Karl Keating's E-Letter of January 2, 2007 - Page 3

StephanieC · #31 Jan 8, '07, 11:46 am

I've been hopefully checking in on this thread to see if someone might be able to help with post #20--Anyone care to help a gal out with some hard data, or point me to a good source? Thanks.

Clonmacnoise · #32 Jan 8, '07, 2:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by miguel

The laws of nature are God's laws that scientists discover and study but do not invent. So I wouldn't say science is of the world as if God has nothing to do with science.

Science IS of the world. It certainly wasn't brought down from Heaven. God's influence is on everything He created, and some of His creations are FOR the world - like science, and they stay IN the world because they are OF the world.

Clon

miguel · #33 Jan 8, '07, 4:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clonmacnoise

Science IS of the world...

...and the world (or at least its existence) is of God.

Clonmacnoise · #34 Jan 9, '07, 3:53 am

Science is a very interesting and valuable discipline. I understand completely why some scientists separate it from God. Science comes from man and his desire to understand the world we are, like science, tied to.

In an ordinary classroom, there is the room in which we study, the furniture to make us comfortable, and the books and teacher that bring us the course.

To say the administration makes the course possible is probably true. To say the course is somehow of the administration is grasping at straws.

The idea that the course is somehow otherworldly because it is somehow "of God" is silly. God doesn't need science, and when the world ceases to be, so will science.

My son builds cyclotrons for cancer research and therapy. He's a religious guy and knows that his machines can take away cancer, but he also knows that God cures. That doesn't mean the machines are "of God." God did not create the machine. That doesn't lessen God; it shows His infinite wisdom and mercy to allow us to. But once you're dead, you don't need the machine anymore and science and all its wonders stays with the body right here on the earth.

To be in the world but not of the world, I think, means to understand the difference between the spiritual and the physical.

miguel · #35 Jan 9, '07, 9:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clonmacnoise

...The idea that the course is somehow otherworldly because it is somehow "of God" is silly. God doesn't need science, and when the world ceases to be, so will science...

...To be in the world but not of the world, I think, means to understand the difference between the spiritual and the physical.

Certain aspects of the physical world (sin and death) will cease at some point (known only to God). But the physical itself will not cease. Belief in the resurrection of the body tells us that. Paradise prior to the fall hints at it. Will science cease? Maybe...if God instantaneously infuses all knowledge of the physical world into the resurrected. Or maybe not...if God thinks those with the interest might enjoy learning at a more leisurely pace.

tee_eff_em · #36 Jan 9, '07, 9:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephanieC

Wouldn't following #287 of the GIRM that you quoted mean that the "special ciborium" Karl describes used at the Masses at Catholic Answers (& used at my parish) are also not allowed?

Because that passage makes specific reference to the priest holding the hosts, another minister holding the chalice, and the communicant holding the communion plate!

Ack!

So very confusing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephanieC

I've been hopefully checking in on this thread to see if someone might be able to help with post #20--Anyone care to help a gal out with some hard data, or point me to a good source? Thanks.

I'm afraid I can't give any authoritative answer. I was also going to say I have never seen an intinction set like the one described, but on re-reading I believe I have seen such, though I would not have described it in the same words. Rather than "something like a doughnut", I would describe the sets I have seen as like a gold cup and saucer -- The center of the "saucer" cirborium may have a depression (Karl's "doughnut hole" ?) and/or a pin to steady the mating "cup" chalice, and then the hosts are in the "saucer" around the "cup" (much as you might lay a tea sandwich or cookie on the saucer of your teacup, but hopefully with fewer crumbs). An example can be seen here. (If that doesn't work, go to www.froogle.com and search for intinction)

In any case, such is still not the sort of arrangement described in the GIRM.

I do know the former GIRM described intinction by other means when there was no deacon, priest or acolyte to minister the chalice: either (approximate quoting) by the priest holding the ciborium between index and middle fingers and holding the chalice between index finger and thumb (which I'd bet could be unsteady/next to impossible, depending on the particular vessels involved -- Though I have seen ciboria with finger hooks/rings (like the handle on a teacup) that would make such a maneuver easier), or by using a small table with a corporal at the communion station, to take the place of the absent chalice minister (even the pastor of my youth did this otherwise, IIRC, and less prone in my opinion to dripping and spillage: placing the ciborium on the table and holding the chalice -- But I cannot say he was correct to do so, even if I believe he was prudent).

Given the current GIRM, I would guess the table option is right out -- IMHO I would think it could be prone to knocking over the "unattended" vessel, though I've never witnessed such a mishap. But I do not know that the one-handed juggling method (surely made easer by the use of an intinction set) is out, though perhaps it is. Does anyone know if there is an allowance by the GIRM to continue using older vessels (eg an intinction set) even if they are not specifically described by the document? (And for that matter, such vessels were likewise undescribed by the former document)

tee

StephanieC · #37 Jan 9, '07, 11:03 am

Thanks for following up, tee!

The "cup & saucer" type set that you describe is what my parish uses.

I guess this is what had me scratching my head. You inferred from #287 of the GIRM that EMHCs were not allowed to administer communion via intinction, based on the specific reference to the priest in that paragraph.

I'm (gently) questioning this, basically making a leap in reasoning) saying, "Wait, my parish always seemed pretty by-the-book & not only do we use an intinction set, we also use EMHCs with it. And Karl Keating seems pretty by-the-book & he describes a similiar type of set. So could it be that that part of the GIRM is not really spelling out the only way to administer & receive by intinction?"

I don't know! (And while this is not keeping me up at night, it's also one of those little annoying brain itches that won't go away!)

tee_eff_em · #38 Jan 9, '07, 11:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephanieC

I guess this is what had me scratching my head. You inferred from #287 of the GIRM that EMHCs were not allowed to administer communion via intinction, based on the specific reference to the priest in that paragraph.

I'm (gently) questioning this, basically making a leap in reasoning) saying, "Wait, my parish always seemed pretty by-the-book & not only do we use an intinction set, we also use EMHCs with it. And Karl Keating seems pretty by-the-book & he describes a similiar type of set. So could it be that that part of the GIRM is not really spelling out the only way to administer & receive by intinction?"

I understand and am curious myself. I believe I have only seen intinction sets administered by priests, but I could be mistaken (I have only see it when visting a neighboring parish anyway -- My own parish is "dry" and has not offered the precious blood by sip nor intinction in the 20 years I have been a member).

tee