Transsignification/ Transubstantiation
Maria James Antony Selvaraj
Hi John McClymont,
I dont know much about these things yet I am ready to pass on to your
ears
what I think.
During Offertory the bread and the wine is cleansed and made acceptable.
This is same as preparing the lamb for the sacrifice.
During the Eucharistic prayer, the consecrated bread and wine undergoes the
real change by becoming our Lord's body and blood.
So that's it. This is what I understand & believe.
Rgds
Anto
At 12:42 28/04/97 +-200, you wrote:
>Dear Everybody,
>
>A point that has been bothering me for some
>time is the fact that in the Offertory there are
>references to our gifts being "offered up." For
>example, we have the phrase: "Through your
>goodness we have this bread to offer etc"
>
>Moreover immediately afterwards we have the
>recitation "May the Lord accept the sacrifice
>at your hands etc."
>
>Now the problem point is this. It is generally
>taught in the church that the sacrificial action
>of the Mass consists in the Transubstantiation
>alone: for it is only at that point that the bread
>and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
>
>Why, therefore, is there talk of "sacrifice" and
>"offering" during the Offertory, before the bread
>and wine are even consecrated yet? If the
>response "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at
>your hands" came after the Eucharistic prayer,
>there would be less of a problem, because
>transubstantiation would have already taken
>place then. But how do we account for the
>offering of bread and wine BEFORE the prayer
>of Consecration?
>
>I have tried to find a solution and have come up
>with the following.
>
>Theologians have recently invented a new word
>"transsignification" which means that the bread
>and wine take on a new meaning during the
>course of the Mass: they "mean" for us the
>body and blood of Christ and are treated as e-
>quivalent to that body etc from that point on.
>
>Hitherto theologians have been arguing that
>transsignification and transubstantiation are
>the same thing. I now argue that they are two
>different things taking place at different stages
>of the Mass.
>
>In short, I am suggesting that Transsignification
>takes place during the Offertory, and Transub-
>stantiation takes place during the Eucharistic
>prayer.
>
>When we pray: "Be pleased with the sacrifice
>we offer you" etc during the Offertory, the
>bread and wine are not transubstantiated yet,
>but they are transsignified ie the bread and
>wine in the Offertory are already treated as
>"meaning" for us the body and blood of Christ
>because that is what they are going to become,
>and that is why they are described in sacrificial
>terms even though transubstantiation has not
>taken place yet.
>
>Thus:
>
>1. Before the Offertory, the bread and wine are
>just that.
>
>2. From the Offertory to the Consecration, the
>bread and wine are "transsignified" and become
>for us symbols of the body and blood of Christ,
>and are therefore described in sacrificial terms,
>and ritually offered to God as signs of the
>Victim which they are to become.
>
>3. From the Consecration onward, the bread
>and wine are not only "transsignified" but also
>transubstantiated; they cease to be mere
>symbols, and are replaced by the real presence
>of Jesus' body and blood. Thus the symbolic
>sacrifice of the Offertory is turned into the real
>sacrifice of the Eucharistic prayer.
>
>Thus the bread and wine evolve through three
>stages: normal existence, transsignification and
>transubstantiation. During the Offertory they
>become symbols of the Body and Blood of
>Christ: whereas during the Consecration they
>become in reality the Body and Blood of Christ.
>
>According to this theory transsignification is not
>something which replaces scholastically con-
>ceived transubstantiation: rather transsignifi-
>cation is something which precedes transub- stantiation. The stuff offered
in the Offertory is
>not transubstantiated but it is transsignified;
>and later, during the Eucharistic prayer, it be-
>comes transubstantiated.
>
>Is this theory heretical? Anybody?
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>John McClymont
>
>
Maria James Antony Selvaraj
Block 29 Havelock Road
#04-651
Singapore - 160029
Phone (O) 279-6467
Phone (R) 274-5354
Smile is a small curve that makes things straight.
o oo o ooooooo ooooo
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o
o o o oo o ooooo
Charles T Brusca
John:
I think you are using the term "transsignification"
in an orthodox manner. However, the term seems already to belong
to those who deny transubstantiation and the Real Presence after
the consecration. I think you would do well to find a new term
to use in propounding your theory.
To the best of my knowledge, the exact mode by
which the Sacrifice of the Mass is effected has not been defined
by the Church. In _The Mass of the Roman Rite,_ Joseph Jungmann, SJ
devotes a section to the various theories that have been proposed over
the centuries ((MD: Christian Classics, 1986), vol. 1, pp. 175-195).
The language used to describe the bread and wine and
the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ is rather "free" in most
rites of Mass. In the Tridentine Mass the host is literally
referred to as a victim (_hostiam_) at the Offertory, while after
the consecration the Host is referred to as the Bread of life
(_Panem sanctum_). In the _Novus Ordo Missae_ the same reference
is made to the Host after the consecration as "the bread of life"
(Prex I), "life-giving bread (Prex II), and "this bread" (Prex IV).
The Liturgy of John Chrysostom has the priest cut the host with
a knife prior to the public beginning of Mass, saying "Sacrificed is
the Lamb of God...." The Liturgy of St. Basil refers to
becoming "partakers of the one Bread and Cup..." immediately
after the Consecration and _Epiclesis._
Such "free" terminology is not understood to imply
that the sacrifice takes place before the consecration,
or to deny transubstantiation thereafter. There is a great deal
of stylistic license in these prayers. They express that the Mass
is the Sacrifice of the Cross, but not exactly how the
sacrifice is effected.
A host that has been offered but not consecrated is treated
with special respect, not returned to the altar bread box, but
consumed by the priest after Holy Communion and the ablutions.
(_Missale Romanum, "de defectibus," X, 9.
Again, I don't think you are saying anything heretical.
You present a reasonable way of considering the host between
offertory and consecration. But the term you are using might
be misinterpreted. I think you would enjoy the Jungmann book.
in _Xto_
/sig/ FR. BRUSCA
Our Lady of the Rosary Old Roman Catholic Church
Boca Raton - Deerfield Beach, FL
Charles T. Brusca
p041...@pb.seflin.org
Martin E Fontenot
On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 12:42:25 +-200 Marmack Agencies <mar...@ID.CO.ZW>
writes:
>Dear Everybody,
>
>A point that has been bothering me for some
>time is the fact that in the Offertory there are
>references to our gifts being "offered up." For
>example, we have the phrase: "Through your
>goodness we have this bread to offer etc"
>
>Moreover immediately afterwards we have the
>recitation "May the Lord accept the sacrifice
>at your hands etc."
>
>Now the problem point is this. It is generally
>taught in the church that the sacrificial action
>of the Mass consists in the Transubstantiation
>alone: for it is only at that point that the bread
>and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
>
>Why, therefore, is there talk of "sacrifice" and
>"offering" during the Offertory, before the bread
>and wine are even consecrated yet? If the
Cutting to the chase, let us go back to when the bread was being baked.
Someone mixed it and was kneeding it and someone came in the kitchen and
said, "Is the bread done yet?"
It was not bread yet, but it was refered in its future state. Just so
we refer to the elements of the sacrifice as the sacrifice before the
actual act of sacrifice has transpired. Its a language thing and
happens in ever language I know of.
FRIAR GORDO - Martin Fontenot
fri...@juno.com
Ruthenia on the Neches
I C X C NIKA
Gordoqwk, the offline pontificator - imprimature pending
John Medaille
>in _Xto_
>/sig/ FR. BRUSCA
>Our Lady of the Rosary Old Roman Catholic Church
>Boca Raton - Deerfield Beach, FL
>Charles T. Brusca
>p041...@pb.seflin.org
>
What?
John C. M=E9daille
"A dead thing can go with the stream...=20
but only a living thing can go against it."
-G. K. Chesterton
http://www.medaille.com
jo...@medaille.com
Charles T Brusca
On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, John Medaille wrote:
> >
> What are Old Roman Catholics? Am I old enough? Are these pre-Lefebreists?
> What?
I wrote this in response to an earlier posting:
* * *
The Old Roman Catholic Church (ORCC) has Holy Orders by way of
the See of Utrecht, which was separated from the Holy See in the
18th century after a rather convoluted battle over the heresy
known as Jansenism. (The battle had to do with whether or not
Cornelius Jansen, Bishop of Ypres, actually intended to express
the errors attributed to him by certain Jesuit theologians.
Utrecht refused to endorse Jansen's condemnation, while agreeing
that the condemned propositions were erroneous.) During this
century, the ORCC continued to exist apart from the Holy See
primarily in England and North America. By the 1950s its leaders
determined that there were no adequate reasons for this separate
existence (the only notable differences were the ORCC's
willingness to employ the vernacular in the Mass and to ordain
married men). The ORCC was to be allowed to perish
by attrition; no new parishes, no new ordinations, and so forth.
Then came Vatican II. To a fair number of Catholics, the
doctrinal changes instituted by the Council and in the name of
the Council to things previously considered unchangeable were
unacceptable. (To keep this brief, I will mention only the
Council's notions of religious liberty, the inversion of the ends
of marriage, the shift from Thomism to existentialism as the
quasi-official philosophy of the Church, and the partial
abdication of the Church's authority in favor of direct guidance
by the Holy Ghost or other private revelation.) The Late
Archbishop Gerard G. Shelley agreed to resume the ordination of
new clergy and the establishment of new parishes to serve the
needs of those who would not change to accept the new beliefs.
The ORCC accepts the primacy, infallibility, and universal
jurisdiction of Pope John Paul II (and, of course, of his
legitimately accepted successors) but holds him to be in personal
error insofar as the concilliar and post-concilliar innovations
depart from Catholic Tradition. We retain the Traditional Mass
and Sacraments (in Latin and in the vernacular) as the new forms
seem to have been crafted to foster "religious liberty" and the
error of universal salvation, and are often celebrated in the
spirit of irreverence.
The Old Catholic Church derives its Holy Orders from the same
source, Utrecht, but at least as I understand it, was organized
in reaction to the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility.
The ORCC disavows any association with the Old Catholics and
their rejection of this defined doctrine. From our perspective
we are a loyal opposition to the New Order within the Roman
Catholic Church. As Daniel James Lula mentioned in his reply to
your posting, some Old Catholics call themselves Old Roman
Catholics -- so if the difference is significant to you, you will
have to ask the individual in question.
I have tried to keep this as brief as possible while trying to
present an accurate picture. Please let me know if you have any
additional questions. Thanks for your interest.
* * *
> Are these pre-Lefebreists?
At the time I was ordained to the priesthood, Archbishop Lefebvre
had already established his seminary at Econe, but was trying to
negotiate with Pope Paul VI, and was insistent that he would never
consecrate bishops to replace himself. At about the same time,
Archbishop Thuc appeared in the traditional Catholic movement,
but seemed to be associating himself with an anti-pope in Spain.
Bishop de Castro Meyer concerned himself exclusively with affairs
in his former diocese in Brazil. There was a bishop in Idaho (who had
Orders from another ORCC source), who established the
Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, a _sedevacantist_ order.
The other "traditionalist" groups were without episcopal orders.
in Xto,
/sig/ FR. BRUSCA
Our Lady of the Rosary Old Roman Catholic Church
Boca Raton - Deerfield Beach, FL
Charles T Brusca
p041...@pb.seflin.org
John Medaille
Thanks for the response. It gets pretty complex, does it not? Why do y'all
consider unversal salvation to be an error?
Charles T Brusca
On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, John Medaille wrote:
>
> Why do y'all consider unversal salvation to be an error?
>
Our Lord speaks of judgement and eternal punishment throughout the
Gospels. Matthew 18 and 25 are clear examples.
Universal salvation was condemned by the Council of
Constantinople in 543 (Denzinger 211) and the Fourth Lateran Council in
1215 (Denzinger 429), and is similar condemnation is implied in a decree of
the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Denzinger 464) and the
Constiturion _Benedictus_Deus_ of Benedict XII in 1336 (Denzinger 530).
in _Xto_
/sig/ FR. BRUSCA
Our Lady of the Rosary Old Roman Catholic Church
Boca Raton - Deerfield Beach, FL
Charles T. Brusca
p041...@pb.seflin.org
John Medaille
Thought you meant something different - salvation limited to catholics, or
something like that.=20
Oddly enough however, the issue is really closed (That's what I love about
being acatholic - we can always find a loophole). Eteranal damnation could
merely mean damnation for all time - the end of time would be the end of
damnation. Possible, I suppose.
John Medaille
>Thought you meant something different - salvation limited to catholics, or
>something like that.=20
>
>Oddly enough however, the issue is really closed (That's what I love about
>being acatholic - we can always find a loophole). Eteranal damnation could
>merely mean damnation for all time - the end of time would be the end of
>damnation. Possible, I suppose.
OOOPs, meant to say " the issue is not really closed".
Charles T Brusca
John:
Eternity is coextensive with God's existence, and is not
dependent on time and the material universe. To speak of punishment that
would end with the end of time, the phrase would be "temporal damnation."
Actually, to be technically correct, one should say
"aveternal damnation," because the damnation would start at a point in
time and then continue forever. (Eternity extends forever in *both*
directions.)
John Medaille
At 10:10 PM 4/30/97 -0400, Charles T Brusca wrote:
>John:
>
> Eternity is coextensive with God's existence, and is not
>dependent on time and the material universe. To speak of punishment that
>would end with the end of time, the phrase would be "temporal damnation."
>
> Actually, to be technically correct, one should say
>"aveternal damnation," because the damnation would start at a point in
>time and then continue forever. (Eternity extends forever in *both*
>directions.)
Then it isn't eternal?
Alexander R Pruss
John Medaille (joh...@AIRMAIL.NET) wrote:
: At 10:10 PM 4/30/97 -0400, Charles T Brusca wrote:
: >John:
: >
: > Eternity is coextensive with God's existence, and is not
: >dependent on time and the material universe. To speak of punishment that
: >would end with the end of time, the phrase would be "temporal damnation."
: >
: > Actually, to be technically correct, one should say
: >"aveternal damnation," because the damnation would start at a point in
: >time and then continue forever. (Eternity extends forever in *both*
: >directions.)
: Then it isn't eternal?
There are several senses of "eternal". In a strictly technical sense, only
God is eternal, and in that sense "eternal" means "outside time". Often,
"eternal" is meant for something that "has existed for an infinite amount of
time and will exist for an infinite amount of time". In that sense, quite
possibly, there is nothing eternal, because in Catholic Tradition, things
have come into existence a finite amount of time ago (except for God, but He
is beyond time anyway). And yet sometimes "eternal" is just used to denote
something that is unending, which will forever continue, and this is what is
also called "aveternity". Because of these variants, unless the context makes
things clear, it is probably better just to speak plain English and use
phrases like "independent of time", "existed for an infinite amount of time
and will exist for an infinite amount of time", "will exist for an infinite
amount of time", "omnitemporal (or, has existed and will exist whenever
time exists)", etc., when appropriate.
Note by the way that even if the sufferings of the wicked will continue for
an infinite amount of time, this does not imply that they will suffer
altogether an infinite amount. It is possible, after all, that their
sufferings will decrease, with the sum total being finite. (In the first
year they suffer one unit-of-suffering. In the second, half, because they
become deadened to it. In the third, a quarter. And so on. If this were so,
then altogether they would suffer two units-of-suffering.) I am NOT saying
that this is so, but just noting that it is a conceptual possibility which is
not ruled out by Revelation as far as I know---on this view, they would always
be suffering, but the suffering would be less and less.
Alex