I would say Pope John Paul the Great is acting perfectly in line with Tradition.
Posted on 11/19/2004 7:04:45 PM PST by ultima ratio
I've answered your question. The liturgy is an action, not a matter of isolated phrases open to disparate interpretations. It is by the constant repetition of our sinfulness and dread of just punishment, the constant repetition of our need for intercession, the constant kneeling and signings of the cross, the constant references to Christ's propitiatory victimhood, the constant effort to make manifest the sacred mystery of Transubstantiation, that constitutes a truly Catholic Mass. The Novus Ordo moves in another direction, deliberately resembling a Protestant memorial meal with Communion itself, rather than immolation following Consecration, as its climax. This is why Ratzinger admits a sizable party of Liturgists agrees with Luther, not with Trent. This is the crux of the issue--and the reason for the fierce theological opposition to the '62 missal and to Catholic Tradition in general. The desire is to erase the dogmatic distinctions between Protestants and Catholics, not to underscore these differences.
"The Sacrament of the Mass is neither lost nor misplaced."
Even the Vatican admits than many modern-day "masses" are completely invalid. Even in those newchurch places where the Holy Sacrifice is indeed offered, sacrilege abounds - Communion in the hand, the Precious Blood thrown down the drain etc. etc. etc.
The safest option is to frequent a traditional Catholic Church - and pray unceasingly that many others find their way too.
I am also a convert and want an apology.
What are the disparate interpretations of those statements I quoted? How can they be understood in the sense of only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving? Really, I'm at a loss as to how you can think that a "chalice of everlasting salvation" and an "immaculate victim" = offering of praise and thanksgiving only.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Basil took part in sacrilege?
That statement was referring to self-communication. Here is an excerpt from Basil's letter 93, dealing with self-communication. He justifies the practice by pointing out that it was widely considered acceptable to touch the communion: it was received on the hand in Church and reserved for private communion in homes.
It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.
Anyway i thought the Vatican condemned communion in the hand.
Not as always wrong, no.
regardless, it is more respectable and safer for the communion not to be done in hand. The letter posted refers to situations involving areas in persecution and with no priest with exception to the bottom half
Please read it again. I think you are confusing the two issues - self-communication with no priest available and communion on the hand. Note that he says that communion on the hand is received in the church - now there was certainly a priest in the church, and persecution does not give any reason to receive communion on the hand instead of on the tongue when there is a minister to give it.
I was only refering to the top part. Am i still reading it wrong?
I guess I was reading you wrong! Anyway, Basil clearly didn't think communion in the hand was sacrilegious.
How do these phrases intimate PROPITIATORY sacrifice? They in fact fit neatly into a Protestant theology--that of the Paschal Mystery which celebrates our transformation into the Body of Christ. Nobody disputes there was a divine Victim who is being memorialized, nor that Christ was the means to our salvation. What is disputed is that the Mass itself is here and now PROPITIATORY, intended to expiate humanity's offenses against the Father by a re-presentation of Calvary.
To quote the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received ... the death of Christ alone is truly a propitiatory sacrifice ... Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3, 1 f.; 7, 11 f.; Ps. 56, 12 f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. (Part 30)
Note the distinction made by the Protestants: Christ's sacrifice is propitiatory, all other sacrifices are sacrifices of praise. Now, to show that the sacrifice in the reformed rite is propitiatory, it's only necessary to show that it is the sacrifice of Christ. And the words themselves amply demonstrate this truth:
Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari, concede
"Look, we beg, on the oblation of your Church and, recognizing the Sacrificial Victim, by the immolation of whom you willed to be appeased, concede..."
Now, here it is clearly stated that the oblation offered is the "Sacrificial Victim, by the immolation of whom you willed to be appeased". This obviously refers to Christ. And as the sacrifice of the Mass is therefore shown to be the sacrifice of Christ, it is demonstrated to be propitiatory. The same may be shown from the other prayers - offering the Body and Blood of Christ to God cannot be only a sacrifice of praise (the notion is absurd).
The same theology is found in the General Instruction:
Offering: By which, in this very memorial, the Church—and in particular the Church here and now gathered—offers in the Holy Spirit the spotless Victim to the Father. (§79)
And in other documents of the postconciliar magisterium:
In the sacrifice of the Mass in fact, Christ offers Himself for the salvation of the entire world. (Eucharisticum Mysterium, 18)
This is from the letters of your court jester, Richard Williamson.
"Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari, concede"
Where, pray tell, are these words found in the New Mass?
"Now, to show that the sacrifice in the reformed rite is propitiatory, it's only necessary to show that it is the sacrifice of Christ"
Not true. It is necessary to show it is a true re-presentation of Calvary and not a mere memorial meal--which was condemned by Trent. The New Mass deliberately fails to make this distinction clear, having a vested interest in deliberate ambiguity.
More silliness on your part. How many times are you going to post Williamson's dumb comment? As if this proved anything except that Williamson can be clueless at times. But at least he doesn't cover up for perverts--or deny the faith openly--like so many of your friends in the Novus Ordo Church.
Every time some SSPXer pokes fun at the Pope.
There's lots of other "dumb" quotes from Williamson.
Maybe I'll vary them.
Well, then, you should do as I do. I ADMIT Williamson has said and done some foolish things. Why not admit the same about the Pope?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.