old Testament Satan was not an evil person, but someone who was visiting with God. He appears more as a tester or a type of prosecuting attorney?? rather than an evil spirit. But just to be fair, it also says Scriptures presume but do not proove the existance of Angels either and that nowhere are they described as spiritual beings. Church tradition also presumes but does not proove their existance…

There were other passagesand examples but I became just too depressed over the whole thing and gave the books back to my friend and wished him good luck…

I think there is a real problem here.

 

[tee_eff_em]

palmas85:

I stil thought a double genuflection was required in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Not so, one knee genuflections only and always

There is no problem at all with this one.

1. Genuflection in the presence of the blessed sacrament, whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for public adoration, is on one knee.
   
   EUCHARISTIAE SACRAMENTUM
   Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
   21 June 1973​

tee

 

[sententia]

That book is HORRIBLE. Notice it isn’t vatican approved.

If your friend likes that style book, try the Catholicism for Dummies- Idiot’s guide is no bueno. You are pretty much correct on all points.

 

[mercygate]

palmas85:

However the book In His Light by the Reverend William A. Anderson, Brown-Roa 1996 presnted me with several facts of which I was unaware. . . .

Got a match?

 

[harinkj]

Save your Baltimore Catechisms friends the Church will rise again. :clapping:

Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just to calrify one point. There is only one priest in the Church – Jesus Christ Himself. Men whom we call “prieests” are ordained to the order of “presbyter.” The preside at Liturgy because Christ celebrates and we all serve.

Deacon Ed

 

[Elzee]

Tell your friend to get ‘Catholicism for Dummies’ by Fr. Trigillio. It’s a good, orthodox Catholic primer.

 

[severinus]

If the OP is correct in the info provided, my picky little Latin mind has to say something.

In the Code of Canon Law, the Latin term used for priest is sacerdos (e.g., Canons 515ff.). This cannot be translated as* presbyter * (elder) or presider, as the term *sacerdos * specifically refers to the priest as the one offering sacrifice. Now a *sacerdos * may indeed be the presider over a liturgy, but that is not his essential function within the Church.

Priest does, of course, come from presbyter, and there is nothing wrong with either term as correctly used. The book’s author, however, makes a gross error in dismissing sacerdos, and thereby, the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.

If anyone gets in touch with Rev. Anderson, let him know my Latin tutoring starts at $20./hr.

 

[Benedictus]

palmas85:

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is forbidden by the Church immediately following the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Actually, I think this one is true. Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is allowed, but Benediction is not.

I could be wrong, but I think I remember seeing this somewhere. I’m too lazy to look it up now.

 

[cameron_lansing]

severinus:

If the OP is correct in the info provided, my picky little Latin mind has to say something.

In the Code of Canon Law, the Latin term used for priest is sacerdos (e.g., Canons 515ff.). This cannot be translated as* presbyter * (elder) or presider, as the term *sacerdos * specifically refers to the priest as the one offering sacrifice. Now a *sacerdos * may indeed be the presider over a liturgy, but that is not his essential function within the Church.

Priest does, of course, come from presbyter, and there is nothing wrong with either term as correctly used. The book’s author, however, makes a gross error in dismissing sacerdos, and thereby, the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.

If anyone gets in touch with Rev. Anderson, let him know my Latin tutoring starts at $20./hr.

While I don’t see the term “sacerdos” in the text of canon 515 of the Latin Code, certainly it is used elsewhere extensively as Severin|u v|s applies, and this is an excellent point to recall and not at all a picky one.

Clearly, for example, canon 900 defines the minister who can validly confect the Eucharist by using the term ("§1. Minister, qui in persona Christi sacramentum Eucharistiae conficere valet, est solus sacerdos valide ordinatus.") The canonical usage would encompass both the episcopal and the presbyteral orders as noted in canon 1009: “Ordines sunt episcopatus, presbyteratus et diaconatus.” The Church exercises the “muneris sacerdotalis” of Christ (canon 834§1), and consequently, canon 835 §1 references bishops as “magni sacerdotes” while admitting to presbyters (“presbyteri” ) in §2 as “ipsi Christi sacerdotii participes.” This is why the English term “sacerdotal orders” is sometimes heard to distinguish bishops and priests from others in the Church who are sacred ministers and clerics, namely deacons. Such sacerdotal orders are required for valid appointment to a number of ecclesiastical offices, such as pastor or Vicar.

Other parts of the Code however will use the term “presbyter” quite freely when the sacrificial aspect of the sanctifying function is not under discussion (c. 861 : “Minister ordinarius baptismi est Episcopus, presbyter et diaconus. . .”, and pretty much the term throughout rest of Book IV where sacrifice is not the point of the particular sanctifying activity.)

Alas though, Father Anderson may need more than Latin tutoring. After all, the Eucharistic Celebration is the action of Christ and the Church (c. 899). Christ, through the ministry of a priest, (“ministerio sacerdotis”) offers himself (“semetipsum . . . offert”) to God the Father and give himself as spiritual food to the faithful united with his offering (“in sua oblatione”). As far I remember though, the notion of a priest “presiding” is not the way in which the canons on the Eucharist phrase the point. Rather consistently, the notion in the Code is “to celebrate” (“celebrare”, “ad celebrandum,” etc., etc.) There is a theological point behind that, of course.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Apropos nothing, the *Codex Iuris Canonici *uses the noun *sacerdos *and its forms 120 times; *presbyter *and forms 54 times. (And *episcopus *772 times; *diaconus *33 times)

(Source: IntraText Word List )

tee

 

[rwoehmke]

palmas85:

There were other passagesand examples but I became just too depressed over the whole thing and gave the books back to my friend and wished him good luck…

While some of your perceived problems with these texts, parrticularly the one by Anderson turn out to be the actual case there still remains enough confusion that I would never recommend such a book to my RCIA students. Catholicism for Dummies is an excellent book of basics by very reliable authors. I have never been able to fathom why some RCIA instructors insist on exposing their students to theological controversy or to facts that are indeed untrue or wishful thinking on the part of the Cathechist. You did your friend no favors by not at least giving him a warning about what is probably coming in class. Perhaps if you became his sponsor you could keep him stright.

 

[palmas85]

rwoehmke:

While some of your perceived problems with these texts, parrticularly the one by Anderson turn out to be the actual case there still remains enough confusion that I would never recommend such a book to my RCIA students. Catholicism for Dummies is an excellent book of basics by very reliable authors. I have never been able to fathom why some RCIA instructors insist on exposing their students to theological controversy or to facts that are indeed untrue or wishful thinking on the part of the Cathechist. You did your friend no favors by not at least giving him a warning about what is probably coming in class. Perhaps if you became his sponsor you could keep him stright.

While I agree with you in principal, I don’t think it would really benefit him if I said much. He has to go through the RCIA process in that Parish, and I imagine, not knowing exactly what RCIA entails, that he is expected to go with what they teach, at least through the process.