Bible outlook

A priest that is ordained through the holy orders will most often have to follow the Code of Canon Law. That code may require several rules to be accepted by the church and to remain a Catholic priest. How he practices liturgy could largely depend on papal decrees, the tradition of Roman Rites, or how he wants to conduct his own service. 

Whether a priest is obligated to perform Mass through the idea of transubstantiation will ultimately affect his role as a minister of God. Once a priest has finished his homily, he will cite words over the elements of the Eucharist to prepare for its offering, saying, . . . ‘this is my body, and this is my blood’ based on its context (which might determine how it’s received). Priests who cite this Eucharistic prayer, in what is known as the Anaphora, has been the practice of consecrating those elements as though it’s a re-sacrifice of Christ, the belief that most Catholics still hold to.

The question is if some priests are able to shift their cited words and practice of the Mass into past tense instead of the present timing. For instance, when a priest says, “do this in memory of Jesus,” shall the words instead be: Do this in remembrance of him to refer to the past principle of it? So could a priest actually be appointed as an agent from outside of the church system that emphasizes the past opposed to a present ritual? While it should only be viewed as a symbol of his body and blood, what will Catholic Church congregations expect and believe when they do receive the Eucharist?  

What About Catholic Baptism?

He would have to be there to free them from the situation that many Catholics are faced with in their practice of the ritual. Besides citing the correct words that Jesus spoke at the Last Supper, he would also need to teach the right message during his homilies. As long as he doesn’t preach Mary worship, the seven sacraments, or anything pertaining to the Vatican councils (especially regarding the Pope), a priest could be in good standing with true faith perhaps.

If we are considered to be one catholic apostolic church, there might be some tradition of that involved, only if it’s possible for him to depart from the teachings of apostolic succession. How can members understand what we know about the Church of Rome from what a priest could also already know? He might have the entitlement to divide their dogma with his own God centered teachings, but a sentiment from the church, one that holds to basic Christian tenets, would be needed to avoid being excommunicated? More than likely there would need to be changes within the church to battle its root cause of bringing all inter-denominations under its own religious system.

For that to eventually take place will have a major impact on how liturgy is allowed to be practiced. Depending on what a priest can do intellectually, without the decrees of the canon, his position could still be to preach the gospel, counsel others, and, under the most critical circumstances, call people out against the lies of its internal system. The only way to do that would be to replace the purpose of Mass with its proper wording, allowing some members to receive it as a positive reinforcement. Despite other members who believe the substances turn literal, the activity of it being practiced symbolically could release some of its captives; those who follow through on what is proposed by the priest. 

However, all this would be in place of a tradition that was designed to pervert the gospel, or how long have two sides been battling its core over the ages? There is no changing what’s part of an evil system, but as far as an external priest, he would need to distinguish his communion from what would really affect their propitiation of sins — faith explained apart from traditional Mass. While only some might realize it, others would be deceived by their own conscience, their susceptibility brought upon by sacred tradition. But as a result, could a good priest center communion based on his wording for the remnant of true believers?