Women, Veils, and the Mass: A Word from the Vatican in 1969

by Jacob Michael

Link to this article by referencing this address:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071013052025/http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=228

Editor's Note: This article clipping was notoriously difficult to locate. Taken from The Atlanta Journal in 1969, it seems to only exist in the form of a microfilm at various Atlanta libraries. Without the help of a reader of this site, it would have been impossible to procure. Special thanks to "NV." Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam.

---------------

Transcription:

Women Required To Cover Head, Vatican Insists

VATICAN CITY (UPI) - A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church.

The Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship, said the reports stemmed from a misunderstanding of a statement he made at a news conference in May.

"The rule has not been changed," he said. "It is a matter of general discipline. It began as a custom in the time of St. Paul and was later incorporated into canon law."

Photographic Reproduction:

Source: The Atlanta Journal, Saturday, June 21, 1969, page 6-A

Jacob Michael
© 2003-2007 LumenGentleman Catholic Studies

Related Articles

Still Binding? The Veiling of Women and Meatless Fridays

Still Binding? The Veiling of Women and Meatless Fridays

by Jacob Michael

Link to this article by referencing this address:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061009041355/http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=220

We've all heard the phrase countless times: "Vatican II changed that." In his Christmas Message to the Roman Curia in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the "hermeneutic [=the science of interpretation] of discontinuity," which wrongly insists that "the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council," and thus, "it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit." The Holy Father comments, "In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim." (Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia, December 22, 2005, source)

In the flurry of changes that followed upon the Council, two binding laws of the Church were forgotten by the faithful, and have largely fallen into disuse today. The first of these issues is the law of the Church concerning the veiling of women, that is, the obligation of women to wear some kind of head-covering at the liturgy; the second issue is the law of the Church concerning abstinence from meat on Fridays. In the course of this essay, both issues will be examined, and evidence will be provided to show that these two laws are still binding on Catholics today, contrary to what the false "spirit of the Council" might suggest.

The veiling of women is first mentioned in the inspired writings of St. Paul, who wrote as follows to the Corinthians:

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head - it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. (1 Cor. 11:4-6)

While some may wish to claim that St. Paul is speaking of a cultural discipline, which is subject to change, the Apostle himself adds later in the text that this obligation is not rooted in cultural practice, but in order of creation and the supernatural realm itself:

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:7-10)

St. Paul appeals to the order of creation first - man was not made from woman, but woman from man - and to the supernatural realm second - women are to veil themselves "because of the angels." We will have opportunity later to examine the interpretation of these texts by the great biblical scholar, St. Thomas Aquinas; first, however, we will consider how this text was understood and put into practice in the early Church.

Against the modern interpretation of the text, which posits that a woman's hair is the only covering to which St. Paul was referring, St. Irenaeus gives witness to the early Church's understanding of what a "head covering" was. Commenting on the beliefs of the Gnostics, he writes:

Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says, "A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels." Now, that Achamoth, when the Saviour came to her, drew a veil over herself through modesty, Moses rendered manifest when he put a veil upon his face. (Against Heresies, Book I, Cap. 8, 2)

What we learn from St. Irenaeus is that St. Paul was understood to be referring to a veil when he spoke of a covering for the head, and that the common understanding of the time (2nd century) was that the veil was worn for purposes of modesty. This view will resurface again in other works of the Fathers and later theologians.

Tertullian dedicated an entire work to the subject, entitled On The Veiling Of Virgins, in which he argues that virgins are not exempt from the law of veiling. He makes mention of the text in Genesis 6, which seems to indicate that the fallen angels were inflamed with lust for human women, and argues in conjunction with St. Paul's text that the veil should be worn "on account of the angels."

Tertullian appeals to the fact that the women keep themselves veiled, out of modesty, even outside of the liturgy; why, he wonders, should it be any different inside the church?

... as they veil their head in presence of heathens, let them at all events in the church conceal their virginity, which they do veil outside the church. They fear strangers: let them stand in awe of the brethren too; or else let them have the consistent hardihood to appear as virgins in the streets as well, as they have the hardihood to do in the churches. (On the Veiling of Virgins, 13)

He continues:

I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin-daughter - let me address you according to the names proper to your years - veil your head: if a mother, for your sons' sakes; if a sister, for your brethren's sakes; if a daughter for your fathers' sakes ... Put on the panoply of modesty; surround yourself with the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart for your sex ... (ibid., 16)

If married women veil themselves in church, Tertullian argues, so should the virgins who are not married, because in reality, they are married - they are the bride of Christ:

And yet you do not belie yourself in appearing as a bride. For you are wedded to Christ: to Him you have surrendered your flesh; to Him you have espoused your maturity. Walk in accordance with the will of your Espoused. (ibid., 16)

These witnesses of the 2nd and 3rd centuries are complemented by another writer of the 3rd century: St. Clement of Alexandria. In his multi-volume work called Paedagogus, or "The Instructor," St. Clement likewise attaches the question of the veil to the issue of modesty:

Woman and man are to go to church decently attired ... Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered ... For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled. (The Instructor, Book III, "Going to Church")

Next we come to the writings of three of the Church's greatest biblical scholars: St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and the "Golden-Mouthed Doctor," St. John Chrysostom. In his work on the Trinity, St. Augustine writes:

We ought not therefore so to understand that man is made in the image of the supreme Trinity ... as that the same image should be understood to be in three human beings; especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man." (On the Trinity, Book XII, Cap. 7, 9)

St. John Chrysostom, in his homilies on St. Paul's text from Corinthians, understands St. Paul to be saying that a woman should be veiled at all times, not merely in church:

... the man he compels not to be always uncovered, but only when he prays ... But the woman he commands to be at all times covered ... [he] also proceeded to say, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." But if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach. And not even with this only was he content, but added again, saying, "The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." He signifies that not only at the time of prayer but also continually, she ought to be covered. (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 26, ver. 4)

As can be seen here, the question for St. John Chrysostom was not whether women should be veiled in church; that was a given. The question was whether they should be veiled even outside of church.

St. Jerome, in a letter to Sabinianus (a deacon who had fallen into serious sin), notes in passing a common custom in certain convents, wherein woman who have renounced the world then cut their hair. Now, since St. Paul had made this very analogy, that for a woman to go unveiled was as disgraceful for her as if she had cut her hair, St. Jerome quickly adds that these women do not then proceed to the next step, and unveil themselves:

It is usual in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria for virgins and widows who have vowed themselves to God and have renounced the world and have trodden under foot its pleasures, to ask the mothers of their communities to cut their hair; not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostle's command, for they wear a close-fitting cap and a veil. (Letter 147, 5)

Note that St. Jerome, writing in the 5th century, hundreds of years after St. Paul's epistle was written, still understands the veiling of women in church to be a "command" of the Apostle.

Moving rapidly ahead to the scholastic period in the middle ages, we look to the commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on this passage from St. Paul. Commenting on the fact that women must be veiled "because of the angels," St. Thomas says that this can be understood in two ways - literally and figuratively. In the literal sense, "angels" really means angels:

This can be understood in two ways: in one way about the heavenly angels who are believed to visit congregations of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. And therefore at that time women as well as men ought to present themselves honorably and ordinately as reverence to them according to Ps 138 (v. 1): "Before the angels I sing thy praise." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on First Corinthians, 613, source)

In a more figurative way, St. Thomas says that "angels" can refer here to the priests who celebrate the liturgies, and thus he ties the issue of veiling to modesty:

In another way it can be understood in the sense that priests are called angels, inasmuch as proclaim divine things to the people according to Mal (2:7): "For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts."

Therefore, the woman should always have a covering over her head because of the angels, i.e., the priests, for two reasons: first, as reverence toward them, to which it pertains that women should behave honorably before them ... Secondly, for their safety, lest the sight of a woman not veiled excite their concupiscence. (ibid.)

As a side note, while Catholics do not take their theological or moral direction from the first Protestant Reformers, it is certainly interesting to make mention of the fact that in the 16th century, even John Calvin took a "traditional" view of the veiling of woman, tying it to the issue of modesty. In his characteristically blunt way, Calvin says:

So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature. (S. Skolnitsky (tr.), Men, Women and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin [Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1992], p. 12)

This witness tells us at least one thing: even by the 16th century, the tradition of veiling women in church was still going strong. And it continued to be the practice in the Catholic Church, right up until the late 1960s.

We have briefly surveyed the tradition of the Church on the subject; now we must look at what the law of the Church states today concerning women and head coverings. The most explicit statement came in the older, 1917 edition of the Code of Canon Law:

Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord. (Canon 1262.2)

Viri in ecclesia vel extra ecclesiam, dum sacris ritibus assistunt, nudo capite sint, nisi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut peculiaria rerum adiuncta; mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.

Why bring up this canon from the old Codex? Don't we have a new Code of Canon Law in force today? Yes, we do, but a difficulty arises from this peculiar fact: the new Code does not contain this Canon from the 1917 Code. The New Code of Canon Law simply does not mention the veiling of women. So does this mean the law of the veil has been abrogated? We turn now to examine what the New Code says regarding old laws that are not carried over into the new law code. The New Code begins in this way:

A law is established when it is promulgated. (Canon 7)

The first building block of our argument, then, is this: the law of the veil was established when it was promulgated, in 1917.

A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise. (Canon 20, emphasis added)

This is the second piece of the puzzle: an old law is not revoked unless the new law "states so expressly," or is "directly contrary to it," or "completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law." The New Code of Canon Law does not even mention the veil, and thus it does not expressly revoke the law; the New Code does not legislate that women must not wear a veil, and so it is not "directly contrary" to the old Code; finally, since the New Code does not even raise the issue, it can hardly be argued that it revokes the old law by "completely [reordering] the entire matter."

Still, someone may say, because the New Code does not mention the old law of the veil, can we not conclude that it is being implicitly revoked, or at least no longer being enforced? On the contrary, the next canon says:

In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them. (Canon 21, emphasis added)

It would be incorrect, then, and contrary to Canon Law, to "presume" that the "pre-existing law" has been revoked. So far there is nothing in the New Code that would lead us to believe that veils have been abolished, and in fact, the law expressly states that old laws are not to be presumed to be revoked.

In the next canons, the question of particular "customs" is raised.

Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs. (Canon 26, emphasis added)

This paragraph tells us that a custom obtains "the force of law" once it has been practiced "for thirty continuous and complete years." The custom of women veiling their heads (which was not mere custom, but positive law, in any case) was in force since at least 1917, when the old Codex was promulgated; the New Code was promulgated in 1983, which means that the custom of veiling was practiced for at least 66 years - more than double the requirement given by the New Code.

As we have shown, however, the custom of the veil was practiced in the early Church, and continued to be practiced down through the centuries until the 1960s; in other words, the custom of veiling women is more than even a "centenary" custom - it is an "immemorial" custom, and thus, even if the New Code had explicitly revoked it, according to Canon 26 it would "prevail against ... canonical law."

We can look to a similar and parallel case to prove the point we are making. The 1917 Code contained an explicit prohibition against joining a Masonic lodge. The code says:

Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the church or against legitimate civil authority, incur an ipso facto excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. (Canon 2335)

Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve eiusdem generis associationibus quae contra Ecclesiam vel legitimas civiles potestates machinantur, contrahunt ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam.

This older law was, in fact, mentioned in the New Code, but slightly revised so that Masons were not mentioned specifically:

A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict. (Canon 1374)

Just as with the law of the veil, the law prohibiting joining a Masonic lodge was not carried over explicitly into the New Code; did this mean that it was now permissible to join the Masons? Did the absence of the former law mean that it was revoked? On the contrary, and eventually the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was bound to issue a statement of clarification on the matter:

It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church's decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code ... the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Masonic Associations, November 26, 1983, emphasis added)

Notice the similarity in the argument: the previous Code explicitly mentioned the Masons, the New Code does not, therefore the law has been revoked. The CDF overturned this reasoning and stated that the previous law was still in force. The same must be said of the law of the veil, since the New Code itself says that no previous law can be presumed to be revoked, unless the New Code explicitly says otherwise.

From this lengthy discussion on the veiling of women, we turn to briefly consider the question of abstaining from meat on Fridays. Here, there is considerably more explicit data to work with, and thus we are not left to wonder about the state of the issue.

In 1966, Pope Paul VI issued an Apostolic Constitution (one of the most authoritative forms of a papal declaration) on the subject of penance. In it, he said:

Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to local practice, on the first day of 'Great Lent' and on Good Friday. (Pope Paul VI, Paenitemini, Cap. 3, source, emphasis added)

The "faculties" referred to by the Pope, which are spelled out later in the document, say that "it is the task of episcopal conferences to ... [s]ubstitute abstinence and fast wholly or in part with other forms of penitence and especially works of charity and the exercises of piety." (ibid.) Thus he leaves open the possibility that conferences of Bishops in particular areas can lift the Friday abstinence rule and substitute it for another form of penance.

Following this, the 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. (Canon 1251)

In the United States, the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) promulgated a document shortly after Pope Paul VI issued his Apostolic Constitution, and took advantage of the faculties he had given them. The document, entitled "On Penance and Abstinence", says:

... the Catholic bishops of the United States, far from downgrading the traditional penitential observance of Friday, and motivated precisely by the desire to give the spirit of penance greater vitality, especially on Fridays, the day that Jesus died, urge our Catholic people henceforth to be guided by the following norms:

1. Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year, a time when those who seek perfection will be mindful of their personal sins and the sins of mankind which they are called upon to help expiate in union with Christ Crucified;

2. Friday should be in each week something of what Lent is in the entire year. For this reason we urge all to prepare for that weekly Easter that comes with each Sunday by freely making of every Friday a day of self-denial and mortification in prayerful remembrance of the passion of Jesus Christ;

3. Among the works of voluntary self-denial and personal penance which we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday, we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat. We do so in the hope that the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly we did in obedience to Church law. (USCCB, "On Penance and Abstinence", November 18, 1966, source, emphasis added)

To sum up, the US Bishops have lifted the obligation to abstain from meat on Friday, which only means that failure to abstain from meat on Friday no longer involves a grave sin. This is hardly a loophole that should be interpreted as blanket approval to jettison this traditional practice; on the contrary, the Bishops then say that abstinence from meat on Friday is given "first place" among other penitential options, and remains the practice which should be "ordinarily" observed by Catholics in the United States. The only difference is that now Catholics will abstain from meat on Fridays "by free choice" instead of "in obedience to Church law," which was formerly binding on pain of grave sin.

Unfortunately, most Catholics have taken their new freedom and turned it into a false liberty, a license to abstain from any form of abstinence, even though the Bishops clearly state that Friday is to remain a day of penance and mortification. If a Catholic chooses to eat meat on a Friday, he is still bound by Church law to do some kind of penance and mortification, such as praying an extra decade of the Rosary, praying the stations of the Cross, fasting during the day, etc.

But the desire of the US Bishops, it must be emphasized again, is that abstinence from meat on Fridays will be the "ordinary" method of doing penance - not the extra-ordinary method. Abstinence from meat on Fridays is still, by the way, binding on the whole Church during the season of Lent. But even outside of Lent, Friday is still a day of penance and mortification, and abstinence from meat is still the primary and ordinary method of doing such penance. The question which Catholics must ask themselves, if they say that abstaining from meat on Fridays is no longer the Church law, is "what equivalent form of penance have I substituted in its place?"

In conclusion, we have examined two practices of the Church which have recently fallen into disuse, mostly through ignorance. The law of veiling woman is still in force, until Canon Law says otherwise; likewise, the law of penance and mortification on Fridays is also still in force, and the primary and normative method of doing penance on Fridays is still to abstain from meat.

Jacob Michael
© 2003-2006 LumenGentleman Apologetics

Related Articles

Women, Veils, and the Mass: A Word from the Vatican in 1969

The Hermeneutics of liturgical fittingness

• Prayer posture: "On the sacramental hermeneutics of fittingness in posture for prayer" (Musings, March 2, 2006)
• Communion in the hand, standing: "On the hermeneutics of fittingness: Communion in the hand, standing" (Musings, March 6, 2006)
• Communion rail: "On the hermeneutics of fittingness: the removal of the Communion rail?" (Musings, March 22, 2006)
• Communion rail: "Anthony Esolen on the Communion Rail" (Musings, May 23, 2006)
• Veils: "On the hermeneutics of fittingness: head coverings for women" (Musings, April 8, 2006)
• Ad orientem / versus populum: "The hermeneutics of fittingness: ad orientem / versus populum"" (Musings, May 2, 2006)
• Requiem Mass: "The hermeneutics of fittingness: traditional Requiem Mass vs. new 'Mass of Resurrection'" (Musings, May 25, 2006)
• Hand holding: "Hermeneutics of fittingness: hand-holding during the Our Father" (Musings, July 14, 2006)
  
• Altar girls: "Hermeneutics of sacramental fittingness: altar girls" (Musings, July 27, 2006)
• Kneeling: "Back to kneeling?" (Musings, January 16, 2007)
• Veils: "Head coverings, again -- for the record" (Musings, May 28, 2007):

Comments to: "On the hermeneutics of fittingness: Communion in the hand, standing"

Archived comments to the post: "On the hermeneutics of fittingness: Communion in the hand, standing" (Musings, March 6, 2006)

Related:

• “On the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum and the institutionalization of abuses in the Novus Ordo Mass” (Scripture and Catholic Tradition, Friday, August 20, 2004)
• The Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum
• Pope Paul’s Instruction Memoriale Domini, published in 1969, against Communion in the hand.
• Appendix A: "What the Holy Ones Say About Receiving Communion in the Hand" [see excerpts below, following comments]
• Appendix B: "Modernist and Protestant Revolutionaries were behind Communion in the hand" [see excerpts below, following comments]
  

Comments:

I fervently believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. After years receiving Communion upon the tongue, I now receive in the hand, on the basis of the following passage from St. John of Damascus:

'Let us approach with ardent desire and receive the Body of the Crucified with our hands held in the form of a cross; taking it to our eyes and lips and foreheads, let us partake of the Divine Coal ... in order that we may be inflamed and divinized by our share in the divine fire. Isaiah saw [this] coal.' (Source: Benedict Groeschel, In the Presence of Our Lord: The History, Theology and Psychologyy of Eucharistic Devotion)

I see absolutely no conflict between Eucharistic adoration and receiving Communion in the hand. Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly to this issue. To Peter Seewald's question about the propriety of receiving in the hand, then-Cardinal Ratzinger replied: "I wouldn't want to be fussy about that. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion." (Source: http://www.adoremus.org/0604Ratz...Ratzinger.html)
Dave | 03.06.06 - 12:52 pm | #

I think it speaks volumes that the practice of Holy Communion in the hand was dropped from every single Rite of the Catholic Church (including all the Eastern Catholics/Orthodox.) It was a practice that had, for good reason, been totally extinct for at least a thousand years prior to Vatican II, punctuated only by regional attempts by heretics to have it reintroduced specifically as an attack on the orthodox Faith in the Real Presence. Thus its reintroduction in the latter 1900s cannot be said to have grown organically from any existing practice, thus violating even the criteria of Sacrosanctum Concilium. It fits in every detail what the Church used to condemn as "harmful novelties".

In addition, it carries with it the distinct danger of profanation, as Paul VI himself warned. I was at a wedding recently in the new Rite--the first time in a long time--and, predictably, a little girl went up to receive in the hand and ended up dropping the Host. And, again predictably, the response was simply to pick It back up and pop it in her mouth.

The Church had very specific directions about how such accidents (much less likely under her former disciplines) were to be handled. They are now pretty universally ignored, as if it no longer matters if fragments of the Blessed Sacrament are trodden upon or flushed down the drain. Either the Church was correct before the "reforms" in the way she treated such accidents, or there has been some very practical change in what we believe now about the nature of our Lord's Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. I can't really see how this can be avoided.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.06.06 - 1:44 pm | #

Communion in the hand while standing does draw on our contemporary experience at the fast food counter.
Terrence Berres | Homepage | 03.06.06 - 2:00 pm | #

'Communion in the hand while standing does draw on our contemporary experience at the fast food counter.'

That is not my experience. I receive Communion in the hand with the reverence and adoration that is due to the real and objective presence of our Lord.
Dave | 03.06.06 - 2:11 pm | #

One reason that I decided to change my practice and begin receiving Communion by hand was my experience with "near misses" by Eucharistic ministers who, apparently surprised to see me approach with hands folded and mouth open, nearly fumbled the Host. I feel that receiving by hand is safer. By the way, I approach our Lord's Blood with the greatest care, frightfully conscious of the danger of dropping the Chalice.

The solution to the problem of potential accidents is better training of Eucharistic ministers (including education in the norms for handling accidents), not forbidding the practice of receiving Communion by hand. Above all, we should avoid scrupulosity and approach our Lord with adoration and trust.
Dave | 03.06.06 - 2:36 pm | #

If I remember correctly, the reason stated by the US bishops (Was it in the GERM?) for the formal introduction of standing to receive Communion as the official "norm" of the American Catholic Church was that it was more "unitive" ...that everyone should be in the same posture. They stated that posture should be standing, I suppose because the majority of the faithful were already doing that.

I find their reasoning INadequate. For one thing, it is not essentially un-unitive to kneel to receive Jesus. Even if some kneel, some stand, all faithful Catholics are still united in the Body of Christ present in the Eucharist. Much MORE united there than they are in some random gesture. For another thing, would it really have been that hard to have a goal of reintroducing kneeling to receive as the preferred method? Although I suppose if you can't get anyone in this relativistic age to say that, objectively, kneeling is better than standing, there would be no reason to try.
So, I don't think the bishops have "adequate rationale". But then, I guess I haven't been properly "catechized" on the importance of "unity."
Megan Z | 03.06.06 - 3:54 pm | #

I think the flaw in your argument, Dave, is that you are using the exception (yourself) to try to prove the rule. That's bad argumentation. The rule historically and in the present is that this practice erodes orthodox belief in the Real Presence and due reverence for Our Lord. In my opinion that's why it fell totally out of use and stayed that way for well over a thousand years and why only heretics have tried to resurrect it.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.06.06 - 4:08 pm | #

"In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul addressed the subject of the Lord’s Supper with these words: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break (by hand), is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

And if we want to duplicate the Last Supper exactly, shouldn't we receive while sitting? And I seem to note that the guys who do the consecrating stand during the Change.

Although we have only a few sanitation issues remaining, i.e. holy water font contamination with flu and cold viruses and shaking hands during flu season, the hands of us current "pew peasants" are quite clean unlike the hands of dairy and pig farmers some years ago.

"AARPies" like me BTW would not be happy going back to kneeling on granite steps.
Realist former Convergent | 03.06.06 - 5:02 pm | #

We must keep the discussion on the level of theology, not on accidental problems. The ancient Catholic moral maxim applies here: the abuse does not take away the use. (Abusus non tollit usum.)
Kathy | Homepage | 03.06.06 - 6:16 pm | #

I am an AARPie and I am blessed to be allowed to kneel to receive holy communion.
little gidding | 03.06.06 - 7:45 pm | #

little gidding,

And non-kneelers are "less blessed"?
Realist former Convergent | 03.06.06 - 8:05 pm | #

Dave, you are right in quoting St. John Chrysostom; there's no doubt about it, that at one point in Christian liturgical history, communicants received the Eucharist in the hand. Christians also reserved the Sacrament in their own homes at that time. Does that mean we have the right to demand the Sacrament in our homes? We can't always appeal to antiquity to make our case. This also cannot be a matter of personal taste; it isn't about preferring to receive the Sacrament in this or that way. It is primarily about whether a particular means, as a rule, shows greater worship to Our Lord present in the Sacrament. Kneeling expresses adoration, submission, humility today just as it did 1,500 years ago. It is a gesture that is recognized and perceived as a moving sign of surrender. I pray that the Church speedily returns to the practice of kneeling and communion on the tongue.
Tyrell | Homepage | 03.06.06 - 9:19 pm | #

I don't understand how someone could argue that standing to receive the Lamb of God is the most reverent posture. What is the precedent set by Sacred Scripture? The prophet Daniel fell down as though dead when confronted by the Angel Gabriel. St. John likewise when confronted by the Glorified Lord. In reading through the Holy Gospels one hardly finds someone not on their knees when confronting Jesus!

I love the definition that Websters Dictionary gives of accustom. It states, "to make familiar by custom, habit, or use". I think Catholics have become "accustomed" to the Eucharistic Presence of the living God. We've become "used to" God.
St Pio | 03.06.06 - 9:45 pm | #

As a new convert, this conversation floors me. The distinction between hand and mouth seems secondary to the far greater issue of standing or kneeling. Very few Protestants I ever encountered practiced the standing routine. It turns reception into an assembly line shuffle. But almost all catholic congregations do. I am guessing the rationale is the degree to which the service is sped up, so it is a question of functionality. But so much is lost in the swap it is difficult to understand how anyone could advocate standing verus kneeling. If we kneel umpteen times during prayers, why on earth would we not when receiving the Body of Christ?! I have started attending a Latin mass once a week. I cannot understand anything, and the atmosphere is very foreign to me. The priest rattles of the rite like it is hocus pocus. But it is worth it all simply because there is a reverence invloved. No buzz in the anctuary pre-service, and kneeling at an altar rail. Gee, it almost feels... no, it does feel like Church. As opposed to the allmost universal complaint of Protestant converts that Catholic worship leaves them somewhat cold, since the liturgy has been stripped of so much reverence. Here is an idea for the new pope: why not mandate kneeling? It seems even more fundamental than the altar direction.
Joe | 03.06.06 - 10:43 pm | #

Your references to the Netherlands are an attempt to impugn communion in the hand by the method of "guilt be association". Communion in the hand is simply more dignified than on the tongue. I must admit, however, that to kneel at the altar and receive host and chalice at an Anglican Eucharist, is more devout than our present RC system. But then huge numbers of kneeling communicants in RCC churches often make for undevout haste as well.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.06.06 - 10:47 pm | #

Forgive me for putting my two cents in here, but the back-and-forth arguments on this topic reminds me of a chapter out of the "The Three Musketeers" where Aramis, the Monsieur the Principal of Amiens, and Monsieur the Curate of Montdidier were discussing his thesis prior to his impending entrance into the priesthood, "’utraque manus in benedicendo clericis inferioribus necessaria est.’”

Jesus warned us about disputing about minutiae when we should be concerned about the spirit of things. See, Matt. 23: 23-25. Instead of arguing about whether Communion should be taken in the hand, on the tongue, or off a spoon like some of the Eastern Churches practice, the discussion should center on the intention in the heart of the person receiving Holy Communion. What difference does it make whether a person receives Communion by hand or on the tongue, if that person is receiving Communion with reverence and for the purpose of receiving the great graces God gives to us by virtue the Real Presence of Christ in the host and in the wine?

I have attended mass and received Communion at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and have attended mass in the woods on campouts and almost every place in between. I have heard mass said in Latin, English, French, Spanish, Greek, Korean, and even one in Aramaic. I have attended Novus Ordo masses, Byzantine rite masses, Melkite rite masses, charismatic masses, Pauline rite masses, Tridentine masses, and some- that-I-had-no-idea-what-kind-of-mass-they-were. I have received Communion in hand, on the tongue, from a spoon, at a rail, in a line, in the choir loft, on my knees, standing up and even once in the rain holding an umbrella. I have been to masses where there was me, the priest and two altar boys and to ones where there were over a thousand people there, masses where everyone was dressed in K of C 4th degree garb or in full dress military uniform to ones where every one was in shorts and t-shirts. These are all trappings, external things. What holds me and binds me to the Church is the fact that in each and every one of those masses, after priest consecrated the bread and wine, it became the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Reverence isn't something that "we do" for God. Reverence is the by- product of us acknowleding the receipt of the unmerited gifts that God is bestowing on us. I guess what I am saying is that all sides to the argument have their merit, but none of it really matters because Christ is present in the Eucharist whether we kneel, stand or sit, whether we receive Him on our tongues, in our hands or from a holy utensil. What is really important is whether we are prepared to receive Him into our hearts.
Paul Hoffer | 03.07.06 - 1:14 am | #

Amen. Thank you, Paul! I think that Benedict XVI would agree.

When will the Pertinacious Papist weigh in? He started this ball rolling!
Dave | 03.07.06 - 1:35 am | #

By the way, I grew up attending Methodist services, where we knelt at an altar railing to recieve our personal vial of grape juice. The gesture of kneeling, in itself, does not necessarily translate into adoration.
Dave | 03.07.06 - 1:45 am | #

Here's a little challenge:

Can anyone find an image of someone recieving Eucharist in any posture OTHER than kneeling, prior to Vatican II?

Or accepting the Eucharist in the hand?

http://www.wga.hu/art/t/tiepolo/...0s/ 09s_lucy.jpg

http://www.rezalumni.com/1st% 20C...mmunion1960.jpg

http://www.latribunedelart.com/ E...Saint_Denis.jpg

http://sandstead.com/images/ metr...690_LS_d2h_.jpg

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/...s/ eucharist.jpg

Eastern Church images and Icons don't count! : )
michael hugo | 03.07.06 - 3:06 am | #

BTW, this last image is one of the "official pictures" of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
M. Alves | 03.07.06 - 5:55 am | #

Anglican practice is to deliver the host into the hands of the communicant crosed(as per St. John of Damascus)The host is always delivered by a priest, not an EM, who, on the other hand may be administering the chalice. The old words of administration began with "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee", and the " Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee". Now the words of administration usually are "The Body of Christ, the bread of heaven", and "The Blood of Christ, the cup of salvation". Of course, the most important thing is that, as one post says, we approach the Sacrament with faith in Christ's Presence and an open heart.
rob k | 03.07.06 - 6:16 am | #

Groeschel....

Yes, I can clearly see the holy Damascene attending a new Mass. His exact words would be: "What's this!?!?!?!"
New Catholic | Homepage | 03.07.06 - 8:25 am | #

Realist,

Yes, those who are not allowed to kneel but wish they could are less blessed than I, I believe.
little gidding | 03.07.06 - 9:19 am | #

little gidding,

Then by all means kneel when you receive. I am sure the priest will give you communion. We would not want to deny you your extra blessing. Maybe you could shed a few drops of knee blood to kick the blessing "up a notch". And just what are you going to do with all those extra blessings??
Realist former Convergent | 03.07.06 - 9:49 am | #

There is no one in this discussion who is not concerned to show due reverence to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Everyone wants to worship the Lord in the right way. Yet in these matters we must beware of the ever-lurking danger of Pharisaism. One can approach the Eucharist upon one's knees, with a head full of theology and a heart full of judgment, and thus receive the Body of the Lord in vain.
Dave | 03.07.06 - 10:01 am | #

Mother Teresa weighs in...

Mother Teresa herself evidently regards the practice in a somewhat negative light:

"I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don't know why-"Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

Fr. George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989, sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York City.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
michael hugo | 03.07.06 - 10:13 am | #

Kneeling is an outward sign of humility, and has been through the ages. Yes, it is possible to have the outward position of humility, and not the inward disposition. Standing is less outwardly "humble" position. Yes, it is possible to stand and have a very humble inward disposition.

But why in heaven's name can't we strive toward matching inward AND outward dispositions??

Although a humble and contrite heart is of utmost importance, our outward position matters. Our Lord wants us (for our own sake, not His) to worship Him with our mind, soul, AND body. Ideally, all three should be in harmony... After all, that's the way he made us, originally.
Megan Z | 03.07.06 - 10:52 am | #

In principle, I agree with Megan Z. I would certainly not argue that standing to receive Communion is more reverent than kneeling. The problem is that if I were to kneel to receive Communion at our parish, I would only create a scene and draw attention to myself. It is interesting to note that while Benedict XVI is theologically adamant about liturgical orientation and posture, he is pastorally patient. He does not believe that we can, or should, rush these things.
Dave | 03.07.06 - 11:05 am | #

Paul Hoffer writes:

"What difference does it make whether a person receives Communion by hand or on the tongue, if that person is receiving Communion with reverence ....

"... These are all trappings, external things."

And Dave writes:

"Amen. Thank you, Paul! I think that Benedict XVI would agree.

"When will the Pertinacious Papist weigh in? He started this ball rolling!"

Well I suppose I need to weigh in. What strikes me about these sentiments is that they are thoroughly Protestant in the Zwinglian sense. Zwingli, you may recall, said that the material elements in the sacrament are merely symbols, not realities; and I know neither of you are quite saying that. But what you seem to be saying is that the externals don't matter, that what matters in only the inward spiritual disposition.

This current of thought in Protestantism has late medieval nominalist antecedents. Once you reached the reformers (especially Zwingli, but the others too, in certain respects) justification was re-interpreted as a nominal justification: God declares us just, imputing Christ's righteousness to us forensically (in a legal courtroom-style declaration), but we remain, as Luther insisted, "snow-covered dung hills." The Church was re-interpreted as a nominal Church: Calvin and others talked about "the Church," but the expression signified only something nebulously spiritual, not the concrete organism that had come down by apostolic succession from NT times. In the Zwinglian tradition (and to some extent the Calvinist), the Lord's Supper was re-interpreted as only nominally involving the Body and Blood of Christ -- symbolically for Zwingli, as a "spiritual Real Presence" for Calvin. (continued ...)
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.07.06 - 11:14 am | #

(Continued ...)

What's the upshot of all this? The dismissal of the sacramental-incarnational outlook of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Newman said that the central doctrine of Christianity is the Incarnation -- the pre-Incarnate Logos taking human flesh -- and all that this entails. Protestant evangelicals will typically say that ultimately all that matters is the inner spiritual disposition and relationship with Christ, not the "external trappings." Hence their common disdain for the "empty formalism" of the Catholic liturgical tradition. In fact, much of the effort to involve the congregation in "active participation" in the new Mass (understood as emotional and physically expressive participation) very likely stems from this same historical root. Now of course the inward spiritual disposition is fundamentally important. But to say that the "externals don't matter" seeme to me to be a profoundly nominalist-Protestant notion.

Here's the bottom line: a 'sacrament' is an "outward sign of an inward grace." As Thomas Howard says in his beautiful chapter ("Spirit and Flesh: forever sundered?") in Evangelical Is Not Enough, the Catholic sacramental outlook is one in which the "spiritual" enfleshes or 'incarnates' itself in physical expressions, gestures, postures, and forms. OF COURSE it matters that these material forms and expressions are intended sincerely. But to say that only the sincerity (inward spiritual relationship) mattered would be a little like suggesting that it doesn't matter whether or how married couples express their love for one another outwardly, since all that matters is that their exists a sincere inner loving disposition. I can just see Archie Bunker responding to Edith's question: "Archie, how come you never buy me roses or kiss me anymore? C'mon Arch, gimme a little kiss." Archie: "C'mon Edith, I told you on our wedding day I loved you. I took my wedding vows, same as you did. Isn't that enough?" Edith: "But Archie ..." Archie: "Aw, Edith. You know I can't stand all this pinko-lilly-livered touchy-feely stuff."

I grant you that from an outsider's perspective, Catholic hand-wringing over liturgical postures, gestures, and forms can seem a bit silly and precious. But once you grant that 'spirit' incarnates itself in 'material' sacramental forms -- that justification involves real sanctification, that the Church is a real historical organism, that the bread and wine become Body and Blood, that marital love enfleshes itself in physical affection and external gestures -- it suddenly becomes important what those forms are; even whether one kneels or stands, whether one receives on the tongue or in the hand.

At an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship retreat years ago, the Baptist pastor wanted us to use our left over iced tea and rolls from breakfast to had a "communion service." Each of us, he said, would go up to a table that would serve as an altar with iced tea and a breakfust roll on it, and tear off a piece of bread and take a sip of tea and spend a few moments recollecting the sacrifice of Christ for us on Calvary. I applaud the spiritual sentiments. I'm appalled by their 'external' forms. "Externals" matter, do they not?
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.07.06 - 11:16 am | #

Expressing reverence and self-abnegation through bodily gestures does not automatically make you a hypocrite, although, in practical terms, as is evident in the responses to my last post, in the current Post-Vatican 2 church at large, it does in many cases open yourself up to the judgement of those around you that you are indeed a hypocrite and only concerned with showing off to others your "holiness." The responses are a demonstration of what the real intention is of discouraging or outright banning of kneeling and other devotional acts; or of the community pressure that exists around the practice of receiving communion that strongly discourages any gesture of devotion or submission. One response to my post says, "go ahead and kneel, I'm sure you won't be denied communion ..." but, of course, there have been plenty of cases where people who were kneeling were in fact denied communion unless they stood up. Kneeling has now been made an abberant practice. It is in many places seen as highly idiosyncratic and so cannot be done unselfconsciously.

I admit that I feel blessed when I am allowed to kneel to receive communion, and that this is a blessing that others who wish they could kneel, but are not allowed to, do not have. And so I do thank God that I happen to live in a place, and have clergy in my parish and a bishop of the diocese, where this is possible and where it is supported and where I am not regarded as eccentric. But if you have no wish to kneel during communion, I have nothing to say to you, since you are not being deprived of something that means anything to you. I make no judgment about the nature of the eucharistic reception itself in any case, and what blessings you may or may not receive from the host, no matter how you may be dressed or under what circumstances or in what surroundings you may receive it.
little gidding | 03.07.06 - 11:36 am | #

I absolute agree with everything stated by PP. Externals DO matter. Minutae are momentous if we take seriously the "scandal" of the Incarnation. My only point is that we have to be patient in these matters.
Dave | 03.07.06 - 11:36 am | #

Little Gidding: if the day comes that kneeling to receive Communion is once again the mandated practice, I would welcome that day. In the meantime, I'm happy to stand outwardly and kneel inwardly. I'm also happy to face Eastward inwardly!
Dave | 03.07.06 - 11:41 am | #

Several writers here, like Shawn McElhinney in his essay "The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand," have argued for Communion in the hand on the basis of historical precedent. This would seem prima facie a good argument, one in keeping with Vatican II's call to return ad fontes, even. I think Thomist-WB has pointed out sufficiently the problems with the appeal to antiquity simpliciter. But the question I am more interested in is the one alluded to by Tyrell when he writes: "Kneeling expresses adoration, submission, humility today just as it did 1,500 years ago. It is a gesture that is recognized and perceived as a moving sign of surrender." The question has to do with the comparative incarnational value of kneeling vs. standing, receiving on the tongue vs. in the hand. Both certainly have been accepted forms in Church history. The question is which is more fittingly expressive of the normative Catholic theology -- and I don't see this question as a 'red herring.'

Joe raises the question of the comparative greater importance of the question of kneeling vs. standing over the matter of tongue vs. hand. The reason I placed these questions together in the same post is that I think they belong together. Dave has already pointed out his personal frustration with Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who seem altogether befuddled by someone who approaches them with hands folded and mouth open, and how the practice seems accident-prone. I would agree. There's something about receiving on the tongue that does not belong fittingly with standing. Some priests can navigate this posture with finesse, but not all -- especially if the communicant is considerably taller than the priest.

This, then, I suppose would be another ancillary question, whether receiving on the tongue goes together more fittingly with kneeling and vice versa.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.07.06 - 11:50 am | #

So far I think the only rationale for standing and receiving in the hand has been a utilitarian one -- it moves things along more quickly. But I agree with the person who said that didn't seem an adequate rationale. This sort of change -- presumably for "the good of the Church" -- would seem to warrant a theological rationale. Any ideas?
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.07.06 - 11:52 am | #

Furthermore, I don't really even buy the notion that standing and receiving in the hand expedites matters. Both at the TLM and at Anglican parishes in a former life, I witnessed communicants moved along to kneeling at the communion rail and up and back to their pews again with dispatch.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.07.06 - 11:54 am | #

On the other hand, some very astute scholars (at least in the eyes of some), have questioned the historical authenticity of the Last Supper (See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...DB/jdb016.html) or whether there is an actual change of bread and wine into Body and Blood, i.e. transubstantiation vs. transignification.

From a good "Catholic" friend, PhD in theology, and Professor of Theology at a large Catholic university:
" Transubstantiation is still a Catholic doctrine, but it never meant a literal transforming of bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Jesus. "Substance" in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing and was not reducible to material appearance. Transubstantiation is a way of
expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW present in the consecrated bread and wine in a special way. Some theologians believe that "transignificantion" would be a better term today than transubstantiation.[Note: both Episcopalians and Lutherans believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistized bread and wine.]"

Dr. Blosser and Father Joe appear to be the theological/biblical experts on this blog. Maybe they can critique the information above and give us an update on current thoughts?

IMHO, posture during the reception of Communion is a "non-essential" as long as there is respect shown for the Sacrament.
Realist former Convergent | 03.07.06 - 12:10 pm | #


I would argue that historical context is key. There are many practices that are more or less indifferent; or at the very least not intrinsically sinful. Certainly receiving Holy Communion in the hand is not intrinsically sinful; the Church has allowed it. Or e.g., it could be a matter of indifference whether a church building is consecrated with the use of relics of the saints. At the very least it isn’t a matter of divine revelation that they must be. But in an historical context in which heretics are denying the efficacy of relics, the failure to use relics in a consecration would signal that the consecrator had a faith problem. So the Second Council of Nicea anathematized such a failure to use relics, when the Church’s orthodox faith concerning relics and images was under attack. Similarly, the reception of Holy Communion under one or both kinds could be seen in the abstract as a matter of indifference, or at the very least not of divine law. But in an historical context in which Manichean heretics were insisting that wine was evil, the laity were told they must receive under both kinds to show that they weren’t tainted with that heresy. When Protestant heretics were insisting that reception under both kinds was necessary for a full communion, the Church insisted that laity receive only under one kind. Good, common sense, parental discipline.

The Church’s traditional response to practices introduced by heretics to undermine the Faith was to uphold a counter-discipline that would buttress the Faith in that specific historical context. And that is why it matters very much who was trying to introduce the practice of Communion in the hand, and why. It is safe to say that there was no orthodox group agitating for this practice. Rather, it was always dissident groups (like the Dutch bishops) or individuals. And so one would expect the Church to respond as she always had to protect the Faith against attempts to undermine the Faith by a dissident practice; in this case she would have forbidden the faithful to receive in the hand. But Paul VI, for the first time in Church history as far as I can tell, did just the opposite. He approved a practice purposely introduced by heretics in order to undermine the Faith. John Paul II broke with traditional papal discipline in his approval of female altar servers. Again, this practice was introduced in disobedience, by dissident groups and individuals who had an axe to grind concerning the Church’s inability to ordain women, but never by the orthodox.

That is why I don’t see this as a matter of indifference in our day. Communion in the hand was one of many devices used to advance the revolution. I think we should eschew it for that reason alone.

But beyond that, I think Communion on the tongue has intrinsic advantages, such as less danger of indifference, profanation, and theft of the sacred Host for Satanic rituals. All in all, a slam dunk as far as I’m concerned.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.07.06 - 1:57 pm | #

Dave says, "It is interesting to note that while Benedict XVI is theologically adamant about liturgical orientation and posture, he is pastorally patient. He does not believe that we can, or should, rush these things."

I guess I can understand how it would be hard to go instantly back to proper postures, esp. in the US. However, it seems to me that the US bishops are rushing the OTHER way when instituting a "norm" of standing to receive Communion (apparently WITHOUT, as PP says, a real theological reason, besides some vague, superficial idea of "unity").

So, ok, let's go slow... but really. Can we please go in the right direction??
Megan Z | 03.07.06 - 2:31 pm | #

Megan Z's comment reminds me of the Arian controversy ... when the majority of Bishops were heretics. Could we be faced with a similar situation today? ThomistWannaBe's comment raises the spectre of heretic popes in the sheepfold. I'm not sure that I want to go there.

Maybe I should go back to receiving Communion on the tongue. Again, it was the Holy Damascene who inspired me to change. I thought that I was returning ad fontes. Maybe not. Kneeling, though, is out of the question. I would only be drawing attention to myself.

On the subject of expedience, in the few Latin Masses that I have attended, the Communion line moved at a brisk yet reverent pace.
Dave | 03.07.06 - 3:31 pm | #

This is a wonderfully civilized discussion of a topic that is--understandably--fraught with emotion.

Patience, as someone said, is the key.

I believe that--in the main--communion in the hand and standing are mistakes that tend--TEND--to diminish reverence for the Holy Eucharist. But there is also a simultaneous upturn in devotions such as Benediction, etc. The Eucharist will Itself CREATE an attitude of reverence and love and people who begin to know and love the Sacrament through increased reflection and devotion. And THAT will create the desire to find more reverential ways of receiving and more reverential liturgical expressions. Whether that will mean a return to the traditional practices of kneeling and reception on the tongue we must leave to the Holy Spirit. He certainly is alive and well in the Church today, isn't he?

I myself attend an Indult Mass although I prize and love aspects of the New Mass as well when obediently and carefully celebrated. When I receive at the New Mass, I receive on the tongue, but standing and after a profound bow. I think kneeling would be better in the abstract, but I find for myself at least that I would be introducing a spirit of contentiousness and querulousness were I to insist on kneeling when I have been asked by the bishops not to do so. "Standing (kneeling?) on my rights"--again, for myself--is not something I can do without DIMINISHING practical reverence in those situations.
Jeff | 03.07.06 - 3:32 pm | #

I agree with Jeff's points.

On the other hand, and in reply to PP's question, perhaps there is a theological and biblical rationale for receiving our Lord in our hands:

'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and TOUCHED WITH OUR HANDS ...' (1 Jn 1:1; emphasis added)
Dave | 03.07.06 - 3:49 pm | #

**ThomistWannaBe's comment raises the spectre of heretic popes in the sheepfold. I'm not sure that I want to go there.**

I don't think there's any need to go there, based on the evidence, and I am most certainly not promoting such a view in what I write. I am not writing to disturb anybody's faith; God forbid. The blogmaster here has says that these discussions are for mature Catholics only, so I'm speaking plainly (he says, writing under a pseudonym.)

For my part I have been unable to find the malice, the willful desire to destroy the Faith that, say, the sedevacantists have claimed to find. And the proof for pertinacious heresy does not exist. Rather, I would find an over optimistic view of humanity, of the supposed superiority of "modern man", of the ability to utilize the categories of modern philosophy to communicate the Faith, of the ability of errors and erring individuals to "sort themselves out" without traditional disciplinary measures, etc. All serious enough, but far short of overt heresy.

But I would wish to ask all my brother Catholics to think historically and traditionally before we too readily apply epithets like "Great" and chant "Santa subito" in the context of certain pontificates.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.07.06 - 3:55 pm | #

Points well taken, TWB.

Here's something interesting. Last week Pope Benedict XVI gave an informal Q&A with priests of the diocese of Rome. The following exercept is long, but irresistible in the context of this discussion:

ON THE LITURGY AND THE COUNCIL, BETWEEN CONTINUITY AND INNOVATION

We must not overlook the common Catholic spirituality that is expressed in the liturgy and in the great tradition of the faith. This point is important, and it also concerns the Council. We must not live – as I said before Christmas to the Roman curia – the hermeneutic of discontinuity, but we must live the hermeneutic of renewal, which is the spirituality of continuity, of going forward in continuity. This also seems important to me in regard to the liturgy. I will take a concrete example that came to me this very day, with today’s brief meditation. The “Statio” of today, the Thursday after Ash Wednesday, is [the church of] Saint George [in Rome]. Corresponding to this soldier saint, there were once two readings about two soldier saints. The first speaks of King Hezekiah, who was sick to the point of death and prayed to the Lord with tears: give me still a little bit of life! And the Lord was good, and granted him seventeen more years of life. So, a happy healing and a soldier who could resume his activity. The second is the Gospel that tells the story of the official of Capernaum and his servant who had fallen ill. Thus we have two motifs: that of healing, and that of the “militia” of Christ, of the great battle. Today, in the present liturgy, we have two totally different readings. We have that of Deuteronomy: “Choose life,” and the Gospel: “Follow Christ, and take up the cross,” which means to not seek one’s own life, but to give life, and is an interpretation of what it means the “choose life.” I must say that I have always loved the liturgy very much. I truly fell in love with the Church’s Lenten journey, with these “station” churches and the readings connected with these churches: a geography of faith that becomes a spiritual geography of the pilgrimage with the Lord. And I was a little bit upset that they took away from us this nexus between the “station” and the readings. Today I see that these very readings are extremely beautiful, and express the program of Lent: to choose life; that is, to renew the “yes” of baptism, which is itself a choice for life. In this sense, there is an intimate continuity, and it seems to me that we must learn from this, which is just a tiny example between discontinuity and continuity. We must accept novelties, but we must also love continuity and see the Council in this perspective of continuity. (Source: http://www.chiesa.espressonline....id=46491&eng=y)
Dave | 03.07.06 - 4:23 pm | #

Good discussion - Realist/convergent brings up an interesting related subject - How is Christ present in the Sacrament? Substance in the medieval philosophical sense does not mean corporatemess. And, as Aquinas himself and many other subsequent authorities stressed, Christ's natural body is localized only in heaven, yet his natural body is present in the eucharist but NOT in a natural way. That is hard to get my arms around, but that is how transubstantiation seems to be expressed by authoritative commentators. It is enough for me to know that He is there in a special, sacramental way. Hope I expressed myself clearly. Thx.
rob k | 03.07.06 - 4:47 pm | #

**We must accept novelties, but we must also love continuity and see the Council in this perspective of continuity.**

Gosh, I wish he had said "We must accept legitimate developments..." rather than "novelties". I guarantee that you will not find any Father, Doctor, Pope, or Council speaking of the need to accept novelties prior to Paul VI. It's just not the way the Church usually speaks. Confusing.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.07.06 - 4:50 pm | #

I cannot read Italian, but here is the last line quoted above from Benedict's comments about continuity and "novelty" in the liturgy: 'Dobbiamo accettare le novità ma anche amare la continuità e vedere il Concilio in questa ottica della continuità.' Does "novità" mean "novelty" in the worst sense of the word? I don't know. In any case, I have heard other variations of TWB's concern about JPII's and B16's all-too-open stance toward modernity. I wonder if other popes through the ages have been subject to similar charges in their own times? But I digress ...
Dave | 03.07.06 - 5:38 pm | #

Perhaps the pope is willing to accept the novelty of Communion in the hand, because he has more serious abuses to deal with:
http://www.chiesa.espressonline....?id=46462&eng=y
Dave | 03.07.06 - 5:47 pm | #

Ahhh yes. The Neocatechumenal Way. Thank you, Dave, for that very interesting link.

The arguement could be made that it is because of the comparatively smaller novelties approved as "norms" over the last few decades that such a huge abuse as the article described is tolerated as much as it is. Have we been desensitized, as it were?
Megan Z | 03.07.06 - 7:13 pm | #

This is all in all a great discussion.
Joe | 03.07.06 - 9:44 pm | #

It is a great discussion. Much food for thought.

Although I refered above to the "novelty of Communion in the hand", that characterization is not quite right. The term "novelty" can hardly be used to describe what was an accepted practice in the Church for the first nine centuries. The Neocatechumenal Way, on the other hand, does represent a novelty, because their way of distributing Communion has never been an acccepted practice in the Church.

If that is true, what "novelities" did the Pope have in mind in his comments to the priests of the diocese of Rome?
Dave | 03.07.06 - 10:07 pm | #

This is my first real foray into an argument such as this. I will try to be more articulate in the future. I don't want to ever be compared with Zwingli ever again.

While I truly appreciate what you are saying, Dr. Blosser, in critiquing my earlier comment, my point is this: we should show sincere reverence when receiving the Body and Blood of Christ because we are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. How that reverence is shown is secondary.

The problem with putting undue emphasis on outward appearances is that we, as human beings, too often put emphasis on form as opposed to substance. The pharisees argued endlessly about how to keep the Sabbath, how long their tassles on their cloaks should be, where to place their phylacteries, so on and so forth ad nauseum and lost sight on WHY they should be keeping the Lord's Sabbath. Faith and reverence are not about how well we keep formulaic rituals in the hope that if we do "it" right, it somehow earns us celestial brownie points. Faith and reverence are outward signs of our acceptance of God's grace. Ritual is an important means in showing that acceptance, but it should not be an end to itself. As an Eagle Scout, I am very familiar with the concept of reverence. "A Scout is reverent" is one of the twelve laws of Scouting.

Personally, I would much prefer to receive Communion on my knees and on my tongue. I would much prefer to keep my hands held together in prayer during the Our Father as opposed to putting them up in the air. I much prefer the rite of the Mass that I grew up with than the the one that is mainly in use now. But since those in authority in the Diocese where I live have stated otherwise, I am obliged to follow what they say. But when I receive Communion I do try to do so in a reverential way that reflects the love I have for a God who is really present in the bread and wine offered up the Sacrament of Holy Communion as well as all of the other sacraments.

In closing, I think it is a futile exercise to argue how we should show reverence to Our Lord at Holy Communion, on our knees or standing, receiving Him on our tongues or in our hands with bowed heads, unless we as Catholics first understand WHY we should be reverent. Too sadly, there are too many Catholics (outside of those who read this Blog), both young and old, out there that do not understand the WHY".
Paul Hoffer | 03.08.06 - 1:02 am | #

ThomistWannabe gave the best summary of why this terrible practice is so disgraceful -- it was introduced, as dissent, together with other terrible ANTI-TRADITIONAL practices IN ORDER TO diminish faith and respect for the Most Holy Sacrament. And, wow, has it been successful or what?

For more than 1500 years (AT LEAST), in both East and West, it had been received in the mouth. This is a case of clear disregard for the Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council...
New Catholic | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 4:08 am | #

Paul,

I'm in sympathy with much of what you say, but I wouldn't agree that it is futile to argue how we should show reverence when we receive communion ... unless we first understand WHY we should be reverent. I think that, practically speaking, we only need to understand that to a small degree in order to begin. Perhaps on earth we'll never understand it fully. But we can begin, nevertheless. The iconoclasm and "anti-Papist" enthusiasm of the Anabaptists and Calvinists seems to me to have been fueled by the idea that, unless a devotion or a practice is perfectly pure, it is simply sinful and hypocritical--or, as Calvin would put it, it merely justifies one's own damnation. But I think that the Catholic Church's approach is much more astute psychologically (even apart from the theology behind it)--people can grow into holiness bit by bit. And one's intellectual understanding and one's motivation can lag behind--and thus be led forward by--what one does with one's body. Without falling into Pelagianism, you can practice at being perfect, and it will help, even though it is certainly not sufficient for perfection. Just to take the heat off this discussion a bit, I'll point out that this sort of understanding is not exclusive to Catholicism, but extends into other faiths. For example, despite the fondness of Western radicals for the iconoclasm they perceive in Zen Buddhism, Zen Buddhist monks in fact lead a life of very rigorous and structured rules and practices. And of all the monks and teachers of Tibetan Buddhism that I've met, one of the most devout and learned of them, a very old man, told me with a smile that he became a monk, as a young boy, because he loved the way the monastic robes looked and loved wearing them. Was that a perfect motivation? Obviously not, and, later, as a learned and accomplished monk, no one knew that better than he did. So I don't think it's futile or unwise or hypocritical to be concerned with or to prescribe gestures and postures for worship even though most (all?) of those who are expected to adopt them cannot fully understand why they're doing them. Such postures and gestures are aids that the Church can give us to help us toward that goal.
little gidding | 03.08.06 - 9:01 am | #

I suspect that the recently posted article on homosexuality will divert the considerable intellectual energy of this group! This has been my first foray into the PP blog, as a participant, and it has been most enjoyable.

Paul Hoffer has eloquently expressed my own views on the subject. They are also in line with the Benedict XVI's views -- although I do not intend to invoke the argument from (papal) authority. I know enough about Thomism to know that the argument from authority is the weakest!

This has been a very valuable discussion -- and, as someone has noted, remarkably civilized!
Dave | 03.08.06 - 10:04 am | #

I notice that at least a couple of you have remarked on the civility and sibstantial quality of this discussion. I agree. I've learned much from the commentors here, and I thank each of you for your investment of your time and thought in what you write. Such discussions, IMHO, are of great benefit to those who engage in them and have ripple effects that go far beyond their circle.

Realist, you raise an important question about "substance" in "transubstantiation," which I don't have time to address in any depth here. Rob K has spoken to the issue. That 'substance' in the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition doesn't have to mean 'corporeal' (physical) substance shouldn't be taken to mean, of course, that Christ's true corporeal Body is not present in the Sacrament. It is. The 'accidents' (empirical properties) of the original substance (bread), however, remain after it has been 'transubstantiated' into the Body of Christ. Aristotlian language would have us say that 'prime matter' (actually nothing but potentially anything) in the form of bread undergoes substantial change in taking on the form of Christ's Body. The 'substance' undergoing the change would be 'prime matter'. But the 'accidents' (visible properties of the bread) remain, which is why Christ is said to be 'hidden' under the forms of bread and wine, in St. Thomis Aquinas' language.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 10:37 am | #

Dave worries that "ThomistWannaBe's comment raises the spectre of heretic popes in the sheepfold." As Thomist-WB says, however, there is no implication of that. Here I would caution the helpful distinction between (1) matters of doctrine and (2) matters of discipline. In contrast to the former, which is -- at least as dogmatically defined -- irreformable and infallible, the latter are changeable. As far as I can see, what we are discussing here pertains to matters of discipline and therefore dependent upon historical exigencies and the relative prudence (or imprudence) of the Church hierarchy in responding to them. One can think that even the Pope has made an imprudent judgment on a matter of discipline without calling into question the Church's (or pope's) infallibility in matters of doctrine.

As to whether John 1:1 ("... touched with our hands ...") serves as an adequate rationale for receiving Communion in the hand ... Well, I'm not persuaded. However, I agree on the significance of the fact that our Lord was touched with human hands when He walked the earth, and that He is likewise touched with human hands by those who receive Him in that manner. The question still remains, in my mind, whether kneeling and receiving on the tongue does not more fittingly express the reverence due our Lord.

Since the advent of the film 'Dogma', notorious for its unveiling of a statue of the 'Buddy Christ' in the opening sequence, I have wondered whether Catholics have not quite seriously hankered for a more approachable, 'buddy' Christ. The earlier film, 'Sister Act', also suggested something similar. On the one hand, while there is nothing wrong in seeing Jesus as a "friend." Indeed, Jesus calls his disciples "friends" in the NT.

On the other hand, if Christ is hidden under the outward forms of Bread and wine in the Eucharist, His divinity was likewise hidden under the form of humanity in His incarnation. Just as it was easy for the contemporaries of the earthly Jesus to remain oblivious of His divinity, so it is easy for us today to approach the Eucharistic species with a similar oblivion. Given this reality, it seems to me than any outward expression, gesture or posture that would remind us WHOM it is we are receiving in the Sacrament of the Altar, commends itself to us.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 11:04 am | #

PP says, "Given this reality, it seems to me than any outward expression, gesture or posture that would remind us WHOM it is we are receiving in the Sacrament of the Altar, commends itself to us."

Thank you, Dr. Blosser! This is exactly what my experience showed me. I was taught well from a young age WHO is present in the Host, but it wasn't until I attended a church where physical signs of reverence were profound and universal that I learned from this example, and fully accepted the truth of the Real Presence.

I know "personal experience" isn't exactly the best philosophical arguement, but...
Megan Z | 03.08.06 - 11:21 am | #

Megan Z writes: "The arguement could be made that it is because of the comparatively smaller novelties approved as "norms" over the last few decades that such a huge abuse as the article described is tolerated as much as it is."

I agree. I think you make a very important point here. As does Thomist-WB when he points out that Paul VI broke ranks with his precedessors in approving a practice purposely introduced by heretics to undermine the Faith and that JPII again broke with traditional papal discipline in his approval of female altar servers -- again, a practice introduced in disobedience by dissident groups.

The point would be that a lot of small abuses tolerated or mainstreamed and sanctioned lead, through desensitization, to the toleration of much larger abuses. Good point.

Paul Hoffer: I trust you understand I meant no affrontery by my comparison of your expressed views with those of Zwingli. I also trust you understand that I agree with the primacy of importance you place upon the sincerety of inward reverence in reception of the Eucharist. The danger of Catholicism will always be legalism, just as the danger of Lutheranism will always be antinomianism. Which is to say that the hypocrisy of legalistic Pharisaism is always a possibility Catholics must guard against.

To return to an earlier analogy, it would be better to be loved by one's spouse and never kissed at all, than to be kissed without any love but only an outward show of love. That's the danger. Still, I think we can see the importance of outward forms too, can we not?

Little Gidding makes a fine point in suggesting that outder forms, even if imperfectly, are capable of guiding inner dispositions. Blaise Pascal makes a similar point in his Pensees, when he suggests that if a non-believer is incapable of changing his beliefs (since beliefs are not under our direct control), he can at least change his behavior (which is under his control). He can start behaving in a morally upright manner, keeping his promises, endeavoring to conduct himself chastely, etc. Pascal's point was that such changes in behavior can yield epistemic clarity. For example, if I don't happen to feel particularly loving towards my wife, but I behave lovingly toward her, I may well find that this has a saluatory effect on my perception of her and that I may recover my loving feelings as well.

To return to the Eucharist, I can remember my priest telling me that, occasionally, the outward devotion with which some of his parishioners received Christ from him during Communion had the effect on him of reminding him of the sublime significance of what he was doing. Think what a difference it would make if your were in church and witnessed everyone receiving Communion with singular devotion and reverence! (Continued ...)
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 11:33 am | #

(Continued ...)

Of course one could skeptically ask: But who's to say whether it's not only 'external', that there isn't anything inside corresponding to the outward gesture? While that's always a possibility, the ideal of course is that 'spirit' and 'flesh' are united in the act. The same ideal is true in lovemaking, is it not? But how much better -- and infectiously so -- would be such reverence during Communion than what sometimes strikes one as about as sacred as a bread line in a soup kitchen.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 11:34 am | #

Megan Z responds to my remark about the importance of outward expressions, gestures and postures that reind us WHOM we receive in the Eucharist by attesting that this was verified for her by to her own experience.

She then adds: "I know 'personal experience' isn't exactly the best philosophical arguement, but..."

While it's true that personal experience isn't the best philosophical argument, or an argument at all, I don't think one need offer any apologies for attesting that one's experience confirms one's beliefs. On some level, if this were not true, I doubt any of us could become or remain Catholic Christians or even theists.

I can also attest to the power of outward forms in my own experience. There have been many instances. One in paticular was a noontime Mass at a Catholic church near Harvard University. This was before I was a Catholic. The church was old, with squeaky ceiling fans (it was summer and hot), and only about thirty people were in the congregation. Among those present in the pews, there were some that seemed to be students, as well as some elderly folk. Immediately behind me were two 'bag ladies' -- obviously poor people off the street. The first thing that emotionally touched me was their voices during the Agnus Dei, bleating like sheep, "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on us." Even now, years later, I can barely write about this memory without being flooded with the emotion I then felt. It was overpowering. Two bag ladies (who could question their sincerity?) reciting the Agnus Dei ...

Then, bringing up the end of the Communion line was a young African-American woman, probably a student, singing aloud beautifully by herself the Communion Hymn, "Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee," beautifully. (Nobody else was singing: we have to remember Thomas Day's reminder that most Catholics these days can't seem to sing.) And then it happened: when she reached the priest, she dropped to her knees to receive Christ on her tongue.

I was not a Catholic then, as I've said. That came some years later. I had no familiarity yet with these sorts of Catholic controversies about receiving Communion standing, in the hand, or kneeling, on the tongue, and so forth. But something in this gesture spoke a message that a thousand homilies couldn't deliver. It cut through all my defenses like a knife, to the depths of my soul. It was HIM! It was HE whom she was receiving there! And in that moment, without a doubt in my soul, I knew it. In my mind's eye, I had seen it, because it was made accessible to me through the incarnational, sacramental gesture of this young lady.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 12:02 pm | #

Two questions:

1) Is the form of receiving Communion by hand described by St. John of Damascus not comparable in reverence to the form of receiving Communion upon the tongue? In other words, if the proper inward disposition is in place, cannot inward reverence be given outward expression equally in either form?

2) Can someone provide documentary evidence of the claim that the practice of receiving Communion in the hand was "purposely introduced by heretics to undermine the Faith"?

Another thought. If in fact the practice of receiving Communion in the hand was introduced by heretics to undermine the faith (a fact still to be proven), how can we draw such a clear line on this issue between doctrine and discipline?
Dave | 03.08.06 - 12:06 pm | #

To elaborate on my first question above: I don't think that St. John of Damascus looked at Jesus as a "buddy". He clearly looked at Jesus as the Lord, and handled him as such -- a Lord who has given himself to us to handle with reverence, awe, and love.
Dave | 03.08.06 - 12:09 pm | #

Dave, I would say that what counts as reverence is partly a function of a given culture and historical period and partly a matter of the innate fittingness of the gesture in terms of its objective properties. In some cultures, standing is a sign of reverence. In fact, we stand for the reading of the Gospel as a sign of reverence. Certainly one's reverence in receiving Communion can be expressed by means of receiving in the hand. It was certainly so for St. John of Damascus and St. Chryostom and others, and thus it has been, accourding to your own testimony, in your experience.

I have no quarrel with any of that. The question being entertained in this post is simply whether receiving Communion in the hand while standing is the most fitting way to receive, all other things being equal. Like you, I receive Communion standing, because I really have little choice about that unless I want to make a disturbance in church. Unlike you, I receive on my tongue, as awkward as this feels to me while standing, because it seems more fitting to me. So you can see I live with what for myself is something of a compromise. Whenever I have the opportunity to assist at a Traditional Latin Mass, I am happy to do so, because there is no longer anything awkward about receiving Communion: the matter is taken care of by the Communion rail and prescribed form of receiving on the tongue.

As to your second query requesting documentation for Thomist-WB's assertion that Communion in the hand was "purposely introduced by heretics to undermine the Faith," perhaps Thomist-WB (or someone) can help Dave with that. I know I've read it somewhere, but my books on the subject are at home and I can't remember which ones they were (though it may have been in something by Michael Davies).

Finally, you ask: "If in fact the practice of receiving Communion in the hand was introduced by heretics to undermine the faith ..., how can we draw such a clear line on this issue between doctrine and discipline?"

There are no dogmas governing gestures or postures, however gestures and postures may have doctrinal implications. So, yes, there's obviously a connection, though that doesn't annul the distinction.

The danger we face in the Church today is not so much a danger of flagrant heresy as the danger of a gradual erosion of faith through the denaturing of our outward forms of worship.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 12:41 pm | #

Here are two valuable articles touching on the origins of Communion in the hand:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITU...GY/ SACREDTR.TXT

http://www.catholic-pages.com/ma...mass/ inhand.asp

I think the evidence is there. Certainly it is, if anything, stronger concerning female altar servers. Did you ever hear one single orthodox Catholic express his wish that females could serve at the altar? Wasn't it always advanced by folks who dissented on other issues and specifically on womens' ordination? It seems fairly obvious to me, without rigorous demonstration, that this practice was meant to get the faithful used to seeing females in the (now non-existent) sanctuary in some sort of vestments.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.08.06 - 12:47 pm | #

Dave,

I see that Thomist-WB has funished some online resources that may help answer your query. I've located a couple more:

Dave Armstrong offers an interesting discussion at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ413.HTM, where he states: During the Protestant Revolt, communion in the hand became a way of asserting the priesthood of the laity and a symbol of the denial of the Real Presence; therefore the Catholic Church held firm [against the practice]. Liberal Catholic countries such as Holland, France, and Canada began experimenting with communion in the hand in the late 60s. Pope Paul VI, in the 1969 document Memoriale Domini, outlined all the reasons why communion in the hand was inadvisable and why the traditional method was to be preferred and maintained. But he allowed a "loophole" for countries which had begun the practice illicitly to petition the Holy See for permission. In 1977 a bare majority of bishops in the United States - going against the local tradition - voted for communion in the hand and received permission to introduce the practice. Most countries in the world do not permit communion in the hand. Liturgical law permits standing or kneeling, but the General Instruction of the Missal indicates that if the faithful stand to communicate, they must genuflect before receiving.
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 1:07 pm | #

I do not know why Saint John Damascene is brought the whole time here.

First, the quote is untrustworthy. From what of his works was it taken?

Second, if it truly exists, was the translation correctly made?

Third, if the quote is true and the translation is exact, do you remember that the Damascene was a monk and a PRIEST? Of course he always received in the hand (i.e. form his own hand) in his own Liturgies, since he communicated himself...

Fourth, if the quote is true and the translation is correct (I find this all suspicious, since the rite the Damascene followed was probably an Antiochian-style rite, a previous version of what would become the Antiochian-generated Byzantine rite, where the faithful have for centuries received both Consecrated Species, together, in the mouth from the liturgical spoon), they are two completely different rites. It is very cute... (no better word) this post-Conciliar practice of picking quotes, pictures, Scriptural passages, and liturgical events from all places and times to justify the destruction of OUR rites, the rites of the Latin Church. Why only pick a dubious quote from St. John of Damascus, an archaeological remnant of a not very well known rite celebrated in a desert monastery amid an Islamised Syria? Why not pick the whole rite he celebrated? Any traditional rite, any of them, is superior to this messy, creative new liturgy...
New Catholic | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 1:30 pm | #

Re transubstantiation - My understanding of it is that,although Christ's natural, glorified body is only in heaven, yet it is present to us in the eucharist in a sacramental, non-corporeal way.
rob k | 03.08.06 - 5:23 pm | #

Unless one really has difficulty genuflecting, I don't see the argument that kneeling makes a spectacle of oneself. I kneel to receive and have had no such difficulty. No one even seems to notice. However, a few others have begun to do likewise over the years. My priest is very comfortable with it, as is my bishop. When the person in front of me moves from the priest, I step forward and go down to my right knee in one smooth motion and then arise after receiving. I suppose in another 15 years I may not be able to do this quite so easily.

But I am not persuaded by those who think that kneeling "creates a disturbance" or "draws attention to oneself." I think they unwittingly buy into liberal propaganda. Perhaps it would be better to remind others to keep custody of their eyes if this is a real problem, that they ought not focus on what others are doing, rather than putting the onus on those who kneel, effectively twisting an act of adoration of God into a horizontal publicity stunt.

Furthermore, I believe the recent ecclesial record proves that our popes have adopted somewhat of a laissez-faire attitude toward such things, allowing the "sensus" to percolate out and make itself known. But certain conservative-types keep behaving as if the rules are still being enforced and interpreted as in pre-Vatican II days...effectively handcuffing themselves in the process.

Then, they whine when the liberals take advantage of the looser enforcement. But the pope is the ultimate interpreter and enforcer and it is pointless to wish he did otherwise. Wisdom would dictate playing by the rules as called and enforced, not as how we wish they were called and enforced.

As such, I would argue that the kind of obedience suggested by some may be foolish, playing right into the hands of the heterodox. We ought not be suprised when the hierarchy allows them to have their way when we sit by so mute in pious impotence.

Just a possibility.
Augustine | 03.08.06 - 5:40 pm | #

PP and TWB: thanks for the links. I'll take a look at these.

To the original question that sparked this fascinating thread: all things being equal, I believe that kneeling to receive our Lord upon our tongue is, objectively speaking, the most reverent attitude, especially in our cultural context.

New Catholic, my twice (or was it thrice) out-of-context references to Damascene was intended to be neither cute nor destructive of the Mass. Like everyone else here, I'm trying to get to the truth.

I must also admit that my deep admiration of Benedict XVI is causing me some cognitive dissonance in this debate.
Dave | 03.08.06 - 6:14 pm | #

"That 'substance' in the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition doesn't have to mean 'corporeal' (physical) substance shouldn't be taken to mean, of course, that Christ's true corporeal Body is not present in the Sacrament. It is. "

The mode of subsistence of a glorified body is quite an inscrutable matter. The mode of its presence in the Eucharist is even more so. Christ is present in his glorious body, but he is not present in the way that ordinary bodies would be present -- Aquinas says he is not locally present, and presumably he is not present in any of the other ways in which bodies are present - not dimensively present. His presence is "real" or "substantial" only.

"Aristotlian language would have us say that 'prime matter' (actually nothing but potentially anything) in the form of bread undergoes substantial change in taking on the form of Christ's Body." This is speculation, not Catholic doctrine as such; Trent contents itself with saying that the wondrous change brought about in consecration of the bread and wine can fittingly be called a transubstantiation.

Can prime matter undergo substantial change? Matter without form is, as you point out, a mere potency. (Hylemorphism is of course not essential to Catholic doctrine.) I think it is enough to say that the substance, the inner reality, undergoes a wondrous change. That which was previously adequately defined as "bread" is now defined as "the body of Christ".
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.09.06 - 12:44 am | #


I think the baseline of Aquinas's theory is that the Substance itself is changed into the Substance of Christ's body. I don't think he would distinguish the substance from the accidents as prime matter from form (so that the prime matter changes and the form remains). Normally the substance of something resides in its form rather than its matter. The eucharist retains the form of bread yet is substantially the body of Christ (it remains the vehicle of his presence only as long as it retains the form of bread), which must entail a big upsetting of Aristotelian categories. When the eucharistic species are resolved back into matter no longer having the form of bread, their prime matter is that which they had before the consecration. Perhaps that prime matter persists through the consecration and is to be counted among the "accidents" rather than on the side of "substance"? This might sound like consubstantiation, but in reality it is not, since even though the matter and form of bread persist, the substance of the bread has changed and the entire reality of the matter and form has now become simply that of a vehicle for the presence of the new substance. Just as the hypostatic union, according to Thomas, takes nothing away from the integrity of Christ's human personality but merely adds that it is the person of the Logos, so the eucharistic change takes nothing away from the bread but merely adds that its substance is now the substance of the Eucharist Christ.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.09.06 - 1:14 am | #

Objectively speaking, the arguments against receiving Communion in the hand are compelling. They even cause me to want to reconsider my own practice. Yet, subjectively speaking, the debate itself, in its very origins, is not without its dangers. To illustrate, take a look back at the photos that accompany PP’s original post on March 6. Among the photos is one of some sloppily-dressed Catholics receiving Communion in the hand. This image -- or, better, our own reactions to it -- should give us pause, especially if our reaction is along the lines of: “Oh, isn’t that awful! Look at the irreverence!” Now, as we reflect upon our reactions, let us recall the words of Augustine (of the PP blog, not of Hippo):

‘Perhaps it would be better to remind others to keep custody of their eyes if this is a real problem, that they ought not focus on what others are doing ...’

This admonishment was applied to those who are scandalized at the sight of Catholics kneeling to receive Communion. Yet can it not also be applied to those who are scandalized at the sight of sloppily-dressed Catholics receiving Communion in the hand? For the moment, let us set aside the premise that there is more objective cause of scandal in the latter case. The disposition of our hearts is the issue here. Look again at that photo of the “bad” in-the-hand Communicants. Jesus is there. He is there, not just “spiritually”, but really and substantially. In that photo (and in Church), we see our fellow Catholics in the presence of the Lord, just as the Phasisees (and others) saw publicans and sinners in the presence of the Lord. Let that act of seeing not become a scandal in the eyes of the Lord, who sees our hearts.
Dave | 03.09.06 - 10:00 am | #

The "substance" commentary is excellent but the other half of the coin is whether the Last Supper has historical legitimacy. As noted in a previous reply, some very astute biblical scholars (in some peoples minds at least) question whether the Last Supper really occurred. For a brief summary see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/ jdb016.html
Realist former Convergent | 03.09.06 - 10:19 am | #

"Spirit," thanks for that excursus on Aristotelian-Thomist nomenclature. Very helpful. Appreciate it.

Augustine, you make an important point about the importance of individuals taking the initiative to kneel, if they are so inclined, rather than submitting to a kind of debilitating self-censorship of behavior. Your illustration of your own case is a helpful one. Still, at the very least, it's unfortunate that the onus has been placed on the individual to swim upstreat against the tide in the vast majority of NO parishes. Moreover, there are countless cases where bishops and priests have forbidden parishioners to kneel or even genuflect before receiving. My own former priest told some of us to stop genuflecting, because, he said, it would lead to those behind us tripping over us. Karl Keating argues that one can avoid this by pausing momentarily before making a quick couple of strides up to the priest, thus allowing the individual in back of you room so as not to trip over you. Still, tide seems obviously against traditional postures and gestures of reverance. One must be a trifle brazen to resist the tide. I'm glad you've encouraged that by your own example.

Dave, you make a good point about the custody of the eyes. Yes, I think you're right that this can work both ways.

But let me make another point: it's also true that if I closed my eyes at our Sunday evening Mass, I would not see the bongo player, and if I held my hands over my ears, I would not hear him, and perhaps I could then undertake more profoundly an intimate spiritual Communion with Christ Whom I had just received in the Eucharist.

However, if Christianity is sacramentally incarnational, it means that the outward forms (the 'kiss', so to speak) should fittingly express the inward grace (the 'love'). Hence it's good and proper to want outward forms such as postures and gestures at Mass to display a reverence fitting to the occasion. True, Christ is there regardless. But why should He suffer slip-shod disgracefulness? Do we not collectively owe Him our best?

The 'custody of the eyes' is intended, in the first place, as a matter of self-discipline to avoid the near occasion of sin. I should therefore avoid letting things distract me from focusing on my own Communion and adoration of Christ at Mass. However, there is nothing wrong in wanting to remove such distractions from the House of God, is there. Jesus Himself got pretty irate at those who turned His Father's House into a commercial 'den of thieves'! We owe God reverence. Here we could learn so much from our Muslim friends. Imagine ANYTHING like a trendy NO Mass occuring at Mecca! Heads would roll!
Pertinacious Papist | Homepage | 03.09.06 - 10:28 am | #

**some very astute biblical scholars (in some peoples minds at least) question whether the Last Supper really occurred.**

Realist is pulling us rather far afield. But biblical studies is more my area of expertise. Let's keep some perspective on the so-called scientific study of sacred Scripture in modern academic circles. As New Testament scholar E. Earle Ellis reminds us:

"The meaning of ancient texts no less than other aspects of historical knowledge is never free from the subjective factors with which the interpreter comes to and pursues his task. What appears probable to one interpreter will be improbable to another. The failure of the historical-critical method, after two hundred years, to achieve an agreed meaning for any substantial biblical passage underscores that fact and makes a more modest attitude incumbent upon all biblical scholars" (Foreword to L. Goeppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. trans. D. H. Madvig. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), xvii.)

An interesting point though, getting back to the discussion at hand, is that the methodology employed by the "Jesus Seminar", to which Realist links, is very similar to the methodology that modernist liturgists have used to deconstruct the great liturgical tradition of the Roman Church. The results in terms of lost faith are pretty much same too. Truly "an enemy hath done this" (Matt 13:28 ).
ThomistWannaBe | 03.09.06 - 10:52 am | #

For an interesting review of Matt 13: 28, The Planted Weeds see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/ jdb090.html . Note the different opinions.
Realist former Convergent | 03.09.06 - 11:03 am | #

When the sacred liturgy becomes filled with near occasions of sin, as PP puts it, then it is time to pull out as far as I'm concerned. And I do not hold much truck with folks like Shawn McElhenny [sp?] who throw the blame back on us for being too fastidious. But hey, I have children to raise (and Shawn is single), let alone my own faith to cultivate. Simply because we are human, what we see and hear on a regular basis cannot help but affect us, cannot help to become normalized for us. And I do not want my children to think that the priest facing the people, Communion in the hand to standing recipients, receiving Communion from laypeople, females in the sanctuary, females with heads uncovered in church, flat inclusive and doctrinally defective vernacular translations, Protestantized "worship songs", etc. are normal. My reading of the situation is that these things (and more) were introduced by revolutionaries to harm our faith. No thanks.

To address the quandry that several writers have expressed, when I need to go to the Pauline Rite I kneel to receive. But if I think that I might be refused and this would cause some spectacle, I simply don't receive at all. Then nobody has to be concerned about me and I don't need to be concerned about any difficulty I might cause.

But I decided years ago that, for myself and my family at least, opting out of the Pauline Rite entirely was the best course. We even plan our vacations around where we will have access to a TLM or Divine Liturgy in one of the Eastern Rites. Thank God that Rome allows me to continue to make the choice that I have made, albeit requiring some sacrifices of effort and time. Small price to pay. The effects on my children are priceless.

As I always say when summing up the many advantages of the TLM: "I never have to wonder what's going to happen next."
ThomistWannaBe | 03.09.06 - 11:14 am | #

PP: my cautionary point notwithstanding, I have to agree with you that there is no excuse for the slipshod dress and posture exhibited in the photo supplied with the original post. Jesus is there, and he deserves better!

Also, I very much agree with TWB's point about the methodological linkage between the Jesus Seminar and the liturgical deconstructionists.

The question remains how such a brilliant liturgist and defender of Eucharistic adoration as B16 would appear to be so lax in matters of liturgical discipline. I guess the answer is that the pope is human.
Dave | 03.09.06 - 12:06 pm | #

Those who would deconstruct both the Bible and the Liturgy have this in common: they do not love the Lord. They handle him (pun intended) much as he was handled by the Temple guards and the Roman soldiers.

Why does B16 tolerate (even endorse) Communion in the hand? I think it is because he knows that there are many in the Church (many on this blog) whose active participation in the New Rite is intended and experienced as a supreme act of love toward the Lord. He does not want to discourage these people. One can argue the prudence of the pope's approach, but I think that I understand his intention.
Dave | 03.09.06 - 1:11 pm | #

By the way, after the bracing experience of this discussion, I am going back to receiving Communion on the tongue. Not sure if I can gather up the gumption to kneel.
Dave | 03.09.06 - 1:16 pm | #

The following story from Chiesa underscores my change of mood:

http://www.chiesa.espressonline....?id=46544&eng=y

In my mind's eye the images of the deconstructed Roman Liturgy posted by PP are strikingly juxtaposed to the despoliation of Christianity in Cyprus.
Dave | 03.09.06 - 2:31 pm | #

Dave,

You write: For the moment, let us set aside the premise that there is more objective cause of scandal in the latter case (i.e. being sloppily dressed, receiving carelessly in the hand is more problematic than kneeling).

I believe there is no objective, inherent cause of scandal when one kneels, at all. Not just "less", but none.

The Vatican has defended the right to kneel for Holy Communion in the U.S., especially and most fervently against those who abusively refuse Communion to kneeling communicants. And then later, in response to those who tried to suggest that while kneeling communicants could not actually be refused, they were still being disobedient or rebellious nonetheless, the CDWDS released the following clarification:

"While this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishop's Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, THIS WAS DONE ON THE CONDITION THAT COMMUNICANTS WHO CHOOSE TO KNEEL ARE NOT TO BE DENIED HOLY COMMUNION ON THESE GROUNDS. INDEED, THE FAITHFUL SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON NOR ACCUSED OF DISOBEDIENCE AND OF ACTING ILLICITLY WHEN THEY KNEEL TO RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION."

The objective scandal is when priests and/or bishops refuse communion to those who kneel or when they "impose upon" them "accusing them of disobedience."

The Vatican has made crystal clear that any priest or bishop who does this is guilty of a "grave violation" and they want to know about it. I believe that is the answer: follow the rules as expressed and enforced by the Church.

Liberals/heterodox play this game of creating new practices, letting them spread, getting formal permission, making it the new norm and then cracking down on those who dissent from their own inventions with an iron fist.

But it only works when good, orthodox Catholics buy into the proposition that this is true obedience. I don't believe that it is...at least under the current popes.

They are calling a different game these days.
Augustine | 03.09.06 - 2:34 pm | #

PP:

I agree that the stream is moving consistently toward desacralization in the N.O. One wonders how long it will be before even the perfunctory "bow of the head" is eliminated. It is telling how few (if any) feel compelled to remind communicants to at least bow, while it was so natural for many to react with hostility to kneeling. Bizarre.

Back when kneeling was more in question (2-3 years ago), I found more priests who would refuse. And I would go speak with them privately. I found that most of them were simply doing what they were told (or what they thought they were supposed to do) and when I scratched the surface, a good many of them said they personally wished the norm would go back to kneeling. These were relieved when they found out that refusing Holy Communion for kneeling is a serious error.

The priests in my diocese all know the rule now. No priest refuses Holy Communion to kneelers. The bishop sent out a clarification to all of them after I had a series of discussions with him.

Candidly, I stopped kneeling for a while back a few years ago while this issue was being resolved (i.e. is it wrong to kneel now?). I did not want to be genuinely disobedient. But after reading the assurances from the Vatican, I have returned to it. I did bring what the Vatican wrote to the bishop, and had a few "back and forths" with him until he agreed that I was perfectly free to kneel. In the meantime, my parish priest told me he would never refuse me for kneeling anyway. He only has altar boys, doesn't "play" with the Mass, chants much of it, and all the altar boys receive kneeling.
Augustine | 03.09.06 - 2:57 pm | #

Dave says, "By the way, after the bracing experience of this discussion, I am going back to receiving Communion on the tongue. Not sure if I can gather up the gumption to kneel."

God be with you!

BTW, I have found that "gumption" (great word!), much like patience, only comes with the practice of it!
Megan Z | 03.09.06 - 3:54 pm | #

I feel fortified by Augustine's remarks, yet it would still take a lot of fortitude/gumption/nerve/ ... FAITH? ... for me to kneel at our N.O. parish. I would be -- or at least feel -- most noticeably ALONE.
Dave | 03.09.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Dave,

I understand. And please don't take what I write as an implication that everyone who refuses to kneel is a coward or a fool. That is certainly not my intent (not that you said it was...I am just clarifying).

As has been suggested, kneeling is not a guarantee of true piety. It is conceivable that one could choose to kneel in order to "prove something" or to almost dare a priest to deny him. That would be most unfortunate, a real example of perverting a wonderful gesture of humble adoration into a moment of contention and self-aggrandizement.

However, you might consider it prayerfully. If fear is the motivation keeping you from kneeling before the Lord for Holy Communion, you can be fairly certain that is not a leading from God, as I suspect you already know.

If your intent and purpose is to glorify God, then certainly such a gesture, when offered in spite of personal fear, will be most pleasing to Him.
Augustine | 03.09.06 - 5:06 pm | #

Dave:

If you are the only one in the Archdiocese who refuses regular non-emergency general confession, that makes you the only real Catholic in the diocese. If you are the only one in your parish who has more than 1.8 children, through contraception, this again makes you guilty of doing THE RIGHT THING.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.09.06 - 5:20 pm | #

Here's a wrinkle. The Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium states:

'In accordance with the custom of the Church, Communion may be received by the faithful either kneeling or standing. One or the other way is to be chosen, according to the decision of the episcopal conference, bearing in mind all the circumstances, above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches. The faithful should willingly adopt the method indicated by their pastors, so that Communion may truly be a sign of the brotherly union of all those who share in the same table of the Lord.'

I take this to mean that the decision to stand or kneel is not simply left up to the individual communicant. How do others read this?
Dave | 03.10.06 - 8:35 am | #

PP writes: 'The main question I would like to address in our discussion is this: What, if anything, is more fitting about receiving Communion in the hand, standing?' According to the Instruction quoted above, it seems that from a purely disciplinary standpoint, standing to receive Communion is more fitting if that is the will of the pastor. The Instruction does not address the question of receiving in the hand. I still believe that, all things being equal, it is more fitting to receive kneeling, upon the tongue.

I'm not quite sure how to reconcile the Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium with the Vatican directives quoted by Augustine, which seem to support the will of the individual communicant who decides to kneel.
Dave | 03.10.06 - 8:41 am | #

Dave,

My initial reaction is that EM was written as a direction in 1967. The direction itself indicates the pastoral/temporary nature of the direction: "an instruction setting out such practical rules of this nature AS MAY BE SUITABLE FOR THE PRESENT SITUATION."

A lot has happened since then. The CDWDS made it sufficiently clear that the USCCB request for an adaptation to the norm was granted specifically with the caveat that kneeling was not to be prohibited nor inhibited by suggestions of disobedience, etc.

I believe this follows from the "let the boys play" attitude followed by the Vatican over the last few decades.

I believe the options of communion in the hand vs. communion on the tongue would also breach the spirit of EM, frankly. EM is about liturgical unity. So why the choice there? Why ALL of the choices in NOM? Why is the drive for unity focused like a laser beam on minimizing that which supports that sacred today? Is this an accident?

If the rules were made and enforced as solidly and clearly as they have been in the past, my response would be different. But we are operating under a different interpretation and application of the rules and I believe it would be naive to think that if we just sit back and do as we're told (even when we are given licit options that may be offered in sotto voce) that everything will miraculously get better. There is a mysterious interplay between free will and Divine Providence, between the Sensus of the people and the authority of the Church.

We must certainly be careful not to adopt a spirit of disobedience, but there is a valid middle place to be found that is "wise as serpents, innocent as doves."
Augustine | 03.10.06 - 5:37 pm | #

On transubstantiation, many theologians and philosophers disagreed with Thomas that accidents could be separated from their substance (Thomas has the other accidents subsist in the accident of Quantity while the substance is absent). I have not found any comment on materia prima, but I note that the eucharistic species no longer have substantial form (the "form of bread" then must mean the accidents of bread only) and probably no matter either -- their molecules would be only apparent molecules, without substance.

All of this is rather impossible in fact. The Aristotelian categories themselves seem ill-adjusted to physical realities as we know them.

My view is that the substance in the sense of the inner reality of the bread becomes the substance of the risen Christ -- the meal event is transsubstantiated into a sharing in the paschal mystery, and has no independent substance of its own.

There is no need then to say that the form or matter of the bread has disappeared, only that its inner reality has changed. As Newman himself points out, the transubstantiation poses little difficulty to the understanding since no one knows what substance is to begin with. Trent praises the word, but refuses to back aristotelian metaphysics or theories of the transubstantiation based on them.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.10.06 - 9:49 pm | #

Spirit - Thanks for your clarifying comment on transubstantiation. It reminds me of many of the comments by medieval authorities both before and after 1215 that stressed the spiritual nature of the presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist. Many of them referred to it also as Christ's risen and glorified body & blood. Thx.
rob k | 03.11.06 - 6:08 am | #

St. John knew nothing of Aristotelian categories when he recorded the Bread of Life discourse, nor did St. Therese when she encountered her Bridegroom in her first Holy Communion. The real test of Eucharistic faith is whether our hearts are willing to kneel in worshipful adoration before the Sacred Host. Fr. Joseph writes as an astute philosopher on the topic of transubstiation, yet does he fervently adore Jesus, whom he holds in his hands at the moment of consecration? Everything else is secondary, or, "accidental".
Dave | 03.11.06 - 1:28 pm | #

And Father Joseph stands during Consecration and Communion of his Masses as do all priests!!!! And yes, we are all Sons and Daughters of God.
Realist former Convergent | 03.11.06 - 3:34 pm | #

Be VERY, VERY careful with the Demonic "Spirit of Vatican II", the priest who goes to gay bars, and his sophisms.

"...it would be wrong for anyone to try to explain this manner of presence by dreaming up a so-called 'pneumatic' nature of the glorious body of Christ that would be present everywhere"

"...what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical 'reality', corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place."

Mysterium Fidei, Paul VI
New Catholic | Homepage | 03.11.06 - 6:13 pm | #

New Catholic is right. Read Mysterium Fidei. DON'T read Fr. O'Leary on this one.

Spirit, I agree with you that transubstantiation has never been the bottom-line doctrinal definition. But the reasoning you are employing to argue against it is very much mistaken: that it is "impossible" for accidents and substances to be separated.

Nothing is impossible for God. You are being ridiculously faithless.

And what in the world do you mean by the transubstantiation of the meal event? You are well aware that the Church teaches the perduring Presence after the meal.
Anonymous | 03.11.06 - 7:38 pm | #


The above was from me.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.11.06 - 7:38 pm | #

Oh Goodness Me! How we can twist the law! Since if we kneel, no further gesture of reverence is required, the supposition that standing is more reverent is utter nonsense: he who receives standing is required (by however a toothless law) to make some sign of reverence and recognition.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.11.06 - 10:45 pm | #

'According to the admonition so frequently repeated by the holy Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished against curious searching into the manner in which this change [of transubstantiation] is effected. It defies the powers of conception; nor can we find any example of it in natural transmutations, or even in the very work of creation. That such a change takes place must be recognised by faith; how it takes place we must not curiously inquire.' (The Catechism of Trent)

Recognizing the Lord, we become aware that our hearts are burning (cf. Lk 24:30-32). In Spirit's remarks, one wishes to see more adoration and less sophistication.
Dave | 03.12.06 - 12:27 am | #

Kathy,

Regarding the nature of the change that takes place to the host, are we really sure we want to say that "transubstantiation" has never been the "bottom line doctrinal definition"?

It seems to me this is exactly what the Church has said: "The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the brand and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." CCC 1376.

Denzinger (The Sources of Catholic Dogma) has a whole section with a slew of references on transubstantiation as a dogma of the Church, from St. Gregory VII (Roman Council VI) to Gregory X (Council of Lyons) to Lateran Council IV to the Council of Constance to the Council of Florence to the Council of Trent and more:

"If anyone...denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema." (can 2 Council of Trent: Denzinger 884).

Am I missing what you are saying?
Augustine | 03.13.06 - 8:36 pm | #

"There is no need then to say that the form or matter of the bread has disappeared, only that its inner reality has changed."

I don't know what else to say, Father, except that this is a verbal "bait and switch". Are you trying to replace the word "transubstatiation" with "Transfinalization" or "transignification"? Of course the inner reality has changed! What used to be bread, pure and simple, and unleavened, has become the Body adn Blood of the Lord. I'm at a loss to explain what you could possibly mean by the "meal event is transsubstantiated" -- I quote from the Missal: Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt. Don't put the wrong emphasis on the "meal event"!
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.13.06 - 9:40 pm | #

In my understanding, "most fittingly calls" is not the strongest kind of declaration that the Church can make about a term. There have been certain terms that the Church has made part of the perpetual definition of somthing: Consubstantial, Person and Natures in Christ, for example. But to my knowledge there has never been a similarly absolute designation of the Eucharist as transubstantiation.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.14.06 - 9:07 am | #

Kathy,

I only provided one quote, from Trent. But there are a whole slew of references. Do you have Denzinger or is there an online source?

In addition, there is a certain aspect to this that reminds of, in a strange way, of the arguments against homosexuality. Pro-gay activists say, "the Bible says NOTHING about homosexuality. There was no such word back then." But the point is, St. Paul very clearly uses words that accurately describe homosexuality (as does the O.T.). One need not assert the precise word existed in order to say the same concept did,true?

Infallibility is perhaps another example.

Regardless, I am still concerned about giving any ground on this. Certain individuals with a propensity to get "creative" may take it as license....
Augustine | 03.14.06 - 8:21 pm | #

Of course I do not deny the perduring presence after the meal, but since the time of Pius XII the Church has been strictly integrating that presence into the meal event in the sense that viaticum and eucharistic adoration are presented as extensions of the Mass.

On the nature of the eucharistic change, Thomas teaches that the substance of the bread is not annihilated but converted into the substance of Christ's glorified body.

This leaves the accidents inhering in the dimensional quantity of the bread.

Pope Gelasius I, in earlier times, speaks quite unaffectedly of the substance of the bread continuing after the consecration (similar language is in Theoderet and John Damascene). I don't think he means "consubstantiation" in the sense attributed to Luther.

Perhaps we could allow an understanding of the change of substance that would leave the matter of the Eucharist remain but as now entirely receiving its meaning/form from being a vehicle of the presence of Christ.

The Aristotelian categories of substance, substantial form, materia signata, prime matter, accidents, are treated as definitive in Thomas's brilliant discussions but would be quite problematic today.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.14.06 - 10:31 pm | #

Kathy is right that Trent actually distances itself from transubstantiation, other than recognizing it as a fitting word to describe the change of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of Christ's body. I did not know that the Catechism of Trent actually discourages speculation on this -- no wonder, given the excesses of late scholasticism in this field.

The headaches caused by Thomas Aquinas's discussion are entertainingly rehearsed in Fr PJ Fitzpatrick's brilliant book, In Breaking of Bread, Cambridge University Press.

"There is no need then to say that the form or matter of the bread has disappeared, only that its inner reality has changed." The words "form" and "matter" have a technical Aristotelian sense that does not match our current discourse. To tell the faithful that the matter of bread no longer exists (even though one can feed oneself on the consecrated bread, as Thomas points out) is to create a misleading impression. What no longer exists, in church teaching, is the SUBSTANCE of bread, or its inner reality (Newman points out that we do not know what substance is; the Church does not give a definition of it) is converted into the SUBSTANCE of the body of Christ.

"Are you trying to replace the word "transubstatiation" with "Transfinalization" or "transignification"? Of course the inner reality has changed! What used to be bread, pure and simple, and unleavened, has become the Body adn Blood of the Lord. I'm at a loss to explain what you could possibly mean by the "meal event is transsubstantiated" -- I quote from the Missal: Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt. Don't put the wrong emphasis on the "meal event"!" Oddly enough, this was the very topic of my oral examination with Professor Ratzinger in 1973 -- I defended the phenomenological appoach that stresses the centrality of the meal event but pointed out that it is not incompatible with the full metaphysical reality of transubstantiation. My teacher, now the Vicar of Christ, seemed quite happy with this answer (I think I got full marks).
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.13.06 - 9:40 pm | #
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.14.06 - 10:41 pm | #

Spirit,

I do not see where Kathy wrote that Trent "distances" itself from transubstantiation. I only saw where she suggested that the Church never said that transubstantiation was the "bottom line doctrinal definition."

Kathy?


You will forgive me, Spirit, if I read your thoughts on the Eucharist with a little skepticism, looking for the twist or loophole. In light of the way you treat other Church teachings we've discussed, I find it hard to trust that you are being completely faithful in the others. I am not saying that you are wrong here on this issue, only that your manifest approach to the teachings of the Church doesn't exactly evoke confidence and trust.
Augustine | 03.15.06 - 2:43 am | #

No, I didn't say Trent "distances" itself.

I can't claim the following to be certainly true, and if someone thinks I'm in error please let me know. But it seems to me that Trent (while not distancing itself from "transubstantion") did not use the strongest possible language in regards to that formula.

To illustrate: Chalcedon used the words "person" and "nature" in the strongest possible language, "teach[ing] all men to confess X." These words have been from that moment inextricably linked with the Church's understanding of Jesus Christ. Trent could have defined the Eucharist = transubstantiation but did not, choosing instead a slightly less binding formula, "fittingly calls." It's an important distinction, I think, between teaching that a formula is fitting and teaching that it must be definitively held.

Spirit, the substance of the bread no longer continues.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:04 pm | #

Kathy:

I haven't read Trent on the subject, but I can hazard a guess at the meaning of "fitting".

During the Mass, according to both rites here under discussion, there is a dialogue generally refered to as the Sursum Corda. In that dialogue we are instructed "Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro" [ Let us give thanks to The Lord Our God]. Our response is "Dignum et Justum est" [ which ICEL limply translates as "It is right to give [H]im thanks and praise. Dignum and justum are two ways of being right, not two degrees of rightness. Justum is "right" in the sense of legally proper, in accordance with our duty. Dignum, on the other hand, is "right" in the sense of "fitting-ness", and is variously rendered by other translators, all centering on the notion of proper-ness. Not being a Latin scholar, I can't go beyond what I have said here. I would venture a guess that this isn't intended to place one on a lower plane than the other, any more than your "moral" duty and your "legal" duty are inherently in conflict.

I will go one step farther, but not in terms of Latin, but common sense, right-thinking Catholic theology. You are legally required to go to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day, but it is fitting -- a good thing and advantageous to our salvation -- to go more often.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.15.06 - 10:25 pm | #

Thanks, Chris. I think we agree.

If I remember correctly, fittingness was a manner of argument in the medieval university. It was considered to be more convincing than an ilustration would be, but not as convincing as proof.

From this I take it that for Trent to declare something is fitting is more binding on the faithful than a theological theory would be, but less than a formally defining declaration would be. Again, I may be wrong in this. But I think we'll see the Eucharistic change formally defined in an upcoming Council.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 8:41 am | #

**Trent could have defined the Eucharist = transubstantiation but did not, choosing instead a slightly less binding formula, "fittingly calls." It's an important distinction, I think, between teaching that a formula is fitting and teaching that it must be definitively held.**

I would point out that in the public profession of faith taken by Bl. Pius IX at the convocation of the First Vatican Council he stated:

"7. I profess that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there takes place the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, and this conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation....This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God" (Session 2, Profession of Faith).

Here there's no "fittingly" to contend with. There's an equivalence between the change and the term. And it's in a public profession of faith uttered solemnly by the Sovereign Pontiff as a precise definition of the Catholic Faith.

Certainly, as Augustine argues, the term has been repeated frequently in the most authoritative magisterial contexts (see the refs. in Denzinger as Augustine suggests.) So this term, **as the Church has defined it** (not as certain spirits would try to redefine it) is the standard by which all other terms should be measured. There's a parallel here to the discussion we've had on another thread; that which is established by ancient, constant, and authoritative use is the standard by which all future developments are to be measured.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 8:52 am | #

Again, I may be misunderstanding, but the solemn public profession of faith of a Pope is not a statement of faith that binds the faithful. Ex Cathedra statements, Council decrees--these bind the faithful.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 9:59 am | #

**[T]he solemn public profession of faith of a Pope is not a statement of faith that binds the faithful.**

The faithful are not bound to profess the same Faith that the Sovereign Pontiff solemnly and publicly professes? I may be misunderstanding you, but that's a totally new concept to me.

The term transubstantiation is used again in Paul VI's "Credo of the People of God". I'm trying to understand how such a term, repeated over and over in the most authoritative pronouncements of the magisterium, can do anything other than bind the faithful. It has every mark of being defined infallibly by the ordinary magisterium, if not by the extraordinary.

Any new understanding of the change that takes place at the Consecration would have to take the Church's definition of transubstantiation as a starting point. Otherwise it can't be a legitimate development.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 11:11 am | #

By the way, what would be the motivation behind, the reason for, the impetus behind a new definition of the change at the Consecration? What deficiency would be overcome by such a definition. And what compensating good would come from the theological confusion that would likely arise?
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 11:15 am | #

TWB, you are assuming that there would be "theological confusion." I have more confidence than that in the Magisterium. I think that the Holy Spirit would provide us with a BETTER, clearer formulation--one which uses terms people understand.

(I daresay that most people who love the term "transubstantiation" would have a lot of trouble explaining what an "accident" is.)

Regarding your first comment, I agree that the term has been mantioned in very authoritative pronouncements. But not in the strongest possible terms.

The strongest possible terms are absolutely, permanently binding. Look at Nicea's decrees, or when Trent defines 7 sacraments, or the definition of the Immaculate Conception. Probably also Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Less strong terms are used for things that could possibly be said in different ways. Not to water down the meanings, mind you, but to say them more clearly or in a way that could be better understood.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 12:14 pm | #

** TWB, you are assuming that there would be "theological confusion." I have more confidence than that in the Magisterium. I think that the Holy Spirit would provide us with a BETTER, clearer formulation--one which uses terms people understand.**

Just like the Vatican II documents, right? No theological confusion there. My point is that, unless the human element of the Church is very careful indeed, theological confusion can easily ensue even from official magisterial statements.

**(I daresay that most people who love the term "transubstantiation" would have a lot of trouble explaining what an "accident" is.)**

It's not about what we "love", it's about what the Church teaches. It's also not about what is easy to explain or what people readily understand, but what most exactly and precisely defines the truth as revealed to us by God. If it's hard to understand but it's as accurate as it can be then so be it, leave it alone.

Official actions to address peoples' ignorance can easily backfire. Witness the new rite of the Mass. The people were alleged to be so ignorant of what was going on the TLM, so let's just put everything out there in the vernacular and they'll understand better. Right? Wrong, if anything they're more ignorant than ever.

I would argue that "the people don't understand it easily" is very far from sufficient reason to come up with a new definition of the change that takes place at the Consecration. Transubstantiation includes a great deal about what does happen and excludes a great deal of erroneous understandings. So it's best left alone.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 12:28 pm | #

TWB, I didn't realize that I was talking with someone who is above confusion that might arise from "the human element." Since you're infallible, I will let you make the call. No more arguments from me.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 12:54 pm | #

Sarcasm is usually an indication that one's interlocutor has run out of reasoned arguments.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 1:31 pm | #

Exactly. I agree that you have run out of reasoned arguments.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 1:50 pm | #

**Exactly. I agree that you have run out of reasoned arguments.**

I know you have, but what about me ;-D

Seriously, Pee Wee Herman aside, I used sarcasm first and I'm not out of reasoned arguments, so shame on me.

Here's a simple question. Can you give me any other example in Church history in which such a venerable doctrine was raised to a solemn definition of the Faith simply because the way the doctrine was phrased was difficult to understand?
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 2:21 pm | #

I'm sorry too.

I think your question might be missing a "not." And no, I don't know of another example.

But I do know that this expression is not that venerable. It is a very late expression, ecclesiastically-speaking. More importantly, it has never been, according to my understanding, officially adopted as the one and only, definitive expression of the doctrine. There is a change that occurs at the consecration--a complete and permanent change. But how do we talk about that change?

I personally jive with Aristotle. He's my homeboy, I read him as easily as I read Time magazine. But if you start talking about Aristotilean categories to most people their eyes glaze right over.

And that MAY be the reason that the Holy Spirit has never required this as the one true formula for the teaching. Or there could be another reason that has nothing to do with intelligibility--something I haven't thought of. Or--my favorite possibility--the Holy Spirit may have a new way to say this, something that we haven't thought of yet. And THAT process has definitely happened before in Church history. Usually it involves a combination of borrowing concepts from philosophy, fighting heresy and schism, and using existing terms in a new way. All of which comes together at a Council.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 2:38 pm | #

Okay Kathy, I'm gonna try one more time to convince you that transubstantiation is quite a bit more authoritative than you're

The pseudo-synod of Pistoia (1786) put out this statement on the change at the Consecration:

"Christ is, after the Consecration, truly, really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, and the whole substance of bread and wine has then ceased to exist, only the appearances remaining."

Now what's wrong with that statement? Can you spot any doctrinal flaw? Looks okay to me.....







Give up?








That statement was condemned by Pope Pius VI in the Bull Auctorem Fidei as "pernicious, derogatory to the expounding of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics." Why such a strong condemnation? Because it did not contain the word "transubstantiation" which the Jansenists were encouraging their pastors to downplay as a "scholastic question" (see the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Real Presence")

The term has been only been further strengthened since then by repetition in magisterial pronouncements of very high authority.

So how would you avoid the charge that your arguments concerning the term being too difficult for the people to understand, hence the need for a new term, are pretty much exactly parallel to those of the Jansenists whose attempts along these lines were condemned as "pernicious, derogatory to the expounding of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics"?
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 4:27 pm | #

Also notice Pius VI's choice of words: it's the "dogma of transubstantiation."
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 4:30 pm | #

I wonder what His Holiness (or many of His Holinesses) say about the doctrinal formulation of the Second Vatican Council?
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.16.06 - 4:51 pm | #

**I wonder what His Holiness (or many of His Holinesses) say about the doctrinal formulation of the Second Vatican Council?**

I think they would wince at its imprecision and brevity. Thank God the council declared itself to be pastoral. The doctrinal authority of Vatican II has been vastly overstated by too many Catholics. As Dietrich von Hildebrand said in Charitable Anathema,

"The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not."

That warning from von Hildebrand doesn't apply so much to orthdodox Catholics and their treatment of the Eucharist vis-a-vis Vatican II, but it applies to many of them in spades with regard to issues such as separation of Church and State, religious liberty, and the inerrancy of the Bible.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 5:53 pm | #

TWB, I've said all along that I might be wrong about the FACT of doctrinal statements to wit that transubstantiation is the defined and perpetual term. Let me study this particular matter and get back to you.

Meanwhile, you guys are gonna have a lot of explaining to do about how you think your private judgment trumps the decrees of an ecumenical Council. Last I checked, Hildebrand was not in a position to declare anything doctrinally--and neither are you. It's astonishing to me.

Apparently you want to go back in time, as though that were possible. It's not even desirable. But that aside--it's not at all possible!!

And you want to do this on the basis of your own private judgment, not on the judgment of the bishops of the Church in council, called by the Pope and presided over by him! Strangest "Catholicism" I ever saw. Are you negating Vatican I as well?
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 7:51 pm | #

(BTW, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have a lot of doctrinal authority either!)
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 8:02 pm | #

I'm having trouble finding the full text of Auctorem Fidei. Does anyone have a link?

(So far I just notice that it's quoted extensively by the Lefebvrites.)
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 9:30 pm | #

TWB - Although I think transubstantiation is a reasonable way do explain the change that takes place at consecration, I think that it has been responsible for helping breed confusion about the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. That is, it has backed up the superstition that the Presence is corporeal in a natural way, not a non-natural, sacramental way, which is what the doctrine of transubstantiation really professes.
rob k | 03.17.06 - 3:51 am | #

Christ is present not locally but in the mode of substance, says Aquinas. He distinguishes between the present of Christ's substance through the power of the sacrament, ex vi sacramenti, and the CONCOMITANT presence of his qualities such as his heavenly location.

If I understand correctly, then, Christ is substantially not locally present in the Eucharist (if it falls on the floor Christ does not fall on the floor), but that is not to say that Christ's substance is dissociated from the local dimensions of his resurrected body.

Luther believed in the omnipresence of Christ's resurrected body.

I think all classical theology had over-precise ideas of Christ's body and of the future state of the bodies of the elect. Suffice it to say that Christ has entered into eschatological glory, preceding us there.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 4:16 am | #

Kathy expects an upcoming council to formally define the eucharistic transformation. What?

First, church councils do not define anything, ever, if by definition you mean give a definition of in the dictionary sense.

The Greek work we translate as definition is horos, which is more a question of setting out limits, or a horizon. Thus Chalcedon uses language of hypostasis and natures to define that Christ is neither a monophysite fusion nor a "Nestorian" separation of the two natures in the unity of the one person or hypostasis. None of these terms are binding for all time; it is the truth they are used to point to that is the binding core of the doctrine.

Trent offers NO definition of the word "sacrifice" for example, though it "defines" that the Mass is a sacrifice.

Trent REFUSED to take any part in the scholastic debates on the philosophical implications of transubstantiation, contenting itself with defining that the substance of bread becomes the substnance of Christ's body, a transformation aptly described as transubstantiation.

That is quite enough to secure the basics of faith in the real presence.

As someone noted above, the Catechism of the Council of Trent discourages speculation on this matter -- which may be the reason there is so little of it in modern as opposed to medieval theology.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 4:26 am | #

Chalcedon offered a horos, but Nicea and Constantinople, earlier, offered Creeds (Symbols) as did many lesser councils. Paul VI's Creed of the People of God was an effort to link up with that earlier tradition (not very successfully in my opinion). Anathemas of heretical views were are major instrument of conciliar teaching from the first (from Nicea). Vatican II offered no dogmas or anathemas -- a novelty in itself. It was a pastoral council, aiming to persuade rather than impose.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 4:29 am | #

" **[T]he solemn public profession of faith of a Pope is not a statement of faith that binds the faithful.**
The faithful are not bound to profess the same Faith that the Sovereign Pontiff solemnly and publicly professes? I may be misunderstanding you, but that's a totally new concept to me."

IN FACT, this is correct. The Papal Credo (whether of Pius IX or Paul VI) is absolutely binding only to the degree that it expresses the already defined doctrine of the Church. Thus Paul VI cannot be interpreted as adding anything to what Trent says about transubstantiation, and if he does add something, that is not binding de fide. (Unless of course he wants to declare a new doctrinal detail infallibly, ex cathedra -- but that is a rarest case.) (The same can be said, perhaps, about the papal response to Pistoia -- and indeed no Pope will agree with hostility to the term "transubstantiation").

"It has every mark of being defined infallibly by the ordinary magisterium, if not by the extraordinary." Its use has been canonized as an apt word to express what the Church teaches. Nonetheless it is the teaching, not the word, that is infallibly binding.

"Any new understanding of the change that takes place at the Consecration would have to take the Church's definition of transubstantiation as a starting point. Otherwise it can't be a legitimate development." Basically, yes. But perhaps "starting point" is not quite right. We re-understand the change by going back to the Eucharist itself as instituted by Christ. But if that reunderstanding no longer embraces and includes the truth of transubstantiation (if it reduces Christ's presence to something less than a substantial one, or makes it a presence alongside the presence of the bread) then it is not an authentic development.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 4:41 am | #

Spirit, I do think that Councils define. What a Christian means by "person" is in part limited (de-fined) by Chalcedon.

Pace Rahner, who thought that even the classical formulas must adjust to changes in philosophical conceptions.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 10:15 am | #

**I'm having trouble finding the full text of Auctorem Fidei.**

I don't think it's on-line. The section on Pistoia is in Denzinger, 1501-1599, with the specific article we're talking about at 1529.

**Meanwhile, you guys are gonna have a lot of explaining to do about how you think your private judgment trumps the decrees of an ecumenical Council. Last I checked, Hildebrand was not in a position to declare anything doctrinally--and neither are you. It's astonishing to me....And you want to do this on the basis of your own private judgment, not on the judgment of the bishops of the Church in council, called by the Pope and presided over by him! Strangest "Catholicism" I ever saw. Are you negating Vatican I as well?**

Kathy, you're jumping to wild conclusions. Where have I place my private judgment over that of Vatican II or "negated" it?

That V2 was a pastoral council and did not issue any infallible decrees is a fact so well documented that it shouldn't require further demonstration. But many of the relevant sources are captured here (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/ article_20030103_Differing_from_Other_Councils.htm l).

I do not attribute any error to the decrees of Vatican II. What I would argue is that the council documents contain a number of very unfortunate imprecisions, ambiguities, and lacunae. These have generated a great deal of theological confusion as even ostensibly orthodox Catholics have, in the name of V2, adopted positions that are contradictory to what had been taught repeatedly and solemnly by the Magisterium prior to the council. Two specific examples would be Fr. Fessio's use of DV 11 to allow for historical or scientific errors in sacred Scripture, in contradiction to the prior teaching that Scripture contains no errors of any kind, and Fr. Neuhaus's position (stemming from DH) that it is no longer necessary or even desireable to have the state uphold the Catholic religion, in contradiction to the prior teaching that the state is obligated to uphold the Catholic Faith.

But here I don't accuse the council of erring, I say that these men have erred in their interpretation of the council. Still, the documents have this basic flaw, ambiguity. As Msgr. George Kelly said in Battle for the American Church, "The documents of the Council contain enough basic ambiguities to make the post-conciliar difficulties understandable" (p.20).

Fr. O'Leary wrote: **Its use has been canonized as an apt word to express what the Church teaches. Nonetheless it is the teaching, not the word, that is infallibly binding....perhaps "starting point" is not quite right. We re-understand the change by going back to the Eucharist itself as instituted by Christ. But if that reunderstanding no longer embraces and includes the truth of transubstantiation...then it is not an authentic development.**

These are useful corrections to my own imprecisions, Father, and I thank you for them.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.17.06 - 10:31 am | #

Where have I place my private judgment over that of Vatican II or "negated" it?

The doctrinal authority of Vatican II has been vastly overstated by too many Catholics.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 11:46 am | #

**The doctrinal authority of Vatican II has been vastly overstated by too many Catholics.**

Saying that the council was pastoral not dogmatic and issued no infallible decrees is hardly placing my private judgment over that of the council. It's simply a statement of fact. Another fact is that too many Catholics, even orthodox ones, do exactly what Card. Ratzinger said they ought not to do, that is to "treat it [Vatican II] as though it made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

Now, here's a concrete example. In the Catholic World Report (July and October, 2001) Fr. Fessio put forward an interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 that flatly contradicts prior papal teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture. When several writers pointed out that his view couldn't be harmonized with prior papal teaching, Fr. Fessio replied: "The fact that references are made to previous documents in Dei Verbum does not mean that Dei Verbum is to be interpreted in their (apparently restrictive) sense, but precisely that they are to be interpreted in the sense of Dei Verbum."

And this, I say, is vastly overstating the doctrinal authority of Vatican II. The documents of Vatican II are incapable of overthrowing prior Church teaching, first because the Pope and bishops explicitly stated that they had no intention of doing and and second because they explicitly denied that they were investing the documents with sufficient authority to do so.

I would assert instead that the prior magisterial teaching stands and that it is Fr. Fessio who errs.

I do not see how that is asserting my private judgment over the authority of Vatican II.


This thread is very long and we are rather off topic (my fault as much as any.) I will leave it to the blogmaster if he wants to start thread(s) on any or all of these topics.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.17.06 - 12:38 pm | #

TWB:
could it be that we are exactly where we ought to be as a relevant and modern church right now?

For me the question is less what can we do to get back to pre Vatican II but more how can we go forward to Vatican III.

Be assured that declaring scripture as being written without error and emphasizing the supremacy of catholic religion will not cut it in 2006 and for years to come. It might be a neat church to follow for a specialty group of believers however, that can compartementalize just enough to leave major aspects of reality out of the picture - the majority of us have to live however in the real scientific driven world. A world that constantly changes. A more and more just and democratic world on the other hand that can not afford to have much appetite for declarations of supremacy by this religion or that believesystem Nor can we really afford to declare one thing or another dogmatic as set in stone.
Sure dogma and the 'Truth' will continue to work rather well in the moral sphere - in science and societal interaction the undemocratic nature of dogmatic declarations will continue to invalidate it as a methodology IMHO.

I certainly would find it rather peculiar if a future Pope would feel compelled to reemphazise the inerronious nature of scripture, while pretty much every historical or remotly scientific aspect of scripture seem not to fare to well under the harsh light of the scientific method.

Didn't JPII for example all but admit that evolution is a very valid way to explain scientifically many aspects of our history. A history that most certainly goes back much further than scripture would have us believe.

The catholic church certainly labored hard to get to the current state of affairs - where indeed seem to have it both ways.

Claims of absolute truth for all the stuff that can not be prooven wrong one way or the other. But wiggleroom for all aspects of scripture were science has the potential to shed a unflattering light on the potential erronious nature of words written down by humans for humans 2000 years ago.
grega | 03.17.06 - 3:39 pm | #

Grega,

The inerrancy of Scripture and the nature of the Church's infallibility are truly fascinating subjects, but I would like to defer to the blogmaster; if he's interested in discussion on those topics then perhaps he can start a thread. Otherwise, though, we're way off topic for this thread.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.17.06 - 4:20 pm | #

TWB, I don't think the "blogmaster" is so very adamant about keeping us on topic.

Besides, I think that the nature of the Church's infallibility is absolutely what this thread is about. The questions that are being raised, here and in other threads, are whether the Holy See's judgments about liturgy are as good as the private judgments of individuals such as you.
Kathy | 03.17.06 - 9:38 pm | #

(Sorry, Dr. Blosser, I've just realized that it's a bit presumptuous for me to say what you're adamant about.)
Kathy | Homepage | 03.18.06 - 9:58 am | #

"too many Catholics, even orthodox ones, do exactly what Card. Ratzinger said they ought not to do, that is to "treat it [Vatican II] as though it made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

"Now, here's a concrete example. In the Catholic World Report (July and October, 2001) Fr. Fessio put forward an interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 that flatly contradicts prior papal teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture. When several writers pointed out that his view couldn't be harmonized with prior papal teaching, Fr. Fessio replied: "The fact that references are made to previous documents in Dei Verbum does not mean that Dei Verbum is to be interpreted in their (apparently restrictive) sense, but precisely that they are to be interpreted in the sense of Dei Verbum.""

Actually, Dei Verbum has far higher authority than Providentissimus Deus or declarations of the Pontifical Biblical Commission when it was part of the Magisterium. I am pretty sure that Ratzinger would agree with his disciple Fession on this one. Ratzinger and Rahner co-authored some enlightened stuff on this topic back at the time of Vatican II.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.19.06 - 1:43 am | #

Chalcedon does not define person/hypostasis, though it contrasts it with nature, but later theology in the wake of Chalcedon may have defined it more closely, and certainly all of this influenced the Christian understanding of personhood.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.19.06 - 1:47 am | #

On inerrancy
Dei Verbum describes itself as a DOGMATIC Constitution, which suggests that its teachings have more than pastoral status.

"the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error teaches that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures" DV 11 -- this would seem to admit that Scripture can contain errors or inaccuracies that do not compromise the salvational truths communicated. The document on the Interpretation of Scripture in the Church admits even moral error due to the undeveloped state of reflection in ancient times (this is an attempt to come to terms with the scandalous wars of extermination glorified in the Pentateuch).
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.19.06 - 1:55 am | #

Spirit, your interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 is exactly that of Fr. Fessio. You wrote **this would seem to admit that Scripture can contain errors or inaccuracies that do not compromise the salvational truths communicated.** The emphasis there has to be on "seem".

The problem is that your interpretation (albeit shared by many) flatly contradicts the Church's perennial teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture as taught by innumerable fathers and doctors and magisterially presented in papal documents such as Providentissimus Deus, Lamentabili Sane, Spiritus Paraclitus , Humani Generis, and Divino Afflante Spiritu (I will post the extracts from those documents below, since it's really necessary to see them before so breezily counting this new-fangled interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 as a "development" of the prior teaching.)

The Pope and the fathers of Vatican II stated that they had no intention of contradicting prior Church teaching. And as recently 1998 the CDF placed "the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts" in the category of doctrine which "require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law" (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei 5).

So I am forced to conclude not that the Second Vatican Council erred (although the ambiguity in DV 11 is unfortunate and has caused a great deal of confusion), but that your interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is in error.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.20.06 - 8:22 am | #

Leo XIII: "[A]ll the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true....It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error....[A]ll the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error" (Providentissimus Deus 20-21).

Pope St. Pius X condemned the modernist proposition that, "Divine inspiration is not to be so extended to the whole of Sacred Scriptures that it renders its parts, all and single, immune from all error" (Lamentabili Sane 11),

Pope Benedict XV excluded biblical error of any kind in Scripture: "we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture....Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and thus no error can occur in the inspired text" (Spiritus Paraclitus 20-21).

Pope Pius XII solemnly reiterated the teaching of Leo XIII, stating: "Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 3-4).

And in 1950, just 14 years before Vatican II, Pope Pius XII again spoke out in condemnation of attempts to confine biblical inerrancy only to certain parts of sacred Scripture: "For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters" (Humani Generis 22).

So I cannot see that your view "that Scripture can contain errors or inaccuracies that do not compromise the salvational truths communicated" is in anything other than in contradiction to the Church's solemn teaching on inerrancy. And I hope you'll forgive me for being more willing to attribute error to you and Fr. Fessio than to "all the Fathers and Doctors", four Popes, and two ecumenical Councils.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.20.06 - 8:37 am | #

There certainly appear to be contradictions between the different things the Vatican has said at various times about scriptural inerrancy. For instance, it talks about moral development in Scripture on such issues as the killing of the enemy in battle (that is, the primitive war ethic of the Pentateuch is outgrown in later texts) -- how this is compatible with inerrancy is not clear.

Biblical literalism is in any case clearly untenable -- the contradictions between rival versions of the same story, whether legendary or historical, cannnot be ironed out. So inerrancy cannot mean this fundamentalistic type of literalism.

Perhaps you might go back and see what Rahner and Ratzinger wrote about this topic? It put the issue to rest for my generation, and European Catholics generally lose no sleep over inerrancy. It is notoriously an American obsession.

By the way the view that the obiter dicta of Scripture are not necessarily inspired (the wagging of Tobias's dog's tail for example) was put forward by Cardinal Newman and rejected by Leo XIII.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.20.06 - 9:10 pm | #

**There certainly appear to be contradictions between the different things the Vatican has said at various times about scriptural inerrancy. For instance, it talks about moral development in Scripture on such issues as the killing of the enemy in battle (that is, the primitive war ethic of the Pentateuch is outgrown in later texts) - how this is compatible with inerrancy is not clear.**

Now Father, you know perfectly well that the the document you reference has no magisterial authority whatsoever. It comes "from the Vatican" sure, but it cannot overthrow the solemn teachings of four Popes and two ecumenical councils. It can be dismissed as irrelevant by any Catholic without even a pang of conscience, whereas the repeated teachings of the Pontiffs are absolutely binding. So why even introduce it into this discussion?

**By the way the view that the obiter dicta of Scripture are not necessarily inspired (the wagging of Tobias's dog's tail for example) was put forward by Cardinal Newman and rejected by Leo XIII.**

Yup, I knew that. Cardinal Newman had the docility to place all his private musings under the judgment of the Church.

**Perhaps you might go back and see what Rahner and Ratzinger wrote about this topic?**

Yes, I'm familiar with it. I do not believe that what they wrote then is compatible with the Church's teaching. As with you, they labored under the erroneous conclusion that Vatican II had introduced some huge new development on the issue of inerrancy, when it did not.

And by the way, I'm not at all inclined simply to assume that what Father Ratzinger believed is the same as what Archbishop Ratzinger believed is the same as what Cardinal Ratzinger believed is the same as what Benedict XVI will teach from the Chair of Peter. There are graces of state-not to mention years of intellectual development-involved here that can easily bring significant changes in a man.

**Biblical literalism is in any case clearly untenable-the contradictions between rival versions of the same story, whether legendary or historical, cannnot be ironed out. So inerrancy cannot mean this fundamentalistic type of literalism.**

Actually, the *apparent* contradictions between two versions of the same story often can be ironed out and biblical scholars who are already convinced that errors exist in Scripture often fail to make the effort, prefering simply to hold that there is a true contradiction. But you are right that the Church does not necessarily hold to literal interpretations; starting with Leo XIII and affirmed by Pius XII and Vatican II, she teaches that *if it can be proven* that a particular writing belongs to a non-literal genre then it need not be interpreted literally.

You dropped discussion of Dei Verbum 11 pretty much altogether. Can I conclude that you are retracting your assertion that it defines inerrancy in a way contradictory to Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XII?
ThomistWannaBe | 03.21.06 - 8:48 am | #

Non-literal genres, according to the majority of contemporary scriptural scholarhship, would cover almost every book of the Bible, and this is a fine solution to any problems posed by claims of historical, factual inerrancy; Newman need not have worried about that dog, since he was fictional to begin with; the historical books do not aim at literality in details. But what of the morally untenable herem (ban) texts, charters for rape and genocide (and used as such by the American Puritans when they slaughtered the Indians)? Here the question of inerrancy becomes truly fearful.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 12:45 am | #

"Now Father, you know perfectly well that the the document you reference has no magisterial authority whatsoever. It comes "from the Vatican" sure, but it cannot overthrow the solemn teachings of four Popes and two ecumenical councils. It can be dismissed as irrelevant by any Catholic without even a pang of conscience, whereas the repeated teachings of the Pontiffs are absolutely binding. So why even introduce it into this discussion?"

Amazing that the Pope has not condemned this document if it is as heretical as you say... amazing that he has it posted prominently on the Vatican website... amazing that he has not renounced the heresy you find in his own earlier writings... Could it just possibly be that the Vatican, conscious of the danger of fundamentalism and instructed in the rich fruits of the last century of Catholic biblical scholarship, has a larger and more flexible vision of orthodoxy?
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 1:10 am | #

"But what of the morally untenable herem (ban) texts, charters for rape and genocide (and used as such by the American Puritans when they slaughtered the Indians)?"

If God chose to put certain ancient peoples under the ban and chose to use the people of Israel as His instrument of judgment then that is His prerogative. Such texts offer no such support for later actions done in their name, so your argument is irrelevant.

"Amazing that the Pope has not condemned this document if it is as heretical as you say..."

Did I say it was heretical? Please show me where I did or stop putting words in my mouth.

But if, as you say, it contradicts the Church's solemn teaching on inerrancy then at the very least it is erroneous.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit chose to remove the magisterial authority of an organ such as the PBC precisely at the time that it would begin to issue opinions at odds with the Church's perennial teaching? Can we not see the providence of God at work to protect the Church from error, even during these confusing times?
ThomistWannaBe | 04.05.06 - 1:30 pm | #

The above was from me.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.11.06 - 7:38 pm | #

Oh Goodness Me! How we can twist the law! Since if we kneel, no further gesture of reverence is required, the supposition that standing is more reverent is utter nonsense: he who receives standing is required (by however a toothless law) to make some sign of reverence and recognition.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.11.06 - 10:45 pm | #

'According to the admonition so frequently repeated by the holy Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished against curious searching into the manner in which this change [of transubstantiation] is effected. It defies the powers of conception; nor can we find any example of it in natural transmutations, or even in the very work of creation. That such a change takes place must be recognised by faith; how it takes place we must not curiously inquire.' (The Catechism of Trent)

Recognizing the Lord, we become aware that our hearts are burning (cf. Lk 24:30-32). In Spirit's remarks, one wishes to see more adoration and less sophistication.
Dave | 03.12.06 - 12:27 am | #

Kathy,

Regarding the nature of the change that takes place to the host, are we really sure we want to say that "transubstantiation" has never been the "bottom line doctrinal definition"?

It seems to me this is exactly what the Church has said: "The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the brand and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." CCC 1376.

Denzinger (The Sources of Catholic Dogma) has a whole section with a slew of references on transubstantiation as a dogma of the Church, from St. Gregory VII (Roman Council VI) to Gregory X (Council of Lyons) to Lateran Council IV to the Council of Constance to the Council of Florence to the Council of Trent and more:

"If anyone...denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema." (can 2 Council of Trent: Denzinger 884).

Am I missing what you are saying?
Augustine | 03.13.06 - 8:36 pm | #

"There is no need then to say that the form or matter of the bread has disappeared, only that its inner reality has changed."

I don't know what else to say, Father, except that this is a verbal "bait and switch". Are you trying to replace the word "transubstatiation" with "Transfinalization" or "transignification"? Of course the inner reality has changed! What used to be bread, pure and simple, and unleavened, has become the Body adn Blood of the Lord. I'm at a loss to explain what you could possibly mean by the "meal event is transsubstantiated" -- I quote from the Missal: Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt. Don't put the wrong emphasis on the "meal event"!
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.13.06 - 9:40 pm | #

In my understanding, "most fittingly calls" is not the strongest kind of declaration that the Church can make about a term. There have been certain terms that the Church has made part of the perpetual definition of somthing: Consubstantial, Person and Natures in Christ, for example. But to my knowledge there has never been a similarly absolute designation of the Eucharist as transubstantiation.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.14.06 - 9:07 am | #

Kathy,

I only provided one quote, from Trent. But there are a whole slew of references. Do you have Denzinger or is there an online source?

In addition, there is a certain aspect to this that reminds of, in a strange way, of the arguments against homosexuality. Pro-gay activists say, "the Bible says NOTHING about homosexuality. There was no such word back then." But the point is, St. Paul very clearly uses words that accurately describe homosexuality (as does the O.T.). One need not assert the precise word existed in order to say the same concept did,true?

Infallibility is perhaps another example.

Regardless, I am still concerned about giving any ground on this. Certain individuals with a propensity to get "creative" may take it as license....
Augustine | 03.14.06 - 8:21 pm | #

Of course I do not deny the perduring presence after the meal, but since the time of Pius XII the Church has been strictly integrating that presence into the meal event in the sense that viaticum and eucharistic adoration are presented as extensions of the Mass.

On the nature of the eucharistic change, Thomas teaches that the substance of the bread is not annihilated but converted into the substance of Christ's glorified body.

This leaves the accidents inhering in the dimensional quantity of the bread.

Pope Gelasius I, in earlier times, speaks quite unaffectedly of the substance of the bread continuing after the consecration (similar language is in Theoderet and John Damascene). I don't think he means "consubstantiation" in the sense attributed to Luther.

Perhaps we could allow an understanding of the change of substance that would leave the matter of the Eucharist remain but as now entirely receiving its meaning/form from being a vehicle of the presence of Christ.

The Aristotelian categories of substance, substantial form, materia signata, prime matter, accidents, are treated as definitive in Thomas's brilliant discussions but would be quite problematic today.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.14.06 - 10:31 pm | #

Kathy is right that Trent actually distances itself from transubstantiation, other than recognizing it as a fitting word to describe the change of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of Christ's body. I did not know that the Catechism of Trent actually discourages speculation on this -- no wonder, given the excesses of late scholasticism in this field.

The headaches caused by Thomas Aquinas's discussion are entertainingly rehearsed in Fr PJ Fitzpatrick's brilliant book, In Breaking of Bread, Cambridge University Press.

"There is no need then to say that the form or matter of the bread has disappeared, only that its inner reality has changed." The words "form" and "matter" have a technical Aristotelian sense that does not match our current discourse. To tell the faithful that the matter of bread no longer exists (even though one can feed oneself on the consecrated bread, as Thomas points out) is to create a misleading impression. What no longer exists, in church teaching, is the SUBSTANCE of bread, or its inner reality (Newman points out that we do not know what substance is; the Church does not give a definition of it) is converted into the SUBSTANCE of the body of Christ.

"Are you trying to replace the word "transubstatiation" with "Transfinalization" or "transignification"? Of course the inner reality has changed! What used to be bread, pure and simple, and unleavened, has become the Body adn Blood of the Lord. I'm at a loss to explain what you could possibly mean by the "meal event is transsubstantiated" -- I quote from the Missal: Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt. Don't put the wrong emphasis on the "meal event"!" Oddly enough, this was the very topic of my oral examination with Professor Ratzinger in 1973 -- I defended the phenomenological appoach that stresses the centrality of the meal event but pointed out that it is not incompatible with the full metaphysical reality of transubstantiation. My teacher, now the Vicar of Christ, seemed quite happy with this answer (I think I got full marks).
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.13.06 - 9:40 pm | #
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.14.06 - 10:41 pm | #

Spirit,

I do not see where Kathy wrote that Trent "distances" itself from transubstantiation. I only saw where she suggested that the Church never said that transubstantiation was the "bottom line doctrinal definition."

Kathy?


You will forgive me, Spirit, if I read your thoughts on the Eucharist with a little skepticism, looking for the twist or loophole. In light of the way you treat other Church teachings we've discussed, I find it hard to trust that you are being completely faithful in the others. I am not saying that you are wrong here on this issue, only that your manifest approach to the teachings of the Church doesn't exactly evoke confidence and trust.
Augustine | 03.15.06 - 2:43 am | #

No, I didn't say Trent "distances" itself.

I can't claim the following to be certainly true, and if someone thinks I'm in error please let me know. But it seems to me that Trent (while not distancing itself from "transubstantion") did not use the strongest possible language in regards to that formula.

To illustrate: Chalcedon used the words "person" and "nature" in the strongest possible language, "teach[ing] all men to confess X." These words have been from that moment inextricably linked with the Church's understanding of Jesus Christ. Trent could have defined the Eucharist = transubstantiation but did not, choosing instead a slightly less binding formula, "fittingly calls." It's an important distinction, I think, between teaching that a formula is fitting and teaching that it must be definitively held.

Spirit, the substance of the bread no longer continues.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:04 pm | #

Kathy:

I haven't read Trent on the subject, but I can hazard a guess at the meaning of "fitting".

During the Mass, according to both rites here under discussion, there is a dialogue generally refered to as the Sursum Corda. In that dialogue we are instructed "Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro" [ Let us give thanks to The Lord Our God]. Our response is "Dignum et Justum est" [ which ICEL limply translates as "It is right to give [H]im thanks and praise. Dignum and justum are two ways of being right, not two degrees of rightness. Justum is "right" in the sense of legally proper, in accordance with our duty. Dignum, on the other hand, is "right" in the sense of "fitting-ness", and is variously rendered by other translators, all centering on the notion of proper-ness. Not being a Latin scholar, I can't go beyond what I have said here. I would venture a guess that this isn't intended to place one on a lower plane than the other, any more than your "moral" duty and your "legal" duty are inherently in conflict.

I will go one step farther, but not in terms of Latin, but common sense, right-thinking Catholic theology. You are legally required to go to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day, but it is fitting -- a good thing and advantageous to our salvation -- to go more often.
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.15.06 - 10:25 pm | #

Thanks, Chris. I think we agree.

If I remember correctly, fittingness was a manner of argument in the medieval university. It was considered to be more convincing than an ilustration would be, but not as convincing as proof.

From this I take it that for Trent to declare something is fitting is more binding on the faithful than a theological theory would be, but less than a formally defining declaration would be. Again, I may be wrong in this. But I think we'll see the Eucharistic change formally defined in an upcoming Council.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 8:41 am | #

**Trent could have defined the Eucharist = transubstantiation but did not, choosing instead a slightly less binding formula, "fittingly calls." It's an important distinction, I think, between teaching that a formula is fitting and teaching that it must be definitively held.**

I would point out that in the public profession of faith taken by Bl. Pius IX at the convocation of the First Vatican Council he stated:

"7. I profess that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there takes place the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, and this conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation....This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God" (Session 2, Profession of Faith).

Here there's no "fittingly" to contend with. There's an equivalence between the change and the term. And it's in a public profession of faith uttered solemnly by the Sovereign Pontiff as a precise definition of the Catholic Faith.

Certainly, as Augustine argues, the term has been repeated frequently in the most authoritative magisterial contexts (see the refs. in Denzinger as Augustine suggests.) So this term, **as the Church has defined it** (not as certain spirits would try to redefine it) is the standard by which all other terms should be measured. There's a parallel here to the discussion we've had on another thread; that which is established by ancient, constant, and authoritative use is the standard by which all future developments are to be measured.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 8:52 am | #

Again, I may be misunderstanding, but the solemn public profession of faith of a Pope is not a statement of faith that binds the faithful. Ex Cathedra statements, Council decrees--these bind the faithful.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 9:59 am | #

**[T]he solemn public profession of faith of a Pope is not a statement of faith that binds the faithful.**

The faithful are not bound to profess the same Faith that the Sovereign Pontiff solemnly and publicly professes? I may be misunderstanding you, but that's a totally new concept to me.

The term transubstantiation is used again in Paul VI's "Credo of the People of God". I'm trying to understand how such a term, repeated over and over in the most authoritative pronouncements of the magisterium, can do anything other than bind the faithful. It has every mark of being defined infallibly by the ordinary magisterium, if not by the extraordinary.

Any new understanding of the change that takes place at the Consecration would have to take the Church's definition of transubstantiation as a starting point. Otherwise it can't be a legitimate development.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 11:11 am | #

By the way, what would be the motivation behind, the reason for, the impetus behind a new definition of the change at the Consecration? What deficiency would be overcome by such a definition. And what compensating good would come from the theological confusion that would likely arise?
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 11:15 am | #

TWB, you are assuming that there would be "theological confusion." I have more confidence than that in the Magisterium. I think that the Holy Spirit would provide us with a BETTER, clearer formulation--one which uses terms people understand.

(I daresay that most people who love the term "transubstantiation" would have a lot of trouble explaining what an "accident" is.)

Regarding your first comment, I agree that the term has been mantioned in very authoritative pronouncements. But not in the strongest possible terms.

The strongest possible terms are absolutely, permanently binding. Look at Nicea's decrees, or when Trent defines 7 sacraments, or the definition of the Immaculate Conception. Probably also Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Less strong terms are used for things that could possibly be said in different ways. Not to water down the meanings, mind you, but to say them more clearly or in a way that could be better understood.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 12:14 pm | #

** TWB, you are assuming that there would be "theological confusion." I have more confidence than that in the Magisterium. I think that the Holy Spirit would provide us with a BETTER, clearer formulation--one which uses terms people understand.**

Just like the Vatican II documents, right? No theological confusion there. My point is that, unless the human element of the Church is very careful indeed, theological confusion can easily ensue even from official magisterial statements.

**(I daresay that most people who love the term "transubstantiation" would have a lot of trouble explaining what an "accident" is.)**

It's not about what we "love", it's about what the Church teaches. It's also not about what is easy to explain or what people readily understand, but what most exactly and precisely defines the truth as revealed to us by God. If it's hard to understand but it's as accurate as it can be then so be it, leave it alone.

Official actions to address peoples' ignorance can easily backfire. Witness the new rite of the Mass. The people were alleged to be so ignorant of what was going on the TLM, so let's just put everything out there in the vernacular and they'll understand better. Right? Wrong, if anything they're more ignorant than ever.

I would argue that "the people don't understand it easily" is very far from sufficient reason to come up with a new definition of the change that takes place at the Consecration. Transubstantiation includes a great deal about what does happen and excludes a great deal of erroneous understandings. So it's best left alone.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 12:28 pm | #

TWB, I didn't realize that I was talking with someone who is above confusion that might arise from "the human element." Since you're infallible, I will let you make the call. No more arguments from me.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 12:54 pm | #

Sarcasm is usually an indication that one's interlocutor has run out of reasoned arguments.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 1:31 pm | #

Exactly. I agree that you have run out of reasoned arguments.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 1:50 pm | #

**Exactly. I agree that you have run out of reasoned arguments.**

I know you have, but what about me ;-D

Seriously, Pee Wee Herman aside, I used sarcasm first and I'm not out of reasoned arguments, so shame on me.

Here's a simple question. Can you give me any other example in Church history in which such a venerable doctrine was raised to a solemn definition of the Faith simply because the way the doctrine was phrased was difficult to understand?
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 2:21 pm | #

I'm sorry too.

I think your question might be missing a "not." And no, I don't know of another example.

But I do know that this expression is not that venerable. It is a very late expression, ecclesiastically-speaking. More importantly, it has never been, according to my understanding, officially adopted as the one and only, definitive expression of the doctrine. There is a change that occurs at the consecration--a complete and permanent change. But how do we talk about that change?

I personally jive with Aristotle. He's my homeboy, I read him as easily as I read Time magazine. But if you start talking about Aristotilean categories to most people their eyes glaze right over.

And that MAY be the reason that the Holy Spirit has never required this as the one true formula for the teaching. Or there could be another reason that has nothing to do with intelligibility--something I haven't thought of. Or--my favorite possibility--the Holy Spirit may have a new way to say this, something that we haven't thought of yet. And THAT process has definitely happened before in Church history. Usually it involves a combination of borrowing concepts from philosophy, fighting heresy and schism, and using existing terms in a new way. All of which comes together at a Council.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 2:38 pm | #

Okay Kathy, I'm gonna try one more time to convince you that transubstantiation is quite a bit more authoritative than you're

The pseudo-synod of Pistoia (1786) put out this statement on the change at the Consecration:

"Christ is, after the Consecration, truly, really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, and the whole substance of bread and wine has then ceased to exist, only the appearances remaining."

Now what's wrong with that statement? Can you spot any doctrinal flaw? Looks okay to me.....







Give up?








That statement was condemned by Pope Pius VI in the Bull Auctorem Fidei as "pernicious, derogatory to the expounding of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics." Why such a strong condemnation? Because it did not contain the word "transubstantiation" which the Jansenists were encouraging their pastors to downplay as a "scholastic question" (see the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Real Presence")

The term has been only been further strengthened since then by repetition in magisterial pronouncements of very high authority.

So how would you avoid the charge that your arguments concerning the term being too difficult for the people to understand, hence the need for a new term, are pretty much exactly parallel to those of the Jansenists whose attempts along these lines were condemned as "pernicious, derogatory to the expounding of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics"?
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 4:27 pm | #

Also notice Pius VI's choice of words: it's the "dogma of transubstantiation."
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 4:30 pm | #

I wonder what His Holiness (or many of His Holinesses) say about the doctrinal formulation of the Second Vatican Council?
Chris Garton-Zavesky | 03.16.06 - 4:51 pm | #

**I wonder what His Holiness (or many of His Holinesses) say about the doctrinal formulation of the Second Vatican Council?**

I think they would wince at its imprecision and brevity. Thank God the council declared itself to be pastoral. The doctrinal authority of Vatican II has been vastly overstated by too many Catholics. As Dietrich von Hildebrand said in Charitable Anathema,

"The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not."

That warning from von Hildebrand doesn't apply so much to orthdodox Catholics and their treatment of the Eucharist vis-a-vis Vatican II, but it applies to many of them in spades with regard to issues such as separation of Church and State, religious liberty, and the inerrancy of the Bible.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.16.06 - 5:53 pm | #

TWB, I've said all along that I might be wrong about the FACT of doctrinal statements to wit that transubstantiation is the defined and perpetual term. Let me study this particular matter and get back to you.

Meanwhile, you guys are gonna have a lot of explaining to do about how you think your private judgment trumps the decrees of an ecumenical Council. Last I checked, Hildebrand was not in a position to declare anything doctrinally--and neither are you. It's astonishing to me.

Apparently you want to go back in time, as though that were possible. It's not even desirable. But that aside--it's not at all possible!!

And you want to do this on the basis of your own private judgment, not on the judgment of the bishops of the Church in council, called by the Pope and presided over by him! Strangest "Catholicism" I ever saw. Are you negating Vatican I as well?
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 7:51 pm | #

(BTW, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have a lot of doctrinal authority either!)
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 8:02 pm | #

I'm having trouble finding the full text of Auctorem Fidei. Does anyone have a link?

(So far I just notice that it's quoted extensively by the Lefebvrites.)
Kathy | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 9:30 pm | #

TWB - Although I think transubstantiation is a reasonable way do explain the change that takes place at consecration, I think that it has been responsible for helping breed confusion about the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. That is, it has backed up the superstition that the Presence is corporeal in a natural way, not a non-natural, sacramental way, which is what the doctrine of transubstantiation really professes.
rob k | 03.17.06 - 3:51 am | #

Christ is present not locally but in the mode of substance, says Aquinas. He distinguishes between the present of Christ's substance through the power of the sacrament, ex vi sacramenti, and the CONCOMITANT presence of his qualities such as his heavenly location.

If I understand correctly, then, Christ is substantially not locally present in the Eucharist (if it falls on the floor Christ does not fall on the floor), but that is not to say that Christ's substance is dissociated from the local dimensions of his resurrected body.

Luther believed in the omnipresence of Christ's resurrected body.

I think all classical theology had over-precise ideas of Christ's body and of the future state of the bodies of the elect. Suffice it to say that Christ has entered into eschatological glory, preceding us there.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 4:16 am | #

Kathy expects an upcoming council to formally define the eucharistic transformation. What?

First, church councils do not define anything, ever, if by definition you mean give a definition of in the dictionary sense.

The Greek work we translate as definition is horos, which is more a question of setting out limits, or a horizon. Thus Chalcedon uses language of hypostasis and natures to define that Christ is neither a monophysite fusion nor a "Nestorian" separation of the two natures in the unity of the one person or hypostasis. None of these terms are binding for all time; it is the truth they are used to point to that is the binding core of the doctrine.

Trent offers NO definition of the word "sacrifice" for example, though it "defines" that the Mass is a sacrifice.

Trent REFUSED to take any part in the scholastic debates on the philosophical implications of transubstantiation, contenting itself with defining that the substance of bread becomes the substnance of Christ's body, a transformation aptly described as transubstantiation.

That is quite enough to secure the basics of faith in the real presence.

As someone noted above, the Catechism of the Council of Trent discourages speculation on this matter -- which may be the reason there is so little of it in modern as opposed to medieval theology.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 4:26 am | #

Chalcedon offered a horos, but Nicea and Constantinople, earlier, offered Creeds (Symbols) as did many lesser councils. Paul VI's Creed of the People of God was an effort to link up with that earlier tradition (not very successfully in my opinion). Anathemas of heretical views were are major instrument of conciliar teaching from the first (from Nicea). Vatican II offered no dogmas or anathemas -- a novelty in itself. It was a pastoral council, aiming to persuade rather than impose.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 4:29 am | #

" **[T]he solemn public profession of faith of a Pope is not a statement of faith that binds the faithful.**
The faithful are not bound to profess the same Faith that the Sovereign Pontiff solemnly and publicly professes? I may be misunderstanding you, but that's a totally new concept to me."

IN FACT, this is correct. The Papal Credo (whether of Pius IX or Paul VI) is absolutely binding only to the degree that it expresses the already defined doctrine of the Church. Thus Paul VI cannot be interpreted as adding anything to what Trent says about transubstantiation, and if he does add something, that is not binding de fide. (Unless of course he wants to declare a new doctrinal detail infallibly, ex cathedra -- but that is a rarest case.) (The same can be said, perhaps, about the papal response to Pistoia -- and indeed no Pope will agree with hostility to the term "transubstantiation").

"It has every mark of being defined infallibly by the ordinary magisterium, if not by the extraordinary." Its use has been canonized as an apt word to express what the Church teaches. Nonetheless it is the teaching, not the word, that is infallibly binding.

"Any new understanding of the change that takes place at the Consecration would have to take the Church's definition of transubstantiation as a starting point. Otherwise it can't be a legitimate development." Basically, yes. But perhaps "starting point" is not quite right. We re-understand the change by going back to the Eucharist itself as instituted by Christ. But if that reunderstanding no longer embraces and includes the truth of transubstantiation (if it reduces Christ's presence to something less than a substantial one, or makes it a presence alongside the presence of the bread) then it is not an authentic development.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 4:41 am | #

Spirit, I do think that Councils define. What a Christian means by "person" is in part limited (de-fined) by Chalcedon.

Pace Rahner, who thought that even the classical formulas must adjust to changes in philosophical conceptions.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 10:15 am | #

**I'm having trouble finding the full text of Auctorem Fidei.**

I don't think it's on-line. The section on Pistoia is in Denzinger, 1501-1599, with the specific article we're talking about at 1529.

**Meanwhile, you guys are gonna have a lot of explaining to do about how you think your private judgment trumps the decrees of an ecumenical Council. Last I checked, Hildebrand was not in a position to declare anything doctrinally--and neither are you. It's astonishing to me....And you want to do this on the basis of your own private judgment, not on the judgment of the bishops of the Church in council, called by the Pope and presided over by him! Strangest "Catholicism" I ever saw. Are you negating Vatican I as well?**

Kathy, you're jumping to wild conclusions. Where have I place my private judgment over that of Vatican II or "negated" it?

That V2 was a pastoral council and did not issue any infallible decrees is a fact so well documented that it shouldn't require further demonstration. But many of the relevant sources are captured here (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/ article_20030103_Differing_from_Other_Councils.htm l).

I do not attribute any error to the decrees of Vatican II. What I would argue is that the council documents contain a number of very unfortunate imprecisions, ambiguities, and lacunae. These have generated a great deal of theological confusion as even ostensibly orthodox Catholics have, in the name of V2, adopted positions that are contradictory to what had been taught repeatedly and solemnly by the Magisterium prior to the council. Two specific examples would be Fr. Fessio's use of DV 11 to allow for historical or scientific errors in sacred Scripture, in contradiction to the prior teaching that Scripture contains no errors of any kind, and Fr. Neuhaus's position (stemming from DH) that it is no longer necessary or even desireable to have the state uphold the Catholic religion, in contradiction to the prior teaching that the state is obligated to uphold the Catholic Faith.

But here I don't accuse the council of erring, I say that these men have erred in their interpretation of the council. Still, the documents have this basic flaw, ambiguity. As Msgr. George Kelly said in Battle for the American Church, "The documents of the Council contain enough basic ambiguities to make the post-conciliar difficulties understandable" (p.20).

Fr. O'Leary wrote: **Its use has been canonized as an apt word to express what the Church teaches. Nonetheless it is the teaching, not the word, that is infallibly binding....perhaps "starting point" is not quite right. We re-understand the change by going back to the Eucharist itself as instituted by Christ. But if that reunderstanding no longer embraces and includes the truth of transubstantiation...then it is not an authentic development.**

These are useful corrections to my own imprecisions, Father, and I thank you for them.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.17.06 - 10:31 am | #

Where have I place my private judgment over that of Vatican II or "negated" it?

The doctrinal authority of Vatican II has been vastly overstated by too many Catholics.
Kathy | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 11:46 am | #

**The doctrinal authority of Vatican II has been vastly overstated by too many Catholics.**

Saying that the council was pastoral not dogmatic and issued no infallible decrees is hardly placing my private judgment over that of the council. It's simply a statement of fact. Another fact is that too many Catholics, even orthodox ones, do exactly what Card. Ratzinger said they ought not to do, that is to "treat it [Vatican II] as though it made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

Now, here's a concrete example. In the Catholic World Report (July and October, 2001) Fr. Fessio put forward an interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 that flatly contradicts prior papal teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture. When several writers pointed out that his view couldn't be harmonized with prior papal teaching, Fr. Fessio replied: "The fact that references are made to previous documents in Dei Verbum does not mean that Dei Verbum is to be interpreted in their (apparently restrictive) sense, but precisely that they are to be interpreted in the sense of Dei Verbum."

And this, I say, is vastly overstating the doctrinal authority of Vatican II. The documents of Vatican II are incapable of overthrowing prior Church teaching, first because the Pope and bishops explicitly stated that they had no intention of doing and and second because they explicitly denied that they were investing the documents with sufficient authority to do so.

I would assert instead that the prior magisterial teaching stands and that it is Fr. Fessio who errs.

I do not see how that is asserting my private judgment over the authority of Vatican II.


This thread is very long and we are rather off topic (my fault as much as any.) I will leave it to the blogmaster if he wants to start thread(s) on any or all of these topics.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.17.06 - 12:38 pm | #

TWB:
could it be that we are exactly where we ought to be as a relevant and modern church right now?

For me the question is less what can we do to get back to pre Vatican II but more how can we go forward to Vatican III.

Be assured that declaring scripture as being written without error and emphasizing the supremacy of catholic religion will not cut it in 2006 and for years to come. It might be a neat church to follow for a specialty group of believers however, that can compartementalize just enough to leave major aspects of reality out of the picture - the majority of us have to live however in the real scientific driven world. A world that constantly changes. A more and more just and democratic world on the other hand that can not afford to have much appetite for declarations of supremacy by this religion or that believesystem Nor can we really afford to declare one thing or another dogmatic as set in stone.
Sure dogma and the 'Truth' will continue to work rather well in the moral sphere - in science and societal interaction the undemocratic nature of dogmatic declarations will continue to invalidate it as a methodology IMHO.

I certainly would find it rather peculiar if a future Pope would feel compelled to reemphazise the inerronious nature of scripture, while pretty much every historical or remotly scientific aspect of scripture seem not to fare to well under the harsh light of the scientific method.

Didn't JPII for example all but admit that evolution is a very valid way to explain scientifically many aspects of our history. A history that most certainly goes back much further than scripture would have us believe.

The catholic church certainly labored hard to get to the current state of affairs - where indeed seem to have it both ways.

Claims of absolute truth for all the stuff that can not be prooven wrong one way or the other. But wiggleroom for all aspects of scripture were science has the potential to shed a unflattering light on the potential erronious nature of words written down by humans for humans 2000 years ago.
grega | 03.17.06 - 3:39 pm | #

Grega,

The inerrancy of Scripture and the nature of the Church's infallibility are truly fascinating subjects, but I would like to defer to the blogmaster; if he's interested in discussion on those topics then perhaps he can start a thread. Otherwise, though, we're way off topic for this thread.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.17.06 - 4:20 pm | #

TWB, I don't think the "blogmaster" is so very adamant about keeping us on topic.

Besides, I think that the nature of the Church's infallibility is absolutely what this thread is about. The questions that are being raised, here and in other threads, are whether the Holy See's judgments about liturgy are as good as the private judgments of individuals such as you.
Kathy | 03.17.06 - 9:38 pm | #

(Sorry, Dr. Blosser, I've just realized that it's a bit presumptuous for me to say what you're adamant about.)
Kathy | Homepage | 03.18.06 - 9:58 am | #

"too many Catholics, even orthodox ones, do exactly what Card. Ratzinger said they ought not to do, that is to "treat it [Vatican II] as though it made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

"Now, here's a concrete example. In the Catholic World Report (July and October, 2001) Fr. Fessio put forward an interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 that flatly contradicts prior papal teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture. When several writers pointed out that his view couldn't be harmonized with prior papal teaching, Fr. Fessio replied: "The fact that references are made to previous documents in Dei Verbum does not mean that Dei Verbum is to be interpreted in their (apparently restrictive) sense, but precisely that they are to be interpreted in the sense of Dei Verbum.""

Actually, Dei Verbum has far higher authority than Providentissimus Deus or declarations of the Pontifical Biblical Commission when it was part of the Magisterium. I am pretty sure that Ratzinger would agree with his disciple Fession on this one. Ratzinger and Rahner co-authored some enlightened stuff on this topic back at the time of Vatican II.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.19.06 - 1:43 am | #

Chalcedon does not define person/hypostasis, though it contrasts it with nature, but later theology in the wake of Chalcedon may have defined it more closely, and certainly all of this influenced the Christian understanding of personhood.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.19.06 - 1:47 am | #

On inerrancy
Dei Verbum describes itself as a DOGMATIC Constitution, which suggests that its teachings have more than pastoral status.

"the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error teaches that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures" DV 11 -- this would seem to admit that Scripture can contain errors or inaccuracies that do not compromise the salvational truths communicated. The document on the Interpretation of Scripture in the Church admits even moral error due to the undeveloped state of reflection in ancient times (this is an attempt to come to terms with the scandalous wars of extermination glorified in the Pentateuch).
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.19.06 - 1:55 am | #

Spirit, your interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 is exactly that of Fr. Fessio. You wrote **this would seem to admit that Scripture can contain errors or inaccuracies that do not compromise the salvational truths communicated.** The emphasis there has to be on "seem".

The problem is that your interpretation (albeit shared by many) flatly contradicts the Church's perennial teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture as taught by innumerable fathers and doctors and magisterially presented in papal documents such as Providentissimus Deus, Lamentabili Sane, Spiritus Paraclitus , Humani Generis, and Divino Afflante Spiritu (I will post the extracts from those documents below, since it's really necessary to see them before so breezily counting this new-fangled interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 as a "development" of the prior teaching.)

The Pope and the fathers of Vatican II stated that they had no intention of contradicting prior Church teaching. And as recently 1998 the CDF placed "the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts" in the category of doctrine which "require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law" (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei 5).

So I am forced to conclude not that the Second Vatican Council erred (although the ambiguity in DV 11 is unfortunate and has caused a great deal of confusion), but that your interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is in error.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.20.06 - 8:22 am | #

Leo XIII: "[A]ll the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true....It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error....[A]ll the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error" (Providentissimus Deus 20-21).

Pope St. Pius X condemned the modernist proposition that, "Divine inspiration is not to be so extended to the whole of Sacred Scriptures that it renders its parts, all and single, immune from all error" (Lamentabili Sane 11),

Pope Benedict XV excluded biblical error of any kind in Scripture: "we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture....Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and thus no error can occur in the inspired text" (Spiritus Paraclitus 20-21).

Pope Pius XII solemnly reiterated the teaching of Leo XIII, stating: "Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 3-4).

And in 1950, just 14 years before Vatican II, Pope Pius XII again spoke out in condemnation of attempts to confine biblical inerrancy only to certain parts of sacred Scripture: "For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters" (Humani Generis 22).

So I cannot see that your view "that Scripture can contain errors or inaccuracies that do not compromise the salvational truths communicated" is in anything other than in contradiction to the Church's solemn teaching on inerrancy. And I hope you'll forgive me for being more willing to attribute error to you and Fr. Fessio than to "all the Fathers and Doctors", four Popes, and two ecumenical Councils.
ThomistWannaBe | 03.20.06 - 8:37 am | #

There certainly appear to be contradictions between the different things the Vatican has said at various times about scriptural inerrancy. For instance, it talks about moral development in Scripture on such issues as the killing of the enemy in battle (that is, the primitive war ethic of the Pentateuch is outgrown in later texts) -- how this is compatible with inerrancy is not clear.

Biblical literalism is in any case clearly untenable -- the contradictions between rival versions of the same story, whether legendary or historical, cannnot be ironed out. So inerrancy cannot mean this fundamentalistic type of literalism.

Perhaps you might go back and see what Rahner and Ratzinger wrote about this topic? It put the issue to rest for my generation, and European Catholics generally lose no sleep over inerrancy. It is notoriously an American obsession.

By the way the view that the obiter dicta of Scripture are not necessarily inspired (the wagging of Tobias's dog's tail for example) was put forward by Cardinal Newman and rejected by Leo XIII.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.20.06 - 9:10 pm | #

**There certainly appear to be contradictions between the different things the Vatican has said at various times about scriptural inerrancy. For instance, it talks about moral development in Scripture on such issues as the killing of the enemy in battle (that is, the primitive war ethic of the Pentateuch is outgrown in later texts) - how this is compatible with inerrancy is not clear.**

Now Father, you know perfectly well that the the document you reference has no magisterial authority whatsoever. It comes "from the Vatican" sure, but it cannot overthrow the solemn teachings of four Popes and two ecumenical councils. It can be dismissed as irrelevant by any Catholic without even a pang of conscience, whereas the repeated teachings of the Pontiffs are absolutely binding. So why even introduce it into this discussion?

**By the way the view that the obiter dicta of Scripture are not necessarily inspired (the wagging of Tobias's dog's tail for example) was put forward by Cardinal Newman and rejected by Leo XIII.**

Yup, I knew that. Cardinal Newman had the docility to place all his private musings under the judgment of the Church.

**Perhaps you might go back and see what Rahner and Ratzinger wrote about this topic?**

Yes, I'm familiar with it. I do not believe that what they wrote then is compatible with the Church's teaching. As with you, they labored under the erroneous conclusion that Vatican II had introduced some huge new development on the issue of inerrancy, when it did not.

And by the way, I'm not at all inclined simply to assume that what Father Ratzinger believed is the same as what Archbishop Ratzinger believed is the same as what Cardinal Ratzinger believed is the same as what Benedict XVI will teach from the Chair of Peter. There are graces of state-not to mention years of intellectual development-involved here that can easily bring significant changes in a man.

**Biblical literalism is in any case clearly untenable-the contradictions between rival versions of the same story, whether legendary or historical, cannnot be ironed out. So inerrancy cannot mean this fundamentalistic type of literalism.**

Actually, the *apparent* contradictions between two versions of the same story often can be ironed out and biblical scholars who are already convinced that errors exist in Scripture often fail to make the effort, prefering simply to hold that there is a true contradiction. But you are right that the Church does not necessarily hold to literal interpretations; starting with Leo XIII and affirmed by Pius XII and Vatican II, she teaches that *if it can be proven* that a particular writing belongs to a non-literal genre then it need not be interpreted literally.

You dropped discussion of Dei Verbum 11 pretty much altogether. Can I conclude that you are retracting your assertion that it defines inerrancy in a way contradictory to Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XII?
ThomistWannaBe | 03.21.06 - 8:48 am | #

Non-literal genres, according to the majority of contemporary scriptural scholarhship, would cover almost every book of the Bible, and this is a fine solution to any problems posed by claims of historical, factual inerrancy; Newman need not have worried about that dog, since he was fictional to begin with; the historical books do not aim at literality in details. But what of the morally untenable herem (ban) texts, charters for rape and genocide (and used as such by the American Puritans when they slaughtered the Indians)? Here the question of inerrancy becomes truly fearful.
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 12:45 am | #

"Now Father, you know perfectly well that the the document you reference has no magisterial authority whatsoever. It comes "from the Vatican" sure, but it cannot overthrow the solemn teachings of four Popes and two ecumenical councils. It can be dismissed as irrelevant by any Catholic without even a pang of conscience, whereas the repeated teachings of the Pontiffs are absolutely binding. So why even introduce it into this discussion?"

Amazing that the Pope has not condemned this document if it is as heretical as you say... amazing that he has it posted prominently on the Vatican website... amazing that he has not renounced the heresy you find in his own earlier writings... Could it just possibly be that the Vatican, conscious of the danger of fundamentalism and instructed in the rich fruits of the last century of Catholic biblical scholarship, has a larger and more flexible vision of orthodoxy?
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 1:10 am | #

"But what of the morally untenable herem (ban) texts, charters for rape and genocide (and used as such by the American Puritans when they slaughtered the Indians)?"

If God chose to put certain ancient peoples under the ban and chose to use the people of Israel as His instrument of judgment then that is His prerogative. Such texts offer no such support for later actions done in their name, so your argument is irrelevant.

"Amazing that the Pope has not condemned this document if it is as heretical as you say..."

Did I say it was heretical? Please show me where I did or stop putting words in my mouth.

But if, as you say, it contradicts the Church's solemn teaching on inerrancy then at the very least it is erroneous.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit chose to remove the magisterial authority of an organ such as the PBC precisely at the time that it would begin to issue opinions at odds with the Church's perennial teaching? Can we not see the providence of God at work to protect the Church from error, even during these confusing times?
ThomistWannaBe | 04.05.06 - 1:30 pm | #



Appendix A: "What the Holy Ones Say About Receiving Communion in the Hand" [from: http://www.tldm.org/news6/holy-ones.htm]:

"There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." - His Holiness Pope John Paul II, responding to a reporter from Stimme des glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda (Germany) in November 1980.

Holy Communion received on the tongue "signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist ... provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence ... is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility.... It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine." - Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969)

"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."- As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his 1989 Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York. When Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" without pausing a second she gave the above reply. She stated that to her knowledge, all of her sisters receive Communion only on the tongue.

"Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.... Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.” - Fr. Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.

"There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular.... Why—for God's sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it." - Dietrich von Hildebrand (called a “20th century doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII), in an article entitled "Communion in the Hand should be Rejected," November 8, 1973.

Appendix B: "Modernist and Protestant Revolutionaries were behind Communion in the hand" [from: http://www.tldm.org/news7/CommunionInTheHand.htm]:

Feeling the pressure of the situation, and afraid of losing his hold on the affair–which was clearly happening–Pope Paul VI sought to set things right by bringing forth a new instruction, Memoriale Domini on May 29, 1969. Bringing to light the bishops’ vote, the Holy Father’s instruction reads, “From the responses it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed, that if it were changed, this WOULD BE OFFENSIVE to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.” (emphasis added)

Further, showing how he himself feels, the noted document states, “the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED. The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests and people to observe zealously this law.” (!)
Moreover, in this document, the Holy Father admits Communion in the hand is an abuse! When talking about the practice, the document states, “In some communities and localities this rite (of receiving Communion in the hands) has even been performed WITHOUT OBTAINING THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE....” Bingo! Here is the admittance that Communion in the hand is truly an abuse, and, by the way, is still objectively and grievously sinful at this time. Before we go forward, let us ponder on the Scripture passage, “By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matt. 7:17)
Memoriale Domini was to forbid the bishops from the countries where Communion in the hand wasn’t in vogue, to start the practice up. However, puzzling indeed, the Holy Father, perhaps feeling a bit overwhelmed or at least, overly optimistic that the right thing would be done in this spiritual chess game, tragically drops his guard, and leaves an opening for the new way of thinking:

“If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today’s often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any.”

The Holy Father, however, did lay down serious restrictions for this indult:

“They may make this judgment PROVIDED THAT ANY DANGER IS AVOIDED OF INSUFFICIENT REVERENCE OR FALSE OPINION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.”