You argue for disposable individual cups.
You believe the Nihil Rule includes the words “plane of the teeth”.
You don’t know what is in the celebrant’s hands after the consecration, but you do know that whatever it is, it does not REPRESENT Jesus’ Body and Blood.
Your feverish arguing against the “moment of consecration” leads you to invent a “moment of consecration” (i.e. plane of the teeth).
Your feverish arguing against the “moment of consecration” leads you to invent a “moment of deconsecration” (i.e. last distribution hymn, benediction, end of your esophagus)
You throw consecrated elements back into a container of non-consecrated elements and get snippy with a nervous altar guild member who questions you about this practice.
You practice your 3-point shooting every 1st and 3rd Sunday with your disposable individual cup and the provided plastic lined garbage can.
You are in favor of de facto private masses for shut-ins rather than allowing the pastor to carry the reliquae to those members of the congregation who are unable due to illness or injury to attend the Divine Service.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Perhaps I am missing something here or reading too much into this, BUT, this post, to me, is offensive.
I can't agree with the last point. A Called and Ordained consecrating new bread and new wine for a shut-in is not an abuse of the mass.
It would seem much more of an abuse to carry the left-overs and say "these were consecrated a couple hours(days, weeks, months, years-no expiration date given or needed)ago so no use saying the words all over again."
The words of institution are for the hearer not for Jesus.
Drawing from my faulty memory I thought the abuse of the mass was saying the mass for no one, or for the priest alone. I don't think Luther intended the abuse of the mass to include consecrating new bread and wine for the shut-ins.
Sub Cruce,
peter
Methinks you're reading too much into what I wrote. Please note the words "rather than" in the last point. My issue is not with consecrating new bread and wine for a shut-in, my issue is with those who are receptionists and claim that after some point in the service, the Body and Blood are no longer present and one MUST ALWAYS consecrate new bread and wine for a shut-in.
The words of institution ARE for the hearer and should be said in the presence of the shut-in, though if the reliquae is being served, prefaced with an explanation that these elements had already been consecrated and that the words are indeed for the person receiving in private.
I never wrote that consecrating new bread and wine for a shut-in is an abuse of the mass.
AL1
In honor of anonymous...
You might be a receptionist if this post offends you but you can't articulate why that is.
(or you are possibly missing something)
AL1
Chemnitz said what you call a de facto private mass is a better practice than reservation of the reliquiae.
While I would agree that you can't fix a point of "deconsecration," the idea that "as long as I'm intending to bring it to someone, the sacramental action has not ended" is twisting what the formula of Concord says, as evidenced by the fact that the main author (Chemnitz), wrote against reservation in the "Examination of the Council of Trent."
Karl,
Click on the link in the post above this one.
AL1
Post a Comment