Open Thread – Friday 9th December
As I can’t seem to think of anything to blog, I thought I’d start an open thread.
Feel free to comment on anything you fancy: poems, questions, observations, gripes and moans, good news, prayer requests, struggles, what you’re reading or studying, eureka moments, things you think I should have blogged about, interesting links, upcoming events…..whatever you wish to share with us.
The floor is yours.
Tags: Christianity
December 9th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Question: In the Extraordinary Form, do the people only receive only one species, the Body? Or am I getting confused? and this happened in the OF, but before VAT II?
December 9th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Caral – in the EF we receive both the Body and Blood of Christ as present in the Host (normally). We believe that a living body requires both flesh and blood to be living so, either form is complete but, for reasons of practicality and reverence, the form of the host is the norm at EF Masses. We tend to avoid offering the Blood of Christ as, if there are any slip ups, it is impossible to avoid the problem of removing the species with reverence and effectiveness.
With the host it is much easier.
Before Vatican II there was no OF and no EF – just the Tridentine Latin Mass which is called, today, the Extraordinary Form of Mass.
Therefore, only communion under one kind was offered, the host, the Body and Blood of Christ.
I hope this answers your question.
December 9th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Brilliant, thank you Richard. Apologies for my clumsy phraseology.
December 9th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
With my pedantic hat on (as so often): under the appearance of bread we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. We receive nothing more if we receive under both kinds.
In the Western Church this has been the tradition from time immemorial, and became emblematic of Catholicism in Europe after the Reformation.
In the Eastern Church, the laity receive under both kinds, by intinction.
Thus in the Universal Church, there is nothing wrong or inferior about either practice, in itself. However, it is anathema to deny that one receives the fullness of Communion under one kind only.
The politics of reception under both kinds in the Western Church is another matter…
December 10th, 2011 at 12:40 am
As someone who browses around Catholic blogs and forums…I’m surprised more of the web’s online Catholics aren’t discussing the very difficult situation Catholics are facing in Vietnam at the moment. Reports have appeared in the media about this, but don’t really seem to be being talked about.
December 10th, 2011 at 10:00 am
What’s happening in Vietnam Scout?
December 10th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Further to my post above, here are (some of) the reasons I am not in favour of the reception under both kinds in the Western Church (I’ll leave the East out of it, beyond saying that I think changing their time-honoured practice would be foolhardy, too):
The reasons I have been given for the change from the traditional practice strike me as largely bogus;
The change also seems to me to be part of a larger agenda, with a trend (towards less reverence) that I think has been profoundly damaging;
The change has been used to engineer a number of other changes I dislike (eg queuing and standing for Holy Communion, proliferation of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion);
The change has resulted in all the faithful (or at least all who receive under both kinds) handling the Sacred Vessels – and these are now treated, more often than not, as merely some more cups to wash after Mass;
The change is a huge part of the hermeneutic of discontinuity: jettisoning whatever our forefathers did in favour of any novelty dreamed up by a liturgist;
I have seen no positive benefits resulting from the change;
I believe that under the old dispensation, the average Catholic was much clearer about the fundamental truth that we receive the entire Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under either kind – now I fear many think that you only receive the Body if you only receive under the appearance of bread. (I also think many think you simply receive bread and wine, to hear them talk, but that’s another matter…)
December 10th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Thanks Ben.
Another question:
Why do we refer to the seven Archangels as Saints? i.e those named in the Canon are St Michael, St Gabriel and St Ralphael?
I have always referred to them as saints, and never questioned as to why. I have just been asked why, is there any biblical reasoning, or is from Tradition only and the Jewish category (1 Thess 4:5, Jude 9) The rest are named in the Book of Enoch (xxi)
Strangely I am discussing this with someone who believes St Michael, the Archangel is Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity……..Go figure!
December 10th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Saint can mean various things. Literally, it means Holy (Sanctus), and in its most absolute sense applies to God Himself: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus sabaoth: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of Hosts.
The early Christians referred to each other as saints, as is well known: sanctified by the blood of the Lamb.
The great Archangels are clearly Holy, so the designation Saint is appropriate to them – just as it is to the Cross, for example. (Saint Croix is a common Church dedication in France, and you find the same occasionally in England: cf Saint Cross Hospital, in Rugby).
The confusion arises as it also has a slightly more technical meaning as somebody who has been canonised; and that is who we generally think of when we refer to a saint. Canonisation is the process by which the Church officially, formally and infallibly declares that an individual, having lived a life of heroic sanctity, or died a martyr, is now definitely in heaven: and may therefore be included in the list of saints in the Canon of the Mass on his or her feast day.
I hope that a) makes sense, and b) answers your question!
December 10th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
It certainly does, on both counts, thanks Ben.
I feel a copy and paste coming on, if you don’t mind.
December 10th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
You are very welcome: you might want to check the technical accuracy of my definition of canonisation before broadcasting too broadly. I think ‘life of heroic sanctity’ is correct, and am sure martyrdom is, but there may be other elements?…
December 10th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Hi Ben, I know Holy Martyrs and Holy Wonder Workers, but once we start to move post 1054, and especially post 1500′s I start to get a little lost, unless they are venerated in the Anglican church. Perhaps ‘life of heroic sanctity’ is a more recent occurrence?
In the CofE, they have ‘heroes of the church’ rather than declaring canonisation.
Anyhow no worries, as I was only going to use the first two paragraphs. If I start speaking about the canonisation, they wouldn’t understand and walls of defence go up, and all communication stops.