Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Faceoff | Main | Dang Double-Jeopardy Law »

November 16, 2006

Comments

James III

About the American GIRM, I found it on Gooooooogle's cached pages...

MenTaLguY

Are there other sources to get USCCB documents besides the USCCB website?

Dan's Dad

Supper is not what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is about.No body was eating any food at Calvary

Ryan C

"Supper is not what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is about. No body was eating any food at Calvary"

But they were when Jesus held the Last Supper, and after he appeared to the disciples at Emmaus, and after he appeared on the shore the disciples, etc...

The Eucharist is a Meal, a Sacrifice, a Supper, etc...
it isn't either-or, as Pope Benedict points out.

Ed Peters

careful, dd.

Papa-Lu

I read the document on "Married Love..." It's quite good.

I know people disparage the USCCB a lot (often rightly so), but this document is simple and clear, but also very well argued.

Bede

The American GIRM can be found at the USCCB site here (though I admit it took some rooting around). They've even got a fairly decent PDF.

Esau

I like the One-Page Ad that some Catholics put out in a Newspaper out there in order to encourage them to not give out Communion to those folks like politicians who actually support Pro-Choice. They even cited Canon Law to back up their position. Though, I'd defer to Ed Peters on this, though. ;^)

The Ad went something:
"CATHOLICISM IS NOT PRO-CHOICE. CANON LAW IS NOT MULTIPLE CHOICE."

Dan's Dad

careful ep
The Catechism says,"The most ancient Fathers,following the authority of the Apostle,have sometimes also called the Holy Eucharist by the name of Supper,because it was instituted by Christ the Lord at the salutary mystery of the Last Supper.
It is not,however,lawful to consecrate or partake of the Eucharist after eating or drinking,because,according to a custom wisely introduced by the Apostles,as ancient writers have recorded,and which has ever been retained and preserved,Communion is recieved only by persons who are fasting."
This from the end of the fourth chapter on the Eucharist,in The Catechism.

Jeff Miller

Jimmy,

I have converted the PDF doc on the Eucharist to html and moved the footnotes to the bottom. I also formatted it to be much easier to read with hyperlinks to the footnotes.

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/HappyAreThoseWhoAreCalledtoHisSupper_doc.html

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

From the CCC

II. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1328 The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it. It is called:

Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek words eucharistein141 and eulogein142 recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a meal - God's works: creation, redemption, and sanctification.

The Lord's Supper...

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

Sorry my CCC link did not work try this one.


Dan's Dad

The Eucharist signifies three things,
"The first is the passion of Christ our Lord"
"It is also significant of divine and heavenly grace,which is imparted at the present time by this Sacrament to nurture and preserve the soul.Just as in Baptism we are begotten unto newness of life and by Confirmation are strengthened to resist Satan and openly to profess the name of Christ,so by the Sacrament of the Eucharist are we nurtured and supported.
It is thirdly,a foreshadowing of future eternal joy and glory,which,according to God's promise's we shall recieve in our heavenly country."
From The Catechism of The Council of Trent.

Ryan C

Dan's Dad,

The fact that one needs to fast before receiving the Eucharist has nothing to do with whether it is a Supper or not. You are engaging in non sequitur and obfuscation.

Ryan C

Dan's Dad,

Trent, the Fathers, and the Catechism do not contradict each other, they complement each other in their understanding of the Eucharist. You are setting the Church against itself and adopting a very narrow perspective, as opposed to a catholic one.

Dan's Dad

Ryan C.
I am just quoting from The Catechism of the Council of Trent,which St.Charles Borromeo edited.These are not my words.Take it up with Pope St.Pius V.

Ryan C

Dan's Dan,

You fail to take my meaning. My problem is not with the words of Trent, but they way you are wielding them to suggest that the Eucharist cannot be called a Supper. That's now what Trent is saying and you know it.

Ryan C

edit: "That's not what Trent"

Dan's Dad

When most people think of supper, they associate it with the last substantial round of nourishment for the day.
I believe it is misleading for many people to hear Holy Mass referred to as a supper.
Supper is a final meal of the day,The Eucharist is a thanksgiving unto eternity and Christ

Ed Mechmann

The USCCB's website is pretty awful -- very hard to find things, and the search function stinks (the Vatican's web site is actually even worse, IMHO). But you can still find the GIRM there: www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

Monica

Sigh. Please, people, does EVERY combox dialog have to be sucked up by fruitless arguments with 'dan's dad'and/or John??? I would consider it an act of charity to us NOT to engage with them in endless argument, and an act of charity to THEM to let it be known that they cannot dominate every discussion. (i.e., it's a good lesson to know every conversation is not a forum for their pet peeve.)

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

I believe it is misleading for many people to hear Holy Mass referred to as a supper.

Then you are disagreeing with the quote from Roman Catechism:

The most ancient Fathers, following the authority of the Apostle, have sometimes also called the Holy Eucharist by the name of Supper, because it was instituted by Christ the Lord at the salutary mystery of the Last Supper.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Kris

Dan's dad,

I don't think anyone here, or the USCCB, would disagree with your assertion that Mass is a sacrifice. The documents from the Bishops did not reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the mass to a mere supper. In fact, the first thing they say about the Holy Eucharist is that it is a participation in the sacrifice of Christ.

However, if Holy Mass is not both a sacrifice and a meal, then why do we consume the Eucharist? The mass was instituted at the Last Supper, a meal, so that we might participate in Jesus's sacrifice on calvary AND eat and drink his body and blood untill the end of time. It is both.

I, like most others here, enjoy a lively debate but if you're just going to misrepresent informatoin to get a rise out of folks, well that just ain't right. It's not charitable nor productive.

Pax Tecum.

Dan's Dad

I am not setting up one Catechism against t'other.I am just quoting what the earlier one says,and I also know what people will think when they hear the Holy Mass called,"A Supper".This is how protestants refer to their service.We are Catholics.
The newer Catechism has been given an imprimatur by The Holy See. I most certainly acknowledge it.
God Bless you

Ed Peters

well said, monica.

Mary Kay

"...and I also know what people will think when they hear the Holy Mass called,"A Supper".This is how protestants refer to their service. ... I believe it is misleading for many people to hear Holy Mass referred to as a supper.

Dan's dad,
Most people have a blind spot. A very common one is that people "don't know what they don't know." I think that's been much of your difficulty here.

I did a Google search of the phrase "Lord's Supper." It is indeed used by both Protestants and Catholics, who obviously have different understandings of the phrase.

The fact that Protestants use the phrase does not exclude Catholic use of the phrase.

The thing is, you don't know what people will think when they hear Mass referred to as a supper. You can't assume that they will automatically think of it in Protestant terms.

Now we come to the part where you keep forgetting that you might not have the full answer. The Mass on Holy Thursday, in which the institution of the Eucharist is celebrated, is officially called The Mass of the Lord's Supper. It is listed that way in both the Lectionary and in the Ordo.

If you'd be more willing to listen to what others are saying, you wouldn't take such a hard tumble.

bill912

Monica, I echo Ed's compliment.

joe

I've always thought the statement: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, happy (blessed) are those who are called to his supper" is a confluence of John 1:29 ("Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world") and Revelation 19:9 ("Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb.'").

This is no ordinary supper, it is a foretaste of the heavenly wedding feast of the Lamb and His Bride.

Tim M.

Ditto!

Monica, I also echo Ed's compliment.


+ + +

hey... to change the subject... where has Michelle Arnold gone? I haven't seen her here recently and she is no longer listed as a blog person... only Jimmy and Tim J.

John E

The statement on the Eucharist: approved 201-24-2
The statement on Married Love: approved 220-11-1.
The statement on Homosexuality: approved 194-37-1.
The statement on Iraq was approved by a unanimous voice vote.

Not to turn the USCCB into a political organization, but I wonder if it is made known which bishops voted against the statements and why. Curious to know which bishops if any voted against more than one document.

Source: Catholic.org

Dan's Dad

Mary Kay,you are one tightly wound women.Loosen up and enjoy yourself now and again.
The term "Lords Supper" to describe the Mass can be justified biblically,but does not form part of the Catholic theological tradition.
It is found in 1 Cor.11:20 and was taken up by the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers to distinquish their communion service from the Catholic Mass.Thus John Hooper,Bishop of Gloucester,explained that the Mass,"is a stinking and infected sepulchre,which hideth and covereth the merit and blood of Christ;and therefore ought the Mass to be abolished,and the holy Supper of the Lord to be restored and set in his perfection again{Cranmer's Godly Order pp 36-37}

Esau

Not to turn the USCCB into a political organization, but I wonder if it is made known which bishops voted against the statements and why.

I think that we should not treat this as a political forum where this matter is concerned and would much rather prefer their votes to remain in secrecy not only to protect their privacy on the matter, but also their capacity to vote in the way they want to, as well as for other good reasons as well.

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

Then why did the Catechism of Trent not only use the term but state The most ancient Fathers, following the authority of the Apostle, have sometimes also called the Holy Eucharist by the name of Supper...?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

bill912

Dan's Dad: you have the manners of a barbarian.

Dan's Dad


How is that Bill 912?

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

You said: "The term "Lords Supper" to describe the Mass can be justified biblically,but does not form part of the Catholic theological tradition.

Since the Catechism of Trent states:

The most ancient Fathers, following the authority of the Apostle, have sometimes also called the Holy Eucharist by the name of Supper, because it was instituted by Christ the Lord at the salutary mystery of the Last Supper.

Will you admit that you are incorrect?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John E

I think that we should not treat this as a political forum where this matter is concerned and would much rather prefer their votes to remain in secrecy not only to protect their privacy on the matter, but also their capacity to vote in the way they want to, as well as for other good reasons as well.

Agreed. Still, it would be interesting to hear why some bishops did not agree, even if that was anonymous. Perhaps it would explain why there isn't much follow-through on some initiatives in some dioceses.

I do believe that is the first time I've used the word dioceses. Weird.

Dan's Dad

Innocencio, "They have Sometimes called The Holy Eucharist by the name of Supper",implying this is not a full time address of Mass
To stress the meal aspect over the Sacrifice is a mistake,since many will lose reverance for this the most important af all Sacraments.
The Mass is so different from any other sacrament .In none of the other sacraments does the matter change completely as in Mass.So there are better titles the Church can bestow on The Eucharist than "Supper"

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

The most ancient Fathers, following the authority of the Apostle proves that it is part of Catholic theological tradition and you are incorrect.

So you cannot deny that one of the names for the Most Holy Eucharist from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is Supper.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Elijah

This Sacrifice vs. Supper point is beyond silly. If we have to give up using every phrase that Protestants use, we won't be left with a whole lot. I guess we could still talk about Purgatory and Lent. No, wait, some Protestants observe Lent...

Mary Kay

Dan's dad, you make me laugh. It's a sure sign that a person's arguments are shaky when they start making comments like "you need to loosen up and enjoy yourself now and then." LOL

What's not funny is your listening more to what a Protestant said than the official Church description.

How on earth can you reconcile Holy Thursday officially called The Mass of the Lord's Supper with your statement that it "does not form part of the Catholic theological tradition." ??


Elijah, the problem is not that Protestants use the same phrase, but that Dan's dad, despite his protestations that he accepts the Novus Ordo and other post Vatican II ways, he says that current Church anything is wrong and he refuses to acknowledge it.

Monica, I do agree with you. There is some good that comes out this, such as Joe's beautiful post about the verses in John and Revelation applied to the Mass.

Esau

This Sacrifice vs. Supper point is beyond silly. If we have to give up using every phrase that Protestants use, we won't be left with a whole lot. I guess we could still talk about Purgatory and Lent. No, wait, some Protestants observe Lent...

Elijah,
I think you're missing the fact that most of what Protestants have, since they originally came out of the Catholic Church, were things that they got from the Catholic Church and, therefore, folks like the Lutherans, Anglicans and so forth (those that came out of the Reformation) would have "Catholic" elements in their Protestantism.

Your statement almost made it look like we're borrowing things from Protestants when, in fact, they borrowed things from us.

Esau

Mary Kay:

Actually, Joe's post "This is no ordinary supper, it is a foretaste of the heavenly wedding feast of the Lamb and His Bride.", which is a great statement, very much coincides with Scott Hahn's study on Revelation where he says that the Mass is actually the Heavenly Liturgy made present here on earth (or something to that effect).

Scott often repeats this point in his lectures, but no matter how often I've heard it, I never tire of it because of its beautiful meaning and significance for us as Catholics.

Elijah

Esau,

Actually, that's sort of what I meant. DD's main argument against the use of 'Lord's Supper' as a name for the Eucharist is based on the fact that 'Lord's Supper' is commonly used by Protestants. I'm saying that that is a silly argument for the reason that you just expressed: They got it from us! They didn't invent the term and we aren't going to stop using it just because they use it.

Some Day

I saw the bishop's in Baltimore in the Primate Cathedral. Regardless of what type of bishops they are, it looked so grand to see soo many mitres.
It looked like the Church.

Esau

Actually, that's sort of what I meant. DD's main argument against the use of 'Lord's Supper' as a name for the Eucharist is based on the fact that 'Lord's Supper' is commonly used by Protestants. I'm saying that that is a silly argument for the reason that you just expressed: They got it from us! They didn't invent the term and we aren't going to stop using it just because they use it.

Actually, Elijah, I still remember my days when I used to go with my friends to their Protestant church, and coming from a Catholic background (mind you, I would be more acquainted with a Lutheran or even Episcopalian service since they, to a greater extent, preserved some form of "Catholic" Liturgy which I can better identify with), it was kind of a "culture" shock ('denominational' shock, or whatever you want to call it) when their version of "Supper" was a table in the middle of the church where on it were some grape juice and some bread. My friend told me that it wasn't a mandatory thing but that if people wanted to, they could go and get these.

Monica

thanks! :)

Mary Kay

Esau, I've glanced through Scott Hahn's book but haven't read it yet. Guess I'd better get going and do so!

Esau

Esau, I've glanced through Scott Hahn's book but haven't read it yet. Guess I'd better get going and do so!

Mary Kay:

I don't know if you ever watch EWTN or if you have access to it, but there's a series that they sometimes re-air called The Lamb's Supper (which might be the very title of the book you have in fact!).

It's hosted by Mike Aquilina and Scott Hahn's in there talking about these things regarding the Mass, which, of course, you'll become familiar with once you get to reading his book.

If you're interested, here's a website where he actually discusses the Mass and the Heavenly Liturgy in more detail and how really much of the Mass finds its very roots in Scripture:

http://www.salvationhistory.com/online/beginner/begcourse2_home.cfm

It's broken down into lessons so if you don't have the time, you can finish at your leisure.

Brian

Tim M.-

Per an email from Jimmy to my wife, Michelle is just a little too busy to blog for now. She may post occasionally but is not currently listed.

Cajun Nick

I LOVE! that show with Scott Hahn and Mike Aquilinia on EWTN.

It has been showing on Sunday evenings. I get to watch it just before I make Eucharistic adoration. It really gives me something to thinks about.

I also want to say thanks to all the posters here - even (maybe especially) the ones I disagree with. I always learn so much from Inocencio, bill912, esau, Mary Kay, JRS, SDG, Tim J. (and too, too many others to name).

Cajun Nick

Let me clarify - I happen to agree with the posters that I named. There are some others whose views I don't agree with.

However, the "too many to name" list of people always help to learn more about my faith through their patient, full explanations.

I'm sorry if my previous post caused some confusion.

Ryan C

"To stress the meal aspect over the Sacrifice is a mistake,since many will lose reverance for this the most important af all Sacraments"

So are you saying, Dan's Dad, that the Early Church, which used the word Supper just as we do, did not have reverence for the Eucharist? Your "logic" is easily subjected to a reductio ad absurdum.

Esau

...You are engaging in non sequitur and obfuscation.

...reductio ad absurdum.

Ryan,

I was just curious, you going to Law School, brutha, or taking some Advocacy & Argument course? That's quite a debate vocabulary you've got there! ;^)

Esau

I LOVE! that show with Scott Hahn and Mike Aquilinia on EWTN.

They have a new show on at EWTN, if you're interested, called "Lord Have Mercy". (I think)

It's pretty good, too.

You can guess, of course, by the very title what that's about!

It's on at 6 pm PST / 9 pm EST on Mondays.

It also shows on 3:30 am PST / 6:30 am EST on Sundays, too, but, obviously, that one's too early for me!

Esau

Ohhh... the above was for Cajun Nick.

Forgot to insert his name there.

Ryan C

Hi Esau,

Actually, I was thinking about going to law school, but I decided to work on a PhD in Medieval/Renassiance English literature instead. I've only taken one philosophy and argument course as an undergrad.

Esau

I decided to work on a PhD in Medieval/Renassiance English literature instead.

C-O-O-L!!!

Hey, do you think you could help me out?

I don't know if you might be able to help, but I've been attempting to read the original works of Thomas More and have been having a very difficult time with the Old English. Have any advice?

Ryan C

Just send me an email and I'll hook you up, bro. :-D

Thought just so you know, Sir Thomas More isn't writing in Old English, or even Middle English (Renaissance English is closer to modern English than it is to those).

Mary Kay

Esau, thanks for the link!

I wasn't aware they offered an online study.

A. Williams

I think there is some benefit in stressing the fact that the names given to the Eucharistic celebration put emphasis on its essentially 'sacrificial' nature. Even as a supper, it is still a 'sacrificial' or 'Pascual Lamb' which is being consumed. Moreover, there always seems to be, both with the Protestants, in general, and also with some liberal elements, societies and groups in the Catholic faith, a gravitation away from the 'sacrificial' emphasis, and towards a softer, maybe less violent, 'Supper' emphasis. This makes the Vatican need to stress the 'sacrificial' nature of the Eucharist,in more than abundant ways, so as to confirm the Eucharists essentially sacrificial character. Groups such as the Neo Catechumenical Way, for instance, partake Holy Communion sitting in their chairs, or pews, 'supper style'. The Church, according to 'GIRM' and 'Redemptionis Sacramentum' make clear that standing and kneeling are the only postural options for receiving Holy Communion. Apparently, even the very posture of sitting, if it represents or is meant to symbolize sitting at table, is seen by Liturgical authorities as a dangerous connotation, which can be used by some teachers/preachers to confuse the fundemental significance and nature of the Eucharist. So too, as many probably already know, from former posts on the subject, Cardinal Arinze gave the Neo Catechumenical Way 2 years(of which 1 is almost expired) to conform to the current 'liturgical norms'. So, its not only Dan's Dad who is concerned, but the Church itself, in making and supporting these regulations. However, I think the recent documents are clear enough. The matter seems to be well resolved...now, the Neo Cats. and other liturgically deviant groups need only listen, conform and rejoice in the profound wisdom of true Catholic doctrine. by the way, my wife is a in the NeoCatechumenical way, and I am very curious how quickly, faithfully, lovingly and obediently all of these liturgical changes will be made by her group. In my area, I think there has been only about a 5-10% change from last year, so maybe they are waiting for the last minute? Most of the Neo Cats also have no idea about the recent church Docs. GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum, so I really think most are in the dark about these important matters. Every chance I get I try to encourage them to read these new Liturgical norms and prepare themselves to be obedient to the Church.

Esau

Moreover, there always seems to be, both with the Protestants, in general, and also with some liberal elements, societies and groups in the Catholic faith, a gravitation away from the 'sacrificial' emphasis, and towards a softer, maybe less violent, 'Supper' emphasis.

A. Williams:
There you have it!

There's a good statement. Unfortunately, there have been those Catholic churches today which have deviated greatly from the importance of the Eucharist in the fullest Catholic, theological, scriptural sense.

There really isn't a clear difference between the way certain Catholics in such Catholic churches view the 'eucharist' than how Protestants in certain churches who simply see it from a perspective where it's nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

Now, mind you, though, as I have said in the past, I believe the agents responsible for these acts are really the individuals themselves who are committing them (like certain rogue clergy and laity out there), and not the Catholic Church itself or Vatican II.

It is with great hope and faith in Christ's promise and in his Servant, Pope Benedict XVI, that, hopefully, the Eucharist will become again the Source and Summit of Our Catholic Faith, just as even Pope John Paul II had proclaimed it to be in his papacy, and, thus, his "Year of the Eucharist"!

Ryan C

A. Williams,

I think you raise a valid point, but one should remember that there is not only one direction in which one can fall, as Chesterton says. The Church has preserved the name "Supper" for the Eucharist for a reason, perhaps to counter an approach to the Sacrament that would not emphasize the "communionative" or "nourishing" aspects enough. As Catholics we should embrace the fullness of Truth, especially in regards to the Eucharist, and not let the way dissenters from the Church (liberal Catholics, or Protestants) portray doctrine to affect our own doctrine and devotion. So, while I agree with what you are basically saying, I remain cautious about going off too much in one direction.

Let's not forget too the positive forms of Eucharistic spirituality today that are improvements on the past. For example, there is more Eucharistic Adoration and similar forms of devotion than before. And the Church has been successful recently in encouraging her children to receive communion often, which was a difficult issue in the past, especially in the medieval and Renaissance periods.

caine thomas

The "Married love..." document would be great if you weren't convinced it was a dead letter.

The next time I hear this subject addressed prominently from the pulpit will be the first.

I apologize for being a wet blanket.

J.R. Stoodley

I've heard married love being preached about several times, in just 3.5 years of being Catholic.

J.R. Stoodley

sorry, that's 2.5 years, but I attended mass during RCIA too.

Elijah

Protestants tend to focus on lots of things that are a part of our Catholic faith. That doesn't mean we should stop believing them or talking about them. They focus on the Scriptures. They focus on personal faith in Christ. I'm not going to stop believing in these things simply because they are popular with Protestants.

A. Williams

Esau and Ryan C.,
I think we are all in agreement here. Furthurmore, where there is no significant danger to the Faith, there doesn't need to be such scrutiny. I, however, am personally affected by this particular topic, because as I said, my wife is in the Neo Catechumenal movement, and little items such as being seated at Communion turn into big items if the teachers/Catequists want to use this symbol to reduce the emphasis of the Cross. The cross is the symbol of Love. The Sacrifice of Christ is the Cross.."was it not for this hour that I have come?" etc..So to emphasize the Supper over the Cross is wrong, because it puts the attention more on the glorification/banquet reserved for those who attain Heaven and reduce the attention to the fact that we are only 'pilgrims' and "Church Militants" here on earth, and that the real banquet will be when we are fully united with the Trinity, Angels and Saints in the Glories of Heaven. If we are already at the 'banquet', then we don't need penance, austerity, fasting etc..Most evangelicals or fundementalists go even furthur and say: If you believe..you are "Saved"...insinuating that there is nothing more to worry about, such as falling into sin,increasing the virtues etc.. There are all kinds of great errors that can occure when we start to relax in our religious sensibilities. It is interesting also that when Jesus described the parable of the Prodigal Son (and good son), he noted that the good son never was able to 'sup' or have a party with his friends. So too, the Lord says, "those who are full now, will hunger later." Also, the most intense rebuke we can find that Jesus gives to his Apostles was to Peter, when he wanted to down play the reality of Christ's coming Passion. "Get behind me you Satan..." So, groups that try to de-emphasize the Cross, and turn the Mass into something less than Solemn, do a great disservice to our Religion. If the Mass is more of a supper, then all sorts of supper like things can be included into the Mass, such as more entertaining, less solemn music. So too, people don't need to meditate as much at a supper, but can talk freely because it is a less solemn environment. Thus we can understand most of the liturgically devient behavior of the past 40 years..liturgical dancing, lay commentaries and/or preaching at Mass, sweetened Eucharistic Bread, lack of respect for Church authority, pope, bishops, religious etc.. Fortunately, it seems, that the Lord is having mercy on his poor servants, and restoring the Liturgy to it's proper dignity..the dignity and respect that the Lord deserves! However, none of this solemnity or seriousness takes away from the Love of Christ. Furthurmore, it doesn't de-emphasize the fact that the Eucharist,is 'Food indeed", nor that the first consecration took place at the Last Supper. However, it is all about priority, and nothing should reduce the Love found in the Sacrifice that Jesus made for us on the Cross, and is hence provided to us in the recection of Holy Communion. The Sacrifice of Christ is the Love, the food/eucharist is the means Christ uses to most effectivel 'communicate' that Love. Hence, we see the importance and necessity of defending this expression of sacrificial Love against any incursions or doctrines of those who might want to obscure or lessen it's significance, for any reason...either inside, or outside the Church.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31