tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134723288757688995.post1418488412305888533..comments2023-08-11T08:43:45.182-06:00Comments on Following the Voice within: body and blood, hand and mouthUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134723288757688995.post-64165332261278455962011-02-17T00:52:51.467-07:002011-02-17T00:52:51.467-07:00JD,
Thank you for your thoughtful and substantive...JD,<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful and substantive reply. I am all too aware that my thought processes are outside the orthodox methodology and I often look at things from a perspective which could offend. Understand that my aim is that of St. Dominic and, like him and his blackfriars, I shall follow the Truth no matter where it may lead. My goal, especially with this blog, is to document my thoughts and to spur useful discussion that spurs on folks to find that aforementioned Truth. I am also keenly aware that the Eucharist is at the center of Catholicism, RC or otherwise, and to even discuss such things is to invite a whirlwind. I would hope you would read my comments with the same kindness and charity which you so eloquently expressed.<br /><br />Certainly, Isaiah was cleansed of his sin before he had the temerity to 'volunteer', but part of our standard liturgy is the penitential rite during the Daily Offices (non-Eucharist) portion of the liturgical service. Thus, one is cleansed and prepared to participate in the Eucharist celebration.<br /><br />Regarding priests....as with so much else, personal experience forms context. For myself, there are RC priests in this arch-diocese who hold their license to recite the Epiklesis and the words of Institution as a form of Sacradotal superiority and it is THEY who trans-substantiate the elements. That is, in my opinion, dross. As you point out (echoing St. Norbert), the priest isn't where it's at. The Divine performs the miracle of transubstantiation, not the priest. <br /><br />I am not questioning the call which they have received nor the ontological change which has occurred due to their journey towards ordination (any more than I would my own), but to revere such individuals with a supernatural awe as many in laity do, let alone to encourage such behaviour, does nothing but distance the priest from those he (or she) is to serve.<br /><br />I would point out that the concept of <i>in persona Christi</i> is not nearly as historical as the Magisterium would have one believe. Just as they are a product of Vatican I, the idea of <i>in persona Christi</i> has it's roots as far back as the early 20th century, being formalized at Vatican II. That aside, if one considers that the miracle of transubstantiation occurs by the power of God and not due to the priest, <i>in persona Christi</i> should read <i> in vicarius Christi</i> for a vicar is a substitute, a representative who has no power of their own.<br /><br />I do not doubt for an instant regarding the sacramental nature of the Eucharist. It is an inescapable fact of the rite. I will argue, however, that many seem to misunderstand the point of it. The principal fruits of the sacrament are not forgiveness of sin (that is a by-product). That is not just me, but the Council of Trent ("chief fruit of the Eucharist does not consist in the forgiveness of sins".(Sess. XIII. can. v)). Rather, it is the union with Christ and the Body of Christ in love (Decr. pro Armenis: adunatio ad Christum) as well as the spiritual nourishment which the transformed elements provide(Council of Trent, Sess. XIII. can. v). I mention this because it seems, in general, that the restorative nature of the Eucharist seems to be emphasized to the point that the other, principal effects are nearly ignored.<br /><br />Now that I've rambled on forever, I'll say this. Much of what I have put down is due to my own experience and prayerful thought. Could I be wrong, even horribly wrong? Yup. That's the "fear and trembling" part. I also know that it is my personal way...and my way for now. Your way is your own and, if it is different than mine, I would consider it because are each unique and have different cultural backgrounds and experiences. I have no doubt that as long as you assiduously cling to it, that it shall lead to eternal reward. <br /><br />Pax,<br /><br />Tim<br /><br />P.S.- you are not worthy to be? My, Dr. Freud, but that is a slip. :)Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04200045196217644013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134723288757688995.post-1262248687805295992011-02-16T21:27:04.867-07:002011-02-16T21:27:04.867-07:00Second correction, there is not "est" on...Second correction, there is not "est" on the "non sum dignus". Perhaps its a spiritual quirk to be overly fond of the verb "to be".JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723284994480231037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134723288757688995.post-25914039814744003742011-02-16T20:35:02.290-07:002011-02-16T20:35:02.290-07:00*thank!* I hate those kind of errors...*thank!* I hate those kind of errors...JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723284994480231037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134723288757688995.post-86239524695357035992011-02-16T20:15:24.662-07:002011-02-16T20:15:24.662-07:00This is a most interesting exchange, and I think y...This is a most interesting exchange, and I think you for the chance to have it in friendship and Christian charity. <br /><br />To quote: <br />"In short, in the first scenario, the recipient is ***a passive observer** who has submitted themselves to the priest-as-God"<br /><br />With you I agree our response to God should echo that of Isaiah: "Here I am Lord!" (Isaiah 6: 8) . In a beautiful way, Isaiah's response here prefigures the Virgin's Fiat (Luke 1:38) which, if you studied Latin, is an excellent example of the **passive** jussive subjunctive: "Let it be done so to me according to Thy Word". <br /><br />The Virgin Mary is an image of the human soul, whose response to God is a passive allowance of the physical and spiritual entrance of His Word into her by the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />But to continue your example, the Word comes to Isaiah, and he accepts it- but not before the Sanctus. Granted a vision of the six winged Seraphim, crying "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts, the whole world is full of His glory", he first responds "woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts!" (6:8)<br /><br />And a Seraphim descends from the altar in heaven and cleans his lips with a burning coal held by a tong. Only then is the Word of God placed in his mouth. In the old rite, a beautiful prayer drawn from this passage was always recited before the deacon proclaimed the Gospel. Of course, now that symbolism was axed. <br /><br />If a mere coal of God comes from the altar in heaven by an angel who can not touch it with his fingers, in order to purify the mouth of a prophet to receive the Word, how much more so the mouth of an ordinary sinner who receives not only the Word, but that very Word made Flesh!? With His sinful lips cleaned not by an angel, but by God's Christ? <br /><br />From this the profound symbols of the old liturgy spring and unite the Sanctus of Isaiah with the Benedictus of the Gospel, the "Here I am" of the prophet with the Fiat of the Virgin, his humble "non sum dignus est" with that of the centurion, the altar of heaven with the altar of earth---the Divine Liturgy of the angels around the throne of God with the worship offered by human beings on earth. <br /><br />With your other comments, I think you fundamentally misconstrue the purpose of the priesthood and actually tend towards forgetting it is a sacrament. This, especially more so with "facing the people" worship, where the priest tends to be mistaken for his personality and so all the questions of social equality are dragged in. The man is nothing, too many Catholics, both lay and clerical, forget that. We don't act like the Eucharist is mere bread- because it is not. Neither, in the course of the liturgy, should we regard the priest for how he appears. He works in persona Christi. This is simply historical Catholic sacramentalism, anything else is not Catholic nor apostolic. St. Francis, the paragon of a Medieval social gospel and a great critic of the Church's corruption and decay, would kiss the hands of even the most disdained priest for the work that they did on the altar. <br /><br />Rather, the person of the priest should be, as much as possible, annihilated in divine worship. This is the purpose of the liturgical garments and the generous fact that, in the old rite, we have to see his face as little as possible. I prefer ad orientem worship for that reason. I'm sick of priests. "Turn around, I don't want to look at it you, you're a bit of a fool" is how I feel on most days. I'm at the point where I bring supplementary readings for the sermons. <br /><br />But just as God became incarnate as a particular person in history, and did not just beam God the Son into each of our hearts, so these objective factors (such as the reception of valid orders) matter a great deal. <br /><br />Thanks for listening. <br /><br />In Christian peace,<br />Jordan.JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723284994480231037noreply@blogger.com