Author Topic: 400th Mass this year. (Read 2398 times)

crossbro · « **Reply #20 on:** December 29, 2013, 10:13:30 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: crossbro
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Charlemagne
Quote from: crossbro
2) In John 6:48, Jesus is quoted as calling the Eucharist "The Bread of Life". The OI claims that this expression in the No is a denigration of transubstantiation.

OI's problem with this wasn't "Bread of Life," but the words "for us" (i.e., "It will become for us the Bread of Life"), the implication being that the bread would become the "Bread of Life" only subjectively, not in reality.

An additional problem (and I don't recall if this is enumerated in the OI) with "It will become the "Bread of Life for us..." is that, in the context of not offering the Son to the Father, (which is found in the TLM multiple times) this particular part of the NOM contributes to the athropocentricity of the NOM, centered around the people, rather than around the perpetual offering of the Son to the Father.

I agree with the argument that NO is a man centered mass and not a God centered mass.

Why do you think it's man centered and not God centered?

Just a suspicion I suppose. Maybe it comes from getting all the football scores while I am trying to pray.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #21 on:** December 29, 2013, 10:14:09 PM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Charlemagne
Quote from: crossbro
2) In John 6:48, Jesus is quoted as calling the Eucharist "The Bread of Life". The OI claims that this expression in the No is a denigration of transubstantiation.

OI's problem with this wasn't "Bread of Life," but the words "for us" (i.e., "It will become for us the Bread of Life"), the implication being that the bread would become the "Bread of Life" only subjectively, not in reality.

An additional problem (and I don't recall if this is enumerated in the OI) with "It will become the "Bread of Life for us..." is that, in the context of not offering the Son to the Father, (which is found in the TLM multiple times) this particular part of the NOM contributes to the athropocentricity of the NOM, centered around the people, rather than around the perpetual offering of the Son to the Father.

A perpetual offering indeed, especially when you consider the Offertory: "Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host..." The TLM is already anticipating the bread becoming the host (hostia, "victim" in Latin). I can't remember who said it, but it was stated that the Offertory is the perfect summation of the meaning of the Mass (or words to that effect).

I believe Fr Cekada said such in his book, that the offertory in the TLM is a perfect summation and exposition on Catholic doctrine viz. the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Mass.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #22 on:** December 29, 2013, 10:15:29 PM »

Quote from: crossbro

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: crossbro
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Charlemagne
Quote from: crossbro
2) In John 6:48, Jesus is quoted as calling the Eucharist "The Bread of Life". The OI claims that this expression in the No is a denigration of transubstantiation.

OI's problem with this wasn't "Bread of Life," but the words "for us" (i.e., "It will become for us the Bread of Life"), the implication being that the bread would become the "Bread of Life" only subjectively, not in reality.

An additional problem (and I don't recall if this is enumerated in the OI) with "It will become the "Bread of Life for us..." is that, in the context of not offering the Son to the Father, (which is found in the TLM multiple times) this particular part of the NOM contributes to the athropocentricity of the NOM, centered around the people, rather than around the perpetual offering of the Son to the Father.

I agree with the argument that NO is a man centered mass and not a God centered mass.

Why do you think it's man centered and not God centered?

Just a suspicion I suppose. Maybe it comes from getting all the football scores while I am trying to pray.

So you think the NO is man-centered, but this thought has nothing to do with the NO?

You're backtracking, Crossbro.

crossbro · « **Reply #23 on:** December 29, 2013, 10:26:27 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: crossbro
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: crossbro
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Charlemagne
Quote from: crossbro
2) In John 6:48, Jesus is quoted as calling the Eucharist "The Bread of Life". The OI claims that this expression in the No is a denigration of transubstantiation.

OI's problem with this wasn't "Bread of Life," but the words "for us" (i.e., "It will become for us the Bread of Life"), the implication being that the bread would become the "Bread of Life" only subjectively, not in reality.

An additional problem (and I don't recall if this is enumerated in the OI) with "It will become the "Bread of Life for us..." is that, in the context of not offering the Son to the Father, (which is found in the TLM multiple times) this particular part of the NOM contributes to the athropocentricity of the NOM, centered around the people, rather than around the perpetual offering of the Son to the Father.

I agree with the argument that NO is a man centered mass and not a God centered mass.

Why do you think it's man centered and not God centered?

Just a suspicion I suppose. Maybe it comes from getting all the football scores while I am trying to pray.

So you think the NO is man-centered, but this thought has nothing to do with the NO?

You're backtracking, Crossbro.

I think the main responsibility lies with the laity, and I do believe that they will be held accountable for it because there is no excuse. I acknowledge the Mass is part of the problem, but the bigger problem I with the clergy and lack of leadership and accountability of the leadership in the Church.

For instance, nowhere was it even assumed the priest was to say Mass facing the people, nowhere was it directed to smash altars, never was there an intention to use the common language. If I am wrong on any of that feel free to correct me.

poche · « **Reply #24 on:** December 30, 2013, 12:54:28 AM »

) Calling it the Bread of Life at the expense of the Real Presence is the problem. There is nothing inherently problematic with the term "Bread of Life."

Calling it the Bread of life isn't at the expense of teh real presence. It is the Bread of Life because of the real presence.