Jesuit article on how the Last Supper was not Mass
#1
What I have understood from Catholic teaching is that the Last Supper was the first Mass. This article written by Jesuits claims that the whole Paschal Mystery had to be revealed in order for it to be Mass. What do you guys have to say?

Also, I'm not sure about this either:
Quote:Side note: There has been a danger in post-Tridentine theology to speak of the Mass as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ.  But this interpretation both fails to take the book of Hebrews seriously and also misunderstands the Jewish concept of “remembrance,” azkarah.  Jewish remembrance does not mean that the past event is brought into the present and enacted again.  Rather, it means that those who partake in the ritual action are themselves re-presented to the past event.  At the Mass, the community of believers becomes present to the Paschal Mystery.  Christ is not re-offered or re-presented on the altar of the priest.  Rather, the believing community is re-presented to the sacrifice of Christ and, through the power of the Spirit, made part of that self-offering to the Father.  Side note over.

https://whosoeverdesires.wordpress.com/2...irst-mass/
Reply
#2
"Side note: There has been a danger in post-Tridentine theology to speak of the Mass as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ."

But that's...what it is... ???

Man. What's going on with the Jesuits?
Reply
#3
Quote:The Mass itself took a long time to develop, nor has there ever been one Mass.

In this line the author reveals what he really thinks of the Mass. Not that much, it seems.

But there is one passage that really got me thinking:

Quote:A Mass requires the Resurrection. It would only lead to heresy, in my opinion, to posit that when Jesus said at the Last Supper: “This is my body,” the bread became his body.  What body did it become?  His physical body?  That is heretical.  His resurrected body?  More likely… except the resurrection had not happened yet.  Catholic theology has always taken temporality and history very seriously, so I think it is important that we not think that Jesus could somehow offer himself to his disciples in his resurrected form before the resurrection had even taken place!

Was the Host which Jesus gave to His disciples:
1. His human body before the resurrection - or -
2. His resurrection body

If it was the resurrection body, how can this be if the resurrection hasn't happened yet? How would you answer this to an unbeliever? I honestly don't know what the official teaching is.

If forced to answer, I would maybe start ranting like this:

"The resurrection body wasn't something that would exist in the future, but it is eternal. An eternal being can enter into any time, be it future or past from our point of view.

Modern science showed that any object that could freely enter any point in space could equally traverse time. You know that scene when Jesus just appeared in the room after his resurrection? If he can to this, he could also manifest himself in the past.

Even if you suppose that his resurrection body is not eternal, but something that only existed in the future at the moment of the Last Supper, this doen't contradict any magisterial teaching. The only de fide teaching about a similar matter was that "Past events can't be changed" (My paraphrasing). This does not neccesarily imply that a present event (like the Last Supper) can't be influenced by a future event (Resurrection). It only says that once the event has past, it can't be changed post hoc. What are prophetic visions, after all, but future events who effect the present? According to modern quantum physics, particles can be directly influenced by particles in the future. And according to Thomas Aquinas, the true teaching about Christ can never contradict true observations about nature. So the future resurrection could theoretically have transsubstantiated the Host during the Last supper."
Reply
#4
(06-09-2017, 01:31 AM)In His Love Wrote: "Side note: There has been a danger in post-Tridentine theology to speak of the Mass as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ."

But that's...what it is... ???

Man. What's going on with the Jesuits?

I haven't read the article and don't really feel like doing so, but perhaps he means there is a danger in speaking of the Mass ONLY as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ (I'm feeling generous). While certainly the dominant understanding in the Western Church for a long time, that is not the only thing the Mass is. In the East, the Eucharistic Liturgy is thought of primarily as a sacrifice of thanksgiving rather than a propitiatory sacrifice, and as a timeless participation in the Heavenly Liturgy.

I think some well-intentioned people around Vatican II wanted the West to recover some of these Eastern ideas; the "sacrificial re-presentation" was thought to have become a bit exaggerated in the struggle against Protestantism. Whether that's true or not, there has been little sensible re-introduction of the Eastern ideas, and instead an iconoclastic approach to the Western patrimony took hold; the Jesuits have imbibed a heaping helping of this. Eastern ideas are often taken over out of context and really only as a way to reject or bash Western Catholicism.
Reply
#5
Let's face it. Most modern Jesuits have no idea what the Catholic Faith is, and make no pretense of holding it!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)