I have been around long enough to see people with agendas "quote" things out of context to further their own ends.
Non-Catholics are exceptionally guilty of this.
But the John O’Brien quote was the topic of discussion. Why evade checking it out for validity, since you say you watched the video and part of the second one?
I say it is very important for every Roman Catholic to know whether they agree or disagree with John O’Brien’s quote. because he has brought so much to the table as an officially-approved spokesman for the RCC.
Still am curious why you refuse to say whether you believe O’Brien’s statement is what you believe or not. I do not believe it.
In his book The Faith of Millions, John O’Brien, a Catholic priest, explains the procedure of the Mass.
How many Roman Catholics here believe this is truly a factual statement? O’Brien write this”
“When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”
Verga, where do you stand on this statement please?
John Anthony O'Brien was quoted accurately.
Here is a link The Faith of Millions: The Credential of the Catholic Religion scroll to pages 255 & 256 for the context. The "priest" attributed the saying to St. Thomas. I assume he means Thomas Aquinas.
Non-Catholics are exceptionally guilty of this.
That would be deliciously ironic if it were not so otherwise so vile & unpalatable due to how O'Brien and most other Romanists often take things far enough out of context from Scripture, history, earliest Church tradition (and early Church "fathers") in their own trumpeting (and bluffing) in regards to the Roman Catholic Church, which though as this particular John Schroeder noted on page 4 of the first chapter of About the Religion of Senators Kennedy and Kerry: An In-Depth Study of Catholicism...Its Heritage and Beliefs; though unarguably emerged from the apostolic Church, is not necessarily to be confused with that earliest Church, for there were others such as the Orthodox, which he mentioned first, before adding Arians, Docetists, Maricons, Ebionists and Gnostics, pointing towards how all "emerged from the same Christian roots and are eloquent proof that common beginnings do not guarantee the truth will be the end result."
Further, on this forum, RC apologists rarely give actual sources for their own claims (unless it be just list of links wherein someone has to go fishing for the argument some RC'er is attempting to make), but instead if source if given at all, it is most usually a derived source; somebody quoting someone else, without definite attribution as to from where precisely they are quoting this other individual, exampled here by O'Brien (link supplied!) to allegedly be quoting Thomas [Aquinas].
Now that that is settled, [cough, cough];
You may now answer the question posed to you by Resettozero at #845
Possibly helpful for everyone's additional consideration, in this portion of comment from discussion of O'Brien's book at the Amazon.com listing for it, although the book was apparently revised in the year 1974, it was for the greater part written much earlier. As one reviewer noted;
Rev. John A. O'Brien's The Faith of Millions provides a representative sample of American Roman Catholic apologetics from the early-to-middle part of the last century. Our Sunday Visitor originally published it in 1963, but some sources state that it was first published 25 years prior, in 1938.
I find this to be important, for all things considered, it helps bring into sharper focus how RC apologetic in regards to "the sacrifice of the Mass" has shifted in relatively recent times from how once commonly described by O'Brien (sacrificed again & again) to now a reliance upon invoking a metaphysical mysticism, merely accessing the once and for all time sacrifice of Christ.
This newer apologetic appears (to my own suspicious eye) to have come about in response to Protestants (and possibly others) pointing to how even some of the ECF's touched upon how Christ's sacrifice was once and for all AND that He (Christ) was now returned to where He was before, now [again] seated at the "right hand of the Father".
It's not as if the testimony of the early Church "fathers" was at all uniformly consistent with any inclusiveness for regard that the "flesh and blood" of the εὐχαριστίας (thanksgiving) be understood as the bread in corporeal sense becoming His body.
The language was somewhat figurative from the time Christ first told them "I am the bread that comes down from Heaven" for He was not the physical substance of the Passover bread itself which He broke and shared with the disciples, not was establishing then and there it was to be considered so, inclusive of regard that the bread later become His corporeal flesh.
No, that corporeal flesh of His he gave unto death upon the Cross, was buried then rose again three days later, then 40 days (give or take?) after Resurrection, in the sight of 3 witnesses (3 at least) Ascended back to where He was before.
The testimony of the Orthodox in regards to their own views of the priesthood of believers, and how that intersects, plays an integral role in the epiclesis lend support to opposition of the sacerdotalism of Rome and it's formal priesthood (alone) to bring about any change to the bread into "being" the body (of Christ), most particularly it be "flesh" as we would otherwise regards flesh to be.
That said, there is place for presbyter, elders deacons and bishops to both guard and present to assembly of ekklesia, Liturgy.
Honor those who labor in the word, eh? (1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:12).