F
fix
Guest
It was a rhetorical question. The author of the piece seems to want us to conclude the earlier Church was defecient in some way or perhaps the Holy Spirit was confused for a few centuries?
- Status
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Otm, thank you for your thoughts on this matter.
Indeed, I was not trying to show that Msgr. Shannon was not in line with Magesterium, only that his articles could lend themselves to errorneous conclusions, or perhaps resonate with antagonists of the Church… Note that I categorized certain passages of his as “good” and “not so good”. You can indeed find many a statement that is an accurate representation of Church teaching. You can also find statements that are written in a way that give at least the impression of an unorthodox approach.
You may find Msgr. Shannon’s writings informative and thought-provoking. I find them dubious. I suppose that is a legitimate difference of opinion. I feel no need to defend his writings, although you may. At the very least I think we can say that his writing causes some confusion over certain matters? As you rightly pointed out Msgr. Shannon was not writing a scholarly article on transubstantiation. He is writing for a church bulletin, to the lay faithful, and I think he has a responsiblity to clearly present the Church’s authentic teaching, not foment confusion or doubt. But that’s just my opinion.
I was referring to statements from the article such as this:
This taken in conjunction with his other comments seems to indicate to me that, at the most, only those who had faith could experience Christ empirically.
That speculation, to me, doesn’t go very far in supporting the Bride of Christ’s joyful refrain “Christ is Truly Risen!”. But again, just my opinion.
Please see Rochester Dissenter Now Undermines Christ’s Resurrection for an additional viewpoint on Msgr. Shannon. I make no claim to its accuracy, however I find some of the concerns presented in the article to be relevant to this discussion, particularly the point made that St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane condemed the following as error:
Thanks,
and God Bless,
VC
J
JimG
Guest
F
fix
Guest
Verbum Caro:
Thanks for the cite.
M
manualman
Guest
My two cents: Father has been quite careful to state his thoughts ina such a way that if put on trial for them against the doctrines of the church, he would be found ‘not guilty’ if he had a half decent lawyer.
However, it appears to ME that his intent is to sow division. He clearly repudiates practices and understandings of the church in the past instead of building upon the wisdom of our saints and placing emphasis on different truths.
The favorite trick of the devil is to use tiny bits of truth in complex issues to create a polarized group where people attack each other and push one another away from a proper and balanced understanding of the issue. Thus Muslims have contempt for christians whom they see as polytheists. Protestants believe catholics ignore the authority of the bible. SSPXers believe that their perception of tradition trumps the pope’s. And so on ad nauseum…
IMO, father does us all a disservice by contributing to an unhealthy EITHER community OR worship false dilemma in regards the proper disposition towards the Eucharist. I don’t see why we all cannot learn to be conscious of the fact that we, together, are in the physical presence of the most high. That it is a privilidge and comes with the responsibility of participation in the liturgy AND the necessity for reverence.
Btw, he is a priest. Agree with him or not, he deserves to be referred to with proper titles.
However, it appears to ME that his intent is to sow division. He clearly repudiates practices and understandings of the church in the past instead of building upon the wisdom of our saints and placing emphasis on different truths.
The favorite trick of the devil is to use tiny bits of truth in complex issues to create a polarized group where people attack each other and push one another away from a proper and balanced understanding of the issue. Thus Muslims have contempt for christians whom they see as polytheists. Protestants believe catholics ignore the authority of the bible. SSPXers believe that their perception of tradition trumps the pope’s. And so on ad nauseum…
IMO, father does us all a disservice by contributing to an unhealthy EITHER community OR worship false dilemma in regards the proper disposition towards the Eucharist. I don’t see why we all cannot learn to be conscious of the fact that we, together, are in the physical presence of the most high. That it is a privilidge and comes with the responsibility of participation in the liturgy AND the necessity for reverence.
Btw, he is a priest. Agree with him or not, he deserves to be referred to with proper titles.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Yep, and that would be Monsignor (Msgr). My previous posts did not include the proper title because I was unaware of it. It seems that a few of Msgr. Shannon’s works do not include his title, and I was led astray. I corrected that in my later posts.
VC
M
manualman
Guest
I MISSED that! Mea culpa. Monsignor! I don’t even know how to spell that right.
B
Brendan
Guest
Do you mean to tell me they had no conscience awareness that they were at a Catholic Mass, and that a Catholic Mass
Ahh, but you said they they brought their devotional prayer books and rosaries. That alone is interaction with God, is it not.
To you
But if you spent time talking to the host’s mother, or engaged in a conversation (prayer) with the host and the other invited guests (saints), would you still appear to be not be actively participating.
Is such conversation not action? the author here clearly holds that the priest was the only one acting, when that is positively NOT the case.
and if that doesn’t explain it to you, then I dont know what will.
But the author doesn’t say “full participation”, he denies that the faithful were participating at all, that it was only the priest who was participating (acting, performing actions)
L
Legatus
Guest
I would say that the article isn’t heretical per se but clearly the emphais is away from the presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine in an effort to emphasize the presence of Christ in the assembly. The author is right in stating that we receive the resurrected and glorified body of Christ and also in stating that we receive the whole Christ in Communion. We are not cannibals as the ancient Romans accused us of being. But the article could do with some real clarification.
There are also a few factual errors e.g. the Mass was NOT said facing the people or with the people gathered around the altar until the 8th cent. In earliest times there seems to have been no regularity as to how the priest faced but the eastward facing position became pretty universal very early C.F.Joseph Jungman; “Missarum Sollemnia”.
Certainly this is an apologia for the New Rite of the Mass and here I stand foresquare with Pio XII. The Novus Ordo was not given to us by Vatican II and in my opinion it is greatly inferior to the Tridentine Rite.
O
otm
Guest
It can also be typical of those who actually read Church history who are not on the left, but realize that at almost every age the Church has made some corrections. They are also people who realize that within the Catholic Church there are times where one side of an issue is emphasized, and later on, a different side is emphasized.
I have found people calling church historians (e.g. those who have studied Sacrramental history) heretics, people who deny the Faith, liberals, leftists, Progressives, and other derogatory terms, in largest part because the one calling others names had what amounted to a grade school understanding of Faith, and essentially had stopped learning when they were confirmed. They were scandalized by the real facts of how the Church had understood and celebrated the Sacraments.
I am sure you are not in that category. Frankly, I am not overly interested in the background of the writer of this article for several reasons: first, the article doesn’t really prompt me to go out and buy any of his books; second, I have heard much if not most of what he said from other authentic sources within the Church, and third, because I realize that he is trying to cover in four pages what amounts to at least a textbook full of material.
While I might edit his document slightly differently than did the editors of the publication, anyone who is in shock and awe over the article doesn’t know much sacramental history.
I also get a little tired of the “liberal” and the “conservative” cards being played. I may have sympathies for one viewpoint or another, but both sides can and do have valid and licit views of issues within the Church. Both sides can and do, at times, also take viewpoints that are not valid or licit. Using a brush to paint one side or the other as wrong simply because they may express a different viewpoint is at best tiresome.
O
otm
Guest
The question may be different: if the Mass is one of the two official Liturgies of the Church, which implies that it is done in community, what are the motivating issues of saying a Mass when no one is present?
and please note, I do not presume there are no other valid motivating issues.
O
otm
Guest
I don’t find any implication tha the Holy Spirit ws confused.
But anyone who thinks that there have never been times that the Church has been deficient in some way needs to explain a long list of decisions, conciliar and other, in which the Church has changed directions.
Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all truth. I don’t recall that He ever promised that the Church would never over-emphasize or under-emphasize anything.
One example should suffice: in the early Church it was held that you only went to (pick your name: Penance, Confession, Reconcilliation, etc) once in your lifetime. That ultimately led to “deathbed” conversions: many waited to be baptized because they knew enough or their own sinfull weaknesses that the major sins: murder, adultery, etc. were likely something they would not be able to overcome. They therefore started waiting until very near death to be baptized; as a result, the Sacrament of Confirmation was almost lost.
It wasn’t until the Irish monks introduced repeated private confessions to Europe that the one time, public confession was modified.
Praxis changed. Was the Church wrong? Was the Holy Spirit confused?
I don’t think I would put it in those terms. I think I would say that while the sum total of Truth was revealed to the Church in Christ Jesus, it was and still is only through constant contemplation of that Truth that we see and understand the fullness of it, particularly as it comes to praxis.
O
otm
Guest
Verbum Caro:
why is it that we need to constantly define everyone and everything as “liberal” or “not liberal” and therefore “leading people astray”? Just for starters, I don’t believe I could have written the article as well as he did; but neither do I say that I would have written it (or edited it) as it was done. the start of this whole thread was someone who was extremely upset with it; one other poster weighed in saying
I also think that some people what to find confusion and doubt where there is none, and want to politicize each and every writer into one of two camps: liberal or conservaitive; thereby at least implying that whichever camp they find themselves in, the other camp at best can barely have anything good to say; almost always writes in a way that leads the readers to the extremes of the other camp, and just possibly might be openly heretical.Otm, thank you for your thoughts on this matter.
Indeed, I was not trying to show that Msgr. Shannon was not in line with Magesterium, only that his articles could lend themselves to errorneous conclusions, or perhaps resonate with antagonists of the Church… Note that I categorized certain passages of his as “good” and “not so good”. You can indeed find many a statement that is an accurate representation of Church teaching. You can also find statements that are written in a way that give at least the impression of an unorthodox approach.
You may find Msgr. Shannon’s writings informative and thought-provoking. I find them dubious. I suppose that is a legitimate difference of opinion. I feel no need to defend his writings, although you may. At the very least I think we can say that his writing causes some confusion over certain matters? As you rightly pointed out Msgr. Shannon was not writing a scholarly article on transubstantiation. He is writing for a church bulletin, to the lay faithful, and I think he has a responsiblity to clearly present the Church’s authentic teaching, not foment confusion or doubt. But that’s just my opinion.
why is it that we need to constantly define everyone and everything as “liberal” or “not liberal” and therefore “leading people astray”? Just for starters, I don’t believe I could have written the article as well as he did; but neither do I say that I would have written it (or edited it) as it was done. the start of this whole thread was someone who was extremely upset with it; one other poster weighed in saying
and suggested it was trying to tear down the Church. They both betrayed a lack of knowledge of Church Sacramental history; sadly, it was for people like them it was written!
R
richiejm3
Guest
Ok, I talked to the priest at my parish about the article being put into the bulletin just to get his thoughts. I brought up the fact that the article explains that we don’t literally eat the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and he said thats right, that the church doesn’t teach that we actually are eating flesh and drinking blood. He did go on to say that It is truly Jesus Christ and that it’s a mystery and that we just can’t humanly comprehend all that it is. I think that is only part of the truth though because the ccc states;
Anyway it seems to me that this article only contains part of the truth and is trying to make its point by deliberately leaving out the rest. Although stating that we don’t literally eat the body and blood of Christ just seems like heresy.
and
and so it would seem to me that to deny that the bread and wine have now become literally flesh and blood along with everything else that the author of the article says and everything else that’s unexplainable would be heresy, because that would be saying Christ “whole and entire” does not have bodily flesh and I thought that Christ’s Divinity is inseparable from his Humanity and doesn’t his humanity include bodily flesh and blood?
Anyway it seems to me that this article only contains part of the truth and is trying to make its point by deliberately leaving out the rest. Although stating that we don’t literally eat the body and blood of Christ just seems like heresy.
O
otm
Guest
His humanity is now in the Resurrected body. If you read the Gospels, about the best way you can explain it is that it was the same body and yet not the same body.
It was a body that would no longer corrupt. It was a body that you could touch and feel (Thomas). It was a body that could pass in and out of a locked room without the use of the door. It was a body that could disappear when it was sitting with you. It was a body that you could recognize immediately (It is the Lord - St John), and at the same time a body that could walk with you for a long period of time (part of the day) someone you had spent a significant amount of time with day in and day out (the disciples) and couldn’t recognize when he was sitting there right with you - until He broke Bread. The body was the same and yet not the same. It appears to be a body that could leave a photographich negative on a burial cloth, in a manner no one has been able to explain (Turin).
The author is trying to explain the unexplainable. He does not deny the True Presence - he specifically admits it; but he is trying to talk aobut other aspects of the Eucharist as well. Don’t fall into the trap that the only thing we can say about the Eucharist is summed up in the term Transubstantiation; the Church doesn’t say that.
Anyway it seems to me that this article only contains part of the truth and is trying to make its point by deliberately leaving out the rest. Of course it is. It is a four page article talking about how the Church has responded to the Eucharist through the ages. It isn’t meant to be a text book; it is meant to acquaint the reader with some factual information of how the Church has responded to the Eucharist over the centuries.
R
richiejm3
Guest
I wasn’t consciously defining anyone as Liberal or not. I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone but I was worried that this could lead some astray and that was my concern. I do think it’s our duty to keep a watchful eye for things that could lead our children, our brothers and sisters, our neighbors or anyone else astray. And so I brought a concern of mine here because I needed help deserning whether I needed to be concerned. Thank you everyone for your help, I knew I could count on you.
R
richiejm3
Guest
I definitly don’t think that what the ccc explains is Transubstantiation is the only thing we can say about the Eucharist but I do think that the substance of theEucharist can be summed up in this one section on Transubstantiation;
So OTM, as far as your explaination of Christs Humanity (which I liked) does Christ have actual flesh and actual blood right now in Heaven? Because when the the author of the article writes;
I assume he’s talking about the actual flesh and blood of Christ.
F
fix
Guest
He is in my diocese and I read his column regularly in the diocese paper. His background matters. The tone of the piece in question is left leaning. That is my opinion.
As for history I will stick with other less biased sources who can relate it in a less biased way.
F
fix
Guest
The way the author presented the issue in question is revealing. Taken that he is a left leaning author with an agenda it all seems clear.
F
fix
Guest
The tilt is that we need to be overly critical of the Church. I am not stating we should overlook anything, what I am against is the attitude that the Church has been “wrong” and finally we have gotten it right.
That nuance is conveyed in pieces like this and in other ways by the many who appear to be elitist.
As the saying goes fair and balanced.
- Status