Does the Locus of Christ's Body Move in the Blessed Sacrament?

It is sometime assumed that St Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that Christ's Body and Blood are present in a physical and local way. A reading of Thomas will reveal that this is not what he means.

St Thomas Aquinas states plainly that Christ's locus or place does not move when the Sacrament is moved in space. For Thomas, the Real Presence, is not local.

On the contrary, it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and at rest, else contradictories would be verified of the same subject. But Christ's body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this sacrament.

I answer that, When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in being, there is nothing to hinder it from being moved in one respect, and yet to remain at rest in another just as it is one thing for a body to be white, and another thing, to be large; hence it can be moved as to its whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in Christ, being in Himself and being under the sacrament are not the same thing, because when we say that He is under this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above (5). But what is not in a place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the motion of the subject in which it is.

In the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being which it has in this sacrament, by any other change whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself, cannot be the principle of failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases to exist. And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not because He ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said, but only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist.

Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this sacrament.

In some sense, this lines up with what early Anglicans referred to as a "spiritual" presence as opposed to a "carnal" presence. It seems that J.H. Newman (even in his Anglican days) and Pusey both shared this view with St Thomas. Thus, when a priest makes the sign of the cross with the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance, Christ Himself is not moving at all. Christ's Presence is not like this.

St Thomas Becket: Why this Blog is called "Canterbury Tales"

[This introductory post was written before I had become a Catholic.]

A blog entitled "Canterbury Tales" wouldn't be worth its salt without a post about St Thomas of Becket on this his feast day (Dec 29). As you remember, St Thomas was murdered inside the Cathedral by knights 'under the influence' of King Henry II.

St Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury met his end because he upheld the rights and privileges of the Pope in Rome against those of the English crown. Becket is the icon of ecclesiastical resistance against anti-papal English nationalism.

In a certain sense, this blog is dedicated to the tension and confusion surrounding the loaded meaning of "Canterbury." As an Anglican priest, I visibly stand with post-Reformation Canterbury, that establishment of the English crown that rejects the Papacy. On the other hand I look back to the good St Thomas of Becket, Canterbury's most cherished (though now lost) relic, as a sign of heroic Christian Faith. I find myself a pilgrim (peregrinator is Latin for "pilgrim") making an hearty pilgrimage to Canterbury, only to hear the blood of Becket crying out, "My blood was not shed for this sort of Canterbury!!!"

Canterbury was once consecrated by the blood of Becket against the temptation to compromise the Faith for convenience. It's for this reason that the pilgrims of Canterbury Tales set upon their journey. And now we see the fruit of Archbishop Cranmer's Canterbury. Affirming sodomy. Changing the Priesthood by introducing the innovation of "priestesses." Denying the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, authority of Scripture, the Sacraments, and so on ad infinitum.

As a pilgrim unto Canterbury, one has to ask himself, "Can I venerate Becket even though I stand historically with King Henry VIII and Archbishop Cranmer - men who allowed the Faith to change for political advantage?"

That is what I hope to explore on these Canterbury Tales. But it seems to me that Anglicanism is a wreck and that good St Thomas of Becket is the only good man left at Canterbury (even if he remains are scattered about from place to place).

Pomp, Ceremony, and Religious Sense

Over at the Holy Whapping there is an excellent article by Drew on the natural Catholic sense for exotic symbolism.

I think the underlying reality is that pomp and ceremony create a sense of religiosity in mankind. The Old Testament ceremony ordained by God is a perfect example of this need. Christ did the same kind of thing. For example, when he healed a blind man, he spit in the dirt, made some mud, rubbed it on the man's eyes and said, "Be opened." He could have just simplified it and left out the POD act of make mud out of his spit. But he didn't. It reminds me of the funny, yet POD, custom in My Big Fat Greek Wedding where they spit on folks to "keep the devil away."

And let's not forget Christ's approval of the very POD act of the Magdalene pouring costly oil on him. If things are important they become ceremonial. If you get married, you dress up in a weird costume. If you go to a very nice restaurant, the waiters where costumes called "tuxedos" and wear a white napkin on their arms. Many of you will put on funny hats for New Year's and blow plastic horns. Festivities necessitate festive customs, rites, and vesture. Why would it not be so for the most important function of our existence: the Worship of Almighty God.

G.K. Chesterton on Atheists

If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.

- G.K. Chesterton

Today is Childermas

Today is the feast of Holy Innocents or Childermas, coming from "Childrens Mass." The feast of the Holy Innocents commemorates the deaths of the babies in Bethlehem who were slaughtered by order of King Herod when he sought to destroy the Christ Child. Because they died on account of Christ's life, they are accounted the first Christian martyrs. It is thus appropriate that the feast of the Holy Innocent is celebrated in such close proximity to St Stephen who is the first adult martyr of Christ. I've often thought this feast also celebrates all those infants who have lost their lives to the horror of abortion. I am sure that Satan continues to wage war agains the image of God and the Incarnation of Christ by destroying human life, even the womb of their misguided mothers.

May God grant the aborted baptism and eternal life.
On a different note, I rather like the old rendering of feasts with the "mas" suffix denoting the Mass. There is to my knowledge four feasts with this kind of title:

Christmas
Childermas (Holy Innocents - Dec 28)
Candlemas (Purification BVM - Feb 2)
Michaelmas (St Michael - Sept 29)

Does anyone know of any others?

Doulia: Father Peregrinator's Word of the Week

Greek: doulia
Latin: servitus

The Greek term "doulia" (usually rendered in English as "dulia") is the theological term for veneration or reverence in disctinction of "latria", which is the theological term for worship given to God alone. St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, X, ii, 1) recognized two kinds of veneration: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God."

Even Protestants give dulia or veneration to the American flag, civic monuments, the President, and grave sites. It is not assumed that a person is committing idolatry by saluting a flag. In like manner it not the sin of idolatry to honor or venerate (i.e. dulia) to the cross of Christ, Blessed Mary the Mother of Christ, the Saints of Christ, or images of the same. If we salute a flag, why not salute a cross?

The sum of it all is that dulia is the kind of respect we show toward things pertaining to creation. Latria on the other hand is the worship that we show only to God who is the Creator of creation.

If this distinction is maintained, then it is perfectly acceptable to show honor and veneration toward created things, as long as we are not worshipping them as if they were God. When my daughter kisses her inanimate baby doll I don't accuse her of idolatry any more than when I see an Eastern Orthodox Christian kiss a picture of Christ or an Anglican reverence the altar of his church.

St Thomas Aquinas on Laymen Hearing Confessions

This is very interesting. According to the Summa Theologia, a layman may hear a confession in necessity when a priest is not available. Below is the answer to the question, "Whether it is ever lawful to confess to another than a priest?" from the Summa Theologia Supplementum Tertiæ Partis, 8, 2. Granted this is from the Supplement which was collected/edited after Thomas died.

I answer that, Just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is Penance. And Baptism, through being a necessary sacrament has a twofold minister: one whose duty it is to baptize, in virtue of his office, viz. the priest, and another, to whom the conferring of Baptism is committed, in a case of necessity. In like manner the minister of Penance, to whom, in virtue of his office, confession should be made, is a priest; but in a case of necessity even a layman may take the place of a priest, and hear a person's confession.

What think ye?

C.S. Lewis an Anglo-Catholic?

C.S. had many deprecating things to say about the "gin-and-lace" version of Anglo-Catholicism that espoused the strange blend of Anglophilism and the copycatting of all ceremonial French and Italian. He also despised T.S. Eliot who stood as the English poster child of high affected Anglicanism.

However, as C.S. Lewis developed his thinking, he became more and more a High Churchman.

He believed in Baptismal Regeneration and spoke of Confirmation in a sacramental way, rather than as a mere public affirmation of faith.

Beginning in 1940, he began making his regular confession to an Anglican priest and heartily recommended the practice to others as good for the soul.

With respect to the Eucharist, Lewis most certainly believed in the Real and Abiding Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species. He said, "Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object present to your senses."


Also, he openly affirmed the doctrine of Purgatory. He wrote:

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would in not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don't think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.

My favorite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round',' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed."

For C.S. Lewis, salvation was not a "once-for-all" event in the life of a believer at which "one gets saved." Rather it was the ongoing process of crucifying and mortifying the flesh and thus conquering all existing sin one's life by the Blood of the Christ. In other words, Justification necessitates a very real and necessary Sanctification of the believer. It's the taking up of the cross of Christ and following Him by he power of the Holy Spirit. God's grace forgives and transforms. This understanding is also revealed in Lewis' affinity for the literary theme of "spiritual pilgirmage," which is found in so many of his writings (Great Divorce, Pilgrim's Regress, Narnia, Space Trilogy).

If this Sanctification is true and real, it must indeed reach its goal and thus the sanctification and purification of the believer must be brought to completion even if not completed in this life. This after death purification or sanctification is called "Purgatory" by C.S. Lewis and by Roman Catholics. However, like Dante before him, C.S. Lewis places Purgatory within the gates of Heaven. It is in that sense the "forecourt of Heaven." The place where you are finally scrubbed down before entering the throne room of the King of Kings.


Anyway, as C.S. Lewis grows in importance, especially with the Narnia movies, it's important to recognize that he falls more in line with the Catholic tradition, which he shares with his friend and mentor J.R.R. Tolkien.

Why St John is My Favorite Apostle

Today is the feast of St John the Divine, Beloved Apostle of Christ. I chose him as my patron saint on my Confirmation day for three reasons:

1) He is the Apostle who laid his head on Christ's breast at the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, and thus the first devotee of the Sacred Heart. He is also the only Apostle to see Christ's side riven by the lance and the water and last of Christ's blood flow from thence. Which leads to reason number two.

2) St John is the only Apostle who stood under the cross of Christ crucified. He is thus the most courageous of the Apostles and I'm sure that this painful event alone served as his martyrdom. It is my suspicion that St John is the only Apostle NOT to be martyred because he had already conformed to the sufferings of Christ by actually being there next to Our Lady. Which leads me to my third reason.

3) St John is the guardian of Blessed Mary and also the first one other than Christ to be called her "son" when Christ said to His Mother, "Behold your son!" St John is also the theologian of the Incarnation, both by his lifelong love and devotion for the Mother of God, but also by His profound record of the Incarnation at the beginning of his Gospel..."In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was made flesh."

St John loved Christ, he witnessed his passion and death, and he was the divinely elected guardian of the Blessed Virgin. It is my prayer that Christ might also grant me to become one who beholds the Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy of Christ, contemplates the sufferings of Christ, and lastly, sees in the Mother of Christ, the beautiful condescension of Christ in His Incarnation by a pure Virgin.

It is my hope that others will also develop a devotion for St John and see him a godly example of what it means to be a "beloved disciple of Christ."

Happy St John's Day!

A Happy and Holy Christmas to All!

Remember that "Mass" is part of "Christmas." Be there for tonight and/or tomorrow.

Merry Christ Mass!

Latin Votive Masses in England after 1549

The Act of Uniformity, 1549, required that the new English-language Book of Common Prayer be used exclusively from June 9, 1549. Even after this date certain priests continued to say votive masses. These were said privately in Latin in side-chapels as opposed to the public celebration of the new Communion service in English at the main altar of the church. Instead of using their former names, e.g. a Mass of Our Lady, the priests tried to disguise what they were doing by using a name such as "Our Lady's Communion".

This practice was maintained at St. Paul's Cathedral in London, where the bishop Edmund Bonner was not in sympathy with the liturgical reforms.

The Various St Thomas Christians of India

In the comments below, Young Fogey demonstrated that the Metropolitan featured below is actually the leader of the Malankar Mar Thoma Church which has been protestantized by (guess who!) contacts with Anglicans.

As far as I can tell there are five groups of St Thomas Christians.

Those deriving from the Oriental Orthodox "Monophysite" St Thomas Christians:

• Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church ("Monophysite" or "Non-Chalcedonian"),
• Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (in communion with Rome, ex-"Monophysites")
• Malankara Mar Thoma Church (Protestantized Mar-Thomites who accepted the Anglican Protestant doctrines)

Those deriving from the "Nestorian" St Thomas Christians:

• Church of the East (those who accepted the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East)
• Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (in communion with Rome, ex-"Nestorians")

Santa Claus and Christian Culture

Is good ol' St Nick an icon of Christianity or secularism? It's worth noting that Jews and Muslims don't get their pictures taken with Santa. It's a Christian custom as everyone knows. Same goes with Christmas lights, etc.

The Catholic Church of Christ is a new humanity reconstituted and thus has its unique culture that is always interfacing with the world in order to show Christ's sovereignty over the cosmos. A culture must be rich and whole and that means that Christian culture is not going to be built on Scripture proof texts alone. Nobody can live that way. We can't violate Scripture, but our lives are not lived on a minute by minute application of biblical proof texts.

The fact that we have a liturgical calendar, traditions, customs (saying God bless you when someone sneezes), architectural structures, symbols, signs (i.e crosses): each point to the reality of Christian culture.

I think Santa Claus is indeed a health custom, as long as he is not allowed to eclipse Christ, which is the case with any saint.

What Happens When Either Bread or Wine is Invalid?

The question is raised, "Can the sacrifical aspect of the Eucharist be accomplished when either the specie of bread or wine is invalid (e.g. barley bread or cider)?"

The following answer is from the Catholic Encyclopedia "Sacrifice of the Mass":

"While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, the necessity of the twofold consecration can be demonstrated only as highly probable. Not only older theologlans such as Frassen, Gotti, and Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported the untenable theory that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid, such as barley bread or cider, the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the twofold conscration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact that in the consecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the double consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice."

It still doesn't fully answer the question, "What if the bread is consecrated but vinegar wrongly placed in the cup (which cannot be truly consecrated) is not consecrated? What comes of the bread? Do you have a sacrament without sacrifice?

Liturgical Color and the Cosmos

There are some good comments in the post below about Sarum liturgical colors.

The whole business about colors in the liturgy is somewhat obvious. My suspicion is that the Church merely had a gut level response to what was appropriate. Red, gold, white are "happy" or "energetic" colors. Black, blue, violet, are "sad" or "placid" colors.

As Papa Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy, the liturgy is cosmic, and colors, being part of this cosmos, are sacramental and thus reflect feelings and realities beyond themselves.

All that being said, these Orthodox hierarchs pictured above look legit. Can I get a witness?

Speaking of House Blessings...

This is a great old picture of a House Blessing sent to me by Father Stainbrook. A very special thanks to him. As he said, "When was the last time you saw someone kissing a priest's stole like that?"

Liturgical Colors in the Sarum Rite

There are many who say that blue is the Sarum color for Advent. This is completely incorrect. Advent Blue is an invention of CM Almy vestment makers in order to sell more vestments.

The oldest English liturgical color sequence is that of Lichfield, c. A.D. 1240 from the statutes of Bishop Pateshull:

Advent and Lent, black
Passiontide, red
Christmas, most precious vestments
St John, Circumcision, BVM, Virgins, St Michael, white
Epiphany, Apostles, Martyrs, St John Baptist, varied colours
St Mary Magdalene, Epiphany till Lent and Pentecost till Advent, according to the will of the sacristan

There also is this instruction appended: "All things must be modified accordin to the means of the church."

Below is a description of the Sarum color cycle from Percy Dearmer's The Parson's Handbook:

Red:
Every Sunday of the Year except in Lent
Passion & Palm Sundays
Good Friday
Martyrs

White:
Only the Blessed Virgin (and NOT for saints who weren't martyrs)
Lent

Blue:
St Michael

Yellow & Green:
Confessors

Black:
Requiems
Advent and Lent (at a later date)

Incidentally, blue and violet were consider as pertaining to black days and were used in Requeims and eventually Lent and Advent. Blue copes can be seen in depictions of Requiems.

Indian Food Tonight for St Thomas' Feast

Today, according to the pre-Vat2 calendar, is the feast of St Thomas. In order to celebrate his apostleship, I'm meeting the youth of our parish at an Indian food restaurant where we will be enjoying Indian cuisine. Afterward, we're going to see Chronicles of Narnia. Should be lots of fun.

Today is the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle

In Doubting Thomas we see the Divine Mercy of Christ revealed. Not only does Our Lord suffer and die on the cross for our redemption. Christ allows His Apostle to thrust his hand into His side.

St John is often associated with the Sacred Heart of Christ because the beloved Apostle laid his head on the chest of Christ at the Last Supper. But in St Thomas, God reveals that He will condescend to our doubts and allow the hand of a doubter penetrate into His sacred Body toward His most Sacred Heart. This is core where faith is confirmed.

Confession: The Movie

Last night my wife and I watched a new DVD from Blockbuster entitled Confession. Apparently it supposed to be similar to the Alfred Hitchcock thriller I Confess.

Basically there is a murder and the murderer himself confesses his crime to an innocent priest. But all the evidence eventually leads (wrongly) to the priest. Since the priest is bound under the seal of the confessional not to disclose any information provided in a sacramental confession, he has to bite the bullet.

I haven't seen the Hitchcock version (the picture above is from it), but this version was pretty good. It was definitely a "B" level film but it did have a really cool ending.

**If you're going to rent it, don't read past here.**

At the end the murderer comes back to the confessional with his gun to his own head, ready to kill himself in sorrow. The priest sees that he is about to commit suicide and does the coolest thing. He punches his hand through the confessional screen and proclaims in an authoritarian voice, "Thou shalt not kill!" He takes the gun away as the police are coming and says, "They're going to take you know. But you can't go with this sin on your soul. You can now make a confession and leave with a pure soul." The murderer does so.

The murderer eventually gets gunned down by the cops and the movie ends with an ad orientem Mass with the same falsely accused priest wearing a black fiddleback chasuble at the murderer's Requiem. Pretty POD, if you ask me.

Anyway, it's one of the few modern films that actually depicts priests in a good light.

Emperor Charles V on the Murder of St Thomas More

When Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire learned of the murder of Sir Thomas More by King Henry VIII, he stated:

"If I had been master of such a servant, of whose doing I myself have had many years no small experience, I would rather have lost the best city in my dominions than lose such a worthy councilor."

Luther's Heresy

Thus saith Dr. Luther: "Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool."

Here stands the great 'Reformer' pitting Sacred Scripture against Sacred Scripture. Here is a man who calls the Holy Spirit into contradiction.

Many do not know that Luther himself added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his German translation of the Scriptures, even though it does not appear in the original Greek. Such a man has no veneration for the Word of God.

The Cure d'Ars on the Poor

"We must never despise the poor, because that contempt is reflected back upon God."

Catechism on Love for the Poor