Did the Second Vatican Council really want to diminish the tradition, orthodox and good liturgical piety that existed in the Church up until that time? (I'm not talking about the uneducated Masses here whose piety bordered on superstition, but educated laity who understood the pre-Vatican II Mass and what they should be doing).
Bishop Alexander Sample states in his interview on the post below this one that he was clueless about the sacrificial aspect of the Mass until he got into college. He was born in 1960, so his formation was in the silliest period of liturgical renewal in the late 1960's and 1970's (the '70's was the worst, absolutely!).
There is something very beautiful about the liturgical piety of the pre-Vatican II Church and the what the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is recovering. What I personally don't like is that the laity at the EF Mass don't seem to verbally participate as I would like for them to do. Of course in my parish we only have the High Mass in the EF way of things once a month, so catechesis on this is somewhat difficult. But even our Tuesday Low Mass I seldom hear anyone participating from the pews. Yet they are pious and are there because they believe what is occurring at the Mass, that it doesn't hinge on them and their verbal participation. I don't think any of the congregation behind me is superstitious.
And those who do attend our EF Masses have yet (for the most part) acquired their own missal to follow the Mass. Having a missal is an absolute requirement. We provide worship aids for this Mass, but these are less then ideal and don't have the changing parts which is why a missal is so necessary.
I would like for the EF congregation to participate and verbally so and there is no reason why they shouldn't. But they need to work at it.
Of course all of this would be solved if the EF Mass could be celebrated in English. I'm an strong advocate of that and I think you would then see an amazing renewal of traditional liturgical piety in the Church.
40 comments:
I am vehemently against having the unchanging parts and Proper antiphons of the Mass in any vernacular. I am quite trad, but I would support the following:
The EF, rubrics exactly as they are now, mandated for use as the OF, but with the changing parts of the Mass allowed (but not required to be) in the vernacular.
I would also support the Propers of the Mass to be mandated to be in Latin, so as to be true Gregorian Chant. This preserves our musical patrimony. Everyone knows that this vernacular chant mess --and it is a laudable practice nevertheless--isn't real Gregorian, and real Gregorian is what was mandated for use by Sacro. Concil. I don't know what that "pride of place" trash is; the Latin of SC 116 is "principem locum obtineat," which more correctly and in a less agenda-driven translation reads, "first of place." Everyone knows Sacrosanctum Concilium was translated into the various vernaculars, especially English, in a VERY poor way. Let me also remind everyone that the translations have absolutely no binding power. Only the Latin has juridical effect, but the liberals don't want you to know that and the ignorant don't know that.
For those smaller parishes incapable for whatever reason of chanting the Graduale Romanum Propers, the Graduale Simplex would be allowed as it is now.
Therefore, the Mass readings and the Proper celebrant's orations would be allowed to be in the vernacular.
__
Cliff's Notes: I would support the EF as it is now, as the OF, but with the Proper celebrant's orations and the readings allowed to be in the vernacular.
__
I quite like this Bishop. He has some liturgical sense. AND he celebrates the EF regularly.
A modified version of what we now call the EF was indeed celebrated in English from 1965 to 1967 (the parts said inaudibly by the priest remaining in Latin). However, the feeling at the time was "If it can be in the vernacular it must be in the vernacular", with the unfortunate result that parishes jettisoned overnight the plainchant settings of the Ordinary with which congregations were familiar.
However, this was only intended as an interim measure, since the Consilium was already at work on the new Mass, and the 1967 revision was Novus Ordo in all but name.
The form of Low Mass known as the Missa Dialogata and its extension the Missa Recitata were recommended by the SCR as far back as 1935, but were slow to catch on in the Anglo-Saxon world. One problem is that while it works with a small congregation positioned close to the altar, in a larger church setting the congregation have difficulty synchronizing their responses with each other, let alone with the priest and server. This, of course, was the main rationale for bringing the altar forward.
The Low Mass as we know it is something of an anomaly; in the Middle Ages the priest would have chanted the audible parts in a monotone.
I have a mint copy of the 1965 altar missal. It is wonderful and if only its Order had been maintained, I think true liturgical renewal would have taken place earlier than it is now.
What I like most about it is that the English "Collect, Prayer over the Offerings and Post Communion Prayers) are in the main part of the page, but the Latin is in the margin and easily chosen if one had the hankering to do so--that would have preserved the Latin much easier and it could have been accomplished the same way in our new Roman Missal--it was a lost chance, but the per-occupation to keep the English Missal looking like the official OF Latin Missal derailed that.
In the 1965 missal, the only things mandated to be in Latin were the priest's quiet parts including the Roman Canon with traditional rubrics. However, this missal does not include the Introit, offertory or Communion antiphons at all, which is very odd. So I don't know what happened to these in the interim period as the 1962 missal has these on the same page as the other prayers. Perhaps this was the beginning of the end of these. Unfortunately the new Roman Missal still does not provide the offertory Antiphon for some odd reason.
Bishop Sample's personal experience illustrates one of the great disconnects (a generation gap, of sorts) among Catholics born after 1960 and those born before: it is the assumption on the part of the older group that we (the post-1960 group) had the same education and formation experience that they had. This is simply not the case.
What I now know about the old Mass and the way things were taught and done in the pre-Conciliar era I picked up on my own through my own efforts and inclination to be interested. Even then, I still will never have the knowledge based on having lived in the Church in the pre-Conciliar era.
My impression of the "old Mass" is the one I developed in attending it in the early 1990's with an FSSP priest (then in his early 40's) offering it. The older group often has a more negative impression based on a distant memory of some hurriedly and badly celebrated Masses in the 1950's or early 1960's reinforced by 40 some years of negative historical spin that has been commonplace since the Council.
Joseph, I consider myself blessed to be able to remember the pre-Vatican II Church (I have a very clear memory of childhood events and I can remember some things that happened when I lived in Naples, Italy, and since I know the time line of when I was there, these would have taken place somewhere around the ages of 2 and 3. We lived in Atlanta from the time I was 3 until 6 and I can still get around some parts of Atlanta today (especially where we lived) from my memory as a 6 year old. What I clearly remember about the Mass in 1965 or 66 when we first started to implement Vatican II in my home parish in Augusta was that it was very positive, even the priest facing the people was cool in my mind, although even then I did not like the new altar placed in front of the old, it simply was cheap or dumbed down looking to me.
However the old altar, which was simple, but decorated in the pre-Vatican two fashion with the taberacle and six candlesticks remained. When our new pastor came in and without any real catechesis got rid of the "fake" altar, pulled the old simple marble altar away from the wall, removed the six high candlesticks and placed the tabernacle on a side altar under Blessed Mary's statue and put his presiding chair dead middle, I actually got sick to my stomach. The priest is more important than the tabernacle is what was communicated to me--I never thought that priests in the old way of celebrating Mass ever elevated themselves to the degree that placing that chair dead center and high than the altar did to my forming religious awareness. Then things steadily went down hill with the dumbing down of the Mass, standing for Holy Communion, receiving in the hand and Eucharistic Ministers. Keep in mind, like most pre-Vatican II Catholics sacredness meant that you were very cautious with handling the Sacred, so much so that one didn't chew the host, made sure they swallowed before the Sacred Host completely dissolved and only priests whose hands were anointed could touch the sacred, including the host to distribute Holy Communion.
All of this led to different view of the Sacred and that I had to believe in the Sacred despite the mixed signals being sent to us by reckless liturgical "renewal." My generation of Catholics are dying out, so it is absolutely necessary that a new generation of Catholics understand the pre-Vatican II sense of the Sacred (which includes morality by the way) and recovering it. The EF Mass helps considerably with that! In this regard, Pope Benedict is a genius for he knows that the pre-Vatican II Catholics are a dying breed and we need new Catholics that understand that paradigm.
Latin needs to stay. In fact, it needs to be taught in high schools again...at least in the private and parochial high schools. Let 'em holler...it won't hurt for long and it just might lift them out of the egalitarian swamp of modern education...and worship.
BTW, ytc you and I must share a parent or close relative somewhere...LOL!
I was born in 1962 and was taught at my First Communion in 1969 not to chew the host but to allow it tos ften and be swalloed intact. I have, based on my own study and reading, come to believe what I was never taught, that only consecrated hands should touch the Host. You'll never see me recieve from an EHMC, or even a Deacon for that matter. Like the God Bishop, I was never taught anything in CCD about the nature of the Mass being anything other that "The Lord's Supper" as Ignotus loves to liberally toss about, although I do remember my Mother referring to "the Sacrifice of the Mass" which as a child I assumed meant having to attend was the sacrifice.
Temp - Ignotus does not "toss out" that the mass is the Lord's Supper. The Church does. The Mass is both a sacrifice and a supper.
From the Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation II: "... we offer you what you have bestowed on us, the Sacrifice of perfect reconciliation."
It continues: "Holy Father, we humbly beseech you to accept us also, together with your Son, and in this saving BANQUET, graciously to endow us..."
Further: "Bring us to share with them the unending BANQUET of unity in a new heaven and a new earth..."
Understanding that it is BOTH/AND, not EITHER/OR is the Church's position, which I heartily endorse!
Ignotus, Sacrifice is the primary understanding if you understand Catholic Christology. It is particularly obvious in the EF that has been practiced for the vast majority of the Church's life.
Now, when dealing with Modernists (and Margaret Nutcase Ralph fans) like you, it becomes a matter of emphasis. So, we like the emphasis to be on the Sacrifice...you run along to MacDonald's for your meal.
Latin should stay in all of the Church's liturgy. We are LATIN Rite Catholics and not English rite. I don't think it's a good idea to have an English EF mass. Thats the reason why we need the "reform of the reform", to bring back the traditions we have lost post V2 and to bring Latin back to the liturgy.
Oh for pete's sake.... The sacrifice of Jesus began where... at the Last Supper. And when did it end? On the Cross after he tasted the wine (the 4th cup) and then said "it is finished".
So what happens at Mass? Both a sacrifice and a banquet. Are we not also in Heaven, the wedding feast of the Lamb? Yes.
It's "both/and" because its a sacrament.
Guess what Baptism is? Why that's right, it's "both/and" too! Both a death to sin/rising to new life and a 'washing'.
What is "confirmation"? Both a sealing in the Lord and a comissioning to bear fruit (else, why the gifts of the Holy Spirit?)
We are Body and Soul; Jesus is God and Man. We're Catholics and Americans (or other nationalities).
Theology is one thing.... taste and personal preference or piety is another.... that's why it's theologically possible for both rites of the Mass to be valid, while it's also possible (and likely!) not not every Latin-Rite Catholic will like BOTH but rather will prefer one more....
It's insidious with you Pater. In your anti-gun, anti-self defense article you were on your way to celebrate the "Mass of the Lord's Supper". Notice in your own accreditted and penned words you weren't going to celebrate "The Mass", or to celebrate "The Sacrifice of the Mass", you were on your way to celebrate the "mass of the Lord's Supper". Your tendency to habitually refer to the Mass in this fashion has been pointed out to you before. I don't even think you know you do it anymore, so ingrained is your Modernism. Traditional Catholics can spot your Modernist leanings a mile away. You don't need to tell me it's both Supper and Sacrifice, I know that, and I know you know that too. But constantly and habitually referring to it exclusively as meal versus sacrifice is one of the ways Modernists have broken down the Orthodoxy of the Church and emptied Her Pews. I know at St Joe's it's a rare month when we are not reminded in a Homily that the Mass is Sacrifice, I doubt we can say the same in your jurisdiction.
Templar, It is difficult to take Ignotus seriously, and you and I normally would simply laugh at him and shake our heads. However, we have to engage him on the blog in order to show others who read here that his progressivist, de-constructionist, Leftist stances are not the norm. He is a pitiful critter and I would have difficulty believing that God actually ministers through him if I did not remember that God has spoken through the mouth of an ass in the past (see Balaam). However, if anyone could make a Donatist out of me it is Ignotus. Christ have mercy!
Temp - "On Holy Thursday afternoon I was walking the short distance from the rectory to pray and to begin my final preparations for the evening's Mass of the Lord's Supper." ("Stand your ground laws" by Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh, The Southern Cross, Thursday April 19, 2012, page 3)
Note: It was Holy Thursday afternoon. Maybe your copy of the Roman Missal lists some other liturgy for the evening of Holy Thursday, but when I open my copy I find... (wait for it) . . . "The Mass of the Lord's Supper."
So, No, I was not going to celebrate "The Mass" or "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass," but "The Mass of the Lord's Supper," so named by Holy Mother Church.
It is neither insidious nor Modernist to call The Mass of the Lord's Supper the Mass of the Lord's Supper.
"... does not "toss out" that the mass is the Lord's Supper. The Church does. The Mass is both a sacrifice and a supper."
No magisterial teaching of the Church defines the Mass is a re-enactment or re-presentation of the Lord's Supper. To the contrary, the following statements from Ecclesia de Eucharistica (2003) are normative:
The Eucharist is indelibly marked by the event of the Lord's passion and death, of which it is not only a reminder but the sacramental re-presentation. It is the sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated down the ages."
“The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and
blood"
The "sacred banquet of communion" offers to the faithful the fruits of the sacrifice of the cross whose re-presentation is the Mass.
But no reason to confuse this banquet with the Lord's Supper, at which Christ initiated the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Mass is a re-enactment of the Eucharistic sacrifice consisting of the Lord's passion and death on the Cross, not a reenactment of the Lord's Supper which initiated it.
I believe that fuzzy thinking that confuses the Sacrifice of the Mass with the Lord's Supper is at the heart of many of the Church's problems.
From "Ecclesia de Eucharistia:"...At times one encounters an extremely reductionist understanding of the Eucharistic Mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation...the Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation."
And this from "God is Near Us" by J. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict): "The Eucharist is far more than just a meal: it has cost a death to provide it, and the majesty of death is present in it. Whenever we hold it, we should be filled with reverence in the face of this mystery, with awe in the face of this mysterious death that becomes a present reality in our midst...it is not just a matter of pious discourse and entertainment, or some kind of religious beautification, spreading a pious gloss on the world; it plumbs the very depths of existence.... The Eucharist is a sacrifice, the presentation of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross."
So, Ignotus/Kavanaugh, you've got your emphasis in the wrong place. OK, I have to clean my pistol. I went to the range this morning and I am going to Macon tonight. I hate to carry a dirty weapon, don't you?
Wow! Talk about fuzzy thinking!
Of course, the Mass of Holy Thursday is the Mass of the Lord's Supper.
Just as the Mass celebrated on December 8 is the Mass of the Immaculate Conception. But surely Pater does not argue that the Mass IS the Immaculate Conception.
The Mass celebrated on the evening of Holy Thurday commemorates the Lord's Supper. That is why it is called the Mass of the Lord's Supper. But the Mass normatively celebrated by the bishop on the morning of Holy Thursday is not the Mass of the Lord's Supper, but rather the Mass of Chrism. Neither IS the Lord's Supper
So the phrase "Mass of the Lord's Supper" has nothing to do with whether the Mass IS the Lord's Supper. (Truly, one begins to wonder where to begin when adults spouts such fuzzy gibberish.)
The Baltimore Catechism #2 makes clear three important thing in three different chapters:
A. The Holy Eucharist as a Sacrament
B. The Holy Eucharist as a Sacrifice
C. Holy Communion as a "banquet" Receiving the Holy Eucharist.
In the case of "C" the catechism states: "Communion is an action. It is the sharing to the full in the Eucharistic sacrifice, by eating the Flesh of Christ as the Food of our soul. By our sacrifice we have offered a gift to God. God is pleased and has accepted our gift. He is so please that He invites us to eat of the gift we have given Him. He invites us to eat as guests at His table. communion is the action by which all of us eat together the Flesh and Blood of Christ as Food and Drink of our souls."
"C" is an extenstion of the Sacrament and Sacrifice and begins with "The Our Father" and our reception of the Flesh and Blood of our Risen Lord. It is He we are eating and sharing which the "accidents" of the Bread and Wine make "politically correct" and "Palatable" to eat the one we are receiving. But unlike ordinary food that becomes a part of us when we eat and digest it, our Lord Jesus makes us a part of Him when we receive Him into our souls. That's a big difference in terms of banquet at home and banquet at Mass!
The way we pray is the way we believe and I fear that fuzzy thinking is part and parcel of the flaws of the ordinary form of the Mass as celebrated in too many places--it doesn't have to be that way though! I would recommend to any priest or lay Catholic who has fuzzy thinking about the complete understanding of the Mass to also celebrate the EF Mass--it clarifies so much without having to give up the OF but just celebrate it in a way that makes clear the true theology of the Mass and its doctrines and dogmas.
Instead of saying that fuzzy thinking is an intrinsic part of the OF, I'd rather think that fuzzy thinking by some may be a source of their banality in celebrating it.
As for the fact that celebrating the EF teaches priests a lot about the OF--an important motive of Summorum Pontificum, I suspect--I just listened to Msgr. Wadsworth's talk on the future of the liturgy:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2012/05/executive-director-of-icel-on-future-of.html
At about the 17:45 mark he comments on the irony that teachings of Sacrosanctum Concilium are better observed in the typical EF Mass than in the typical OF Mass.
I stand corrected on the article. I missed the fact that it was Holy Thursday in the article and therefore the reference to the Mass of the Lord's Supper would be appropriate. However, my basic point remains valid. Ignotus has repeatedly referred to Mass in this way, and been called on it multiple times, and much more to the point Modernists in GENERAL repeatedly do focus on the meal aspect of the Mass exclusively, for the expressed purpose of Protestantizing Our Faith.
I love Latin, I pray in Latin in my private devotionals as much as possible, and I plan on teaching it or having it taught to my children, as I am able. But no matter if we are the Latin rite, or what the official language of the church is supposed to be, the reality is that our church "on the ground" is just not there. We don't know Latin. We don't know what's happening in the EF. We don't know about missals. We don't know about confeitors and suscipiats. So, we need to be realistic: I am vigorously in favor of being able to celebrate the EF in the vernacular. That would meet us where we are--that would let people know what they have been missing! We can't expect people in the pews to do their homework beforehand; we have been asleep too long!
"We provide worship aids for this Mass, but these are less then ideal and don't have the changing parts which is why a missal is so necessary."
For the ordinary (fixed) parts of the EF Mass, our Latin Mass community (like most) makes available the ubiquitous red or purple missalette
http://www.ecclesiadei.org/Booklet%20Missals.htm
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6640/10-pack-sunday-missal-booklet
For the proper (changing parts) we provide each Sunday a stack of the uvoc.org leaflets like this:
http://uvoc.org/4th_Sun_After_Easter/4th_Sun_After_Easter.html
You download the PDF, print pages 1 and 4 on one side of the 8.5"x11" sheet, pages 2 and 3 on the other side. Fold down the middle, and you have a handy 4-page leaflet that fits inside your missalette. You move it through as Mass proceeds, so you can follow all the way through. "Easy as pie", both to provide and for folks to us.
Really, there's no other way to go. Once folks are really into the EF Mass with these, then--but usually not before--they want to invest in their own complete hand missal.
I might warn you that these missalettes have legs. But at less than $3 each, their attraction for people to take on to study is the cheapest "new evangelization" we could possibly do.
Temp - I have never referred to the mass as "The Mass of the Lord's Supper" unless I was referring to the liturgy celebrated on Holy Thursday evening.
Also, I have said here numerous times that the mass, as the Church teaches, is both a sacrifice and a supper/banquet.
Henry - The article to which Temp referred clearly states that the events I was relating took place on Holy Thursday. That day, and that day only, the Roman Missal gives the liturgy the specific name "Mass of the Lord's Supper." That is specifically what I was referring to in the article I wrote. I was using the title the Church uses, an admirable practice I would suggest.
Henry - And I find the following pretty authoritative: "Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb."
Pater,
I must admit that I didn't read the preceding post(s), and therefore misunderstood you as misconstruing the designation "Mass of the Last Supper". Let me offer you my apology. I assume now that we both understand the sacrifice of the Lamb and the supper of the Lamb as inextricably related.
Henry - Done!
I didn't know the Mass was a sacrifice until age 44.
PI's church announces the beginning of Mass as "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass"..hmmm how 'bout that
I've no dog in the ongoing controversy with whomever this "pater" is people seem to dislike here.
But I would like to point out that distinctions are in order: it's true that some terminology may be 'fuzzy' in that they are not properly defined or lazy. Like the expression "sun rise" is not astronomically correct, but it's close enough for our purposes.
One ought not become 'grammar nazis' when it doesn't matter to the subject. Nit picking is like picking fights over differences of taste.
But on the other hand, there ARE concepts in the Catholic faith which are necessarily 'fuzzy' because they are MYSTERIES and defy easy classification or single expressions.
The Mass is one of these things; it's a MYSTERY.
Or "holy mysteries" as the early Church fathers refered to it.
The Mass is indeed a sacrifice, THE sacrifice of the New Covenant. But it is still a banquet because we do take and eat...take and drink...
I fear that in our haste to assume the worst about someone's fuzzy language that we rush into a Cargo-cult extreme of thinking in almost magical terms about the sacraments.
The "good old days" weren't "good" because the Tridentine Mass was said on all the altars of the Latin Rite. They were good only in the USA because we happened to have won WW2.
Pretty much everywhere else the world and Church were suffering tremendously at the hands of communism, poverty, and assorted atrocities committed by the locals.
The Tridentine Mass did not stop the rise of atheism, the French Revolution, secularism, the world wars, etc. So while it had a lot of good things going for it, it's not magic. If the priests and laity had been solid in their faith thanks to the Mass and catechism being 'correct' I doubt we'd have seen the huge defections of the 1960s and 1970s.
So recap: yes, fuzzy language is to be avoided unless we're just lazy and it's not an offical statement.... but not all things lend themselves to entirely satisfactory 'definintion' - some things are mysteries that require lots of different ways of talking about them.
Joe, I deeply appreciate your perspective and cogent advice. The distinction between post-WWII America and the other countries of Europe as well as their battle with communism are extremely important to know for context and why Europe tends toward secularism more so than the USA or at least led the way for the USA; but also the disinterest in religion in general and Catholicism in particular.
Ignotus' and other modernists language is not "fuzzy." It is studied and purposeful. We do not go to Mass or prefer the TLM because of its socio-economic effects. The state of the world or nation has nothing to do with why or how we worship.
To disconnect the state of the world and/or nation from why and how we worship is an implicit and, I hope, unintentional, denial of the Incarnation.
Christ took on flesh (became incarnate) to change THIS world (to know, love, and serve Him in this world) and to offer us the gift of salvation in heaven (to be happy with him forever in heaven).
It is, again, both/and, not either/or.
I could have sworn that Jesus says in the Gospels that, "My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36
In fact I would go so far as to day that eminent eschatology is passe in today's modern theology because it leads to so many errors about this life and about the Incarnation. This world is passing away and don't you forget it! But yes, we are called first to Faith and then good works, to love of God and love of neighbor, because these find their fulfillment in heaven and the completion of salvation at the end of time and the Second Coming and the General Judgement.It's all about salvation, our good works, not about making heaven on earth.
Ignotus, Get a life. It is no denial of the Incarnation to say that the state of the world or nation has nothing to do with why or how we worship. That is what is wrong with modernist/humanists like you...everything is predicated upon anthropology/sociology. The Mass was said virtually the same way for 1500 years until someone got the bright idea to mess with it...based upon sociological, man-centered premises. Now, look where we are...we have people like you who do not have a theological clue telling us how to worship...
You should not swear, but read the Gospel in which Jesus says, “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Each time I bury someone I am reminded that the world is passing away, but that does not lead to to conclude that I am not to do all I can to build up the reign of God here and now. Salvation begins here and is completed in the life to come.
This is not IMMANENT eschatology at all; it is the Gospel mandate. If you ask His Eminence, Cardinal George of Chicago, he could explain the difference to you . . .
Thank you, Fr. MacDonald, for explaining proper Christology to Ignotus. I'm sure it galls the Hell out of him coming from you. He can ignore me, but you are...well, I will not insult you by referring to you as his peer...apprehended by Christ for the same Sacramental calling and ministry. Maybe he needs to follow you around for a year or so...no, I wouldn't wish that on you, either.
Good Father, you err in understanding the topic of the thread. This thread isn't about eschatology.
I would draw your attention to the collect for the 5th Sunday of Easter:
Almighty and ever-living God,
constantly accomplish the Paschal Mystery in us,
that those you were pleased to make new in Holy Baptism may, under your protective care, bear much fruit and come to the joys of life eternal. Through our Lord Jesus Christ . . .
We pray that we "may bear fruit and come to the joys."
We are to "bear fruit" here, in this life, in the "already" of our existence as those redeemed. We are to house the homeless, clothe the naked, defend the opprsssed, welcome the stranger, be faithful in marriage, etc., in this life.
Having done so, we then hope to enjoy the "not yet" portion of our redeemed existence. We hope to be found worthy to "come to the joys of life eternal."
And Pin, I am not going to "follow" anyone who doesn't know the difference between eminence and immanence. That's sloppy writing which is the result of sloppy thinking.
PI, your sloppy thinking is to think that our faith and good works bring about God's kingdom here on earth. Only God brings about God's kingdom and He has been doing so since Adam and Eve originally sinned and throughout salvation history which will be completed only at the Second Coming and Final judgement.
Our Faith and Good Works are necessary for our personal salvation. Our salvation begins at the moment God thought of us from all eternity but can be lost even after one is baptized by turning away from the Faith and Good Works as the Church understands these. Our life in Christ and through the Church are a foretaste of what heaven will be and yes at Mass heaven comes down to earth and heaven and earth are marvelously joined and earth and we are lifted up. But this world is not heaven, heaven is. And in heaven no one will lose salvation since all are then saved once and for all. Not so here on earth.
Ignotus, Fr.'s was a typo. You've made some in the past, as well. You are setting up a straw man because no one is questioning our call to bear fruit. That has never been the issue here...ever.
Good Father, our faith and good works, made possible by God's grace, BEGIN the process of building up the kingdom of God here on earth. That is our task, our calling, our charge. "Thy kingdome come, Thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven."
The process is complete only in heaven. I have never suggested otherwise.
Ignotus, the kingdom of God here on earth is not a socio-political one. 'My kingdom is within you." Christ taught a highly individualistic ethic based upon a change of heart and the command to bring others to Him. "My kingdom is not of this world." Show me in the Gospels or in Paul where you find an exhortation to change the world through political means...show me. It ain't there. This crap you and the other lib/mods spout is just nonsense based upon a Marxist reading of the NT. You aren't fooling anyone (except your parishioners...Margaret Nutting Ralph, indeed). You are so full of it your eyes are brown...
Post a Comment