Holy day Catch 22 HELP!

  • Thread starter Thread starter raske10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I had an imperfect memory of something I heard. I will retract my dangerous an incorrect advice.
 
Even by definition, one who celebrates is a celebrant. Even in the GIRM, it is differentiated from the priest as celebrant vs. the congregation as celebrant together celebrating Mass by stating the priest as “Priest Celebrant.” Why would they add the word “priest” if only the priest can hold the title of “celebrant.”
 
Sure it does. It is called metonymy when we say that a part plays the whole.

It is also the case that a bunch of people celebrating can together be identified as a single entity celebrating. A different situation, signified by “with him” in the doxology.

There is no reason for saying the one precludes the other as far as I can tell. You just said you agree both are happening.
 
Metonymy means that “those celebrate in Christ” can be expressed as “one of those celebrates in Christ” through a common literary technique. Not a big deal, just objecting to a principle you keep citing which is not the usual way we think of things. I have chosen to emphasize that we celebrate with Christ, rather discuss the “in Christ”part, so I haven’t mentiined that before.

We celebrate with Christ is what we have been discussing. Not unique celebrations but celebrations with Christ that are part of but not identical to the communal celebration.
 
Can you think of one other instance where you would apply this logic? ‘being a member of an army does not equal being a soldier’? Not particularly important, but it does seem unusual to me.

As I said in my last note, this is not the issue I am concerned about. You rarely acknowledge where we really disagree, to the point of saying you agree with writings that express my position. By baptism we participate in the priesthood of Christ, such that we really offer our selves with Christ. This is not just the sacrifice of Christ. It is not just the sacrifice of the Church. It is each person, acting with Christ, offering themselves.

That is in the Catechism. And Mediator Dei. And you do not see it. I do.
 
I am sorry to hear you were suspended. I hope whatever you did was not too horrible. I never understand those things.

If you really have difficulty, I would refer you to the paragraph before the one you cited:
In Prex Eucharistica III ( Vere sanctus , p. 123) the following words are addressed to the Lord: “ from age to age you gather a people to Thyself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of Thy name ,” the in order that making it appear that the people, rather than the priest[20] are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorized to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have already occurred).
Click to expand...
Ottaviani did not write this text btw, but a group “directed” by Abp Lefebvre. That helps explain the exaggerated fear at the end, that people would be authorized to join the priest in recitation.
 
And you are aware that the “warning” is adressed at something that is said in the revised Roman Missal? While Ottaviani, Bassi, Lefebvre, etc. may warn against it, the Roman Missal has embraced it.

Ottaviani ultimately rejected the claims in the critique in light of Paul VI’s responses, especially his general audiences, like this on 26 Nov 1969:
the fundamental design of the Mass remains the traditional one, not only in its theological meaning, but also in the spiritual one; on the contrary, if the rite will be performed as it should, it will manifest its greater richness, made evident by the greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of the scriptural texts, the combined action of the various ministers, the silences that mark the rite at different times, and above all by the need for two indispensable requisites: the intimate participation of each individual assistant, and the outpouring of souls in community charity; requirements that must make Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a quiet but challenging gym of Christian sociology. Christ, victim and priest, renews and offers, through the ministry of the Church, his redemptive sacrifice, in the symbolic rite of his last supper, which leaves us, under the appearances of bread and wine, his body and his blood , for our personal and spiritual food, and for our fusion in the unity of his redeeming love and his immortal life.
Click to expand...
 
What? Why would bias matter?

The issue is whether people should have an active, involved role in the liturgy, or if they should be there passively. Do they “attend” or do they “celebrate”? Paul VI had a clear bias toward full conscious active participation. Everything he says is from that biased perspective.

There is a further question of whether “attend” and “celebrate” are proper terminology for the role of a layperson. Attend is clearly inadequate to describe someone actively involved. Celebrate, by actively exercising the priestly office bestowed in Baptism, .is the proper term, even though that term has been distorted by clericalism.

Traditionalists sometimes try and reassert the clericalist use of “celebrate,” Understanding what we do is a critical part of any reform. Celebrate explains it much better than attend.
 
This is one of the problems in this discussion, that you do notunderstand what you read. I said “Traditionalists sometimes try and reassert the clericalist use of “celebrate,” and you take it as branding you. Not at all my intention. You had pointed to some traditionalists (SSPX, Lefebvre, Ottaviani) who argued against the reformed liturgy’s assertion that people are gathered to offer, seeing it as a threat to clerical identity.

This was in the context of Paul VI’s “bias” in favor of full conscious active participation by the laity in the liturgy. That bias justifies the use of celebrate rather than “attend” for the layperson’s role. Using “attend” gives the impression of being on the sidelines, watching without acting. “Celebrate” implies a fuller active engagement with the celebration.

If you are using “attend” to mean “far more active”, then fine. You can attend mass.

I will celebrate, as encouraged by Mediator Dei, Paul VI, the Catechism, etc.
 
We speaking of the Mass, we actually use the word “celebrate” in two different ways.

Yes, everyone who attends “celebrates” Mass in the sense of participating.

However, only the priest (sacerdos) is the celebrant at Mass, when the word “celebrate” is used synonymously with the concept of being the minister of a sacrament.

So, we have one word, that has 2 different definitions. Both of the correct, and both of them being expressed in this thread. The problem arises when the difference between those 2 definitions is missed. Frankly, that’s what is happening on both sides of the argument here.

While (we can say that) everyone celebrates Mass, only the priest is the celebrant at Mass. Admittedly, that sounds confusing. Yes, it sounds strange, but that’s how the vocabulary works.

The cause of the confusion here (look back to the original post) on this thread is canon 916
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession …
or 916 Qui conscius est peccati gravis, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam ne celebret neve Corpori Domini communicet…
Click to expand...
That phrase “not to celebrate Mass” applies only to priests. The way the word “celebrate” is being used is the sense that applies only to priests as celebrants. It does not mean that a layperson is prohibited from participating in the Mass as a member of the congregation.
 
I have quoted passages at every turn, and you have failed to recognize their meaning. I quoted from the Ottaviani Intervention, where they demonstrate that the people are gathered “in order that… a perfect offering may be made.” You apparently reject their interpretation, and so miss their meaning.

I gave you a quote from Mediator Dei where Pius XII called on the laity to go past just a general intention to “unite themselves with Christ…to offer themselves, their cares, their sorrows, their distress and their necessities in union with their divine Savior upon the cross.” Not even Christ can offer me. Only I can do it, with Christ who shares his priesthood with me.

I offered a quote from the Catechism where they answer the question “Who celebrates?” You ignored the use of the term “celebrants” and forced the text to say only in Christ do we offer sacrifice. The whole passage emphasizes that individuals act and are affected by offering sacrifice. It does not say “priests celebrate” but only “a bishop presides.” That does not answer “Who celebrates?” The answer is the whole Church, each in his own way.

None of these were acceptable to you, but you cannot say I did not offer any quote “to suggest the priestly ministry is exercised by all the congregants.” I offered several that you apparently did not understand.

I do not accept your distortions. You can live with them if you want, and “attend mass.” I will celebrate.
 
FrDavid96 said:
That phrase “not to celebrate Mass” applies only to priests . The way the word “celebrate” is being used is the sense that applies only to priests as celebrants. It does not mean that a layperson is prohibited from participating in the Mass as a member of the congregation
Click to expand...
Yes, I missd that nuance in the OP. I expressed that basic idea when I encouraged him to celebrate but not receive communion, but I could have been clearer.

It can be a problem when multiple meanings for a word are in use.
 
Dovekin said:
…
Click to expand...
Does this express your point?

Catechism
1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching ( munus docendi ), divine worship ( munus liturgicum ) and pastoral governance ( munus regendi ).
Click to expand...
 
That is ppart of it.

Lumen Gentium 10 expresses the theology I have been using, Multiplying quotes is not an effective strategy in my opinion; clear statements have already been rejected and will be again.
The only real question is whether “attend” or “celebrate” better describes what a layperson does at mass. I know where I stand on that, and I think I know (name removed by moderator)’s position. The rest is just dealing with misunderstandings and side issues, always keeping in mind the core issue, are we passive or active during the liturgy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top