Posted on 07/27/2005 1:05:40 PM PDT by GF.Regis
I understand.
But God is present in the Eucharist.
The Eucharist in on the altar, in front of the priest, and that doesn't change no matter which way the altar is oriented in the church.
It doesn't seem to me as though the priest is turning his back on God at all.
But I can see that this is very important to some folks, and they should be accomodated.
bump
Are you trying to tell me that the Last Supper was a Mass? If so, cite, please...
Citations about the first Eucharist are NOT the same as cites about the first Mass...
That the ancient, complete and in every way perfect faith and teaching regarding the great mystery of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church may be retained, and with the removal of errors and heresies may be preserved in its purity, the holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding, instructed by the light of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares and orders to be preached to the faithful the following concerning it, since it is the true and only sacrifice.
CHAPTER I
THE INSTITUTION OF THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
Since under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood, there was need, God the Father of mercies so ordaining, that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, who might perfect and lead to perfection as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was by His death about to offer Himself once upon the altar of the cross to God the Father that He might there accomplish an eternal redemption, nevertheless, that His priesthood might not come to an end with His death,[2] at the last supper, on the night He was betrayed, that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring Himself constituted a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech,[3] offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine, and under the forms of those same things gave to the Apostles, whom He then made priests of the New Testament, that they might partake, commanding them and their successors in the priesthood by these words to do likewise: Do this in commemoration of me,[4] as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For having celebrated the ancient Passover which the multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed in memory of their departure from Egypt,[5] He instituted a new Passover, namely, Himself, to be immolated under visible signs by the Church through the priests in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father, when by the shedding of His blood He redeemed and delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into his kingdom.[6] And this is indeed that clean oblation which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice on the part of those who offer it; which the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be great among the Gentiles,[7] and which the Apostle Paul has clearly indicated when he says, that they who are defiled by partaking of the table of devils cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord,[8] understanding by table in each case the altar. It is, finally, that [sacrifice] which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices during the period of nature and of the law,[9] which, namely, comprises all the good things signified by them, as being the consummation and perfection of them all.
Catholic Encyclopedia
Liturgy of the Mass
A. Name and Definition
The Mass is the complex of prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist in the Latin rites. As in the case of all liturgical terms the name is less old than the thing. From the time of the first preaching of the Christian Faith in the West, as everywhere, the Holy Eucharist was celebrated as Christ had instituted it at the Last Supper, according to His command, in memory of Him. But it was not till long afterwards that the late Latin name Missa, used at first in a vaguer sense, became the technical and almost exclusive name for this service.
Thank you again. I mentioned the Traditional Latin Mass to my hubby. He actually seemed interested. This IS a miracle ;0). Bless you.
It is not easy to determine the precise link between the "holy kiss" and the liturgical "kiss of peace", known in Greek from an early date as eirene (i.e. pax, or peace). This latter may be quite primitive, for it meets us first in the description of the liturgy given by St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 65), who writes: "When we have completed the prayers we salute one another with a kiss [allelous philemati aspazometha pausamenoi ton euchon], whereupon there is brought to the president bread and a cup of wine." This passage clearly shows that in the middle of the second century the usage already obtained — a usage now claimed as distinctive of the liturgies other than Roman — of exchanging the kiss of peace at the beginning of what we call the Offertory.
*My, my...you are wrong about the Last Supper not being a Mass; and you are wrong about the Kiss of Peace; and you are decidely wrong in your hautiness towards others as re a mere handshake.
Is this how you win others to your cause of advancing "traditionalism?"
To me it seems a cause devoid of charity; a cause seriously deficient in knowledge; a cause mortally wounded by arrogance.
Try a little humility, brother. Shake hands with others even if you imagine them unworthty of you.
It will do you good...
I found this to be a very perceptive comment:
"People care which way the priest faces because when he faces the congregation, it's almost as if he's turning his back on God and is more concerned with how he's performing in front of the people. The priest isn't there for our entertainment, he's there to offer up our prayers to God. Many people see a priest's turning his back on God as being very flippant at best and sacrilegious at worst. All of the irreverence that has occurred since is a natural by-product."
Now one would think that the above should lead naturally to an examination of the following passage of Holy Scripture:
Mat 16:18 "...I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
You see no contradiction?
What if we add other things:
Praying with Jews in a Jewish synagogue;
Receiving a blessing from a Hindu lady;
Allowing a statue of a Buddha to be placed on top of the tabernacle on a Catholic altar;
Kissing the Koran;
Permitting a liturgy at which a bare breasted female reads the Epistle?
Still see no contradiction?
Like you, I was also in HS (all girls Catholic Academy) when these changes took place. However, no one in my family ever expressed any dissatisfaction with the liturgy. Like most catholics, we questioned nothing.
Nonsense! You're both wrong. Many of the changes we have witnessed, resulted from agenda-driven liberal 'interpretations' of VCII documents. If you read through the VCII Document Archives, you will learn that the Church recommended that Latin be retained, as well as Gregorian Chant. Just read the documents and learn the real truth.
Excuse me, but "You're both wrong."
About what?
Or who is both?
My post referred to Nanette Claret's comment, to some Holy Scripture, and to some specific acts of Pope John Paul II photographed for posterity.
Please explain to us who both is and how both are wrong about what.
I find it interesting that what you chose to leave out of the quote. The full statement of our Lord was:
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Yes Petrosius.
I omitted stuff from the passage because I want you folks, EVERYBODY, to focus on where I thing the contradiction is. I recognize that the passage is certainly inclusive of a lot of stuff, but I only wanted the focus to be on what I see as the apparent contradiction between
1) Jesus building a church against which the very gates of hell will not prevail, and
2) A lot of stuff going on that to me comes across as hell prevailing.
I realize that Roman Catholics tend to get all wrapped up in the Petrine primacy. That does not concern me here. What concerns me is the contradiction between what the Church is supposed to stand for and what the Roman Catholic Church has been up to of late. And let me point out that a lot of other denominations have been up to the same sort of stuff, stuff I personally believe to be unspeakable, to be - quite frankly - apostasy.
It amazes me.
The thought gives me goosebumps.
This
is
horsedung
"What amazes me is that you do not understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability. While infallible, the Church has never claimed impeccability for the pope or her bishops. There have been many sinners within the Catholic Church, even popes. (Remember Peter's denial?) But despite this the Catholic Church has remained faithful to the apostolic teaching. You and I both can both make a litany of such sins and abuses, yet the magisterial teaching of the Church has remained unchanged. What better proof can you have of her infallibility?"
Your cite says that the 'kiss' is NOT a Roman liturgy thing...and, by the way, at the Offertory, NOT the Agnus Dei.
And I'll continue to refrain from carrying on with others at Mass, thanks. Since the Roman liturgy did not include this (by your evidence and my recollection pre-1962) it doesn't seem to be an immemorial tradition.
I was wondering that myself, considering that I HAVE heard "On Eagles Wings" on the piano in bars and department stores.
And with one exception (Ave Maria), prostestant.
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.