P. Cavalcoli John, OP
liturgical abuses, especially in the celebration of St. Mass, now often claimed by many Catholics eager to arrive at the same Supreme Pontiff, are of varying size and have many aspects, ranging from attitudes that affect small arbitrary or special secondary norms of the liturgical rite up to interventions that alter, suppress or distort the most important parts of the Mass not to say essential, or even risking invalidating the same Eucharistic celebration.
So in this case, it remains something of a certain external configuration of the Mass - gestures, vestments, place, altar objects, words, ministers - but as the Mass is emptied from turning into a ceremony or misleading in a superstitious act.
The celebration of the Mass is an act of divine worship that is done, as is known, first by the priest with the assistance of the faithful, on the basis of a conviction of faith on what Christ himself instituted at the Last Supper in preparation for the Sacrifice of the Cross that he would have taken the following day.
At Mass the celebrant does in the person of Christ the High Priest of the New Covenant, which Christ accomplished in that time in obedience to his command: "Do this in memory of me. "
the Church over the centuries, in addition to faithfully execute the command of the Lord in the celebration of Mass, the liturgical forms which, without betraying the essential, have been subject to some development and a plurality of different rites, then came to explain to the faithful what happens when the central mass, ie when the priest pronounces the words that Christ uttered in that situation: "This is my body, this is my blood. "
The Church has established as a dogma of faith as truth or occurs at this solemn moment: the so-called "transubstantiation", ie the conversion of the whole substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, remaining accidents or "species" of bread and wine. However, after the words of consecration of the offerings (bread and wine), bread is not bread but the body of the Lord, the wine is not wine but the blood of the Lord.
Note the difference between transubstantiation and the substantial transformation. In the latter changes the shape and remains the subject. For example, on a wood burning, lose the shape of the wood and takes the form of ash, but remains the same the same subject. Instead, in the transubstantiation is the conversion of not only the form but also of matter.
The word "this" (my body) (lat. hoc , gr. statute) does not mean "this bread", but it is a neutral name, which is the transition from the bread to the body: in fact transubstantiation. If it was meant "this bread", it would have the absurdity that the bread was at the same time the body, which makes no sense.
It was then that the Church calls "presence real and substantial presence "of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Eucharistic mystery, which is under the species of bread and wine. Jesus, says St. Thomas Aquinas in his beautiful and famous anthem, as is "veiled" in the Eucharistic species. The Christian soul, in the words of Aquinas, in the consecrated "devoutly worship the deity and humanity that lie beneath these figures," defined as the Eucharistic species.
glorious Christ certainly is now in heaven, and yet, by way of substance, is present in all the altars of the world at the time of consecration by the priest to be offered to the Father to be the expiation for our sins and in all the tabernacles of the world by offering our worship and contemplation, Receiver and Time of our eyes, our prayers, our devotion, our effusions d ' love and total confidence.
We can therefore say that the Eucharist is Jesus on the altar is in the tabernacle. But we must remember that it is this presence, so real, but mystical and ineffable, that does not take place unless in reference to the Eucharistic species and not the substance of the body and blood of the Lord, as the substance itself is not the place except through the eucharistic accidents ( Latin accidentes : what falls under our eyes, that the species of bread and wine) . But the accidents of the body and blood of Christ are only in heaven. So from this point of view we can say that Christ is present in the Eucharist as He is now in heaven. In fact, Aquinas always in his hymn expresses the wish to one day see in heaven that Jesus openly now hidden in the ground he covers in the Eucharist and in the tabernacle.
So is the observation by some that God is present everywhere and therefore not important presence in the tabernacle. Not so: there is a real presence in the tabernacle, in the words I said, the Incarnate God and the Blessed Sacrament, which is more important and meaningful to us than the metaphysical presence, that ubiquity of the divine nature in every place, there which is enough to perceive the reason, while the Eucharistic presence is known only in the light of faith. Not to mention the more important the presence of the Eucharistic Jesus in our hearts after the S. Communion.
According to a doctrine theological degree, after the consecration the accidents do not adhere to the substance of the Eucharistic body and blood of the Lord, whose accidents are those which Christ has in heaven, but miraculously supported by the omnipotence of God, failed because the substance of bread and wine.
This separation of the accidents of their substance is something beyond the limits of our reason and our experience it is known to us only by faith. After the consecration of our eyes continue to see the color of the bread, the flavor continues to feel the taste of bread, feel the feel the reality of the bread, so we would be led to believe that such accidents still hiding, and indicate the substance of bread and yet faith tells us that behind those damn lies the very real very real substance of the body and blood of Christ.
And unfortunately at this point in the history of theology were many errors. It only hints at someone, because the risk of it falling today is not random. Famous in this regard was the conception of Luther at odds with that of Ulrich Zwingli, the famous Swiss reformer. Luther believed in the Real Presence, but not intended as transubstantiation, that is as substantial presence under the accidents of bread, but together with the bread. Ie Luther, after the words of consecration, the bread remains bread, but Christ is present in the bread or, as some still say, 'under the sign of bread. " This is why the Protestant conception does not transubstantiation, but the so-called "Fried." Luther also conceived the Eucharist only in relation to the communion, that is as food, but refused to worship, for which there is no use in the Protestant tradition of the store SS.mo Sacrament in the tabernacle or the monstrance for the present ' worship. As Zwingli, he denied any real presence arguing that the words of consecration, "This is my body," meaning "this means or symbolizes my body. " For this Zwingli spoke of a purely spiritual presence.
similar concept in our day was that of Edward Schillebeeckx, who proposed replacing the transubstantiation with the "transignification" or "transfinalization" arguing that such bread and wine remain, only changing the their meaning or purpose: whereas before they were referring to just physical nourishment, spiritual nourishment of the soul after they become.
These views have some truth, but as denying transubstantiation, are a heretical character, condemned by the Church. And today, unfortunately, not uncommon signs of this neglect of the truth of the SS. Eucharist. They are not given only by the spread of this heresy, but - a logical consequence - a certain liturgical practice tends to forget that, for example, Eucharistic adoration, thanksgiving after Holy After Mass or Communion, while it is not uncommon to see ministers distribute Communion like a bartender that takes a coffee to a customer, but rather what would be appropriate for the minister, before offering the sacred host, this at least for a while the adoration of the faithful! So, too, how little devotion is expressed in elevation with the priest who a snapping motion - up and down - as if they were pulling the rope of a bell, instead, as it should at least stop a moment to present his SS.mo Sacrament adoration and faithful!
fact, the SS. Sacramento is not only food but also Ostia is offering to the Father for the forgiveness of sins and the very presence of SS. Trinity under the humble appearance of bread and wine, to which the faithful to contemplate this most August mystery, it should be a foretaste of the joy of the beatific vision.
Finally I want to make one final observation. E 'known how this spread of heresy about the sacrament of the Eucharist (and therefore about the Mass and the power of the priest) occurred after Vatican II, while this problem did not exist before. Let me be clear on what the council does not matter at all , but we are facing one of the many blatant falsification of the renewal of the Council, who ended up throwing in so many good souls, but not sufficiently lit discredit the Council itself. It should be obvious to everyone that in order to remedy this heresy do not need to return to the Mass of St. Pius V - as it is respectable - but it is enough to celebrate with dignity and true faith, the Mass of Paul VI. In fact, it is simply two different ways of celebrating the one and the same Mass of the Catholic Church.
Our hope and our vote is that our pastors with spiritual discernment, evangelical parresia and paternal power, assisted by the Spirit of wisdom and courage, not merely ceremonial generic abuse convictions or ritualistic, but go to the fund in order to eradicate the root of evil, correcting and disciplining those theologians and liturgists that those in this important area of \u200b\u200bthe Eucharist, the Mass (it is the ancient rite or ritual again) and the priesthood, diverge from the true teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
0 comments:
Post a Comment