There is a degree of backing up the liturgical truck with these changes, towards the spirit of Vatican 2 and the ICEL and thus towards possibilities for greater commonalities between eucharistic liturgies in the English speaking world.
I seem to recall Jesus himself praying about this, using my favourite Latin phrase, ut
*Unum. (o tempora, o mores ....)
ReplyDeleteWho, Anonymouse, are you?
ReplyDeleteBW
Anonymous are you? WHO?
ReplyDeleteNot I, though I’m relieved to see the latin is now correct. You know, it’s a holy language:)
ReplyDeleteNick
Well, Nick, to classical ears it would sound holey, even if wholly holy to our own.
ReplyDeleteBW
Holy Moses! He only understood Classical Hebrew
ReplyDelete... and Egyptian (Exodus 2:10). Maybe a bit of Midianite as well (Exodus 2:21).
ReplyDeleteBowman, I refer to the papal encyclical written by St JP2 “Ut unum sint”. I suppose a random ut clause albeit correctly with a subjunctive would seem holey to a classical Roman. There again, I’m not sure the average pleb could construct Ciceronian a period either. Anonymous clearly knows some Cicero though.
ReplyDeleteNick
haudquaquam perita tamen satis Ciceronis operum cognosco ad docendum (nec infeliciter) inter aliis de prima oratione in Catalinam (ex qua haec verba nota) et de somnio Scipionis - nondum tamen ut Magister rhetorum scribere possum de quo loquente senator in Curiam sero intrans rogabat:'de qua re disseret Cicero?' et alter senator respondebat: 'nescio - nondum primam sententiam confecit.'
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous
ReplyDeleteIt has been fun having you comment but if you do not sign your comment off with at least your first name then I will not publish anymore comments from you.
Regards
Peter
Quid dicam? Scribis optime latine. Nonne perita es.
ReplyDeleteNick
Hi Peter, Bishop Drennan makes interesting points about translation. There are sections of the current English translation of the novus ordo which are puzzling. A note to non-Catholics, the novus ordo is the Vatican 2 mass. For example, the pater noster has all the old favourites like “forgive us our trespasses”, but it switches to “the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours” for that end section that we doubt Jesus spoke. In terms of becoming one, however, we need to do some work on the eucharist. This week, the liberal cardinal archbishop of Cologne said that a common Catholic/Protestant eucharist was not possible. We should focus on this instead of sex, though I accept that my views do not depart from the Catechism and I do not see sex preoccupation as originating with God.
ReplyDeleteNick
Dear Nick
ReplyDeleteI am surprised to hear that such faith in the solidity of the CCC is not shared when it comes to reading Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer "according to some ancient authorities." Surely one does not pick and choose among ancient authorities? :)
On that rejection of ecumenical Masses, I made this observation on Twitter today:
"Going to be real awkward at the eternal Supper of the Lamb when an ecumenical Mass will be compulsory for those who on earth rejected it!"
I recognise that while on earth we do have various sensibilities which are not to be trifled with and thus do not suppose an immediate resolution to ecumenical eucharistic difficulties but I wish we could look at the question from the perspective of heaven and not from whether we agree to Aristotelian underpinnings to the mysteries of bread and wine becoming Christ's body and blood.
Hi Peter, neither the Protestant NIV nor my Catholic RSV contain the doxology. Tradition shouldn’t contravene both. Interestingly, Henry VIII did not approve of the doxology either. My reference to the CCC is because I find the same-sex discussion tedious like nothing ever previously endured, but I accept that I will find it tedious because of its CCC illegitimacy. As for the Eucharist, I suppose the major issue is that the Orthodox and Catholics essentially agree with different words. Justin might wave his wand.
ReplyDeleteNick
Hi Nick
ReplyDeleteOur Catholic NRSV records it for posterity in the footnotes. Would it be fair to Catholic appropriation and maintenance of tradition to observe that if Catholicism had been so minded, the fact that some ancient authorities offered it in their versions would have been sufficient cause to say the doxology? There are other matters of tradition with less scriptural attestation ...
As for your last sentence, there is something to explore there for Catholics and Anglicans, as some of our liturgies "essentially agree with different words." I imagine the difficulty re recognition of Anglican eucharists is then difference over validity of ordination; and acceptance of Anglicans at Catholic Masses is over insufficient assurance that Anglicans typically share sufficient belief in what takes place at the Mass to be permitted into the koinonia of the Mass.
To be fear to myself and my own qualms, I had to take with a grain of salt a specific reference by the preacher at Mass on Sunday to there being no bread or wine left on the altar once transubstantiation had taken place :)
Peter, I assume the last point about the bread and wine after transubstiation is a joke, or the priest was having a joke. The writer of the following link refers to mistakes made by lay Catholics. See the second type of mistake. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/explaining-transubstantiation.html
ReplyDeleteI take you point on the doxology. It’s Rome’s example of sola scriptura. As for a joint Eucharist, it would currently be impossible for Justin and Francis, but I have no doubt that many lay Catholics would take communion in an Anglican church, if they happened to be there and heard the general invitation that some of your parishes give. In the event, they even knew they shouldn’t from a CCC viewpoint, they would be unlikely to be much concerned.
Nick
Hi Nick
ReplyDeleteWe need to call out the Inquisition - perhaps I didn't hear the joke "tone" or missed another key word ... on the other hand I noticed it!
I read that explanation at Patheos with bemusement. On the one hand I found myself thinking, "If that's all there is to transubstantiation then it is unobjectionable" (it kind of sounds like nothing changes and everything changes!) but I also found myself thinking, "Yeah, nah!" That is, I reject the substance/accidence distinction.
In the particular case before us, the bread is real and it really is bread, all the way through. There is no "substance" to it which is changed into Christ while its accidence remains unchanged. In fact the explanation re the nature of substance (if one may so speak) makes the substance somewhat spiritual relative to the materiality of the bread. But I don't think Catholic commitment to transubstantiation wishes it to mean that there is a merely spiritual change - that would be somewhat Anglican would it not, possibly even Zwinglian!
In other words, I think (merely, "think", with no great confidence, for I always feel a quite small brained bear when it comes to such delicate matters) the explanation makes Lutheran consubstantiation very attractive :) The bread is bread but Christ meets us in the bread and it really is Christ who meets us. The two are bound together because Christ said it would be so, but the bread does not become Christ.
re that outdated understanding (transubstantiation) of what happens at the Epiclesis in the Mass; I think is would be fair to say - as far as one is at all able to quantify or explain a 'mystery' - that what is going on could more truly be called 'consubstantiation', wherein the Body and Blood of Christ now co-exist with the bread and the wine (although my scientific friends have difficulty with this concept, regarding it as impossible. But then, how do you excplain a mystery - especially a sanctified one?
ReplyDeleteHowever, God has blessed me with a gift of simplicity. For me, consubstsantiation adequately describes what happens in the Mass. After being consecrated, to my mind, it remains the Body and Blood of Christ - which, in our parish, can be distrbuted to the Sick and Housebound.
I might remind sceptical Anglcans here that in our New Zeaand Prayer Book,on page 423, at the epiclesis, these words are said by the presiding priest: "Send your Holy Spirit, that these gifts of bread and wine that we receive may be to us the body and blood of Christ.." - No ambiguity here!
Hi Peter, we won’t need the inquisition (now the CDF); the priest was just saying the substance had changed. I thought that the second error in Patheos had been made, but on a re-reading of what you wrote I don’t think so. I’ll have a think about your substance and accident objections.
ReplyDeleteNick
Dear Ron and Nick
ReplyDelete""Send your Holy Spirit, that these gifts of bread and wine that we receive may be to us the body and blood of Christ.." " is precisely what I believe!
Key phrase: "to us"!
Thank you, Peter: "to us, the body and blood of Christ" - we being the people involved who DO believe!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHi Ron,
Believe what???? Believe that Christ did not know that,"He who made them in the BEGINNING, made more genders than male and female??? That Christ did not know about "Committed Homosexual Relationships; which are worthy of being "BLESSED"????
"And the Lord God took the man,and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and keep it"; Gen.2:15. That was the commission of man; to dress and keep God's Creation; not to hide away in religious institutions being holier than everyone who labors with their hands.
Perhaps, out in the GARDEN is where we meet OUR CHRIST AND SAVIOUR AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. If the ACANZP wants to play fast and easy with the legitimate Doctrine, which she was given to Protect and Proclaim, so be it;
but I do not have those distractions in the garden.
Glen. I don't understand your question here. In any event, your remarks seem quite out of the context in this thread. My faith content is between me and God, and is not up for discussion by careless inquisitors. Please respect that.
ReplyDelete