Origins of the Mass?

[crhoades]

Any links or articles on a succinct definition of as well as history of the Roman Catholic Mass?

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by crhoades]

 

[Scott]

Here is an understanding from a Catholic source: mass.

 

[turmeric]

Has anyone been listening to R.C.Sproul's series on Catholicism? It's scary to hear him explain their arguments - I could imagine him having an evil twin who's a Catholic theologian!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by turmeric
Has anyone been listening to R.C.Sproul's series on Catholicism? It's scary to hear him explain their arguments - I could imagine him having an evil twin who's a Catholic theologian!

It's one of the most significant means that God, in His Grace, used to reform me. I came out of a Charismatic Catholic Church with a priest who preached evangelical sermons (not really good evangelical sermons but a trust in Christ and not sacraments). He had even convinced us that Evangelicals were just being prejudice in some fashion and didn't really understand that we believed the same thing. His Bible Studies didn't deal at all with official teaching but were purely exegetical. I had one particular friend in that Church who told me one time that the priest was not teaching according to doctrine but I thought he was just being "doctrinal".

To make a long story short I stopped going to Church after college and, when I started going again I went to non-denominational Christian Churches. I didn't really think doctrine was important because my Charismatic experience in the RC Church and non-denominational Churches had "taught" me that excitement was the guage of spiritual health.

I caught the last 5 minutes of Renewing Your Mind during lunch in Quantico, VA one day in 1997 and heard this guy talking about the Eucharist. I called and ordered his teaching series on Roman Catholicism and bought Faith Alone. I've been evangelical ever since. Thank you R.C. Sproul!

Anyway, sorry if I drifted off topic. I would say that most RC's I know are as ignorant about their own doctrine as I was and think it's just a big fuss.

I know there's a long history to the Mass but it seems like the hugest influence to the Sacrifice of the Mass would probably be Aquinas and his formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I do not have the quote but he said something to the effect that if a host (the bread that has been changed to the Body of Christ) were present at the Crucifixion, it could truly be said to be the Body of Christ as well.

 

[cupotea]

I would say that most RC's I know are as ignorant about their own doctrine as I was and think it's just a big fuss.

I know there's a long history to the Mass but it seems like the hugest influence to the Sacrifice of the Mass would probably be Aquinas and his formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I was ordained Roman before becoming Lutheran (and now very likely on my way to Edinburgh). Reading Luther was instrumental in my move away from Romanism.

But you are correct .. most RCs don't know their church's own teachings. But then neither do most Lutherans I know. Sadly, to preach and teach justification by grace alone is seen as something so radical and outrageous that most pew-sitters get rather angry and want to defend their own innate goodness. They are more Romish in their understanding of things than they realize.

As for transubstantiation, it's based more on Aristotle's ontology than anything else. Dividing reality into "accidens" (things we can see, taste, touch, smell, weigh, etc.) and "substance" (the inner nature of a thing that is not available to our senses), Aristotle gave Aquinas a perfect tool for explaining for what occurs in the mass.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Globachio

I would say that most RC's I know are as ignorant about their own doctrine as I was and think it's just a big fuss.

I know there's a long history to the Mass but it seems like the hugest influence to the Sacrifice of the Mass would probably be Aquinas and his formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I was ordained Roman before becoming Lutheran (and now very likely on my way to Edinburgh). Reading Luther was instrumental in my move away from Romanism.

But you are correct .. most RCs don't know their church's own teachings. But then neither do most Lutherans I know. Sadly, to preach and teach justification by grace alone is seen as something so radical and outrageous that most pew-sitters get rather angry and want to defend their own innate goodness. They are more Romish in their understanding of things than they realize.

As for transubstantiation, it's based more on Aristotle's ontology than anything else. Dividing reality into "accidens" (things we can see, taste, touch, smell, weigh, etc.) and "substance" (the inner nature of a thing that is not available to our senses), Aristotle gave Aquinas a perfect tool for explaining for what occurs in the mass.

Praise God that you were brought from darkness to light! Agree on all points.

True also that Aristotle is the inspiration for his Theology of the Eucharist but it his synthesis of Christian and Greek thought that formally defined the doctrine. Also, when Rome refers to the "Aquinas formula" for their understanding of the Eucharist. What is striking about the article above that Scott linked to is that they scarcely mention Aquinas but the whole focus of the Sacrifice of the Mass is all about what Aquinas put forward concerning the nature of the elements.

 

[cupotea]

Also, when Rome refers to the "Aquinas formula" for their understanding of the Eucharist. What is striking about the article above that Scott linked to is that they scarcely mention Aquinas but the whole focus of the Sacrifice of the Mass is all about what Aquinas put forward concerning the nature of the elements.

Rather strange, isn't it?

And yes, you're correct about Aquinas synthesizing Greek philosophy, making it palatable to his superior's thoughts. I can still remember a particular test in a philosophy class where Aristotle's and Aquinas' statements were placed side-by-side and we were to identify which was which. The priest/professor ended up having to eliminate that part of the test because NO ONE could tell the difference.

In the end, transubstantiation is merely a "repeatable miracle" (R. Jensen) under the control of sanctified priestly hands.