Joe,
If you read up on this issue you will see that Catholic dogma does indeed
distinguish between Mass and Holy Communion. Pound appears to me to have
been more interested in the mysterium of the blood sacrifice and less in the
aspect of congregational "communion.  His interest in the mysterium explains
his willingness to accept "any abracadabra".  The Latin language was by no
means sacrosanct, and Pound clearly doesn't give a fig for papal authority.

Wei's prescription that true religious experience must embody gentle
brotherly love denies the central act of violence that the Mass ritually
re-enacts. Pound would recognize the pagan survival in the rites of the
Mass, and acknowledge the operation of Eros. Wei stresses Agape. But for
Pound, the Mass was not a time for singing Kumbayah.

This issue of mass-in-latin is a window into Pound's paganism. Pound
believed Italian Fascism would be amenable to the sort of religious
expression that suited his tastes.

Tim Romano

----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Holy communion


> In a message dated 06/22/2000 12:33:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> <<  I would like to add that the Church dogma dictates the
>  doctrine of transubstantiation or in layman's terms, the bread and wine
ARE
>  actually the body and blood of Christ in "real presence" in this Blessed
>  Sacrament, these Communion elements esp. the consecrated Host. >>
>
> in addition to which, if one arrives at mass after the consecration of the
> host, one is deemed to have missed the mass.  the principal raison d'être
for
> the mass is said consecration, so to attempt to meaningfully distinguish
> between the two is, well, ignorant.  I am, of course, referring to the
mass
> as it existed in Pound's day.
>
> joe...
>
>