Posted on 11/26/2008 4:35:17 PM PST by NYer
ROME, NOV. 11, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: Could you succinctly state the relationship between the importance of the Eucharist versus the Word of God in the liturgy of the Mass? I was on a Eucharistic retreat with a group of Catholics, when the leader of our group said that we as Catholics believe that the Word of God is as important as the Eucharist. I have always been taught that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, but after she said this I did some research into adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the Word of God, and it seemed that there was more than a little validity to her statement since the "Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us" ... and God speaks to us though his inspired Word, etc. Please clarify this. -- N.C., Cleveland, Ohio
A: I would like to begin this answer by recalling a conversation I had during my seminary years with an elderly Catholic layman while on vacation in upstate New York. This wise gentleman, of Lithuanian descent, rented canoes in the Adirondacks and often dealt with evangelical Christians who tried to win him over by saying they had the Good Book. He replied that as a Catholic he not only had the Book but moreover frequently met the Author.
Although one might discuss the theological precision of the anecdote, it does reflect a fundamental truth with respect to the different forms in which Christ is present to us. God certainly speaks to us through his inspired Word, and the Church teaches that he is present when the Scriptures are read. This presence, however, as Pope Paul VI teaches in his encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" is a real but transitory presence enduring while the liturgical reading lasts. It is, therefore, not of the same class as the substantial real presence found in the Eucharist.
From another angle we can also consider how Scripture is fulfilled in Eucharistic worship.
"The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us" this is the foundation of our faith. However, the same Word who took flesh in Mary's womb, who died, rose and ascended, is the same one who said, "This is my body … this is my blood," and is thus present body, soul and divinity under the species of bread and wine. In every Eucharistic celebration the entire mystery of Christ from the incarnation to the ascension is truly made present anew, albeit under the veil of sign and symbol.
From this perspective the Eucharist is thus "more important" than Scripture because Scripture's ultimate goal is to lead us to union with Christ through full participation in the Mass. The Mass is a sharing in the worship which the Incarnate Word offers to the Father in the Holy Spirit.
Yet, from a different perspective and precisely in the context of the Mass, the question as to the relative importance of Scripture vis-[-vis the Eucharist is relatively meaningless.
In every Mass we are like the disciples going to Emmaus, except we already know that Christ is present among us. Like them, our hearts should burn as we listen to Moses, the prophets and the New Covenant as they speak about Christ. At the same time we are aware that in the end we will recognize him only in the breaking of bread.
Therefore it is not a question of the superiority of one over the other but of an inseparable interrelationship and ordering of one toward the other. Precisely because Scripture is ordered toward Eucharistic worship, the celebration's external form necessarily follows the road to Emmaus. All the historical evidence available shows us that the celebration of the Word and the Eucharist have always formed a single act of worship. Likewise, Scripture is so intimately intertwined within the fabric of every single prayer that we can say that without Scripture there could be no Catholic liturgy.
Conversely, and from a historical perspective it is also partially true that without liturgy there would be no Scripture, for one of the major criteria for determining which books eventually made it into the biblical canon was whether the book was read in the liturgical assembly.
Therefore the contraposition of Word and Eucharist does not correspond to an authentically Catholic vision of their intimate relationship.
It is true that, historically, Catholics have not been assiduous Bible readers. During the greatest part of the Church's existence books were a luxury few could read and fewer could afford. The lack of direct Bible reading did not mean that there was total biblical illiteracy. Most Christians were imbued with biblical salvation history through church decorations in painting, sculpture and stained glass. The huge reredos enshrining the high altars of many cathedrals harmoniously wove in the stories of Genesis, kings, prophets, Jesus' ancestry and the principal events of the New Testament, while centering everything on the sacrifice of the altar. In this way they provided a visible scriptural background to Catholic worship.
In today's changed circumstances the Church actively encourages all Catholics to possess, read and meditate on the Good Book, while not forgetting to make frequent visits to the Author.
* * *
Follow-up: Missing or Faulty Forms of Absolution
In the wake of our Oct. 28 discussion of a priest not using a valid form of absolution, some readers suggested that I should have also dealt with the case where absolution is denied due to some defect or impediment on the part of the penitent.
Actually, in my earlier reply I deliberately omitted this very complex subject as it would have taken me away from the immediate question. I preferred to limit myself to the question at hand because it was clearly a case of lack of proper sacramental form by the priest and did not concern his being obliged to deny absolution.
It is, however, important to remember that there are times when a priest must necessarily deny absolution. This would be the case, for example, if it is clear that the penitent lacks contrition or is subject to excommunication or some similar censure. In such cases, the priest must, in conscience, inform the penitent why he is unable to grant absolution, and then tell the penitent what he or she needs to do to be absolved.
It would be a grave injustice toward God, the Church and the penitent himself to lead him to believe he has received absolution when in fact it could not be granted. If the priest also simulates the form of absolution while not actually giving it, then he commits a grave fault.
A reader from Singapore asked what the minimal formula for absolution was. St. Thomas Aquinas and the majority of classical theology manuals held that the nucleus of the formula was the expression "I absolve you." A few also sustained that the words "from your sins" were also necessary. All agreed that the Trinitarian invocation and the other prayers were not required for validity but were necessary for the sacrament's licit celebration in non-emergency situations.
Something similar could be said for elderly priests who never learned the new formula of absolution. Any absolution formula that was once officially approved would certainly be valid. They would probably also be licit if never formally abrogated.
* * *
Didn’t mean to. Apologies to XeniaSt if it came across that way. I used the information I found in his own profile.
And we all know that a significant and rudimentary part of the Church back then must have been Greeks and Greek speakers like Luke so that must have affected the topic at hand.
True believers pick and choose frequently. After we learn new Bible doctrine we are frequently tested to see if we remain in fellowship with Him by choosing and acting upon doctrine in our hearts, not merely our reason. There are deceivers who attempt to call their religious country clubs, 'The Church', demanding obedience to that counterfeit group acting independently of faith in Christ. The true believer picks and chooses what he discerns to be from God through faith in Christ.
The complete canon of Scripture is sufficient for every good work, not requiring extrabiblical tradition to perform good works.
Those who fail to pick and choose are still accountable for their cowardice and nonchalance, ignoring faith through Christ in favor of cultic assemblies and obedience to systems of idolatry.
And how does one recognize a "true" cherry-picking believer from an "untrue" one?
According to Mark (16:17), true believers will "cast out demons" with Jesus' name, and "speak with new tongues."
Likewise, there will be "signs" (16:18) of the believers to include picking up serpents, drinking any deadly poison without getting hurt, and curing the sick by laying hands on the them.
That sounds great, except (1) Mark's Great Commission does not even resemble Matthews' (who otherwise borrows from Mark not only verses but whole paragraphs verbatim!); when it comes to the Great Commission, the two are like night and day. (2) Many, more like all of them, who show these "signs" are clowns and impostors. And (3) that part of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) where these verses are found is missing from all older manuscripts and is a latter-day addition to the "word of God."
I think it is a fair assumption to say that the Greek Church understood her own scripture, in her own language, like no one else.
Every believer is indeed a priest to God, through our intercessor and High Priest Christ Jesus.
***”A Christian cannot pick and choose. Either he follows the commands of Christ including instructions as to the Church or he does not.”
True believers pick and choose frequently.***
Then what sets you guys apart from the Reformers, the JWs, or the Christian Scientists? They pick and choose at will, and seemingly at random in order to come up innovative theologies.
***’The Church’, demanding obedience to that counterfeit group acting independently of faith in Christ. The true believer picks and chooses what he discerns to be from God through faith in Christ.***
Lord save us all from the whims of men. Either you believe in the canon or you do not. The measure of Christianity is the adherence to the canon and to the Church’s teachings. Picking and choosing results in the creations of theologies of men.
Cause and effect are reversed. Instead of man being made in the image of God, the Reformed (and now the Judaizers if I understand your position as posted) have created their own little pocket God that they keep on the hall stand and rub His head for luck when they walk by.
Scripture says that we are made in the image of God. If you pick and choose Scripture to create your own theology, you are making God in the image of yourself.
***The complete canon of Scripture is sufficient for every good work, not requiring extrabiblical tradition to perform good works.
Those who fail to pick and choose are still accountable for their cowardice and nonchalance, ignoring faith through Christ in favor of cultic assemblies and obedience to systems of idolatry.***
Those who pick and choose are deliberately jettisoning the word of God without authority. I believe that there is a verse in Revelation that addresses that.
***But the Gospels were written in Greek, most probably by Greeks, and definitely for Greeks.
I think it is a fair assumption to say that the Greek Church understood her own scripture, in her own language, like no one else. ***
That is something that the Judaizers (and indeed the children of the Reformation) have seemingly never understood. And any attempt to include the Septuagint (the OT of Jesus and the Apostles) which was written in Greek falls upon either deaf ears or hostile ones.
The Greeks were the receptors of the NT, just as the Jews were the receptors of the OT. Does that not seem as if God switched horses in mid stream?
Apologies; I meant to include Xenia.
2Ti 3:16-17
(16) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
I am aware of what those verses say. What they DON'T say is what is scriputre. Obviously, "scriputre" is many things to many people of different tradition.
Wrong. Jesus Christ never taught that.
You're a funny guy. Of course Christ didn't exalt Himself. God the Father anointed Him as the High Priest. he was also glorified as such by the Apostles. Peter did,
1Pe 2:3-7 (3) If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. (4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, (5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
Also in Hebrews
Heb 5:1-6 (1) For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: (2) Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. (3) And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. (4) And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. (5) So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. (6) As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
Heb 7:25 (25) Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
People like Paul are called Hellenic Jews.
***Every believer is indeed a priest to God, through our intercessor and High Priest Christ Jesus
Wrong. Jesus Christ never taught that.
You’re a funny guy. Of course Christ didn’t exalt Himself. God the Father anointed Him as the High Priest. he was also glorified as such by the Apostles. ***
I believe that Kosta’s point is that not every man is called to be a priest. Certainly not every man is one. It is easy to misinterpret the Gospels unless you follow exactly who Jesus is talking to in the various verses.
***The Greeks were the receptors of the NT, just as the Jews were the receptors of the OT. Does that not seem as if God switched horses in mid stream?
People like Paul are called Hellenic Jews.***
Jews who became Hellenized, or Greek-like. Does it not strike you as odd that even though Hebrew was the ancient language of the Jews, Aramaic was the language of the day in the whole area around Jerusalem; the best OT we have is the Septuagint (written in Greek), even though the earliest texts were written in Hebrew, and even though the Apostles and most of the disciples were Jewish, the OT (except for the first draft of Matthew, which we do not currently possess) was written entirely in Greek.
I agree with Kolo; the Greeks became the next chosen people because Israel kept rejecting God throughout the OT and they sure rejected Jesus. That state of choice was certainly not of the level of Israel, but still, one must consider that the best earliest Scripture we have is in Greek.
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.