Would you consider it a TLM abuse?

[ncjohn]

Anne Catherine Emmerich said the Apostles were writting down what Christ said.

And the Church says that where???

 

[Uxor]

Oh, no. The Words of Consecration are (mostly). Let me put it this way: what do you think are the words of Christ in the Canon? The very fact that there are multiple liturgies shows that Christ did not command with regard to specifics except as to heart or essence of the liturgy- the words “This is My Body” and “This is my Blood” . Several liturgies or fragments of liturgies of early date don’t show that much resemblance to the Canon except in general ideas.

And even if one wishes to say that He did say the specific, one would have to admit given the documentary evidence that some re-arrangement of what was commanded by Christ took place, and some parts (like the parts for the saints) were added later. Plus there’s that little matter of St. Gregory…

I would not say though, that it was composed entirely by man in a sense. As with all things in the Church, and especially with regard to the liturgy, which is the principal way in which we worship God, it was under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

And further the tradition of extempore Eucharistic Prayers (surviving very late among the Syriacs) would not have been allowed in an age where people where highly concious of the customs of the apostles.

I keep reading a doubt in you, am I wrong…when you use words like reason and mostly. pertaining to the Words of Consecration

As with all things in the Church, and especially with regard to the liturgy, which is the principal way in which we worship God, it was under the influence of the Holy Spirit

Yes, I agree.

I thought the Eucharistic prayer had been extempore up until the 3rd Century before it became fixed?

 

[Uxor]

And the Church says that where???

I’ll have to research it.

 

[AJV]

I keep reading a doubt in you, am I wrong…when you use words like reason and mostly. pertaining to the Words of Consecration

“Mostly” because in the TLM the Words of Consecration for the chalice are unique: the words “aeterni” and “mysterium fidei” are not in Scripture. It falls within the power of the Church though. Now St. Thomas explains it by saying that it was handed down as the Evangelists did not intend to give the form exactly: but this is his supposition for which reason it falls under critical examination, where usually scholars note one again encounters difficulty in that it does not occur in any of the Eastern liturgies which one would expect if it had been handed down as the words of the Lord. Some hold that it was the exclamation of the deacon [e.g. Gassner’s “The Canon of the Mass” (1949) ] but it can’t be definitively proven only derived

I thought the Eucharistic prayer had been extempore up until the 3rd Century before it became fixed?

In certain locales yes, though one still finds permissions like in the Didache for variation. But in the Syriac Church extempore prayers persisted upto the 11th century (admittedly later only done by the greater clerics)

 

[mgy100]

Like the Bible, it is the words of man, guided by the Holy Spirit. Since the words of Jesus in the institution naratives even vary from one gospel account to another–and the same words are some times applied to a completely different setting in many of the stories in the Bible–they can’t all be “right”.

The words of Jesus are words of faith, and they are not a historical transcription by some stenographer sitting next to the table at the Last Supper, or any of the other events. For instance, which set of “Beatitudes” are the “correct” words of Jesus? Matthew’s or Luke’s?

To try to take a belief that each word is the “literal” word is to fall into the same literalism and fundamentalism that so many of our separated brethren fall into and to then be unable to reconcile the “conflicts” between the different gospel accounts.

Peace,

Have you been watching too much Discovery Channel again

 

[Uxor]

“Mostly” because in the TLM the Words of Consecration for the chalice are unique: the words “aeterni” and “mysterium fidei” are not in Scripture. It falls within the power of the Church though. Now St. Thomas explains it by saying that it was handed down as the Evangelists did not intend to give the form exactly: but this is his supposition for which reason it falls under critical examination, where usually scholars note one again encounters difficulty in that it does not occur in any of the Eastern liturgies which one would expect if it had been handed down as the words of the Lord. Some hold that it was the exclamation of the deacon [e.g. Gassner’s “The Canon of the Mass” (1949) ] but it can’t be definitively proven only derived)

The words are unique not in scripture? Taken from Douay-Rheims Bible…

Hebrews 9:15
15 And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions, which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Corinthians Chapter 2: 6.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought; 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God

St Thomas said the words are essential.

 

[AJV]

The words are unique not in scripture? Taken from Douay-Rheims Bible…

Meaning not recorded as said by Christ in Scripture.

 

[AJV]

The words are unique not in scripture? Taken from Douay-Rheims Bible…

Meaning not recorded as said by Christ in Scripture. Christ may well have said “mysterium fidei” but then we must conclude that only the Roman liturgy out of all the others has preserved it.

 

[ncjohn]

Have you been watching too much Discovery Channel again

I’m not exactly sure what that would be meant to imply, but it is the position of almost all serious scripture study that I have seen. If you are aware of some credible scripture scholar, or some statement of the Church, that someone has the recorded literal words of Christ, I would love to see it.

Personal revelations aside, I have seen no such thing.

 

[Uxor]

Meaning not recorded as said by Christ in Scripture. Christ may well have said “mysterium fidei” but then we must conclude that only the Roman liturgy out of all the others has preserved it.

The Mass existed before Scripture was written.
.
Even Pope Paul VI on Mysterium Fidei agrees me.

The constant teaching which the Catholic Church passes on to her catechumens, the understanding of the Christian people, the doctrine defined by the Council of Trent,** the very words used by Christ when He instituted the Most Holy Eucharist**

 

[Uxor]

I’m not exactly sure what that would be meant to imply, but it is the position of almost all serious scripture study that I have seen. If you are aware of some credible scripture scholar, or some statement of the Church, that someone has the recorded literal words of Christ, I would love to see it.

Personal revelations aside, I have seen no such thing.

There were written down in the 4th Century in Gold…

 

[AJV]

The Mass existed before Scripture was written.
.
Even Pope Paul VI on Mysterium Fidei agrees me.

The constant teaching which the Catholic Church passes on to her catechumens, the understanding of the Christian people, the doctrine defined by the Council of Trent,** the very words used by Christ when He instituted the Most Holy Eucharist**

While Eucharistic symbolism is well suited to helping us understand the effect that is proper to this Sacrament—the unity of the Mystical Body—still it does not indicate or explain what it is that makes this Sacrament different from all the others. For the constant teaching that the Catholic Church has passed on to her catechumens, the understanding of the Christian people, the doctrine defined by the Council of Trent, the very words that Christ used when He instituted the Most Holy Eucharist, all require us to profess that “the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His loving kindness raised again.”

See nothing here to indicate that “mysterium fidei” was (or wasn’t) spoken by Christ. From the meaning of the sentence I would guess that the Pope was referring to “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” which denote the change and so “require us to profess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ”

Besides, the encyclical is also addressed to the Eastern Churches-which don’t have mysterium fidei.

There were written down in the 4th Century in Gold…

Whcih 4th century manuscript gives the words with “mysterium fidei” and writes the Words in gold?

 

[ncjohn]

There were written down in the 4th Century in Gold…

You are welcome to believe that if you wish, but I have seen no such statement from the Church, nor have I heard of any such thing actually existing.

 

[Uxor]

You are welcome to believe that if you wish, but I have seen no such statement from the Church, nor have I heard of any such thing actually existing.

William Palmer in Origines Liturgicae…stated…

It seems certain, on the other hand, that the liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions was written at the end of the third, or beginning of the fourth century; and there is no reason to deny that others may have been written about the same time, or not long after. Whoever compares the account which Cyril, in his fifth mystical Catechesis, gives of the thanksgiving in the liturgy of Jerusalem, with those of St. James’s liturgy in Greek and Syriac, will be strongly inclined to think, that St. James’s liturgy was already committed to writing in the time of Cyril, or before the middle of the fourth century

He also meantioned written in gold, but I don’t have time to research that…

Martene, in his works De Antiquis Eccl… Rit, pg 34…

Canon of the Mass has a thousand claims, for all admit that it is a work of rare worth - in fact, a model of perfection; for which reason, to pass over many others, it used to be formerly written in letters of gold

 

[Uxor]

See nothing here to indicate that “mysterium fidei” was (or wasn’t) spoken by Christ. From the meaning of the sentence I would guess that the Pope was referring to “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” which denote the change and so “require us to profess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ”

Besides, the encyclical is also addressed to the Eastern Churches-which don’t have mysterium fidei.

Whcih 4th century manuscript gives the words with “mysterium fidei” and writes the Words in gold?

Who do you think added mysterium fidei?

 

[AJV]

William Palmer in Origines Liturgicae…stated…

It seems certain, on the other hand, that the liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions was written at the end of the third, or beginning of the fourth century; and there is no reason to deny that others may have been written about the same time, or not long after. Whoever compares the account which Cyril, in his fifth mystical Catechesis, gives of the thanksgiving in the liturgy of Jerusalem, with those of St. James’s liturgy in Greek and Syriac, will be strongly inclined to think, that St. James’s liturgy was already committed to writing in the time of Cyril, or before the middle of the fourth century

He also meantioned written in gold, but I don’t have time to research that.

Not in Origines Liturgicae, as far as I can recall. But I’m a little confused about the previous quote: could you please tell what were you quoting in reference to?

[Martene, in his works De Antiquis Eccl… Rit, pg 34…

Canon of the Mass has a thousand claims, for all admit that it is a work of rare worth - in fact, a model of perfection; for which reason, to pass over many others, it used to be formerly written in letters of gold

The Canon was written in letters in gold in many later (7th and 8th century) books especially those for use in Imperial chapels- like the name of Christ and certain saints- but I’m didn’t know any 4th century work that does that (for that matter any 4th century work that also includes the Canon).
Martene also records many other books with words of gold for example, the Gospel book presented by the Emperor Louis to the monks of the Abbey of St. Medard.
[/quote]

 

[Uxor]

Not in Origines Liturgicae, as far as I can recall. But I’m a little confused about the previous quote: could you please tell what were you quoting in reference to?

The Canon was written in letters in gold in many later (7th and 8th century) books especially those for use in Imperial chapels- like the name of Christ and certain saints- but I’m didn’t know any 4th century work that does that (for that matter any 4th century work that also includes the Canon).
Martene also records many other books with words of gold for example, the Gospel book presented by the Emperor Louis to the monks of the Abbey of St. Medard.

Ok I’ll submit to 7th and 8th as to the Canon written in Gold.

I take it also you disagree that the Canon was written down in the 4th Century.

So when was the Canon first written down and when did the
words of mysterium fidei first appear?

 

[ncjohn]

As interesting as all of this is, how does it possibly relate to the claim that the Mass of Trent was instituted by Jesus?

I don’t think anyone is questioning whether the “This is my body…This is my blood”–the institution of the Eucharist–came from the last supper. But I can find no relationship between that–which is only a small portion of the Mass, although obviously the most important, and any claim that Jesus instituted the balance of the Mass.

The liturgical celebrations of the early Church–pre-Pauline letters–certainly looked nothing like the Mass of Trent. While it did have readings–Old Testament only since there was no New Testament yet–and hymns, and the Eucharistic meal, it did not have the Creed, which was still centuries away, or many other elements of the Mass of Trent.

Beyond Jesus stating in general terms “do this in memory of me”, there is no formation of the Mass itself at that point–only a call to the Eucharistic celebration. The development of the Mass over time, like the writing of the Christian scriptures, was by man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,

 

[Uxor]

As interesting as all of this is, how does it possibly relate to the claim that the Mass of Trent was instituted by Jesus?

I don’t think anyone is questioning whether the “This is my body…This is my blood”–the institution of the Eucharist–came from the last supper. But I can find no relationship between that–which is only a small portion of the Mass, although obviously the most important, and any claim that Jesus instituted the balance of the Mass.

The liturgical celebrations of the early Church–pre-Pauline letters–certainly looked nothing like the Mass of Trent. While it did have readings–Old Testament only since there was no New Testament yet–and hymns, and the Eucharistic meal, it did not have the Creed, which was still centuries away, or many other elements of the Mass of Trent.

Beyond Jesus stating in general terms “do this in memory of me”, there is no formation of the Mass itself at that point–only a call to the Eucharistic celebration. The development of the Mass over time, like the writing of the Christian scriptures, was by man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,

don’t think anyone is questioning whether the “This is my body…This is my blood”–the institution of the Eucharist–came from the last supper.

Ok…than lets leave it at that.

 

[ncjohn]

don’t think anyone is questioning whether the “This is my body…This is my blood”–the institution of the Eucharist–came from the last supper.

Ok…than lets leave it at that.

Fair enough.