Posted on 04/23/2018 7:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation
credit: J. Lippelmann, Catholic Standard
Last week in the Office of Readings of the Liturgy of the Hours we read from St. Justin Martyr who said:
No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes what we teach is true; Unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ (Apologia Cap 66: 6, 427-431)
St Justin may also have in mind a text from the Letter to the Hebrews which links proper doctrine to the reception of Holy Communion:
Brethren, Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by their ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those devoted to them. For we have an altar from which those who serve at the [old] tabernacle have no right to eat. (Heb 13:9-10)
Thus Communion points to doctrine, not merely to hospitality. The Eucharist comes from a basic communion of belief and serves to strengthen that belief. It is no mere ceremony, it is, as we shall see, a family commnuion rooted in a common belief that makes us brothers and sisters in the Lord and in communion with who He is and what He teaches.
In the modern debate about who can and should receive Holy Communion there is generally the presumption that everyone has a right to approach the Eucharistic Sacrifice and partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Thus, to limit or discourage indiscriminate reception of Communion is not only dismissed as unjust, but also, contrary to the practice of Jesus Christ who “welcomed everyone,” even the worst of sinners.
In this sort of climate, it is necessary to explain the Church’s historical practice of what some call “closed communion.” Not everyone who uses this terminology means it pejoratively, though some do. But to some extent, it is fair to say, that we do have “closed communion.” For the Catholic Church, Holy Communion is not a “come one, come all” event. It is reserved for those who, by grace, preserve union with the Church through adherence to all the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Our response of “Amen” at Holy Communion signifies our communion with these realities along with our faith in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
But many today have reduced Holy Communion to a mere sign of hospitality, such that if the Church does not extend Holy Communion to all, we are considered unkind. There is often a mistaken notion about the nature of the Last Supper (and the Eucharist that proceeds from it) that lurks behind this misconception. Many years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger articulated the misunderstanding well. I summarize the description here from his Collected Works, Vol 11, Ignatius Press pp 273-274:
Nowadays [some] New Testament scholars … say that the Eucharist … is the continuation of the meals with sinners that Jesus had held … a notion with far-reaching consequences. It would mean that the Eucharist is the sinners’ banquet, where Jesus sits at the table; [that] the Eucharist is the public gesture by which we invite everyone without exception. The logic of this is expressed in a far-reaching criticism of the Church’s Eucharist, since it implies that the Eucharist cannot be conditional on anything, not depending on denomination or even on baptism. It is necessarily an open table to which all may come to encounter the universal God …
However, tempting the idea may be, it contradicts what we find in the Bible. Jesus’ Last Supper was not one of those meals he held with “publicans and sinners”. He made it subject to the basic form of the Passover, which implies that the meal was held in a family setting. Thus, he kept it with his new family, with the Twelve; with those whose feet he washed, whom he had prepared by his Word and by this cleansing of absolution (John 13:10) to receive a blood relationship with him, to become one body with him.
The Eucharist is not itself the sacrament of reconciliation, but in fact it presupposes that sacrament. It is the sacrament of the reconciled, to which the Lord invites all those who have become one with him; who certainly still remain weak sinners, but yet have given their hand to him and have become part of his family.
That is why, from the beginning, the Eucharist has been preceded by a discernment … (I Corinthians 11:27ff). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [the Didache] is one of the oldest writings outside the New Testament, from the beginning of the Second Century, it takes up this apostolic tradition and has the priest, just before distributing the sacrament saying: “Whoever is holy, let him approach, whoever is not, let him do penance” (Didache 10).
Thanks to Pope Benedict’s writing prior to his papacy, we can see the root of the problem: the failure to see the Eucharist for what it truly is—a sacred banquet wherein those who enjoy communion with the Lord (by His grace) partake of the sign and sacrament of that communion. Holy Communion serves to celebrate and deepen the communion already operative through the other sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Confession.
If you want to call this communion “closed,” fine, but at its heart it is more positively called a “sacrum convivium,” a sacred meal of those who share a life together (con = with or together + vivium = life). This is not a “come one, come all” meal; it is a Holy Banquet for those who wear the wedding garment. The garment is righteousness and those who refuse to wear it are cast out (cf: Matt 22:11-12 & Rev 19:8).
Many moderns surely would prefer a “no questions asked” invitation to all who wish to come. We moderns love this notion of inclusiveness and unity. But to a large degree it is a contrived unity that overlooks truth (the opposite of which is falsehood, not just a different viewpoint). Yes, it overlooks the truth necessary for honest, real, and substantive unity. Such a notion of communion is shallow at best and a lie at worst. How can people approach the Eucharist, the sacrament of Holy Communion and unity, and say “Amen” when they differ with the Church over essentials such as that Baptism is necessary; that there are seven Sacraments; that the Pope is the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on Earth; that homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery are gravely sinful; that women cannot be admitted to Holy Orders; that there is in fact a priesthood; that Scripture must be read in the light of the Magisterium; and on and on? Saying that there is communion in such a case is either a contrivance or a lie, but in either case, it does not suffice for the “Amen” that is required at the moment of reception of Holy Communion.
Such divisions do not make for a family meal or a “sacrum convivium.” Hence, to share Holy Communion with Protestants, dissenters, and others who do not live in communion with the Church is incoherent. To paraphrase Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), the Eucharist is not a table fellowship with publicans and other “sinners”; it is a family meal that presupposes grace and shared faith.
Tomorrow we can look to the need to receive Holy Communion, free of grave or serious sin.
I agree.
Search again. Not doing your homework for you.
It’s nothing to do with mutual respect. The entire Mass is not supported by the New Testament. Why participate in something that isn’t Scriptural?
You should read about St. Catherine of Siena.
However, you are equally obliged to decline to participate in the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church, whether your reason is that you respect us or that you do not respect us.
Christ is not brought back down from Heaven by the priest to be sacrificed over and over and over and over again. We do not consume Christ as previously noted..
However, you are equally obliged to decline to participate in the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church, whether your reason is that you respect us or that you do not respect us.
I do not participate because it is not Scriptural.
Believe what you want, but do not misrepresent what Catholics believe.
You're fine when you tell me what you believe.
Do NOT misrepresent to me what I believe.
That does not show respect.
Did you have a particular passage or incident in mind about wolves?
Did you have a particular passage or incident in mind about wolves?
Believe what you want, but do not misrepresent what Catholics believe.
A Roman Catholic priest says otherwise.
Plus another Roman Catholic on another thread said the Mass was the SAME sacrifice as the Cross....the SAME.
Do NOT misrepresent to me what I believe.
All I'm doing is repeating what an ordained Roman Catholic priest has said. If anyone should know it should be him. Your issue is with him....not me.
I'll post what we're talking about for the casual reader to decide.
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
John O' Brien, Roman Catholic Priest in the Faith of Millions.
Literary Devices
https://literarydevices.net/metaphor/
Metaphor
Definition of Metaphor
Metaphor is a figure of speech that makes an implicit, implied, or hidden comparison between two things that are unrelated, but which share some common characteristics. In other words, a resemblance of two contradictory or different objects is made based on a single or some common characteristics.
In simple English, when you portray a person, place, thing, or an action as being something else, even though it is not actually that “something else,” you are speaking metaphorically. For example, the phrase, “My brother is the black sheep of the family,” is a metaphor because he is not a sheep, nor is he black. However, we can use this comparison to describe an association of a black sheep with that person. A black sheep is an unusual animal, which typically stays away from the herd, and the person being described shares similar characteristics.
Furthermore, a metaphor develops a comparison that is different from a simile, in that we do not use “like” or “as” to develop a comparison in a metaphor. It actually makes an implicit or hidden comparison and not an explicit one.
Common Speech Examples of Metaphors
Most of us think of a metaphor as a device used in songs or poems only, and that it has nothing to do with our everyday life. In fact, all of us in our routine life speak, write, and think in metaphors. We cannot avoid them. Metaphors are sometimes constructed through our common language, and they are called “conventional metaphors.”
For instance, calling a person a “night owl,” or an “early bird,” or saying “life is a journey,” are common examples of metaphors heard and understood by most of us. Below are some more conventional metaphors we often hear in our daily lives:
My brother was boiling mad. (This implies he was too angry.)
The assignment was a breeze. (This implies that the assignment was not difficult.)
It is going to be clear skies from now on. (This implies that clear skies are not a threat and life is going to be without hardships)
The skies of his future began to darken. (Darkness is a threat; therefore, this implies that the coming times are going to be hard for him.)
Her voice is music to his ears. (This implies that her voice makes him feel happy)
He saw the soul of dust when passing through the dust storm.
Chaos is the breeding ground of order.
War is the mother of all battles.
Her dance is a great poem.
A new road to freedom passes through this valley of death.
My conscience is my barometer.
His white face shows his concern.
His kisses are like roses.
He married her to have a trophy wife.
Laughter is the best medicine.
Words are daggers when spoken in anger.
His words are pearls of wisdom.
Comprehension problem.
As a matter of fact, Yes. It is the SAME. The same ONE. Unique. Solo. SINGULAR. Unparalleled. Never repeated. Counting number One. UNO.
Christ is sacrificed once. In a bloody way, at Calvary. In a mystical way, beyond time and space. "The Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation).
In the Mass, we enter into this eternity. It is a meeting of time and eternity, of space and infinity. Hence the Mass, the sacrifice of the Lamb ("This is the Lamb of God") is the self-same ONE sacrifice of Calvary.
It would be only honest to say that this goes beyond your comprehension. It cannot, in fact, be grasped by the unaided human intellect.
But it is not right to simply misrepresent it by saying Christ is sacrificed multiple times (over and over and over again.)
It's not true. It's not what the Catholic Church teaches.
So kindly cease misrepresenting our doctrine.
If you really don't "get it," the reasonable thing would be to say so, and stop right there.
That sounds like many times, not one continual sacrifice to me.
“That sounds like many times, not one continual sacrifice to me.”
Again, you are unable to comprehend the Eternal Triune God and His ability to Transcend Time.
Jesus died IN time, once for all. It’s over and done with.
He is not in heaven continually being killed for our sins.
He is in heaven as the resurrected and risen Lord seated at the right hand of the Father making intercession for His people.
Comprehension problem.
Your issue is with your fellow Roman Catholic.
But it is not right to simply misrepresent it by saying Christ is sacrificed multiple times (over and over and over again.) It's not true. It's not what the Catholic Church teaches. So kindly cease misrepresenting our doctrine.
Forgive my frustration here...but...an ordained Roman Catholic priest said this.......not me.
Who is going to be better trained to understand what is happening....the ordained/trained Roman Catholic priest...or you...a layperson [no disrespect intended]??
the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times!
I know you don't like the quote....most Roman Catholics don't when confronted with the reality of what is happening during the Mass....not what you think is happening....but what is happening {at least from a RC perspective} based on what an ordained priest says.
As metmom has noted....if there is no shedding of blood there is no sacrifice. As Rome claims there is no shedding of blood at the Mass, then it is not a sacrifice. Can't have it both ways.
And more than that when you consider how many times the Mass is performed in Roman Catholicism.
The Cross was a one time sacrifice not to be repeated again. It doesn't have to.
Again, you remain clueless. It is never repeated. His sacrifice exists always.
This does not accord with the reaction of Jesus' hearers at the time, nor with the understanding and practice of the Church everywhere --- Europe, Asia, Africa ---until the Northwest European breakup in the 16th century.
Did any Christian believe the Mass was in contradiction to the NT until the 16th or 17th century? Might you let me know?
At the time of the initial Bread of Life Discourse (John 6), the crowds are disturbed at Jesus' words, interpret them as real and shocking. "This saying is hard, who can accept it?"
Jesus notes this, and does he finesse it in a literary genre kind of way?
No, He doubles down. "I tell you, my Flesh is real food and by Blood real drink." (Literary device, eh?) He even switches verbs, so the verb He uses goes from just "eat" (phago) to the way an animal eats meat (trogo). The word trogo means “to gnaw, to chew,” and it is used nowhere else in the New Testament, except in John 6:54, and 56-58.
Note: Jesus doesn't chase after them and say, "Wait! Stop! It's just a metaphor, you simpletons!"
No, he's all about "real" food and "real" drink and "Amen, amen, I say unto you." Then He turns to His closest disciples and says, "Do you want to go, too?"
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.