Mystery of Faith

[BobP123]

Why would we say a memorial acclamation when Christ is present on the Altar?

Maybe a better question to ask is why do we say in our proclamation “Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again” when this is a historical fact, not a mystery of anything?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Maybe a better question to ask is why do we say in our proclamation “Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again” when this is a historical fact, not a mystery of anything?

I asked my priest that, because it seems to present a lack of belief that Christ is truly present on the altar when we say He will come again. My priest replied that it is said in reference to the second coming, not to the Real Presence.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Christ may have had unicorns at the last supper!!! Scripture doesn’t explicitly say he didnt. But there is no evidence he DID, so it would be an odd thing to believe, and certainly the burden of proof is on any claiming that he did.

Psalm 22, which Jesus recites on the cross

“Thou hast heard me from the horn of the unicorn”.

This is the point at which the Psalm changes from a lament to a song of triumph.

To cap it all, the unicorn is a type or figure of Christ.

See how easy it is to collect evidence for any position you want?

 

[Uxor]

Maybe a better question to ask is why do we say in our proclamation “Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again” when this is a historical fact, not a mystery of anything?

Exactly! I have thought the very samething.

 

[TNT]

Is it not clear to you yet? Is there a verse in any of the four Gospels were Jesus used those same words during the consecration? The consecrations remain valid, though the words “mystery of faith” isn’t there, as the biblical accounts would show.

Ok swell. The Biblical quote says “For many”, but we say “for all”.
So much for biblical anything.

 

[TNT]

I asked my priest that, because it seems to present a lack of belief that Christ is truly present on the altar when we say He will come again. My priest replied that it is said in reference to the second coming, not to the Real Presence.

Actually, it means, Next Sunday, same place, same time, He will come again.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Actually, it means, Next Sunday, same place, same time, He will come again.

With the same lackluster show, devoid of all mystery, reverence and beauty, as the previous Sunday. Unfortunately.

 

[Uxor]

Actually, it means, Next Sunday, same place, same time, He will come again.

Are you being facetious?.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Are you being facetious?.

When is he not?

 

[AJV]

Maybe a better question to ask is why do we say in our proclamation “Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again” when this is a historical fact, not a mystery of anything?

Because the words “mystery of faith” are not meant to refer to the acclamation.

 

[Uxor]

Because the words “mystery of faith” are not meant to refer to the acclamation.

The problem is, nobody is being taught that. And second the words of “mystery of faith” is under the Memorial Acclamation so anyone reading this in the missile would assume the respondents response is the Mystery of Faith. I proved this in another thread, when I stated that I venture to guess if you ask any Catholic what the Mystery of Faith is, they would respond to the acclamation. Sure enough a poster argued that indeed the acclamation was the Mystery of Faith.

Also does one really need to argue in their mind what they are saying at Mass and have to apologize to Christ for words they are saying. This is very wrong and nobody has cared to correct this.

 

[MTD]

I think St. Paul expresses the Mystery of Faith and yes it was not used in Eastern Rites. This also has nothing to do with my pious popular belief. I understand the words of “Mystery of Faith” was taught to us by Holy Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles but for some reason Vatican II is rejecting tradition and those also who purport this change.

I may be wrong, but saying the words “Mystery of Faith” were handed down to us from the Apostles through Tradition (note the capital t) implies that the Eastern Churches are not Catholic since they lack in Tradition.

So for over 1500 years the words “Mystery of Faith” was included in the forumla and now it is being said the Church errored, this was a mistake, a defect, these are not the words of Christ, the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself because they are not specifically meantioned in scripture, is that what I am suppose to believe?.

Saying that the Church erred in introducing or removing “Mystery of Faith” is a lot like saying the evangelists and St. Paul erred when their formulas don’t line up word for word; i.e., some have chalice as the predicate, others Blood. The theological opinion (supported by St. Pius X) that transubstantiation takes place at “This is My Body/This is My Blood” bypasses all this confusion over the exact words of Christ; all the rites are different, but they all have “This is My Body/This is My Blood” in common. And it’s just as simple as that; you don’t have to make it complex.

Maria

 

[Corki]

Hey Maria! You put Uxor’s words into my mouth!

 

[MTD]

Hey Maria! You put Uxor’s words into my mouth!

Oh my! I’m so sorry! I’ll ask the moderator to fix that. (Well, now you know I was originally going to say something about that “Christ has died” issue but changed my mind before posting. )

Maria

 

[Uxor]

I may be wrong, but saying the words “Mystery of Faith” were handed down to us from the Apostles through Tradition (note the capital t) implies that the Eastern Churches are not Catholic since they lack in Tradition.

Saying that the Church erred in introducing or removing “Mystery of Faith” is a lot like saying the evangelists and St. Paul erred when their formulas don’t line up word for word; i.e., some have chalice as the predicate, others Blood. The theological opinion (supported by St. Pius X) that transubstantiation takes place at “This is My Body/This is My Blood” bypasses all this confusion over the exact words of Christ; all the rites are different, but they all have “This is My Body/This is My Blood” in common. And it’s just as simple as that; you don’t have to make it complex.

Maria

What is the Mystery of Faith?

 

[MTD]

What is the Mystery of Faith?

Actually, I don’t know. However, a brief look at the grammatical structure of the Latin text seems to indicate that the Mystery of Faith is the Precious Blood since mysterium is in apposition to calix.

Maria

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Is it not clear to you yet? Is there a verse in any of the four Gospels were Jesus used those same words during the consecration? The consecrations remain valid, though the words “mystery of faith” isn’t there, as the biblical accounts would show.

Let me clarify for you because I see that you are of the view of Sola Scriptura:

Mystery of Faith:

Pope Innocent III and the Canon of the Mass also tell us that the words “mysterium fidei” were given by Jesus Christ Himself.

Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202, in response to a question about the form of the Eucharist and the inclusion of ‘mysterium fidei’: "You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed… In the Canon of the Mass that expression, ‘mysterium fidei,’ is found interposed among His words… Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed… Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as they are found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them."(Denzinger 414-415.)

I hope this clarifies your Sola Scriptura view. Please by all means confirm this on your own accord.

The words “the mystery of faith” in the consecration are a clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These words were also removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer in his 1549 Anglican Prayer book because of their clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.(Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 306.)
*Are you in agreement with Michael Davies the heretic?
*

 

[MTD]

Actually, I don’t know. However, a brief look at the grammatical structure of the Latin text seems to indicate that the Mystery of Faith is the Precious Blood since mysterium is in apposition to calix.

I just realized I made a huge error here. Mysterium can also be in apposition to testamentum; in fact, the proximity of mysterium to testamentum and the context indicate that mysterium is to be understood in apposition to testamentum rather than calix. So my answer should be: the Mystery of Faith is the New and Eternal Covenant.

Maria

 

[batteddy]

Are you in agreement with Michael Davies the heretic?

Logical fallacy: Guilt by Association.

It is clear that sort of “reasoning” is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor “reasoning”: “You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn’t believe it.”

*Pope Innocent may have personally believed Christ spoke those words, Popes being as susceptable to the pious legends of the middle ages as anyone else. There is nothing wrong with that belief, I just find it unlikely. He is ignoring the eastern practice…and making a claim based on no information but what he feels “should” be true (in an age when many later-added traditions, like “mysterium fidei” from the 400’s, were attributed to the apostles or even Christ himself…which they don’t have to be, that’s the point of tradition, it develops gradually and organically). A pope 1000 years after Christ has no more special information that would prove Christ said it than we do today. Innocent was no more present at the original last supper than I was, he was not making an infallible statement, and popes cannot just make something up new…they only have authority over things already Revealed, which these words were not.

Still, I think that simply being traditional, it should have been left in.

 

[AJV]

The words “the mystery of faith” in the consecration are a clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These words were also removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer in his 1549 Anglican Prayer book because of their clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.(Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 306.)

Cramner removed mysterium fidei totally. And what you have quoted is not in Davies book. What he says is that *Mysterium Fidei *is removed and then he says that benedicere/benedexit was removed because *that *implied trasubstatiation . He does not say why mysterium fidei was removed.At least, this is as far as I can see so if I’m missing somethign please correct me.

Mysterium Fidei is by no means totally free from all minsinterpretation. Else we would not have this in the Summa

Objection 5. Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to Is. 57:14: “Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people.” But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ’s body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add “the mystery of faith.”

Pope Innocent III is speaking privately in attributing it to the apostles. He also says that Christ did not say “This is my body” but consecrated it by His omnipotence and that for a valid consecration the priest must make the sign of the cross over the Host.