www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Latin Rite, Facing East re: Liturgy of the Eucharist

Man - you think I talk Scots

Since the last trip South I'm once again talking with a West Riding accent

Now I will admit to a real hate - despite living in Essex for some 17 years I still wince when I hear the Essex and London accents - they can sound sooooo ugly - and when sung - hmm .

OK I'll be kind to you - I can put up with almost anything that comes from Oxford [ got relatives just outside ]

But you have to admit that we Scots have some most descriptive words

Anhelyna

Hi,

Yes, He is.

And besides, "physically" is a troublesome word in this discussion, because "physics" are things we perceive with our senses, and the Church has never taught that we can perceive the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist through our senses.

If our reverence to the Holy Eucharist would permit it, and we conducted a physical analisys of a consecrated host, the results would not show any difference from the ones obtained from a non-consecrated hosts.

This is because if, as St. Thomas Aquinas quite correctly stated, our senses are incapable of perceiving the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, our senses aided with the most state-of-the-art scientific knowledge and technology are also incapable.

It is only through faith that we can find Christ in the Eucharist, even if He's really there always.

Well, that is also debatable, because if it is Christ who is really present in the tabernacle, then why would we have to orient the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ to the Faither towards Christ?


Of course not.

And so? Why this corporeal presence needs to be more real than His mystical presence in the Christian faithful?

Exactly my point. If Christ was indeed present to Nathaniel when He saw Him under the tree, and if Christ is indeed present in the Eucharist, then why one presence is more "real" than the other.

I am not saying they are not different.

My point here is not whether or not Christ is present in the reserved Eucharist. My point is that during the Liturgy is present in so many different ways, real ways, at least one of which is identical to His presence in the tabernacle, why would celebrate the Liturgy facing the tabernacle would be such a big deal?


Yes, His divine substance ceases to be united to the accidents of bread and wine, BECAUSE IT BECOMES UNITED WITH US, WITH OUR VERY BEING.

That is what Theosis is all about.

After you receive Holy Communion, Christ doesn't just leave. He stays. In fact, at that point, Christ has reached His final destination. Christ's purpose of making Himself available in the Eucharist is not to go into a tabernacle, He wants to reach you.

The Eucharist in the tabernacle is Christ with ellipsis. The Eucharist in you, after Holy Comunion is Christ with a final period.

Not inferior, but partial and incomplete. Now men are not struck dead for touching the Ark, now men receive eternal life for eating the Body and drinking the Blood of the Lamb of God.


Right, that's the ideal world, but like Walgreens, there is not a Catholic Church over there. Over *here*, we have more pressing and urgent problems we will take care of first.

Shalom,
Memo

Wow Memo,

You have some very strange ideas.
My previous posts have addressed these issues sufficiently. I need not say any more.

Usque.

The proliferation of posts regarding Roman Catholic praxis on this Eastern Christian forum is becoming troubling to me.

Our Holy Father Benedict will tend the flock he has been entrusted with. In the meantime, rather than worrying about finding Christ facing east, west, north or south, let us search to find Christ in our hearts, in our neighbors and in strangers, and at His altar in the Eucharist.

Peace in our risen Lord Jesus Christ to all, Bill

Dear Bill,

I agree with you and I, too, am troubled by the trend you mentioned.

Dear Memo,

Your ideas are not strange at all. Thank you for your well reasoned and theologically sound posts.

Dear Administrator,

I second Bill`s concerns. This is not a Western forum and posts on Roman praxis really, IMHO, are inappropriate on this Forum.

Peace to all,

Charles

Hi guys.

From an opposing perspective, the topic probably would be better suited to the East and West forum, but that being said, the direction of liturgical prayer is something of relevance to both east and west is it not?

Also, while it is true that we must find Christ in our hearts and souls and that is of the utmost importance, let us not underestimate the importance in that relationship of the manner and method by which we pray. The oft-quoted axiom "lex orandi, lex credendi" has been demonstrated to be true in many ways. We are not a people who believe that externals are irrelevant, rather we know that they have a relationship to our interior disposition. We must only guard against becoming "narcissistic" about these things is all.

That being said, certainly we don't want the forum to become Romano-centric. I agree on that completely and respect it totally. Just wanted to throw out a few thoughts.

God bless brothers.

Memo,
Upon rereading your last post, I realized I misread many things, and therefore hastily jumped to a conclusion that your ideas were strange. I offer an apology.

#1) I thought you had denied the permanent presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You clearly didn't.

#2) I think you will be able to defend yourself on the physical presence of God. I took your statements to mean you believe God is a physically constituted being.

However, there is nothing wrong with the use of the word "physical" in a theological discussion, and it is clear to theologians what is meant when using the word. If you need an example I can provide one.

Moreover, it is a Dogma of the Faith that Worship of Adoration must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist. "The Worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist. (De fide.) [Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma]"

I hope you wouldn't deny that.

Before I respond and risk being uncharitable, I should ask, what were you trying to say in this sentence?

In any case, I am tired of this conversation. The Lord has humbled me.

Shawn,
Thank you for your always insightful input.

Usque.

Bill,

I appreciated your comments, and those of Charles, both much more gently and charitably put than my own would have been.

Deacon John,

Thank you for your posting elsewhere reminding folks of the nature of this board.

My Latin brothers and sisters (pointedly to the many who are recently registered here),

I hope that no one misunderstands the issue. This board, this community (because that is really what we are) has always had Latin members, those with an interest in and/or a love for the East and Orient, Catholic and Orthodox. There are a significant number of long-time Latin members (and Protestant, as well) here who are extraordinarily valued contributors to our discussions and without whom the place wouldn't be the same. (I'm not going to name names, for fear of overlooking someone, but they and we all know who they are.) These folks are as much a part of this household as any of us, Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, cradle or otherwise.

We do continue always to welcome new Latin brethren, those contemplating a Change of Canonical Enrollment, those who have no plans to do so but love us for what we are and what our Churches bring to Christianity, and even those who are merely curious about us. Our prayer is that you come to know and understand us, pray with us, give us the value of your insights and interpretations, and become a part of this familial community.

We don't want to drive anyone away, but this board exists for the specific purpose of having a place in which to dialogue about the issues that face the Eastern and Oriental Churches, Catholic and Orthodox. A few of us post from time to time on Latin boards to answer questions about the East but, to us, this is the place where we can be ourselves, try to cope with the divisions between us, educate one another and be educated, and add to the knowledge and understanding of inquirers. We can't solve the problems of liturgical praxis in the Western Church, whatever those are, and we aren't interested in being "another Catholic board" - there are lots of those, some better than others, but lots.

So, if you can see your way clear to living with us under those conditions, please stay, inquire, comment, learn, pray with us and for us and our deceased and our intentions, as we will for yours. We love having you; we hope you'll love being here.

May God grant you many years,

Neil

Hi,

No apologies required. My ideas ARE strange, althoug, perhaps, not in the sense you originally thought.

No, I didn't, and I don't. In fact, if you search the archives of this forums, you will find a few posts from yours truly, emphatically refuting the "disappearing Christ" idea that some people believe.

God is Spirit and although the Spiritual and the Physical are not etirely disconnected, God is by no means bound to Physical constraints (such as the surface of a wall behind the altar).

Jesus Christ, being God and without changing His being God in the very least, became incarnate and took to Himself a human nature, which came with the works (except for sin), including a physical body. This body was glorified after His Resurrection and, although it remains "physical" in the sense that it remains a human body in essence, it is not bound by most, if any, of the rules of our physical world.

Of course, but there are other ways to do this in addition to having the priest face the tabernacle during the Litury.

I was trying to say that the Church finds it acceptable that in the current Roman Missal, the priest may appear to be facing the people, because he is actually facing the altar from the side of the altar oposit to the people.

Yes, the symbolism of having the priest in front of the people (and not opposite to them), and facing in the same direction is beautiful and meaningful, but in order to re-introduce that symbolism effectively in the Latin Church, we need a lot of teaching, and that currently we do not have the resources to place this teaching effort as a high priority.

We have more pressing and more important issues to deal with, and we will concentrate our efforts in those.

Shalom,
Memo