Posted on 11/26/2008 4:35:17 PM PST by NYer
Let me say this. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Eucharist is Jesus in the Flesh. They are inseperable. I was taught to think of Scripture, the Eucharist and Tradition as a 3 legged stool. All three have a unified role in our Faith. In this fashion, none would be able to stand without the others. The 3 legs are also representative in the Trinity. You cannot ask who is most important in the Trinity, all are one, yet 3. Same answer goes for the question you pose. Love how God works in 3’s and 7’s :)
Jesus is the Word. The Bible is not the Word. It is an account of the Word.
It’s not “either or”, but “both and”.
We have a winner. You can stop there.
itz amazing that folks dont get this simple truth of the word and the mass....
I wonder why the wine part (blood) is not adored as well? Maybe it is that it can not be put in a Monstrance and that also has a long history with Adoration and Processions.
The Latin Mass was a tissue of Scripture reading, from beginning to end, with its dramatic climax in Communion. It was divided into two parts: the Mass of Catacumens and the Mass of the Faithful, the old OCC. The first part was an instruction in the holy mysteries’ the second participation. The new form has had the unfortunately effect of deemphasizing the mystery simply because formally the separation between the two is so apparent. The integrity of the two parts of the Old mass was especially obvious when said without a homily.
The new mass, unfortunately, seems chopped up into many parts. This is not helped by the usual music which seems to have no relationship to the actions
of the priest and just fills in the gaps when nothing is being said.
“The Latin Mass was a tissue of Scripture reading, from beginning to end, with its dramatic climax in Communion. It was divided into two parts: the Mass of Catacumens and the Mass of the Faithful, the old OCC. The first part was an instruction in the holy mysteries the second participation.”
As the Divine Liturgies of Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy are to this day. The distinctions made in this article ring hollow to Orthodox ears; the question wouldn’t come up in Orthodoxy. Sometimes I think the West, in the past 40 years or so, set aside our shared Ignatian Eucharistic theology and forgot that we are, very findamentally, a liturgical people, gathered together with our bishops at the Liturgy and focused on Christ in the Eucharist.
The mass today, at least as it is sometimes celebrated, reminds me that in Geneva, John Calvin developed a service in two parts, that one devoted to the reading of the Word, to the singing of Psalms and preaching. The second was a service of the Lord’s Supper. He would have preeffred that both be done each Sunday, but his colleagues disagreed, and the first became the normal Sunday service. Luther retained something like the mass, and it seems that the liturgical reformers had something like his service in mind when they composed the New Mass.
“The mass today, at least as it is sometimes celebrated, reminds me that in Geneva, John Calvin developed a service in two parts, that one devoted to the reading of the Word, to the singing of Psalms and preaching. The second was a service of the Lords Supper. He would have preeffred that both be done each Sunday, but his colleagues disagreed, and the first became the normal Sunday service.”
Now there’s a piece of liturgical history I never knew. Thanks!
Equal parts of the Mass.
That's what your church teaches you anyway...They have to elevate their man-made traditions to the level of authority as the spoken words of God...
The word of God is NOT just an account of God...There is POWER in the words of God which are the scriptures...Power that your church doesn't have when it goes outside the scriptures...
I don’t think you have the Traditions to say such!
“I dont think you have the Traditions to say such!”
Consider the following...
“...Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down...”
Jesus, Mark 7:13
A priest told me I could not receive communion at any Mass where I did not hear the readings. This seems to substantiate the importance of the scripture.
Ping for reference
Related thread: Synod: Christianity not a 'Religion of the Book'
In our language, we shouldnt fall into the ambivalent expression the three religions of the Book, Fisichella said, referring to Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Instead, he insisted, Christianity is properly understood as a religion of the Word.
1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won't
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul's letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1Pet 1:25 - God's eternal word = word preached to you
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
...Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down...
Jesus, Mark 7:13
By virtue of its divinely-appointed authority (Matt. 16:19; 18:18), the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
Non-Catholic christian churches also follow tradition. During the Reformation, the Protestants accepted the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century but excluded 7 OT books. What is that if not a man made tradition? According to the quote from the Book of Mark, you are suggesting that Protestants nullified the word of God. This is a good example of why private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned in the Bible Itself (2 Peter 1:20).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.