Posted on 10/13/2005 7:17:36 AM PDT by Pyro7480
It is generally known, that, since Vatican II, much has changed in the Catholic Church with regard to this veneration of the Host (whic means "sacrificial gift" in Latin).
Most of the forms of reverence I have described [such as kneeling for Communion] have disappeared. The liturgical reformers succeeded in convincing the faithful that reverence for the Host, worship of the Host as the real physical appearance of Jesus Christ, has been unknown in the Church of the Apostles and their early successors. This veneration of the Host was medieval, they said. The word "medieval" has an even more pejorative sound in the modern Church than it has in modern philosophy and historiography, where people are at last to question the idea of the "darkness of the Middle Ages" - that favorite Enlightenment cliche. In fact, as this "medieval" darkness starts to lighten and dissipate, we begin to discern the profile of one of the most creative, most multifarious and richest periods of huma history - and one of the most adventurous in spiritual terms.
However, my concern today is not to correct our view of the Middle Ages. In my search for an uninterrupted tradition of authentic liturgy I discovered the services of the Eastern Church. Here I paid special attention to the veneration of the Host, for the Eastern Church's liturgy cannot in any way be associated with the Middle Ages; its unchanged tradition, coming from the early part of the first millennium, is dogmatically beyond question.
For the Byzantine Christian, liturgy is a revelation of God, given to man from above; God, worshipped and served by cherubim and seraphim, gives men the grace to participate in this angelic worship and approach Him. It is strictly forbidden to change or adapt this divine liturgy; it would also conflict with the way the participants understand their role in the liturgy....
The sacrificial character of [Byzantine] liturgy is actually much more emphatic than in the Latin, even if one compares it with the Latin liturgy prior to Vatican II. When the Hosts are prepared, ...the pieces of bread selected... are pierced with a tiny lance, just as Jesus' side was pierced by a lance on Golgotha. The procession with the as yet unconsecrated offertory gifts attracts the greatest possible reverence. The priest carries wine and bread, magnificiently veiled, through the church, preceded by a thurifer walking backwards and constantly incensing the gifts. Depending on the particular congregation, people either bow profoundly or kneel, foreheads touching the ground, as the unconsecrated gifts pass by.
Here, the Host is treated like an as yet uncrowned monarch, proceeding to his coronation, accompanied by all the appropriate gestures of reverence. The Copts even use a fan, wafting a breeze towards the consecrated Host, no doubt also to banish the flies, as one would in the presence of a physical monarch. Such ceremonial fans were still in use in the West in medieval times, but the Copts' practice goes back to the earliest days of Christianity.
The Christian religion owes two of its most important institutions to Egyptian Christians: the definition of Mary as Mother of God, and monasticisim. From the Copts, even today, one can find out how the early Christian behaved towards the Host: nothing can be more authentic than this....
When I think of the abolition of the worship and veneration of the Host after Vatican II - just as in the centuries following the Reformation - a military image always presents itself to me, perhaps because military ceremonial still retains its sign-language, to some extent. What I see is the degradation of Captin Dreyfus, so vividly described by a number of writers. After being convicted as a Germany spy, he had to appear in full uniform in front of his regiment, to hear his sentence. His punishment not only meant prison on the island of Cayenne; he also forfeited his military rank. The officer who pronounced the sentence next demanded that Dreyfus surrender his sword. The Captain's sword was broken over officer's thigh; the shards were thrown at the feet of the supposed traitor. Then Dreyfus's epaulettes were torn from his shoulders and his emblems of rank from his breast.
To me, it is exactly the same when I see people still on their feet in from of the elevated Host, when I see them entering a church without genuflecting, and receiving communion in their outstretched hands. I see it as a degradation, a pointed, symbolic refusal to give honor. Incidentally, communion in the hand is inappropriate, not because the hands are less worthy to receive the Host than the tongue, for instance, or because they might be dirty, but because it would be impossible to rinse every participant's hands after communion (i.e., to make sure no particles of the Host are lost).
It was through the signs of reverence I saw from early childgood that the Host became, for me, what the Church's tradition claims it to be: a Living Being. From that time on, the presence of this Living Being triumphed over every doubt (and of course my faith in Christ has not been free from doubt)....
Anyone who goes to church on Holy Thursday believes he knows the identity of the man who broke bread in the Upper Room at the Last Supper. And if God says that this bread is His Body, there is only one response man can offer: he must worship this bread.
(Copyright Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2005. This excerpt from an article in the October 2005 issue of Inside the Vatican, translated by Graham Harrison, is part of an upcoming book on the liturgy by Martin Mosebach soon to be published in English by Ignatius Press.)
Martin Mosebach, a leading German writer who lives in Frankfurt, has published numerous novels, stories, collections of poems, film scripts, opera libretti, and plays.
That would be to denigate our friends at the golf course.
Yes, you are exactly right, and I have noticed that when I have been to Eastern Catholic or Orthodox liturgies, the reception standing is very reverent; some would even make a metania before approaching the Holy Mysteries, as I saw done at an Athonite style monastery here in Texas. I also think that the ritual accompanying communion in the East tends to emphasize the sacred character of the Mystery, especially the two servers holding the napkin beneath the Cup, and the more elaborate words of administration said by the priest.
For us in the West, it is the change from kneeling, associated with the traditional posture for presenting oneself to the monarch as an act of submission (and even today I think people genuflect or curtsy when meeting Queen Elizabeth, for example--I certainly genuflected when I met Pope John Paul II early this year) to standing, a posture more associated in the Western mind with meeting one's equals, is the problem. It suggests the triumph of the Revolution.
BTW, along the same lines, as mentioned in either this or another thread, dress has much the same connotation: one would dress one's best if one were to meet HM the Queen, would one not? So what does dressing in anything less than "Sunday best" mean when we go to receive Holy Communion? Who do we think we are meeting there?
The author of the article mentions this concept in his article. He says, "In fact, Holy Week mirrors the six days of creations with astonishing exactness.... Then, on Easter morning, there begins the new creation of a humanity that is now able to free itself from its inherited burden of guilt."
Further on the formula of administration of Holy Communion in the Divine Liturgy, here is the version in the Ruthenian Rescension (Byzantine Catholic Church):
Priest giving Communion to each says:
PRIEST: The servant of God N . . ., partakes of the precious, most holy and most pure Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of his (her) sins and for life everlasting. Amen.
It appears to be essentially the same in both Greek and Slavic usages.
Of interest, perhaps is the formula that can be used in the Roman Rite, Anglican Usage (when distributing communion by intinction): "The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you unto everlasting life."
Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam.
May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life.
In the Latin West this is all entirely true and well said. However, it is not quite true of the Eastern tradition which I believe is also embraced by Miles Jesu - a very fine ecclesial movement in my opinion that would be enhanced if they embraced better music.
Thanks for the ping, I've sent this on to Mom. It is really excellent.
Tell her there are typos in there. I would like to send her the entire article as well, if that's possible. FReep mail me, if you like.
The Western equivalent is mentioned in the full article. The altar rail was covered with a white cloth, and those receiving Communion folded their hands under the cloth. Also, as is sometimes done even today, an altar boy carried a small gold plate, which was held under the chin of each communicant. I attend the Traditional Latin Mass on most Sundays, and the only time I've seen the cloth over the altar rail being used was at a private Mass held in a small chapel in Pennsylvania.
In the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod church where I have the honor, unworthy as I am, to be a worship assistant, we can say:
"John, this is the Body of Christ, broken for you."
"Sarah, this is the Blood of Christ, shed for you."
More often, we say,
"John, this is the true Body of Christ broken for YOU."
"Sara, this is the true Blood of Christ, shed for YOU."
I do agree that this should be given and taken with all due reverence. He shed His blood for me; He allows me to be an instrument by which others may participate in this holy meal. How great is His mercy and forbearance, and willingness to pardon!
Yes, I have had some contact with MJ and find them to be very good and holy people. On the Western side, they seem to be closest to what I would call a Christendom College position: very conservative Novus Ordo--I have assisted at several of their NO masses where the priest was ad orientem--and the homilies seem ofetn to work in some reference to an older book, like Ricciotti's Life of Christ (from early 1940's, and perhaps better than Sheen or Sheed or Guardini) or Garrigou-Lagrange. I think in the early years they sent their clerical candidates to Christendom for initial training, in fact, and I know some of the Christendom heavyweights have been to MJ functions.
I have also assisted at MJ Divine Liturgies, including a memorable one at "Path to Rome" in Vienna in 2003, celebrated by Fr. Alphonsus Maria Duran, MJ, the founder himself, among others. Their priests are biritual and on the Byzantine side seem to answer to the local Ukrainian Greek Catholic hierarchs. They do a lot of work in Ukraine, so this would not be surpirising. Unfortunately they are not here in Houston, so I don't get to see them too often.
The good thing about their divine liturgies is that they don't use the "Gather" type music, but stick to Ukrainian chant. However, I have to say that even the NO masses with the music are quite spiritual.
CHAPTER LXV -- ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
Tertullian On Prayer CHAPTER 19.... Of stations.
Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord's Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God's altar? When the Lord's Body has been received and reserved? each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. If the "Station" has received its name from the example of military life--for we withal are God's military--of course no gladness or sadness chanting to the camp abolishes the "stations" of the soldiers: for gladness will carry out discipline more willingly, sadness more carefully.
*The Eucharist was received by hand and reserved at home for when their Fast ended
The First Council of Nicaea
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.
*So, no kneeling. Standing for Communion. Communion in the hand. Communion brought home to be consumed after a Fast ended.
The deacons have been permitted to distribute communion for ages.
*So, no kneeling. Standing for Communion. Communion in the hand. Communion brought home to be consumed after a Fast ended.
That means the Eastern Orthodox, Latin Catholicism, and Eastern Catholicism are all in violation of that canon.
There's something far deeper going on here which has resulted in the different atmospheres in our Churches during the Liturgies. My familiarity with Latin Rite Liturgies in limited in the NO era so I claim no profound understanding of what the people are thinking during one of those Liturgies, but those Liturgies seem to me, as an outsider, to be far more concerned with the here and now and us than about worshipping the Triune Pantocrator on the Eighth Day, not in this world but rather in a place off the timeline with choirs of Seraphim and Cherubim "...six winged, many eyed." Latin Rite liturgies seem to me to be very "casual" when compared with a High Mass of the 1950s.
I freely admit that I do not fully understand the Latin phronema. I do understand that people feel free to dress down and that "banner art" seems to have replaced icons and statues. I know that people seem to view attendence at Mass to be an "obligation" which must be fulfilled rather than a joyous foretaste of theosis.
It would be helpful to me if someone, perhaps a convert from Orthodoxy to the Latin Rite, or vice versa, or even someone who moved years ago from the Latin Rite to a Byzantine Rite Church could explain to me what it is that Latin Rite Catholics experience when at Mass, what they are thinking as they approach the Eucharist, what they feel like touching God with their hands, why they feel that either they themselves or their fellow Latin Rite Catholics feel they can "dress down" for Mass, that sort of thing. I'm sure you think I'm trying to set something up here, but I assure you I am sincere. We are asked interminably about a reunion with the Church of Rome. +Bartholomeus and +JPII both encouraged us to get to know one another. It would help all of us "Orthodoxers" to know what you "get", beyond the obvious communion, from the Mass.
"That means the Eastern Orthodox, Latin Catholicism, and Eastern Catholicism are all in violation of that canon."
The Orthodox always receive communion standing, P. The canon deals with kneeling on Sunday, not communion in the hands or taking it home which was a widespread practice in the early Church. That practice stopped, as I understand it, for two reasons. First, the Eucharist was seen as a communal, not private, matter because we are saved within the Eucharistic Community which is the Church and second because of "abuses".
Here's some thoughts by an Athonite monk, the Elder Ephraim of Philotheou monastery:
"O, how indispensable must and ought we in all ways to approach this heavenly communal feast, which grants us this lofty mystery of the Holy Table!
The angels are present invisibly; in great reverence the priests, who in this moment of mystery are honored above the angels, sacrifice the blameless Lamb.
The angels minister and faithful approach to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ: "receive the Body of Christ, taste the fountain of immortality," in order thus to live in Christ and not die through sin."
And this from the Coptic Life of St. Onnophrius (comm 13 June) by Paphnutius. Paphnutius is speaking with the Desert Saint about the Eucharist. The terms relating to the desert are both actual and allegorical relating to our life in the world but not of the world in The Church:
I said to him, "My sweet and good father, where do you receive the Eucharist on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day?" He said to me, "Every Sabbath, every Lord's Day, an angel comes to me and gives me the Eucharist. And blessed is everyone who lives as a citizen in the desert on account of God and sees no human being -- He brings the Eucharist to them and comforts them. If they desire to see anyone, they are taken up to heavenly heights and they see them. They greet them and the hearts are filled with light. They rejoice in the Spirit and are glad in the good things they will never lack. When they see them, they are comforted, and they completely forget the afflictions that have been theirs. Afterwards they return to their places, and they are comforted for a long time, as though they had been removed to another world. Because of the great joy they have seen, they do not remember that this world even exists."
From the Servant of God Pope Pius XII,Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (Nov. 20, 1947):
"63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation."
St Justin and Tertullian, great as they were, are speaking of the rites and usages of antiquity, here. The holy Pope, on the other hand, is speaking about the rite and usage in effect for centuries up to that time, and thereafter until 1969. Kneeling and communion on the tongue was continued as normative even after that; the deviation from these norms is what is recent, novel, and dangerous to one's soul.
63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
From "Mediator Dei", of Pius XII (1947).
The standing for communion and communion in the hand regimes are not legislative so much as they are permitted deviations in certain debased jurisdictions. You can fill in where, as you wish.
However, there are a few places where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated or the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite, and I have found these to be in some way very similar to my own significant experience of the Maronite Church and the Melkites. Those Latin masses (or English in the case of the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite) were marriages of heaven and earth where the Bridegroom swept me away as His own and I received Him with joy and trembling and the leaping of my heart, aching to be truly with Him at all times and in all places and for ever, where Cherubim and Seraphim cry Alleluia and the Most Pure and Holy Mother of my Lord and God welcomes me as her daughter with her tangible embrace.
All that I know pales in comparison to what I experience of the Most Holy Trinity through the venerable and ancient Liturgies of Holy Mother Church.
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.