Sat & Sun Mass readings (He became sin for us / Moses & blood sacrifice / the New Covenant (Transubstantiation)

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

distracted

Guest
**Saturday (6-13)

2 Cor 5:14-21:**

Brothers and Sisters: the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died. He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. Consequently, from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer. So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of [sacrament of] reconciliation namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Chris, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

St Mt 5:33-34:

Jesus said to his disciples: “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow. But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by Heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your ‘yes’ mean “yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.’ Anything more is from the evil one.”

Su (6-14)

Exodus 24:3-8:

When Moses came to the people and related all the words and ordinances of the Lord, they all answered with one voice, “We will do everything that the Lord has told us.” Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord and, rising early the next day, he erected at the foot of the mountain an altar and twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. Then, having sent certain young men of the Israelites to offer holocausts and sacrifice young bulls as peace offerings to the Lord, Moses took half of the blood and put it in large bowls; the other half he splashed on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it aloud to the people, who answered, “All that the Lord has said, we will heed and do.” ***Then he took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words of his.” ***

Heb 9:11-15:

Brothers and Sisters: When Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more prefect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own Blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’s ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the Blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God. For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

St Mark 14:12-16, 22-26:

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they ***sacrificed the Passover ***lamb, Jesus’ disciples said to him, ”Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water. Follow him. Wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘the Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” ’ Then he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make the preparations for us there.” The disciples then went off, entered the city, and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover. While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body” . Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my Blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” [the Church?] Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

*In this last psg Jesus institutes Transubstantiation … He says “this IS my Body [Blood]” not merely a representation thereof…

Some churches think they have this Real Presence but the Host must be confected by an ordained Catholic priest (Some non-catholic churches have ex-priests for ministers so they do have the Real Presence).*
 
Some churches think they have this Real Presence but the Host must be confected by an ordained Catholic priest (Some non-catholic churches have ex-priests for ministers so they do have the Real Presence).
Click to expand...
This is why some Anglican priests who become Catholic priests must participate in a conditional ceremony of re-ordination.

newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm
 
If you read to the end of the article, you will see that Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae defined (for all time, and definitively) that Anglican Orders were indeed null and void. There is no “conditional” ordinations, but re-ordinations. Further, the English Catholic Church has always taught that the Anglican Orders were null and void. 🙂
 
AmbroseSJ said:
If you read to the end of the article, you will see that Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae defined (for all time, and definitively) that Anglican Orders were indeed null and void. There is no “conditional” ordinations, but re-ordinations. Further, the English Catholic Church has always taught that the Anglican Orders were null and void. 🙂
Click to expand...
so if a Catholic priest left the Catholic Church and became Anglican, and said their “mass” (service)… he would NOT be confecting the host??? Is that what you are saying?:confused:
 
40.png
distracted:
so if a Catholic priest left the Catholic Church and became Anglican, and said their “mass” (service)… he would NOT be confecting the host??? Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...
Couple of problems here. What do you mean by the priest “confecting” the host? Do you mean baking and creating it? Because that’s the definition of confect: “create or manufacture a man-made product” Next, the priest does NOT confect or even consecrate the Holy Eucharist, Jesus Christ himself does this, our High priest, with the agency of the ordained priest. Next, how does what I said have anything to do with your question?
 
AmbroseSJ said:
If you read to the end of the article, you will see that Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae defined (for all time, and definitively) that Anglican Orders were indeed null and void. There is no “conditional” ordinations, but re-ordinations. Further, the English Catholic Church has always taught that the Anglican Orders were null and void. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, it is defined now, but it was not so before Leo XIII. Sorry, I should have used “past tense” because this conditional ceremony of re-ordination did indeed happen in the past.

A “conditional” ceremony of re-ordination was done for a priest from non-Catholic Holy Orders who desired to join the Catholic clergy when it was not certain whether the candidate had valid Holy Orders in his previous non-Catholic Church.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Couple of problems here. What do you mean by the priest “confecting” the host? Do you mean baking and creating it? Because that’s the definition of confect: “create or manufacture a man-made product” Next, the priest does NOT confect or even consecrate the Holy Eucharist, Jesus Christ himself does this, our High priest, with the agency of the ordained priest. Next, how does what I said have anything to do with your question?
Click to expand...
I learned that it is the power of the Holy Spirit who changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord when the priest says the “prayers” of consecration.
 
SHW said:
I learned that it is the power of the Holy Spirit who changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord when the priest says the “prayers” of consecration.
Click to expand...
That’s true, and so the Eucharistic prayer itself reads. However, in a fundamental sense, it is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself that consecrates the Bread and Wine, which is why the priest says “This is MY BODY etc.” and “My Blood etc.” It is Jesus Christ, who as our High Priest offers Himself as the perfect Sacrifice while also presenting these gifts to the Father as the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedeck. The early Church fathers were very clear that it was Jesus Christ that consecrated the Bread and Wine at the Divine Mysteries, but THROUGH the POWER of the Holy Spirit. 🙂
 
SHW said:
Yes, it is defined now, but it was not so before Leo XIII. Sorry, I should have used “past tense” because this conditional ceremony of re-ordination did indeed happen in the past.

A “conditional” ceremony of re-ordination was done for a priest from non-Catholic Holy Orders who desired to join the Catholic clergy when it was not certain whether the candidate had valid Holy Orders in his previous non-Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Yes that is true. There was a period of doubt and confusion between the 18th C. and Pope Leo’s final decision. But from Bishop Challoner’s time and looking back toward the 16th century, the English Catholic clergy were never in doubt, and pretty much for the reasons given in Pope Leo’s Bull. But even in the mid-19th c. after John Henry Newman converted to Catholicism, he realized his Anglican Orders were null and void, and would therefore need to be re-ordained. Even then there was no great controversy, as Anglican Orders were considered null and void by the English Catholics. But as the Century wore on Anglicans seemed to suddenly resent this Catholic attitude as the article you linked to mentions. But then this was a period of great intellectual unrest, curiosity, and modernism. 🤷

It helps to understand the whole “evolution” of Anglicanism. In the early days, the Church of England was very suspicious of, and shunned anything that smacked of “priestcraft” (which was intended to sound like witchcraft.) Priests were routinely put to death by Queen Elizabeth from 1580’s till she died in 1603, by hanging, drawing and quartering (The utmost punishment for high treason.) By the late 17th century, there was a gradual increase of power (through the Crown) to the “high church” Anglicans with their emphasis on clerical orders and episcopacy as opposed to the low church Protestants, Presbyterians, and Puritans. By that time, the High Church Anglicans were trying to find ways to achieve validity and apostolicity in their orders. So there was much historic revisionism that started to take place. However, the English Catholics remembered well the chain of events that negated Anglican Orders.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
It helps to understand the whole “evolution” of Anglicanism. In the early days, the Church of England was very suspicious of, and shunned anything that smacked of “priestcraft” (which was intended to sound like witchcraft.) Priests were routinely put to death by Queen Elizabeth from 1580’s till she died in 1603, by hanging, drawing and quartering (The utmost punishment for high treason.) By the late 17th century, there was a gradual increase of power (through the Crown) to the “high church” Anglicans with their emphasis on clerical orders and episcopacy as opposed to the low church Protestants, Presbyterians, and Puritans. By that time, the High Church Anglicans were trying to find ways to achieve validity and apostolicity in their orders. So there was much historic revisionism that started to take place. However, the English Catholics remembered well the chain of events that negated Anglican Orders.
Click to expand...
I hope that capital punishment does not return for persons who are members of “unpopular” religions. :eek:

These “unpopular” religions will be the ones which speak against immoral lifestyles!
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Couple of problems here. What do you mean by the priest “confecting” the host? Do you mean baking and creating it? Because that’s the definition of confect: “create or manufacture a man-made product” Next, the priest does NOT confect or even consecrate the Holy Eucharist, Jesus Christ himself does this, our High priest, with the agency of the ordained priest. ?
Click to expand...
ok… i heard someone use the word confect once for consecration… so its his fault… 😃

yes, i know it is Jesus who consecrates the host.
Next, how does what I said have anything to do with your question?
Click to expand...
well, not much but thanks for the info…😃

I should have known Confect wasn’t the right word… I used to taking classes in baking… 😃

my question was: If a Catholic priest leaves the Church and goes to some other… well, ecclessiastical community … and does what he think is consecrating the host, does he indeed consecrate the host, since he is, after all a Catholic priest and as the psg in the Bible says: You are a priest forever (in the order of Mechizedek [spelling??])
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Yes that is true. There was a period of doubt and confusion between the 18th C. and Pope Leo’s final decision. But from Bishop Challoner’s time and looking back toward the 16th century, the English Catholic clergy were never in doubt, and pretty much for the reasons given in Pope Leo’s Bull. But even in the mid-19th c. after John Henry Newman converted to Catholicism, he realized his Anglican Orders were null and void, and would therefore need to be re-ordained. Even then there was no great controversy, as Anglican Orders were considered null and void by the English Catholics. But as the Century wore on Anglicans seemed to suddenly resent this Catholic attitude as the article you linked to mentions. But then this was a period of great intellectual unrest, curiosity, and modernism. 🤷

It helps to understand the whole “evolution” of Anglicanism. In the early days, the Church of England was very suspicious of, and shunned anything that smacked of “priestcraft” (which was intended to sound like witchcraft.) Priests were routinely put to death by Queen Elizabeth from 1580’s till she died in 1603, by hanging, drawing and quartering (.
Click to expand...
seems the Inquisition was Justice Incarnate in comparison to what the non-Catholics did to Cahtolics… :mad:
 
distracted said:
seems the Inquisition was Justice Incarnate in comparison to what the non-Catholics did to Cahtolics… :mad:
Click to expand...
Yes, it was a sad time all around. Bishop Challoner wrote a two volume book entitled "MEMOIRS OF MISSIONARY PRIESTS AS WELL SECULAR AS REGULAR; AND OF OTHER CATHOLICS OF BOTH SEXES THAT HAVE SUFFERED DEATH IN ENGLAND, ON RELIGIOUS ACCOUNTS FROM THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1577, TO 1684 " It is a horrifying chronicle of clerical butchery (including some lay people as well.) 😦
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Yes, it was a sad time all around. Bishop Challoner wrote a two volume book entitled "MEMOIRS OF MISSIONARY PRIESTS AS WELL SECULAR AS REGULAR; AND OF OTHER CATHOLICS OF BOTH SEXES THAT HAVE SUFFERED DEATH IN ENGLAND, ON RELIGIOUS ACCOUNTS FROM THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1577, TO 1684 " It is a horrifying chronicle of clerical butchery (including some lay people as well.) 😦
Click to expand...
well, at least they wer martyred so they went straight to Heav en when they died… :heaven:

we ordinary folks have to be conent with so-called little martyrdoms… daily ones… which (i don’t know about you) but in my life don’t seem so little…

but maybe that’s just 'cause i’m a complainer…
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Yes, it was a sad time all around. Bishop Challoner wrote a two volume book entitled "MEMOIRS OF MISSIONARY PRIESTS AS WELL SECULAR AS REGULAR; AND OF OTHER CATHOLICS OF BOTH SEXES THAT HAVE SUFFERED DEATH IN ENGLAND, ON RELIGIOUS ACCOUNTS FROM THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1577, TO 1684 " It is a horrifying chronicle of clerical butchery (including some lay people as well.) 😦
Click to expand...
do they sell that book at CA??

i don’t have a credit card, though… so not sure i can buy @ CA???
 
SHW said:
I learned that it is the power of the Holy Spirit who changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord when the priest says the “prayers” of consecration.
Click to expand...
Jesus… Holy Spirt… They are united…
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Yes, it was a sad time all around. Bishop Challoner wrote a two volume book entitled "MEMOIRS OF MISSIONARY PRIESTS AS WELL SECULAR AS REGULAR; AND OF OTHER CATHOLICS OF BOTH SEXES THAT HAVE SUFFERED DEATH IN ENGLAND, ON RELIGIOUS ACCOUNTS FROM THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1577, TO 1684 " It is a horrifying chronicle of clerical butchery (including some lay people as well.) 😦
Click to expand...
Is this book in updated language, or is it hard to read with odd words, odder spelling, and f’'s for s’s? ( I found it on Amazon, but not much of a description.) Are there any other books about this time period that you would recommend? I’m reading about St. Thomas More now. I’m amazed at how hard it is to find information about this time period. Lots of protestant stuff out there, mostly with flaws that even I can spot, not much concrete information the other way.

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top