I haven’t been online much lately, due to connection problems. But I have been busy listening, conversing and thinking about many issues having to do with Summorum Pontificum, the older and newer forms of Mass, the people who adhere to them, etc.
There has been a bit of a flap about what His Eminence Card. Castrillon Hoyos said in off-the-cuff remarks to a conference meeting in Rome on the occasion of the first year of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
My photo shows Card. Castrillon during these very comments. He is seated between Msgr. Perl and the moderator of the conference Fr. Nuara.
What really got people’s attention it seems is His Eminence’s statements that some people are not satisfied with what has been done for them.
Well… yes. He said that and what he said is true in some cases.
But I think His Eminence was speaking as much to an attitude with which people express themselves as to the concrete things they want.
Sure, many are frustrated that more isn’t being done in some places to offer celebrations of, for example, the older form of Mass. This frustration is understandable. Others are frustrated that they have some Masses available, but not more Masses. Still others, a small group, will express bitter impatience and frustration that the Novus Ordo hasn’t yet been suppressed.
I think we all know that isn’t going to happen any time soon, right? And making requests along these lines… actually writing and then sending them… really doesn the whole project harm.
Indeed, there are some for whom, no matter what you do, it will never be enough. I remember once driving hours to say Mass for a group and not only did not a single person bother even to thank me for coming, but I even heard griping about m biretta and the vestments (which weren’t mine), etc.
Most of the time, I think, these expressions of frustration come from decades of being deeply hurt by their priests and bishops and other Catholics who showed contempt for their aspirations about the older form of Mass and the Sacraments and the expressions of doctrine and devotion that go hand in hand with them. Now, when they do have greater recognition of their rights, they are venting a little, of course… but when they sense that old treatment rearing its ugliness, when they receive that blow upon the bruise, they lash out as they did of old.
And there are, simply put, also some people are happy only when they are unhappy.
That said, we can take a look at an article by CNS writer Cindy Wooden on what Card. Castrillon said.
Cardinal: Some not satisfied even after pope’s Tridentine Mass decree
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News ServiceROME (CNS) — Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI’s wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos. [This sets a bit of a sour note at the start. Sure, as I said above, there are still some difficult folks out there. But there are also many who are grateful and irenic. I wish they would write to the Commission and their bishops to express gratitude!]
The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of "Summorum Pontificum," the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.
Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.
He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.
Such people, he said, are "insatiable, incredible."
"They do not know the harm they are doing," Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately "they go directly to the Internet" and post their complaints. [Well… YAH! This is called freedom of expression. This is also the 21st century. The internet is now something that must be taken into consideration. It isn’t going away… any more than the Novus Ordo is going away. Alas, sometimes people make unreasonable requests and they can be pesky. They often don’t think things through very well. They often say things they shouldn’t. But let’s turn the sock inside out and see the other side. I don’t see the Holy See acting with lightning speed to respond to some serious concerns that need to be addressed. Some of the frustration being expressed through the alternative media and means of communication is rising because there is a perception that not a lot is being done to carry forward what we have been told is a desirable thing: …. Didn’t we hear from someone that the Holy Father desired that the older Mass be widespread, indeed that perhaps even many…. even every… parish might have it? So is it a surprise that people express themselves about that? ]
The cardinal and officials in his office have been saying for more than a year now that they were preparing detailed instructions responding to questions about how to implement the papal document, which said the Mass in the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship. [And so the question is… where’s the document?]
Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.
In addition to responding to the desire of Catholics who wanted more frequent and easier access to Mass celebrated in the old rite, the pope’s 2007 document was seen as a major step toward reconciliation with the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated when he ordained four bishops against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II. [I suspect that on the list of those who are not satisifed with what has been given, you might find some members of the SSPX.]
But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June when Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, failed to meet four conditions posed by Cardinal Castrillon for moving the process forward. [Hang on… I am not sure that they absolutely refused. Didn’t Card. Castrillon express a measure of qualified satisfaction that he received a response?]
"The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation," Cardinal Castrillon said at the Sept. 16 conference. "What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?"
The cardinal said the Mass — in whatever language it is celebrated — must be a service motivated by love and "never a sword" used against other Christians.
By making it easier for priests to celebrate the older liturgy and for the faithful to have access to it, he said, "the vicar of Christ (the pope) was not just exercising his task of governing, but was exercising his task of sanctifying" the people of God.
"When we are before the greatest expression of love for humanity — the Eucharist — how can we fight?" Cardinal Castrillon asked. [While I agree entirely with that, it is not really too hard to grasp why people fight about it. It the Eucharist, the Sacrament and its celebration, are trully the fons et culmen as we have been told incessantly since Vatican II, then we shouldn’t be surprised that people get worked up over it, especially in climate where a venerable rite was virtually supressed, those who loved it were marginalized, and liturgical abuses reigned far and wide for years.]
Loading ...
Thank you Fr. Z for your postings from the conference in Rome. Will you be making a
PodCazt of the Conference, or putting online any of the recordings yo have made?
Thank you for saying Mass for your benefactors at San Pietro. God bless you.
Thanks once again Fr Z.
I myself have been, I suppose known to “belly ache” ever so slightly. Your interpretations and insights give us hope that though things are moving, even if at a Glacial pace, they are moving.
Most of the “belly ache” would I suppose come from the likes of me, oil rig cowboys and Joe Six pack. The pace on the other hand is coming from the Dinosaurs, the antiquated monsters that dwell in Bishops palaces. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos wants to stick a fiery brand in the rear of these guys, once, of course he’s finished kicking yours truly.
“The mystery of God who becomes bread”? It would be wrong, but closer to the truth, to speak of the mystery of bread that becomes God.
The impression I get from your post is that suppressing the Novus Ordo would be fine with you or is, at least, something to seriously consider and look forward to as desirable. Is that accurate? I may be reading too much into your post–so correct me if my impression is wrong.
Here is the part of your post that I am referring to:
“Still others, a small group, will express bitter impatience and frustration that the Novus Ordo hasn’t yet been suppressed.
I think we all know that isn’t going to happen any time soon, right?”
Hmmmm. Here’s a general comment not linked to the EF/OF issue but noted by Fr Z.
Is it possible that too many senior prelates of the Church, especially those residing in Rome, even now fail to see how the media of the internet has become all pervasive?
Perhaps if they did they would do something about making the Vatican website even half navigible.
The Vatican web site is maintained by religious sisters who are much younger than the good Cardinal or most of the Curia for that matter. The Vatican web site is like any well-established bureaucracy: there are layers and layers that have been added and it’s hard to figure out how they got from the beginning state to the end state. What is needed, probably, is a complete redesign from the ground up, probably by a disinterested third party (who have not been working on it for so many years and therefore can’t see things clearly), and that would cost a veritable fortune. That, in the end, is probably why it doesn’t change: the cost.
Fr. Z,
Thank you for posting your thoughts and the article with your comments! I think it is true that if Holy Mass is the culmination of the Faith and worship then why shouldn’t people be fighting over the best way to do it? Right on!
I think one thing our pastor said recently is that (1) often we complain too much about the crosses Our Lord asks us to bear and (2) we forget to thank God for His goodness in allowing us to have a wider use of the traditional Mass. Yes, we should work towards more traditional Masses. Yes, we should pray and hope for it. But perhaps Our Lord also, in the process, asks us to endure the crosses He gives us for His glory and our salvation? And in the midst of it all He is at work, I believe.
Pax Christi tecum.
Father, I’m willing to concede that the Holy See may be a little naive here. But let’s look on the bright side. At least they’ve heard of the internet, and they’re making more use of it than they did as recently as five years ago. You have also taken some of your readers to task, citing your “Rules of Engagement.” Have you considered that the people about the Cardinal is complaining might be breaking one or more of those rules?
That the Holy Father possesses a “desire” for something may be all well and good. That he has adopted a posture of careful deliberation with certain initiatives may be all well and good. But does he believe that anything less than a direct order with a realistic deadline will change anything? And if he didn’t, why did his latest decree on the TLM take the form of a motu proprio?
Back to the “the mystery of God who becomes bread” mentioned a few posts
ago. I sure hope that that is just a really bad translation of what
Card. Hoyos actually said.
Fr. Z:
You said in a previous post that some of the remarks at the Motu Proprio conference you found “unsettling.” Would you be able to elaborate on this?
Folks: Be really careful about what you post here right now.
Cardinal 1: “the mystery of God who becomes bread …”
Cardinal 2: “It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them”
Don’t expect them to quickly implement what they do not truly understand. Pray for Pope Benedict, and keep writing PCED.
Fr. Z., thank you so much – especially your candor.
To me the issue of some people not being satisfied is an age-old problem, not something that will be fixed until the end of time. That is people’s individual failings (and even to sinfulness).
Maybe one response might be more preaching on the virtues (and mindfulness of them here in the pews) – especially the cardinal virtues. The mass is the center of Christian life, but we still need to work through our salvation every day in our ordinary lives.
Fr. Z, when the motu proprio was issued, Bp. Fellay expressed that he was satisfied with its content, although he also expressed fear that the effect might not be any different than that of Ecclesia Dei. He also has advised the attendees of his chapels very clearly that the crisis in the Church is not nearing its end and it will takes decades to fix things. Also, that the actual power of the pope to change things is very limited since he has to deal with many different factions in the Church.
I don’t believe the attendees of SSPX masses (and I know because I was one of them) are generally the ones posting complaints about availability. They already have chapels where the old mass is the only one offered, and they feel justified in attending those chapels (rightly or wrongly.) They have given up on fighting their local ordinaries. The squeakiest wheels are those who are opposed to the SSPX (because of the suppression of it and the excommunications, etc.) and who therefore go to their local Novus Ordo parish masses, and probably can’t get a decent, respectful, and reverent mass.
The Cardinal complains about those who can’t be satisfied, and some of the examples he gave did seem to be quite over the top. However, many of the unsatisfied are unsatisfied only because in their dioceses there is no motu proprio. Yes, a motu proprio was published, but bishops are being allowed to prevent its implementation. So for many of the faithful, there is still no grounds for satisfaction.
Hopefully the Cardinal is aware of that fact.
With the first anniversary of the implementation of Summorum Pontificum having passed this week, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission in the Holy See, has had some very strong words to say about the attitudes of some not all traditionalist persons, in terms of the realism of their expectations regarding the wider celebration of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, according to the 1962 Missal, at a conference in Rome.
His Eminence refers to the Internet, and the blogosphere has been a particular culprit in this regard. (Look how often our beloved Fr Z has to admonish people here. His 5 Rules of Engagement seem to fall on so many deaf ears!)
Whenever I have travelled to the USA, Britain, Italy or inside my own country Australia, I have encountered the same kinds of individuals, and they are not necessarily people who attend chapels belonging to the Pius X Society.
According to the cardinal, the blame for the less than enthusiastic reception given to the motu proprio, is not just due to recalcitrant bishops and priests, but also to individuals who want to use the old liturgy in a divisive way.
Well I don’t think it is an unfair statement to say that these people have been put on notice, and need to examine their own consciences, regarding the wisdom and prudence of some of their statements and actions.
May the old liturgy flourish, but let this be done with charity.
Thanks for your comments on Cardinal Hoyos’ remarks, Fr. Z.
I’m actually quite relieved to see your take on this.
I would be willing to bet that most of those writing to PCED (probably greater than 95%) have quite legitimate concerns, which have NOT been addressed over the 14 months that have passed since publication of Summorum Pontificum.
Mr. Sobrino,
While I certainly cannot speak for our good Fr. Z, I doubt he’s calling for the supression of the OF. However, it is not a schismatic radtrad viewpoint. Msgr. Gamber basically called for that solution to our current liturgical crisis as have other respectable authors in one degree or another. Certainly it is unrealistic to expect that because of the MP, but eventually it is not so farfetched.
For the past two months, I have been running a series of essays on the challenges facing the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. It can be found at the group blog The Gregorian Rite (http://www.summorumpontificum.net/). It was inspired by my experience in the past year, as a senior master of ceremonies for a prosperous parish in the Virginia suburbs outside of DC, where I have trained a number of young men to serve the Traditional Mass. It is also the result of extensive research over the last year, as well as numerous conversations with priests who are either learning the Traditional Mass, or are training fellow priests. That it takes a provocative tone explains its title: “Advocatus Diaboli.” One of the respondents has likened the series to what Einstein called a “thought experiment” — that is, “thinking things through along with their consequences to get a theoretic outcome.”
I invite readers to visit this site, which also has commentary from my learned colleagues, Mr Patrick Archbold and Dr Brian Kopp. One can be assured of a broad range of opinion. (In other words, we don’t always agree, but we get on most amicably!)
Thank you, Cardinal Castrillon, for your hard work!
I can readily understand Cardinal Castrillon’s frustration. After all, the good Cardinal has been very supportive of the TLM in both word
and deed. Like Father Z says, its brick by brick. This liturgical crisis has been brewing for decades and it won’t be remedied
overnight. That said, I for one, am much more optimistic today about the positive changes that are taking place. I think for those of
us who have a love and appreciation of the TLM we should acknowledge that we are far better off than we were 5 years ago. Small example:
The TLM is being offered at Kenrick Seminary and its a requirement that seminarians attend. That’s HUGE! Can one even imagine of that
happening even a couple of short years ago? You know that old song “You got to Accentuate the Positive, Elimimate the Negative.” That
should be our theme song. Tom
Fr. Z, what I don’t get is why Cardinal Hoyos or people in Ecclesia Dei would give a rat’s rear end about people who write ridiculous letters to the PCED. Can’t the folks at PCED just read the letter, throw it away if it’s ridiculous, and move on? Why would he complain about it? And forgive me, but I’ve yet to see a blog posting of any sort where someone wrote PCED about something ludicrous, got no response or a negative response, and then proceeded to post it; and I’m pretty sure I read Catholic blogs more regularly than the good Cardinal.
Fr. Z, would it be beyond the pale to suggest that Cardinal Hoyos might be a little old for this job? You’ve probably seen him in person far more often than I have, but these comments just don’t seem to make much sense in various ways, especially in light of the comments he made in Britain about the Holy Father wanting the Older Form in every parish. He says that, and then is shocked that some people ask for it? Sure, maybe those people are being unrealistic, but how could he be surprised by the request?
“He says that, and then is shocked that some people ask for it?”
No, he says that, and then is shocked that some people get nasty because they can’t make one billion people get with the program overnight. That doesn’t make him too old for anything.
I agree with someone else’s posting that perhaps much of the frustration comes from not seeing the results of the MP and any response to “legitimate” concerns after 14 months. From another angle what seems to be hiding beneath it all is fear. Fear that things will not happen, fear that what progress has been made will disappear in the next Pontificate, fear the MP will be revoked, fear of losing what little ground has been gained. This seems a motivating factor in the scramble. I think the Holy See has to take this into consideration when balancing implementation methods. Too fast is not a good thing but neither is too slow. We have to pray within ourselves to fight those fears. With all the talk about Priests and Bishops “fears” it is no wonder that it is passed to the laity…Too much fear on both sides, that is the key……
I imagine much of the Cardinal’s frustration comes from the SSPX saying one thing to them, and then posting something entirely different on the Internet. For example saying their problem is the interpretation of Vatican II and then to their supporters call Vatican II heretical.
Fr. Z in his comments had said: “Well… YAH! This is called freedom of expression. This is also the 21st century. The internet is now something that must be taken into consideration.”
I don’t think the issue is that they use the internet as much as they use it to attack and undermine the Church.
Personally I think it sounds like the Cardinal is growing disillusioned with the SSPX, but until we have an actual text of what he said, it will not be clear what the context is of what was quoted in the CNS article
As someone in a diocese in which Summorum Pontificum has had little effect I can sympathize with the frustration of many people, and I am not especially a supporter of the E.O. form. Before the M.P. we had two locations where TLM was said. The nearest 35 miles from where I live. For the vast majority of the diocese no Mass following the ancient rite was available. Post M.P. the E.O. form is still only offered in those same two locations.
I myself am much more interested in the Ordinary Form, and the problems that are inherent to its celebration. I say problems instead of abuses because many of the conditions that make the Mass a celebrated less reverent and less beautiful result from the use of allowed options. It’s like the most suboptimal combination of options are selected. The ones that make the Mass as un-reverent and un-Catholic as possible are purposely selected.
Why do I bring up the N.O. in this way? Because I agree with Fr. Z that saying the E.O. form effects the way a priest sees himself and the way he says all of his Masses, including those in the Ordinary Form. By relegating the E.O. to ghetto parishes and chapels remote from where most laity and priests attend Mass priests are not being given the opportunity to experience this life changing occurrence.
I don’t believe my bishop is especially against the E.O. He has celebrated that version of the rite himself at the proscribed location. I just don’t believe he is so much for it either or for getting priest to chose more traditional options for the Ordinary Form.
Mitch:
From another angle what seems to be hiding beneath it all is fear. Fear that things will not happen, fear that what progress has been made will disappear in the next Pontificate, fear the MP will be revoked, fear of losing what little ground has been gained.
I think this is a very perceptive point – I think there is a sense in which many people feel that the resoration of the traditional liturgy will either happen now under the pontificate of Pope Benedict or probably not at all (or at least not for another full generation). And that fear easily leads to anger. I think also a sense of helplessness in the face of passively or even actively hostile diocesan hierarchies fuels this same anger.
I think it is also fair to say that a great many bishops are opposing the motu proprio in the certainty (perceived or real) that a few more years and the ‘tradionalist problem’ will disappear. They are also probably hoping that the recent surge of interest we have seen from Catholics who have never experienced the traditional liturgy will ebb away. “Starved of oxygen this ‘fire’ will soon go out”, as it were.
Craigmaddie, that may be some bishops’ hope. However, now that there are multiple religious orders dedicated to celebrating the TLM, and
the numbers of their priests continue to grow, that just may be wishful thinking on their part. The TLM is here to stay! Deo Gratias! Tom
Regarding the “ingratitude” of which Hoyos complains, two thoughts: one, get over it, Your Eminence. Your peers have made a complete mess of the Church for the past 40 years, and you expect us to be happy at the snail’s pace at which you crawl? Two: so far, in Cincinnati at least, Summorum is a meaningless gesture. There are still only two “EF’s” available in the entire Archdiocese (one each in Dayton and Cincinnati), and those are, of course, at those parishes formerly known as “indult” parishes. Moreover, at the parishes where there is some interest, and a “stable group of parishioners,” there has been no progress toward establishing a new EF. Why? Because the priests are all afraid of Pilarczyk, our local enemy of tradition. So one feels perfectly justified in asking of His Eminence, “What is the Holy Father going to do about those numerous bishops who are disobeying him (presuming that Pilarcayk has plenty of company), by either ignoring the MP, placing fraudulent procedural obstacles in the way of interested priests, or manufacturing fraudulent excuses for not implementing it, like “divisiveness?”
Gerring back to the “unreasonableness” problem, Is it really unreasonable to desire that one day the traditional Mass will entirely replace the Novus Ordo?
I do not mean those who demand that it happen quickly or even those who expect that it might happen in their lifetime but I mean those who see it as a goal and work toward it.
There is a lot of discussion about the future here and that can be good. Here however, it seems to be leading to depression and even anger. For a moment back up. Think about what ir is we are discussing and what purpose that subject has. We are discussing the Mass in its’ various forms, and the purpose of that action is to glorify God and help to make us holy. Regardless of anything else we are called to holiness. That must color our discussions as it should every aspect of our lives. When Cardinal Castrilon says some are doing damage he is concerned because people are not acting from aspect of a growth in holiness but out of personal displeasure which is related to pride and is opposed to holiness. Fr. Z you make the point that this “freedom of expression” and the 21st century. Regardless of all that we are called to holiness which means subordinating our wills, to another, to God and His ministers on earth. When we complain, gripe and even threaten on the internet it is true we may reach important people in high places but we also reach those who have the power to place stumbling blocks. Worst of all it permits Santan to go before teh LORD and point out that our pride is making us look more like his followers than the LORD’s faithful flock. Regardless of what happens GOD sees our hearts and knows what we need and desire. He did not remove the “cup” from His Son’s table and we may have to bear a cross for many years. Let’s learn to grow in holiness and stop trying to the judge. That is not our place. These issues can be discussed in a faithful and faithfilled way and that is what is called for here if we are win the day and save our souls as well. Pax et Bonum
“Because the priests are all afraid of Pilarczyk, our local enemy of tradition.”
No one is afraid of Archbishop Pilarczyk, least of all his priests who ignore him. (Did you know that he has outlawed “communion services” in the Archdiocese? Pretty hard to tell, huh?) No, my friend, they are afraid of his staff. I’ll be in Cincinnati later this month. I don’t have your e-mail address. Write me (manwithblackhat at yahoo dot com), and we can enter into lively discussion over a beer after Mass.
Hey folks, maybe we should heed Fr. Z’s advice about “Be really careful about what you post here right now.”
Did it occur to any of you that this venerable Cardinal who we are truly indebted to, could be reading Fr. Z’s blog? Just a thought.
If you are reading Your Eminence, thank you for the all the work you have done for us, and please give my enthusiastic and joyful thanksgiving to Our Holy Father.
-An altar boy from Virginia, USA
“Did it occur to any of you that this venerable Cardinal who we are truly indebted to, could be reading Fr. Z’s blog?”
Personally, I was counting on it. And I never lose sight of it in anything I post here.
Craigmaddie will you be at the Una Voce mass on Saturday St Mungos Glasgow, Dom Alcuin Reid is going to be giving a talk. I will be there. I wonder if some of Torquemadas, Glasgow freinds will be there also.
From the comments, and I have read them all, it would appear that there is a hunger for the TLM and a dissatisfaction with the pace at which Motu Proprio has been instituted.
Didn’t his Holiness expell one Bishop who disagreed with the Pope’s directive that the EF be made available in every diocese? My point is, it will take time to train priests and mass servers, but the wheels of progress are turning, faster in some dioceses than others. If it isn’t fast enough for you, make your voices heard. You have the ear of the Holy Father, my friends! Do not be discouraged, pray and act. Blessings on all
What an amazing public and candid discussion between two outstanding champions of Summorum Pontificum, His Eminence Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf. Thank you both for your prudence, your courage, your dedication, and your candor.
Naturally, we eagerly await word from our greatest champion, the Holy Father.
He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.
Only a sovereign Pontiff has the right to send such a letter; one assumes this letter comes from another source. Still, it would be lovely to see restored to the Liberian Basilica the liturgy it housed for a millennium and a half.
I begin to doubt whether the present Holy Father will ever offer the traditional Mass in public — not for lack of devotion to it, but in order to avoid an ugly triumphalism in certain intransigent quarters that would abuse his generosity to bludgeon less demanding (or more patient) members of the faithful. I would understand completely if the Holy Father feared lest the Mass be instrumentalised this way.
The Cardinal is a good and brave man; we are blessed to have him as an advocate. Even more we are blessed to have Pope Benedict (whom God preserve). I too agree with Mitch’s observation, that some lovers of the traditional liturgy fear being out-maneuvered by opponents in the hierarchy thinking to regain the upper hand in the next papacy. It’s only natural to think of the Holy Father’s age and be taken by the fear that time is short. But the Church is not a human project, and the Holy Spirit is at work in her, especially in the hearts of the young. Every one of us can expect to have passed from this earth before its re-creation in Christ will have been perfected. But that day day approaches and nothing can stop it.
I am exceedingly grateful to the Holy Father for his generosity in liberating the Gregorian Rite. I am also thankful for the work of Cardinal Castrillon and the PCED. We should pray for all concerned and especially for the well-being of the Holy Father.
I’m not all that much into the EF, but it’s a normal part of Catholic life and ought to be easy to find for everybody. Because it’s normal stuff.
It’s really amazing how much normal Catholic stuff I hadn’t known about, until the Internet came into play: patristics, “Panis Angelicus”, confessions not counting if you purposefully hide one of your sins from the priest. Heck, the fact that we were allowed to complain to Rome and be upset about liturgical abuses. (I thought we were just supposed to suffer.)
Being able to complain to somebody — I can see why some people take that too far, just like I can see why some people write letters to the newspaper every day of the week. People are very sad or angry, and they just want to tell _somebody_. The letters may not be sensible,
because they aren’t written in a very sensible state of mind. But then, for most people, one would not dare complain all the way to Rome when feeling sensible. A sensible person, in the veiew of most ordinary Catholics, would sit in the pew every week and suffer.
So writing to Rome would probably be undertaken most often by cranks and curmudgeons, who have the self-centeredness of insanity. Most other letters would come from the totally despairing and angry. These people probably don’t expect that their letter will get there or
be read. They write in the spirit of someone on a desert island, writing a letter that asks for help, putting it in a bottle, and throwing it out to sea.
The smallest number of letters would come from sensible people who write polite and informative missives. This is just human nature, and is true of any public or private body that receives letters of comment.
I would also add that, at every professional gathering, there is always someone blowing off steam about the public or the clients or the suppliers, and a lot of other people nodding their heads. Being able to complain and bellyache to colleagues — one of the best reasons to have a professional gathering. :)
If you remember this, and the stuff your workmates and you say, I think you will feel that the Cardinal is very moderate in blowing off steam. Usually, our crew at the office threatens
murder to someone, and some of our sales rally skits have been rather biting about certain companies in our industry. But it doesn’t mean we love the customers/clients/etc. any less. It makes us more able to deal with each one of them calmly and politely, instead of taking out past annoyances on a person who’s present. Instead, the shared annoyance is acknowledged and put
out of our minds.
They believe the Host is physically bread.
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos: “the mystery of God who becomes bread …”
Cardinal Ratzinger: “It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them” (God and the World, Believing and Living in Our Time, p.408)
Pray for Pope Benedict and Cdl. Hoyos.
“his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.”
So am I to understand that we are now under the restriction of one Mass per week, at one location per municipality? Because that’s what it sounded like to everyone who read this article in the diocesan newspaper this week.
I ask because I had been considering supporting a new Traditional Latin Mass at a church which is not the most suitable architecturally in town. I’m wondering if I should hold out for a better church, lest the quota be filled. Thoughts?
Also, what should we do if we want to go to Mass during the week?
The body of Christ retains the form of bread, while the blood of Christ retains the form of wine. That is to say, the physical form. They are substantially changed, if not physically. I believe that’s how it would be explained. I should also think the quotation from Ratzinger would be consistent with that. As to the quotation from Hoyos, I would presume he is referring, again, merely to the physical form. You know, “panis angelicus,” bread of angels and all that.
Body and blood, soul and divinity. Yes, I believe. (That’s for the record.)
Cardinal Hoyos comments came as a huge surprise to me. I have been sad ever since I read about them. Thank you Father Z for your insights in this matter. Thank you Cardinal Hoyos for all that you do for us. Dear Pope Benedict, thank you again for Summorum Pontificum!
Pope Benedict’s explanation of transubstantiation is correct. Catholics do not believe that transubstantiation effects a physical change in the species. It is the substance that is changed, not the accidents. No scientific tests of the consecrated Eucharistic species
would ever detect anything but the chemical components of bread and wine, unless we’re dealing with the Eucharistic miracle.
In that case the then Cardinal Ratzinger was not using physical in a way commonly used in perennial Catholic philosophy or theology. I don´t deny that might be what he meant, seeing as scientism has changed language and to some degree one must conform to be understood, but I do think speaking that way is not very good, since liable to misunderstanding.
A noble rite that cannot be abrogated
What a fitting description of the Missal of Pope Paul VI!
Joshua said: I don´t deny that might be what he meant
He couldn’t have meant anything else. Transubstantiation does not involve a change in the laws of physics, hence no physical change.
Sorry Jordanes, but I know of two independent scientific studies done on transubstantiation that did surprise everyone with genetic analysis finding both heart materials and real blood. I do not have the specific studies at my ready bit I will find and post back. One was done in Rome and the other Japan. I happened onto the Japan study by accident in a book visiting a parish. The studies did involve world leading geneticists and was very supervised. In the end game, we still have a Mystery…
Jordanes, I also agree that we typically witness a spiritual event in transubstantiation. What I find interesting is the extent people go to get up in arms over the simplicity of all this. Like most miracles, we humans simply reject the event and for strange reasons want to deny it happened. What ever happened to the search for inner truths about the Mysteries? PAX
Parakletos said: Sorry Jordanes, but I know of two independent scientific studies done on transubstantiation that did surprise everyone with genetic analysis finding both heart materials and real blood.
That’s not transubstantiation, that’s a Eucharistic miracle, a change in the accidents, distinct from the change of the substance. The miracle bolsters our faith that transubstantiation is true, that the Eucharist really is Jesus’ body and blood, but while the effects of the miracle can be detected scientifically, the mystery of transubstantiation cannot be. As St. Thomas said, we know it by faith alone.
Jerry B.:
How can you characterize Pope Benedict as believing “the Host is…bread” if he says, “what is…bread and wine…is changed…and Christ truly gives himself in them“?
The Host is either physically bread, or it is physically the flesh and blood of Christ. The Host can bleed, bread cannot. Christ is not just “in” the Host; it IS His flesh and blood.
Eucharistic miracles are _demonstrations_ of what the Eucharist is like, but they aren’t the normal way that things are. Blood spurting out or a flesh-like appearance is an accidental, just the same way the appearance of wheat or the pretty designs pressed on the hosts by the nuns’ hostmaking iron are.
To put it another way, sure, Peter walked on water on a specific date. That didn’t mean he kept practicing and went to the Olympics with Team Judea as a water-walker, eventually setting a world record that stood until Caligula cheated, building a bridge of ships across the entire bay for his attempt at the Naples games. Probably we are always theoretically capable of walking on water, but that’s not something we do every day. So it’s not fair to say “humans are featherless bipeds that walk on water”.
I should add that, when I was in school in the seventies, we were taught very thoroughly that the Eucharist was Christ’s Body and Blood. What we weren’t taught was that it also included His Soul and Divinity. That was very startling stuff. (I mean, it made sense when I finally heard it, because God doesn’t divvy up into chunks. But still, super startling!)
Unfortunately, that’s a bit more difficult to get visual aids for, even in a Eucharistic miracle.
Jerry B. said: The Host is either physically bread, or it is physically the flesh and blood of Christ.
The Host is certainly not “physically” the flesh and blood of Christ, except on those rare occasions when God works a Eucharistic miracle and changes it so that it no longer has the accidents of bread. However, the consecrated Host is always really and substantially the flesh and blood of Christ.
The Host can bleed, bread cannot.
No, the Host cannot bleed, because it still has the accidents of bread. Have you ever noticed that at the Fraction, the Host doesn’t bleed? Only if God miraculously changes the accidents would that ever happen, that of course that is pretty rare, which is why we call it a miracle.
Christ is not just “in” the Host; it IS His flesh and blood.
He didn’t say that Christ is “just ‘in’ the Host.” He said Christ truly gives Himself in the Eucharistic species of bread and wine, which is correct.
Please stop this presumption of trying to convict the Holy Father of heresy. It is clearly your own understanding of the Church’s Eucharistic faith that is deficient, not his.
People interested in transubstantiation and physicality might like to listen to an old talk by Fr. Hardon (the catechism guy) to some Filipina sisters.
http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2008/07/fr-hardon-sj-transubstantiation.html
It’s rough going, at first, and the sound quality’s not great. But once Fr. Hardon gets all his first premises stated (which takes awhile, understandably), it comes together pretty quickly.
Oops. Indian sisters, I meant. (Mother Teresa’s, in fact.) I was confusing it with some talks to Filipino seminarians that I was listening to.
Jordanes, I think you missed the point. Physical is not wholly encompassed by empiricism. I agree the Holy Father probably was using physical in that truncated sense that you are, but within historical Catholic philosophy and theology you wouldn´t find the word used so restrictively.
Likewise the way he is using in is strange. Accidents are in a subject, we don´t normally say the substance is in the accidents. In fact in the Eucharist neither is strictly the case, since the accidents are not accidents of Christ, they exist without a subject which is one of the miracles of the Eucharist. Now I am certainly not saying he was wrong, as any student of philosophy should know “in” can be meant in many ways and there is a sense in which Christ is “in”. I suspect the wider context of the passage would make the statement stand better, but by itself it is not very clearly put and is open to misinterpretation.
I can also add that the Holy Father has admitted his though has developed and at time was not expressed clearly, or even underwent “detours”. (cf Preface Joseph Ratzinger. Life in the Church and Living Theology). I don´t think it amounts to accusing the Holy Father of heresy to point to a statement made a while back before he was pope and saying that it is not clearly expressing the doctrine, at least without context. Heck I would be bolder with the so-called “Ratzinger formula” and say that was erroneous, but that was 1987 and he obviously changed his mind by 1997 when he corrected the Melkites).
He wrote a lot and if one wishes to comb his writings they will find things that aren´t readily understood in a fully orthodox way. Sometimes the context explains, sometimes not. He, like many others, developed in his think and writing and it would be strange to equate earlier writings with his present state as pope.
Joshua said: Jordanes, I think you missed the point. Physical is not wholly encompassed by empiricism.
No, that is not Jerry B.’s point. His point is that the Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillon are in error because they don’t believe the Eucharist is the physical flesh and blood of Jesus, but is instead physical bread and wine. But the Church does not teach that the Eucharist is the physical flesh and blood of Jesus.
I agree the Holy Father probably was using physical in that truncated sense that you are, but within historical Catholic philosophy and theology you wouldn´t find the word used so restrictively.
In no sense of the word “physical” can it be said that transubstantiation is a “physical change.”
Likewise the way he is using in is strange. Accidents are in a subject, we don´t normally say the substance is in the accidents.
Accidents normally correspond with substance. With transubstantiation, they do not.
In fact in the Eucharist neither is strictly the case, since the accidents are not accidents of Christ, they exist without a subject which is one of the miracles of the Eucharist. Now I am certainly not saying he was wrong, as any student of philosophy should know “in” can be meant in many ways and there is a sense in which Christ is “in”.
We agree, then, that his words are not in conflict in any way with the Church’s Eucharistic faith.
I suspect the wider context of the passage would make the statement stand better, but by itself it is not very clearly put and is open to misinterpretation.
The statement is clear enough, and all statements are open to misinterpretation. Context would probably help make it clearer, yes, as would a consultation of the original language, which I suspect was German.
I can also add that the Holy Father has admitted his though has developed and at time was not expressed clearly, or even underwent “detours”.
Yes, he has not always expressed things clearly or accurately. That’s not the case here, though. The obvious meaning of his words here is orthodox, so we should not try to give those words anything other than an orthodox sense.
Joshua,
I have never encountered the word “physical” (especially when the discussion is Transubstantiation) used in any sense than the Holy Father has used it in the above quote. “Physical”, as far as I can remember, has always meant “something that can be measured” and invariably referred to the accidents. Could you cite some historical Catholic philosophy and theology that, as you put it, does not use the word so restrictively?
“The Host can bleed, bread cannot.”
This is a true statement.
The Host which is substantially, meaning in His substance and completely, can bleed.
He does not, in most fraction rites, but this does not take away from the fact that He CAN bleed.
Substance is defined by Websters dictionary as: \”physical material and essence of something\”.
The Blessed Scrament is the essential physical material of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
Dan said: “The Host can bleed, bread cannot.” This is a true statement.
No, it isn’t. A consecrated Host will only bleed if God works a Eucharistic miracle to cause that to happen. But God can also work a miracle to make unconsecrated bread bleed, if He wanted to, just as He can make donkeys talk and, as Maureen said, make St. Peter walk on water. Therefore Jerry should have said, “The Host can bleed, and so can bread,” or better, “If God works a miracle, the Host can bleed, and so can bread.” With transubstantiation, bleeding will only occur if there is an additional miracle.
Apart from a miracle, bread cannot bleed, and neither can a consecrated Host.
The Blessed Sacrament is the essential physical material of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
Substantially, yes. Physically, though, it is not chemically composed of human tissues and red blood cells.
I note that the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on transubstantiation uses “physical” and “physically” in the same sense that Cardinal Ratzinger used it, insisting that there is no physical change in the species:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
Like Michael J, I would be interested in learning what less restrictive sense of the word allegedly is to be found in historical Catholic philosophy and theology.
“Physically, though, it is not chemically composed of human tissues and red blood cells”
Jordanes: Yes, He is composed of the same tissue that He was composd of whilst walking upon terra firma, only glorified.
You must not call Christ, “it”
God bless you
Dan, I was referring to the accidents. Accidents are an “it,” not a “who.”
Pope Paul VI in the Credo of the people of God talks about Christ’s physical presence in the Holy Eucharist.
So does Fr. William Most in his writings. So does Fr. John Hardon in his writings.
Pope Benedicts words in that quote smack of consubstantiation(though I’m sure he didn’t intend that). I thought that the transubstantiation was that the bread and wine become literaly the body,blood soul and dvinity of Jesus Christ. Can someone explain the difference between substance and physicality(or is there a difference?). I mean how can the flesh be anything other than the physical fleath of Jesus Christ. Are some people here asserting that some sort of ‘spirit’ version of Jesus Christ’s body exists(would it then even be a body? it seems like a contradiction of terms).
I too am thankful for Pope Benedict and Cardinal Hoyos. It remains, however, a sad state of affairs when Tradition-minded Catholics have to beg for the same things that were a normal part of Catholic life for our grandparents.
Also, I don’t think dedicating one of the four major basilicas in Rome to the Extraordinary Form would be the worst thing. Where better to promote the Ancient Liturgy of the Latin Church than in Rome? What bettter way to show the Catholic world and the Eastern Orthodox that we are finally getting serious about the Liturgy? I don’t think anyone should demand that this happen today, but I’ve certainly heard worst ideas.
Brian, could you point me to some quotes of Fr. Most and Fr. Hardon where they refer to transubstantiation as involving a “physical” change? As for Paul VI, here is the relevant doctrinal article from the Credo. Note that the words “physical” and “physically” appear nowhere in it:
Jordanes, physics was understood to be the study of mobile being. Hence angels, God (except insofar as He is the principle of mobile being), and the human soul, considered in itself and not merely as form of the body, are not physical. But mobile being is. This includes material substance and its accidents.
Hence we have to say that the accidental beings which were in the bread and wine remain, and truly exist. They retain physical reality, in a miraculous way having no subject. But the substance of bread and wine were physical as well, and are no longer there. Christ is present, not just as Divinity nor only with His human soul, but His Body and Blood, which are physical, are present to us in the Eucharist, not with any accidents of bread and wine in Him (indeed even His place is still Heaven, hence strictly speaking His is not “there” where the Host is, but rather we are brought to Him).
Christ as Man is physical, and that includes His “substance”. The idea that physicality is merely what is measurable is empiricism, nothing more. That denies even knowing the substance to which accidents inhere. But accidents exist by existing in a substance, and are signs of that substance by which we can know that substance. The Eucharist is a miracle in part because the accidents are not inesse, but without a subject. That cannot be in physical reality apart from miracles, because physical reality is primarily mobiles substance, it being truer to say that the accidental beings are in the substance than that they exist, since their existence is as in a substance. I don´t think the CE would disagree with me, it is merely pointing out the the accidents remain physically, not that material substance too is not physical.
Technically, it is most appropriate to refer to Christ’s Real and True Presence in the Eucharist as a “sacramental presence,” not a “physical presence.”
From Cardinal Dulles, “In teaching that the [Eucharistic] species are unchanged, the Church indicates that the physical and chemical properties remain those of bread and wine. Not only do they look and weigh the same; they retain the same nutritive value that they had before the consecration. It would be futile to try to prove or disprove the real presence by physical experiments, because the presence of Christ is spiritual or sacramental, not physical in the sense of measurable.”
Catholic said: Pope Benedicts words in that quote smack of consubstantiation(though I’m sure he didn’t intend that).
True, his words could be taken as implying the heresy of consubstantiation, but he doesn’t say the Eucharist is substantially both Jesus and bread and wine. “Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine [accidents], in its inmost being [substance], so that it is changed from within [transubstantiation] and Christ truly gives himself in them [Communion].”
I thought that the transubstantiation was that the bread and wine become literally the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
Yes, that’s correct. Since the substance has been changed, it is no longer really bread and wine, even though it looks, feels, smells, tastes and sounds like, and continues to have all the physical properties of, bread and wine.
Can someone explain the difference between substance and physicality(or is there a difference?).
Yes, there’s a big difference. “Substance” signifies “being” as existing in and by itself. “Physicality,” however, involves that which is of, or which pertains to, material nature. There are many substances that are not physical at all, such as God and Angels.
I mean how can the flesh be anything other than the physical flesh of Jesus Christ.
It can’t be. But the flesh can be present really and substantially without being present in a purely “physical” way. Consider this: Christ’s human body has size and mass, and yet when a consecrated Host is weighed, the scale does not show the weight of a human body, and when the Host is measured, the ruler does not show the height of a human body. Indeed, no physical change can be detected at all (again, I’m not talking about Eucharistic miracles, in which there certainly is physical change, and as I recall, the properties of the Precious Blood of Bolsena-Orvieto even manifests some unexplainable qualities, while another miraculous Host was tested and found to be human heart muscle).
Are some people here asserting that some sort of ‘spirit’ version of Jesus Christ’s body exists
Absolutely not.
(would it then even be a body? it seems like a contradiction of terms).
Yes, that’s a contradiction: spirit is not matter. St. Paul talks of “spiritual bodies,” but not “spirit bodies,” which seems pretty oxymoronic.
Thanks for your disquisition, Joshua. It’s very interesting, and it establishes that, when “physical” is understood as you have explained it, transubstantiation is not a physical change, but a substantial one. But perhaps, if one adds enough clarifications and caveats, one might be able to talk of it as a physical change, since the substances that are exchanged are physical. Nevertheless, transubstantiation is not a physical change, not a physical process, and it neither alters nor moves the physical accidents of the bread and wine, and of the physical substance of the Man Jesus, in any way. That would explain why the Church has never said transubstantiation is a physical change (if you have evidence to the contrary, please supply it).
Yes, that’s a contradiction: spirit is not matter. St. Paul talks of “spiritual bodies,” but not “spirit bodies,” which seems pretty oxymoronic.
Whoops. I should have clarified that I’m talking about the human body.
Jordanes, I see what you are saying now. And I don´t think we are disagreeing.
Thanks. And I appreciate your depth of insight and your precision in these philosophical matters.
This thread has been ongoing for a few days and I just wanted to add a remark or two that I think are very important from an historical perspective. There are some who regard Summorum Pontificum (from now on to be referred to as “SP”) as a cure-all for the problems in the Church (or, at the very least, as a step in the right direction). However, I don’t think people really understand what a backhanded insult it was. For SP to declare that the Tridentine Rite was “never legally abrogated” confirms what was objective reality from the beginning of the liturgical reform fiasco — namely, that the Novus Ordo was not imposed under force of law, but by Montini’s sheer neo-bolshevik whim assisted by a malicious hierarchy who eagerly smashed altars with glee and enthusiasm. The reformation, once external to the Church, was given free reign within. That was the purpose of St. Pius V’s Quo Primum to begin with — to take the necessary liturgical steps to safeguard apostolic tradition from heretical tampering. The protestantizing influence doesn’t die simply because time elapses and people are somehow “more enlightened” in the 20th Century (another modern fallacy that makes Vatican 2 look more pathetically archaic and anachronistic with each passing day). For Hoyos to suggest that people who demand what Quo Primum legally guarantees are being harmful is too much to stomach. Who’s really doing harm? Those who want the Latin Mass (and, make no mistake, the ’62 Mass of “Blessed” John XXIII is most definitely NOT the Tridentine rite) or the extraordinary ministers at the local parish in sweat pants and jogging sneakers giving out the sacred species in their filthy, unconsecrated hands (and the bishops who gleefully and enthusiastically allow it)? Why must a period of recatechizing occur for the new translations to the missal (when the “new” translations are the correct ones which were in use before Bugnini became a celebrity)? No one had such an opportunity in the early 1970’s when the Church demanded obedience to flawed ICEL translations. Is Bishop X afraid that people might have nervous breakdowns when they discover that Christ died “for many” and not “for all”? Uh oh, talk of sin and predestination might just decrease collections. God forbid! Is Bishop X afraid that if little Samantha can’t touch Jesus and hold the sacred species in her sticky fingers that she’ll tell her mommy and daddy she wants to become an Episcopalian? What’s more important? The self-esteem of the laity or Our Lord’s Divine Majesty? It’s good that the internet is causing pressure. But deserved pressure and dissatisfaction from the laity are nothing compared to the Divine Judgment that awaits Hoyos and his ilk who have attempted to desacralize the sacred in order to worship the cult of man. Pray to end the Novus Ordo. If collegiality has neutered the Holy Father’s power then that’s another “pastoral” technique that can be flushed down the drain. Better to have global schisms and a true Church that’s an infinitesimal fraction of its current size than a large Church that is unrecognizable as Roman CATHOLIC. Just look at the abuses that followed the Holy Father’s Mass at Lourdes? Check it out. There’s a global media out there and their presence demands impeccability from the Church. It’s long overdue. Our Lord said “Let your speech be ‘Yes, yes,’ ‘No, no,’ anything other than this is from the devil.” If any member of the Catholic hierarchy wants to restore the Church than their actions should match their declarations. If not, something’s up. It’s one thing to read about plans and changes and reforms on the internet. Whether or not they can be found in most dioceses as a matter of practical, objective, observable reality is something else entirely.
King David said: For SP to declare that the Tridentine Rite was “never legally abrogated” confirms what was objective reality from the beginning of the liturgical reform fiasco—namely, that the Novus Ordo was not imposed under force of law
No, it does not follow that just because the traditional Mass was not abrogated, the reformed Mass was not imposed by force of law.
“Blessed” John XXIII
“Blessed” in scare quotes?
On the presence in the Eucharist. A physical presence is one that is in a place and so capable of movement according to place (“local motion”). The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist cannot be physical since when the Host is moved from place to place Christ does not move. See ST III, Q. 76, a. 6. Why this is so is explained in a. 5 of the same question.
The proper way of speaking of the Real Presence is “substantial” not “physical.” That which is “physical” is “extended,” that is it takes up space: it is obvious that the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist does not “take up space” since he is wholly present no matter who small or large the piece of the Host is.
The belief that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is a classical *Lutheran* teaching. The old traditional Lutherans explained how Christ could be “really” present in the Eucharist by the argument that after the resurrection his body was “extended” infinitely (because of his sharing in the divine presence everywhere). So his body was got infinitely large. This is called the doctrine of “ubiquity” (everywhereness).
“sensuum defectui” folks. The bread is immolated. Trent declares the “whole substance” changes. It’s a miracle that the Host doesn’t bleed.
A good read: waragainstbeing.com. Read the main page first, then Article 6, “To Belie the Obvious Truth.”
Jerry B. said: It’s a miracle that the Host doesn’t bleed.
That’s a pretty strange notion of “miracle” you’ve got. A miracle should be something wondrous that goes contrary to nature’s laws or the ordinary course of things. As a rule Hosts do not bleed, so on those rare occasions when they bleed that we speak of a Eucharistic miracle: because the accidents of bread remain, and bread doesn’t bleed.
Thanks for referring us to the source that has been leading you astray. It’s a bitter irony that James Larson displays The Apotheosis of St. Thomas Aquinas at his website, when he rejects what St. Thomas has to say about the Real Presence not being a local presence and takes the Pope to task for agreeing with St. Thomas.
Jerry, I know some theologians hold the only reason that the Mass is not a bloody sacrifice by a miracle.
Fr. Garrigou-Largange addresses this in Reality
Some Thomists, [934] however, under the influence, it seems, of Suarez, wish to find in the double consecration a physical immolation. Then, since they must recognize that only the substance of the bread and that of the wine undergo a real physical change, and that these are not the thing offered in sacrifice, they are led to admit, with Lessius, a virtual immolation of Christ’s body. This virtual immolation is thus explained: In virtue of the words of consecration the body of Christ would be really and physically separated from His blood, did it not remain united by concomitance, from the fact that Christ’s body is now glorified and impassible. This innovation is not a happy one, because this virtual immolation is not in fact real and physical, it remains solely mystic and sacramental. Besides, what it would virtually renew would be the act by which Christ was put to death. But this act, says St. Thomas, [935] was not a sacrifice, but a crime, which therefore is not to be renewed, either physically or virtually.
Needless to say he disagrees, and believes the sacrifice to be sacramental, not physical.
Father,
I wondered whether perhaps the Italian word translated as “demand” in this article might perhaps have been capable of translation as “request”. I don’t know Italian, but the French verb “demander” means to request.
Not to drag the conversation back on topic, but I am very grateful to HH BXVI and PCED for all they are doing for the church militant. Even if it is too soon for Papa to hold a public Gregorian Mass, perhaps in the near future he could have a NO ad orientem? Maybe on one of his trips? I think it would do everyone good.
Also, thank you to Bp. Dewane of Venice, Fl for having a TLM parish. Perhaps this will inspire the rest of Florida dioceses….