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
> 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,
> 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
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @[log in to unmask] address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @[log in to unmask] address at http://mail.yahoo.ie