LOL! I must confess that I find your subtleties superb!
Des, does TT know your special recipe [and the "secret" in the choice of bread]?
Later!
Posted on 08/15/2004 11:42:32 AM PDT by ninenot
he Eucharist belongs to the entire church, universal as well as local. The dynamics of its structure are deeply rooted in the theology of God's grace and in the reality of human religious experience. The Eucharist, rooted in Scripture and Jewish prayer, has been shaped by centuries of tradition, and then reshaped as it was handed over from one culture to another.
As if to signal that its elements were not subject to the whim of individual congregations or presiders, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated changes could only be made by those authorized to do so (§ 22). Thus, the liturgy, belonging to the whole church, should not be arbitrarily changed. Preserving its integrity is the duty of the individual presider.
At the same time, the Council decreed the guiding goal of full, conscious and active participation for all the baptized faithful (§14), each in his/her respective role. That means every effort should be made to tailor the celebration to the mentality, culture and needs of any given community. One sign of that obligation is the explicit exhortation regularly found in the rituals themselves that presiders say something "in these or similar words." Thus, in another sense, the church's liturgy belongs in a unique manner to the local gathering of faithful and must be adapted accordingly. This is also the duty of the individual presider.
Historically the official missals and rituals of the church have been published with directions on how the sacraments should be celebrated in small red print, called "rubrics" (from the Latin word, ruber meaning "red"), and the actual words to be said by presider or congregation printed in larger black type. Thus, the word "rubrics" has come to signal attentiveness to the directions in fine print which should be followed in any sacramental celebration.
Rubrics, as I indicated above, are important because they give direction, structure and purpose to the flow of the liturgical celebration. They help prevent serious lapses or deficiencies in the sacramental sign itself. The rubrics can protect the sanctity of the ritual. They serve to keep the individual celebration of each parish's liturgy in communion with the larger church, diocesan and universal.
When I use the word "rubricism," however, I mean such an obsessive and driven preoccupation with the directives in red print as to risk losing sight of the Eucharist's main purpose. The primary goal of sacraments, especially the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the church's life (§ 10), is sharing in the death and resurrection of the Lord and in Christ's praise of the Father which accomplished the new creation of God's people by divine grace and mercy.
While rubrics are important, they can also become obstacles to God's grace if taken out of context or given exclusive attention. For that reason the Council also included a solemn warning: "Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebration. It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part knowingly, actively and fruitfully" (§ 11).
Now to the other part of my title for this column. Heresy is the deliberate and knowing denial of a divinely revealed truth. Like serious sin, formal heresy required full knowledge and a deliberate act of the human will.
There is also the type of heresy called "material," namely a de facto denial of God's truth which is not fully understood nor freely made. Such an act can be a denial of God's truth without the individual realizing it. Good and holy people can have seriously erroneous (namely, heretical) opinions. This latter sense is the notion I'm addressing, and that’s the reason for the title's use of the word in quotation marks.
There are two reasons for suggesting that total and narrowly exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics of the Eucharist might be heretical, that is, embodying a serious denial of a fundamental truth of our Catholic faith.
First of all, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the directives governing the human actions of our Eucharistic worship could be heretical because it suggests that our salvation depends upon our own actions alone, not God's grace and mercy. The error of acting as if we can achieve our own salvation by our works, howsoever holy and attentive, is a serious one, called "Pelagianism" after its fourth century proponent.
Secondly, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics might be heretical because it totters on the brink of indulging in magic. Whenever anyone thinks the blind recitation of certain words or the performance of physical actions themselves causes the effect, that is magic; hardly consistent with our faith or with our Christian recognition of God's sovereign power.
In Catholic tradition there is an historical recognition that an action can have its own immediate effect " ex opere operato " but that is by the promise of God, not the action of any human being as such.
These are things I as a bishop worry about, given today's increasing focus on correct rubrics as if they were the means to salvation, rather than an occasion for God's loving mercy. Keep an eye on the mystery, not merely the pathway to it.
But you don't know what I have under my hat.
us "lowly" laity have rights under canon law too. The right to receive the sacraments per the correct authorized liturgy of the Church is chief among them.
Ah, very true. But to your average modernist Bishop you have no rights....except to "Pay, pay, and get out of the way".
This is where I get in trouble and have to go to confession ....
Your average modernist Bishop tends to have very grey hair nowadays. They'll eventually be replaced.
ROFL
How would you describe your friend the Canon lawyer's C/catholicism? That is,traditional,orthodox,conservative,neo-conservative or progressive/modernist. I have a theory which I put forward about three months ago and was chastised for but I have spent time rethinking. Whereas,originally I thought I was right,I am now convinced that I was right. Anyway I got so much flak about it that I am going to wait to jump in again. But I am very interested in the degree of your friend's C/atholic commitment. Thanks.
Guilty conscience? ;)
I don't know. It might be better that way. You know, mystery of the universe and all that.
For eating. Very simple and very tasty. Although I recommend eating them with tea. They don't taste right with grain alcohol.
Maybe.
Without being silly about it, an intelligent Catholic may certainly question 'validity' if the priest acts like a clown.
I cannot understand how your friend got onto the track of belive/disbelieve/Luther.
600? Nope. 200. Remember, only 40% of nominal Catholics actually show up at Mass.
Call the Chancery, find the letter-screener, and ask, Sink. Let's get some hard numbers out here.
Heee Heee Heeeee haw har.
A BioMed Eng'r would be a MARVELOUS addition to the staff of TTGC--particularly combined with the Mechanical Engineering efforts of Arrogant Bustard, who is now rehabilitating the designs of various machines (I don't have to draw pictures, do I) for use of the Club in its upcoming activity.
Roll call will be underway shortly. I think you would be the Minister of Chemistry (in at least one sense of the term 'chemistry...')
Off we go!
Our Lord did not say (and I do challenge you to prove otherwise) the following:
The Eucharist must be practiced with a thin, tasteless wafer constructed entirely of wheat (neither barley, nor rye, nor spelt will do, and corn is right out), and that thin tasteless wafer must be emblazoned with a cross, and only that will do. Little girls who cannot tolerate wheat are ineligible for Communion.
That, my friend, is not something Jesus would have said. Rather, the insistence on wheat it is simply a position being taken by some, and defended as if it were Holy Writ. But it's not.
What we do know is the following:
On the night he was betrayed he took bread, said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to his friends, and said, "Take, eat: This is my Body, which is given for you. Do this for the remembrance of me."After supper, he took the cup of wine, gave thanks, and said, "Drink this, all of you: This is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink it, do this for the remembrance of me."
You may recall that He said this: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27). In the same way, the Eucharist was made for man, not man for the Eucharist. If you're all wound up about some church-standard wafer, then I'd say you're missing the point.
How do you know what kind of grain he used? And if I drink the wrong kind of wine, am I going to hell?
Idolatry comes in many forms. Sounds like you're worshiping bread and wine, and thereby missing the real point.
I'm not attacking the person's faith. I am pointing out the logical consequences of the person's statements. Big difference.
How about you tell us please, your understanding of WHY the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church has specified what valid matter is
Bp. Sklba states the issue nicely. The rubrics are there, and they are useful, because they ensure the sort of order that is necessary to the proper functioning of a church. It is, however, possible to become so wrapped up in church rules, that one forgets what the church is supposed to be about. This was the sin of the pharisees, and it was the point that Jesus was continually making when he had dealings with them.
and further to it, why you are adamantly against it.
I'm not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.