No, this is not that post I abandoned in March or April which was designed to be a complete synthesis of the history of that superstitious custom. This is rather a very brief answer to a question put to me by a valued reader.
That would be the subject of a post, not a comment. Suffice it to say that I do believe in the Real Presence but in a different mode to "transubstantiation," which I reject entirely. I think it rash to define the Real Presence as much as the Incarnation. How do we really understand the union of the Divine and Human in the One Person of Christ?
With regard to the Real Presence, if I had my way:
1. Major elevation of the host and chalice in the midst of the Canon would be abolished on pain of latae sententiae excommunication. The liturgical books would be revised to reflect this change.
2. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament would be abolished along with the Forty Hours prayer and adoration.
3. The feasts of Corpus Christi, Precious Blood and blessed sacrament processions would be abolished.
4. Masses coram Sanctissimo would be abolished.
5. The rites for Maundy Thursday and Good Friday would be significantly revised to incorporate the change; restoration of pre-Tridentine praxis being the desired order.
6. The Sacrament would no longer be reserved in tabernacles under lock and key but kept apart in the priest's house in a fitting place and kept solely for communion of the sick.
7. Distribution of Holy Communion would be under both kinds always and everywhere, except in cases of grave necessity. Fear of profanation is not a grave necessity.
8. Monstrances would be rounded up and destroyed.
9. The use of wafers for Holy Communion would discontinue and actual unleavened bread would be used (in the West), according to Tradition. There is nothing, to me, more distasteful in respect of the eucharistic gifts than when a sacristan rips open a plastic bag of wafers and tips them into a ciborium.
That is, in brief, what I would do if I were the pope. If popes have the authority to change so much else, why can I not introduce these changes, for the good of humanity and the tonic for their superstition?
In other words, you want to Byzantize Western praxis for reasons neither rooted in tradition nor sound theology. Strange.
ReplyDelete"The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them."
DeletePatrimony!
What you haveve described is the ideal for Western Rite Orthodoxy. Unfortunately some bishops, particularly in the Antiochian Church, allow papist (Benediction) and protestant (1662 BCP) abominations in order to appeal to the masses, the soi-disant converts from the West. Most have never converted to Orthodoxy they merely wish to have there familiar customs, be they former Romans or Anglicans. The fact these customs are heretical makes no difference to them, it reminds them of the "good old days" and that is all that matters.
ReplyDeleteIf it isn't to escape elevations of the host then why do people bother going to WRO liturgies?
DeleteI sometimes ask myself the same question. I think many find the Byzantine Rite rather foreign.........a bit too exotic. From my perspective, the Byzantine Rite is the very soul of Orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteDear Patricius,
ReplyDeleteI'm behind using bread instead of wafers and restoring Communion under both kinds, but abolishing Corpus Christi and elevations? There is a huge difference between cracking down on devotional excess and bitter nihilistic iconoclasm.
Not all elevations, just the one "major" elevation of the host and chalice after the "words of institution." The minor elevation at the words omnis honor et gloria would remain as a double oblation, as well as the Ecce Agnus Dei. The Canon would therefore be read as one uninterrupted anaphora, leaving moments of consecration to the Holy Ghost rather than the hocus pocus of the celebrant.
DeleteCorpus Christi is an excess. We already have a bastardised Maundy Thursday Mass in white vestments (which I would incidentally have in violet without Gloria), why more? All Corpus Christi does is render the Mass in Coena Domini a satellite feast of no importance.
I should have explained that the Mass of the LORD's Supper would be offered in violet folded chasubles, according to the season of Passiontide, and not this altogether strange custom of a semi-festal Mass in white with tinkly, tacky bell-ringing.
DeleteIs there historical precedent in the Roman Rite for Maundy Thursday being penitential (i.e. violet, no Gloria, folded chasubles, etc.)? Also, you betray yourself by referring to Maundy Thursday as a Feast right after you advocate it becoming not-a-feast!
DeleteThanks for your post, Patrick!
ReplyDeleteI have only seen one WRO celebration - based on 1928 BCP. It was certainly interesting to see the anaphora flow without interruption and reminded me of something Fortescue wrote about devotional practices and the dramatic effect on the rite caused by their inclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe one Catholic girl in the office where I work was in conversation some months ago with a colleague who is Seventh Day Adventist and another who is an Evangelical of some sorts. The three were discussing their respective Euchartistic celebrations. The Seventh Day Adventists sound interesting and appear to have some sort of Mandatum as part of a lengthy service. The ladies talked about the elements and the SDA described the breaking of bread. The Catholic girl commented 'We don't have bread in our church, we use a sort cardboard you can eat.'
My only quibble with WRO eucharistic prayers is the cutting and pasting of an epiklesis, which is foreign to the Roman Rite. Then again, one of very few things in the Roman Canon's favour is its attestable antientry.
DeleteEdible cardboard! ha ha ha