 |
 |
At the risk of starting another three-chilli level discussion, I feel I ought to respond to the rather acid trope of my posting. So here it is: An examination of the latin roots of the words 'con-secration' and 'de-secration' will reveal that they are, in fact, opposites. Desecration is the technically correct term for what is being referred to on the list as 'deconsecration'. Unfortunately English has also added the meaning of 'pollutio' to the word, but the usage is incorrect. > --let's see, the bishop and priests of the cathedral > systematically and > liturgically go around the place trashing the relics > in all the altars, > defecating in the corners of all the chapels, while > singing the Te Deum > backwards... > > something wrong with that picture..... What's wrong with it is that it deliberately mocks my original posting rather than taking any serious academic issue with it. > >Desecration takes place when a consecrated object > is destroyed or materially > altered in some way. > > my feeble understanding is that an object/building > becomes consecrated, not by > being "materially" altered in some way, but, on the > contrary, whatever > material alteration is made --a relic is placed in > an altar, a building is > asperged (is that a word?) and painted with crosses, > etc.-- > is in fact rather incidental to what's *really* > going on. Yes. That's what I just said. The point is that the consecration is subsequently 'lost' as pointed out in my original posting (please reread) by substantial alteration to the original, leaving theologians (call it pedantry if you like) in doubt whether is was, any more, the same object which had received the original consecration. Thus a mere regilding of an object does not count as substantial modification. > >This is the current Catholic practice; I would see > no real reason for it to > have changed substantially since the MA. > > a rather dangerous assumption, imHo. There has been no major change in the rite for the consecration of a church since the MA nor in the theology behind it. I still see no real reason why the above may not be true. Note that I am neither assuming nor stating this to be the case. > > just an opinion, of course. But one expressed rather harshly, I would venture to say.... Cheers Rob ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie