Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[clem456]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Someone on CAF was claiming last week that the Church teaches that the new mass and the old mass are equally efficacious channels of grace.

I asked for a magisterial document upholding this "doctrine" of the Church.

I am still waiting.

Doesn't the Church allow the forms of Mass?
Why would someone need to provide a document to prove this to you?
How much grace do you think the various types of Masses provide you? Please be specific.

[TimothyH]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Excellent question! For that matter, is it possible for two or more people to receive the same Sacrament at the same time, yet receive different levels of grace?

Yes, two people can recieve the exact same sacrament at exactly the same time and recieve different levels of grace.

One who recieves the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin does not recieve the same grace as one who recieves the Eucharist after just having gone to confession. Nor does a Methodist who, walking down the street and seeing Catholics recieving communion through the church window, says, "That's nice. I think I'll join them" and heads inside and recieves even though he does not believe in the real presence.

All objectively recieve the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, the entire substance of which is contained in even a small piece, yet all do not recieve the same grace.

Our disposition to the reception of grace has a lot to do with it.


-Tim-

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by clem456

Doesn't the Church allow the forms of Mass?
Why would someone need to provide a document to prove this to you?
How much grace do you think the various types of Masses provide you? Please be specific.

The question is not whether the mass is allowed.

The question is whether, when someone claims "the Church teaches...", that person should be ready to back up their claim with some evidence that the Church actually teaches such.

There's no point in trying to run down this road without first jumping the first hurdle.

[clem456]

Originally Posted by TimothyH

Yes, two people can recieve the exact same sacrament at exactly the same time and recieve different levels of grace.

One who recieves the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin does not recieve the same grace as one who recieves the Eucharist after just having gone to confession. Nor does a Methodist who, walking down the street and seeing Catholics recieving communion through the church window, says, "That's nice. I think I'll join them" and heads inside and recieves even though he does not believe in the real presence.

All objectively recieve the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, the entire substance of which is contained in even a small piece, yet all do not recieve the same grace.

Our disposition to the reception of grace has a lot to do with it.


-Tim-

Ok but thats not exactly the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is the -availablility- of grace, God's -provision- of it, through different external forms of the same reality

[clem456]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

The question is not whether the mass is allowed.

The question is whether, when someone claims "the Church teaches...", that person should be ready to back up their claim with some evidence that the Church actually teaches such.

There's no point in trying to run down this road without first jumping the first hurdle.

So you say the church forbids a certain form of the mass. Which form is that???
And if I'm confused on that, maybe you're saying through a certain form God provides more grace, and HOW MUCH IS THAT? Is is a thimbleful as opposed to a cup,what?

[newyorkcatholic]

Originally Posted by clem456

Dangerous? I'm curious what you are seeing here.
What is the nature of reverence and how is it determined? Is it observable, or is it internal, a spiritual disposition? I'm not sure why the church would allow a communion practice that is irreverent.

It is observable in a few ways. Polls regarding how Catholics' attitudes towards the real presence have changed. My own experience with this. The associated other changes (how people dress, how they react if a host is dropped, how many people still genuflect in a Church, etc).

There is also the intention of people involved. I do not accuse any of the Popes of not believing in the Real Presence! But I do think some of the influential people in the changes since V2 (Bouyer, Jungman, Bugnini) wanted to de-emphasize the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and do this by emphasizing other "Real Presences" of Christ ... and they were able to influence the hierarchy who were trusting, optimistic and hopeful. The results have not been good.

As to not being sure why the Church would allow it ... the Church has done (in her members, not as a Divine infallible institution) all sorts of horrible things. A bit of Church history will lead you to this realization quickly!

[TimothyH]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

Can you explain how your quote relates to my question? What point are you trying to make and what is your answer to my question? Thanks

+ PAX

One who makes a confession after a prolonged absence is something which is celebrated by the angels in heaven while we who trudge through weekly or monthly confession don't merit a high-five.

You asked about frequency... One cannot say that the person who returned to the sacraments after a prolonged absence has recieved "frequently" yet that one reception of one sacrament is of infinite value to that person. Yes, it is better to recieve frequently. But we cannot put a value on each reception of the sacrament. For someone who repents and recieves the sacrament right before death, the value of that one reception is a pearl of great price.

We have to be careful about thinking that we are better or more holy because we frequent the sacraments. Our reward for faith in Jesus Christ, for perseverence in prayer, for frequenting the sacraments - our reward for that is work. The reward for our faithfulness is blood, sweat, tears and sharing in the cross of Christ. The reward for the repentant sinner or prodigal son is the a fattet calf and a joyous feast.


-Tim-

[newyorkcatholic]

Originally Posted by clem456

So you say the church forbids a certain form of the mass. Which form is that???
And if I'm confused on that, maybe you're saying through a certain form God provides more grace, and HOW MUCH IS THAT? Is is a thimbleful as opposed to a cup,what?

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

Both forms, EF and OF are permitted. But that does not mean they are equal. How to show this?

Ever since 1969, nearly every single bishop and priest, nearly every statement from the Vatican ... anything addressing the changes suggested the "OF" (wasn't called that back then) was clearly superior. BXVI says now that the EF was never abrogated but we all know it was sure treated that. First highly illegal, then somewhat allowed, and now clearly allowed quite liberally but still not available in many places.

So obviously the Church can allow a trad form for those nostalgic trads, to keep them in the Church, but without really considering it as good as the OF. QED.

Now that's a positive argument. The negative argument is: if the Church teaches EF and OF are equal, where does the Church teach it? Church teaching isn't a guessing game.

There's another argument I made (I think in another thread). Church teaching is not made up - it develops from the Apostles. The Apostles did teach the Church can't promulgate error or an invalid rite (the Church is indefectible). But did the Apostles teach all forms of any one Rite are equal? The idea of different forms in one rite is an idea from 2007, and describes a reality from 1969. Before that, all the Latin Rite missals were the same form of the same right, just with minor changes throughout. No Pope issued a new missal and called it a "New Order of the Mass" like Paul VI. Therefore it is chronologically impossible that the Apostles spoke about a necessarily equality of forms within a rite.

The teaching that the Church cannot teach error is easily applied to say the NO can't contain outright heresy, and it must be valid.

But there is no teaching that the Church does everything wonderfully all the time. If this was true, we didn't need Vatican 2 and the NO since everything should have been fine. Based on this reasoning, liberals and trads must agree that the Church can't always do everything perfectly. If trads deny this we have no grounds to make a critique of current practices. If liberals deny it, they deny the whole foundation for the last 50-60 years of change, which presume that major changes were in order in the first place!

[clem456]

Originally Posted by newyorkcatholic

It is observable in a few ways. Polls regarding how Catholics' attitudes towards the real presence have changed. My own experience with this. The associated other changes (how people dress, how they react if a host is dropped, how many people still genuflect in a Church, etc).

There is also the intention of people involved. I do not accuse any of the Popes of not believing in the Real Presence! But I do think some of the influential people in the changes since V2 (Bouyer, Jungman, Bugnini) wanted to de-emphasize the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and do this by emphasizing other "Real Presences" of Christ ... and they were able to influence the hierarchy who were trusting, optimistic and hopeful. The results have not been good.

As to not being sure why the Church would allow it ... the Church has done (in her members, not as a Divine infallible institution) all sorts of horrible things. A bit of Church history will lead you to this realization quickly!

Who determines a person's intentions? Polls? Do you think the host droppers in 1952 had more reverence than the host droppers of today? Dress? I would like people to come to Christ, period.
The denial of the Real Presence has been around since the resurrection, hardly a V2 idea. What I hear you saying is reverence is based on external observances rather than spiritual disposition. THAT might be dangerous.

[TimothyH]

Originally Posted by clem456

Ok but thats not exactly the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is the -availablility- of grace, God's -provision- of it, through different external forms of the same reality

Oh, I think God's provision and willingness is only limited by our own resistance, if that is what you mean.

Just to get technical for a moment, the form and matter of the sacraments are the same, but I understand what you are saying, between the EF and OF, or absolution in Latin vs. English, and so forth. Am I correct?

I think our disposition to recpetion of grace has infinitely more to do with it than what language or ritual is used apart from the required matter and form. The recent thread with the pictures of the soldiers in World War II kneeling on piles of garbage, celebrating Mass on the hood of a Jeep comes to mind. For that guy, there is a good chance that the confession he just made and the Eucharist he just recieved will be his last. I would venture a guess that he is more disposed to the sacrament than I am at an ordinary Sunday Mass with coffee and bagesl waiting at home.

That was really the point of my post, our disposition. The only thing standing between us and our access to the springs of living water welling up to eternal life is our own self love.


-Tim-

[clem456]

Originally Posted by newyorkcatholic

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

Both forms, EF and OF are permitted. But that does not mean they are equal. How to show this?

Ever since 1969, nearly every single bishop and priest, nearly every statement from the Vatican ... anything addressing the changes suggested the "OF" (wasn't called that back then) was clearly superior. BXVI says now that the EF was never abrogated but we all know it was sure treated that. First highly illegal, then somewhat allowed, and now clearly allowed quite liberally but still not available in many places.

So obviously the Church can allow a trad form for those nostalgic trads, to keep them in the Church, but without really considering it as good as the OF. QED.

Now that's a positive argument. The negative argument is: if the Church teaches EF and OF are equal, where does the Church teach it? Church teaching isn't a guessing game.

There's another argument I made (I think in another thread). Church teaching is not made up - it develops from the Apostles. The Apostles did teach the Church can't promulgate error or an invalid rite (the Church is indefectible). But did the Apostles teach all forms of any one Rite are equal? The idea of different forms in one rite is an idea from 2007, and describes a reality from 1969. Before that, all the Latin Rite missals were the same form of the same right, just with minor changes throughout. No Pope issued a new missal and called it a "New Order of the Mass" like Paul VI. Therefore it is chronologically impossible that the Apostles spoke about a necessarily equality of forms within a rite.

The teaching that the Church cannot teach error is easily applied to say the NO can't contain outright heresy, and it must be valid.

But there is no teaching that the Church does everything wonderfully all the time. If this was true, we didn't need Vatican 2 and the NO since everything should have been fine. Based on this reasoning, liberals and trads must agree that the Church can't always do everything perfectly. If trads deny this we have no grounds to make a critique of current practices. If liberals deny it, they deny the whole foundation for the last 50-60 years of change, which presume that major changes were in order in the first place!

Yes it develops from the apostles, whose successors allow what they allow. And now you force someone to prove the obvious. Keep in mind the apostles probably didn't use your favorite mass form or, I suspect, speak you favorite language in the liturgy.
So still, we have this issue that forms of the same reality are not equal. What does that mean exactly? It's been talked about in the realm of grace, so please, someone define the difference for us, quantify it for us.

[clem456]

Originally Posted by TimothyH

Oh, I think God's provision and willingness is only limited by our own resistance, if that is what you mean.

Just to get technical for a moment, the form and matter of the sacraments are the same, but I understand what you are saying, between the EF and OF, or absolution in Latin vs. English, and so forth. Am I correct?

I think our disposition to recpetion of grace has infinitely more to do with it than what language or ritual is used apart from the required matter and form. The recent thread with the pictures of the soldiers in World War II kneeling on piles of garbage, celebrating Mass on the hood of a Jeep comes to mind. For that guy, there is a good chance that the confession he just made and the Eucharist he just recieved will be his last. I would venture a guess that he is more disposed to the sacrament than I am at an ordinary Sunday Mass with coffee and bagesl waiting at home.

That was really the point of my post, our disposition. The only thing standing between us and our access to the springs of living water welling up to eternal life is our own self love.


-Tim-

exactly

[TempleServant]

Originally Posted by clem456

What I hear you saying is reverence is based on external observances rather than spiritual disposition. THAT might be dangerous.

What's dangerous is thinking that spiritual disposition is not affected by external observances. If you think that, then a wham-bam Mass is as worthwhile as a solemn one.

A Mass is all about external observances. Take them away an what do you have? A bunch of people sitting in pews listening to a lecture!

One day, one fine day, we'll tell the the 'scholars' to hold their noise and we will revert to something our forefathers would have thought worthy of The King Of Kings. I'm just hoping it won't be a World War or something that will wake people up.

[clem456]

Originally Posted by TempleServant

What's dangerous is thinking that spiritual disposition is not affected by external observances. If you think that, then a wham-bam Mass is as worthwhile as a solemn one.

A Mass is all about external observances. Take them away an what do you have? A bunch of people sitting in pews listening to a lecture!

One day, one fine day, we'll tell the the 'scholars' to hold their noise and we will revert to something our forefathers would have thought worthy of The King Of Kings. I'm just hoping it won't be a World War or something that will wake people up.

No. The discussion is about the position taken by some that one form of valid observance somehow draws more grace than another valid form, or that they are somehow not "equal", whatever that means,or how we can detect the reverence entailed in two valid forms of observance.
You're talking about bad forms perhaps. Different thread maybe.....

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by clem456

No. The discussion is about the position taken by some that one form of valid observance somehow draws more grace than another valid form, or that they are somehow not "equal", whatever that means,or how we can detect the reverence entailed in two valid forms of observance.

That's not what I was talking about. I was speaking of the converse.

If someone tells me that "The Church teaches" that both the new mass and the old mass are equally efficacious channels of grace, then I say: show me where the Church teaches that.

Let's get back to that point. Show me where the Church teaches that, and then we can move on to something else.