|
2 members (Twixjudy, 1 invisible),
680
guests, and
98
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,540
Posts417,759
Members6,195
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41 |
Dear Mr. Chuy, You write: "Dedicated" huh? That sounds rather odd. Here in the West chalices used to be consecrated -- now they are blessed. My post was not long, and you might have read the whole thing, in which it was made clear that I used the term "dedicated" for that one occasion only. The reason was that I did not wish to get into a controversy over "consecrated" or "blessed". Otherwise, I fail to grasp your problem. Fr. Serge The length of your response is a non-issue. Why try to introduce it as one here? You should be focused on its contents which was less than helpful. Let's review: Actually it seems odd to me also. But anyway, a Chalice, once it is . . . shall we say, for this occasion only, "dedicated" ... for use at the Eucharist, is normally referred to as "consecrated". Your little "odd" poke aside, what does your response really say? Does one need to altogether ignore ". . . shall we say, for this occasion only, "dedicated" ..." as just another little poke or does it somehow add value to the discussion? "This occasion" obviously has no influence on whether chalices are actually consecrated or actually blessed. Why include it in your response? As an attempt to obfuscate? That leave us with "for use at the Eucharist, is normally referred to as "consecrated". What does that mean? Are they consecrated or blessed or either/both? In the West blessing a chalice is not synonymous with consecrating one. (Chalices are no longer consecrated in the West -- they are now blessed.) Are the two words interchangeable in the East? I wouldn't think so based even on their generic definitions. In closing I don't have a problem -- merely a question...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41 |
Why not? It's an important part of the Church's history. The booty also influenced later Western design... An important part of the Church's history? The sacking of Christendom by a bunch of drunken raping marauders? Pope John Paul II got on his knees to beg forgiveness of the East for the sins of those "valiant soldiers of Christ" (sarcasm intended). And you want to commemorate it as a "solemn reminder of Church History?" You have strange ideas as to what actions deserve commemoration. Why not have a special service to commemorate the Inquisition, or is that not an important part of the Church's history? Alexandr I always find it curious when people such as yourself try to sell such a one-sided, redacted history. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying. I see no mention in your diatribe that Pope Innocent III and hence the Church did not support the sacking of Constantinople. That was a pretty big point to miss, don't you think? How about the long-time murdering of Western traders (mostly Venetians) in Constantinople? That was another biggie, don't you think? I could go on and on... The sacking was horribly lamentable but Constantinople was in no way faultless. I will say that few have ever the humility and grace that JPII had so I'm certainly not holding my breath for an apology from the East. To answer your question yes it was a very important point in the Churches history and yes it deserves to be memorialized.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41 |
Chalices are blessed AND consecrated.
The Trebnik (Book of Needs) gives the title for such a service
"Chin blagosloveniya i osvyashcheniya chashi.."
"The Rite of blessing and consecrating a chalice"
The Prayer used in this service...
".... send down the grace of Thy most holy and all-sanctifying and life-creating Spirit on this chalice and on all its beauty, and bless, cleanse and consecrate it, as thou didst bless and cleanse and consecrate the chalice of Thy priest Melchisedek ..." Thank you for that response!! I deeply appreciate your effort.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41 |
I believe that since the Second Vatican Council the chalice may be either consecrated or blessed in the Latin Rite Churches. There are many changes which are optional since Vatican II, but in practice in the US and elsewhere have become the "usual" way of doing things. I am aware of chalices still being consecrated in the Latin Rite. Here is one site which touches on this topic somewhat, in answering a different question: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/scholion-consecration-of-a-paten-and-chalice/Chalices are now to be blessed and not consecrated within the Latin Rite of theCatholic Church: General Instruction of the Roman Missal 333. For the blessing of sacred vessels, the rites prescribed in the liturgical books are to be followed. The Roman Pontifical: Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar, editio typica, 1984, Chapter 7, Order of the Blessing of a Chalice and a Paten; Book of Blessings, editio typica, 1984, Order for the Blessing of Articles for Liturgical Use, nos. 1068-1084. I am sure in some cases the GIRM is ignored and/or individuals feel it does not apply to them. Perhaps in the case of a chalice being prepared for use in the Tridentine Mass as one example.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41 |
[quote=Chuy]
Pope John Paul II got on his knees to beg forgiveness of the East for the sins of those "valiant soldiers of Christ" Alexandr, Pope John Paul begged God to forgive the Catholics who had participated in the evils which accompanied the Crusades. Here are his words when he visited Athens in 2001: "For occasions past and present when the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by actions and omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of Him." Please see http://orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Crusade#Papal_Apology_to_Orthodox_ChurchThank you for providing that. My love of JPII deepened when he made those comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
[quote=Chuy]The sacking was horribly lamentable but Constantinople was in no way faultless. I will say that few have ever the humility and grace that JPII had so I'm certainly not holding my breath for an apology from the East. [/quote]
Dear Chuy,
It has not gone unnoticed by the East that the apologies by Pope John Paul were not in fact apologies but they were prayers asking God to forgive the misdeeds of the Catholic faithful who were involved. I remember at the time that Cardinal Ratzinger strongly urged the Pope not to make apologies which were too wide and generous but to remember the dignity of the Catholic Church. So it is believed that the "apologies" were toned down into what may at first glace appear to be apologies but are in fact prayers for forgiveness of the Catholic people involved. There must still be articles on the Net about this which a web search should turn up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
Dear Posters,
Let's not turn this into a heated and hateful thread about the sacking of Constantinople. We know that the Pope was not involved and there is, infact, a preserved letter of his which bespeaks his disgust after hearing of this.
As Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, prayed: 'let us have purification of memory'.
May it be so!
-- AND let's get back on topic or this thread will become 'history' also... by being locked!
Alice, Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
