S
SHW
Guest
True, but Jesus in His human nature is the only one of the three Persons of the Triune God who actually died on the cross. However, all Three Divine Persons raised Jesus from the dead.
Sat & Sun Mass readings (He became sin for us / Moses & blood sacrifice / the New Covenant (Transubstantiation)
- Status
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I don’t know about the Amazon version of the book. The book was often reprinted into the 19th century, so I would think that Amazon’s book has a modern orthography, (other than English spellings for some words.) I have the first edition but I am used to reading old texts. English Catholics suffered greatly from the late 16th century until the latter part of the 18th century because of their religion. During this time Catholic books were banned or their printers imprisoned, sometimes worse. So there weren’t many books written or printed about these times that were contemporary. Also, the English Catholics had no wish to further antagonize their fellow Englishmen. This suppression of the rigors of the earlier persecution continued even into our own era. It is definitely difficult to find books (from a Catholic perspective) about these times. That’s why the few primary sources are so important. The English Catholic Record Society regularly publishes this sort of information, but it is expensive and only available in England. The Douay Diaries (which were kept in Latin) found their way into this publication over the years. Bishop Challoner’s books are good sources (which he published anonymously) Charles Butler, in 1819 (the nephew of the famous “Lives of the Saints” Alban Butler,) published a 4 volume book called “HISTORICAL MEMOIRS RESPECTING THE ENGLISH, IRISH AND SCOTTISH CATHOLICS, FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE PRESENT TIME” which is another good source. John Henry Newman wrote an interesting and even entertaining book called: “LECTURES ON THE PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND: ADDRESSED TO THE BROTHERS OF THE ORATORY.” Which is worth reading. I would think there are probably many other good accounts by modern writers as well, at reasonable prices, or even at the local library.
I
incense
Guest
Amazon didn’t have it, but I found an on-line free download of it. And the language is understandable. Thanks. I see a future of many late nights reading at the computer.Charles Butler, in 1819 (the nephew of the famous “Lives of the Saints” Alban Butler,) published a 4 volume book called “HISTORICAL MEMOIRS RESPECTING THE ENGLISH, IRISH AND SCOTTISH CATHOLICS, FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE PRESENT TIME” which is another good source.
archive.org/details/ra5490865b01butluoft
I
incense
Guest
I found this one on-line too:John Henry Newman wrote an interesting and even entertaining book called: “LECTURES ON THE PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND: ADDRESSED TO THE BROTHERS OF THE ORATORY.” Which is worth reading.
newmanreader.org/works/england/index.html
A year 2001 revision
D
distracted
Guest
thanks for the info…I don’t know about the Amazon version of the book. The book was often reprinted into the 19th century, so I would think that Amazon’s book has a modern orthography, (other than English spellings for some words.) I have the first edition but I am used to reading old texts. English Catholics suffered greatly from the late 16th century until the latter part of the 18th century because of their religion. During this time Catholic books were banned or their printers imprisoned, sometimes worse. So there weren’t many books written or printed about these times that were contemporary. Also, the English Catholics had no wish to further antagonize their fellow Englishmen. This suppression of the rigors of the earlier persecution continued even into our own era. It is definitely difficult to find books (from a Catholic perspective) about these times. That’s why the few primary sources are so important. The English Catholic Record Society regularly publishes this sort of information, but it is expensive and only available in England. The Douay Diaries (which were kept in Latin) found their way into this publication over the years. Bishop Challoner’s books are good sources (which he published anonymously) Charles Butler, in 1819 (the nephew of the famous “Lives of the Saints” Alban Butler,) published a 4 volume book called “HISTORICAL MEMOIRS RESPECTING THE ENGLISH, IRISH AND SCOTTISH CATHOLICS, FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE PRESENT TIME” which is another good source. John Henry Newman wrote an interesting and even entertaining book called: “LECTURES ON THE PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND: ADDRESSED TO THE BROTHERS OF THE ORATORY.” Which is worth reading. I would think there are probably many other good accounts by modern writers as well, at reasonable prices, or even at the local library.
it seems to me that the Protestants were far more intolerant and cruel than Catholics ever though of being…
everyone goes on and on about the Inquisition… Even Catholics do… apologizing too much, if you ask me… Those given over to the Inquisition were questioned over and over and given many chances to take back their heretical ideas… If they were put to death (by the secular ruler, not the Church) it was more/less their own fault.
You cannot say the same thing for what the Protestants did to Catholics… They seemed to not even have bothered w/ an “inquisition”… becasue they didn’t have to question Catholikcs, i guess… already knew that anyone claiming to be Catholic was “off”…
Martin Luther loosed the devil on us… whether he intended to or not…
M
Mintaka
Guest
Re: earlier discussion in the thread
To confect, in theological usage, is different from the ordinary usage. Most dictionaries don’t include theological definitions, or not many; and there are tons of Catholic usages which are different from those of even other Christian religions. This is why the late Fr. Hardon put out a Catholic dictionary, and even that doesn’t really get into super-technical stuff. Technical terms usually are something you have to learn while learning your field, that’s all there is to it.
Yes, it’s okay to find this frustrating. I’m constantly having to hunt around to find out what old usages mean, whenever I get into Google Books, and I’ve always prided myself on my vocabulary. Sigh.
“Confect” comes from the Latin “conficere”, which literally means “bring together” or “prepare” or “make together”, as well as “make from separate ingredients”. The priest can never actually transubstantiate the Eucharist; that is the work of God. But the priest can confect the Eucharist properly or improperly, in good faith or not. St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Jerome used the term for “that thing that the Word of God does with a Host when the priest says ‘This is My Body’”, or by extension “that thing that the priest does when He says the Word of God, ‘This is My Body’, over the Host.” If you want to know anything more exact, you’ll have to find a Catholic theology book.
Wait till you read an old book and see “conversation” used for “the process of turning toward the Lord or converting”. Now that’s confusing!
To confect, in theological usage, is different from the ordinary usage. Most dictionaries don’t include theological definitions, or not many; and there are tons of Catholic usages which are different from those of even other Christian religions. This is why the late Fr. Hardon put out a Catholic dictionary, and even that doesn’t really get into super-technical stuff. Technical terms usually are something you have to learn while learning your field, that’s all there is to it.
Yes, it’s okay to find this frustrating. I’m constantly having to hunt around to find out what old usages mean, whenever I get into Google Books, and I’ve always prided myself on my vocabulary. Sigh.
“Confect” comes from the Latin “conficere”, which literally means “bring together” or “prepare” or “make together”, as well as “make from separate ingredients”. The priest can never actually transubstantiate the Eucharist; that is the work of God. But the priest can confect the Eucharist properly or improperly, in good faith or not. St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Jerome used the term for “that thing that the Word of God does with a Host when the priest says ‘This is My Body’”, or by extension “that thing that the priest does when He says the Word of God, ‘This is My Body’, over the Host.” If you want to know anything more exact, you’ll have to find a Catholic theology book.
Wait till you read an old book and see “conversation” used for “the process of turning toward the Lord or converting”. Now that’s confusing!
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Mintaka said:
That’s a good explanation of the theological word “confect.” However, even in that explanation it is the “Word of God” (in other words THE WORD, JESUS CHRIST) which is doing through the agency of the priest’s saying. That is why I think it is at least a little misleading to say that the priest “confects” the Holy Eucharist, unless we are all theologians with the above shade of meaning pre-agreed upon.
However, I don’t deny that I have head that expression bandied about more in the past then now, and my own understanding at that time was misled into thinking that it was the Priest causing the transubstantiation, which of course he is not.
D
distracted
Guest
so what are examples of proper & improper?
if the priest changes the words of consecration significantly, does that mean the host is not transubstantiated???
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
There are some Eastern Church that do not use the Institutional narrative at all during the Eucharistic Prayer, as in the Latin rite, and yet their prayer is efficacious. In other words, transubstantiation does not hinge on certain exact words. However in the Latin Church there are definitely some issues with arbitrarily changing the words of the Institutional Narrative.
D
distracted
Guest
yeah, there’s problems with a lot of “arbitrarily” done things…
just me, being one person, could probably write a book on that subject… without help…
I really liked the old mass… where they used the names of those ancient saints/martyrs… Lawrence, Chysogomen (spelling??? )…
now it seems some priests just want to hurry through the consecration, or maybe even the whole Mass…
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Some of the old time priests will still select Eucharistic Prayer I which has all of the old Saints mentioned by name. I agree, though, I would prefer that the various Eucharistic Prayers be assigned to specific days in the liturgical calendar, rather than leaving it to the whim of the priest. In some churches, you might never hear Eucharistic Prayer I.yeah, there’s problems with a lot of “arbitrarily” done things…
just me, being one person, could probably write a book on that subject… without help…
I really liked the old mass… where they used the names of those ancient saints/martyrs… Lawrence, Chysogomen (spelling??? )…
now it seems some priests just want to hurry through the consecration, or maybe even the whole Mass…
- Status