Divine Mercy Chaplet and Offering the Divinity
#21
I agree Sacrifice is only offered to God. Trent expressly rejects the idea that the Holy Sacrifice is only that Christ is given to us to eat in Holy Communion. That's absolutely false. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the Propitiatory Sacrifice of His Body and His Blood that Jesus Christ Himself Sacrificed to the Father in the First Mass with His Apostles, Whom He made Priests, and then on the Altar of the Cross.

But the issue here is the spiritual sacrifice is offered only to the Eternal Father. So, isn't it clear that it's not a question of Christ offering Himself to us (which, at best, could be called "sacrifice", only in an analogous way, and perhaps not even that;Sacrifice, as we know, is offered only to God.), but of Christ through us offering Himself to the Father? St. Peter in the Bible tells us Catholics to often make spiritual sacrifices to God, as the Catechism of Trent explains: "Especially is this name given to the just who have the Spirit of God, and who, by the help of divine grace, have been made living members of the great High-Priest, Jesus Christ; for, enlightened by faith which is inflamed by charity, they offer up spiritual sacrifices to God on the altar of their hearts. Among such sacrifices must be reckoned every good and virtuous action done for the glory of God." Spiritual sacrifices of the Body and the Blood come under this.

Regarding, "the new and unique statement of offering the Divinity of Christ to the Father", doesn't Theology also teach only God could have redeemed us? That's Christ Blood made perfect Propitiation and complete Satisfaction for our sins precisely because He was God, and as no creature, even His Immaculate Mother, ever could? So how is it that in offering His Body and Blood to the Father, the Son did not also offer His Divinity and His Soul to the Eternal Father? I cannot think right now if there is any other prayer, Magister, that uses Divinity. I'll look it up later on.

We know the Council of Trent has taught the Eucharist is the whole Christ, "in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ" http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch13.htm

My argument, in brief, would be:

Major: It is good to perpetually offer as a spiritual sacrifice the Body and Blood of Jesus to the Eternal Father (as proven from St. Peter the Apostle in Scripture and the Catechism of Trent above)
Minor: But the Soul and Divinity of Christ are concomitantly present with His Body and His Blood; the whole Christ is offered to the Father in Sacrifice, as the price of the propitiation of our sins (only God, because of His Divinity, could redeem us and atone for our sins; thus it is important not only that Blood was Sacrifice to the Father, but that God the Son's Blood was Sacrificed, rather than that of a mere creature)
Conclusion: Therefore, it is good to perpetually offer as a spiritual sacrifice the Body and the Blood of Jesus, together with His Soul and His Divinity, to His Eternal Father and ours.

Your thoughts on that? God Bless.
Rosary Crusade to end Abortion: https://rosarycrusadingarmytoendabortion.home.blog/

"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your Most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/
Reply
#22
(02-05-2020, 05:27 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That is why I say there is a striking difference between offering to the Father "the Body, Blood, soul and Divinity" of Christ. This is, by definition to say, "I offer the Eucharist". The other prayers say I offer the Blood, or the Body, or the Wounds, or the Sufferings of Christ, all directly connected to the Passion, and so directly connected to the Sacrifice of Christ, and the essence of the Mass. The Eucharist is the effect and fruit of the Mass, and so theologically and philosophically this confuses cause and effect.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that everbecoming was onto something here, and there is a deeper problem that is not itself heretical, but certainly is tied to the confusion and ambiguity one sees in this New Theology and the Second Vatican Council.

Maybe I'm missing something here. I agree that the Divine Mercy prayer is meaning "the Eucharist" by "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity". But I don't see how this means a meal. If we're going to say a prayer about offering our Lord, as St Gertrude does with the Precious Blood, why would we not offer the Eucharist? It's obviously not in the same sense that the priest does, but that's an issue with either prayer.

I suppose I could see how someone who sees the Mass as primarily a meal would miss the connection to the Passion with the Divine Mercy Prayer, and if the objection is that the prayer doesn't explicitly mention the Passion, I could see that. But that's really a issue with the new Mass.
Reply
#23
(02-05-2020, 06:35 PM)Paul Wrote:
(02-05-2020, 05:27 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That is why I say there is a striking difference between offering to the Father "the Body, Blood, soul and Divinity" of Christ. This is, by definition to say, "I offer the Eucharist". The other prayers say I offer the Blood, or the Body, or the Wounds, or the Sufferings of Christ, all directly connected to the Passion, and so directly connected to the Sacrifice of Christ, and the essence of the Mass. The Eucharist is the effect and fruit of the Mass, and so theologically and philosophically this confuses cause and effect.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that everbecoming was onto something here, and there is a deeper problem that is not itself heretical, but certainly is tied to the confusion and ambiguity one sees in this New Theology and the Second Vatican Council.

Maybe I'm missing something here. I agree that the Divine Mercy prayer is meaning "the Eucharist" by "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity". But I don't see how this means a meal. If we're going to say a prayer about offering our Lord, as St Gertrude does with the Precious Blood, why would we not offer the Eucharist? It's obviously not in the same sense that the priest does, but that's an issue with either prayer.

I suppose I could see how someone who sees the Mass as primarily a meal would miss the connection to the Passion with the Divine Mercy Prayer, and if the objection is that the prayer doesn't explicitly mention the Passion, I could see that. But that's really a issue with the new Mass.

I agree it's an issue with the New Mass, but it seems that the theology behind this prayer matches that new idea.

I would note that an effect of that idea which seeks to remove the notion of the Mass being essentially the Sacrifice of the Cross and instead link the Mass with "The Lord's Supper" (with which it is not essentially identified), while preserving the real presence will suggest that the Sacrifice of the Mass is really Christ offering to us his Body and Blood, and not the immolation of Himself. So for them the Eucharist is the Sacrifrice, not the Mass. But that's false because by definition a Sacrifice is a thing which is offered to God alone in honor of his glory and sovereignty in which the thing is entirely set aside and changed, even destroyed. That is not the Eucharist itself which is the conjoined Sacramental presence and fruit of the Sacrifice, but the Body and Blood of Christ itself.

The Divine Mercy prayer, therefore, sounds very much like offering the Eucharist as if it were a Sacrifice, instead of the real Sacrifice of the Mass itself, which is the immolation of Christ offered to His Father, and not the Sacramental presence offered to us.

It is a subtle change and wrapped up in theology and philosophy, but to me the Divine Mercy prayer sounds more like this notion than the traditional notion, and the fact that I've seen no prayers, nor are familiar with any which offer the Eucharist to God the Father, or which offer the Divinity of the Son to the Father explicitly, suggests to me that the prayer embodies this new idea.

Truth be told there are other theological consequences, including the notion of "partial communion" and the idea of Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and the condemned Modernist heretic Henri de Lubac whose condemnation by Pius XII was removed by John XXIII that "The Eucharist makes the Church"—that it is the Eucharist, not the Baptismal Character which is the bond which joins Christians and makes a group of Christians a True Church. And thus, a valid Eucharist, which is what Christ sacrificed to us, is what makes a Church a True Church, and therefore the Orthodox and any Christians with valid Orders are True Churches, those without have only partial communion, and even non-Christians like Jews who accept some truths are also in partial Communion, and therefore do not need to convert.

The theology is consistent, is what I've saying, even if that's not the immediate thing one gets out of the prayer.

And maybe I'm making false connections here, but it makes sense in my head in thinking about these matters.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#24
(02-06-2020, 06:27 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I would note that an effect of that idea which seeks to remove the notion of the Mass being essentially the Sacrifice of the Cross and instead link the Mass with "The Lord's Supper" (with which it is not essentially identified), while preserving the real presence will suggest that the Sacrifice of the Mass is really Christ offering to us his Body and Blood, and not the immolation of Himself. So for them the Eucharist is the Sacrifrice, not the Mass. But that's false because by definition a Sacrifice is a thing which is offered to God alone in honor of his glory and sovereignty in which the thing is entirely set aside and changed, even destroyed. That is not the Eucharist itself which is the conjoined Sacramental presence and fruit of the Sacrifice, but the Body and Blood of Christ itself.

I think we're using terms differently here. By "Eucharist" I meant the consecrated bread and wine, that is, the Body and Blood of our Lord, that the priest offers at Mass, not just that which is distributed to the laity in the Sacrament of Communion. Maybe because I think of the Mass as the sacrifice of the Cross made present, I don't see a difference between offering the Eucharist, that is, the consecrated species, at Mass, and a layperson spiritually offering it (Him?) in the Divine Mercy prayer. Unless it's inappropriate for a lay person to do that, since we're not priests.

But I do agree that many Catholics today see the Mass as primarily a meal, as evidenced by the reactions of horror when you suggest that one not receive Communion because of potential mortal sin, or they question if they should go if they can't receive. That's all very much part of the new Mass, but what do you expect with receiving in the hand and reducing the fast to 'don't eat as you're walking to your pew'.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)