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.
* * *
***Correct. Theology is based on faith. Faith preceded scriputres. ***
Horrors. Do you mean that Abraham didn’t have a KJV tucked into his back pocket? Didn’t Melchizedek have an NIV hanging around his neck along with the sacred stones? Wasn’t a Gideon’s carried in a display case on top of the Ark?
I had a debate once with a conservative Church of Christ long term pastor in Texas once who, once he lost his temper, informed me that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for him and was sure to be good enough for me.
The CofC doesn’t teach history at all because theirs is woefully short and weak and they don’t want to admit the splits and doctrinal changes and they sure don’t want to admit that their theology was influenced by various apostates such as Sidney Rigdon who was a close friend of the Campbells and Walter Scott (who started the Disciples of Christ / Church of Christ movement along with Barton Stone) and who jumped ship and joined the LDS and largely wrote its theology under the direction of Joseph Smith.
In both these churches, scriptures preceded faith. In both these cases, God is the creation of the men who wrote Scripture (in the case of the LDS) or who interpreted it without the guidance of the Church.
he was also glorified as such by the Apostles.
When Christ resurrected he said they couldn't touch him because he wasn't glorified yet. So, when was he "glorified" by the Apostles? In Matthew 28:17 it says of the eleven disciples who received his Great Commission, some revered him, but others STILL doubted him as he was about to ascend through the clouds.
We are also told that not all are appointed in the Church to be apostles, prophets and teachers (1 Cor 12;28 and Eph 4:11). Paul calls himself a priest, but he doesn't call others priests. And Christ simply promised the apostles to be ones who will judge the 12 tribes of Israel with him.
By all accounts, 1 Peter was not written by Peter, but it does say very important things for the Church—it buries the hatchet between Paul and Peter, and that's what the Church Fathers liked about it. It was an important and necessary piece of writing that would health their rift.
Even if Peter did write it, Peter is no Christ.
He was begotten eternally, before ages, in his divine nature and he was conceived at the Annunciation in his human nature, and was brought forth by the Virgin.
If Hebrews is correct and God had begotten Jesus as his Son on the day he was baptized, that means Jesus was not the son of God until that day; this is an ancient heresy known as Adoptionism and it's right in the New Testament!
Bottom line is: the Church never taught that God the Father had begotten Jesus on the day when he was baptized. We can argue why this is so, but obviously that part is not what the Church believed or else it would have taught it. Obviously, the Church kept the whole book of Hebrews because it contained some "stuff" the Church deemed necessary for us to know.
I see, so the Church really isn't built upon Peter or his successors.
Still, Blessed Peter is no Christ.
Does anyone "get" what they may be referring to? Some of the other points of their's though are relatively easy to decipher.
***Still, Blessed Peter is no Christ.***
You cannot possibly mean that some verses in the Bible are more important than other verses...
Well, we must remember that many Jews in the early Church were Greek-speakers, like St. Stephen. Palestine was a multilingual region. And Paul’s first missions were to the Greek Disapora. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern med and Paul had a great advantage in knowing Greek as well as Aramaic and Hebrew. Culturally as well as legally he was a citizen of the Empire. Furthermore, as Paul Johnson surmises, many Jews assimilated into Graeco-Roman culture by joining the Church, especially after the Jewish community narrowed its cultural horizons after the devastating Jewish Wars.
Moi?
***You cannot possibly mean that some verses in the Bible are more important than other verses...
Moi?***
Vous êtes un fauteur de troubles.
The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church’s history. — Pope John Paul II
The faith of those who live their faith is a serene faith. What you long for will be given you; what you love will be yours for ever. Since it is by giving alms that everything is pure for you, you will also receive that blessing which is promised next by the Lord: the Godhead that no man has been able to see. In the inexpressible joy of this eternal vision, human nature will possess what eye has not seen or ear heard, what man’s heart has never conceived. — Pope St. Leo the Great
Charity unites us to God... There is nothing mean in charity, nothing arrogant. Charity knows no schism, does not rebel, does all things in concord. In charity all the elect of God have been made perfect. — Pope St. Clement I
To love God is something greater than to know Him. — St. Thomas Aquinas
I don’t believe that the Latins are lost.
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.