The Consecration?

[Aramis]

What are antimens?

And in both cases is it not God who acts, both through and/or because of the prayers and actions of the priest?

Antimens (antimension): a cloth reliquary, usually decorated, which serves as both the corporal and the reqliquary required for the divine liturgy. It is signed by the bishop, and can be issued either to a specific priest or to a specific parish. It is only valid if signed by a bishop.

The divine liturgies of Sts. Basil, John and Gregory require an antimension for licity; all catholic consecrations require reliquary either in an antimension or in the altar, or in the presence of the altar.

Roman priests who travel a lot often may be granted a corporal with a tiny relic in a small pocket, for use as a portable altar.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Reading the Cannons is not neccesarily a neccesity for a good religious formation. Most of the old writing need a good general knowledge before you can get most benefits from it.

I am not the type that like the 20th century.

It could burn to the ground by me, so long as Our Lady reigns in the hearts and peoples.

You can’t build a new society with rotten foundations.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Antimens (antimension): a cloth reliquary, usually decorated, which serves as both the corporal and the reqliquary required for the divine liturgy. It is signed by the bishop, and can be issued either to a specific priest or to a specific parish. It is only valid if signed by a bishop.

The divine liturgies of Sts. Basil, John and Gregory require an antimension for licity; all catholic consecrations require reliquary either in an antimension or in the altar, or in the presence of the altar.

Roman priests who travel a lot often may be granted a corporal with a tiny relic in a small pocket, for use as a portable altar.

Thanks. Latin rite no longer requires a reliquary in the altar or corporal.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

My Maronite/Syriac tradition says that the whole anaphora is consecratory. There is not one specific part of the prayer that determines it; the whole prayer is important.

Yes, and you are Catholic. That’s why I think the earlier quote from the council of Florence must refer to the Latin Rite.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I don’t know how those in the East who accept Florence looks on this.
EO theology, and as far as I know OO theology does not look on the priest as alter Christi nor in personam Christi. He is in personam episcopali, instead of the bishop. Hence the antimens. And hence the idea of the epiklesis having nothing to do with the consecration falls flat on our ecclesiology.

I am assuming that the parishes under the Vatican have antimens. What is their theology that provides the context for it?

Latin priests act in the person of Christ (Christ acting through them at the consecration.) However, they are also acting as representative of the bishop. In fact they may only say mass if the bishop gives them permission or ‘faculties’. If they do so without the bishop’s permission, the sacrament would be valid but not licit.

Now that I know what they are I can answer that Latin Catholics don’t have antimens and new altars don’t even have to have relics in them. So our theology doesn’t address them.

I assume, and I may be in error, that the Eastern Catholics do have them and I also would be interested in understanding the theology behind them. I don’t understand why Eastern and Western traditions, although not identical, need to be seen to be in conflict.

 

[Aramis]

Claire:

sorry, but you are wrong about Roman Altars.

See the code of Canon Law
CIC:

Can. 1237 §1 Fixed altars are to be dedicated, movable ones either dedicated or blessed, according to the rites prescribed in the liturgical books.

§2 The ancient tradition of placing relics of Martyrs or of other Saints within a fixed altar is to be retained, in accordance with the rites prescribed in the liturgical books.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Latin priests act in the person of Christ (Christ acting through them at the consecration.) However, they are also acting as representative of the bishop. In fact they may only say mass if the bishop gives them permission or ‘faculties’. If they do so without the bishop’s permission, the sacrament would be valid but not licit.

Now that I know what they are I can answer that Latin Catholics don’t have antimens and new altars don’t even have to have relics in them. So our theology doesn’t address them.

I assume, and I may be in error, that the Eastern Catholics do have them and I also would be interested in understanding the theology behind them. I don’t understand why Eastern and Western traditions, although not identical, need to be seen to be in conflict.

To give a stark example: when a Latin priest is defrocked, he is still a priest but may not celebrate mass. If an Orthodox priest is defrocked, he is laicized. To use your language, no sacramental act by him (except baptism) would be neither licit nor valid.

The idea behind antimens (thanks Aramis for filling in for my delay) is that the bishop is the ordinary celebrant of any Holy Mystery, the priest is just his delegate and acts in his person, not Christ’s. Antimens means (Latin!) “instead of the table/altar” because it is not the bishop’s altar that the liturgy is being celebrated on. Bishops don’t need an antimens.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Claire:

sorry, but you are wrong about Roman Altars.

See the code of Canon Law

				Originally Posted by **CIC** 					 				
			*Can. 1237 §1 Fixed altars are to be dedicated, movable ones either dedicated or blessed, according to the rites prescribed in the liturgical books.

§2 The ancient tradition of placing relics of Martyrs or of other Saints within a fixed altar is to be retained, in accordance with the rites prescribed in the liturgical books.

Many or most of the altars currently in use are movable, not fixed altars. Many of the altars prior to 1960 were big marble affairs that were actually built into the wall or cemented into the floor of the church.

In the 1950’s when I was growing up we were told that the custom of having relics in the altars went back to the days when mass was said in the catacombs on or near the graves of the martyrs. It was most appropriate, but not necessary, if the relics were those of the saint the church was dedicated to. It had nothing to do with the bishop’s authority.
*

 

[Claire_from_DE]

To give a stark example: when a Latin priest is defrocked, he is still a priest but may not celebrate mass. If an Orthodox priest is defrocked, he is laicized. To use your language, no sacramental act by him (except baptism) would be neither licit nor valid.

The idea behind antimens (thanks Aramis for filling in for my delay) is that the bishop is the ordinary celebrant of any Holy Mystery, the priest is just his delegate and acts in his person, not Christ’s. Antimens means (Latin!) “instead of the table/altar” because it is not the bishop’s altar that the liturgy is being celebrated on. Bishops don’t need an antimens.

I think this thread has gone far afield but I hope it’s ok to continue. This is very interesting. Thank you for explaining this so clearly.

If I understand you correctly, the eastern priest acting as the bishop’s delegate in the DL would parallel the western priest acting as the bishop’s delegate in Confirmation. The bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation but sometimes he delegates this to a pastor. This isn’t something a pastor can do just by his ordination as a priest. The western idea is that the bishop ordains the priest as ‘a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek’. As such, if he does the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick after he is laicized they are valid but illicit. (About Baptism, it would be the same as in the East.)

The sacrament of Holy Orders, Catholics would say, imparts an indelible ‘character’ on the soul, as does Baptism and Confirmation, and that effect remains. So we would say the priest is always able to do the sacraments but he doesn’t have the right to do them except with the permission of the bishop. My assumption is that the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome accept this idea also but I don’t know if that is accurate.

 

[Aramis]

I think this thread has gone far afield but I hope it’s ok to continue. This is very interesting. Thank you for explaining this so clearly.

If I understand you correctly, the eastern priest acting as the bishop’s delegate in the DL would parallel the western priest acting as the bishop’s delegate in Confirmation. The bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation but sometimes he delegates this to a pastor. This isn’t something a pastor can do just by his ordination as a priest. The western idea is that the bishop ordains the priest as ‘a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek’. As such, if he does the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick after he is laicized they are valid but illicit. (About Baptism, it would be the same as in the East.)

The sacrament of Holy Orders, Catholics would say, imparts an indelible ‘character’ on the soul, as does Baptism and Confirmation, and that effect remains. So we would say the priest is always able to do the sacraments but he doesn’t have the right to do them except with the permission of the bishop. My assumption is that the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome accept this idea also but I don’t know if that is accurate.

Originally, ALL priests of the Catholic/Orthodox church said the Divine Liturgy with the bishops; by 200AD, they were saying the liturgy with the bishop’s permission.

In the Byzantine East (since not all the east is Byzantine), that permission is expressed by the issuing of the Antimension.

In the west, that permission is incardination into a diocese or recent letters of release from the priest’s bishop. A priest not under the jurisdiction of a bishop may not licitly say the Mass.

Under extant canon law, Byzantine priests saying the DL without an Antimension says a valid but highly illicit DL. Illicit for lack of form (violating the prescriptions of the Liturgical Books) and for lack of episcopal permission, but meeting the standards of a valid institution narrative and epiclesis, still valid.

Further, the whole issue of Valid vs Licit is foreign (yet still known) to the Canonical Byzantine Orthodox, for whom licity is the prime test of validity, save for baptism and ordination, and they don’t generally accept non-Catholic/Non-Oriental Orthodox/Non-ACE baptism nor ordination at all, and Catholic, OO, nor ACE except at conversion to Orthodoxy and then as Economia. They subsume the two, validity and licity, into orthopraxis and presume with orthopraxis comes orthodoxis, unless signs to the contrary are present.

In general tho, licity is a subset of validity, and the Byzantine East makes the overlap much greater.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think this thread has gone far afield but I hope it’s ok to continue. This is very interesting. Thank you for explaining this so clearly.

If I understand you correctly, the eastern priest acting as the bishop’s delegate in the DL would parallel the western priest acting as the bishop’s delegate in Confirmation. The bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation but sometimes he delegates this to a pastor. This isn’t something a pastor can do just by his ordination as a priest. The western idea is that the bishop ordains the priest as ‘a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek’. As such, if he does the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick after he is laicized they are valid but illicit. (About Baptism, it would be the same as in the East.)

The sacrament of Holy Orders, Catholics would say, imparts an indelible ‘character’ on the soul, as does Baptism and Confirmation, and that effect remains. So we would say the priest is always able to do the sacraments but he doesn’t have the right to do them except with the permission of the bishop. My assumption is that the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome accept this idea also but I don’t know if that is accurate.

You are correct on all points (btw, good analogy on the confirmation) but the last: that one I don’t know.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Aramis and Isa Almisry, Thank you so much for your answers.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Roman priests who travel a lot often may be granted a corporal with a tiny relic in a small pocket, for use as a portable altar.

**During World War 2, many travelling Latin chaplains were given faculties to use a Byzantine antimension (aka antimins, in various spellings) instead of a portable altar stone. Obviously, it was lighter, easier to carry, and less likely to be dropped and broken in transit.

The Western antimentionsion (described above) grew out of it.

For the last word in such, read Rt. Rev. Archimandrite Januarius Izzo, OFM, book THE ANTIMENSION IN EAST AND WEST: AN INTERRITUAL INTERCONFESSIONAL STUDY.**

 

[Aramis]

Clair, Isa:

Yes, having the ability, but not the right, to function.

The ability is given once and for all time to each ordained man.

The right and privilege to use that ability is granted by the bishop, who holds that right by virtue of communion with the Synod of the Church.