The Mass as a Sacrifice and the Mass as a Meal
#21
(10-17-2010, 02:14 AM)charlesh Wrote:
glgas Wrote:And if you think it over the sacrifice is for us, so our gathering is necessary.
Explicit and unequivocal heresy. Only the priest's presence is necessary for the sacrifice to be enacted. Gigas, I'm beginning to think there's a devout Lutheran behind that screen.

Did you ever prayed the Nicene Creed: Qui propter nos homines and propter nostram salutem descendit the caelis.

Also take some time and find out that in the Canon of the Mass (which according to the XIX Ecumenical council has no error in it) how many times do you find 'ego' (singular first person) and how many times the plural first person?

The sacrifice of the mass is for us. God does not need any sacrifice, we are not good enough to hurt him or even just annoy Him so that should ha expiated. The sacrifice is for us, for our shake only.

The private Mass is a compromise, so priest on that time were able to make their living by offering masses for the stipend. As a compromise the private Mass supposes the presence of the whole Church. Try to read carefully the Ordo of the Mass, and count how many times the whole Church is invoked. 

You are not competent to cry heresy.
Reply
#22
(10-17-2010, 06:22 AM)glgas Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 02:14 AM)charlesh Wrote:
glgas Wrote:And if you think it over the sacrifice is for us, so our gathering is necessary.
Explicit and unequivocal heresy. Only the priest's presence is necessary for the sacrifice to be enacted. Gigas, I'm beginning to think there's a devout Lutheran behind that screen.

Did you ever prayed the Nicene Creed: Qui propter nos homines and propter nostram salutem descendit the caelis.

Also take some time and find out that in the Canon of the Mass (which according to the XIX Ecumenical council has no error in it) how many times do you find 'ego' (singular first person) and how many times the plural first person?

The sacrifice of the mass is for us. God does not need any sacrifice, we are not good enough to hurt him or even just annoy Him so that should ha expiated. The sacrifice is for us, for our shake only.

The private Mass is a compromise, so priest on that time were able to make their living by offering masses for the stipend. As a compromise the private Mass supposes the presence of the whole Church. Try to read carefully the Ordo of the Mass, and count how many times the whole Church is invoked. 

You are not competent to cry heresy.


From Trent:

CHAPTER VI.
On Mass wherein the priest alone communicates.

The sacred and holy Synod would fain indeed that, at each mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most holy sacrifice: but not therefore, if this be not always done, does It condemn, as private and unlawful, but approves of and therefore commends,  those masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally; since those masses also ought to be considered as truly common; partly because the people communicate spiritually thereat; partly also because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only, but for all the faithful, who belong to the body of Christ.


CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
Reply
#23
Exactly this is my thesis. The Mass by its nature is the action of the Church gathered together, but as compromise the private mass is legal and can be recommended. The invocation of the numerous Triumphant Church makes it communal action. The priest is not alone offering the Mass. The priest alone in the document below does not excludes that invocation of the Triumphant Church, the same XIX Ecumenical council declared that there is not error in the Roman Canon

Your answer missing to refer to this invocations of the Church is the proof, that traditionalist quoting passages of the Tradition ad libitum, are not better than Protestant quoting ad libitum the Scriptures. We need the teaching authority: pope, bishops, pastors with jurisdiction to be guided to the truth.


(10-17-2010, 06:47 AM)Stubborn Wrote: From Trent:

CHAPTER VI.
On Mass wherein the priest alone communicates.

The sacred and holy Synod would fain indeed that, at each mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most holy sacrifice: but not therefore, if this be not always done, does It condemn, as private and unlawful, but approves of and therefore commends,  those masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally; since those masses also ought to be considered as truly common; partly because the people communicate spiritually thereat; partly also because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only, but for all the faithful, who belong to the body of Christ.


CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
Reply
#24
(10-17-2010, 08:17 AM)glgas Wrote: Exactly this is my thesis. The Mass by its nature is the action of the Church gathered together, but as compromise the private mass is legal and can be recommended. The invocation of the numerous Triumphant Church makes it communal action. The priest is not alone offering the Mass. The priest alone in the document below does not excludes that invocation of the Triumphant Church, the same XIX Ecumenical council declared that there is not error in the Roman Canon

Your answer missing to refer to this invocations of the Church is the proof, that traditionalist quoting passages of the Tradition ad libitum, are not better than Protestant quoting ad libitum the Scriptures. We need the teaching authority: pope, bishops, pastors with jurisdiction to be guided to the truth.

Sorry glgas, it means what it says. Namely, the Mass is a Sacrifice, not a meal, and the Priest alone celebrating the Holy Sacrifice is not a compromise, it's commendable.

The teaching authority of the Church has spoken and taught that the Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice until the New Rite replaced that Propitiatory Sacrifice. As such, it is no longer a Propitiatory Sacrifice at all because these days it seems to need new and different explanations as just what the heck it is.

Reply
#25
(10-17-2010, 08:40 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Sorry glgas, it means what it says. Namely, the Mass is a Sacrifice, not a meal, and the Priest alone celebrating the Holy Sacrifice is not a compromise, it's commendable.

The teaching authority of the Church has spoken and taught that the Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice until the New Rite replaced that Propitiatory Sacrifice. As such, it is no longer a Propitiatory Sacrifice at all because these days it seems to need new and different explanations as just what the heck it is.

Please try to start to think:

1./ As for meal, Jesus commanded to eat his body and drink his blood. The priest reads this command in every Mass. John is more strict:
John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

2./ Propitiation is to get the benevolence, and the XIX Ecumenical council clearly declared that it means that the Mass can be offered for living and dead and the priest can get money for it.

As the traditional sacrifice (for the pagan gods and in the Old Testament) was connected with meal, so is Jesus sacrifice.

The Mass has multiple end, it is gathering, learning, offering, sacrificing, eating, sending. Some verbs have different actors (we gather, we learn, the priest offer, Jesus sacrifices, we men eat, the Church send) but you cannot deny any of this verbs as part of the Mass without deceiving yourself.

The rubrics strictly prescribe that if the priest makes the consecration than he is incapacitated, then an other priest shall finish the mass and consume the consecrated bread and wine. The Mass is meal

Please sit down and think. Do not make irresponsible statements, those just prove that you are not qualified to discuss such things.




Reply
#26
It is you who says Exactly this is my thesis - all I can say is you need to learn what the Church teaches so that your thesis can agree with the Church's.
Reply
#27
It seems once again we have little but extreme positions (and a lot of unrelated chatter).

The Mass is and has always been both a SACRFICE AND A MEAL.  This should be clear from nothing but the nature of all of God's (Old Testament) Covenants: in every sacrificial covenant the VICTIM IS EATEN.

It should also be clear from the fact that the Mass was instituted at THE LAST SUPPER.

So, it is a sacrifice and a meal, but first and foremost a sacrifice because *the sacrifice contains the meal*!  The meal is simply the conclusion of the sacrifice.

This exegesis is largely taken from John Salza's excellent The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist.  It is the implicit and explicit teaching of the Church.

glgas, as a homework assignment perhaps you could show us excerpts from Church documents stating these things.

I would like to post some passages from Scripture and the book and will when I get the time.  However, frankly, the line of reasoning posted above is very simple and, I think, air-tight.
Reply
#28
As a follow-up, I personally think that the new rite, in Latin with Canon 1, does perhaps downplay the sacrificial aspect.  However, that's partly just because it's *shorter*.  I would want to read it again side by side with the Tridentine because it's been a while. 

However, the Mass English-speaking people know, the ICEL how it is typically said, downplays the sacrificial element so much that essentially nobody who doesn't already understand it would learn it from the Mass.  It's extremely subtle.  That's real bad.  That explains why 50% of American Catholics do not understand or believe in the Real Presence.
Reply
#29
(10-16-2010, 10:07 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: We know that the Mass is validly seen as both a Sacrifice (the making-present of Calvary) and a meal.  I have heard the argument made that while the Novus Ordo rite does shift the emphasis slightly from sacrifice to meal, this is entirely valid because the Mass indeed is both (Eucharist does mean "thanksgiving", of course, after all).

Can someone point me to any references from councils or popes stating that actually the Mass is primarily the Sacrifice and that this aspect is more important than the meal aspect and should be emphasized as such?

The Holy Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice. I think we should be careful about distinguishing one element from the other, keeping in mind that they cannot be entirely separated (not that I think anyone is trying to do that, of course). Having said that, I am not aware of any magisterial document which states that the sacrificial aspect has primacy over the sacramental aspect (in fact, the decree on the Holy Eucharist was published before the decree on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, if that is of any importance). I wonder if Mediator Dei touches upon the subject in any way...  :hmmm:

I think the best way to show the primacy of the sacrificial nature of the Holy Eucharist over its sacramental nature would be by way of a reasoned argument. Man was created to show forth the glory of God and to attain eternal beatitude. Giving glory to God has a certain primacy over attaining eternal beatitude, because all men give Him glory by their very existence, whereas not all men attain eternal beatitude (the first end of man is always achieved, regardless of his eternal fate, whereas the second end is not obtained by all men). Indeed, even the souls in hell give God glory, attesting to His justice. Following this principle, it would seem that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the chief purpose of which is to adore God, therefore has a primacy over Holy Communion, whereby we receive an increase in grace, necessary for the attainment of eternal life.
Reply
#30
All I can say for sure is that prior to the NO, the Mass was known as the Holy Sacrifice, it most assuredly was never known as a meal by any stretch of the imagination.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)