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.
* * *
They certainly did NOT...Marty Luther based his German translation of the Scriptures on an entirely different set of manuscripts than those used by your church...
the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17).
There you go with your private interpretation that God warns about...The 'church is not the pillar and ground of the truth...God is...
Your church is permeated with unbelievers as all churches are...God is not foolish enough to trust anyone in your church or mine, with His infallible Truth...The Apostle Paul warned about your bunch in the Scriptures...
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
The Scriptures that you so demean are the spoken words of God...God SPOKE the creation into existance...Your main weapon against the Devil are the spoken/written words of God...The writing that tells us that your religion is NOT the religion of God is God's spoken/written words in the Scripture...It's no wonder you put your authority above the Scripture, God's spoken/written words...
It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God.
What a bunch of phony baloney
Here's one of the verses you cite as proof of that statement...
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Jesus never said anything to any of your man appointed popes...They weren't there...
The Holy Sjpirit was to provide perfect memory to the Apostles so when they authored the Scriptures, they were writing exactly what Jesus had said...There is nothing in that verse or the others you cite that refers to your religion...
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul's letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
Is it Tradition that calls for you to misrepresent the verse by not posting all of it??? Or is the verse referring to YOU???
Paul's letters are not difficult to grasp or interpret...Unless you are ingorant in the Scriptures...
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Did your church ever read the next verse to you???
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
My, My, My...The Scriptures paint quite a different picture than the one you are trying to paint...
******************
Heh. :)
Naw...He eats him...Then after 20 minutes, the author is gone...Until the next meal which in many cases appears to be the next week, or maybe not for a full year...
But we on the other hand, are filled with the Author 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year...He hears our prayers and even prays for us when we don't know what to pray...
The 'wise' gentleman may have the 'good' book, but apparently he doesn't spend much time in it...
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
You may claim that we have only the Holy Spirit while you have Jesus, let's not forget the Holy Spirit is God as well as Jesus being God...
And like I said, we have a third part of the Trinity 24/7 while you say you have a third part of the Trinity for about 20 minutes on Mass day...
Paul's letters are not difficult to grasp or interpret...Unless you are ingorant in the Scriptures...
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Did your church ever read the next verse to you???
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
My, My, My...The Scriptures paint quite a different picture than the one you are trying to paint...
Considering I placed about a dozen quotes up and now we see the citations from Peter are used, I am glad to see that you are at least reading the Bible.
I'm not positive what your point is. I'm not resorting to taking a quote out of context. Some points are summarized from the quotes I used as 1 Peter 1:25.
Yes, I fully read Peter 3:15 and 16
Think of your Lord's patience as your opportunity to be saved; our Brother Paul who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom he was given. He makes this point tooin his letters as a whole whenever he touches on these things. In all his letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand and these are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way they distort the rest of scripture-to their own destruction.
Now what does post 16 assert: "2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul's letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret : this is why there are volumes of interpretations of Paul and he is largely quoted by the Reformation in fact and yet, they nor anyone can still get him right.
You should put "music" in quotes.
2Pe 3:17 is a warning against abandoning the Church founded by Christ in the name of tepid YOPIOS and non-scriptural traditions of men. Beware “the error of the wicked” men like Luther, Cauvin, Zwingli, Smith, Spurgeon, Machen, Hubbard, and all those who abandon the God-given gifts of logic and common sense.
Just as He commanded us.
But actually, this statement is indeed very true in response to post 4: we are talking here and I think the statement in 4 could be made by different peoples of different creeds. The original statement from post 4 is "Jesus is the Word. The Bible is not the Word. It is an account of the Word." I don't find this correct but we all make mistakes or possibly not use the best choice of words and then it comes out not in the way it was meant. I mean maybe your spirit-filled Church has members that perfectly interpret the word and they are to be congratulated if so but I doubt if that is so.
However your original point I quote is accurate without using the rest that seemed to contain criticism. We have a Holy Spirit service at our Church on Tuesday nights. Some people appreciate such charismatic ministries.
Iscool certainly is correct that we should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I have apologetic books and there are apologetic websites on the internet. So often when one can be confronted with a known argument, it is relatively easy to search out some data in response. It works both ways.
Sorry Petro, you are wrong again...At least you are consistant...The verse is not about the church...The verse is about the scriptures...So much for common sense, eh???
I have read on FR threads where Catholics believe that only the Magisterium and priesthood are filled with the Holy Spirit...
And if a person is filled with the Holy Spirit, which is God, which is a 'real' filling, 24/7, why the emphasis on getting the 'real' presence of Jesus thru the Eucharist if you believe you are already filled with God???
To my knowledge, most former Catholics that left your church left when they started studying the scriptures...So my point is that if a person starts seriously studying the scriptures, without the influence of the Catholic church, that person won't be a Catholic for long...
***But we on the other hand, are filled with the Author 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year...He hears our prayers and even prays for us when we don’t know what to pray...***
You are? I assume from the last few posts that you are speaking of the Holy Spirit. Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit prays for you? Who does the Holy Spirit pray to? Would you please quote Scripture for me please?
***And like I said, we have a third part of the Trinity 24/7 ***
Say ‘ahhh’ and we’ll look for Him.
***I have read on FR threads where Catholics believe that only the Magisterium and priesthood are filled with the Holy Spirit...***
Produce an example please.
***And if a person is filled with the Holy Spirit, which is God, which is a ‘real’ filling, 24/7, why the emphasis on getting the ‘real’ presence of Jesus thru the Eucharist if you believe you are already filled with God???***
Show me Scripturally where other than a few individuals such as Mary and Stephen are filled and presumably cannot sin. Are you unable to sin? If so, then you are not filled with the Holy Spirit and therefore your theory is rendered inoperable.
***To my knowledge, most former Catholics that left your church left when they started studying the scriptures***
Where and how have you acquired that knowledge?
***So my point is that if a person starts seriously studying the scriptures, without the influence of the Catholic church, that person won’t be a Catholic for long...***
This is what Scripture itself warns against. Without the Church, enough verse can selected to generate or believe innovative theologies such as the JWs, Christian Science, the Campbell/Stone movement, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anabaptism or even the Judaizers.
I rest my case. Martin Luther stated in his "Commentary On St. John,": "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all." He, a man without any authority, eliminated 7 books from the texts inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is a man made tradition. All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone. Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church?
Your church is permeated with unbelievers as all churches are..
Unbelievers? You mean individuals exercising their God-given gift of free will? The one has nothing to do with the other. The Church, founded by Jesus Christ, has never altered its teachings. There will always be individuals who commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
The Scriptures that you so demean are the spoken words of God..
Huh? We gave you the Scriptures!
The writing that tells us that your religion is NOT the religion of God is God's spoken/written words in the Scripture...It's no wonder you put your authority above the Scripture, God's spoken/written words...
Well that's a good laugh. The Catholic Church compiled the Scriptures that you venerate over God Himself. 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)
Jesus never said anything to any of your man appointed popes...They weren't there...
Peter, John, Mark and Matthew were all there. Peter was the first pope. 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).
The Holy Sjpirit was to provide perfect memory to the Apostles so when they authored the Scriptures, they were writing exactly what Jesus had said...There is nothing in that verse or the others you cite that refers to your religion..
Oh dear friend, you seem to have a very poor understanding of scripture. Did Jesus Christ write down any part of the New Testament with His own hand? No, He did not. If the Bible was to be the sole authority of the Church, shouldn't the Founder have written down His Own teachings? Shouldn't He have at least stated something similar to the following: "the written works of My disciples will be the authority upon which My Church is based?"
Didn't Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct His disciples to "write down" His teachings? No. With the possible exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles. In fact, only the Apostles Sts. Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the ONLY authority to be followed in the Christian religion?
Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).
Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."
They certainly did; with the leading of the Holy Spirit...
and the vast majority of Christians do believe that God continues to preserve oral teaching without error as He did the Scriptures ...
When you say vast majority, I'm sure you mean the Catholics...But let's consider; Catholics are counted because their name is on a list...And there's a big bunch of them...
As of late, the Catholics on these FR threads are claiming that many, probably half or way more than half are Catholic in name only...So are they counting those as well??? They don't even believe your church dogma, how can you count them as Catholics???
and the vast majority of Christians do believe that God continues to preserve oral teaching without error as He did the Scriptures
It doesn't matter how many people believe what...What matters is what God said...And why do they believe this??? Did they read it in God's spoken word??? No they didn't...They got it from your church...
I think it's interesting that you reference the "spoken word of God," but you also seem to think that men have the power corrupt it.
Paul knew the same thing...When you say it's ok NOT to break the bread at communion, you are corrupting the word of God...When you say you don't have to drink the wine at communion, you are corrupting the word of God...And on and on and on...
God already layed these thing out before the Apostles...Your group has no Godly authority to change any of it...
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.