Hmmm..

[SpiritFire]

I was reading Mediator Dei (by Pope Pius XII) and came across this…

“They, therefore, err from the path of truth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary for the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here there is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration.”


Does this mean the Church is in error teaching with the recent teacing that the Eucharist is a sacrifice and the participation in that sacrifice is a meal (of sorts)?

Besides this, it looks like a lot of people today err from the path of truth…

Any thoughts or help? God bless you!

 

[nicolep]

I was reading Mediator Dei (by Pope Pius XII) and came across this…

“They, therefore, err from the path of truth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary for the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here there is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration.”


Does this mean the Church is in error teaching with the recent teaching that the Eucharist is a sacrifice and the participation in that sacrifice is a meal (of sorts)?

Besides this, it looks like a lot of people today err from the path of truth…

Any thoughts or help? God bless you!

1. That statement doesn’t have anything to do with the Eucharist being a sacrifice, really. That’s the minor point.
2. It’s saying that those who think Mass shouldn’t be celebrated unless the faithful receive Communion. Yes, Communion should be available to everyone, but only the priest must receive Communion so the Mass is valid. It’s not necessary for the rest of us to receive to make it a sacrifice. It’s a sacrifice whether we receive or not. It is also saying that us receiving Communion isn’t the “highlight” of the Mass…this “supper we share together”. The sacrifice alone is the highlight.
3. How does it seem that “a lot of people today err from the path of truth”? There are plenty of times that I don’t receive Communion at Mass for one reason or another. There are plenty of other people that don’t receive.
4. The Church will NEVER teach error. She is protected by the Holy Spirit. If she does teach error, it means Satan has won and the gates of hell did indeed prevail.

At least that’s my interpretation of the sentences you posted.

 

[laszlo]

“They, therefore, err from the path of truth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary for the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here there is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration.”

For centuries the waste majority of the Masses were private Mass, priest and minister if available. The emphasis was only and exclusively the propitiation, turn GOd’s benevolence toward us, toward the souls in the Purgatory. This propitiatory act was performed by Jesus Christ, and called only and exclusively by the priest in His Name.

St Pius X understood that like any extreme, this is not the full truth, the Mass is also the action of the faithful, and most importantly their participation in the meal provided by Jesus Christ.

Pius XII did not opposed this change, only defended that the old practice was not error:

1. … but while it [communion] is obligatory for the priest who says the Mass, it is only something earnestly recommended to the faithful.

 

[Spirithound]

Mediator Dei:
“They, therefore, err from the path of truth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary for the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here there is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration.”

Does this mean the Church is in error teaching with the recent teacing that the Eucharist is a sacrifice and the participation in that sacrifice is a meal (of sorts)?

No, the Church today is not in error. Yes, the Church does say that Holy Communion is a meal as well as a sacrifice, but remember also the Church’s teaching on who may receive Holy Communion: Catholics who have fasted 1 hour, and are in a state of grace. This is consonant with MD, which condemns the “general communion of all present”. Thus the Church today excludes from the “supper of brotherly union” those who are not in fact in communion.

 

[SpiritFire]

Thanks everyone!!!

You are so much help!

I kind of knew the answer but thought I should ask some other folks.

The Church does not teach error, of course. That was kind of metaphorical
Thanks again