The supposed inferiority of the Latin Rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Noah_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not trying to be uncharitable Philip. I read the article and I stated specificly what I found offensive as a Traditional Catholic (notice I said as a Traditional Catholic) Later I asked if it’s true that Fr Taft is critical of Eucharistic Adoration and I don’t think that was an unreasonable question.
 
malphono said:
I would imagine it comes from the fact that baptized infants are without stain, and also that they are incapable of understanding what they are receiving. The Eucharist is “for the forgiveness of sins” which would seem to say that those who have been cleansed of “original sin” (through Baptism) and are as yet incapable of “actual sin” may not require the Eucharist for their spiritual well-being.

That said, I do not disagree with the Eastern practice of communing infants, but neither do I take it as a requirement. Even where it is done, there is often a “formal communion” that takes places after a certain amount of catechesis.
Click to expand...
I understand that you are not offering an apologetic for this practice in the West. Having said that, let me make a comment. The practice is a disconnect from the Old Testament. The Eucharist is the continuation of the Passover, as seen by our Lord changing the Passover to the Eucharist in the Upper Room.

Well, in the Passover celebration, the infant children were given the lamb as soon as they could chew and swallow, showing that the True Lamb should be given to our infant children as soon as they can do the same.
 
I’ve personally never heard Fr. Taft say anything against Eucharistic Adoration. From what I know of him I highly doubt that he would say anything against it, although he would emphasize that Liturgical participation (even participation at the Liturgy of the Hours) ought to take precedence over Eucharistic Adoration and that Adoration flows from Liturgical participation.

I do know that Fr. Taft is critical of serving hosts from the tabernacle at Mass. He’s likened it to making a fine meal, eating it yourself, and then serving your guests left-overs. Maybe a bit of an extreme analogy, but he makes a good point. I believe the Church has also condemned using hosts from the tabernacle unless there is no other option. It’s preferable if the priest distributes the newly consecrated Eucharist as opposed to hosts consecrated at a different Mass. I’m pretty sure there’s theological significance to this as well, but my memory fails me and I don’t have the time to look it up. 😃
 
Seamus_L said:
Not trying to be uncharitable Philip. I read the article and I stated specificly what I found offensive as a Traditional Catholic (notice I said as a Traditional Catholic) Later I asked if it’s true that Fr Taft is critical of Eucharistic Adoration and I don’t think that was an unreasonable question.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aiming my remarks at you in particular. 🙂 I was simply pointing out that many on this thread have reduced the discussion to ad hominem remarks about Fr. Taft’s person and credibility.

I’m still unclear on what the title “Traditional Catholic” means, and why labeling oneself as such would render anything in Fr. Taft’s article offensive. If it’s truth, then nothing in it ought to be offensive to our ears, but rather call us to conversion (i.e. change of mind/heart). I would say that the identity of “Traditional Catholics” could be the subject of another thread, but I’m aware that it’s all been hashed out before and never borne any fruitful results. 🤷
 
I have not seen any direct quotes from him on the topic, but have seen references to him saying something to the effect that the Eucharist is for consuming.
I'am not trying to attribute false comments to Fr Taft, I just want to know if he said something like that or not.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I believe the Church has also condemned using hosts from the tabernacle unless there is no other option. It’s preferable if the priest distributes the newly consecrated Eucharist as opposed to hosts consecrated at a different Mass. I’m pretty sure there’s theological significance to this as well, but my memory fails me and I don’t have the time to look it up. 😃
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the word “condemned” overstates things, but yes, the Church does consider it preferable to distribute newly consecrated hosts. And it simply makes logical sense. It drives me nuts when, at a weekday liturgy (or even a normal Sunday), reserved hosts are used for communion. There’s really no reason for it.

Of course there are those cases where the congregation is exceptionally large and it would require an inordinate number of ciboria on the altar to consecrate enough hosts. When such circumstances are anticipated, it often happens that one or more ciboria-full will be consecrated at other Masses and reserved for later use. The same is true where there is an unexpectedly large number of communicants: of course reserved hosts must then be used as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top