Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

Archdiocese of NY ^ | unknown | John Cardinal O'Connor

[VermiciousKnid]

Sadly, our parish, and those other parishes nearby never EVER mention "the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" anymore.

No, instead we have only "liturgy" and "community meal."

FYI, my grandmother passed away last week. She was a Lutheran. It would be the very first time I had ever gone to a Lutheran church. When we went into the sancuary for her funeral, we were all amazed at how very...CATHOLIC it seemed. In fact, it was far more "Catholic" than our Catholic churches. No tabernacle, no stations of the cross, and there was a cross above the altar instead of a crucifix -- but hey, the Catholic church we attend has the tabernacle all the way over to the side where you can't even see it and the "crucifix" is one of those "Risen Lord" ones.

As for the service itself, well, the minister rightfully did not have a communion service as no one in the congregation would have been able to receive it, but by golly, the funeral was dignified, it was spiritual, and the organist even played "Ave Maria" for us. There were no felt banners, and the minister wore BLACK vestments. Oh, and they had an altar rail, too.

The universal opinion of all who were in attendance was that "gee, this church is like our church USED to be."

How sad it THAT?

Regards,

[8mmMauser]

NYer, Thank you for this important post.

narses, I pocketed your post #33 as a handy-dandy guide to help answer some questions from our protestant friends, my own intellectual shortcomings fail to match.

Canticle_of_Deborah. You got 'em pegged. What an excellent example we have seen of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Rogator, I try to imagine the enormous pride I would need to truly believe my interpretations supercede those of all the scholars and theologians and Saints who have gone before us, or even some freepers lurking here. We know what pride does.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Michael,

For your benefit I will break down the Apologetics lesson, since I am assumming you won't read it all too carefully, and I will refrain from using any non-scriptural references, since as we all know, no one can have anything good to say about scripture (except for Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, etc) [sarcasm].

Luke 22:19-20 -- "Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This IS my body, which will be given for you; DO THIS in memory of me.' And likewise the cup after they had eaten saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.'"

Pretty explicit, THIS IS MY BODY, DO THIS. Sounds like Commands to me, though I realize my interpretation of scripture is not as sound as yours because it has been corrupted by the cult of Popery.

Mark 14: 22-24 -- "While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take it; this IS my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, 'This IS my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.'"

Again, pretty clear, THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD. Not only is it His Body and Blood, it is His Body and Blood of the sacrifice, I assume here he is refering to His sacrifice upon Calvary. (Matthew repeats Mark and Luke).

Still wondering where the command to Eat His flesh is?

John 6:51 -- "I am the living bread that camedown from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

So we have to Eat His Body, that is the Bread of Life and the Bread of Life is the flesh given for the life of the world, sounds like transubstantion to me.

He continues, John 6:53-56 -- "Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

I'll let scripture speak for itself, you'll like that or not, when you realize that is what the Sacrifice of Mass is.

Malachi 1:11 -- "For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offeringl For great is my name among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts."

Hmm, well, the sacrifice being referred to here is definitly not the Temple Sacrifices being performed by the Gentiles, but a New Sacrifice being performed by the Gentiles.

The Early Church Fathers, usually claimed by Protestants as their own and it was only the evil corrupting Medieval Church that led things astray, support Transubstantion and the idea of the Sacrifice of Mass.

Anyway, that is a short summary of a few of the scriptural reasoning behind the Sacrifice of Mass, I invite you to actually read the whole article and then, point by point refute all he has to say, I imagine you will fail quite miserably.

Well, I am off to Sunday School, gotta teach more cultish "Papists" the intricacies of our Romanish Cult. [sarcasm}

My regards. God Bless

[narses]

You ignore the enormous Biblical documentation in post 33 and others here. Why?

[man of Yosemite]

If some Catholic churches allow priests to be married, this is a good thing, but the first I've heard of it. I know a former Jesuit priest who became married and had to leave his order; a real shame since the man is such a devout and obedient servant of Christ. He is in a Foursquare Church now and continues missions trips to instruct new missionaries on how to win groups that have no gospel. He and his wive are wonderful people. I think the "no marriage" rule is tremendously damaging to the church.

[OMalley]

**In doing so, GOD will not burden nor confuse you with human "interpretations". Instead, He will guide you into His pure unalloyed undistorted Truths.**

Well you still dont get it, but anyways....

On these threads Ive asked how do ppl know they have the right Holy Spirit and noone has answered.

Everyone claims they are in the church they are in, that thier intepretations of Scripture and or doctrine are from the HS, but how can all be right?

The Holy spirit isnt going to go around telling everyone a different interpretation or a different doctrine. Can you tell me, how do you know, for sure, you have the "right" one and that everyone else does not.

You keep saying the Holy Spirit will guide, but you know the HS guided me to the Catholic Church.

Since you like to do long posts I would like you to explain the elect...verses and all. Explain to me, if only the "elect" make it, why Christ died for ALL.

If it was only the elect, preordained from the begining of time that are saved, Christ didnt need to sacrafice his life for all sinners. God simply could have saved them from the begining of time all by himself because he willed it.

How it is that God gets pleasure for tormenting souls. How some here claim that those who are raped, murdered, tortured, whatever, were done so by the will of God, for his good pleasure.
Explain those, because how it comes across to me is that God get some pleasure from these things, that God wills evil upon ppl. that every awful thing that happens in our lives is done to us by God, the elect and the non elect

It would appear that if hell is only an absence of that kind of love, it couldnt be all bad(That is only said to make a point)dont read anything into it.

While I know we have many sincere believers here on FR and Ive found most to be loving and kind, sometimes posts come across differently, not only to us debating, but those searching on the other end. Perhaps your answering my questions can clarify things for not only myself, but those unseen as well.

These past 2 weeks has had some interesting (to put it mildly) threads and comments and I apoligize to others if this seems harsh, but Im beside myself:(

Blessings,
O'Malley

[NYer]

"The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints.  When, then, we see so much help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church?  For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority." - St. Augustine of Hippo ("The Advantage of Believing" 4th century A.D.)

---

AUTHORITY - Should the Bible be the final authority of Christianity or the Church?   Well, Christ stated that the Church, NOT Scripture should be the final authority:   "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17)  Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction.  He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.  In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, NOT Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)  Since the Church alone is mentioned as THE pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture.   For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be EXACTLY THE SAME as there can only be ONE spiritual truth for the plural of the word "truth" NEVER appears in Scripture.  The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has no spot, wrinkle or blemish (Ephesians 5:27).  Christ also stated that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error?  Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both weeds and wheat (Matthew 13:30).

ORGANIZATION - Is the Church to be a loose conglomerate of believers or is it to be organized and structured?  Scripture CLEARLY established "offices" and a "hierarchy" among Christians.  The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7).   What else is this but "organization?"  Or should we believe that any believer can "claim" to be a bishop, priest, deacon or even "apostle?"   The word "office" is specifically used in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1) to describe these positions.  Webster defines "office" as "A special duty, trust, charge, or position, conferred by authority or God and for a public purpose; a position of trust or authority."  And the office of "apostle" is to be continued (Acts 1:20-26) to the present day.  Not all believers are "equal" nor have the same gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10; Ephesians 4:11).   Is the Church a "visible, earthly" entity?  Yes, for Christ would not direct us to the Church for disputes if it were not here on Earth (Matthew 18:17).   Nor would "fear" encompass the whole Church if it were a mystical, invisible and heavenly entity (Acts 5:11).  The Church is definitely here on earth for the actions described in Acts definitely take place on earth and the term used is "the whole Church" (Acts 15:22).

HEAD OF THE CHURCH - Is there to be a visible "head" of the Church here on earth?  Well, as I established under the heading of "Organization," not all believers are to have the same authority or equality within the Church.  Did the Apostles have the EXACT SAME authority amongst themselves.  NO, they did not.   For it was St. Peter alone that was the "rock" upon which Christ established His Church (Matthew 16:18).  And it was St. Peter alone that was given the task of "feeding" Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17).   Scripture clearly points out St. Peter as Christ's representative on earth.  Christ did not ask the other Eleven to feed and tend His sheep.  If you read The Acts Of The Apostles, it is clear that St. Peter leads the Apostles.  Therefore, since the Apostles are to be replaced as they die (Acts 1:20-26), then it follows that whoever succeed(s) St. Peter is leader of the Church.  There is only to be one shepherd of the Church (John 10:16).  For the Apostles did not argue amongst themselves whether there was a "greatest" at all, but who amongst them was THE greatest (Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46).

ONE CHURCH - Is there to be only one Church or many?  According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23).  We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5).  There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.  For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many.  Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (the sin of polygamy)?  NO, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).

In conclusion, Scripture is pretty straightforward about the Church's role in salvation, Its authority and Its organization.  It's all a matter of deductive reasoning, correct interpretation and pure logic.

[NYer]

She was a Lutheran. It would be the very first time I had ever gone to a Lutheran church. When we went into the sancuary for her funeral, we were all amazed at how very...CATHOLIC it seemed. In fact, it was far more "Catholic" than our Catholic churches. No tabernacle, no stations of the cross, and there was a cross above the altar instead of a crucifix -- but hey, the Catholic church we attend has the tabernacle all the way over to the side where you can't even see it and the "crucifix" is one of those "Risen Lord" ones.

I am sorry about the loss of your grandmother. My grandmother died last year; like yours, she too was a Lutheran. She was not a church goer but my father wanted the presence of a Lutheran minister at her wake. The funeral director asked us which Lutheran denomination ... huh? There are several. Your grandmother's minister was one of the more conservative ones.

As for the Risen Christ statue, like you, my parish has one as well. The only crucifix at mass is the processional cross ... WHEN it is carried in. It has bothered me terribly for so long that I brought it to the confessional last week. The old priest helped me refocus my attention on the Sacrifice of the Mass.

I STRONGLY urge you to pick up a copy of Scott Hahn's book The Lamb's Supper and read it. Scott Hahn is a protestant convert to catholicism. He "gets"it. Let me quote you a section. Here he is describing the first mass he attended.

"There I stood, a man incognito, a Protestant minister in plainclothers, slipping into the back of a Catholic chapel in Milwaukee to witness my first Mass. Curiosity had driven me there, and I still didn't feel sure that it was healthy curiosity. Studying the writings of the earliest Christians, I'd found countless references to "the liturgy," "the Eucharist," "the sacrifice." For those first Christians, the Bible - the book I loved above all - was incomprehensible apart from the event that today's Catholics called "the Mass."

"I wanted to understand the early Christians; yet I'd had no experience of liturgy. So I persuaded myself to go and see, as a sort of academic exercise, but vowing all along that I would neither kneel nor take part in idolatry." I took my seat in the shadows, in a pew at the very back of that basement chapel. Before me were a goodly number of worshipers, men and women of all ages. Their genuflections impressed me, as did their apparent concentration in prayer. Then a bell rang, and they all stood as the priest emerged from a door beside the altar.

Unsure of myself, I remained seated. For years, as an evangelical Calvinist, I'd been trained to believe that the Mass was the ultimate sacrilege a human could commit. The Mass, I had been taught, was a ritural that purported to "resacrifice Jesus Christ." So I would remain an observer. I would stay seated, with my Bible open beside me.

As the Mass moved on, however, something hit me. My Bible wasn't just beside me. It was before me - in the words of the Mass! One line was from Isaiah, another from Psalms, another from Paul. The experience was overwhelming. I wanted to stop everything and shout, "Hey, can I explain what's happening from Scripture? This is great!" Still, I maintained my observer status. I remained on the sidelines until I heard the priest pronounce the words of consecration: "This is My body . . . This is the cup of My blood."

Then I felt all my doubt drain away. As I saw the priest raise that white host, I felt a prayer surge from my heart in a whisper: "My Lord and my God. That's really you!" I was what you might call a basket case from that point. I couldn't imagine a greater excitement than what those words had worked upon me. Yet the experience was intensified just a moment later, when I heard the congregation recite: "Lamb of God . . . Lamb of God . . . Lamb of God," and the priest respond, "This is the Lamb of God . . ." as he raised the host.

In less than a minute, the phrase "Lamb of God" had rung out four times. From long years of studying the Bible, I immediately knew where I was. I was in the Book of Revelation, where Jesus is called the Lamb no less than twenty-eight times in twenty-two chapters. I was at the marriage feast that John describes at the end of that very last book of the Bible. I was before the throne of heaven, where Jesus is hailed forever as the Lamb. I wasn't ready for this, though - I was at Mass!

* * * * *

Also, take a moment to visit this link. It is to Marcus Grodi's program on EWTN - "The Journey Home". If you have never watched this show, then you have missed out on some truly inspirational stories from converts. Nearly ALL of Grodi's guests are former protestant ministers. In trying to disprove the Catholic Church, they usually discover the truth. Once they have done that, they are left with no alternative than to convert.

The first Real Audio selection is from last week's interview with a former Lutheran minister. Perhaps this will enable you to better understand the falacy in their teaching.

JOURNEY HOME

[OMalley]

The lambs supper was an awesome book!

[St.Chuck]

Any person or group or organisation which considers itself to be superior to the Scriptures or in authority over GOD's Scriptures thereby shows itself to be a cult and is thus alienated from GOD,

What scripture verse would support that statement?

[NYer]

Any person or group or organisation which considers itself to be superior to the Scriptures or in authority over GOD's Scriptures thereby shows itself to be a cult and is thus alienated from GOD,

This assertion requires a scriptural justification. Where in scripture is this written?

No. the text of 1 Timothy 3:15 does not support your personal opinion. AS explained, this verse of Scripture states that the church is to support the Truth but not to originate it. The Truth which all local churches are to uphold, to proclaim in life and word, and to protect is none other than the Truth which GOD has spoken by His prophets and apostles and which He has transmitted to them and to His elect people through the Holy Spirit of GOD.

If that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?

Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. If one were to put two persons of the same non-Catholic Christian denomination in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to interpret the entire Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes."

[narses]

Objective study of the Scriptures will of course be very difficult for most Roman-catholic people because they are intensively conditioned by ideological indoctrination.

So rather than address the scripture I posted you attack Roman Catholics. How "christian" of you.

[narses]

You might want to study the issue before declaiming upon it. Priests cannot marry. Married men can, under certain circumstances, be ordained. Having been ordained, they cannot remarry.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Ahhh, I see.

So only your Bible Interpretations are free from error. My most grievous fault, in thinking that oh, well, fifteen hundred years of consistent interpretation superseded your infinite authority. Get off your high chair buddy. Answer the bloody question. Answer the actual documentation in 33. If it is so scewed, should be easy to debunk. THen again, your fear of answering it, and insistence on ignoring it, would seem to me, to be rather incontrovertible evidence that your "theory" is wrong and what is contained in 33 is right.

Good Bye.

God Bless

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Very nice Michael. So we have been indoctrinated by the Church. Seems you have been indoctrinated by the Sola Fidelis, Sola Scriptura crowd. We've seen how that works out for the Protestant denominations, there are now more denominations than I or you can count. Yep, perfect, unquestioned interpretation when one uses only scripture and nothing else.

God Bless