Q&A April AD 2014
Our Lady of the Rosary
Parish Bulletin
Validity of Eastern Masses?
Mass too ritualistic; too exclusive?
An eye for an eye?
Forty Days of Lent?
The Silly Season
Q&A Archives
Question:
While on vacation I attended a traditional Mass offered in a meeting room in
my hotel. I was rather surprised to hear the priest warn people that they
must not attend Mass in the Eastern Rite. He claimed that their
consecration of the bread was invalid because they inserted a phrase about
our Lord’s bones being broken. Can this be right?
Answer:
There is no
single “Eastern Rite.” Rather the Church has a number of non-Western rites,
all of which are considered valid by the Holy See, and were so considered
for many years before the modernist crisis. The exact words of consecration
vary somewhat from one rite to another. I can only guess that your priest
was referring to the various uses (Greek, Ukrainian, Melkite, etc.), of the
Byzantine rite which base their form of consecration on Saint Paul’s First
Epistle to the Corinthians.
ПРИЙМІТЕ, ЯДІТЕ, СІЄ ЄСТЬ ТІЛО МОЄ,
ЄЖЕ ЗА ВИ ЛОМИМОЄ ВО ОСТАВЛЕНІЄ ГРІХОВ. |
Prijmite, yadite, SIYE YEST TILO
MOYE, yezhe za vy lomymoye vo ostavlenie hrikhov. |
RECEIVE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY WHICH
IS BROKEN FOR YOU, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. |
Consecration of the bread in the
ancient Slavonic of the Ukrainians |
Some early Greek
texts and some editions of the Vulgate place no verb to indicate what will
be done with the body of the Lord on behalf of His people—they seem to
ignore a blank space and are translated as:
[He] broke it and said
this is my body _____
for you:
this do in remembrance of
me
Some Vulgate editions
place the Latin word “tradetur” in the blank space, which the Douay
Rheims translates as “delivered.” The Missale Romanum includes
“tradetur” whenever Saint Paul’s epistle is read. Some of the Greek
texts fill the same blank with “κλωμενον—broken.” The verb (will be)
“broken” is found not only in the Byzantine rite, but also in the Apostolic
Constitutions,
the Liturgy of Saint James,
and the de Sacramentis of Saint Ambrose of Milan (340-397):
It is consistent with the fact that the bread that is to become the body of
Christ is broken.
None of this
contradicts Sacred Scripture about the fact that our Lord’s bones were not
broken.
For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall
not break a bone of him.
Yet, the “broken”
body of Christ did hang on the Cross. Perhaps not His bones, but everything
else. He had been beaten, scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified, and any
number of things that would have “broken” a mortal man. The systems of His
human body no longer worked together to keep human life alive. Human
brain, human heart, human kidneys, and every other human thing
failed! The folks who wrote Startrek might have used the
word “disrupted” instead of “broken,” but there is not really much
difference. Our Lord died the death common to His human creatures when the
composite being of His human body broke down and He gave up His ghost.
It must be remembered
that when Our Lord spoke the words of consecration at the Last Supper, they
referred to an event in the (near) future—but an event which lies in our
past. No claim is made that by speaking the words Our Lord’s body is
broken in the present. The reference is strictly to what happened on the
Cross roughly 2,000 years ago. At holy Mass the sacrificial action of the
cross is made present in the here and now, but our Lord’s glorified body,
now in heaven, cannot be damaged.
So what is wrong with
this form of consecration? It is not an attempt to pass off the heresy of
universal salvation, like the “for you and for all (men).” It does not
contradict the Scripture, for it makes no mention of Our Lord’s bones. It
reflects a time honored tradition in the Church. Remember that the Church
enjoys the charism of indirect infallibility when it carefully crafts its
holy rituals in accordance with Scripture and Tradition.
Some “traditionalist”
priests seem to feel that they must be at odds with all other Catholics—an
“us versus them” mentality. Some are further motivated by the desire to
have “the only game in town” in order to be able to afford being flown in
from somewhere else every Sunday. It is a scandal that one might attempt to
keep Catholics away from Holy Mass offered in an Eastern Church. Many
Eastern Catholics have suffered under political Communism, so they
understand the need to resist religious modernism. Their Mass can be quite
beautiful, and converys the same graces as the traditional Roman Mass.
Question:
A the end of an Internet video on the traditional Mass, someone posted a
comment that there is too much ritual in the Catholic Mass—the Eucharist of
the early Church was more like a Sunday afternoon dinner with friends, that
Communion was given to anyone who wanted It, and that the Real Presence is a
medieval doctrine.. What is the truth here?
Answer:
Whoever made the comment is likely from a Protestant or modernist Catholic
background, and making the mistake that whatever he is familiar with has
been the case throughout history.
The first description
of the early Mass is contained in the First Apology of Saint Justin Martyr,
composed about 155 AD. Like all early descriptions it gives only a general
picture, for the Mass was considered too sacred to even discuss with
pagans—writers exercised what is called a disciplina arcana, not
quoting the rite verbatim. Nonetheless, Justin’s description is clearly one
of a ritualized ceremony.
In chapter 66, Justin describes those who are admitted to Holy Communion:
And this food is called among us “εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist],” of which
no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things
which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is
for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as
Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we
receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been
made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation,
so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the
prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are
nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
[Emphasis supplied]
If Saint Justin’s
testimony is not early enough, we have the writings of Saint Paul to the
Corinthians.
Paul criticized them precisely because they were too casual—some of
them even getting drunk! Paul reminds them of the connection of the
Eucharist with our Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross, tells them that in the
appearances of bread and wine they must discern the Body [and Blood] of
Christ, and that they are not to eat and drink unworthily lest they become
guilty of our Lord’s Body and Blood.
The Mass developed
from two earlier Jewish rituals, from the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb
with the attendant unleavened bread and wine, and from the Scripture reading
service of the local synagogue. Both of these rituals were well
ordered—incidentally, both were conducted in a liturgical language (Hebrew)
which was no longer the language of the people by the time of Christ. Given
these antecedents it would be surprising if the Mass did not develop along
ritual lines.
The truth, then, is
that Mass has always been ritualistic in nature; that Holy Communion was
restricted to baptized Catholics, expected to be practicing their Faith, and
that It was always known to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Question:
Matthew 5:38: “You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one
strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other.” Father, why is the
Word of God different in the New Testament? Why was our Lord sent to preach
a gospel that differed from his Father's words?
Answer:
God is unchanging, but mankind has undergone important development since the
fall of Adam and Eve. In the Old Testament we see man coming to recognize
that there is but one God, and that His wishes are to be obeyed. This took
some time, and during the Exodus we witness the nominally monotheistic Jews
occasionally turning their backs on God and worshipping the false gods they
encountered along the way. But ultimately, the Jews come to recognize God
as unique, and the knowledge of His Law as a blessing. The concept of “an
eye for an eye” conveys the idea that no one should be victimized by
another—that under God’s Law society will punish evil—even the evil
committed by the strong against the weak.. Yet, man’s relationship with God
had not yet fully developed.
The coming of Christ
in the New Testament ushers in the era of grace. Under the Christian
dispensation, man becomes more like God, and is capable of mercy without
displaying weakness. Under grace, the desire for revenge is wholly to be
overcome. Note that the admonition to “turn the other cheek” is not always
obligatory. Self defense and defense of the weak is always permissible
against an unjust aggressor. We see this in Saint Paul, and to a lesser
extent in Our Lord Himself when unjustly accused by the Jews before the
Roman authorities.
Question:
You said that Sundays are not fast days during Lent. Doesn’t that make Lent
less than the biblical forty days?
Answer:
No. Lent extends from Ash Wednesday until the Easter Vigil ends on Holy
Saturday. That is four days (Wednesday-Saturday) at the beginning, plus six
full weeks, for a total of forty-six days. (6 X 7 = 42 + 4 = 46). During
that period there are six Sundays (four of Lent, two of Passiontide). Not
observing the Sundays makes the biblical forty days.
Sunday |
Monday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
Thursday |
Friday |
Saturday |
|
|
|
Ash Wed |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 Lent |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
2 Lent |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
`15 |
16 |
3 Lent |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
4 Lent |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
Passion |
29 |
30 |
31 |
32 |
33 |
34 |
Palm |
35 |
36 |
37 |
38 |
39 |
40 |
Easter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Forty Fast
Days of Lent |
Pontifical Mass for Children
Buenos Aires, Argentina AD 2011
Pope Francis on Islam
253. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential
for all involved…. Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent
fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to
avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of
the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
“Suitable training”
would have been a very good idea! Apparently, the Holy Father is unaware
that Allah of the Moslems is a “deity” with a changeable mind. The surahs
of the Koran written in Medina (where Mohammad was powerful) trump the
surahs written in Mecca (where Mohammad was relatively weak).[14]
Surah 9 represents Allah’s most current thinking (at Medina)—non-Moslems are
to be taxed, subjugated, and must acknowledge the superiority of Islam:
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor
do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the
religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay
the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of
subjection.[15]
Not much room for
“dialogue” there!
Pope Francis on Catholic Truth
Effective Christian witness is not about bombarding people with religious
messages, but about our willingness to be available to others “by patiently
and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance
in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence” (BENEDICT
XVI, Message for the 47th World Communications Day, 2013). We need but
recall the story of the disciples on the way to Emmaus. We have to be able
to dialogue with the men and women of today, to understand their
expectations, doubts and hopes, and to bring them the Gospel, Jesus Christ
himself, God incarnate, who died and rose to free us from sin and death. We
are challenged to be people of depth, attentive to what is happening around
us and spiritually alert. To dialogue means to believe that the “other” has
something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and
perspective. Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and
traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.[16]
Is there no objective
reality? Is everything as subjective as this? We are going to dialogue
about the relative validity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Truth incarnate?
! ? Then, perhaps, we can join in a little jihad?