Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[TempleServant]

What I hear you saying is reverence is based on external observances rather than spiritual disposition. THAT might be dangerous.

What’s dangerous is thinking that spiritual disposition is not affected by external observances. If you think that, then a wham-bam Mass is as worthwhile as a solemn one.

A Mass is all about external observances. Take them away an what do you have? A bunch of people sitting in pews listening to a lecture!

One day, one fine day, we’ll tell the the ‘scholars’ to hold their noise and we will revert to something our forefathers would have thought worthy of The King Of Kings. I’m just hoping it won’t be a World War or something that will wake people up.

 

[clem456]

What’s dangerous is thinking that spiritual disposition is not affected by external observances. If you think that, then a wham-bam Mass is as worthwhile as a solemn one.

A Mass is all about external observances. Take them away an what do you have? A bunch of people sitting in pews listening to a lecture!

One day, one fine day, we’ll tell the the ‘scholars’ to hold their noise and we will revert to something our forefathers would have thought worthy of The King Of Kings. I’m just hoping it won’t be a World War or something that will wake people up.

No. The discussion is about the position taken by some that one form of **valid observance **somehow draws more grace than another valid form, or that they are somehow not “equal”, whatever that means,or how we can detect the reverence entailed in two **valid forms **of observance.
You’re talking about bad forms perhaps. Different thread maybe…

 

[wasserfall]

No. The discussion is about the position taken by some that one form of **valid observance **somehow draws more grace than another valid form, or that they are somehow not “equal”, whatever that means,or how we can detect the reverence entailed in two **valid forms **of observance.

That’s not what I was talking about. I was speaking of the converse.

If someone tells me that “The Church teaches” that both the new mass and the old mass are equally efficacious channels of grace, then I say: show me where the Church teaches that.

Let’s get back to that point. Show me where the Church teaches that, and then we can move on to something else.

 

[clem456]

That’s not what I was talking about. I was speaking of the converse.

If someone tells me that “The Church teaches” that both the new mass and the old mass are equally efficacious channels of grace, then I say: show me where the Church teaches that.

Let’s get back to that point. Show me where the Church teaches that, and then we can move on to something else.

Where has the Church EVER taught your underlying supposition? And why would you ask someone to prove a non-starter? It’s an easy way to win an argument for sure

So in your opinion, the Sacrifice of the Mass, is more present, better present, wider channel of grace, etc (not really sure what exactly you and others mean) in one valid form of the Mass than another valid form. HOW MUCH MORE GRACE DOES THE FORM YOU PREFER BESTOW ON YOU THAN THE OTHER(S)? I need to know, so I can definitely go to where I get the maximum amount of grace and store it all up.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I need to know, so I can definitely go to where I get the maximum amount of grace and store it all up.

Now you’re talkin’! Don’t we all need the maximum amount of grace?

• PAX

 

[clem456]

Now you’re talkin’! Don’t we all need the maximum amount of grace?

• PAX

Hey cool, I like a little humor. You detected sarcasm. I need to sign off before my brain eplodes.
Fortunately for me grace is an unmerited gift of infinite proportions. I’ll leave with this:

II. GRACE

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

There’s lots more following that paragraph; I looked for the part discussing how much grace and where to get the most grace, and comparative grace (is that a correct term??) but I could not find that in there. I just hope I’m attending the correct Catholic Mass, I don’twant to get shorted!!!

 

[TempleServant]

No. The discussion is about the position taken by some that one form of **valid observance **somehow draws more grace than another valid form, or that they are somehow not “equal”, whatever that means,or how we can detect the reverence entailed in two **valid forms **of observance.
You’re talking about bad forms perhaps. Different thread maybe…

No. My response was to what you posted.

Is it the case that COTT, kneeling, is the same as CITH, standing, in terms of showing reverence at a religious rite in the West?

 

[TimothyH]

That’s not what I was talking about. I was speaking of the converse.

If someone tells me that “The Church teaches” that both the new mass and the old mass are equally efficacious channels of grace, then I say: show me where the Church teaches that.

Let’s get back to that point. Show me where the Church teaches that, and then we can move on to something else.

We don’t need documents. Grace comes from the sacrament, not the form of the Mass. The sacrament is the sacrament. It either exists or it doesn’t.

The Eucharist is either Jesus or it isn’t. The bread and wine are either changed into the entire substance of Christ or it is not. The bread and wine either become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ or it remains only bread and wine and Mass has not happened.

It is either God or it is bread and wine. The entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is either present in the Eucharist and there is grace, or you have consumed unleavened bread and common wine and there is no grace. If it is the Eucharist then it is Jesus and it is the Mass. If it is not the Eucharist then it is not Jesus and it is not the Mass.

The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith because THE EUCHARIST IS JESUS and Jesus is the source of all grace.

There can’t be more Jesus or less Jesus. There can only be Jesus.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

No. My response was to what you posted.

No, I’m sorry, it was not.
You might have posted in repsonse to my post, but your response did not respond to the issue that was addressed, it responded to a different issue, which is likely being responed to in other responses on other threads.
Thanks for the discussion tho!!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Someone on CAF was claiming last week that the Church teaches that the new mass and the old mass are equally efficacious channels of grace.

I asked for a magisterial document upholding this “doctrine” of the Church.

I am still waiting.

While you are waiting can you provide any sources from the Church that say other wise?

The Church Teaches that the Mass is a source of sanctifying grace.

The Church Teaches that there are two forms of the Mass, the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

Therefore if the Mass is a source of grace and there are two Forms then both Forms must be an equivalent source of grace.

Simple logic really.

 

[TimothyH]

While you are waiting can you provide any sources from the Church that say other wise?

The Church Teaches that the Mass is a source of sanctifying grace.

The Church Teaches that there are two forms of the Mass, the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

Therefore if the Mass is a source of grace and there are two Forms then both Forms must be an equivalent source of grace.

Simple logic really.

Point of interest Brother, or perhaps rather a question, isn’t the Eucharist the source of grace?

-Tim-

 

[wasserfall]

Where has the Church EVER taught your underlying supposition?

I don’t claim that the Church teaches one way or the other. As far as I know it is an open question.

So in your opinion, the Sacrifice of the Mass, is more present, better present, wider channel of grace, etc (not really sure what exactly you and others mean) in one valid form of the Mass than another valid form.

Christ earned infinite merit through his passion and death. God’s grace is infinitely abundant.

However, no person receives infinite graces by attending mass, if for no other reason than that we are finite creatures.

It has long been held by Catholic theologians, that various factors can increase or decrease the graces available at mass. Factors such as: disposition of the persons in attendance, disposition of the priest, etc.

To me, it is certainly not outside of the realm of possibility that the rite of mass itself might play a similar role, but I was told that the Church teaches otherwise.

I have never seen or heard that the Church teaches otherwise, apart from the unsupported assertions of anonymous posters on the internet, which I don’t find particularly credible.

So does the Church teach that all masses are equally efficacious channels of grace or not? It’s a simple question: yes or no.

If yes, then prove it.
If no, then the discussion can continue.

 

[Rich_C]

Point of interest Brother, or perhaps rather a question, isn’t the Eucharist the source of grace?

-Tim-

The action of Christ offering Himself in the Holy Sacrifice, through the person of the priest, pours out grace on everyone at Mass and on the whole world, even people who don’t receive Holy Communion. So the liturgical actions call down grace that wouldn’t be present at say, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. So saying the Mass is a source of grace is very important in this sense.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 923. How are the fruits of the Mass distributed?

A. The fruits of the Mass are distributed thus:

   1. The first benefit is bestowed on the priest who says the Mass;
   2. The second on the person for whom the Mass is said, or for the intention for which it is said;
   3. The third on those who are present at the Mass, and particularly on those who serve it, and
   4. The fourth on all the faithful who are in communion with the Church.

Also, from the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent:

CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

 

[wasserfall]

The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith because THE EUCHARIST IS JESUS and Jesus is the source of all grace.

There can’t be more Jesus or less Jesus. There can only be Jesus.

The original question wasn’t whether Jesus is more or less truly present, or whether one mass has more Jesus than another mass.

The original question was can the rite (or form) of mass affect the abundance of graces received by persons hearing mass?

As far as I know, the answer is: maybe yes, maybe no.

However, it was asserted that the Church teaches that the form of mass makes no difference. Is this assertion supported by magisterial pronouncements of the Church, and thus true. Or is it just an assertion without basis by an anonymous internet commentator?

That’s what I’m trying to figure out at the moment.

 

[wasserfall]

While you are waiting can you provide any sources from the Church that say other wise?

The Church Teaches that the Mass is a source of sanctifying grace.

The Church Teaches that there are two forms of the Mass, the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

Therefore if the Mass is a source of grace and there are two Forms then both Forms must be an equivalent source of grace.

Simple logic really.

Either you are saying that the same God is the source of grace for mass, no matter in which form it is celebrated, which is obviously true.

Of you are saying that the form of mass cannot influence the grace received by those in attendance, which is an unsupported assertion and not logic.

 

[curlycool89]

Point of interest Brother, or perhaps rather a question, isn’t the Eucharist the source of grace?

-Tim-

The Eucharist is probably the biggest source of grace. What could give you more grace then receiving a Sacrament, and in this case receiving Jesus Himself? And it’s undeniable (I think it would actually be heretical to deny this) that you receive the same Jesus at both the OF and the EF.

The other parts that people talk about are, frankly, subjective. That’s when people talk about what they “get” out of one form of the Mass over another. That doesn’t just apply to Mass though, that can be applied to many other things.

Some people “get” something when they hang out with friends for example (extrovert), while others may feel “refreshed” after reading a book (introverts). Sometimes listening to certain songs (I won’t give names or links, because people on this sub-forum might genuinely freak out) will make me feel “recharged”. For some people it might be the Rosary or any of a number of devotions.

Then we start getting into subjective “feelings” about the Mass. Some people feel they get something out of lots of silence. For others it’s the music, for other’s it’s a good homily, for other’s it a good looking building or artwork or statues or … I could go on ad nauseum..

 

[curlycool89]

While you are waiting can you provide any sources from the Church that say other wise?

[P1]The Church Teaches that the Mass is a source of sanctifying grace.

[P2]The Church Teaches that there are two forms of the Mass, the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

[C]Therefore if the Mass is a source of grace and there are two Forms then both Forms must be an equivalent source of grace.

Simple logic really.

(For clarity, I have added the parts in red)

Brother is correct. The OF is the Mass and the EF is the Mass, and grace comes through the Mass. Since there is no “theological hierarchy” of forms, there can be no distinction between graces at each.

For clarify, you could add a P3 remarking something like “The Mass is the Mass is the Mass”.

The OF and EF, if you will, are “sub-classes” of the “class” Mass, and discussion about graces refers to the “class” Mass.

If you really want to get reflective, do we really want to argue that our actions cause a difference in grace? Or that by arguing about forms we’re reducing Christ to a “divine accountant” giving out graces according to a strict Schedule? Do we really think that God goes “Well, you attended the OF so you get 3 graces, but you attended the EF so you get 4 graces”? That sounds pretty absurd to me, and that’s leaving out the side-discussion that we could have about how this discussion seems to be binding God or putting God in a box.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Point of interest Brother, or perhaps rather a question, isn’t the Eucharist the source of grace?

-Tim-

Tim,
I believe you are “rite” on there. So it matters not the form, it could be OF, EF, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, they all confect the Eucharist which is the source of grace. No form has more grace with in it than any other.

You will not find a document/source from the Church saying this because it is a pretty (pardon my French) stupid question to be asking.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

You will not find a document/source from the Church saying this because it is a pretty (pardon my French) stupid question to be asking.

Oh my. I’m sorry, ByzCath, that you have to put up with us stupid folk. Clearly our intellects are so deficient and unequal to yours that we can’t even understand things that are so blatantly self-evident and obvious that there is no need to even ask a question about them.

– EcceAgnusDei, one of the dumb trads who asks stupid questions on the traditional Catholicism subforum.

 

[wasserfall]

Tim,
I believe you are “rite” on there. So it matters not the form, it could be OF, EF, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, they all confect the Eucharist which is the source of grace. No form has more grace with in it than any other.

I think you are missing the point. There is a difference between the the abundance of grace in the source and the grace available to the hearer of mass. The source is Christ, the the abundance of grace in Christ is infinite.

But God’s grace is channeled, so to speak, through holy mass, and the grace received by those participating is not infinite. In fact, it is certainly obvious (at least I hope so) that not everyone present in the church at mass receives the same graces from the same mass.

The question is whether or not the Church has definitively taught that the rite, or form, of mass is completely irrelevant in terms of graces received by those participating.

The assertion made was that the Church has so taught.

I doubt the assertion, but I’m open to correction. Where is the magisterial document?

You will not find a document/source from the Church saying this because it is a pretty (pardon my French) stupid question to be asking.

So then the Church does not teach such a thing and it is possible that a person in attendance at one form of mass can potentially receive greater graces than another person attending another form of mass?