Maybe you need to read again the Gospel passages of the Last Supper…
May I gently update the modern catholic (lower case intended) meal which, in some geographic locations, is now called “breaking bread together” or “shaking hands.” This refers to the idea that any Catholic teaching which is difficult or annoying is ignored – for example the origin of humanity, the need for forgiveness of sins, and the full teaching divinity of Jesus Christ.
Good post. Thanks.
I briefly checked some very favorable reviews of the book “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.” My question, regarding Vatican II, is – What properly defined and duly declared Divine Revelation doctrines in regard to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass were officially changed? The difficulty is determining the place of tradition.
None.
In fact, that’s not a feature of ‘Vatican II’ or any (accurate or mistaken) notions about it. This dynamic continues to exist today, in a variety of contexts (not just liturgical and not just Catholic and not just religious!): in the current age, (some? many?) people feel that they have the right (and/or responsibility!) to ‘re-image’ just about anything.
I don’t think so. I think it’s more broadly-based than that – I think it has to do with western culture in the mid-20th-century up to the current day.
Well, I have to admit I have never heard of “shaking hands” - that’s a new one.
Why do people drop out of the Church? There are myriad reasons; but one interesting fact is that both Catholics and Protestants show a long-standing reduction in church attendance over the last 60 years.
According to Monsignor Gamber, the word sacrifice, or sacrificium, wasn’t in the definition of the Mass in its first edition. And the Pope’s signature appeared on the document. If it weren’t for the insistence of the traditionalists/conservatives to make this correction, that first definition could have easily stood. Sacrifice was in the final definition, though not one word of the Mass texts was altered.
Tradition
As to point #3, transubstantiation is a dogma of the Church set forth by the fathers of the Council of Trent. Pope Paul VI in the encyclical MYSTERIUM FIDEI calls it a dogma. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the change that takes place in the bread and wine at the consecration at Mass using the very words of the Council of Trent and which change is fittingly called transubstantiation.The “question” is wide open. Please accept my apology for running three issues together. Please refer to previous posts for a few examples. In addition, I would really like to hear someone discuss transubstantiation in relationship to Eucharistic Adoration which does include one of the seven Sacraments.
A rephrase could be – Should transubstantiation be taught in relationship…? If yes, when?
Back to the opening post.
Back in 2008, I researched that question with some strange results. One result was that Google landed me in the middle of CAF and I could not figure out how to exit. My only choice, apparently, was to register as a member. I blame the Holy Spirit for that.
- Is the lack of "Transubstantiation " a reason for empty pews in Catholic Churches?
Seriously, there is a lot of good knowledge on CAF. If it is noticeable that Catholics do not consider attendance at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as being primary, could that be related in some way to unrecognized Transubstantiation in action on the altar?
I just read parts of an old thread where someone was talking about a Sacramental presence. “Sacramental” is new to this older than dirt granny. So now I not only wonder about “Sacramental”, I wonder what else is being proposed. I can understand that the word sacramental can be used but I am wondering how it is being used.
- In our decade, what is being taught about the old time “Transubstantiation?”
Thank you Vico for post 3 which gives us the needed CCC paragraphs. In my neighborhood, there are people who are in favor of tinkering with doctrines to make them more agreeable.
- Is Transubstantiation considered a Catholic doctrine? In other words, can moderns alter the meaning just a little in order to meet modern standards?
A few, not all, questions. Is the lack of “Transubstantiation” a reason for empty pews in Catholic Churches? In our decade, what is being taught about the old time “Transubstantiation?” Is Transubstantiation considered a Catholic doctrine? In other words, can moderns alter the meaning just a little in order to meet modern standards?
I am sure that there are more questions to be answered. However, it is important to get to the nitty gritty of Transubstantiation in our Liturgy and Sacraments…in my humble opinion./QUOTE
This is a sensitive topic for me so please don’t interpret my comments to be towards your personal feelings.
First, transubstantiation still has it’s same meaning like I was taught back in the 60’s and 70’s.
The celebration of mass is not meant to teach specifics of doctrine like you would get in CCD classes. That is what Catechism and RCIA are for. By the way, in our parish we adults can go to RCIA as a “refresher” if we want to.
The empty pews are not, imho, a lack of understanding - it is laziness. It is also that we are traditional vs some (not all) other faiths who offer what seems like a broadway show, of sorts, each week. We offer book studies, we have 3 or 4 different bible studies offered all the time, and specific topic discussions but it is a minority of parishioners who attend one or more of these. I teach CCD for pre-confirmation aged students. These kids admit that they rarely go to mass and nor do their parents. Their parents send them to CCD so the children can receive the sacraments. ???
There is a huge disconnect in society - people have lost touch with their personal responsibilty to know their faith. THere are also GOOD Catholic bookstores with age appropriate books to use as catechetical tools to teach doctrine. I hate to admit it but I’ve learned a thing or two from them.
By the fact that there is very little “low tone” left in the liturgy and it’s virtually ALL vernacular now, it seems that the Session 22 doctrine has already been severely undermined without getting into Transubstantiation issues.
As an old horse from the field of journalism (pun intended), personal feelings are not an option. We dealt with real people before Google was hatched. I still have the habit of researching as many points of view as possible.
There is no breaking of the Canons from Trent, in the Masses today, however. The Reformation opposed the mystical and Sacrifice of the Mass. See: Eucharistic Theology in the Reformation and the Council of Trent by Manuel Ureña Pastor, Bishop of Cartagena, Spain
Right. Most of the Canons/anathemas you stated are no longer applicable or have been superceded by later Canon Law or Papal decree. But the underlying doctrine still remains, though, as I stated, much of it has been severely undermined. Or ignored altogether. Otherwise it would be repeated more often, from the pulpit if nothing else.