Sunday, March 30, 2014
Another Reply to Anonymous
This is in reply to Anonymous who posted two comments under my last thread. Once again, his/her comments are in red and mine are in black, and anything in blue are quoted sources.
I am surprised, that for a lawyer, you seem to have trouble with formal and legislative texts.
I am NOT a lawyer. I was accused of being a lawyer by Tim Rohr and by some in Junglewatch.
1. Your purpose in quoting the GIRM and Eucharisticum Mysterium was clearly to suggest that references to the concelebration really can mean the involvement of the laity. As I said, of course, the laity can attend and participate in concelebrated Masses, but not as "concelebrants" This is why the laity do not stand in the sanctuary and utter the words of consecration. So, your assertion that the NCW Eucharistic practices can be justified by references to the GIRM is just plain wrong, as the GIRM clearly uses the verb 'concelebrate in relation to the ordained clergy."
That is correct that I quoted the GIRM to show that the laity CAN participate in a concelebrated mass because in your comment, you stated: It is impossible, in the Catholic context, to speak of concelebration in respect to the participation of the laity. It was not until after I quoted the GIRM that you changed your song and dance. Now, you are claiming that the laity can indeed participate in a concelebrated mass. Furthermore, in the concelebrant Mass, it is the principal celebrant who utters the words of consecration. It is the same in the NCW. Only the priest utters the words of consecration.
2. You correctly quote me as saying that the definition of "concelebration in the early Church is not relevant to the consideration of what "concelebration" means in the Church, and in the liturgical books now. Are you really going to argue against that? In any case you then go on to state: "I view all liturgies of the Catholic Church very beautiful, awe-inspiring, and worthy of respect regardless of how old it is. I do not regard them as irrelevant." This is disingenuous - I did not say, or imply, that the liturgies of the early Church were irrelevant or not worthy of veneration, but simply that your assertion of what concelebrate means is plain wrong. You can, of course, choose to reject the Church's current position.
You say that MY assertion of what concelebrate means is plain wrong?? In the first place, that was the assertion of the Early Church. I quoted from the Sunday's Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia. It was their defintion, their assertion, and their liturgy of how they concelebrated in the first century. You are in error to think that the Early Church concelebrated the same way and manner as today when in the first place their definition of concelebration does not hold the same meaning as yours.
For example, you pointed out that the laity does not stand in the sanctuary in the concelebrated Mass. Well, in the FIRST CENTURY.....there wasn't even a sanctuary for the laity to stand on. The Early Christians of the first century celebrated in homes or underground catacombs as they were being persecuted. They did not have any "sanctuaries" or even "church buildings" in the sense that you have today. And then of course, you wonder why the NCW celebrate in people's homes or outside the Parish building. Nevermind the fact that we've always said that we are celebrating in small communites as the Early Church did.
3. I asked you where the NCW statutes say the Way celebrates Mass as the early Church did, and you provide this:
"5 "An itinerary of a catechumenal type, which follows all those phases which the catechumens in the early Church followed before receiving the sacrament of Baptism....
It is inspired by various documents of the Holy See, including
-chapter 4 of the RCIA [Part II: 4 of the 1988 US edition] which suggests an adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate for the conversion and maturation of faith even among baptized adults...
Surely, it is obvious to you that this does not satisfy my request. your quote simply refers to the phases which the catechumens in the early Church followed before receiving the sacrament of Baptism" which obviously cannot include the sacrament of the Eucharist, and "adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate" which again explicitly excludes the Eucharist.
In your quote above, I bolded and underlined the following because you left out a pertinent information. It actually says "adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate for the conversion and maturation of faith even among baptized adults..."
You left out the part that says "even among baptized adults", which DOES include the Eucharist. Non-baptized persons can still attend the Mass and hear the word of God. They simply cannot receive the Body and Blood of Christ until after they received the Sacrament of Christian Initiation.
4. I asked you to show one Catholic authority with your interpretation and ludicrous claim about the meaning of concelebration in the liturgical texts. You didn't do that. Rather you refer to a priest who thinks the Eucharistic practices of the Way are ok. So? I know a few of them too. Does this priest agree with your statements on concelebration? Please show me one person that does. I think I'll be waiting for a while.
Once again, you think that I made up that definition of concelebration. Every priest knows that the word "concelebration" today have a different meaning that it did in the first century. I even pointed out to you in the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia that to concelebrate in the Early Church is a different concept than today. In Christian antiquity, all Christians concelebrated according to their liturgical role in the Church. So, why do you continue to make this my own definition??
6. Your argument to show the legitimacy of the Way's Eucharistic practices by resorting to this concelebration argument (and the relevant GIRM instructions) is like fighting fire with diesel. Your argument is along the lines of "because we do something different to what is allowed, we will change the meaning of the language, so that what we do doesn't look so much like something that is not allowed". Brilliant! But futile, because what you do is still not allowed.
I guess you did not read the encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII in my last post, which stated:
This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries.
What makes you think that the NCW liturgies were made up especially when it was already noted that the purpose of the NCW was to live as the Early Church did?
9. "Was it not in this light that the Early Church understood "concelebration" as pertaining to all Christians?" No, as you have pointed out "concelebration" in the early Church simply meant "being present" or "participating in the Mass - whereas now concelebration has a formal, clear meaning that is understood by all (Well, nearly all obviously.
Where in any of my posts or comments did I ever say that "concelebration in the EARLY CHURCH simply meant "being present" or "participating in the Mass"?? I stated the definition of how "concelebration" was viewed by the Early Church through the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, which stated: The verb to "concelebrate in the Early Church had a somewhat different meaning from the present, more technical understanding. In Christian antiquity, all Christians concelebrated according to their role or liturgical role in the Church....
When I stated that the laity CAN participate in a concelebration mass, that was in response to your statement implicating that the laity cannot participate in the concelebration mass. (See my response to your #1).
10. I recommend that you, and your readers should review the relationship between the common priesthood (of both clergy and laity) and the ministerial priesthood (of clergy only). You might like to read this:
Excuse me....did you not read my last post? This is what I stated: The laity are the common priests while those ordained are called the ministering priests according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1547 and CCC 941).