"Eucharist" as an un-articled proper noun
#41
(01-30-2012, 02:51 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Such consternation over a missing article?

It's the principle involved; that is, the death-of-a-thousand-cuts manipulation of language to achieve political ends. And it's not just the principle, but the substance. By dropping the definite article, the word is made malleable. Eucharist is transformed into whatever we wish it to be. It's no longer tied down as the Eucharist, the dogmatically defined Eucharist. It's literally stripped of its definiteness.

There's nothing casual about the dropping of this article. These vandals know exactly what they're doing.

Incidentally, at the end of the Apostle's Creed, we should always say: "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." Not just any life everlasting, but the life everlasting in Christ.
Reply
#42
Hmm, I'm surprised no one made this connection yet: in Anglican/Episcopal churches, Communion services are most usually called Eucharist and are advertised in their schedules as such. Catholic churches which call their services Eucharist are probably imitating the Anglicans.

However, many high-church Anglicans call their services Mass. That used to be a huge bone of contention in the Victorian period and early 20th century when high church Anglicanism wasn't so readily accepted. You can imagine the accusations of Romish popery toward the first Anglican groups that started using the word Mass.
Reply
#43
(01-29-2012, 10:59 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: In the days before the Changes, nobody used words like liturgy or eucharist or reconciliation. It was Mass and Holy Communion and Confession. Simple, straightforward words. Everyone knew what they meant. We didn’t talk about rubrics, and most laypeople didn’t know about ambos and aspersoria and thuribles.

True, but let's not knock on the word "reconciliation". That's how the sacrament is referred to in the New Testament. (2 Corinthians 5:18, "But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.") It's a legit word to use.
Reply
#44
(01-30-2012, 02:51 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Such consternation over a missing article? Did I accidentally log into an Orthodox forum?

Did I accidentally log on to CAF? I don't see how any devout Catholic can defend this. (Not saying you're not devout, just that it's such a common thing with the liberals and dissenters I'm surprised to see it defended here.)
Reply
#45
Calm down.  Let's all hold hands and say the Our Father.  We are CHURCH!!!

You people need a hug.  Aww, there now
Reply
#46
Again, if this is indicative of a problem, more obvious signs of the problem should be apparent.

Reply
#47
(01-30-2012, 09:26 AM)su Wrote: Again, if this is indicative of a problem, more obvious signs of the problem should be apparent.

Although I agree with you, su/Rosarium, I also have issues with this expression, as well as the use of "church" as given in the examples.  I've heard both, but mostly from lay people; I've hardly ever heard a priest say it, but I have read articles exhorting us to be "church" to each other, and as far as I can recall, the word always had quotes around it.  This makes me think it's meant to be a metaphor.  In other words, it's a metaphorical way of saying that we must bring the Church to others, i.e. evangelize.

There are two problems with this, however (or I should say, at least two).  First, the fact that it's a metaphor has obviously been lost; and two ... I hate hearing that expression!  >sad  It's an unnecessary change, and one that doesn't make anything easier to understand.  If I say, "We must bring Christ to each other" how is that less clear than "We must be 'church' to each other"?  I dont' think it is. 
Reply
#48
(01-30-2012, 09:26 AM)su Wrote: Again, if this is indicative of a problem, more obvious signs of the problem should be apparent.

Isn't the self-destruction of the Church quite apparent?
Reply
#49
(01-30-2012, 03:35 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(01-29-2012, 10:59 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: In the days before the Changes, nobody used words like liturgy or eucharist or reconciliation. It was Mass and Holy Communion and Confession. Simple, straightforward words. Everyone knew what they meant. We didn’t talk about rubrics, and most laypeople didn’t know about ambos and aspersoria and thuribles.

True, but let's not knock on the word "reconciliation". That's how the sacrament is referred to in the New Testament. (2 Corinthians 5:18, "But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.") It's a legit word to use.

So is the word "eucharist" for that matter. It's also biblical and it's the proper name of the most august sacrament after all, the summit of the whole liturgy.

The problem isn't that these terms are illegitimate per se but that they were consciously and subtly introduced to signify a rupture from the previous longstanding use, not as a healthy desire to reform something obsolete, but just to conform to Protestant jargon. Not to mention the clear tints of antiquarianism of the whole process, something previously condemned by Pius XII,
Reply
#50
Removing the definite article does exactly what it sounds like - renders the word indefinite.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)