TLM & Novus Ordo - different emphases on Sin?

[quovadis7]

The book on the prayers of the priest will draw on the E.F. prayers, as I mentioned before, to give the O.F. prayers the proper doctrinal, theological, and spiritual context.

japhy,

But, in your upcoming book on the prayers of the priest, if you are going to be so reliant upon the EF prayers to clearly convey the theological, doctrinal, and spiritual dimensions of the OF prayers, did the liturgical reform truly accomplish the following goal which the Council Fathers also quite clearly expressed:

“In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.” (SC 21).

If your answer is “No.” (like it is for me), then how successful really was the 1969 reform of the Mass in truly helping the Church in Her worship?

For what was gained in the liturgical reform (e.g. more of a community emphasis, more emphasis upon Divine Mercy, improving our affective relationship with God, etc.), there was also quite a lot which was lost (e.g. the strong emphasis upon the Holy Sacrifice, Sin & Divine Justice, and the clear distinction between the Ordained Priesthood vs. the Common Priesthood, to name just a few).

Having a “reform of the reform” of the Liturgy (which Pope Benedict clearly advocates) seems like an understatement to me!

Of course, none of my comments should discourage nor detract you in any way from the efforts you are putting forth in your upcoming book. I am fully expecting it to be indispensable for markedly improving the understanding of the faithful in both of the EF and OF Liturgies…

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[japhy]

if you are going to be so reliant upon the EF prayers to clearly convey the theological, doctrinal, and spiritual dimensions of the OF prayers, did the liturgical reform truly accomplish the following goal which the Council Fathers also quite clearly expressed: “… texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify…”

I agree with you that the present O.F. Offertory prayers do not adequately convey to the average Catholic. The E.F. Offertory prayers (or something else) need to be consulted to get the proper frame of reference. However, the E.F. Offertory prayers have language that seems a bit extreme, as if the bread and wine were already the Eucharist: the priest does not offer bread and wine for his sins, he offers bread and wine to God that God would find them pleasing and change them to be the Eucharist, which the priest then offers for his (and our) sins.

I believe the O.F. liturgy we have is not what the Council intended, but it does have favorable elements along with unfavorable elements.

 

[CradleCath]

Hi Tim:sad_bye:

And yes it is possible to overemphasize the mercy and love of Christ. We can become blinded by it and start to expect that we will be saved, expect that Christ will save us no matter what we do no matter what we say no matter what we think. All we have to do is accept Christ and in so doing we guarantee our own salvation. We cannot lose it because it is a gift freely given by God

Martin Luther believed that. Many if not most Protestants still believe it.

…

I agree with most points in your posts. However, I have actually seen what you describe in the above paragraph & it is frightening. I was born in 1941 & grew up with & was catechized in the Church that existed before the Council. I saw every teaching nun that had helped my parents to raise me in the faith…leave their order, having been told that their role in the Church was “inferior, not important”, etc. Still I give thanks that I was out of high school when this happened, for even as children we were taught to go to Confession once a month. (adults more often). We thought nothing of it, we believed even though our sins were venial (not grave in matter), that we received grace through this Sacrament, that it was something that should become a lifelong habit.

It was not long after Vatican II that I first heard the expression “I can’t think of any sins I’ve committed”, so why go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Now, very few of us get through a week without gossipping, telling a lie, without lacking compassion, without getting careless about out prayers, etc.

Shortly after I heard that, I began hearing from the pulpit that our lesser sins were forgiven when we prayed the Mass, which of course justified the removal of the Confessionals (along with the communion rail, the statues, the Tabernacle & anything else that looked “too Catholic”). We could “make an appointment if we’d committed a serious sin”. Shortly after** that**, the parish I was in at that time, decided to build on a “Reconciliation room” & have face-to-face Confession. It was almost as if the clergy of that time couldn’t figure out what to do about sin?? We lost the balance that has to exist…between the God of Justice & the God of Mercy.

 

[quovadis7]

I believe the O.F. liturgy we have is not what the Council intended, but it does have favorable elements along with unfavorable elements.

What we have in the OF Liturgy was the mixed-bag result of foregoing “organic growth” and relying almost entirely upon the influences of a committee of liturgical “experts”.

If it weren’t for Pope Paul VI’s insistance (i.e. he vetoed several of the committee’s recommended changes), the OF Liturgy would have been considerably worse!

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[AJV]

AJV - I’ll look into your assertions (I don’t have a 1962 Missal with me right now) wrt my prayer comparisons. Can you provide concrete examples of the OF Proper Prayers (the actual Latin/English text of the Sundays in which they are used) which you assert are comparable to prayers (3) –(5) I listed in my essay from the EF Liturgy? I’m sorry, but I don’t own a Latin/English Missal for the OF Liturgy to use as a exhaustive resource for the comparison. The EF prayers I selected were from OF Masses in Latin which I have had the blessing of attending over the past 18 months…

The document doesn’t seem to be opening anymore - could you please post the prayers from your essay and I shall provide the references.

“Erroribus” - a literal English translation/definition is certainly as “mistakes” or as “errors.” The word could be translated as “sins” (as does the current ICEL translation), and certainly that is what the word implies. But, within Catholicism, the proper Latin term for “sins” has traditionally instead been “peccatis” or something of that root. So, why didn’t the official Latin text use “peccatis” instead of “erroribus”???

I did not mean to suggest that errors be trasnlated as “sins”. As you point out they are different words. And though “mistakes” can translate “erroribus”, I feel “errors” is a better translation as it conveys a certain gravity that “mistakes” does not.

In this particular OF Preface II Prayer sited in (1) at the bottom of pg. 3 of my essay, this is one of the few instances I can recall where I think that the current ICEL translation actually does a better job than a literal translation, since it does translate “erroribus” as “sins”. It will be interesting to see how the Latin translation of “erroribus” is dealt with in the new ICEL translation, which supposedly will finally be put into use in the Church for Advent of 2011 or 2010 (but I won’t be holding my breath for either of those dates, however).

I usually feel a bit uncertain in arguing why X word was used instead of Y. There are many different ways of expressing theological concepts that I think unless something was explictly changed, it’s hard to argue i.e. suppose the prayer in the EF said “sins” but the NO changed it to “errors”. Otherwise, we could easily quibble with each and every prayer. I could well ask, for example, why in the “Ave Rex Noster” of the EF liturgy is the expression “you have mercy on our errors” and not “you have mercy on our sins”. Moreover, it isn’t as if the committee formulated this particular preface wording - it was lifted from the Gelasian Sacramentary ** which is one of the oldest.

In the Preface typically used in the Offertory of the EF Liturgy (i.e. the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity), the Latin wording is “pro innumerabilibus peccatis, et offensionibus, et negligentiis meis” - which is typically translated as “for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences”. In the OF Liturgy, the Preface II prayer used often during Sundays of Ordinary Time has in Latin the following - "Qui, humánis miserátus erróribus, de Vírgine nasci dignátus est.” – which is literally translated as I mentioned in my essay as “Who, having taken pity on the mistakesof men, deigned to be born of the Virgin.” – a markedly different emphasis upon Sin, it seems quite apparent to me…

The Offertory Prayer Suscipe Sancte Pater does not come under the Preface of the Holy Trinity. The preface of the Holy Trinity actually says nothing one way or another about sin, or even errors.

**(Qui humanis miseratus erroribus per virginem nasci dignatus est, et per passionem mortis a perpetua nos morte liberavit, ac resurrectione sua aeternam nobis contulit vitam. Quem laudant angeli…"

 

[quovadis7]

However, the E.F. Offertory prayers have language that seems a bit extreme, as if the bread and wine were already the Eucharist: the priest does not offer bread and wine for his sins, he offers bread and wine to God that God would find them pleasing and change them to be the Eucharist, which the priest then offers for his (and our) sins.

japhy,

I disagree with you here - the proper understanding of the words in the EF Offertory prayer “hanc immaculatam hostiam” - “this unspotted host” - is not as if the bread was already the Eucharist.

Instead, the proper understanding of what these words convey in the EF Offertory is that the gift of bread being offered has been “set aside” as a blessed offering - i.e. a sacramental at that juncture of the Offertory (the Priest makes a sign of the cross over the bread shortly after these words to further bless it) - in preparation for them to be miraculously changed by the working of the Holy Spirit into the Body of our Lord.

Doesn’t it make sense that the bread would be blessed right before it is consecrated? It makes complete sense to me, and I think this is what the Church in the EF Offertory Prayer is trying to convey by these words…

In the offering of the wine, the Priest’s words " calicem salutaris" - “the chalice of salvation” - refer to the very same thing wrt the wine (with the chalice as well being already blessed long before Mass even begins - i.e. the chalice is a holy instrument for holding the wine, if you will). The chalice is an instrument of salvation, in that by the wine in it the Precious Blood will be miraculously provided back to us after the consecration.

I also don’t follow why you think that the Priest cannot offer bread and wine to God to atone for his “countless sins, offenses, and negligences” on behalf of those present and for the whole Church - isn’t that a major part of what the Holy Sacrifice is about?

Here is my understanding. On our behalf, the Priest offers to God the gifts of bread and wine from the community of believers, and we offer along with the Priest our own prayers and personal sacrifices (what Mr. Chamblee writes about in his essay, which helps us take “active participation” to another level ! ), so that the Holy Spirit will miraculously transform ALL of those offerings into the Body and Blood of our Lord.

In other words, we offer to God what we can (supposedly, the best we have to offer, like Abel did) - partly in thankgiving for the many gifts and blessings we have, and partly also with a humble and contrite spirit for the times we have abused or neglected the many gifts we have been given. It is in this latter sense that the bread and wine are offered by the Priest in atonement for his and our “sins, offenses, and negligences” - not that they themselves do the atoning when they are initially offered - but that in our humility they become our meager contribution (see Colossians 1:24) to what Jesus Christ will do again for us (re-present Himself and the merits of His Perfect offering on Calvary to God the Father, as well as to us) through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I am convinced that many of the EF Prayers and rituals are often poorly understood. Perhaps even some of the Council Fathers also did not understand them as well as they should have?

Rather than considering some of the things in the EF Liturgy as “elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.” (SC 50) - perhaps instead we all should strive to better understand more fully the meaning behind the words and rituals in the EF Liturgy, and as best as is possible why they were organically added over time to the Mass in the first place? I have even come to understand how the supposedly “duplicated” 2nd Confiteor in the EF Liturgy “now to be discarded” seems also to have had a very useful and profound purpose (I can elaborate on that in a follow-up post, if anyone is interested).

I am convinced that the treasure of the EF Liturgy is sometimes grossly underestimated and misunderstood - and remember, I am 100% a “child of Vatican II” !!!

The more I learn about the EF Liturgy, the more and more I am just utterly amazed by it and the spiritual treasure trove that it is for the Church (I am also amazed by how so many in the Church thought so disparagingly of it before, during, and after Vatican II)…

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[quovadis7]

AJV, and anyone else who hasn’t been able to get a copy of my essay to download yet…

My private web server at home is down, unfortunately due to my DSL internet provider having problems.

If in the meantime you would like me to e-mail you a copy of my essay, just click on my quovadis7 name in one of my posts and send me a private message with how I can e-mail it to you…

Sorry for the technical glitch, but unfortunately that is out of my control at the moment.

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[quovadis7]

The Offertory Prayer Suscipe Sancte Pater does not come under the Preface of the Holy Trinity. The preface of the Holy Trinity actually says nothing one way or another about sin, or even errors.

AJV,

You are absolutely correct. In the EF Liturgy, the Offertory Prayer is a distinctly different prayer than the Preface of the Holy Trinity…

Sorry if my mistake mislead anyone…

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[japhy]

Doesn’t it make sense that the bread would be blessed right before it is consecrated? … In the offering of the wine, the Priest’s words " calicem salutaris" - “the chalice of salvation” - refer to the very same thing wrt the wine

Do you agree that during the Offertory, the priest is presenting to God an offering of bread and wine, the intent being that God looks favorably on the bread and wine as fitting for becoming the Eucharist? The Offertory is not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, nor is it a propitiatory sacrifice for sins. If it were, why would the priest bother to then confect the Eucharist?

“Accept … this spotless host, which I [offer] to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting.”

If this prayer means that the bread is strictly a “means” of salvation, because it is what God has chosen to use as the form of the Eucharist (whereas the Eucharist itself, which is neither bread nor wine, is more than a mere “means”), then it makes sense. But offering mere bread (no matter how spotless) to God does not atone for sins nor aid the holy souls in Purgatory.

“We offer … the chalice of salvation … for our own salvation…”

The chalice holds mere wine at this point. This prayer is full of expectation: simply offering to God a chalice of wine will bring salvation to no one. If, instead, this prayer is sort of an entrance into the action of the Eucharistic Prayer, it makes far more sense.

The In spiritu humilitatis prayer, I think, affirms my interpretation of the purpose and function of these prayers: “may we find favor with Thee … and may our sacrifice be so offered this day in Thy sight as to be pleasing to Thee…”

This is asking for the Father’s favor in two matters: that He accept the offerings of bread and wine (and the way they are offered) as fitting for the Eucharist, and that He accept the Eucharist when it, in turn, is offered to Him.

The bread and wine are a sacrifice, an offering, an oblation, yes… but not a salvific one. The Eucharist is the salvific one. The bread and wine represent our offerings, and as they become the Eucharist, so too we are called to be changed from glory into glory; thus, the bread and wine represent our offerings, and we are to spiritually unite our offerings to the Eucharist then-confected as it is offered to the Father, so that our offerings may be truly acceptable to God! (I go into this in detail in my book, coming to similar conclusions as Mr. Chamblee.)

The next prayer further confirms me in my understanding: “Come Thou, the Sanctifier, Almighty and Everlasting God, and bless this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.”

The sacrifice that is being blessed by the Holy Spirit is the bread and the wine. This sacrifice is being prepared for the change which will make it an efficacious offering.

The last prayer of the Offertory, to the Trinity, can be understood in the same way: “Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee in memory of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ; and in honor of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of these and of all the Saints. To them let it bring honor, and to us salvation…”

The bread and wine might bring honor, but won’t bring salvation. The bread and wine must be transubstantiated in order to bring salvation.

I also don’t follow why you think that the Priest cannot offer bread and wine to God to atone…

It’s not the bread and wine themselves that atone. It’s the fact that God changes them into the Eucharist.

On our behalf, the Priest offers to God the gifts of bread and wine from the community of believers, and we offer along with the Priest our own prayers and personal sacrifices … so that the Holy Spirit will miraculously transform ALL of those offerings into the Body and Blood of our Lord.

I’m not sure it’s accurate to say “our own prayers and personal sacrifices” become “the Body and Blood of our Lord.” The bread and wine offered become the Eucharist. The bread and wine represent our spiritual sacrifices (and are sometimes actual offerings of the laity). We join our spiritual sacrifices (which are represented by the bread and wine) to the Eucharist once it has been confected. As I said above, as the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the substance of Christ, so too we are called to be “changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another.” (2 Cor 3:8; cf. Eph 4:13) We join our sacrifices to the Eucharist, to the offering of the Son Himself to His Father, which is why our sacrifices are acceptable to God: in and with the Eucharist.

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

I think that most noticeable difference is not within the Holy Mass, but the sermons of the priests. I have almost never heard any sermon at a New Mass focusing on anything of the Four Last Things, the importance of salvation, the necessity of frequent Confession, et cetera. Almost all the sermons I hear at the New Mass truly confuse me as to what the priest is trying to get across, since he seems to go on and on in this ambiguous speech. Also, the sermons that Novus Ordo priests give have been (in my limited experience) shorter, less focused on the day’s reading, and generally focused on saecular matters, or trivial things.

 

[japhy]

we offer to God what we can (supposedly, the best we have to offer, like Abel did) - partly in thankgiving… and partly also with a humble and contrite spirit … It is in this latter sense that the bread and wine are offered by the Priest in atonement for his and our “sins, offenses, and negligences” - not that they themselves do the atoning when they are initially offered - but that in our humility they become our meager contribution (see Colossians 1:24) to what Jesus Christ will do again for us…

That sounds reasonable to me.

I am convinced that many of the EF Prayers and rituals are often poorly understood. Perhaps even some of the Council Fathers also did not understand them as well as they should have?

It’s possible. The replacement Offertory prayers have a very different character to them.

perhaps instead we all should strive to better understand more fully the meaning behind the words and rituals in the EF Liturgy, and as best as is possible why they were organically added over time to the Mass in the first place?

Yes, certainly, but we still have a Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to apply, once we have sufficiently understood the meaning of the E.F. of the Mass. Over the past few centuries, starting with Pius V’s promulgation of the “Tridentine” Missal, have the small changes introduced in the Missal been the result of the Church simply not understanding the Mass enough, as if the Missal could (or should) have remained the same since Pius V’s time?

I believe some things that were excised in the 1960’s should have remained, but I think some of the removal of duplications were good. (I don’t see why the priest should be saying his “own” Gloria while the rest of the congregation says their Gloria, for example.) I think some of the things added were good things to add. I think some of the additions were unnecessary or added poorly. (A lot of the choose-one-of-these options come to mind here.)

SC 51: I would have implemented the increase of Scripture exposure in a different manner, so as not to do harm to the traditional one-year cycle.

SC 52: The Council reiterated Trent’s call for regular homilies, a great idea.

SC 53: I think the inclusion of the “Prayer of the Faithful” is a good idea.

SC 54: The inclusion of some vernacular is laudable; I don’t know why permission was eventually given for the whole Mass to be in the vernacular, since that sort of countered the protections provided the Latin language in the Constitution.

SC 55: Receiving hosts consecrated at the same Mass has good “sign” value, as does Communion under both kinds; however, Communion under both kinds has exploded in use, beyond the vision of the Council (click for a brief history since Vatican II), and has resulted in people not being taught “the dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent” concerning concomitance; I would rather see Communion offered under both kinds via intinction (thus, on the tongue), and that less frequent.

SC 56: Making sure people recognize that the Mass is one rite, albeit with distinct sections or movements, is laudable.

SC 57 & 58: I think I’m with Fr. Z on concelebration: “safe, legal, and rare.” I don’t see the need for hundred-priest-concelebrations, which I think defeat the purpose and focus too much attention on the individual priests themselves, rather than on the priesthood of Christ.

I have even come to understand how the supposedly “duplicated” 2nd Confiteor in the EF Liturgy “now to be discarded” seems also to have had a very useful and profound purpose

I’d like to hear about it. I don’t understand why the two Confiteors at the beginning of the Mass don’t suffice; why a third Confiteor right before Holy Communion? I understand the separation of the priest’s Communion from the congregation’s Communion – and I wouldn’t be opposed to its restoration! – but I don’t see the need for a third Confiteor for the congregation during Mass just before Communion.

As a post-script, the way I have come to understand the Liturgy of the Eucharist is that it is a series of exchanges:

1. 
   *]We offer the priest bread and wine. (Here we represent the offering of our spiritual sacrifices.)
   *]The priest presents the bread and wine to God in a preparatory manner in the Offertory.
   *]The priest offers the bread and wine to God in a real manner in the Eucharistic Prayer.
   *]God accepts them as fitting FOR the Eucharist and receives them.
   *]God gives back the Eucharist.
   *]The priest offers the Eucharist BACK to the Father. (Here we join our spiritual sacrifices to the Eucharist.)
   *]God is pleased and returns the Eucharist to us as a sacred banquet, Holy Communion.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

japhy:

However, the E.F. Offertory prayers have language that seems a bit extreme, as if the bread and wine were already the Eucharist: the priest does not offer bread and wine for his sins, he offers bread and wine to God that God would find them pleasing and change them to be the Eucharist, which the priest then offers for his (and our) sins.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is viewed as a single action offered to God, who is outside of time. The prayers said at the offeratory are said in anticipation of the consecration - at which time what was said is offered to God. That’s why you will sometimes hear the Priest encourage the faithful to make their petitions to God at the offeratory. At the moment of consecration - when the Sacrifice is being made present - these prayers ascend to God.

So, although the consecration has not yet taken place, the prayers said at the offeratory are presented to God at the moment of consecration.

 

[quovadis7]

Do you agree that during the Offertory, the priest is presenting to God an offering of bread and wine, the intent being that God looks favorably on the bread and wine as fitting for becoming the Eucharist? The Offertory is not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, nor is it a propitiatory sacrifice for sins. If it were, why would the priest bother to then confect the Eucharist?

Yes. I agree with you completely here.

“We offer … the chalice of salvation … for our own salvation…”

The chalice holds mere wine at this point. This prayer is full of expectation: simply offering to God a chalice of wine will bring salvation to no one. If, instead, this prayer is sort of an entrance into the action of the Eucharistic Prayer, it makes far more sense.

I don’t think I said, nor even inferred, that the offerings during the Offertory themselves will bring us salvation. If what I said was misunderstood, I apologize.

What I meant was that God will take our meager offerings and use them to present back to us our only means of salvation, the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

The bread and wine are a sacrifice, an offering, an oblation, yes… but not a salvific one. The Eucharist is the salvific one. The bread and wine represent our offerings, and as they become the Eucharist, so too we are called to be changed from glory into glory; thus, the bread and wine represent our offerings, and we are to spiritually unite our offerings to the Eucharist then-confected as it is offered to the Father, so that our offerings may be truly acceptable to God! (I go into this in detail in my book, coming to similar conclusions as Mr. Chamblee.)

I don’t disagree with you on this. But, I think that it is possible to join our offerings with the offering of the bread and wine before they are consecrated. I don’t recall if Mr. Chamblee stated or alluded to this; it has been a while since I read his essay.

However, I don’t believe it is against Catholic doctrine that we can join our spiritual offerings to the unconsecrated bread and wine. Obviously, we don’t have to join anything of ours to the offerings during Mass, but we should be encouraged to do so at some juncture during Mass!

Regardless of whether or not you and I agree on exactly when & how our sacrifices and offerings can/should be joined to the unconsecrated bread & wine and/or the Eucharist, I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Catholics don’t realize our incredible opportunity during Mass. As Mr. Chamblee’s article articulates so well, this opportunity for a much deeper active participation during Mass is not well known even by faithful Catholics, and should be promoted much more by our Bishops & Priests!!!

The bread and wine might bring honor, but won’t bring salvation. The bread and wine must be transubstantiated in order to bring salvation.

It’s not the bread and wine themselves that atone. It’s the fact that God changes them into the Eucharist.

Once more, I agree with you here 100%. I don’t believe that I said anything contrary to what you state here.

I’m not sure it’s accurate to say “our own prayers and personal sacrifices” become “the Body and Blood of our Lord.” The bread and wine offered become the Eucharist. The bread and wine represent our spiritual sacrifices (and are sometimes actual offerings of the laity). We join our spiritual sacrifices (which are represented by the bread and wine) to the Eucharist once it has been confected. As I said above, as the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the substance of Christ, so too we are called to be “changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another.” (2 Cor 3:8; cf. Eph 4:13) We join our sacrifices to the Eucharist, to the offering of the Son Himself to His Father, which is why our sacrifices are acceptable to God: in and with the Eucharist.

If the unconsecrated bread & wine can be transformed into the Body & Blood of our Lord, then why not our spiritual sacrifices too? If we truly die to ourselves, and if we give completely to God our spiritual offerings during the Offertory, can you say definitively that our Catholic doctrine refutes that they can be transformed along with the bread and wine into the Body & Blood of our Lord? Since every good thing we can offer to God came from Him in the 1st place, would He not then merely (if a miracle can be deemed as “merely”) be taking what has truly always been His and using them to present back to us the Body & Blood of Christ?

I think also that my point of view can help us to be “changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” - just as your point of view can & does.

In any case, I think we can agree to disagree on this, if we must. This particular point isn’t remotely close to the main point of what I originally posted about my essay anyway. I think that either of our opinions are within the realm of orthodox Catholic belief…

If every Catholic understood and believed either of what the two of us have been discussing, I think the Church would be in much better shape, wouldn’t you agree?

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[japhy]

What I meant was that God will take our meager offerings and use them to present back to us our only means of salvation, the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Yes, of course. We’re on the same page here.

But, I think that it is possible to join our offerings with the offering of the bread and wine before they are consecrated.

I think I’ve been a bit exclusive, and for that I apologize. In my efforts to make it clear that only the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the Father is truly acceptable, I have neglected to consider that, as God can look favorably on the bread and wine knowing what He will make of them, He can look favorably on our meager sacrifices knowing what He can make of them. We present our sacrifices to God at the Offertory, and He looks on them with love, knowing that these sacrifices will be raised to perfection when united – no longer with mere bread and wine – but with the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Catholics don’t realize our incredible opportunity during Mass.

Yes, I would expect there is a lack of understanding of what the baptismal priesthood means. Most liberal Catholics attempt to use the term to denigrate the ministerial priesthood (or elevate the baptismal priesthood) to equate the two, which is utterly opposed to Church teaching, as the documents of Vatican II make clear.

If the laity understood that the baptismal priesthood is to the apostolate of the laity as the ministerial priesthood is to the apostolate of the ordained, maybe they’d understand it better. Of course, they need to know what the apostolate of the laity is! (There’s a Vatican II document for that.) We laity are called to live outside the walls of churches and monasteries and convents. We are called to bring the sanctifying presence of Christ into the world: that is why Mass ends with a dismissal, a missio, a mission. In our capacity as the baptismal priesthood, we are called to make of the world (and our lives in it) an offering, a spiritual sacrifice to God, joined to the ministerial priesthood’s sacrifice of the Eucharist.

This is probably news to some people.

If the unconsecrated bread & wine can be transformed into the Body & Blood of our Lord, then why not our spiritual sacrifices too? If we truly die to ourselves, and if we give completely to God our spiritual offerings during the Offertory, can you say definitively that our Catholic doctrine refutes that they can be transformed along with the bread and wine into the Body & Blood of our Lord?

I’m not comfortable saying that my spiritual sacrifices are, in substance, Jesus Christ in His full Divinity and humanity. The Son of God is substantially present in Heaven and in the Eucharist; I don’t think the Church teaches He is present substantially in the corporal or spiritual works of mercy, or in any other good work, or in any other spiritual sacrifice. That’s where I’m coming from in this matter; maybe that’s a better way to explain it.

I personally fear that the question you’re raising could be twisted by liberal Catholics who tend to drop the word “the” from “the Eucharist” and “the Church”, and preach about how we are “Eucharist” (often to the exclusion of recognizing that the Eucharist is the substantial presence of the Son of God in His Divinity and humanity). I know you’re not headed in that direction, but other people are.

It’s one thing to say, as St. Ignatius of Antioch approaching his martyrdom, “I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” He recognizes that the change from wheat to bread requires death. It’s another to walk around acting like we’re “Eucharist” now. We are being changed from glory into glory, culminating in the Resurrection.

I think we’re much closer on this matter than I first thought.

 

[quovadis7]

japhy,

I just received your new book “Praying the Mass - The Prayers of the People”. Thanks for sending it so quickly! I’ll be prayerfully reading it over the coming weeks, since it appears so spiritually rich (yet easy to comprehend), I am certain it will be a rather prolonged feast!

I just read the Introduction of your book. Your book sounds FANTASTIC!!! On the back cover, the quote you have from Jeffrey Mirus is SO very true.

Question - do you cover in your book the very topic (the offering of our very own sacrifices during Mass) which we have been discussing? If so, can you direct me to the specific sections in your book where you elaborate on this???

Thanks!

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[japhy]

I just received your new book “Praying the Mass - The Prayers of the People”. Thanks for sending it so quickly!

I didn’t ship it, CreateSpace did… but four days to print and ship is pretty fast!

do you cover in your book the very topic?

I sure do: Chapter 9 is on the Offertory Prayers. If I write a second edition of this first book, I will expand this chapter to deal more fully with this matter, based on the information and perspective I have gained from this discussion and from the essay by Mr. Chamblee.

There’s also an appendix (pages 145-149) with a lengthy excerpt from Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei, three documents from Vatican II, and Pope John Paul II’s Domincae Cenae – these excerpts are all about the faithful offering the Eucharist (and their own sacrifices) in the Mass. I’d like to quote from Dominicae Cenae for you, just so you see where I’m coming from in distinguishing the bread and wine from the spiritual sacrifices of the faithful:To this sacrifice, which is renewed in a sacramental form on the altar, the offerings of bread and wine, united with the devotion of the faithful, nevertheless bring their unique contribution, since by means of the consecration by the priest they become sacred species.Here is an excerpt from pages 98-99 for the benefit of readers of this thread:“May the Lord accept…”
In the ancient Church, the bread and wine would often be supplied by members of the congregation. Nowadays, the bread and wine are usually bought by the parish (using some of the funds raised in the collection), so they still represent our offering, our presentation to the Lord.

The bread and wine are changed into the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the consecration, but this presence is hidden under what the Church calls a “sacramental veil,” the remaining appearance of bread and wine. When we see Christ in Heaven, there will be no veil. In much the same way, we pray that we may be changed to be more like Christ (“configured” to Christ, in the language of the Church) by receiving Holy Communion. This configuration to Christ is imperfect while we are on earth, but it will be perfected when our resurrected and glorified bodies enter Heaven. So just as the bread and wine are transubstantiated into Christ, what they represent – us, the Church, the Body of Christ – is, in a sense, transubstantiated as well. By identifying ourselves with the bread and wine, we are anticipating the change which will occur in us at the end of time while conforming our lives to the change taking place now.

So after he has prayed over the bread and wine and washed his hands, the priest invites the faithful to stand and pray (the Orate fratres, “Pray brethren”) that the sacrifice being offered will be accepted by God. We respond:

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands,
for the praise and glory of his name,
for our good and the good of all his holy Church.

The priest speaks of “my sacrifice and yours” (meum ac vestrum sacrifícium). In the older translation this was rendered as “our sacrifice,” but the Latin distinguishes between what the priest brings to the sacrifice and what we bring to it. The priest offers the bread and wine (and the Eucharist); we participate in the offering by the priest and join to it our very selves.

The bread and wine (and afterwards, the Eucharist) and ourselves are united as one at the hands of the priest. The bread and wine which the priest holds during the words of consecration represent us, since they represent the fruits of our labor. Then, as the priest offers the Eucharist to God, we join our very lives – all of our worries, cares, sufferings, and prayers – to Christ in the Eucharist. It is only by joining ourselves to Christ, the perfect sacrifice, that the contribution of our living, spiritual sacrifice can be truly acceptable to the Father. (cf. Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5)

 

[quovadis7]

japhy,

Thanks for the feedback on your book.

In the following quote from Dominicae Cenae:

To this sacrifice, which is renewed in a sacramental form on the altar, the offerings of bread and wine, united with the devotion of the faithful, nevertheless bring their unique contribution, since by means of the consecration by the priest they become sacred species.

since it speaks of the “devotion of the faithful” as being united with the offerings of bread and wine, couldn’t this be readily interpreted as being consistent with what I was relating previously? When Pope John Paul II wrote “they become sacred species”, by use of the word “they” was he not referring to more than just the bread and wine?

When you said earlier today:

I’m not comfortable saying that my spiritual sacrifices are, in substance, Jesus Christ in His full Divinity and humanity. The Son of God is substantially present in Heaven and in the Eucharist; I don’t think the Church teaches He is present substantially in the corporal or spiritual works of mercy, or in any other good work, or in any other spiritual sacrifice. That’s where I’m coming from in this matter; maybe that’s a better way to explain it.

I personally fear that the question you’re raising could be twisted by liberal Catholics who tend to drop the word “the” from “the Eucharist” and “the Church”, and preach about how we are “Eucharist” (often to the exclusion of recognizing that the Eucharist is the substantial presence of the Son of God in His Divinity and humanity). I know you’re not headed in that direction, but other people are.

I’m definitely not headed in the twisted direction of the “liberal Catholics”!

The key here (now I’m sounding like Tim Staples - I love the way that guy teaches the faith!) is that our offerings must be made sacrificially - i.e. in a way in which we die to ourselves in the giving of our gifts/sacrifices (i.e. following Christ’s example on Calvary), and that the Eucharist received back is not us anymore - which is certainly not how the “liberal Catholics” are viewing it when they talk the way they do.

I do hope that you do incorporate the ideas from Mr. Chamblee’s essay into future versions of your books. Perhaps you can do so in some fashion in your upcoming book on the Prayer of the Priest?

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[japhy]

“To this sacrifice, which is renewed in a sacramental form on the altar, the offerings of bread and wine, united with the devotion of the faithful, nevertheless bring their unique contribution, since by means of the consecration by the priest they become sacred species.”

since it speaks of the “devotion of the faithful” as being united with the offerings of bread and wine, couldn’t this be readily interpreted as being consistent with what I was relating previously? When Pope John Paul II wrote “they become sacred species”, by use of the word “they” was he not referring to more than just the bread and wine?

He used the plural “offerings” to speak of the bread and the wine. They, the bread and wine, become sacred species. Our spiritual sacrifices are not the sacred species!
Ad hoc igitur sacrificium, quod modo sacramentali in altari renovatur, oblata dona panis et vini, fidelium pietati coniuncta, quiddam conferunt, pro quo aliud nequit substitui, siquidem per consecrationem sacerdotis sacrae species efficiuntur.
The fidelium pietati coniuncta is a parenthetical phrase; the Holy Father is writing about (my translation) “the offered gifts of bread and wine … bring something which other things cannot replace … they become the sacred species.” He is reinforcing the necessity of bread and wine for the sacrament.

Just prior to this, he said:
For the bread and wine presented at the altar and accompanied by the devotion and the spiritual sacrifices of the participants are finally consecrated, so as to become truly, really and substantially Christ’s own body that is given up and His blood that is shed. Thus, by virtue of the consecration, the species of bread and wine re-present in a sacramental, unbloody manner the bloody propitiatory sacrifice offered by Him on the cross to His Father for the salvation of the world.
Our devotion and spiritual sacrifices accompany the bread and wine, but only the bread and wine are the “species”. Only the bread and wine become the substantial presence of Jesus Christ.

I’m definitely not headed in the twisted direction of the “liberal Catholics”!

I know you’re not.

The key here … is that our offerings must be made sacrificially - i.e. in a way in which we die to ourselves in the giving of our gifts/sacrifices (i.e. following Christ’s example on Calvary), and that the Eucharist received back is not us anymore…

When you say “the Eucharist received back is not us anymore,” what do you mean by “anymore”? Surely, we do present a thanksgiving (‘eucharist’) offering, but the Eucharist proper is in a class of its own. Just curious.

Yes, we must offer ourselves sacrificially, we must die to ourselves, but we and our offerings are “along for the ride”, while the bread and wine become substantially changed. A change takes place in us and in our sacrificial offerings, but not to the point of becoming the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I do intend to work this into the second book as well. I don’t know if I’ll need to write a second edition of the first book, but if so, it’ll be expanded there too.

 

[quovadis7]

I do intend to work this into the second book as well. I don’t know if I’ll need to write a second edition of the first book, but if so, it’ll be expanded there too.

japhy,

Fantastic!

Glad to hear that Mr. Chamblee & I could contribute toward promoting in your book(s) greater active participation during Mass…

Nonetheless, on this topic I understand your serious concerns with our gifts/sacrifices/petitions being transformed into the very Body & Blood of our Lord during the Consecration. I agree - this can be a very delicate and even perhaps volatile matter…

Right now, I don’t yet agree with the conclusions you draw from your quotes of Pope John Paul II’s letter Dominicae Cenae. In my view, the language to me is not nearly as clear as when you conclude that “only” the bread and wine can be transformed into the Eucharist - I’m not sure if that is because of imprecision in the English translation or not. I will try in the coming days to put my feeble Latin skills to use to see how I might translate the original Latin myself.

In addition though, when I re-read Mr. Chamblee’s essay “The Secret of the Mass”, I believe that what I am touting is consistent with what he conveyed. Specifically, some of the points he made on pages 10 & 11 of his essay convey what seems to me to be very close to if not exactly what I am promoting. Here are a couple of examples from his essay (emphases are mine):

Pg. 10 - “Symbolized by the gifts, the laity give to the priest all their efforts, sacrifices, and their very selves. The priest then takes our imperfect sacrifices, transforms them and unites them with the perfect sacrifice of Christ. Thus the imperfect sacrifices of the faithful are sanctified and perfected. What we offer as natural becomes supernatural. What begins as a human effort becomes a Divine effort.”

Pg. 11 - " As common priests, the faithful give to Christ the loaves and fish (our works, prayers, and sacrifices), Christ then multiplies our offering and gives them real power. By understanding and applying this concept, the prayers of Christians can be perfected, united with Christ, and in a way literally turned into Christ."

Also on Pg. 11 - “What begins with our gift to Christ then becomes Christ’s gift to us. After the offering of the faithful is transformed into something far superior (the body and blood of Christ), Christ then gives the transformed gift back to the faithful as a gift of himself to further transform and sanctify the faithful.”

Now, we both know that we are talking about a mystery here. And, in thinking and meditating upon what we are discussing, I realize that there are some serious limitations of Mr. Chamblee’s and my line of thinking too - for example, if the laity do offer “their very selves” upon the altar, clearly we cannot be literally transformed by the Holy Spirit into the actual Body & Blood of our Lord, i.e. the Eucharist. So, certainly, I would conclude that not everything presented at the altar during the Mass can literally be transubstantiated into the Eucharist.

I’ll try another point of view…

I’m sure that you and I would agree that in the OF Liturgy during the offertory procession and in the Priest’s saying of the Offertory Prayer our gifts/sacrifices/petitions are joined to the bread and wine offered. If our gifts/sacrifices/petitions are distinctly separate things from us (I am talking about the offering of things other than our very selves), why would the Holy Spirit choose not to transform them along with the bread and wine into the Body & Blood of our Lord?

In a sense, if only the bread and wine can be transformed, and not what we offer spiritually, then that would seem to imply that our gifts/sacrifices/petitions are not worthy of being transformed into the Eucharist. If they would be considered as being worthy of being transformed into the Eucharist, however, wouldn’t that provide us with a huge boost in encouragement (I think it would definitely be considered an unmerited grace) toward helping us to ever more actively participate in the Mass?

I think that this conclusion is what Mr. Chamblee is inferring when he stated on page 11 of his essay that " This is an awesome way of giving full conscious and active participation at Mass! It is hard to imagine this not being a nuclear reactor of spiritual grace and fruit!"

Anyway, in conclusion, given that what we are talking about is a mystery, how do we even know what really happens during the transubstantiation?
**
Perhaps, we should just let the mystery be a mystery? **

By my saying that, what I am implying is that perhaps we should merely be focusing upon the clear benefits for us and the Church in our much more active participation during Mass - by encouraging each person to join their offerings of gifts/sacrifices/petitions to those of the bread and wine offered during Mass???

If we do that, perhaps we can just leave it up to God to decide in His unfathomable ways how exactly He wants to use our gifts/sacrifices/petitions and present them back to us???

 

[quovadis7]

japhy,

I think we have “hijacked” this thread topic a bit too much with our latest discussions.

If you want to discuss it further, please just shoot me an e-mail…

Thanks!

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX