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.
* * *
The seat of Moses from Matthew 23 is a bit of a complex question for all. I’ve written and gotten responses though with some people with apologetic sites. I may take this up with them. But some of those other statements were a lot more clear to understand in the original link above http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/whereis.htm . We have to take care to devote too much time investigating when we should pray or read Scripture. That’s why I’ve often foregone apologetic arguments; because there isn’t much new under the sun and most of it has all been covered before though there is always more to know.
It is especially helpful in discriminating anti-Catholic hate fetishes from the Truth of God's Church.
Ezekiel - Chapter 3shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
***Ezekiel - Chapter 3 ***
This is all about prophesying and attempting to instruct the House of Israel, not ingesting the Body and Blood of Christ. You do present some interesting interpretations - I must ask if this is on your own or if it is part of some group somewhere.
As a side note for all those non free will types, we have verses:
4
Son of man, go now to the house of Israel, and speak my words to them.
5
Not to a people with difficult speech and barbarous language am I sending you,
6
nor to the many peoples (with difficult speech and barbarous language) whose words you cannot understand. If I were to send you to these, they would listen to you;
7
but the house of Israel will refuse to listen to you, since they will not listen to me. For the whole house of Israel is stubborn of brow and obstinate in heart.
8
But I will make your face as hard as theirs, and your brow as stubborn as theirs,
9
like diamond, harder than flint. Fear them not, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house.
10
Son of man, he said to me, take into your heart all my words that I speak to you; hear them well.
11
Now go to the exiles, to your countrymen, and say to them: Thus says the Lord GOD!—whether they heed or resist!
12
2 Then spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me the noise of a loud rumbling as the glory of the LORD rose from its place:
13
the noise made by the wings of the living creatures striking one another, and by the wheels alongside them, a loud rumbling.
14
The spirit which had lifted me up seized me, and I went off spiritually stirred, while the hand of the LORD rested heavily upon me.
15
3 Thus I came to the exiles who lived at Tel-abib by the river Chebar, and for seven days I sat among them distraught.
17
4 Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me.
18
If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death.
19
If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life.
20
If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered; but I will hold you responsible for his death if you did not warn him.
21
When, on the other hand, you have warned a virtuous man not to sin, and he has in fact not sinned, he shall surely live because of the warning, and you shall save your own life.
And also for those who are Bible Only Believers (tm), we have the fact that Ezekiel is called Son of Man. Is then Ezekiel actually Jesus if I cast off the Magisterium of the Church and interpret this for myself?
Eze 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. Eze 3:3 He said to me, "Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you." Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.
You carefully avoid the scripture with the cited metaphor.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Eze 3:1 Then He said to me, "Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel."
Clearly the scroll is the Word of G-d to be ingested and then preached.
***You carefully avoid the scripture with the cited metaphor.***
I avoid nothing.
The passage in Ezekiel is for his to ingest the prophesies that he will bring to Israel.
The Eucharist is for all men who will accept Jesus Christ.
You see? Exclusive versus inclusive. Priesthood/Prophet versus all men.
***Clearly the scroll is the Word of G-d to be ingested and then preached. ***
This is what happens when someone spurns the Church of Jesus in favour of a silly hybrid that makes no sense whatsoever since it was rather pointedly proscribed in the NT. Why do you hang onto the remnants of the Old that are superseded by Jesus Christ?
A Christian cannot pick and choose. Either he follows the commands of Christ including instructions as to the Church or he does not. Christians cannot be of the cafeteria variety.
***If one does not even believe Christ is True God and True Man, why would they bother trying to pretend to Christianity?***
If they can call themselves Christians, it is of comfort; if they can define their own Christianity, it is of whim. When whim and comfort coincide, it is an artificial Paradise, yet sublimely seductive.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT...Jesus does not supercede the OT...And just as Jesus has not yet returned, there are many things in the OT that have NOT been fulfilled yet...Those things apparently have been hidden from your church...
Jesus clearly puts great stock in His written word...Look how many times in the NT Jesus said, 'It is written', or Have you not read, etc...Never once did Jesus say, turn to your tradition...
Jesus wants us to absorb his written words...He wants us to put His written words in our hearts...He wants us to memorize His words...He wants us to preach His WORDS...
Eat,sleep and breath His words...He wants us to eat his words, just as he wants us to eat His flesh...And if you don't know that, you are missing a lot of scripture...
Yet hundreds of millions of protestants refuse His command on that score by rejecting Holy Eucharist.
***Why do you hang onto the remnants of the Old that are superseded by Jesus Christ?
Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT...Jesus does not supercede the OT***
Really. So the verses in Matt 16 consist of Jesus lying? And the verses in Acts 2 are falsehood?
***Jesus clearly puts great stock in His written word***
What did Jesus write? Chapter and verse, please.
***Look how many times in the NT Jesus said, ‘It is written’, or Have you not read, etc***
Sure in prophecy related to Him.
***Never once did Jesus say, turn to your tradition...***
He created new traditions related to the Church. His overriding authority left behind is the Church. Paul says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth.
***Jesus wants us to absorb his written words...He wants us to put His written words in our hearts...He wants us to memorize His words...He wants us to preach His WORDS...***
Jesus left behind no words.
***Eat,sleep and breath His words...He wants us to eat his words, just as he wants us to eat His flesh...And if you don’t know that, you are missing a lot of scripture...***
Judging by your posts, you are missing a whole bunch of Scripture including much of the Gospels as well as Titus.
***...just as he wants us to eat His flesh...
Yet hundreds of millions of protestants refuse His command on that score by rejecting Holy Eucharist.***
If I recall properly, The Church of Iscool (population 1) rejects the Eucharist as well. Can you confirm this, Iscool?
Hogwash, indeed. I mean what you are saying. One does not have to burn documents for them to disappear: they have to be copied because paper disintegrates. As for Peter in reference to Paul, he is simply saying that what Paul writes is true, but they need interpretation. One may assume that much else of what we know as the New Testament was widely circulated among the church communities and perhaps quickly. It may also be true that much else was circulated that has perished. What we have in the New Testament is what has survived, just as what we have in the Old is also what has survived from a much larger body of Jewish literature. But surviving means primarily things that were copied and recopied until they were finally put down in more permanent form on parchment. Of one thing I am pretty sure: that the people learned by hearing the word, either in the form of preaching or hearing them read from a lector. Not be looking at the document. Only a people who were used to the products of the printing press could ever think that early Christians individually, except the rich, had access to Scripture in their household.
Reading the Old Testament cannot be an "ersatz" for Jesus because, in the words of the famous 12th century Jewish rabbi Maimonides, Jesus of Nazareth [my emphasis]
I think XeniaSt is doing what so many Evangelicals do—confound Logos (translated in English as "Word") with the written word in the New Testament, i.e. the "Word" = "word."
XeniaSt, the Bible may be the word of God; however Logos is not the Word of [sic] God, but God, Word the God.
Unless, of course, in your messianic sect you believe (literally) that Christ is the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15). Shalom!
Well we don't believe that just because we take the Eucharist we can go and preach. Jesus's Body doesn't have that kind of "magic." It doesn't make us smarter and it doesn't impart any Gnostic qualities to us as Eze 3 seems to suggest.
Muchly appreciated, sir. My Greek knowledge approaches my ability to tolerate Chicago politics.
***The Jews who heard him did not think it was a “metaphor.”***
Indeed, many of His disciples walked out because of that ‘metaphor’.
***Unless, of course, in your messianic sect you believe (literally) that Christ is the “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). Shalom!***
I had not considered that the Judaizers would think of jettisoning Trinitarin doctrine before. Xenia and I have debated recently, and I never had a passing thought that she was intimating subordinationism in those exchanges. Is this correct, Xenia?
Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is a form of “making it personal.”
Besides, she is not bad to look at, from an aesthetic point of view, of course, for you married guys. :)
Greek actually has several words that are translated as "eat" in English throughout the New Testament, some being more specific then others, so the question of "eating" can be addressed only in specific verses and not in general.
But I am quite sure that the verb used for eating of Christ's flesh was not allegorical at all.
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.