"Your anxiety is that, in the reformed rite, insufficient attention is paid to our need for remission of sins - sins that, rightly, have offended God's burning justice - through, precisely, the offering of this Sacrifice."
In a word. YES... YES. YES.
"The impression now given is that Christ's death on the Cross was a once and for all sacrifice by which all are saved, and that the Eucharist is spiritual food for [all of us, all of us being] guaranteed a place in heaven through faith... Is this easier, softer way intended to be more in tune with the modern age which exalts man and rejects sacrifice?"
Is not the answer obvious. YES. I've long felt that despite slides, the one thing anchoring Catholicism is the fact the Mass IS a ritual of sacrifice, so by its very performance underscores the need for propitiation.So even while sin is being side-stepped, a least there is in fact the objective offering for sin.
As for the casualness of the Catholic I'm OK You're OK Masses, this is perfectly put:
"The holy sacrifice of the Mass has become a memorial meal, a fraternal banquet, a community gathering."
Reading this caused me to go back and read Fr. Randolph's book on the Mass, "Know Him in the Breaking of the Bread," a very orthodox guide to the Norvus Ordu. I'd be curious to others reaction... I was struck by the fact that the penitential/propitiary aspects really do some very much lessened. Catholicism has a reputation for being guilt and sinpfixated, but even in a conservative guide like this one, the emphasis was not so much on forgiveness and compensation for sin but for addition of grace and help to achieve potential. It is of course a matter of emphasis, but if you consider the caricatures of old school Catholicism with the New Mass and the newer Church, the difference is staggering, I'd say. Are we all sinners who as we are now deserve "wrath," to borrow scriptural terminology? I think that very statement is one that might make many, many leading theologians -- even mainstream ones -- wince. And that is why I appreciate Doorly's concerns. Nichols is quite helpful as wee. I think he goes as far as one might wihtout get branded a troublemaker!
"...efundetur in remissionem peccatorum."
One does not have to be in sin to offer sacrifice for the remission of sin. Christ, though sinless, offered the perfect sacrifice for the remission of sin. Similarly, we have always held that one must not receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin.
Jesus' perfect worship of the Father was not limited to His passion and death but included His entire life lived in perfect agreement with the will of the Father. We would have been saved all the same if Jesus had died of a heart attack in old age had that been the Father's will. That, however, would not have revealed the extent of God's love for man or the extent to which man is called to serve God.
We are baptized, as St. Paul says, "...into Christ's death." We are to live through, with, and in Christ, "to fill up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." To paraphrase Paul, "we live, not ourselves, but Christ lives in us." We offer this "per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso" to God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
"Participatio actuosa" is a matter of the head, the heart and of life. It is possible in either rite but doesn't get a lot of emphasis in the Novus Ordo.
"We would have been saved all the same if Jesus had died of a heart attack in old age had that been the Father's will" ... ???
Sure, IF, but IF is so large as to be a bit incomprehensible. It mitigates the entire idea of scaraficial blood, which was the father's will from time of old, Sin requires death, and from the OT, shedding of blood. Also, salvation requires belief in that offering, and faith. The "whosoever" of Scripture dictates it is not an auto-pilot procedure. Don't you think?
Dr. B:
This whole converstation to me smacks of the same conversation taking place in the Reformed blogosphere over NT Wright and penal substitution. I am curious if you or any reader can recommend a good Catholic book on the atonement that explains the Catholic view. What happened on the cross? Did Jesus die for my personal sins? Did blood have to be spilled? Does the Catholic Church today offer firm answers to this question? Inquiring minds want to know, since homilies may or may not attempt an answer!
"For some centuries it has been the common teaching of theologians, widely publicised in catechisms, that the Mass, viewed as Sacrifice, has a quartet of purposes. It is a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, propitiation and supplication."
Nichols is right, of course. To ignore the place of "praise and thanksgiving" is to open oneself to the possibility of despair: we forget that Calvary bestows on us the grace which makes salvation attainable. We dwell overmuch on our own sinful nature, and place ourselves where God's mercy cannot reach.
Of course, in the present day that happens about as often as pigs don top hats and canes and tap dance across the barnyard.
What happens instead is that "praise and thanksgiving" becomes fraternal familiarity and self-congratulation -- God and His elect, revelling in each others' company; the Mass becomes an occasion for gnostic Catholics to rub together like penguins; and communion becomes the symbolic seal of this elitist covenant. That is why the priest faces the people, not the tabernacle. That is why people troop up to receive wine and wafer who have not taken penance in years. That is why eminently dispensible options like the inane "greeting of peace" are vital to so many people, and why some priests execute this option like Jay Leno greeting his fans at the beginning of the Tonight Show.
Nichols does not demonize Doorly for having the bad taste to mention inconvenient facts like these -- after all, it is no longer the seventies. Rather, he treats her concerns with avuncular deprecation, which is the favored response of the NeoCath of the 21st century.
Perfectly said.
RRD,
you express valid sentiments - in my view however the kind of self centered communal experience you critique is less a product of cynical jaded individualism and more a genuine expression of deep seated desires of our time.
It is more true reflection who we are in 2009 than some evil scheme to prevent 'proper celebration. These things change all the time - we should all relax a bit - God must have bigger worries than if Catholics hold hand during the Our Father or engage in communal waddle to altar like penguins.
I enjoyed you post as allways.
Fr Aidan Nichols a "NeoCath." Right.
Joe,
For starters: St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo; Catholic Encyclopedia on "Atonement"; Fr. William Most, "Vicarious Atonement." But what you really need is to contact a theologian with the relevant sensibilities and ask for a professional opinion. I will inquire at the seminary.
Best wishes, P
Commenting by HaloScan
